Performance of the 2016 ACR-EULAR myositis response criteria in juvenile dermatomyositis therapeutic trials and consensus profiles.

OBJECTIVES: The 2016 ACR-EULAR Response Criteria for JDM was developed as a composite measure with differential weights of six core set measures (CSMs) to calculate a Total Improvement Score (TIS). We assessed the contribution of each CSM, representation of muscle-related and patient-reported CSMs towards improvement, and frequency of CSM worsening across myositis response criteria (MRC) categories in validation of MRC. METHODS: Data from JDM patients in the Rituximab in Myositis trial (n = 48), PRINTO JDM trial (n = 139), and consensus patient profiles (n = 273) were included. Observed vs expected CSM contributions were compared using Sign test. Characteristics of MRC categories were compared by Wilcoxon tests with Bonferroni adjustment. Spearman correlation of changes in TIS and individual CSMs were examined. Agreement between physician-assessed change and MRC categories was evaluated by weighted Cohen's kappa. RESULTS: Of 457 JDM patients with IMACS CSMs and 380 with PRINTO CSMs, 9-13% had minimal, 19-23% had moderate and 41-50% had major improvement. The number of improved and absolute percentage change of CSMs increased by MRC improvement level. Patients with minimal improvement by MRC had a median of 0-1 CSM worsened, and those with moderate/major improvement had a median of zero worsening CSMs. Of patients improved by MRC, 94-95% had improvement in muscle strength and 93-95% had improvement in ≥1 patient-reported CSM. IMACS and PRINTO CSMs performed similarly. Physician-rated change and MRC improvement categories had moderate-to-substantial agreement (Kappa 0.5-0.7). CONCLUSION: The ACR-EULAR MRC perform consistently across multiple studies, supporting its further use as an efficacy end point in JDM trials.

Performance of the 2016 ACR-EULAR Myositis Response Criteria in adult dermatomyositis/polymyositis therapeutic trials and consensus profiles.

OBJECTIVE: The ACR-EULAR Myositis Response Criteria (MRC) were developed as a composite measure using absolute percentage change in six core set measures (CSMs). We aimed to further validate the MRC by assessing the contribution of each CSM, frequency of strength vs extramuscular activity improvement, representation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROM), and frequency of CSM worsening. METHODS: Data from adult dermatomyositis/polymyositis patients in the rituximab (n = 147), etanercept (n = 14), and abatacept (n = 19) trials, and consensus patient profiles (n = 232) were evaluated. The Total Improvement Score (TIS), number of improving vs worsening CSMs, frequency of improvement with and without muscle-related CSMs, and contribution of PROM were evaluated by MRC category. Regression analysis was performed to assess contribution of each CSM to the MRC. RESULTS: Of 412 adults with dermatomyositis/polymyositis, there were 37%, 24%, 25%, and 14% with no, minimal, moderate, and major MRC improvement, respectively. The number of improving CSMs and absolute percentage change in all CSMs increased by improvement category. In minimal-moderate improvement, only physician-reported disease activity contributed significantly more than expected by MRC. Of patients with at least minimal improvement, 95% had improvement in muscle-related measures and a majority (84%) had improvement in PROM. Patients with minimal improvement had worsening in a median of 1 CSM, and most patients with moderate-major improvement had no worsening CSMs. Physician assessment of change generally agreed with MRC improvement categories. CONCLUSION: The ACR-EULAR MRC performs consistently across multiple studies, further supporting its use as an efficacy end point in future myositis therapeutic trials.

2016 ACR-EULAR adult dermatomyositis and polymyositis and juvenile dermatomyositis response criteria-methodological aspects.

