Achievement of LDL-C <55 mg/dL among US Adults : Findings from the cvMOBIUS2 Registry.

BACKGROUND: Reflecting clinical trial data showing improved outcomes with lower LDL-C levels, guidelines across the globe are increasingly recommending a goal of LDL-C <55 mg/dL in persons with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). What proportion of patients with ASCVD are already meeting those goals in the US remains understudied. METHODS: Using electronic health record data from 8 large US health systems, we evaluated lipid-lowering therapy (LLT), LDL-C levels, and factors associated with an LDL-C <55 mg/dL in persons with ASCVD treated between 1/1/2021-12/31/2021. Multivariable modeling was used to evaluate factors associated with achievement of an LDL-C <55 mg/dL. RESULTS: Among 167,899 eligible patients, 22.6% (38,016) had an LDL-C <55 mg/dL. While 76.1% of individuals overall were on a statin, only 38.2% were on a high-intensity statin,;5.9% were on ezetimibe, and 1.7% were on a PCSK9i monoclonal antibody (mAb). Factors associated with lower likelihood of achieving an LDL-C <55 mg/dL included: younger age (odds ratio [OR] 0.91 per 10y), female sex (OR 0.69), Black race (OR 0.76), and non-coronary artery disease forms of ASCVD including peripheral artery disease (OR 0.72) and cerebrovascular disease (OR 0.85), while high-intensity statin use was associated with increased odds of LDL-C <55 mg/dL (OR 1.55). Combination therapy (statin+ezetimibe or statin+PCSK9i mAb) was rare (4.4% and 0.5%, respectively) and was associated with higher odds of an LDL-C <55 mg/dL (OR 1.39 and 3.13, respectively). CONCLUSION: Less than a quarter of US patients with ASCVD in community practice are already achieving an LDL-C <55 mg/dL. Marked increases in utilization of both high intensity statins and combination therapy with non-statin therapy will be needed to achieve LDL-C levels <55 mg/dL at the population level in secondary prevention.

Association between characteristics of employing healthcare facilities and healthcare worker infection rates and psychosocial experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare facility characteristics, such as ownership, size, and location, have been associated with patient outcomes. However, it is not known whether the outcomes of healthcare workers are associated with the characteristics of their employing healthcare facilities, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This was an analysis of a nationwide registry of healthcare workers (the Healthcare Worker Exposure Response and Outcomes (HERO) registry). Participants were surveyed on their personal, employment, and medical characteristics, as well as our primary study outcomes of COVID-19 infection, access to personal protective equipment, and burnout. Participants from healthcare sites with at least ten respondents were included, and these sites were linked to American Hospital Association data to extract information about sites, including number of beds, teaching status, urban/rural location, and for-profit status. Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate linear regression models for the unadjusted and adjusted associations between healthcare facility characteristics and outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 8,941 healthcare workers from 97 clinical sites were included in the study. After adjustment for participant demographics, healthcare role, and medical comorbidities, facility for-profit status was associated with greater odds of COVID-19 diagnosis (aOR 1.76, 95% CI 1.02-3.03, p = .042). Micropolitan location was associated with decreased odds of COVID-19 infection after adjustment (aOR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.24, 0.71, p = .002. For-profit facility status was associated with decreased odds of burnout after adjustment (aOR = 0.53, 95% CI 0.29-0.98), p = .044). CONCLUSIONS: For-profit status of employing healthcare facilities was associated with greater odds of COVID-19 diagnosis but decreased odds of burnout after adjustment for demographics, healthcare role, and medical comorbidities. Future research to understand the relationship between facility ownership status and healthcare outcomes is needed to promote wellbeing in the healthcare workforce. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The registry was prospectively registered: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier (trial registration number) NCT04342806, submitted April 8, 2020.

