Understanding racial/ethnic disparities in COVID-19 mortality using a novel metric: COVID excess mortality percentage.

Prior research on racial/ethnic disparities in COVID-19 mortality has often not considered to what extent they reflect COVID-19-specific factors, versus preexisting health differences. This study examines how racial/ethnic disparities in COVID-19 mortality vary with age, sex, and time period over April-December 2020 in the United States, using mortality from other natural causes as a proxy for underlying health. We study a novel measure, the COVID excess mortality percentage (CEMP), defined as the COVID-19 mortality rate divided by the non-COVID natural mortality rate, converted to a percentage, where the CEMP denominator controls (albeit imperfectly) for differences in population health. Disparities measured using CEMP deviate substantially from those in prior research. In particular, we find very high disparities (up to 12:1) in CEMP rates for Hispanics versus Whites, particularly for nonelderly men. Asians also have elevated CEMP rates versus Whites, which were obscured in prior work by lower overall Asian mortality. Native Americans and Blacks have significant disparities compared with White populations, but CEMP ratios to Whites are lower than ratios reported in other work. This is because the higher COVID-19 mortality for Blacks and Native Americans comes partly from higher general mortality risk and partly from COVID-specific risk.

Age and Aspirin Dosing in Secondary Prevention of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: In patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, increasing age is concurrently associated with higher risks of ischemic and bleeding events. The objectives are to determine the impact of aspirin dose on clinical outcomes according to age in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the ADAPTABLE (Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-Centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-Term Effectiveness) trial, patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease were randomized to daily aspirin doses of 81 mg or 325 mg. The primary effectiveness end point was death from any cause, hospitalization for myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for stroke. The primary safety end point was hospitalization for bleeding requiring transfusion. A total of 15 076 participants were randomized to aspirin 81 mg (n=7540) or 325 mg (n=7536) daily (median follow-up: 26.2 months; interquartile range: 19.0-34.9 months). Median age was 67.6 years (interquartile range: 60.7-73.6 years). Among participants aged <65 years (n=5841 [38.7%]), a primary end point occurred in 226 (7.54%) in the 81 mg group, and in 191 (6.80%) in the 325 mg group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.23 [95% CI, 1.01-1.49]). Among participants aged ≥65 years (n=9235 [61.3%]), a primary end point occurred in 364 (7.12%) in the 81 mg group, and in 378 (7.96%) in the 325 mg group (adjusted HR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.82-1.10]). The age-dose interaction was not significant (P=0.559). There was no significant interaction between age and the randomized aspirin dose for the secondary effectiveness and the primary safety bleeding end points (P>0.05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: Age does not modify the impact of aspirin dosing (81 mg or 325 mg daily) on clinical end points in secondary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

Evidence on COVID-19 Mortality and Disparities Using a Novel Measure, COVID excess mortality percentage: Evidence from Indiana, Wisconsin, and Illinois.

COVID-19 mortality rates increase rapidly with age, are higher among men than women, and vary across racial/ethnic groups, but this is also true for other natural causes of death. Prior research on COVID-19 mortality rates and racial/ethnic disparities in those rates has not considered to what extent disparities reflect COVID-19-specific factors, versus preexisting health differences. This study examines both questions. We study the COVID-19-related increase in mortality risk and racial/ethnic disparities in COVID-19 mortality, and how both vary with age, gender, and time period. We use a novel measure validated in prior work, the COVID Excess Mortality Percentage (CEMP), defined as the COVID-19 mortality rate (Covid-MR), divided by the non-COVID natural mortality rate during the same time period (non-Covid NMR), converted to a percentage. The CEMP denominator uses Non-COVID NMR to adjust COVID-19 mortality risk for underlying population health. The CEMP measure generates insights which differ from those using two common measures-the COVID-MR and the all-cause excess mortality rate. By studying both CEMP and COVID-MRMR, we can separate the effects of background health from Covid-specific factors affecting COVID-19 mortality. We study how CEMP and COVID-MR vary by age, gender, race/ethnicity, and time period, using data on all adult decedents from natural causes in Indiana and Wisconsin over April 2020-June 2022 and Illinois over April 2020-December 2021. CEMP levels for racial and ethnic minority groups can be very high relative to White levels, especially for Hispanics in 2020 and the first-half of 2021. For example, during 2020, CEMP for Hispanics aged 18-59 was 68.9% versus 7.2% for non-Hispanic Whites; a ratio of 9.57:1. CEMP disparities are substantial but less extreme for other demographic groups. Disparities were generally lower after age 60 and declined over our sample period. Differences in socio-economic status and education explain only a small part of these disparities.

