A large, multi-center survey assessing health, social support, literacy, and self-management resources in patients with heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with heart failure (HF) have multimorbidity which may cause difficulties with self-management. Understanding the resources patients draw upon to effectively manage their health is fundamental to designing new practice models to improve outcomes in HF. We describe the rationale, conceptual framework, and implementation of a multi-center survey of HF patients, characterize differences between responders and non-responders, and summarize patient characteristics and responses to the survey constructs among responders. METHODS: This was a multi-center cross-sectional survey study with linked electronic health record (EHR) data. Our survey was guided by the Chronic Care Model to understand the distribution of patient-centric factors, including health literacy, social support, self-management, and functional and mental status in patients with HF. Most questions were from existing validated questionnaires. The survey was administered to HF patients aged ≥ 30 years from 4 health systems in PCORnet® (the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network): Essentia Health, Intermountain Health, Mayo Clinic, and The Ohio State University. Each health system mapped their EHR data to a standardized PCORnet Common Data Model, which was used to extract demographic and clinical data on survey responders and non-responders. RESULTS: Across the 4 sites, 10,662 patients with HF were invited to participate, and 3330 completed the survey (response rate: 31%). Responders were older (74 vs. 71 years; standardized difference (95% CI): 0.18 (0.13, 0.22)), less racially diverse (3% vs. 12% non-White; standardized difference (95% CI): -0.32 (-0.36, -0.28)), and had higher prevalence of many chronic conditions than non-responders, and thus may not be representative of all HF patients. The internal reliability of the validated questionnaires in our survey was good (range of Cronbach's alpha: 0.50-0.96). Responders reported their health was generally good or fair, they frequently had cardiovascular comorbidities, > 50% had difficulty climbing stairs, and > 10% reported difficulties with bathing, preparing meals, and using transportation. Nearly 80% of patients had family or friends sit with them during a doctor visit, and 54% managed their health by themselves. Patients reported generally low perceived support for self-management related to exercise and diet. CONCLUSIONS: More than half of patients with HF managed their health by themselves. Increased understanding of self-management resources may guide the development of interventions to improve HF outcomes.

The impact of multimorbidity and functional limitation on quality of life in patients with heart failure: A multi-site study.

BACKGROUND: Multimorbidity and functional limitation are associated with poor outcomes in heart failure (HF). However, the individual and combined effect of these on health-related quality of life in patients with HF is not well understood. METHODS: Patients aged ≥30 years with two or more HF diagnostic codes and one or more HF-related prescription drugs from four U.S. institutions were mailed a survey to measure patient-centric factors including functional status (activities of daily living [ADLs]) and health-related quality of life (PROMIS-29 Health Profile). Patients with HF from January 1, 2013 to February 1, 2018 were included. Multimorbidity was defined as ≥2 non-cardiovascular comorbidities; functional limitation as any limitation in at least one of eight ADLs. Patients were categorized into four groups by multimorbidity (Yes/No) and functional limitation (Yes/No). We dichotomized the PROMIS-29 sub-scale scores at the median and calculated odd ratios for the four multimorbidity/functional limitation groups. RESULTS: A total of 3330 patients with HF returned the survey (response rate 31%); 3020 completed the questions of interest and were retained. Among these patients (45% female; mean age 73 [standard deviation: 12] years), 29% had neither multimorbidity nor functional limitation, 24% had multimorbidity only, 22% had functional limitation only, and 25% had both. After adjustment, having functional limitation only was associated with higher anxiety (odds ratio [OR]: 3.44, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.66-4.45), depression (OR: 3.11, 95% CI: 2.39-4.06), and fatigue (OR: 4.19, 95% CI: 3.25-5.40); worse sleep (OR: 2.14, 95% CI: 1.69-2.72) and pain (OR: 6.73, 95% CI: 5.15-8.78); and greater difficulty with social activities (OR: 9.40, 95% CI: 7.19-12.28) compared with having neither. Results were similar for having both multimorbidity and functional limitation. CONCLUSION: Patients with only functional limitation have similar poor health-related quality of life scores as those with both multimorbidity and functional limitation, underscoring the important role that physical functioning plays in the well-being of patients with HF.