Long-term health-related quality of life and symptom severity following hysterectomy, myomectomy, or uterine artery embolization for the treatment of symptomatic uterine fibroids.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have directly compared different surgical procedures for uterine fibroids with respect to long-term health-related quality of life outcomes and symptom improvement. OBJECTIVE: We examined differences in change from baseline to 1-, 2-, and 3-year follow-up in health-related quality of life and symptom severity among patients who underwent abdominal myomectomy, laparoscopic or robotic myomectomy, abdominal hysterectomy, laparoscopic or robotic hysterectomy, or uterine artery embolization. STUDY DESIGN: The COMPARE-UF registry is a multiinstitutional prospective observational cohort study of women undergoing treatment for uterine fibroids. A subset of 1384 women aged 31 to 45 years who underwent either abdominal myomectomy (n=237), laparoscopic myomectomy (n=272), abdominal hysterectomy (n=177), laparoscopic hysterectomy (n=522), or uterine artery embolization (n=176) were included in this analysis. We obtained demographics, fibroid history, and symptoms by questionnaires at enrollment and at 1, 2, and 3 years posttreatment. We used the UFS-QoL (Uterine Fibroid Symptom and Quality of Life) questionnaire to ascertain symptom severity and health-related quality of life scores among participants. To account for potential baseline differences across treatment groups, a propensity score model was used to derive overlap weights and compare total health-related quality of life and symptom severity scores after enrollment with a repeated measures model. For this health-related quality of life tool, a specific minimal clinically important difference has not been determined, but on the basis of previous research, a difference of 10 points was considered as a reasonable estimate. Use of this difference was agreed upon by the Steering Committee at the time when the analysis was planned. RESULTS: At baseline, women undergoing hysterectomy and uterine artery embolization reported the lowest health-related quality of life scores and highest symptom severity scores compared with those undergoing abdominal myomectomy or laparoscopic myomectomy (P<.001). Those undergoing hysterectomy and uterine artery embolization reported the longest duration of fibroid symptoms with a mean of 6.3 years (standard deviation, 6.7; P<.001). The most common fibroid symptoms were menorrhagia (75.3%), bulk symptoms (74.2%), and bloating (73.2%). More than half (54.9%) of participants reported anemia, and 9.4% women reported a history of blood transfusion. Across all modalities, total health-related quality of life and symptom severity score markedly improved from baseline to 1-year with the largest improvement in the laparoscopic hysterectomy group (Uterine Fibroids Symptom and Quality of Life: delta= [+] 49.2; symptom severity: delta= [-] 51.3). Those undergoing abdominal myomectomy, laparoscopic myomectomy, and uterine artery embolization also demonstrated significant improvement in health-related quality of life (delta= [+]43.9, [+]32.9, [+]40.7, respectively) and symptom severity (delta= [-]41.4, [-] 31.5, [-] 38.5, respectively) at 1 year, and the improvement persisted from baseline for uterine-sparing procedures during second (Uterine Fibroids Symptom and Quality of Life: delta= [+]40.7, [+]37.4, [+]39.3 SS: delta= [-] 38.5, [-] 32.0, [-] 37.7 and third year (Uterine Fibroids Symptom and Quality of Life: delta= [+] 40.9, [+]39.9, [+]41.1 and SS: delta= [-] 33.9, [-]36.5, [-] 33.0, respectively), posttreatment intervals, however with a trend toward decline in degree of improvement from years 1 and 2. Differences from baseline were greatest for hysterectomy; however, this may reflect the relative importance of bleeding in the Uterine Fibroids Symptom and Quality of Life, rather than clinically meaningful symptom recurrence among women undergoing uterus-sparing treatments. CONCLUSION: All treatment modalities were associated with significant improvements in health-related quality of life and symptom severity reduction 1-year posttreatment. However, abdominal myomectomy, laparoscopic myomectomy and uterine artery embolization indicated a gradual decline in symptom improvement and health-related quality of life by third year after the procedure.

Addressing Extreme Propensity Scores in Estimating Counterfactual Survival Functions via the Overlap Weights.

The inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) approach is popular for evaluating causal effects in observational studies, but extreme propensity scores could bias the estimator and induce excessive variance. Recently, the overlap weighting approach has been proposed to alleviate this problem, which smoothly down-weights the subjects with extreme propensity scores. Although advantages of overlap weighting have been extensively demonstrated in literature with continuous and binary outcomes, research on its performance with time-to-event or survival outcomes is limited. In this article, we propose estimators that combine propensity score weighting and inverse probability of censoring weighting to estimate the counterfactual survival functions. These estimators are applicable to the general class of balancing weights, which includes IPTW, trimming, and overlap weighting as special cases. We conduct simulations to examine the empirical performance of these estimators with different propensity score weighting schemes in terms of bias, variance, and 95% confidence interval coverage, under various degrees of covariate overlap between treatment groups and censoring rates. We demonstrate that overlap weighting consistently outperforms IPTW and associated trimming methods in bias, variance, and coverage for time-to-event outcomes, and the advantages increase as the degree of covariate overlap between the treatment groups decreases.

The importance of the design of observational studies in comparative effectiveness research: Lessons from the GARFIELD-AF and ORBIT-AF registries.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard for estimating the effectiveness of a treatment. However, in many instances they are impractical to conduct because of time limitations, cost restrictions, or ethical reasons. As a consequence, non-randomized observational studies have an important role in comparative effectiveness and safety research since they can address issues that would not be possible using conventional RCT methodology. Observational studies can be strategically designed to reduce the risk of potential sources of bias by emulating the design principles of an equivalent but ideal randomized trial - the target trial - that would answer the research question of interest. In this article, we review some of the necessary components of observational studies required for valid causal inference within the framework of target trial emulation, so as to avoid common methodological pitfalls of study design. We discuss the assumptions of consistency, time-zero specification, exchangeability and positivity. To illustrate these concepts in a context where existing knowledge is well-established through clinical trials, we evaluate and compare the treatment effects of vitamin K antagonists (VKA) against no VKA (No VKA) on the treatment of atrial fibrillation from two real-world observational studies, namely the GARFIELD-AF and ORBIT-AF registries. Results are compared with those of published RCTs.