Objective: The objective was to describe the methodology used to develop new response criteria for adult DM/PM and JDM. Methods: Patient profiles from prospective natural history data and clinical trials were rated by myositis specialists to develop consensus gold-standard ratings of minimal, moderate and major improvement. Experts completed a survey regarding clinically meaningful improvement in the core set measures (CSM) and a conjoint-analysis survey (using 1000Minds software) to derive relative weights of CSM and candidate definitions. Six types of candidate definitions for response criteria were derived using survey results, logistic regression, conjoint analysis, application of conjoint-analysis weights to CSM and published definitions. Sensitivity, specificity and area under the curve were defined for candidate criteria using consensus patient profile data, and selected definitions were validated using clinical trial data. Results: Myositis specialists defined the degree of clinically meaningful improvement in CSM for minimal, moderate and major improvement. The conjoint-analysis survey established the relative weights of CSM, with muscle strength and Physician Global Activity as most important. Many candidate definitions showed excellent sensitivity, specificity and area under the curve in the consensus profiles. Trial validation showed that a number of candidate criteria differentiated between treatment groups. Top candidate criteria definitions were presented at the consensus conference. Conclusion: Consensus methodology, with definitions tested on patient profiles and validated using clinical trials, led to 18 definitions for adult PM/DM and 14 for JDM as excellent candidates for consideration in the final consensus on new response criteria for myositis.

2016 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism Criteria for Minimal, Moderate, and Major Clinical Response in Juvenile Dermatomyositis: An International Myositis Assessment and Clinical Studies Group/Paediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organisation Collaborative Initiative.

To develop response criteria for juvenile dermatomyositis (DM). We analysed the performance of 312 definitions that used core set measures from either the International Myositis Assessment and Clinical Studies Group (IMACS) or the Paediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organisation (PRINTO) and were derived from natural history data and a conjoint analysis survey. They were further validated using data from the PRINTO trial of prednisone alone compared to prednisone with methotrexate or cyclosporine and the Rituximab in Myositis (RIM) trial. At a consensus conference, experts considered 14 top candidate criteria based on their performance characteristics and clinical face validity, using nominal group technique. Consensus was reached for a conjoint analysis-based continuous model with a total improvement score of 0-100, using absolute per cent change in core set measures of minimal (≥30), moderate (≥45), and major (≥70) improvement. The same criteria were chosen for adult DM/polymyositis, with differing thresholds for improvement. The sensitivity and specificity were 89% and 91-98% for minimal improvement, 92-94% and 94-99% for moderate improvement, and 91-98% and 85-86% for major improvement, respectively, in juvenile DM patient cohorts using the IMACS and PRINTO core set measures. These criteria were validated in the PRINTO trial for differentiating between treatment arms for minimal and moderate improvement (p=0.009-0.057) and in the RIM trial for significantly differentiating the physician's rating for improvement (p<0.006). The response criteria for juvenile DM consisted of a conjoint analysis-based model using a continuous improvement score based on absolute per cent change in core set measures, with thresholds for minimal, moderate, and major improvement.

2016 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism criteria for minimal, moderate, and major clinical response in adult dermatomyositis and polymyositis: An International Myositis Assessment and Clinical Studies Group/Paediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organisation Collaborative Initiative.

To develop response criteria for adult dermatomyositis (DM) and polymyositis (PM). Expert surveys, logistic regression, and conjoint analysis were used to develop 287 definitions using core set measures. Myositis experts rated greater improvement among multiple pairwise scenarios in conjoint analysis surveys, where different levels of improvement in 2 core set measures were presented. The PAPRIKA (Potentially All Pairwise Rankings of All Possible Alternatives) method determined the relative weights of core set measures and conjoint analysis definitions. The performance characteristics of the definitions were evaluated on patient profiles using expert consensus (gold standard) and were validated using data from a clinical trial. The nominal group technique was used to reach consensus. Consensus was reached for a conjoint analysis-based continuous model using absolute per cent change in core set measures (physician, patient, and extramuscular global activity, muscle strength, Health Assessment Questionnaire, and muscle enzyme levels). A total improvement score (range 0-100), determined by summing scores for each core set measure, was based on improvement in and relative weight of each core set measure. Thresholds for minimal, moderate, and major improvement were ≥20, ≥40, and ≥60 points in the total improvement score. The same criteria were chosen for juvenile DM, with different improvement thresholds. Sensitivity and specificity in DM/PM patient cohorts were 85% and 92%, 90% and 96%, and 92% and 98% for minimal, moderate, and major improvement, respectively. Definitions were validated in the clinical trial analysis for differentiating the physician rating of improvement (p<0.001). The response criteria for adult DM/PM consisted of the conjoint analysis model based on absolute per cent change in 6 core set measures, with thresholds for minimal, moderate, and major improvement.

