Comparative Effectiveness of Team-Based Care With and Without a Clinical Decision Support System for Diabetes Management : A Cluster Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Uncontrolled hyperglycemia, hypercholesterolemia, and hypertension are common in persons with diabetes. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of team-based care with and without a clinical decision support system (CDSS) in controlling glycemia, lipids, and blood pressure (BP) among patients with type 2 diabetes. DESIGN: Cluster randomized trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02835287). SETTING: 38 community health centers in Xiamen, China. PATIENTS: 11 132 persons aged 50 years or older with uncontrolled diabetes and comorbid conditions, 5475 receiving team-based care with a CDSS and 5657 receiving team-based care alone. INTERVENTION: Team-based care was delivered by primary care physicians, health coaches, and diabetes specialists in all centers. In addition, a computerized CDSS, which generated individualized treatment recommendations based on clinical guidelines, was implemented in 19 centers delivering team-based care with a CDSS. MEASUREMENTS: Coprimary outcomes were mean reductions in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level, and systolic BP over 18 months and the proportion of participants with all 3 risk factors controlled at 18 months. RESULTS: During the 18-month intervention, HbA1c levels, LDL-C levels, and systolic BP significantly decreased by -0.9 percentage point (95% CI, -0.9 to -0.8 percentage point), -0.49 mmol/L (CI, -0.53 to -0.45 mmol/L) (-19.0 mg/dL [CI, -20.4 to -17.5 mg/dL]), and -9.1 mm Hg (CI, -9.9 to -8.3 mm Hg), respectively, in team-based care with a CDSS and by -0.6 percentage point (CI, -0.7 to -0.5 percentage point), -0.32 mmol/L (CI, -0.35 to -0.29 mmol/L) (-12.5 mg/dL [CI, -13.6 to -11.3 mg/dL]), and -7.5 mm Hg (CI, -8.4 to -6.6 mm Hg), respectively, in team-based care alone. Net differences were -0.2 percentage point (CI, -0.3 to -0.1 percentage point) for HbA1c level, -0.17 mmol/L (CI, -0.21 to -0.12 mmol/L) (-6.5 mg/dL [CI, -8.3 to -4.6 mg/dL]) for LDL-C level, and -1.5 mm Hg (CI, -2.8 to -0.3 mm Hg) for systolic BP. The proportion of patients with controlled HbA1c, LDL-C, and systolic BP was 16.9% (CI, 15.7% to 18.2%) in team-based care with a CDSS and 13.0% (CI, 11.7% to 14.3%) in team-based care alone. LIMITATION: There was no usual care control, and clinical outcome assessors were unblinded; the analysis did not account for multiple comparisons. CONCLUSION: Compared with team-based care alone, team-based care with a CDSS significantly reduced cardiovascular risk factors in patients with diabetes, but the effect was modest. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Xiamen Municipal Health Commission.

Comparative effectiveness of team-based care with a clinical decision support system versus team-based care alone on cardiovascular risk reduction among patients with diabetes: Rationale and design of the D4C trial.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes has become a major public health challenge worldwide, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Uncontrolled hyperglycemia, hypertension, and dyslipidemia major risk factors for all-cause mortality and cardiovascular disease (CVD) are common in patients with diabetes in China. We propose to compare the effectiveness of team-based care plus a clinical decision support system (CDSS) with team-based care alone on glycemic, blood pressure (BP), and lipid control, and clinical CVD reduction among patients with type-2 diabetes and at high risk for CVD. METHODS: The Diabetes Complication Control in Community Clinics (D4C) study is a cluster-randomized trial conducted among 38 community health centers in Xiamen City, China. Nineteen clinics have been randomly assigned to team-based care plus CDSS and 19 to team-based care alone. Team-based care includes primary care providers, health coaches, and diabetes specialists working collaboratively with patients to achieve shared treatment goals for CVD risk factor reduction. The CDSS integrates guideline-based treatment algorithms for glycemic, BP, and lipid control, along with a patient's medical history and insurance policy, to recommend treatment and follow-up plans. In phase 1, the co-primary outcomes are mean reduction in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), systolic BP (SBP), and low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol over 18 months, and the proportion of patients with controlled HbA1c, SBP, and LDL-cholesterol at 18 months' between the 2 comparison groups. In phase 2, the primary outcome is the difference in major CVD incidence (non-fatal stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction, hospitalized heart failure, and CVD mortality) between the 2 comparison groups. Mean reduction in HbA1c, SBP, and LDL-cholesterol levels will be simultaneously modeled for a single overall treatment effect. CONCLUSION: The D4C trial will generate evidence on whether a CDSS will further reduce the CVD burden among patients with diabetes beyond team-based care at community clinics. If proven effective, this implementation strategy could be scaled up within primary care settings in China and other LMICs to reduce CVD incidence and mortality among patients with diabetes.