Comparative Effectiveness of Aspirin Dosing in Cardiovascular Disease and Diabetes Mellitus: A Subgroup Analysis of the ADAPTABLE Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and concomitant atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) must be on the most effective dose of aspirin to mitigate risk of future adverse cardiovascular events. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: ADAPTABLE, an open-label, pragmatic study, randomized patients with stable, chronic ASCVD to 81 mg or 325 mg of daily aspirin. The effects of aspirin dosing was assessed on the primary effectiveness outcome, a composite of all-cause death, hospitalization for myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for stroke, and the primary safety outcome of hospitalization for major bleeding. In this prespecified analysis, we used Cox proportional hazards models to compare aspirin dosing in patients with and without DM for the primary effectiveness and safety outcome. RESULTS: Of 15,076 patients, 5,676 (39%) had DM of whom 2,820 (49.7%) were assigned to 81 mg aspirin and 2,856 (50.3%) to 325 mg aspirin. Patients with versus without DM had higher rates of the composite cardiovascular outcome (9.6% vs. 5.9%; P < 0.001) and bleeding events (0.78% vs. 0.50%; P < 0.001). When comparing 81 mg vs. 325 mg of aspirin, patients with DM had no difference in the primary effectiveness outcome (9.3% vs. 10.0%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.98 [95% CI 0.83-1.16]; P = 0.265) or safety outcome (0.87% vs. 0.69%; subdistribution HR 1.25 [95% CI 0.72-2.16]; P = 0.772). CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the inherently higher risk of patients with DM irrespective of aspirin dosing. Our findings suggest that a higher dose of aspirin yields no added clinical benefit, even in a more vulnerable population.

Lung Cancer Screening Decision Aid Designed for a Primary Care Setting: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Guidelines recommend shared decision-making prior to initiating lung cancer screening (LCS). However, evidence is lacking on how to best implement shared decision-making in clinical practice. Objective: To evaluate the impact of an LCS Decision Tool (LCSDecTool) on the quality of decision-making and LCS uptake. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial enrolled participants at Veteran Affairs Medical Centers in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and West Haven, Connecticut, from March 18, 2019, to September 29, 2021, with follow-up through July 18, 2022. Individuals aged 55 to 80 years with a smoking history of at least 30 pack-years who were current smokers or had quit within the past 15 years were eligible to participate. Individuals with LCS within 15 months were excluded. Of 1047 individuals who were sent a recruitment letter or had referred themselves, 140 were enrolled. Intervention: A web-based patient- and clinician-facing LCS decision support tool vs an attention control intervention. Main Outcome and Measures: The primary outcome was decisional conflict at 1 month. Secondary outcomes included decisional conflict immediately after intervention and 3 months after intervention, knowledge, decisional regret, and anxiety immediately after intervention and 1 and 3 months after intervention and LCS by 6 months. Results: Of 140 enrolled participants (median age, 64.0 [IQR, 61.0-69.0] years), 129 (92.1%) were men and 11 (7.9%) were women. Of 137 participants with data available, 75 (53.6%) were African American or Black and 62 (44.3%) were White; 4 participants (2.9%) also reported Hispanic or Latino ethnicity. Mean decisional conflict score at 1 month did not differ between the LCSDecTool and control groups (25.7 [95% CI, 21.4-30.1] vs 29.9 [95% CI, 25.6-34.2], respectively; P = .18). Mean LCS knowledge score was greater in the LCSDecTool group immediately after intervention (7.0 [95% CI, 6.3-7.7] vs 4.9 [95% CI, 4.3-5.5]; P < .001) and remained higher at 1 month (6.3 [95% CI, 5.7-6.8] vs 5.2 [95% CI, 4.5-5.8]; P = .03) and 3 months (6.2 [95% CI, 5.6-6.8] vs 5.1 [95% CI, 4.4-5.8]; P = .01). Uptake of LCS was greater in the LCSDecTool group at 6 months (26 of 69 [37.7%] vs 15 of 71 [21.1%]; P = .04). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial of an LCSDecTool compared with attention control, no effect on decisional conflict occurred at 1 month. The LCSDecTool used in the primary care setting did not yield a significant difference in decisional conflict. The intervention led to greater knowledge and LCS uptake. These findings can inform future implementation strategies and research in LCS shared decision-making. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02899754.