Comparative Effectiveness of Dosing of Medical Therapy for Heart Failure: From the CHAMP-HF Registry.

BACKGROUND: The comparative effectiveness of differing dosages of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) on clinical and patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice in the United States is unknown. This study sought to characterize associations between the dosing of GDMT and outcomes for patients with HFrEF in U.S. clinical practice. METHODS: This analysis included 4832 outpatients who had chronic HFrEF across 150 practices in the U.S. in the Change the Management of Patients with Heart Failure (CHAMP-HF) registry with no contraindication and available dosing data for at least 1 GDMT at baseline. Baseline dosing of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACEI)/angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB)/angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), beta-blocker, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) therapies were examined. For each medication class, multivariable models assessed associations between medication dosing and clinical outcomes over 24 months (all-cause mortality, HF hospitalization) and patient-reported outcomes at 12 months (change in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary score [KCCQ-OS]). RESULTS: After adjustment, compared with target dosing, lower dosing was associated with higher all-cause mortality for ACEIs/ARBs/ARNIs (50% to < 100% target dosage, HR 1.16 [95% CI 0.87-1.55]; < 50% target dosage, HR 1.37 [95% CI 1.05-1.79]; none, HR 1.75 [95% CI 1.32-2.34; overall P< 0.001) and beta-blockers (50% to < 100% target dosage, HR 1.30 [95% CI 1.00-1.69]; < 50% target dosage, HR 1.41 [95% CI 1.11-1.79; none, HR 1.24 [95% CI 0.92-1.67]; overall P= 0.042). Lower dosing of ACEIs/ARBs/ARNIs was independently associated with higher risk of HF hospitalization (50% to < 100% target dosage, HR 1.08 [95% CI 0.90-1.30]; < 50% target dosage, HR 1.23 [1.04-1.47]; none, HR 1.29 [1.04-1.60]; overall P= 0.046), but beta-blocker dosing was not (overall P= 0.085). Target dosing of MRAs was not associated with risk of mortality or HF hospitalization. For each GDMT, compared with target dosing, lower dosing was not associated with change in the KCCQ-OS at 12 months, with the potential exception of worsening KCCQ-OS scores with lower dosing of ACEIs/ARBs/ARNIs. CONCLUSIONS: In this contemporary U.S. outpatient HFrEF registry, target dosing of ACEI/ARB/ARNI and beta-blocker therapy was associated with reduced mortality and was variably associated with HF hospitalization and patient-reported outcomes. MRA dosing was not associated with outcomes. The totality of these findings support the benefits of target dosing of GDMT in routine practice, as tolerated, with unmeasured differences among patients receiving differing dosages potentially explaining the differing results seen here compared with randomized clinical trials.

Treatment Persistence of Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone-System Inhibitors Over Time in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines support sustained use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-system (RAAS) inhibitors over time in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, yet few data are available regarding the frequency, timing or predictors of early treatment discontinuation in clinical practice. METHODS: Among prevalent or new users of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) in the CHAMP-HF (Change the Management of Patients with Heart Failure) registry, we estimated the frequency and independent predictors of treatment discontinuation during follow-up. Among sites with > 5 users of a given RAAS inhibitor, we evaluated practice variation in the proportion of patients with treatment discontinuation. RESULTS: Over median follow-up of 18 months, frequency of drug discontinuation of ACEis/ARBs, ARNIs and MRAs was 12.7% (444 of 3509 users), 10.4% (140 of 1352 users), and 20.4% (435 of 2129 users), respectively. An additional, 149 (11.0%) of ARNI users were switched to ACEis/ARBs, and 447 (12.7%) of ACEi/ARB users were switched to ARNIs during follow-up. Across sites, the median proportion of discontinuation of ACEis/ARBs, ARNIs and MRAs was 12.5% (25th-75th percentiles 6.9%-18.9%), 18.8% (25th-75th percentiles 12.5%-28.6%), and 19.6% (25th-75th percentiles 10.7%-27.0%), respectively. Chronic kidney disease was the only independent predictor of increased risk of discontinuation of each of the RAAS inhibitor classes (P < 0.02 for all). Higher Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary scores independently predicted lower risk of discontinuation of ACEis/ARBs and ARNIs (both P < 0.001) but not of MRAs. Investigator clinical experience was predictive of lower risks of discontinuation of ACEis/ARBs and MRAs (P < 0.02) but not of ARNIs. All other independent predictors of discontinuation were unique to individual therapeutic classes. CONCLUSIONS: One in 10 patients discontinue ACEis/ARBs or ARNIs, and 1 in 5 discontinue MRAs in routine clinical practice of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Unique patient-level and clinician/practice-level factors are associated with premature discontinuation of individual RAAS inhibitors, which may help to guide structured efforts to promote treatment persistence in clinical care.

