Remote intensive management to improve antiplatelet adherence in acute myocardial infarction: a secondary analysis of the randomized controlled IMMACULATE trial.

This study aim to investigate if remote intensive coaching for the first 6 months post-AMI will improve adherence to the twice-a-day antiplatelet medication, ticagrelor. Between July 8, 2015, to March 29, 2019, AMI patients were randomly assigned to remote intensive management (RIM) or standard care (SC). RIM participants underwent 6 months of weekly then two-weekly consultations to review medication side effects and medication adherence coaching by a centralized nurse practitioner team, whereas SC participants received usual cardiologist face-to-face consultations. Adherence to ticagrelor were determined using pill counting and serial platelet reactivity measurements for 12 months. A total of 149 (49.5%) of participants were randomized to RIM and 152 (50.5%) to SC. Adherence to ticagrelor was similar between RIM and SC group at 1 month (94.4 ± 0.7% vs. 93.6±14.7%, p = 0.537), 6 months (91.0±14.6% vs. 90.6±14.8%, p = 0.832) and 12 months (87.4±17.0% vs. 89.8±12.5%, p = 0.688). There was also no significant difference in platelet reactivity between the RIM and SC groups at 1 month (251AU*min [212-328] vs. 267AU*min [208-351], p = 0.399), 6 months (239AU*min [165-308] vs. 235AU*min [171-346], p = 0.610) and 12 months (249AU*min [177-432] vs. 259AU*min [182-360], p = 0.678). Sensitivity analysis did not demonstrate any association of ticagrelor adherence with bleeding events and major adverse cardiovascular events. RIM, comprising 6 months of intensive coaching by nurse practitioners, did not improve adherence to the twice-a-day medication ticagrelor compared with SC among patients with AMI. A gradual decline in ticagrelor adherence over 12 months was observed despite 6 months of intensive coaching.

Impact of COVID-19 on health-related quality of life in patients with cardiovascular disease: a multi-ethnic Asian study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the impact of the global coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD), the biggest global killer and major risk factor for severe COVID-19 infections. We aim to explore the indirect consequences of COVID-19 on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients with CVD. METHODS: Eighty-one adult outpatients with CVD were assessed using the EQ-5D, a generic health status instrument with five dimensions (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, anxiety/depression), before and during the pandemic. Changes in the EQ-5D dimensional responses were compared categorically as well as using the dimension-specific sum-score (range 1-3, with a higher score indicating worse health). The responses and sum-score were compared using the exact test of symmetry and the paired t-test, respectively. RESULTS: These patients [mean age (SD) 59.8 (10.5); 92.6% males; 56% New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class I] had coronary artery disease (69%), heart failure (28%), or arrhythmias (15%). None experienced change in NYHA class between assessments. About 30% and 38% of patients reported problems with at least one of the EQ-5D dimensions pre-pandemic and during the pandemic, respectively. The highest increase in health problems was reported for anxiety/depression (12.5% pre-pandemic vs 23.5% during pandemic; p = 0.035) with mean domain-specific score from 1.12 (SD 0.33) to 1.25 (SD 0.46) (standardized effect size = 0.373, p = 0.012). There was no meaningful change in other dimensions as well as overall HRQoL. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic is associated with a significant worsening of the mental health of patients with CVD.

Remote Postdischarge Treatment of Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction by Allied Health Care Practitioners vs Standard Care: The IMMACULATE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: There are few data on remote postdischarge treatment of patients with acute myocardial infarction. Objective: To compare the safety and efficacy of allied health care practitioner-led remote intensive management (RIM) with cardiologist-led standard care (SC). Design, Setting, and Participants: This intention-to-treat feasibility trial randomized patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing early revascularization and with N-terminal-pro-B-type natriuretic peptide concentration more than 300 pg/mL to RIM or SC across 3 hospitals in Singapore from July 8, 2015, to March 29, 2019. RIM participants underwent 6 months of remote consultations that included ß-blocker and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker (ACE-I/ARB) dose adjustment by a centralized nurse practitioner team while SC participants were treated face-to-face by their cardiologists. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary safety end point was a composite of hypotension, bradycardia, hyperkalemia, or acute kidney injury requiring hospitalization. To assess the efficacy of RIM in dose adjustment of ß-blockers and ACE-I/ARBs compared with SC, dose intensity scores were derived by converting comparable doses of different ß-blockers and ACE-I/ARBs to a scale from 0 to 5. The primary efficacy end point was the 6-month indexed left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) adjusted for baseline LVESV. Results: Of 301 participants, 149 (49.5%) were randomized to RIM and 152 (50.5%) to SC. RIM and SC participants had similar mean (SD) age (55.3 [8.5] vs 54.7 [9.1] years), median (interquartile range) N-terminal-pro-B-type natriuretic peptide concentration (807 [524-1360] vs 819 [485-1320] pg/mL), mean (SD) baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (57.4% [11.1%] vs 58.1% [10.3%]), and mean (SD) indexed LVESV (32.4 [14.1] vs 30.6 [11.7] mL/m2); 15 patients [5.9%] had a left ventricular ejection fraction <40%. The primary safety end point occurred in 0 RIM vs 2 SC participants (1.4%) (P = .50). The mean ß-blocker and ACE-I/ARB dose intensity score at 6 months was 3.03 vs 2.91 (adjusted mean difference, 0.12 [95% CI, -0.02 to 0.26; P = .10]) and 2.96 vs 2.77 (adjusted mean difference, 0.19 [95% CI, -0.02 to 0.40; P = .07]), respectively. The 6-month indexed LVESV was 28.9 vs 29.7 mL/m2 (adjusted mean difference, -0.80 mL/m2 [95% CI, -3.20 to 1.60; P = .51]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among low-risk patients with revascularization after myocardial infarction, RIM by allied health care professionals was feasible and safe. There were no differences in achieved medication doses or indices of left ventricular remodeling. Further studies of RIM in higher-risk cohorts are warranted. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02468349.