Age and Aspirin Dosing in Secondary Prevention of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: In patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, increasing age is concurrently associated with higher risks of ischemic and bleeding events. The objectives are to determine the impact of aspirin dose on clinical outcomes according to age in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the ADAPTABLE (Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-Centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-Term Effectiveness) trial, patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease were randomized to daily aspirin doses of 81 mg or 325 mg. The primary effectiveness end point was death from any cause, hospitalization for myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for stroke. The primary safety end point was hospitalization for bleeding requiring transfusion. A total of 15 076 participants were randomized to aspirin 81 mg (n=7540) or 325 mg (n=7536) daily (median follow-up: 26.2 months; interquartile range: 19.0-34.9 months). Median age was 67.6 years (interquartile range: 60.7-73.6 years). Among participants aged <65 years (n=5841 [38.7%]), a primary end point occurred in 226 (7.54%) in the 81 mg group, and in 191 (6.80%) in the 325 mg group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.23 [95% CI, 1.01-1.49]). Among participants aged ≥65 years (n=9235 [61.3%]), a primary end point occurred in 364 (7.12%) in the 81 mg group, and in 378 (7.96%) in the 325 mg group (adjusted HR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.82-1.10]). The age-dose interaction was not significant (P=0.559). There was no significant interaction between age and the randomized aspirin dose for the secondary effectiveness and the primary safety bleeding end points (P>0.05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: Age does not modify the impact of aspirin dosing (81 mg or 325 mg daily) on clinical end points in secondary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

Angiographic characteristics of patients with STEMI and COVID-19: Insights from NACMI registry.

BACKGROUND: To date, there has been no independent core lab angiographic analysis of patients with COVID-19 and STEMI. The study characterized the angiographic parameters of patients with COVID-19 and STEMI. METHODS: Angiograms of patients with COVID-19 and STEMI from the North American COVID-19 Myocardial Infarction (NACMI) Registry were sent to a Core Laboratory in Vancouver, Canada. Culprit lesion(s), Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) flow, Thrombus Grade Burden (TGB), and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) outcome were assessed. RESULTS: From 234 patients, 74% had one culprit lesion, 14% had multiple culprits and 12% had no culprit identified. Multivessel thrombotic disease and multivessel CAD were found in 27% and 53% of patients, respectively. Stent thrombosis accounted for 12% of the presentations and occurred in 55% of patients with previous coronary stents. Of the 182 who underwent PCI, 60 (33%) had unsuccessful PCI due to post-PCI TIMI flow <3 (43/60), residual high thrombus burden (41/60) and/or thrombus related complications (27/60). In-hospital mortality for successful, partially successful, and unsuccessful PCI was 14%, 13%, and 27%, respectively. Unsuccessful PCI was associated with increased risk of in-hospital mortality (risk ratio [RR] 1.96; 95% CI: 1.05-3.66, P = .03); in the adjusted model this estimate was attenuated (RR: 1.24; 95% CI: 0.65-2.34, P = .51). CONCLUSION: In patients with COVID-19 and STEMI, thrombus burden was pervasive with notable rates of multivessel thrombotic disease and stent thrombosis. Post-PCI, persistent thrombus and sub-optimal TIMI 3 flow rates led to one-third of the PCI's being unsuccessful, which decreased over time but remained an important predictor of in-hospital mortality.