Experiences of U.S. Nurses Compared With Nonnurses in the First Year of COVID-19: Findings From a National Registry.

BACKGROUND: Nursing professional organizations and media sources indicated early in the pandemic that the physical and psychological effects of COVID-19 might be distinct and possibly greater in nurses than in other types of healthcare workers (HCWs). OBJECTIVES: Based on survey data collected in Healthcare Worker Exposure Response and Outcomes (HERO), a national registry of U.S. HCWs, this study compared the self-reported experiences of nurses with other HCWs during the first 13 months of the pandemic. METHODS: Nurse responses were compared to responses of nonnurse HCWs in terms of viral exposure, testing and infection, access to personal protective equipment (PPE), burnout, and well-being. Logistic regression models were used to examine associations between nurse and nonnurse roles for the binary end points of viral testing and test positivity for COVID-19. We also examined differences by race/ethnicity and high-risk versus low-risk practice settings. RESULTS: Of 24,343 HCWs in the registry, one third self-identified as nurses. Nurses were more likely than other HCWs to report exposure to SARS-CoV-2, problems accessing PPE, and decreased personal well-being, including burnout, feeling tired, stress, trouble sleeping, and worry. In adjusted models, nurses were more likely than nonnurse HCWs to report viral testing and test positivity for COVID-19 infection. Nurses in high-risk settings were more likely to report viral exposure and symptoms related to well-being; nurses in low-risk settings were more likely to report viral testing and test positivity. Black or Hispanic nurses were most likely to report test positivity. DISCUSSION: Differences were identified between nurses and nonnurse HCWs in access to PPE, physical and mental well-being measures, and likelihood of reporting exposure and infection. Among nurses, testing and infection differed based on race and ethnicity, and type of work setting. Our findings suggest further research and policy are needed to elucidate and address social and occupational disparities.

Risk/Benefit Tradeoff of Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Early and Late After an Acute Coronary Syndrome or Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Insights From AUGUSTUS.

BACKGROUND: In AUGUSTUS (Open-Label, 2×2 Factorial, Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Safety of Apixaban vs Vitamin K Antagonist and Aspirin vs Aspirin Placebo in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Acute Coronary Syndrome and/or Percutaneous Coronary Intervention), patients with atrial fibrillation and a recent acute coronary syndrome and those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention had less bleeding with apixaban than vitamin K antagonist (VKA) and with placebo than aspirin. However, the number of ischemic events was numerically higher with placebo. The aim of this analysis is to assess the tradeoff of risk (bleeding) and benefit (ischemic events) over time with apixaban versus VKA and aspirin versus placebo. METHODS: In AUGUSTUS, 4614 patients with atrial fibrillation and recent acute coronary syndrome or percutaneous coronary intervention on a P2Y12 inhibitor were randomized to blinded aspirin or placebo and to open-label apixaban or VKA for 6 months. In a post hoc analysis, we compared the risk of 3 composite bleeding outcomes and 3 composite ischemic outcomes from randomization through 30 days and from 30 days to 6 months with apixaban and VKA and with aspirin and placebo. RESULTS: Compared with VKA, apixaban had either a lower or a similar risk of bleeding and ischemic outcomes from randomization to 30 days and from 30 days to 6 months. From randomization to 30 days, aspirin caused more severe bleeding (absolute risk difference, 0.97% [95% CI, 0.23-1.70]) and fewer severe ischemic events (absolute risk difference, -0.91% [95% CI, -1.74 to -0.08]) than placebo. From 30 days to 6 months, the risk of severe bleeding was higher with aspirin than placebo (absolute risk difference, 1.25% [95% CI, 0.23-2.27]), whereas the risk of severe ischemic events was similar (absolute risk difference, -0.17% [95% CI, -1.33 to 0.98]). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with atrial fibrillation and recent acute coronary syndrome or percutaneous coronary intervention receiving a P2Y12 inhibitor, apixaban is preferred over VKA. Use of aspirin immediately and for up to 30 days results in an equal tradeoff between an increase in severe bleeding and a reduction in severe ischemic events. After 30 days, aspirin continues to increase bleeding without significantly reducing ischemic events. These results inform shared, patient-centric decision making on the ideal duration of the use of aspirin after an acute coronary syndrome or percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with atrial fibrillation receiving oral anticoagulation. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02415400.

Variation in use and dosing escalation of renin angiotensin system, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor and beta-blocker therapies in heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: Association of comorbidities.

