Benefits of the First Pritikin Outpatient Intensive Cardiac Rehabilitation Program.

PURPOSE: Intensive cardiac rehabilitation (ICR) is a comprehensive, medically supervised exercise treatment program covered by Medicare for patients with approved cardiac diagnoses. The aim of this study was to determine the benefits of the first Pritikin outpatient ICR program. METHODS: This retrospective analysis included patients referred to ICR or traditional cardiac rehabilitation (CR) during the first 7 yr (2013-2019) at the first facility to implement Pritikin ICR. Intensive cardiac rehabilitation is composed of 36 education sessions on nutrition, exercise, and a healthy mindset, in addition to 36 monitored exercise sessions that comprise traditional CR. Assessments included anthropometrics (weight, body mass index, and waist circumference), dietary patterns, physical function (6-min walk test, [6MWT] Short Physical Performance Battery [SPPB: balance, 4-m walk, chair rise], handgrip strength), and health-related quality of life (Dartmouth COOP, 36-item Short Form Survey). Baseline and follow-up measures were compared within and between groups. RESULTS: A total of 1963 patients enrolled (1507 ICR, 456 CR, 66.1 ± 11.4 yr, 68% male, 82% overweight or obese); 1141 completed the program (58%). The ICR patients completed 22 exercise and 18 education sessions in 9.6 wk; CR patients completed 19 exercise sessions in 10.3 wk. ICR resulted in improvements ( P < .001 pre vs post) in all anthropometric measures, dietary patterns, 6MWT distance, all SPPB components, grip strength, and health-related quality of life. The improvements in anthropometrics and dietary patterns were greater in ICR than in CR. CONCLUSIONS: The Pritikin outpatient ICR program promoted improvements in several cardiovascular health indices. Critical next steps are to assess long-term health outcomes after ICR, including cardiac events and mortality.

Multi-Ancestry Genome-wide Association Study Accounting for Gene-Psychosocial Factor Interactions Identifies Novel Loci for Blood Pressure Traits.

Psychological and social factors are known to influence blood pressure (BP) and risk of hypertension and associated cardiovascular diseases. To identify novel BP loci, we carried out genome-wide association meta-analyses of systolic, diastolic, pulse, and mean arterial BP taking into account the interaction effects of genetic variants with three psychosocial factors: depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and social support. Analyses were performed using a two-stage design in a sample of up to 128,894 adults from 5 ancestry groups. In the combined meta-analyses of Stages 1 and 2, we identified 59 loci (p value <5e-8), including nine novel BP loci. The novel associations were observed mostly with pulse pressure, with fewer observed with mean arterial pressure. Five novel loci were identified in African ancestry, and all but one showed patterns of interaction with at least one psychosocial factor. Functional annotation of the novel loci supports a major role for genes implicated in the immune response (PLCL2), synaptic function and neurotransmission (LIN7A, PFIA2), as well as genes previously implicated in neuropsychiatric or stress-related disorders (FSTL5, CHODL). These findings underscore the importance of considering psychological and social factors in gene discovery for BP, especially in non-European populations.

A Risk Assessment Tool for Resumption of Research Activities During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

RATIONALE: The spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 has suspended many non-COVID-19 related research activities. Where restarting research activities is permitted, investigators need to evaluate the risks and benefits of resuming data collection and adapt procedures to minimize risk. OBJECTIVES: In the context of the multicountry Household Air Pollution Intervention (HAPIN) trial, we developed a framework to assess the risk of each trial activity and to guide protective measures. Our goal is to maximize integrity of reseach aims while minimizing infection risk based on the latest understanding of the virus. METHODS: We drew on a combination of expert consultations, risk assessment frameworks, institutional guidance and literature to develop our framework. We then systematically graded clinical, behavioral, laboratory and field environmental health research activities in four countries for both adult and child subjects using this framework. RESULTS: Our framework assesses risk based on staff proximity to the participant, exposure time between staff and participants, and potential aerosolization while performing the activity. One of of four risk levels, from minimal to unacceptable, is assigned and guidance on protective measures is provided. Those activities which can potentially aerosolize the virus are deemed the highest risk. CONCLUSIONS: By applying a systematic, procedure-specific approach to risk assessment for each trial activity, we can compare trial activities using the same criteria. This approach allows us to protect our participants and research team and to uphold our ability to deliver on the research commitments we have made to our participants, local communities, and funders. The trial is registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02944682).