Internet Versus Noninternet Participation in a Decentralized Clinical Trial: Lessons From the ADAPTABLE Study.

Background Internet-based participation has the potential to enhance pragmatic and decentralized trials, where representative study populations and generalizability to clinical practice are key. We aimed to study the differences between internet and noninternet/telephone participants in a large remote, pragmatic trial. Methods and Results In a subanalysis of the ADAPTABLE (Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-Centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-Term Effectiveness) study, we compared internet participants with those who opted for noninternet participation. Study process measures examined included participant characteristics at consent, study medication adherence, and study retention. The clinical outcome examined was a composite of all-cause mortality, hospitalization for myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for stroke. Noninternet participants were older (mean 69.4 versus 67.4 years), more likely to be female (38.9% versus 30.2%), more likely to be Black (27.3% versus 6.0%) or Hispanic (11.1% versus 2.0%), and had a higher number of comorbid conditions. The composite clinical outcome was more than twice as high in noninternet participants. The hazard of nonadherence to the assigned aspirin dosage was 46% higher in noninternet participants than internet participants. Conclusions Noninternet participants differed from internet participants in notable demographic characteristics while having poorer baseline health. Over the course of ADAPTABLE, they also had worse clinical outcomes and greater likelihood of study drug nonadherence. These results suggest that trials focused on internet participation select for younger, healthier participants with a higher proportion of traditionally overrepresented patients. Allowing noninternet participation enhances diversity; however, additional steps may be needed to promote study retention and study medication adherence. Registration Information clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT02697916.

Comparison of the effectiveness and safety of 2 aspirin doses in secondary prevention of cardiovascular outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease: A subgroup analysis of ADAPTABLE.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with established cardiovascular disease, the ADAPTABLE trial found no significant differences in cardiovascular events and bleeding rates between 81 mg and 325 mg of aspirin (ASA) daily. In this secondary analysis from the ADAPTABLE trial, we studied the effectiveness and safety of ASA dosing in patients with a history of chronic kidney disease (CKD). METHODS: ADAPTABLE participants were stratified based on the presence or absence of CKD, defined using ICD-9/10-CM codes. Within the CKD group, we compared outcomes between patients taking ASA 81 mg and 325 mg. The primary effectiveness outcome was defined as a composite of all cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke and the primary safety outcome was hospitalization for major bleeding. Adjusted Cox proportional hazard models were utilized to report differences between the groups. RESULTS: After excluding 414 (2.7%) patients due to missing medical history, a total of 14,662 patients were included from the ADAPTABLE cohort, of whom 2,648 (18%) patients had CKD. Patients with CKD were older (median age 69.4 vs 67.1 years; P < .0001) and less likely to be white (71.5% vs 81.7%; P < .0001) when compared to those without CKD. At a median follow-up of 26.2 months, CKD was associated with an increased risk of both the primary effectiveness outcome (adjusted HR 1.79 [1.57, 2.05] P < .001 and the primary safety outcome (adjusted HR 4.64 (2.98, 7.21), P < .001 and P < .05, respectively) regardless of ASA dose. There was no significant difference in effectiveness (adjusted HR 1.01 95% CI 0.82, 1.23; P = .95) or safety (adjusted HR 0.93; 95% CI 0.52, 1.64; P = .79) between ASA groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with CKD were more likely than those without CKD to have adverse cardiovascular events or death and were also more likely to have major bleeding requiring hospitalization. However, there was no association between ASA dose and study outcomes among these patients with CKD.