BACKGROUND: In patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi), angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB), or angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA), and beta-blockers (ßB) are underutilized. It is unknown if patients with and without comorbidities have similar ACEi/ARB/ARNI, MRA, and ßB prescription patterns. METHODS: Baseline data from the CHAMP-HF (Change the Management of Patients with Heart Failure) registry were categorized by history of atrial fibrillation, asthma/chronic lung disease, obstructive sleep apnea, and depression. Using multivariate hierarchical logistic models, associations of ACEi/ARB/ARNI, MRA and ßB medication use and dose by comorbidities were assessed after adjusting for patient characteristics. RESULTS: Of 4,815 HFrEF patients from 152 CHAMP-HF sites, ACEi/ARB/ARNI use was lower in patients with more comorbidities, and generally, MRA use was low and ßB use was high. In adjusted analyses, patients with HFrEF and comorbid obstructive sleep apnea, vs. without, were more likely to be prescribed ARNI (OR [95% CI]: 1.25 [1.00, 1.55]); P = .047 and MRA (1.31 [1.11, 1.55]); P = .002 and less likely to be prescribed ACEi (0.74 [0.63, 0.88]); P < .001. Patients with atrial fibrillation, vs. without, were less likely to receive ACEi/ARB (0.82 [0.71, 0.95]); P = .006 and any study medication (0.81 [0.67, 0.97]); P = .020. Comorbid lung disease and history of depression were not associated with HFrEF prescriptions. CONCLUSIONS: Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone blockade therapy prescription and dose varied by comorbidity status, but ßB therapy did not. In quality efforts, leaders need to consider use and dosing of prescriptions in light of prevalent comorbidities.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patterns of outpatient cardiovascular care.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic brought about abrupt changes in the way health care is delivered, and the impact of transitioning outpatient clinic visits to telehealth visits on processes of care and outcomes is unclear. METHODS: We evaluated ordering patterns during cardiovascular telehealth clinic visits in the Duke University Health System between March 15 and June 30, 2020 and 30-day outcomes compared with in-person visits in the same time frame in 2020 and in 2019. RESULTS: Within the Duke University Health System, there was a 33.1% decrease in the number of outpatient cardiovascular visits conducted in the first 15 weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic, compared with the same time period in 2019. As a proportion of total visits initially booked, 53% of visits were cancelled in 2020 compared to 35% in 2019. However, patients with cancelled visits had similar demographics and comorbidities in 2019 and 2020. Telehealth visits comprised 9.3% of total visits initially booked in 2020, with younger and healthier patients utilizing telehealth compared with those utilizing in-person visits. Compared with in-person visits in 2020, telehealth visits were associated with fewer new (31.6% for telehealth vs 44.6% for in person) or refill (12.9% vs 15.6%, respectively) medication prescriptions, electrocardiograms (4.3% vs 31.4%), laboratory orders (5.9% vs 21.8%), echocardiograms (7.3% vs 98%), and stress tests (4.4% vs 6.6%). When adjusted for age, race, and insurance status, those who had a telehealth visit or cancelled their visit were less likely to have an emergency department or hospital encounter within 30 days compared with those who had in-person visits (adjusted rate ratios (aRR) 0.76 [95% 0.65, 0.89] and aRR 0.71 [95% 0.65, 0.78], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In response to the perceived risks of routine medical care affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, different phenotypes of patients chose different types of outpatient cardiology care. A better understanding of these differences could help define necessary and appropriate mode of care for cardiology patients.

Impact of the Early Phase of the COVID-19 Pandemic on US Healthcare Workers: Results from the HERO Registry.

BACKGROUND: The HERO registry was established to support research on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on US healthcare workers. OBJECTIVE: Describe the COVID-19 pandemic experiences of and effects on individuals participating in the HERO registry. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, self-administered registry enrollment survey conducted from April 10 to July 31, 2020. SETTING: Participants worked in hospitals (74.4%), outpatient clinics (7.4%), and other settings (18.2%) located throughout the nation. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 14,600 healthcare workers. MAIN MEASURES: COVID-19 exposure, viral and antibody testing, diagnosis of COVID-19, job burnout, and physical and emotional distress. KEY RESULTS: Mean age was 42.0 years, 76.4% were female, 78.9% were White, 33.2% were nurses, 18.4% were physicians, and 30.3% worked in settings at high risk for COVID-19 exposure (e.g., ICUs, EDs, COVID-19 units). Overall, 43.7% reported a COVID-19 exposure and 91.3% were exposed at work. Just 3.8% in both high- and low-risk settings experienced COVID-19 illness. In regression analyses controlling for demographics, professional role, and work setting, the risk of COVID-19 illness was higher for Black/African-Americans (aOR 2.32, 99% CI 1.45, 3.70, p < 0.01) and Hispanic/Latinos (aOR 2.19, 99% CI 1.55, 3.08, p < 0.01) compared with Whites. Overall, 41% responded that they were experiencing job burnout. Responding about the day before they completed the survey, 53% of participants reported feeling tired a lot of the day, 51% stress, 41% trouble sleeping, 38% worry, 21% sadness, 19% physical pain, and 15% anger. On average, healthcare workers reported experiencing 2.4 of these 7 distress feelings a lot of the day. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare workers are at high risk for COVID-19 exposure, but rates of COVID-19 illness were low. The greater risk of COVID-19 infection among race/ethnicity minorities reported in the general population is also seen in healthcare workers. The HERO registry will continue to monitor changes in healthcare worker well-being during the pandemic. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04342806.