Comparative Effectiveness of Implementation Strategies for Blood Pressure Control in Hypertensive Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Background: The prevalence of hypertension is high and is increasing worldwide, whereas the proportion of controlled hypertension is low. Purpose: To assess the comparative effectiveness of 8 implementation strategies for blood pressure (BP) control in adults with hypertension. Data Sources: Systematic searches of MEDLINE and Embase from inception to September 2017 with no language restrictions, supplemented with manual reference searches. Study Selection: Randomized controlled trials lasting at least 6 months comparing the effect of implementation strategies versus usual care on BP reduction in adults with hypertension. Data Extraction: Two investigators independently extracted data and assessed study quality. Data Synthesis: A total of 121 comparisons from 100 articles with 55 920 hypertensive patients were included. Multilevel, multicomponent strategies were most effective for systolic BP reduction, including team-based care with medication titration by a nonphysician (-7.1 mm Hg [95% CI, -8.9 to -5.2 mm Hg]), team-based care with medication titration by a physician (-6.2 mm Hg [CI, -8.1 to -4.2 mm Hg]), and multilevel strategies without team-based care (-5.0 mm Hg [CI, -8.0 to -2.0 mm Hg]). Patient-level strategies resulted in systolic BP changes of -3.9 mm Hg (CI, -5.4 to -2.3 mm Hg) for health coaching and -2.7 mm Hg (CI, -3.6 to -1.7 mm Hg) for home BP monitoring. Similar trends were seen for diastolic BP reduction. Limitation: Sparse data from low- and middle-income countries; few trials of some implementation strategies, such as provider training; and possible publication bias. Conclusion: Multilevel, multicomponent strategies, followed by patient-level strategies, are most effective for BP control in patients with hypertension and should be used to improve hypertension control. Primary Funding Source: National Institutes of Health.

Role of Health Care Professionals in the Success of Blood Pressure Control Interventions in Patients With Hypertension: A Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Globally, only 13.8% of patients with hypertension have their blood pressure (BP) controlled. Trials testing interventions to overcome barriers to BP control have produced mixed results. Type of health care professional delivering the intervention may play an important role in intervention success. The goal of this meta-analysis is to determine which health care professionals are most effective at delivering BP reduction interventions. METHODS: We searched Medline and Embase (until December 2023) for randomized controlled trials of interventions targeting barriers to hypertension control reporting who led intervention delivery. One hundred articles worldwide with 116 comparisons and 90 474 participants with hypertension were included. Trials were grouped by health care professional, and the effects of the intervention on systolic and diastolic BP were combined using random effects models and generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: Pharmacist-led interventions , community health worker-led interventions, and health educator-led interventions resulted in the greatest systolic BP reductions of -7.3 (95% CI, -9.1 to -5.6), -7.1 (95% CI, -10.8 to -3.4), and -5.2 (95% CI, -7.8 to -2.6) mm Hg, respectively. Interventions led by multiple health care professionals, nurses, and physicians also resulted in significant systolic BP reductions of -4.2 (95% CI, -6.1 to -2.4), -3.0 (95% CI, -4.2 to -1.9), and -2.4 (95% CI, -3.4 to -1.5) mm Hg, respectively. Similarly, the greatest diastolic BP reductions were -3.9 (95% CI, -5.2 to -2.5) mm Hg for pharmacist-led and -3.7 (95% CI, -6.6 to -0.8) mm Hg for community health worker-led interventions. In pairwise comparisons, pharmacist were significantly more effective than multiple health care professionals, nurses, and physicians at delivering interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacists and community health workers are most effective at leading BP intervention implementation and should be prioritized in future hypertension control efforts.