2016 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism Criteria for Minimal, Moderate, and Major Clinical Response in Juvenile Dermatomyositis: An International Myositis Assessment and Clinical Studies Group/Paediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organisation Collaborative Initiative.

OBJECTIVE: To develop response criteria for juvenile dermatomyositis (DM). METHODS: We analyzed the performance of 312 definitions that used core set measures from either the International Myositis Assessment and Clinical Studies Group (IMACS) or the Paediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organisation (PRINTO) and were derived from natural history data and a conjoint analysis survey. They were further validated using data from the PRINTO trial of prednisone alone compared to prednisone with methotrexate or cyclosporine and the Rituximab in Myositis (RIM) trial. At a consensus conference, experts considered 14 top candidate criteria based on their performance characteristics and clinical face validity, using nominal group technique. RESULTS: Consensus was reached for a conjoint analysis-based continuous model with a total improvement score of 0-100, using absolute percent change in core set measures of minimal (≥30), moderate (≥45), and major (≥70) improvement. The same criteria were chosen for adult DM/polymyositis, with differing thresholds for improvement. The sensitivity and specificity were 89% and 91-98% for minimal improvement, 92-94% and 94-99% for moderate improvement, and 91-98% and 85-86% for major improvement, respectively, in juvenile DM patient cohorts using the IMACS and PRINTO core set measures. These criteria were validated in the PRINTO trial for differentiating between treatment arms for minimal and moderate improvement (P = 0.009-0.057) and in the RIM trial for significantly differentiating the physician's rating for improvement (P < 0.006). CONCLUSION: The response criteria for juvenile DM consisted of a conjoint analysis-based model using a continuous improvement score based on absolute percent change in core set measures, with thresholds for minimal, moderate, and major improvement.

2016 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism Criteria for Minimal, Moderate, and Major Clinical Response in Adult Dermatomyositis and Polymyositis: An International Myositis Assessment and Clinical Studies Group/Paediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organisation Collaborative Initiative.

OBJECTIVE: To develop response criteria for adult dermatomyositis (DM) and polymyositis (PM). METHODS: Expert surveys, logistic regression, and conjoint analysis were used to develop 287 definitions using core set measures. Myositis experts rated greater improvement among multiple pairwise scenarios in conjoint analysis surveys, where different levels of improvement in 2 core set measures were presented. The PAPRIKA (Potentially All Pairwise Rankings of All Possible Alternatives) method determined the relative weights of core set measures and conjoint analysis definitions. The performance characteristics of the definitions were evaluated on patient profiles using expert consensus (gold standard) and were validated using data from a clinical trial. The nominal group technique was used to reach consensus. RESULTS: Consensus was reached for a conjoint analysis-based continuous model using absolute percent change in core set measures (physician, patient, and extramuscular global activity, muscle strength, Health Assessment Questionnaire, and muscle enzyme levels). A total improvement score (range 0-100), determined by summing scores for each core set measure, was based on improvement in and relative weight of each core set measure. Thresholds for minimal, moderate, and major improvement were ≥20, ≥40, and ≥60 points in the total improvement score. The same criteria were chosen for juvenile DM, with different improvement thresholds. Sensitivity and specificity in DM/PM patient cohorts were 85% and 92%, 90% and 96%, and 92% and 98% for minimal, moderate, and major improvement, respectively. Definitions were validated in the clinical trial analysis for differentiating the physician rating of improvement (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The response criteria for adult DM/PM consisted of the conjoint analysis model based on absolute percent change in 6 core set measures, with thresholds for minimal, moderate, and major improvement.

Self-reported recall and daily diary-recorded measures of weight monitoring adherence: associations with heart failure-related hospitalization.