Propensity score weighting for causal subgroup analysis.

A common goal in comparative effectiveness research is to estimate treatment effects on prespecified subpopulations of patients. Though widely used in medical research, causal inference methods for such subgroup analysis (SGA) remain underdeveloped, particularly in observational studies. In this article, we develop a suite of analytical methods and visualization tools for causal SGA. First, we introduce the estimand of subgroup weighted average treatment effect and provide the corresponding propensity score weighting estimator. We show that balancing covariates within a subgroup bounds the bias of the estimator of subgroup causal effects. Second, we propose to use the overlap weighting (OW) method to achieve exact balance within subgroups. We further propose a method that combines OW and LASSO, to balance the bias-variance tradeoff in SGA. Finally, we design a new diagnostic graph-the Connect-S plot-for visualizing the subgroup covariate balance. Extensive simulation studies are presented to compare the proposed method with several existing methods. We apply the proposed methods to the patient-centered results for uterine fibroids (COMPARE-UF) registry data to evaluate alternative management options for uterine fibroids for relief of symptoms and quality of life.

Covariate adjustment in subgroup analyses of randomized clinical trials: A propensity score approach.

BACKGROUND: Subgroup analyses are frequently conducted in randomized clinical trials to assess evidence of heterogeneous treatment effect across patient subpopulations. Although randomization balances covariates within subgroups in expectation, chance imbalance may be amplified in small subgroups and adversely impact the precision of subgroup analyses. Covariate adjustment in overall analysis of randomized clinical trial is often conducted, via either analysis of covariance or propensity score weighting, but covariate adjustment for subgroup analysis has been rarely discussed. In this article, we develop propensity score weighting methodology for covariate adjustment to improve the precision and power of subgroup analyses in randomized clinical trials. METHODS: We extend the propensity score weighting methodology to subgroup analyses by fitting a logistic regression propensity model with pre-specified covariate-subgroup interactions. We show that, by construction, overlap weighting exactly balances the covariates with interaction terms in each subgroup. Extensive simulations were performed to compare the operating characteristics of unadjusted estimator, different propensity score weighting estimators and the analysis of covariance estimator. We apply these methods to the Heart Failure: A Controlled Trial Investigating Outcomes of Exercise Training trial to evaluate the effect of exercise training on 6-min walk test in several pre-specified subgroups. RESULTS: Standard errors of the adjusted estimators are smaller than those of the unadjusted estimator. The propensity score weighting estimator is as efficient as analysis of covariance, and is often more efficient when subgroup sample size is small (e.g. <125), and/or when outcome model is misspecified. The weighting estimators with full-interaction propensity model consistently outperform the standard main-effect propensity model. CONCLUSION: Propensity score weighting is a transparent and objective method to adjust chance imbalance of important covariates in subgroup analyses of randomized clinical trials. It is crucial to include the full covariate-subgroup interactions in the propensity score model.

Discontinuation rates of warfarin versus direct acting oral anticoagulants in US clinical practice: Results from Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation II (ORBIT-AF II).

While oral anticoagulation is a cornerstone of stroke prevention therapy in atrial fibrillation (AF), few studies have evaluated comparative discontinuation rates in clinical practice. The objective of this study is to evaluate discontinuation rates among patients on warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in clinical practice. METHODS: The ORBIT-AF II Registry enrolled 10,005 total AF patients with a CHA2DS2VASc score of ≥2 on warfarin or DOACs from 235 clinical practices across the US from February 13, 2013 and July 12, 2017. Descriptive statistics and multivariable Cox regression modeling were used to describe baseline characteristics and predictors of discontinuation. Unadjusted and adjusted discontinuation rates and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using Cox proportional hazards models and propensity score adjustment, respectively. RESULTS: At baseline, 16.4% (N = 1642/10,005) were treated with warfarin, 83.6% (N = 8363/10,005) with DOACs and 1498/10,005 patients (15.0%) discontinued therapy [warfarin = 236/1642 (14.4%) vs DOACs = 1262/8363 (15.1%)]. At 6 and 12 months respectively, among 7049 patients with a new diagnosis of AF within 6 months, adjusted discontinuation rates for warfarin versus DOACs were as follows: [6 months: 7.9%, 95%CI (6.8%-9.0%) vs 9.6% (8.4%-10.7%), P = .16]; [12 months: 12.7% (11.0%-14.3%) vs 15.3% (13.6%-16.9%), P = .02)]. Patients who discontinued therapy with warfarin or DOACs had higher risk of adverse clinical outcomes including: all-cause mortality and cardiovascular death (CV) than those who continued treatment. CONCLUSION: In a community based AF cohort, adjusted rates of discontinuation at 12-months were higher in DOAC-treated versus VKA-treated patients. Discontinuation of oral anticoagulation was associated with increased absolute risk of all-cause mortality and CV death. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL:https://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique Identifier: NCT01701817.

