Detailed Assessment of the "I Need Help" Criteria in Patients With Heart Failure: Insights From the HELP-HF Registry.

BACKGROUND: The "I Need Help" markers have been proposed to identify patients with advanced heart failure (HF). We evaluated the prognostic impact of these markers on clinical outcomes in a real-world, contemporary, multicenter HF population. METHODS: We included consecutive patients with HF and at least 1 high-risk "I Need Help" marker from 4 centers. The impact of the cumulative number of "I Need Help" criteria and that of each individual "I Need Help" criterion was evaluated. The primary end point was the composite of all-cause mortality or first HF hospitalization. RESULTS: Among 1149 patients enrolled, the majority had 2 (30.9%) or 3 (22.6%) "I Need Help" criteria. A higher cumulative number of "I Need Help" criteria was independently associated with a higher risk of the primary end point (adjusted hazard ratio for each criterion increase, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.11-1.27]; P<0.001), and patients with >5 criteria had the worst prognosis. Need of inotropes, persistently high New York Heart Association classes III and IV or natriuretic peptides, end-organ dysfunction, >1 HF hospitalization in the last year, persisting fluid overload or escalating diuretics, and low blood pressure were the individual criteria independently associated with a higher risk of the primary end point. CONCLUSIONS: In our HF population, a higher number of "I Need Help" criteria was associated with a worse prognosis. The individual criteria with an independent impact on mortality or HF hospitalization were need of inotropes, New York Heart Association class or natriuretic peptides, end-organ dysfunction, multiple HF hospitalizations, persisting edema or escalating diuretics, and low blood pressure.

Use of prasugrel and clinical outcomes in African-American patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndromes.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the use of prasugrel after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in African American (AA) patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). BACKGROUND: AA patients are at higher risk for adverse cardiovascular outcomes after PCI and may derive greater benefit from the use of potent antiplatelet therapy. METHODS: Using the multicenter PROMETHEUS observational registry of ACS patients treated with PCI, we grouped patients by self-reported AA or other races. Clinical outcomes at 90-day and 1-year included non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), major adverse cardiac events (composite of death, MI, stroke, or unplanned revascularization) and major bleeding. RESULTS: The study population included 2,125 (11%) AA and 17,707 (89%) non-AA patients. AA patients were younger, more often female (46% vs. 30%) with a higher prevalence of diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, and prior coronary intervention than non-AA patients. Although AA patients more often presented with troponin (+) ACS, prasugrel use was much less common in AA vs. non-AA (11.9% vs. 21.4%, respectively, P = 0.001). In addition, the use of prasugrel increased with the severity of presentation in non-AA but not in AA patients. Multivariable logistic regression showed AA race was an independent predictor of reduced use of prasugrel (0.42 [0.37-0.49], P < 0.0001). AA race was independently associated with a significantly higher risk of MI at 90-days and 1 year after PCI. CONCLUSIONS: Despite higher risk clinical presentation and worse 1-year ischemic outcomes, AA race was an independent predictor of lower prasugrel prescription in a contemporary population of ACS patients undergoing PCI.

Tailoring Antiplatelet Therapy Intensity to Ischemic and Bleeding Risk.

BACKGROUND: Balancing ischemic and bleeding risk is an evolving framework. METHODS AND RESULTS: Our objectives were to simulate changes in risks for adverse events and event-driven costs with use of ticagrelor or prasugrel versus clopidogrel according to varying levels of ischemic and bleeding risk. Using the validated PARIS risk functions, we estimated 1-year ischemic (myocardial infarction or stent thrombosis) and bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium types 3 or 5) event rates among PARIS study participants who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent implantation for an acute coronary syndrome and were discharged with aspirin and clopidogrel (n=1497). Simulated changes in adverse events with ticagrelor or prasugrel were calculated by applying treatment effects from randomized trials for a 1-year time horizon. Event costs were estimated using National Inpatient Sample data. Net costs were calculated between antiplatelet therapy groups according to level of ischemic and bleeding risk. After weighting events for quality-of-life impact, we calculated event rates and costs for risk-tailored treatment versus clopidogrel under multiple drug pricing assumptions. One-year rates (per 1000 person-years) for ischemic events were 12.6, 24.1, and 66.1, respectively, among those at low (n=630), intermediate (n=536), and high (n=331) ischemic risk. Analogous bleeding rates were 11.0, 23.9, and 66.2, respectively, among low (n=728), intermediate (n=634), and high (n=135) bleeding risk patients. Mean per event costs were $22 174 (ischemic) and $12 203 (bleeding). When risks for ischemia matched or exceeded bleeding, simulated utility-weighted event rates favored ticagrelor/prasugrel, whereas clopidogrel reduced utility-weighted events when bleeding exceeded ischemic risk. One-year costs were sensitive to drug pricing assumptions, and risk-tailored treatment with either agent progressed from cost incurring to cost saving with increasing generic market share. CONCLUSIONS: Tailoring antiplatelet therapy intensity to patient risk may improve health utility and could produce cost savings in the first year after percutaneous coronary intervention. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00998127.