BACKGROUND: Weight monitoring is an important element of HF self-care, yet the most clinically meaningful way to evaluate weight monitoring adherence is uncertain. We conducted this study to evaluate the association of (1) self-reported recall and (2) daily diary-recorded weight monitoring adherence with heart failure-related (HF-related) hospitalization. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study among 216 patients within a randomized trial of HF self-care training. All patients had an initial self-care training session followed by 15 calls (median) to reinforce educational material; patients were also given digital scales, instructed to weigh daily, record weights in a diary, and mail diaries back monthly. Weight monitoring adherence was assessed with a self-reported recall question administered at 12 months and dichotomized into at least daily versus less frequent weighing. Diary-recorded weight monitoring was evaluated over 12 months and dichotomized into ≥80% and <80% adherence. HF-related hospitalizations were ascertained through patient report and confirmed through record review. RESULTS: Over 12 months in 216 patients, we identified 50 HF-related hospitalizations. Patients self-reporting daily or more frequent weight monitoring had an incidence rate ratio of 1.34 (95% CI 0.24-7.32) for HF-related hospitalizations compared to those reporting less frequent weight monitoring. Patients who completed ≥80% of weight diaries had an IRR of 0.37 (95% CI 0.18-0.75) for HF-related hospitalizations compared to patients who completed <80% of weight diaries. CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported recall of weight monitoring adherence was not associated with fewer HF hospitalizations. In contrast, diary-recorded adherence ≥80% of days was associated with fewer HF-related hospitalizations. Incorporating diary-based measures of weight monitoring adherence into HF self-care training programs may help to identify patients at risk for HF-related hospitalizations.

A single-item self-report medication adherence question predicts hospitalisation and death in patients with heart failure.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To determine whether a single-item self-report medication adherence question predicts hospitalisation and death in patients with heart failure. BACKGROUND: Poor medication adherence is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Having a simple means of identifying suboptimal medication adherence could help identify at-risk patients for interventions. DESIGN: We performed a prospective cohort study in 592 participants with heart failure within a four-site randomised trial. METHODS: Self-report medication adherence was assessed at baseline using a single-item question: 'Over the past seven days, how many times did you miss a dose of any of your heart medication?' Participants who reported no missing doses were defined as fully adherent, and those missing more than one dose were considered less than fully adherent. The primary outcome was combined all-cause hospitalisation or death over one year and the secondary endpoint was heart failure hospitalisation. Outcomes were assessed with blinded chart reviews, and heart failure outcomes were determined by a blinded adjudication committee. We used negative binomial regression to examine the relationship between medication adherence and outcomes. RESULTS: Fifty-two percent of participants were 52% male, mean age was 61 years, and 31% were of New York Heart Association class III/IV at enrolment; 72% of participants reported full adherence to their heart medicine at baseline. Participants with full medication adherence had a lower rate of all-cause hospitalisation and death (0·71 events/year) compared with those with any nonadherence (0·86 events/year): adjusted-for-site incidence rate ratio was 0·83, fully adjusted incidence rate ratio 0·68. Incidence rate ratios were similar for heart failure hospitalisations. CONCLUSION: A single medication adherence question at baseline predicts hospitalisation and death over one year in heart failure patients. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Medication adherence is associated with all-cause and heart failure-related hospitalisation and death in heart failure. It is important for clinicians to assess patients' medication adherence on a regular basis at their clinical follow-ups.

Reach, usage, and effectiveness of a Medicaid patient navigator intervention to increase colorectal cancer screening, Cape Fear, North Carolina, 2011.

INTRODUCTION: Screening for colorectal cancer can reduce incidence and death, but screening is underused, especially among vulnerable groups such as Medicaid patients. Effective interventions are needed to increase screening frequency. Our study consisted of a controlled trial of an intervention designed to improve colorectal cancer screening among Medicaid patients in North Carolina. METHODS: The intervention included a mailed screening reminder letter and decision aid followed by telephone support from an offsite, Medicaid-based, patient navigator. The study included 12 clinical practices, 6 as intervention practices and 6 as matched controls. Eligible patients were aged 50 years or older, covered by Medicaid, and identified from Medicaid claims data as not current with colorectal cancer screening recommendations. We reviewed Medicaid claims data at 6 months and conducted multivariate logistic regression to compare participant screening in intervention practices with participants in control practices. We controlled for sociodemographic characteristics. RESULTS: Most of the sample was black (53.1%) and female (57.2%); the average age was 56.5 years. On the basis of Medicaid claims, 9.2% of intervention participants (n = 22/240) had had a colorectal cancer screening at the 6-month review, compared with 7.5% of control patients (n = 13/174). The adjusted odds ratio when controlling for age, comorbidities, race, sex, and continuous Medicaid eligibility was 1.44 (95% confidence interval, 0.68-3.06). The patient navigator reached 44 participants (27.6%). CONCLUSION: The intervention had limited reach and little effect after 6 months on the number of participants screened. Higher-intensity interventions, such as use of practice-based navigators, may be needed to reach and improve screening rates in vulnerable populations.