Selection Effects and COVID-19 Mortality Risk after Pfizer vs. Moderna Vaccination: Evidence from Linked Mortality and Vaccination Records.

Prior research generally finds that the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) and Moderna (mRNA1273) COVID-19 vaccines provide similar protection against mortality, sometimes with a Moderna advantage due to slower waning. However, most comparisons do not address selection effects for those who are vaccinated and with which vaccine. We report evidence on large selection effects, and use a novel method to control for these effects. Instead of directly studying COVID-19 mortality, we study the COVID-19 excess mortality percentage (CEMP), defined as the COVID-19 deaths divided by non-COVID-19 natural deaths for the same population, converted to a percentage. The CEMP measure uses non-COVID-19 natural deaths to proxy for population health and control for selection effects. We report the relative mortality risk (RMR) for each vaccine relative to the unvaccinated population and to the other vaccine, using linked mortality and vaccination records for all adults in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, from 1 April 2021 through 30 June 2022. For two-dose vaccinees aged 60+, RMRs for Pfizer vaccinees were consistently over twice those for Moderna, and averaged 248% of Moderna (95% CI = 175%,353%). In the Omicron period, Pfizer RMR was 57% versus 23% for Moderna. Both vaccines demonstrated waning of two-dose effectiveness over time, especially for ages 60+. For booster recipients, the Pfizer-Moderna gap is much smaller and statistically insignificant. A possible explanation for the Moderna advantage for older persons is the higher Moderna dose of 100 µg, versus 30 µg for Pfizer. Younger persons (aged 18-59) were well-protected against death by two doses of either vaccine, and highly protected by three doses (no deaths among over 100,000 vaccinees). These results support the importance of a booster dose for ages 60+, especially for Pfizer recipients. They suggest, but do not prove, that a larger vaccine dose may be appropriate for older persons than for younger persons.

Outcomes among patients with peripheral artery disease in the Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-Centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-Term Effectiveness (ADAPTABLE) study.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to understand the effects of aspirin dose on outcomes in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) as well as their participation in a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. METHODS: In a subanalysis of the Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-Centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-Term Effectiveness (ADAPTABLE) study, we compared aspirin doses (81 vs 325 mg) among participants with PAD and study participation metrics in patients with and without PAD. The primary outcome composite was all-cause mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke. RESULTS: Among 14,662 participants enrolled in ADAPTABLE with PAD status available, 3493 (23.8%) had PAD. Participants with PAD were more likely to experience the primary composite (13.76% vs 5.31%, p < 0.001), all-cause mortality (7.55% vs 3.01%, p < 0.001), myocardial infarction (5.71% vs 2.09%, p < 0.001), stroke (2.45% vs 0.86%, p < 0.001), and major bleeding (1.19% vs 0.44%, p < 0.001). A higher aspirin dose did not reduce the primary outcome in patients with PAD (13.68% vs 13.84% in 81 mg and 325 mg groups; OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.88-1.25). Participants with PAD were less likely to enroll via email (33.0% vs 41.9%, p < 0.0001), less likely to choose internet follow-up (79.2% vs 89.5%, p < 0.0001), and were more likely to change their aspirin doses (39.7% vs 30.7%, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: ADAPTABLE participants with PAD did not benefit from a higher dose of aspirin and participated in the study differently from those without PAD. These results reinforce the need for additional PAD-specific research and suggest that different trial strategies may be needed for optimal engagement of patients with PAD. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02697916).

Understanding COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness against Death Using a Novel Measure: COVID Excess Mortality Percentage.