Comparative Effectiveness of Aspirin Dosing in Cardiovascular Disease and Diabetes Mellitus: A Subgroup Analysis of the ADAPTABLE Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and concomitant atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) must be on the most effective dose of aspirin to mitigate risk of future adverse cardiovascular events. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: ADAPTABLE, an open-label, pragmatic study, randomized patients with stable, chronic ASCVD to 81 mg or 325 mg of daily aspirin. The effects of aspirin dosing was assessed on the primary effectiveness outcome, a composite of all-cause death, hospitalization for myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for stroke, and the primary safety outcome of hospitalization for major bleeding. In this prespecified analysis, we used Cox proportional hazards models to compare aspirin dosing in patients with and without DM for the primary effectiveness and safety outcome. RESULTS: Of 15,076 patients, 5,676 (39%) had DM of whom 2,820 (49.7%) were assigned to 81 mg aspirin and 2,856 (50.3%) to 325 mg aspirin. Patients with versus without DM had higher rates of the composite cardiovascular outcome (9.6% vs. 5.9%; P < 0.001) and bleeding events (0.78% vs. 0.50%; P < 0.001). When comparing 81 mg vs. 325 mg of aspirin, patients with DM had no difference in the primary effectiveness outcome (9.3% vs. 10.0%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.98 [95% CI 0.83-1.16]; P = 0.265) or safety outcome (0.87% vs. 0.69%; subdistribution HR 1.25 [95% CI 0.72-2.16]; P = 0.772). CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the inherently higher risk of patients with DM irrespective of aspirin dosing. Our findings suggest that a higher dose of aspirin yields no added clinical benefit, even in a more vulnerable population.

The Impact of Stimulant Medications on Blood Pressure and Body Mass Index in Children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.

OBJECTIVE: To describe changes in blood pressure (BP) and body mass index (BMI) associated with stimulant medication fills in children. METHODS: Observational, retrospective matched cohort study of children 6-17.9 years initiating stimulant medication between 7/1/2010-6/30/2017 matched 1:3 by age, race, ethnicity, and sex to children with no stimulant use during this period. All BPs and BMIs recorded during ambulatory visits were identified. Generalized linear models were used to estimate differences in change in systolic BP (SBP), diastolic BP (DBP), and BMI over time. RESULTS: The 686 children with stimulant prescription fills and 2048 matched controls did not differ by baseline SBP or BMI. The matched control group (30.5% female, mean age 11.2 ± 3.4 years 79.7% white) was more likely to be publicly insured (35% vs. 21%, P < .01). After adjusting for baseline values, over a mean follow-up of 144 days change in SBP or DBP did not differ significantly between patients with stimulant medication fills and matched controls. Stimulant use was associated with a 4.7 percentile decrease in BMI percentile compared to matched controls (95% CI: 3.69, 5.71; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: In a pediatric primary care cohort, stimulant prescription fills were associated with marked decreases in BMI but no significant changes in BP over time.

Aspirin Dosing for Secondary Prevention of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease in Patients Treated With P2Y12 Inhibitors.

Background The ADAPTABLE (Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-Centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-Term Effectiveness) was a large, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial that found no difference between high- versus low-dose aspirin for secondary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Whether concomitant P2Y12 inhibitor therapy modifies the effect of aspirin dose on clinical events remains unclear. Methods and Results Participants in ADAPTABLE were stratified according to baseline use of clopidogrel or prasugrel (P2Y12 group). The primary effectiveness end point was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; and the primary safety end point was major bleeding requiring blood transfusions. We used multivariable Cox regression to compare the relative effectiveness and safety of aspirin dose within P2Y12 and non-P2Y12 groups. Of 13 815 (91.6%) participants with available data, 3051 (22.1%) were receiving clopidogrel (2849 [93.4%]) or prasugrel (203 [6.7%]) at baseline. P2Y12 inhibitor use was associated with higher risk of the primary effectiveness end point (10.86% versus 6.31%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.40 [95% CI, 1.22-1.62]) but was not associated with bleeding (0.95% versus 0.53%; adjusted HR, 1.42 [95% CI, 0.91-2.22]). We found no interaction in the relative effectiveness and safety of high- versus low-dose aspirin by P2Y12 inhibitor use. Overall, dose switching or discontinuation was more common in the high-dose compared with low-dose aspirin group, but the pattern was not modified by P2Y12 inhibitor use. Conclusions In this prespecified analysis of ADAPTABLE, we found that the relative effectiveness and safety of high- versus low-dose aspirin was not modified by baseline P2Y12 inhibitor use. Registration https://www.clinical.trials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02697916.