Low literacy is associated with increased risk of hospitalization and death among individuals with heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Low literacy increases the risk for many adverse health outcomes, but the relationship between literacy and adverse outcomes in heart failure (HF) has not been well studied. METHODS: We studied a cohort of ambulatory patients with symptomatic HF (NYHA Class II-IV within the past 6 months) who were enrolled in a randomized controlled trial of self-care training recruited from internal medicine and cardiology clinics at four academic medical centers in the US. The primary outcome was combined all-cause hospitalization or death, with a secondary outcome of hospitalization for HF. Outcomes were assessed through blinded interviews and subsequent chart reviews, with adjudication of cause by a panel of masked assessors. Literacy was measured using the short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults. We used negative binomial regression to examine whether the incidence of the primary and secondary outcomes differed according to literacy. RESULTS: Of the 595 study participants, 37 % had low literacy. Mean age was 61, 31 % were NYHA class III/IV at baseline, 16 % were Latino, and 38 % were African-American. Those with low literacy were older, had a higher NYHA class, and were more likely to be Latino (all p < 0.001). Adjusting for site only, participants with low literacy had an incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 1.39 (95 % CI: 0.99, 1.94) for all-cause hospitalization or death and 1.36 (1.11, 1.66) for HF-related hospitalization. After adjusting for demographic, clinical, and self-management factors, the IRRs were 1.31 (1.06, 1.63) for all-cause hospitalization and death and 1.46 (1.20, 1.78) for HF-related hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Low literacy increased the risk of hospitalization for ambulatory patients with heart failure. Interventions designed to mitigate literacy-related disparities in outcomes are warranted.

Is adherence to weight monitoring or weight-based diuretic self-adjustment associated with fewer heart failure-related emergency department visits or hospitalizations?

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) self-care interventions can improve outcomes, but less than optimal adherence may limit their effectiveness. We evaluated if adherence to weight monitoring and diuretic self-adjustment was associated with HF-related emergency department (ED) visits or hospitalizations. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a case-control analysis nested in a HF self-care randomized trial. Participants received HF self-care training, including weight monitoring and diuretic self-adjustment, which they were to record in a diary. We defined case time periods as HF-related ED visits or hospitalizations in the 7 preceding days; control time periods were defined as 7-day periods free of ED visits and hospitalizations. We used logistic regression to compare weight monitoring and diuretic self-adjustment adherence in case and control time periods, adjusted for demographic and clinical covariates. Among 303 participants, we identified 81 HF-related ED visits or hospitalizations (cases) in 54 patients over 1 year of follow-up. Weight monitoring adherence (odds ratio [OR] 0.42, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.23-0.76) and diuretic self-adjustment adherence (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.19-0.98) were both associated with lower adjusted odds of HF-related ED visits or hospitalizations. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to weight monitoring and diuretic self-adjustment was associated with lower odds of HF-related ED visits or hospitalizations. Adherence to these activities may reduce HF-related morbidity.

Multisite randomized trial of a single-session versus multisession literacy-sensitive self-care intervention for patients with heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Self-care training can reduce hospitalization for heart failure (HF), and more intensive intervention may benefit more vulnerable patients, including those with low literacy. METHODS AND RESULTS: A 1-year, multisite, randomized, controlled comparative effectiveness trial with 605 patients with HF was conducted. Those randomized to a single session received a 40-minute in-person, literacy-sensitive training; the multisession group received the same initial training and then ongoing telephone-based support. The primary outcome was combined incidence of all-cause hospitalization or death; secondary outcomes included HF-related hospitalization and HF-related quality of life, with prespecified stratification by literacy. Overall, the incidence of all-cause hospitalization and death did not differ between intervention groups (incidence rate ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-1.22). The effect of multisession training compared with single-session training differed by literacy group: Among those with low literacy, the multisession training yielded a lower incidence of all-cause hospitalization and death (incidence rate ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.45-1.25), and among those with higher literacy, the multisession intervention yielded a higher incidence (incidence rate ratio, 1.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.99-1.50; interaction P=0.048). For HF-related hospitalization, among those with low literacy, multisession training yielded a lower incidence (incidence rate ratio, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-1.12), and among those with higher literacy, it yielded a higher incidence (incidence rate ratio, 1.32; 95% confidence interval, 0.92-1.88; interaction P=0.005). HF-related quality of life improved more for patients receiving multisession than for those receiving single-session interventions at 1 and 6 months, but the difference at 12 months was smaller. Effects on HF-related quality of life did not differ by literacy. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, an intensive multisession intervention did not change clinical outcomes compared with a single-session intervention. People with low literacy appear to benefit more from multisession interventions than people with higher literacy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00378950.