COVID-19 vaccines have saved millions of lives; however, understanding the long-term effectiveness of these vaccines is imperative to developing recommendations for booster doses and other precautions. Comparisons of mortality rates between more and less vaccinated groups may be misleading due to selection bias, as these groups may differ in underlying health status. We studied all adult deaths during the period of 1 April 2021-30 June 2022 in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, linked to vaccination records, and we used mortality from other natural causes to proxy for underlying health. We report relative COVID-19 mortality risk (RMR) for those vaccinated with two and three doses versus the unvaccinated, using a novel outcome measure that controls for selection effects. This measure, COVID Excess Mortality Percentage (CEMP), uses the non-COVID natural mortality rate (Non-COVID-NMR) as a measure of population risk of COVID mortality without vaccination. We validate this measure during the pre-vaccine period (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.97) and demonstrate that selection effects are large, with non-COVID-NMRs for two-dose vaccinees often less than half those for the unvaccinated, and non-COVID NMRs often still lower for three-dose (booster) recipients. Progressive waning of two-dose effectiveness is observed, with an RMR of 10.6% for two-dose vaccinees aged 60+ versus the unvaccinated during April-June 2021, rising steadily to 36.2% during the Omicron period (January-June, 2022). A booster dose reduced RMR to 9.5% and 10.8% for ages 60+ during the two periods when boosters were available (October-December, 2021; January-June, 2022). Boosters thus provide important additional protection against mortality.

Understanding COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness Against Death Using a Novel Measure: COVID Excess Mortality Percentage.

COVID-19 vaccines have saved millions of lives and prevented countless adverse patient disease outcomes. Understanding the long-term effectiveness of these vaccines is imperative to developing recommendations for precautions and booster doses. Comparisons between more and less vaccinated groups may be misleading due to selection bias, as these groups may differ in underlying health status and thus risk of adverse COVID-19 outcomes. We study all adult deaths over April 1, 2021-June 30, 2022 in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, linked to vaccination records, use mortality from other natural causes to proxy for underlying health, and report relative COVID-19 mortality risk (RMR) for vaccinees versus the unvaccinated, using a novel outcome measure that controls for selection effects. This measure, COVID Excess Mortality Percentage (CEMP) uses the non-COVID natural mortality rate (Non-Covid-NMR) as a measure of population risk of COVID mortality without vaccination. We validate this measure during the pre-vaccine period (r = 0.97) and demonstrate that selection effects are large, with Non-Covid-NMRs for two-dose vaccinees less than half those for the unvaccinated, and Non-COVID NMRs still lower for three dose (booster) recipients. Progressive waning of two-dose effectiveness is observed, with relative mortality risk (RMR) for two-dose vaccinees aged 60 + versus the unvaccinated of 11% during April-June 2021, rising steadily to 36% during the Omicron period (January-June, 2022). Notably, a booster dose reduced RMR to 10-11% for ages 60+. Boosters thus provide important additional protection against mortality.

The Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Elderly: Population Fatality Rates, COVID Mortality Percentage, and Life Expectancy Loss.

The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately affected the elderly. This Article provides a detailed analysis of those effects, drawing primarily on individual-level mortality data covering almost three million persons aged 65+ in three Midwest states (Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin). We report sometimes surprising findings on population fatality rates ("PFR"), the ratio of COVID to non-COVID deaths, reported as a percentage, which we call the "Covid Mortality Percentage," and mean life expectancy loss ("LEL"). We examine how these COVID-19 outcomes vary with age, gender, race/ethnicity, socio-economic status, and time period during the pandemic. For all persons in the three Midwest areas, COVID PFR through year-end 2021 was 0.22%, mean years of life lost ("YLL") was 13.0 years, the COVID Mortality Percentage was 12.4%, and LEL was 0.028 years (eleven days). In contrast, for the elderly, PFR was 1.03%; YLL was 8.8 years, the COVID Mortality Percentage was 13.2%, and LEL was 0.091 years (thirty-four days). Controlling for gender, PFR and LEL were substantially higher for Blacks and Hispanics than for Whites at all ages. Racial/ethnic disparities for the elderly were large early in the pandemic but diminished later. Although COVID-19 mortality was much higher for the elderly, the COVID Mortality Percentage over the full pandemic period was only modestly higher for the elderly, at 13.2%, than for non-elderly adults aged 25-64, at 11.1%. Indeed, in 2021, this ratio was lower for the elderly than for the middle-aged, reflecting higher elderly vaccination rates.

Blood Pressure Intervention and Control in SPRINT.