Effectiveness and Safety of Enteric-Coated vs Uncoated Aspirin in Patients With Cardiovascular Disease: A Secondary Analysis of the ADAPTABLE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Clinicians recommend enteric-coated aspirin to decrease gastrointestinal bleeding in secondary prevention of coronary artery disease even though studies suggest platelet inhibition is decreased with enteric-coated vs uncoated aspirin formulations. Objective: To assess whether receipt of enteric-coated vs uncoated aspirin is associated with effectiveness or safety outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a post hoc secondary analysis of ADAPTABLE (Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-Centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-term Effectiveness), a pragmatic study of 15 076 patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease having data in the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network. Patients were enrolled from April 19, 2016, through June 30, 2020, and randomly assigned to receive high (325 mg) vs low (81 mg) doses of daily aspirin. The present analysis assessed the effectiveness and safety of enteric-coated vs uncoated aspirin among those participants who reported aspirin formulation at baseline. Data were analyzed from November 11, 2019, to July 3, 2023. Intervention: ADAPTABLE participants were regrouped according to aspirin formulation self-reported at baseline, with a median (IQR) follow-up of 26.2 (19.8-35.4) months. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary effectiveness end point was the cumulative incidence of the composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from any cause, and the primary safety end point was major bleeding events (hospitalization for a bleeding event with use of a blood product or intracranial hemorrhage). Cumulative incidence at median follow-up for primary effectiveness and primary safety end points was compared between participants taking enteric-coated or uncoated aspirin using unadjusted and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. All analyses were conducted for the intention-to-treat population. Results: Baseline aspirin formulation used in ADAPTABLE was self-reported for 10 678 participants (median [IQR] age, 68.0 [61.3-73.7] years; 7285 men [68.2%]), of whom 7366 (69.0%) took enteric-coated aspirin and 3312 (31.0%) took uncoated aspirin. No significant difference in effectiveness (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 0.94; 95% CI, 0.80-1.09; P = .40) or safety (AHR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.49-1.37; P = .46) outcomes between the enteric-coated aspirin and uncoated aspirin cohorts was found. Within enteric-coated aspirin and uncoated aspirin, aspirin dose had no association with effectiveness (enteric-coated aspirin AHR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.88-1.45 and uncoated aspirin AHR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.83-1.18; interaction P = .41) or safety (enteric-coated aspirin AHR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.02-5.50 and uncoated aspirin AHR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.49-1.64; interaction P = .07). Conclusions and Relevance: In this post hoc secondary analysis of the ADAPTABLE randomized clinical trial, enteric-coated aspirin was not associated with significantly higher risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death or with lower bleeding risk compared with uncoated aspirin, regardless of dose, although a reduction in bleeding with enteric-coated aspirin cannot be excluded. More research is needed to confirm whether enteric-coated aspirin formulations or newer formulations will improve outcomes in this population. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02697916.

Estimating mortality and disability in Peru before the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic analysis from the Global Burden of the Disease Study 2019.

Background: Estimating and analyzing trends and patterns of health loss are essential to promote efficient resource allocation and improve Peru's healthcare system performance. Methods: Using estimates from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD), Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (2019), we assessed mortality and disability in Peru from 1990 to 2019. We report demographic and epidemiologic trends in terms of population, life expectancy at birth (LE), mortality, incidence, prevalence, years of life lost (YLLs), years lived with disability (YLDs), and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) caused by the major diseases and risk factors in Peru. Finally, we compared Peru with 16 countries in the Latin American (LA) region. Results: The Peruvian population reached 33.9 million inhabitants (49.9% women) in 2019. From 1990 to 2019, LE at birth increased from 69.2 (95% uncertainty interval 67.8-70.3) to 80.3 (77.2-83.2) years. This increase was driven by the decline in under-5 mortality (-80.7%) and mortality from infectious diseases in older age groups (+60 years old). The number of DALYs in 1990 was 9.2 million (8.5-10.1) and reached 7.5 million (6.1-9.0) in 2019. The proportion of DALYs due to non-communicable diseases (NCDs) increased from 38.2% in 1990 to 67.9% in 2019. The all-ages and age-standardized DALYs rates and YLLs rates decreased, but YLDs rates remained constant. In 2019, the leading causes of DALYs were neonatal disorders, lower respiratory infections (LRIs), ischemic heart disease, road injuries, and low back pain. The leading risk factors associated with DALYs in 2019 were undernutrition, high body mass index, high fasting plasma glucose, and air pollution. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, Peru experienced one of the highest LRIs-DALYs rates in the LA region. Conclusion: In the last three decades, Peru experienced significant improvements in LE and child survival and an increase in the burden of NCDs and associated disability. The Peruvian healthcare system must be redesigned to respond to this epidemiological transition. The new design should aim to reduce premature deaths and maintain healthy longevity, focusing on effective coverage and treatment of NCDs and reducing and managing the related disability.