Patterns of amiodarone use and outcomes in clinical practice for atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Amiodarone is the most effective antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) for atrial fibrillation (AF), but it has a high incidence of adverse effects. METHODS: Using the ORBIT AF registry, patients with AF on amiodarone at enrollment, prescribed amiodarone during follow-up, or never on amiodarone were analyzed for the proportion treated with a guideline-based indication for amiodarone, the variability in amiodarone use across sites, and the outcomes (mortality, hospitalization, and stroke) among patients treated with amiodarone. Hierarchical logistic regression modeling with site-specific random intercepts compared rates of amiodarone use across 170 sites. A logistic regression model for propensity to receive amiodarone created a propensity-matched cohort. Cox proportional hazards modeling, stratified by matched pairs evaluated the association between amiodarone and outcomes. RESULTS: Among 6,987 AF patients, 867 (12%) were on amiodarone at baseline and 451 (6%) started on incident amiodarone during the 3-year follow-up. Use of amiodarone varied among sites from 3% in the lowest tertile to 21% in the highest (p<0.0001). Among those treated, 32% had documented contraindications to other AADs or had failed another AAD in the past. Mortality, cardiovascular hospitalization, and stroke were similar among matched patients on and not on amiodarone at baseline, while incident amiodarone use in matched patients was associated with higher all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 2.06, 95% CI 1.35-3.16). CONCLUSIONS: Use of amiodarone among AF patients in community practice is highly variable. More than 2 out of 3 patients treated with amiodarone appeared to be eligible for a different AAD.

Guideline-directed therapies for comorbidities and clinical outcomes among individuals with atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Comorbidities are common in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and affect prognosis, yet are often undertreated. However, contemporary rates of use of guideline-directed therapies (GDT) for non-AF comorbidities and their association with outcomes are not well described. METHODS: We used the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of AF (ORBIT-AF) to test the association between GDT for non-AF comorbidities and major adverse cardiac or neurovascular events (MACNE; cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke/thromboembolism, or new-onset heart failure), all-cause mortality, new-onset heart failure, and AF progression. Adjustment was performed using Cox proportional hazards models and logistic regression. RESULTS: Only 6,782 (33%) of the 20,434 patients eligible for 1 or more GDT for non-AF comorbidities received all indicated therapies. Use of all comorbidity-specific GDT was highest for patients with hyperlipidemia (75.6%) and lowest for those with diabetes mellitus (43.1%). Use of "all eligible" GDT was associated with a nonsignificant trend toward lower rates of MACNE (HR 0.90 [0.79-1.02]) and all-cause mortality (HR 0.90 [0.80-1.01]). Use of GDT for heart failure was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality (HR 0.77 [0.67-0.89]), and treatment of obstructive sleep apnea was associated with a lower risk of AF progression (OR 0.75 [0.62-0.90]). CONCLUSIONS: In AF patients, there is underuse of GDT for non-AF comorbidities. The association between GDT use and outcomes was strongest in heart failure and obstructive sleep apnea patients where use of GDT was associated with lower mortality and less AF progression.

PROVIDE-HF primary results: Patient-Reported Outcomes inVestigation following Initiation of Drug therapy with Entresto (sacubitril/valsartan) in heart failure.