BACKGROUND: The SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) demonstrated reductions in major cardiovascular disease events and mortality with an intensive systolic blood pressure (SBP) goal intervention. However, a detailed description of the blood pressure intervention, antihypertensive medication usage, blood pressure levels, and rates and predictors of blood pressure control has not been reported previously. METHODS: Hypertensive participants (n=9361) 50 years and older with elevated cardiovascular disease risk were randomized 1:1 to SBP goal <120 mm Hg or SBP goal <140 mm Hg. Guideline-recommended antihypertensive medications and dosing were provided at no cost. Intensive group participants were started on at least 2 medications, and medications were adjusted monthly until SBP goal was achieved, if feasible. Standard group participants were treated to achieve SBP 135 to 139 mm Hg. RESULTS: Baseline blood pressure (median±interquartile range) was 138±19/78±16 mm Hg. For intensive group participants, percent at goal rose from 8.9% at baseline to 52.4% at 6 months and average antihypertensive medications rose from 2.2 to 2.7; SBP was <120 mm Hg in 61.6% and <130 mm Hg in 80.0% at their final visit. For the standard group participants, percent at goal rose from 53.0% at baseline to 68.6% at 6 months, while antihypertensive medications fell from 1.9 to 1.8. From 6 to 36 months, median SBP was stable at 119±14 mm Hg for intensive and 136±15 mm Hg for standard participants, with stable numbers of medications. Few predictors of SBP control were found in multiple regression models. CONCLUSIONS: These results may inform and help replicate the benefits of SPRINT in clinical practice. REGISTRATION: URL: http://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT01206062.

A Veteran-Centric Web-Based Decision Aid for Lung Cancer Screening: Usability Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Web-based tools developed to facilitate a shared decision-making (SDM) process may facilitate the implementation of lung cancer screening (LCS), an evidence-based intervention to improve cancer outcomes. Veterans have specific risk factors and shared experiences that affect the benefits and potential harms of LCS and thus may value a veteran-centric LCS decision tool (LCSDecTool). OBJECTIVE: This study aims to conduct usability testing of an LCSDecTool designed for veterans receiving care at a Veteran Affairs medical center. METHODS: Usability testing of the LCSDecTool was conducted in a prototype version (phase 1) and a high-fidelity version (phase 2). A total of 18 veterans and 8 clinicians participated in phase 1, and 43 veterans participated in phase 2. Quantitative outcomes from the users included the System Usability Scale (SUS) and the End User Computing Satisfaction (EUCS) in phase 1 and the SUS, EUCS, and Patient Engagement scale in phase 2. Qualitative data were obtained from observations of user sessions and brief interviews. The results of phase 1 informed the modifications of the prototype for the high-fidelity version. Phase 2 usability testing took place in the context of a pilot hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation trial. RESULTS: In the phase 1 prototype usability testing, the mean SUS score (potential range: 0-100) was 81.90 (SD 9.80), corresponding to an excellent level of usability. The mean EUCS score (potential range: 1-5) was 4.30 (SD 0.71). In the phase 2 high-fidelity usability testing, the mean SUS score was 65.76 (SD 15.23), corresponding to a good level of usability. The mean EUCS score was 3.91 (SD 0.95); and the mean Patient Engagement scale score (potential range 1 [low] to 5 [high]) was 4.62 (SD 0.67). The median time to completion in minutes was 13 (IQR 10-16). A thematic analysis of user statements documented during phase 2 high-fidelity usability testing identified the following themes: a low baseline level of awareness and knowledge about LCS increased after use of the LCSDecTool; users sought more detailed descriptions about the LCS process; the LCSDecTool was generally easy to use, but specific navigation challenges remained; some users noted difficulty understanding medical terms used in the LCSDecTool; and use of the tool evoked veterans' struggles with prior attempts at smoking cessation. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the development and use of this eHealth technology in the primary care clinical setting as a way to engage veterans, inform them about a new cancer control screening test, and prepare them to participate in an SDM discussion with their provider.

Veteran Engagement in Health Services Research: a Conceptual Model.