Outcomes of same-day discharge following percutaneous coronary intervention in a rural population.

BACKGROUND: Same-day discharge (SDD) following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is safe, yet the nationwide rate of SDD remains low. The impact that residing in a rural area has on the safety of SDD is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the safety of SDD compared to next-day discharge (NDD) among PCI patients living in a largely rural area. METHODS: There were 3502 outpatient elective PCIs at a tertiary care center between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2017. Data from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry® and the electronic medical records were obtained for patient demographics, procedural characteristics, and procedural outcomes. Data from the initial PCI in each 365-day period were included in the analysis for each patient. Rural-Urban Commuting Area codes 4-10 were used to define rural status. RESULTS: A total of 2099 (59.9%) PCIs met the inclusion criteria (63% rural). The overall rate of SDD increased over time (4.7% in 2011 to 39.6% in 2017) as radial access increased (14.2% in 2011 to 59.9% in 2017). In this population, a total of 329 PCIs had SDD (15.7%; median (interquartile range) age 66.0 (14.0) years, 20.1% female, 52.3% rural status). Compared to NDD, SDD patients had less hyperlipidemia, atrial fibrillation, congestive heart failure, history of coronary artery bypass graft, and more radial access. SDD was noninferior to NDD for 30-day readmission but had a decreased 1-year (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.20, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.05-0.81, p = 0.024) and 5-year (aOR: 0.43, 95% CI: 0.28-0.66, p < 0.001) all-cause mortality compared to NDD. Rural status did not predict outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: SDD in patients in rural areas does not have a significantly higher rate of 30-day readmission. SDD patients had lower odds of 1- and 5-year mortality when compared to NDD. Future studies prospectively evaluating the safety of SDD in this population are warranted.

Adapting a clinical decision support system to improve identification of pediatric hypertension in a rural health system: Design of a pragmatic trial.

BACKGROUND: Identifying hypertension (HTN) early is crucial in preventing and lowering the long-term risk of heart disease, yet HTN in children often goes undiagnosed. An electronic health record linked, web-based clinical decision support (CDS) called PedsBP can help address this care gap and has been previously shown to increase recognition of HTN by primary care clinicians. OBJECTIVES: To adapt the PedsBP tool for use in a mostly rural health system and then to evaluate the effectiveness of PedsBP for repeat of hypertensive level blood pressure (BP) measurements and HTN recognition among youth 6-17 years of age in primary care settings, comparing low-intensity and high-intensity implementation approaches. METHODS AND DESIGN: PedsBP was evaluated through a pragmatic, clinic-randomized trial. The tool was piloted in 2 primary care clinics and modified prior to the full trial. Forty community-based, primary care clinics (or clusters of clinics) were randomly allocated in a 1:1:1 ratio to usual care, low-intensity implementation (CDS only), or high-intensity implementation (CDS plus in-person training, monthly use reports, and ongoing communication between study staff and clinics). Accrual of eligible patients started on August 1, 2022 and will continue for 18 months. Primary outcomes include repeating hypertensive level BP measurements at office visits and clinical recognition of HTN. Secondary outcomes include lifestyle counseling, dietician referral, and BP at follow-up. CONCLUSION: This report focuses on the design and feasibility of adapting and implementing PedsBP in a rural primary care setting. The trial and analysis are ongoing with main results expected in mid-2024.