The effect of progressive, reinforcing telephone education and counseling versus brief educational intervention on knowledge, self-care behaviors and heart failure symptoms.

BACKGROUND: The optimal strategy for promoting self-care for heart failure (HF) is unclear. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a randomized trial to determine whether a "teach to goal" (TTG) educational and behavioral support program provided incremental benefits to a brief (1 hour) educational intervention (BEI) for knowledge, self-care behaviors, and HF-related quality of life (HFQOL). The TTG program taught use of adjusted-dose diuretics and then reinforced learning goals and behaviors with 5 to 8 telephone counseling sessions over 1 month. Participants' (n = 605) mean age was 61 years; 37% had marginal or inadequate literacy; 69% had ejection fraction <0.45; and 31% had Class III or IV symptoms. The TTG group had greater improvements in general and salt knowledge (P < .001) and greater increases in self-care behaviors (from mean 4.8 to 7.6 for TTG vs. 5.2 to 6.7 for BEI; P < .001). HFQOL improved from 58.5 to 64.6 for the TTG group but did not change for the BEI group (64.7 to 63.9; P < .001 for the difference in change scores). Improvements were similar regardless of participants' literacy level. CONCLUSIONS: Telephone reinforcement of learning goals and self-care behaviors improved knowledge, health behaviors, and HF-related QOL compared to a single education session.

Relationship between literacy, knowledge, self-care behaviors, and heart failure-related quality of life among patients with heart failure.

BACKGROUND: We sought to examine the relationship between literacy and heart failure-related quality of life (HFQOL), and to explore whether literacy-related differences in knowledge, self-efficacy and/or self-care behavior explained the relationship. METHODS: We recruited patients with symptomatic heart failure (HF) from four academic medical centers. Patients completed the short version of the Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (TOFHLA) and questions on HF-related knowledge, HF-related self-efficacy, and self-care behaviors. We assessed HFQOL with the Heart Failure Symptom Scale (HFSS) (range 0-100), with higher scores denoting better quality of life. We used bivariate (t-tests and chi-square) and multivariate linear regression analyses to estimate the associations between literacy and HF knowledge, self-efficacy, self-care behaviors, and HFQOL, controlling for demographic characteristics. Structural equation modeling was conducted to assess whether general HF knowledge, salt knowledge, self-care behaviors, and self-efficacy mediated the relationship between literacy and HFQOL. RESULTS: We enrolled 605 patients with mean age of 60.7 years; 52% were male; 38% were African-American and 16% Latino; 26% had less than a high school education; and 67% had annual incomes under $25,000. Overall, 37% had low literacy (marginal or inadequate on TOFHLA). Patients with adequate literacy had higher general HF knowledge than those with low literacy (mean 6.6 vs. 5.5, adjusted difference 0.63, p < 0.01), higher self-efficacy (5.0 vs. 4.1, adjusted difference 0.99, p < 0.01), and higher prevalence of key self-care behaviors (p < 0.001). Those with adequate literacy had better HFQOL scores compared to those with low literacy (63.9 vs. 55.4, adjusted difference 7.20, p < 0.01), but differences in knowledge, self-efficacy, and self-care did not mediate this difference in HFQOL. CONCLUSION: Low literacy was associated with worse HFQOL and lower HF-related knowledge, self-efficacy, and self-care behaviors, but differences in knowledge, self-efficacy and self-care did not explain the relationship between low literacy and worse HFQOL.