Rationale and Design of Family-Based Approach in a Minority Community Integrating Systems-Biology for Promotion of Health (FAMILIA).

BACKGROUND: The 2020 American Heart Association Impact Goal aims to improve cardiovascular health of all Americans by 20% while reducing deaths from cardiovascular disease and stroke by 20%. A large step toward this goal would be to better understand and take advantage of the significant intersection between behavior and biology across the entire life-span. In the proposed FAMILIA studies, we aim to directly address this major knowledge and clinical health gap by implementing an integrated family-centric health promotion intervention and focusing on the intersection of environment and behavior, while understanding the genetic and biologic basis of cardiovascular disease. METHODS: We plan to recruit 600 preschool children and their 600 parents or caregivers from 12-15 Head Start schools in Harlem, NY, and perform a 2:1 (2 intervention/1 control) cluster randomization of the schools. The preschool children will receive our intensive 37-hour educational program as the intervention for 4 months. For the adults, those in the "intervention" group will be randomly assigned to 1 of 2 intervention programs: an "individual-focused" or "peer-to-peer based." The primary outcome in children will be a composite score of knowledge (K), attitudes (A), habits (H), related to body mass index Z score (B), exercise (E), and alimentation (A) (KAH-BEA), using questionnaires and anthropometric measurements. For adults, the primary outcome will be a composite score for behaviors/outcomes related to blood pressure, exercise, weight, alimentation (diet) and tobacco (smoking; Fuster-BEWAT score). Saliva will be collected from the children for SNP genotyping, and blood will be collected from adults for RNA sequencing to identify network models and predictors of primary prevention outcomes. CONCLUSION: The FAMILIA studies seek to demonstrate that targeting a younger age group (3-5 years) and using a family-based approach may be a critical strategy in promoting cardiovascular health across the life-span.

Polygenic Risk Score Identifies Subgroup With Higher Burden of Atherosclerosis and Greater Relative Benefit From Statin Therapy in the Primary Prevention Setting.

BACKGROUND: Relative risk reduction with statin therapy has been consistent across nearly all subgroups studied to date. However, in analyses of 2 randomized controlled primary prevention trials (ASCOT [Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Lipid-Lowering Arm] and JUPITER [Justification for the Use of Statins in Prevention: An Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin]), statin therapy led to a greater relative risk reduction among a subgroup at high genetic risk. Here, we aimed to confirm this observation in a third primary prevention randomized controlled trial. In addition, we assessed whether those at high genetic risk had a greater burden of subclinical coronary atherosclerosis. METHODS: We studied participants from a randomized controlled trial of primary prevention with statin therapy (WOSCOPS [West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study]; n=4910) and 2 observational cohort studies (CARDIA [Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults] and BioImage; n=1154 and 4392, respectively). For each participant, we calculated a polygenic risk score derived from up to 57 common DNA sequence variants previously associated with coronary heart disease. We compared the relative efficacy of statin therapy in those at high genetic risk (top quintile of polygenic risk score) versus all others (WOSCOPS), as well as the association between the polygenic risk score and coronary artery calcification (CARDIA) and carotid artery plaque burden (BioImage). RESULTS: Among WOSCOPS trial participants at high genetic risk, statin therapy was associated with a relative risk reduction of 44% (95% confidence interval [CI], 22-60; P<0.001), whereas in all others, the relative risk reduction was 24% (95% CI, 8-37; P=0.004) despite similar low-density lipoprotein cholesterol lowering. In a study-level meta-analysis across the WOSCOPS, ASCOT, and JUPITER primary prevention, relative risk reduction in those at high genetic risk was 46% versus 26% in all others (P for heterogeneity=0.05). Across all 3 studies, the absolute risk reduction with statin therapy was 3.6% (95% CI, 2.0-5.1) among those in the high genetic risk group and 1.3% (95% CI, 0.6-1.9) in all others. Each 1-SD increase in the polygenic risk score was associated with 1.32-fold (95% CI, 1.04-1.68) greater likelihood of having coronary artery calcification and 9.7% higher (95% CI, 2.2-17.8) burden of carotid plaque. CONCLUSIONS: Those at high genetic risk have a greater burden of subclinical atherosclerosis and derive greater relative and absolute benefit from statin therapy to prevent a first coronary heart disease event. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifiers: NCT00738725 (BioImage) and NCT00005130 (CARDIA). WOSCOPS was carried out and completed before the requirement for clinical trial registration.