Early vs Delayed Antihypertensive Treatment in Acute Single Subcortical Infarction: A Secondary Analysis of the CATIS-2 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The China Antihypertensive Trial in Acute Ischemic Stroke II (CATIS-2) suggests that early antihypertensive treatment did not reduce the risk of dependency or death in acute ischemic stroke (AIS), compared with delayed treatment. Single subcortical infarction (SSI) is an important stroke subtype, and the association of antihypertensive timing with clinical outcomes is unclear. Objective: To investigate the association of early vs delayed antihypertensive treatment with clinical outcomes in patients with SSI, stratified by the presence of parent artery disease (PAD) stenosis. Design, Setting, and Participants: This secondary analysis of the CATIS-2 randomized clinical trial included 106 hospitals in China between June 2018 and July 2022. In CATIS-2, patients with AIS within 24 to 48 hours of symptoms onset and elevated systolic blood pressure were eligible. Patients with SSI detected in diffusion-weighted imaging were included in the current post hoc subgroup analysis. Patients were grouped into (1) SSI with PAD stenosis and (2) SSI without PAD stenosis. Statistical analysis was performed from July 2023 to May 2024. Exposures: Early (immediate) vs delayed (starting on day 8) antihypertensive therapy. Main Outcome and Measure: Primary outcome was the combination of functional dependency or death (modified Rankin Scale score ≥3) at 90 days. Results: Among 997 patients with SSI in CATIS-2 (mean [SD] age, 62.4 [9.8] years; 612 [61.4%] men), 116 (11.6%) had SSI with PAD and 881 (88.4%) had SSI without PAD. There was no significant difference in the primary outcome between early and delayed antihypertensive treatment groups among all patients with SSI (8.8% vs 7.1%; OR, 1.25 [95% CI, 0.79-1.99]; P = .34). Among patients with SSI with PAD, early antihypertensive treatment was associated with increased risk of the primary outcome compared with delayed treatment (23.4% vs 7.7%; OR, 3.67 [95% CI, 1.14-11.86]; P = .03); this finding was not observed in patients with SSI without PAD (6.6% vs 7.1%; OR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.55-1.57]; P = .77). Significant interaction with treatment and presence of PAD stenosis was detected for the primary outcome (P for interaction = .04). Conclusions and Relevance: In this secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial, early antihypertensive treatment was associated with an increased risk of functional dependency or death at 90 days among patients with SSI and coexisting PAD stenosis, compared with delayed antihypertensive treatment. Further studies are warranted for individualized BP management in patients with SSI by the presence of PAD. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03479554.

