Results of a Remotely Delivered Hypertension and Lipid Program in More Than 10 000 Patients Across a Diverse Health Care Network.

Importance: Blood pressure (BP) and cholesterol control remain challenging. Remote care can deliver more effective care outside of traditional clinician-patient settings but scaling and ensuring access to care among diverse populations remains elusive. Objective: To implement and evaluate a remote hypertension and cholesterol management program across a diverse health care network. Design, Setting, and Participants: Between January 2018 and July 2021, 20 454 patients in a large integrated health network were screened; 18 444 were approached, and 10 803 were enrolled in a comprehensive remote hypertension and cholesterol program (3658 patients with hypertension, 8103 patients with cholesterol, and 958 patients with both). A total of 1266 patients requested education only without medication titration. Enrolled patients received education, home BP device integration, and medication titration. Nonlicensed navigators and pharmacists, supported by cardiovascular clinicians, coordinated care using standardized algorithms, task management and automation software, and omnichannel communication. BP and laboratory test results were actively monitored. Main Outcomes and Measures: Changes in BP and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). Results: The mean (SD) age among 10 803 patients was 65 (11.4) years; 6009 participants (56%) were female; 1321 (12%) identified as Black, 1190 (11%) as Hispanic, 7758 (72%) as White, and 1727 (16%) as another or multiple races (including American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, unknown, other, and declined to respond; consolidated owing to small numbers); and 142 (11%) reported a preferred language other than English. A total of 424 482 BP readings and 139 263 laboratory reports were collected. In the hypertension program, the mean (SD) office BP prior to enrollment was 150/83 (18/10) mm Hg, and the mean (SD) home BP was 145/83 (20/12) mm Hg. For those engaged in remote medication management, the mean (SD) clinic BP 6 and 12 months after enrollment decreased by 8.7/3.8 (21.4/12.4) and 9.7/5.2 (22.2/12.6) mm Hg, respectively. In the education-only cohort, BP changed by a mean (SD) -1.5/-0.7 (23.0/11.1) and by +0.2/-1.9 (30.3/11.2) mm Hg, respectively (P < .001 for between cohort difference). In the lipids program, patients in remote medication management experienced a reduction in LDL-C by a mean (SD) 35.4 (43.1) and 37.5 (43.9) mg/dL at 6 and 12 months, respectively, while the education-only cohort experienced a mean (SD) reduction in LDL-C of 9.3 (34.3) and 10.2 (35.5) mg/dL at 6 and 12 months, respectively (P < .001). Similar rates of enrollment and reductions in BP and lipids were observed across different racial, ethnic, and primary language groups. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this study indicate that a standardized remote BP and cholesterol management program may help optimize guideline-directed therapy at scale, reduce cardiovascular risk, and minimize the need for in-person visits among diverse populations.

An objective framework for evaluating unrecognized bias in medical AI models predicting COVID-19 outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: The increasing translation of artificial intelligence (AI)/machine learning (ML) models into clinical practice brings an increased risk of direct harm from modeling bias; however, bias remains incompletely measured in many medical AI applications. This article aims to provide a framework for objective evaluation of medical AI from multiple aspects, focusing on binary classification models. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using data from over 56 000 Mass General Brigham (MGB) patients with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), we evaluate unrecognized bias in 4 AI models developed during the early months of the pandemic in Boston, Massachusetts that predict risks of hospital admission, ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, and death after a SARS-CoV-2 infection purely based on their pre-infection longitudinal medical records. Models were evaluated both retrospectively and prospectively using model-level metrics of discrimination, accuracy, and reliability, and a novel individual-level metric for error. RESULTS: We found inconsistent instances of model-level bias in the prediction models. From an individual-level aspect, however, we found most all models performing with slightly higher error rates for older patients. DISCUSSION: While a model can be biased against certain protected groups (ie, perform worse) in certain tasks, it can be at the same time biased towards another protected group (ie, perform better). As such, current bias evaluation studies may lack a full depiction of the variable effects of a model on its subpopulations. CONCLUSION: Only a holistic evaluation, a diligent search for unrecognized bias, can provide enough information for an unbiased judgment of AI bias that can invigorate follow-up investigations on identifying the underlying roots of bias and ultimately make a change.