Impact of an integrated treatment algorithm based on platelet function testing and clinical risk assessment: results of the TRIAGE Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Interventions To Improve Clinical Outcomes Through Optimal Platelet Inhibition study.

Assessment of platelet reactivity alone for thienopyridine selection with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has not been associated with improved outcomes. In TRIAGE, a prospective multicenter observational pilot study we sought to evaluate the benefit of an integrated algorithm combining clinical risk and platelet function testing to select type of thienopyridine in patients undergoing PCI. Patients on chronic clopidogrel therapy underwent platelet function testing prior to PCI using the VerifyNow assay to determine high on treatment platelet reactivity (HTPR, ≥230 P2Y12 reactivity units or PRU). Based on both PRU and clinical (ischemic and bleeding) risks, patients were switched to prasugrel or continued on clopidogrel per the study algorithm. The primary endpoints were (i) 1-year major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) composite of death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or definite or probable stent thrombosis; and (ii) major bleeding, Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2, 3 or 5. Out of 318 clopidogrel treated patients with a mean age of 65.9 ± 9.8 years, HTPR was noted in 33.3 %. Ninety (28.0 %) patients overall were switched to prasugrel and 228 (72.0 %) continued clopidogrel. The prasugrel group had fewer smokers and more patients with heart failure. At 1-year MACE occurred in 4.4 % of majority HTPR patients on prasugrel versus 3.5 % of primarily non-HTPR patients on clopidogrel (p = 0.7). Major bleeding (5.6 vs 7.9 %, p = 0.47) was numerically higher with clopidogrel compared with prasugrel. Use of the study clinical risk algorithm for choice and intensity of thienopyridine prescription following PCI resulted in similar ischemic outcomes in HTPR patients receiving prasugrel and primarily non-HTPR patients on clopidogrel without an untoward increase in bleeding with prasugrel. However, the study was prematurely terminated and these findings are therefore hypothesis generating.

Influence of flexibility and variability of working hours on health and well-being.

Flexible working hours can have several meanings and can be arranged in a number of ways to suit the worker and/or employer. Two aspects of "flexible" arrangement of working hours were considered: one more subjected to company control and decision (variability) and one more connected to individual discretion and autonomy (flexibility). The aim of the study was to analyze these two dimensions in relation to health and well-being, taking into consideration the interaction with some relevant background variables related to demographics plus working and social conditions. The dataset of the Third European Survey on working conditions, conducted in 2000 and involving 21,505 workers, was used. Nineteen health disorders and four psycho-social conditions were tested by means of multiple logistic regression analysis, in which mutually adjusted odds ratios were calculated for age, gender, marital status, number of children, occupation, mode of employment, shift work, night work, time pressure, mental and physical workload, job satisfaction, and participation in work organization. The flexibility and variability of working hours appeared inversely related to health and psycho-social well-being: the most favorable effects were associated with higher flexibility and lower variability. The analysis of the interactions with the twelve intervening variables showed that physical work, age, and flexibility are the three most important factors affecting health and well-being. Flexibility resulted as the most important factor to influence work satisfaction; the second to affect family and social commitment and the ability to do the same job when 60 years old, as well as trauma, overall fatigue, irritability, and headache; and the third to influence heart disease, stomachache, anxiety, injury, and the feeling that health being at risk because of work. Variability was the third most important factor influencing family and social commitments. Moreover, shift and night work confirmed to have a significant influence on sleep, digestive and cardiovascular troubles, as well and health and safety at work. Time pressure also showed a relevant influence, both on individual stress and social life. Therefore, suitable arrangements of flexible working time, aimed at supporting workers' coping strategies, appear to have a clear beneficial effect on worker health and well-being, with positive consequences also at the company and social level, as evidenced by the higher "feeling to be able to work until 60 years of age".