With 20 million living veterans and millions more immediate family members, and approximately 9 million veterans enrolled in the nationally networked VA healthcare system, representing the interests and needs of veterans in this complex community is a substantial endeavor. Based on the importance of engaging Veterans in research, the VA Health Services Research and Development (HSR&D) Service convened a Working Group of VA researchers and Veterans to conduct a review of patient engagement models and develop recommendations for an approach to engage Veterans in health research that would incorporate their unique lived experiences and interests, and their perspectives on research priorities. The Working Group considered the specific context for Veteran engagement in research that includes other VA stakeholders from the operational and clinical leadership of the VA Health Administration (VHA). The resulting model identifies the range of potential stakeholders and three domains of relevant constructs-processes expected to facilitate Veteran engagement in research with other stakeholders, individual stakeholder and external factors, and outcomes. The expectation is that Veteran engagement will benefit research to policy and practice translation, including increasing the transparency of research and producing knowledge that is readily accepted and implemented in healthcare.

Engaging veteran stakeholders to identify patient-centred research priorities for optimizing implementation of lung cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Patient engagement in research agenda setting is increasingly being seen as a strategy to improve the responsiveness of healthcare to patient priorities. Implementation of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer is suboptimal, suggesting that research is needed. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to describe an approach by which a Veteran patient group worked with other stakeholders to develop a research agenda for LDCT screening and to describe the research questions that they prioritized. METHODS: We worked with Veterans organizations to identify 12 Veterans or family members at risk for or having experience with lung cancer to form a Patient Advisory Council (PAC). The PAC met repeatedly from June 2018 to December 2020, both independently and jointly, with stakeholders representing clinicians, health administrators and researchers to identify relevant research topics. The PAC prioritized these topics and then identified questions within these areas where research was needed using an iterative process. Finally, they ranked the importance of obtaining answers to these questions. RESULTS: PAC members valued the co-learning generated by interactions with stakeholders, but emphasized the importance of facilitation to avoid stakeholders dominating the discussion. The PAC prioritized three broad research areas-(1) the impact of insurance on uptake of LDCT; (2) how best to inform Veterans about LDCT; and (3) follow-up and impact of screening results. Using these areas as guides, PAC members identified 20 specific questions, ranking as most important (1) innovative outreach methods, (2) the impact of screening on psychological health, and (3) the impact of outsourcing scans from VA to non-VA providers on completion of recommended follow-up of screening results. The latter two were not identified as high priority by the stakeholder group. CONCLUSIONS: We present an approach that facilitates co-learning between Veteran patients and providers, researchers and health system administrators to increase patient confidence in their ability to contribute important information to a research agenda. The research questions prioritized by the Veterans who participated in this project illustrate that for this new screening technology, patients are concerned about the practical details of implementation (e.g., follow-up) and the technology's impact on quality of life. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Veterans and Veteran advocates contributed to our research team throughout the entire research process, including conceiving and co-authoring this manuscript.

Towards Developing a Voice-activated Self-monitoring Application (VoiS) for Adults with Diabetes and Hypertension.

The integration of motivational strategies and self-management theory with mHealth tools is a promising approach to changing the behavior of patients with chronic disease. In this manuscript, we describe the development and current architecture of a prototype voice-activated self-monitoring application (VoiS) which is based on these theories. Unlike prior mHealth applications which require textual input, VoiS app relies on the more convenient and adaptable approach of asking users to verbally input markers of diabetes and hypertension control through a smart speaker. The VoiS app can provide real-time feedback based on these markers; thus, it has the potential to serve as a remote, regular, source of feedback to support behavior change. To enhance the usability and acceptability of the VoiS application, we will ask a diverse group of patients to use it in real-world settings and provide feedback on their experience. We will use this feedback to optimize tool performance, so that it can provide patients with an improved understanding of their chronic conditions. The VoiS app can also facilitate remote sharing of chronic disease control with healthcare providers, which can improve clinical efficacy and reduce the urgency and frequency of clinical care encounters. Because the VoiS app will be configured for use with multiple platforms, it will be more robust than existing systems with respect to user accessibility and acceptability.