Comparison of the effectiveness and safety of 2 aspirin doses in secondary prevention of cardiovascular outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease: A subgroup analysis of ADAPTABLE.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with established cardiovascular disease, the ADAPTABLE trial found no significant differences in cardiovascular events and bleeding rates between 81 mg and 325 mg of aspirin (ASA) daily. In this secondary analysis from the ADAPTABLE trial, we studied the effectiveness and safety of ASA dosing in patients with a history of chronic kidney disease (CKD). METHODS: ADAPTABLE participants were stratified based on the presence or absence of CKD, defined using ICD-9/10-CM codes. Within the CKD group, we compared outcomes between patients taking ASA 81 mg and 325 mg. The primary effectiveness outcome was defined as a composite of all cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke and the primary safety outcome was hospitalization for major bleeding. Adjusted Cox proportional hazard models were utilized to report differences between the groups. RESULTS: After excluding 414 (2.7%) patients due to missing medical history, a total of 14,662 patients were included from the ADAPTABLE cohort, of whom 2,648 (18%) patients had CKD. Patients with CKD were older (median age 69.4 vs 67.1 years; P < .0001) and less likely to be white (71.5% vs 81.7%; P < .0001) when compared to those without CKD. At a median follow-up of 26.2 months, CKD was associated with an increased risk of both the primary effectiveness outcome (adjusted HR 1.79 [1.57, 2.05] P < .001 and the primary safety outcome (adjusted HR 4.64 (2.98, 7.21), P < .001 and P < .05, respectively) regardless of ASA dose. There was no significant difference in effectiveness (adjusted HR 1.01 95% CI 0.82, 1.23; P = .95) or safety (adjusted HR 0.93; 95% CI 0.52, 1.64; P = .79) between ASA groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with CKD were more likely than those without CKD to have adverse cardiovascular events or death and were also more likely to have major bleeding requiring hospitalization. However, there was no association between ASA dose and study outcomes among these patients with CKD.

Internet Versus Noninternet Participation in a Decentralized Clinical Trial: Lessons From the ADAPTABLE Study.

Background Internet-based participation has the potential to enhance pragmatic and decentralized trials, where representative study populations and generalizability to clinical practice are key. We aimed to study the differences between internet and noninternet/telephone participants in a large remote, pragmatic trial. Methods and Results In a subanalysis of the ADAPTABLE (Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-Centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-Term Effectiveness) study, we compared internet participants with those who opted for noninternet participation. Study process measures examined included participant characteristics at consent, study medication adherence, and study retention. The clinical outcome examined was a composite of all-cause mortality, hospitalization for myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for stroke. Noninternet participants were older (mean 69.4 versus 67.4 years), more likely to be female (38.9% versus 30.2%), more likely to be Black (27.3% versus 6.0%) or Hispanic (11.1% versus 2.0%), and had a higher number of comorbid conditions. The composite clinical outcome was more than twice as high in noninternet participants. The hazard of nonadherence to the assigned aspirin dosage was 46% higher in noninternet participants than internet participants. Conclusions Noninternet participants differed from internet participants in notable demographic characteristics while having poorer baseline health. Over the course of ADAPTABLE, they also had worse clinical outcomes and greater likelihood of study drug nonadherence. These results suggest that trials focused on internet participation select for younger, healthier participants with a higher proportion of traditionally overrepresented patients. Allowing noninternet participation enhances diversity; however, additional steps may be needed to promote study retention and study medication adherence. Registration Information clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT02697916.