BACKGROUND: In PARADIGM-HF, sacubitril/valsartan improved quality of life (QOL) versus enalapril in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), yet limited data are available regarding QOL changes after sacubitril/valsartan initiation in routine practice. METHODS: PROVIDE-HF was a prospective study within a national research network (Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Network) of HFrEF outpatients recently initiated on sacubitril/valsartan versus controls with recent angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker initiation/dose change. The primary end point was mean Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) change through 12 weeks. Other end points included responder analyses: ≥5-point and ≥20-point KCCQ increase. Adjusted QOL change was estimated after propensity score weighting. RESULTS: Overall, 270 patients had both baseline and 12-week KCCQ data (151 sacubitril/valsartan; 119 control). The groups had similar demographics and HF details: median EF 28% and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide 1083 pg/mL. Sacubitril/valsartan patients had larger improvements in KCCQ (mean difference +4.76; P = .027) and were more likely to have a ≥5-point and ≥20-point response (all P < .05). Adjusted comparisons demonstrated similar numerical improvements in the change in KCCQ (+4.55; 95% CI -0.89 to 9.99; P = .101) and likelihood of ≥5-point increase (odds ratio 1.55; 95% CI: 0.84-2.86; P = .16); ≥20-point increase remained statistically significant (odds ratio 3.79; 95% CI 1.47-9.73; P = .006). CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective HFrEF study of sacubitril/valsartan initiation compared with recent angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker initiation/dose change, the between-group difference in the primary end point, mean KCCQ change at 12 weeks was not statistically significant following adjustment, but sacubitril/valsartan initiation was associated with early improvements in QOL and a higher likelihood of ≥20-point improvement in KCCQ at 12 weeks. These data add additional real-world evidence related to patient-reported outcomes following the initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in routine clinical practice.

Short-term quality of life after myomectomy for uterine fibroids from the COMPARE-UF Fibroid Registry.

BACKGROUND: Uterine fibroids may decrease quality of life in a significant proportion of affected women. Myomectomy offers a uterine-sparing treatment option for patients with uterine fibroids that can be performed abdominally, laparoscopically (with or without robotic assistance), and hysteroscopically. Quality of life information using validated measures for different myomectomy routes, especially hysteroscopic myomectomy, is limited. OBJECTIVE: To compare women's perception of their short-term health-related quality of life measures and reported time to return to usual activities and return to work for different routes of myomectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Comparing Options for Management: Patient-centered Results for Uterine Fibroids (COMPARE-UF) is a prospective nationwide fibroid registry that enrolled premenopausal women seeking treatment for uterine fibroids at 8 clinical sites. For this analysis, we included women undergoing hysteroscopic, abdominal, or laparoscopic myomectomy who completed the postprocedure questionnaire scheduled between 6 and 12 weeks after surgery. Health-related quality of life outcomes, such as pain, anxiety, and return to usual activitie, were assessed for each route. The hysteroscopic myomectomy group had large differences in demographics, fibroid number, and uterine size compared to the other groups; thus, a direct comparison of quality of life measures was performed only for abdominal and laparoscopic approaches after propensity weighting. Propensity weighting was done using 24 variables that included demographics, quality of life baseline measures, and fibroid and uterine measurements. RESULTS: A total of 1206 women from 8 COMPARE-UF sites underwent myomectomy (338 hysteroscopic, 519 laparoscopic, and 349 abdominal). All women had substantial improvement in short-term health-related quality of life and symptom severity scores, which was not different among groups. Average symptom severity scores decreased about 30 points in each group. Return to usual activities averaged 0 days (interquartile range, 0-14 days) for hysteroscopic myomectomy, 21 days (interquartile range, 14-28 days) for laparoscopic myomectomy, and 28 days (interquartile range, 14-35 days) for abdominal myomectomy. After propensity adjustment, quality of life outcomes in the laparoscopic and abdominal myomectomy groups were similar except for more anxiety in the laparoscopic myomectomy group and slightly more pain in the abdominal myomectomy group. After propensity weighting, return to usual activities favored laparoscopic compared to abdominal procedures; median time was the same at 21 days, but the highest quartile of women in the abdominal group needed an additional week of recovery (interquartile range,14.0-28.0 for laparoscopic versus 14.0-35.0 for abdominal, P < .01). Time to return to work was also longer in the abdominal arm (median, 22 days; interquartile range, 14-40 days, versus median, 42; interquartile range, 27-56). CONCLUSION: Women who underwent myomectomy had substantial improvement in health-related quality of life, regardless of route of myomectomy. After propensity weighting, abdominal myomectomy was associated with a nearly 2-week longer time to return to work than laparoscopic myomectomy.

Matching with time-dependent treatments: A review and look forward.

Observational studies of treatment effects attempt to mimic a randomized experiment by balancing the covariate distribution in treated and control groups, thus removing biases related to measured confounders. Methods such as weighting, matching, and stratification, with or without a propensity score, are common in cross-sectional data. When treatments are initiated over longitudinal follow-up, a target pragmatic trial can be emulated using appropriate matching methods. The ideal experiment of interest is simple; patients would be enrolled sequentially, randomized to one or more treatments and followed subsequently. This tutorial defines a class of longitudinal matching methods that emulate this experiment and provides a review of existing variations, with guidance regarding study design, execution, and analysis. These principles are illustrated in application to the study of statins on cardiovascular outcomes in the Framingham Offspring cohort. We identify avenues for future research and highlight the relevance of this methodology to high-quality comparative effectiveness studies in the era of big data.