Adapting the design of a Web-based decision support clinical trial during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The public health crises that emerged in the COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted the provision of medical care and placed sudden restrictions on ongoing clinical research. Patient-facing clinical research confronted unique challenges in which recruitment and study protocols were halted and then adapted to meet safety procedures during the pandemic. Our study protocol included the use of a Lung Cancer Screening Decision Tool (LCSDecTool) in the context of a primary care visit and was considerably impacted by the pandemic. We describe our experience adapting a multi-site clinical trial of the LCSDecTool within the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care System. We conducted a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing the LCSDecTool to a control intervention. Outcomes included lung cancer screening (LCS) knowledge, shared decision-making, and uptake and adherence to LCS protocol. We identified three strategies that led to the successful adaptation of the study design during the pandemic: (1) multi-level coordination and communication across the organization and study sites, (2) flexibility and adaptability in research during a time of uncertainty and changes in regulation, and (3) leveraging technology to deliver the intervention and conduct study visits, which raised issues concerning equity and internal and external validity. CONCLUSION: Our experience highlights strategies successfully employed to adapt an intervention and behavioral research study protocol during the COVID-19 pandemic. This experience will inform clinical research moving forward both during and subsequent to the constraints placed on research and clinical care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Comparative Effectiveness of Aspirin Dosing in Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: The appropriate dose of aspirin to lower the risk of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke and to minimize major bleeding in patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is a subject of controversy. METHODS: Using an open-label, pragmatic design, we randomly assigned patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease to a strategy of 81 mg or 325 mg of aspirin per day. The primary effectiveness outcome was a composite of death from any cause, hospitalization for myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for stroke, assessed in a time-to-event analysis. The primary safety outcome was hospitalization for major bleeding, also assessed in a time-to-event analysis. RESULTS: A total of 15,076 patients were followed for a median of 26.2 months (interquartile range [IQR], 19.0 to 34.9). Before randomization, 13,537 (96.0% of those with available information on previous aspirin use) were already taking aspirin, and 85.3% of these patients were previously taking 81 mg of daily aspirin. Death, hospitalization for myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for stroke occurred in 590 patients (estimated percentage, 7.28%) in the 81-mg group and 569 patients (estimated percentage, 7.51%) in the 325-mg group (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91 to 1.14). Hospitalization for major bleeding occurred in 53 patients (estimated percentage, 0.63%) in the 81-mg group and 44 patients (estimated percentage, 0.60%) in the 325-mg group (hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.77). Patients assigned to 325 mg had a higher incidence of dose switching than those assigned to 81 mg (41.6% vs. 7.1%) and fewer median days of exposure to the assigned dose (434 days [IQR, 139 to 737] vs. 650 days [IQR, 415 to 922]). CONCLUSIONS: In this pragmatic trial involving patients with established cardiovascular disease, there was substantial dose switching to 81 mg of daily aspirin and no significant differences in cardiovascular events or major bleeding between patients assigned to 81 mg and those assigned to 325 mg of aspirin daily. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; ADAPTABLE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02697916.).

Influence of mid-life cognitive activity on cognitive function among men aged 68 years or older.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive activity in early and late life has been associated with increased cognitive function among older adults. There is less evidence on the effects of midlife cognitive activity. AIMS: We examined the association of midlife cognitive activity with cognitive function after age 65. METHODS: We studied 78 men 68 years old or older. We asked participants to assess their current and midlife cognitive activity using adaptations of a measure created by Wilson et al., which includes reading, writing letters, visiting museums and other leisure activities. Our outcomes were validated measures of cognitive and overall function. We compared midlife cognitive activity to our outcome measures in simple bivariable analyses, then adjusted for demographic characteristics using linear regression. RESULTS: Our study population of older (mean age 74.8 years) men was primarily white (87%) and well-educated; 65% had at least some post high school education. Although 67% were retired, household income was high (24% < $30 k and 44% > $50 k). More midlife cognitive activity was related to more current cognitive activity (p = < .0001, r2 = 0.55339). However, midlife activity was not associated with measures of cognitive or overall function, adjusted analyses gave similar results. DISCUSSION: We did not find an association between midlife cognitive activity and later life function. However, the Wilson measure of cognitive activity that we used excludes instrumental cognitive activities such as dealing with finances or healthcare, likely underestimating cognitive activity for many participants. CONCLUSION: Midlife cognitive activity was associated with late-life cognitive activity, suggesting efforts to increase late-life cognitive activity may need to start earlier in life. However, more robust measures of everyday cognitive activity might detect such an association.