Early versus delayed antihypertensive treatment in patients with acute ischaemic stroke: multicentre, open label, randomised, controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compared the effect of early antihypertensive treatment started within 24-48 h of stroke onset versus delaying treatment until day eight on reducing dependency or death. DESIGN: Multicentre, randomised, open label trial. SETTING: 106 hospitals in China between 13 June 2018 and 10 July 2022. PARTICIPANTS: 4810 patients (≥40 years) were enrolled with acute ischaemic stroke within 24-48 h of symptom onset and elevated systolic blood pressure between 140 mm Hg and <220 mm Hg. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive antihypertensive treatment immediately after randomisation (aimed at reducing systolic blood pressure by 10%-20% within the first 24 h and a mean blood pressure <140/90 mm Hg within seven days) or to discontinue antihypertensive medications for seven days if they were taking them, and then receive treatment on day 8 (aimed at achieving mean blood pressure <140/90 mm Hg). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the combination of functional dependency or death (modified Rankin scale score ≥3) at 90 days. Intention to treat analyses were conducted. RESULTS: 2413 patients were assigned to the early treatment group and 2397 were assigned to the delayed treatment group. Mean systolic blood pressure was reduced by 9.7% (from 162.9 mm Hg to 146.4 mm Hg) in the early treatment group and by 4.9% (from 162.8 mm Hg to 154.3 mm Hg) in the delayed treatment group within 24 h after randomisation (P for group difference <0.001). Mean systolic blood pressure was 139.1 mm Hg in the early treatment group and 150.9 mm Hg in the delayed treatment group on day seven (P for group difference <0.001). Additionally, 54.6% of patients in the early treatment group and 22.4% in the delayed treatment group had blood pressure of less than 140/90 mm Hg (P<0.001 for group difference) on day seven. At day 90, 289 trial participants (12.0%) in the early treatment group, compared with 250 (10.5%) in the delayed treatment group, had died or experienced a dependency (odds ratio 1.18 (95% confidence interval 0.98 to 1.41), P=0.08). No significant differences in recurrent stroke or adverse events were reported between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with mild-to-moderate acute ischaemic stroke and systolic blood pressure between 140 mm Hg and <220 mm Hg who did not receive intravenous thrombolytic treatment, early antihypertensive treatment did not reduce the odds of dependency or death at 90 days. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03479554.

Combination Treatment with Sodium Nitrite and Isoquercetin on Endothelial Dysfunction among Patients with CKD: A Randomized Phase 2 Pilot Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Endothelial dysfunction is common among patients with CKD. We tested the efficacy and safety of combination treatment with sodium nitrite and isoquercetin on biomarkers of endothelial dysfunction in patients with CKD. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 pilot trial enrolled 70 patients with predialysis CKD. Thirty-five were randomly assigned to combination treatment with sodium nitrite (40 mg twice daily) and isoquercetin (225 mg once daily) for 12 weeks, and 35 were randomly assigned to placebo. The primary outcome was mean change in flow-mediated vasodilation over the 12-week intervention. Secondary and safety outcomes included biomarkers of endothelial dysfunction, inflammation, and oxidative stress as well as kidney function, methemoglobin, and adverse events. Intention-to-treat analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics, including age, sex, race, cigarette smoking, history of hypertension and diabetes, use of renin-angiotensin system blockers, BP, fasting glucose, lipid profile, kidney function, urine albumin-creatinine ratio, and endothelial biomarkers, were comparable between groups. Over the 12-week intervention, flow-mediated vasodilation increased 1.1% (95% confidence interval, -0.1 to 2.3) in the treatment group and 0.3% (95% confidence interval, -0.9 to 1.5) in the placebo group, and net change was 0.8% (95% confidence interval, -0.9 to 2.5). In addition, changes in biomarkers of endothelial dysfunction (vascular adhesion molecule-1, intercellular adhesion molecule-1, E-selectin, vWf, endostatin, and asymmetric dimethylarginine), inflammation (TNF-α, IL-6, C-reactive protein, IL-1 receptor antagonist, and monocyte chemoattractant protein-1), and oxidative stress (oxidized LDL and nitrotyrosines) were not significantly different between the two groups. Furthermore, changes in eGFR, urine albumin-creatinine ratio, methemoglobin, and adverse events were not significantly different between groups. CONCLUSIONS: This randomized phase 2 pilot trial suggests that combination treatment with sodium nitrite and isoquercetin did not significantly improve flow-mediated vasodilation or other endothelial function biomarkers but also did not increase adverse events compared with placebo among patients with CKD. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY NAME AND REGISTRATION NUMBER: Nitrite, Isoquercetin, and Endothelial Dysfunction (NICE), NCT02552888.