Outcomes among patients with peripheral artery disease in the Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-Centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-Term Effectiveness (ADAPTABLE) study.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to understand the effects of aspirin dose on outcomes in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) as well as their participation in a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. METHODS: In a subanalysis of the Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-Centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-Term Effectiveness (ADAPTABLE) study, we compared aspirin doses (81 vs 325 mg) among participants with PAD and study participation metrics in patients with and without PAD. The primary outcome composite was all-cause mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke. RESULTS: Among 14,662 participants enrolled in ADAPTABLE with PAD status available, 3493 (23.8%) had PAD. Participants with PAD were more likely to experience the primary composite (13.76% vs 5.31%, p < 0.001), all-cause mortality (7.55% vs 3.01%, p < 0.001), myocardial infarction (5.71% vs 2.09%, p < 0.001), stroke (2.45% vs 0.86%, p < 0.001), and major bleeding (1.19% vs 0.44%, p < 0.001). A higher aspirin dose did not reduce the primary outcome in patients with PAD (13.68% vs 13.84% in 81 mg and 325 mg groups; OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.88-1.25). Participants with PAD were less likely to enroll via email (33.0% vs 41.9%, p < 0.0001), less likely to choose internet follow-up (79.2% vs 89.5%, p < 0.0001), and were more likely to change their aspirin doses (39.7% vs 30.7%, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: ADAPTABLE participants with PAD did not benefit from a higher dose of aspirin and participated in the study differently from those without PAD. These results reinforce the need for additional PAD-specific research and suggest that different trial strategies may be needed for optimal engagement of patients with PAD. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02697916).

Pragmatic evaluation of events and benefits of lipid lowering in older adults (PREVENTABLE): Trial design and rationale.

Whether initiation of statins could increase survival free of dementia and disability in adults aged ≥75 years is unknown. PREVENTABLE, a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized pragmatic clinical trial, will compare high-intensity statin therapy (atorvastatin 40 mg) with placebo in 20,000 community-dwelling adults aged ≥75 years without cardiovascular disease, disability, or dementia at baseline. Exclusion criteria include statin use in the prior year or for >5 years and inability to take a statin. Potential participants are identified using computable phenotypes derived from the electronic health record and local referrals from the community. Participants will undergo baseline cognitive testing, with physical testing and a blinded lipid panel if feasible. Cognitive testing and disability screening will be conducted annually. Multiple data sources will be queried for cardiovascular events, dementia, and disability; survival is site-reported and supplemented by a National Death Index search. The primary outcome is survival free of new dementia or persisting disability. Co-secondary outcomes are a composite of cardiovascular death, hospitalization for unstable angina or myocardial infarction, heart failure, stroke, or coronary revascularization; and a composite of mild cognitive impairment or dementia. Ancillary studies will offer mechanistic insights into the effects of statins on key outcomes. Biorepository samples are obtained and stored for future study. These results will inform the benefit of statins for increasing survival free of dementia and disability among older adults. This is a pioneering pragmatic study testing important questions with low participant burden to align with the needs of the growing population of older adults.

Establishing a National Cardiovascular Disease Surveillance System in the United States Using Electronic Health Record Data: Key Strengths and Limitations.

Cardiovascular disease surveillance involves quantifying the evolving population-level burden of cardiovascular outcomes and risk factors as a data-driven initial step followed by the implementation of interventional strategies designed to alleviate this burden in the target population. Despite widespread acknowledgement of its potential value, a national surveillance system dedicated specifically to cardiovascular disease does not currently exist in the United States. Routinely collected health care data such as from electronic health records (EHRs) are a possible means of achieving national surveillance. Accordingly, this article elaborates on some key strengths and limitations of using EHR data for establishing a national cardiovascular disease surveillance system. Key strengths discussed include the: (1) ubiquity of EHRs and consequent ability to create a more "national" surveillance system, (2) existence of a common data infrastructure underlying the health care enterprise with respect to data domains and the nomenclature by which these data are expressed, (3) longitudinal length and detail that define EHR data when individuals repeatedly patronize a health care organization, and (4) breadth of outcomes capable of being surveilled with EHRs. Key limitations discussed include the: (1) incomplete ascertainment of health information related to health care-seeking behavior and the disconnect of health care data generated at separate health care organizations, (2) suspect data quality resulting from the default information-gathering processes within the clinical enterprise, (3) questionable ability to surveil patients through EHRs in the absence of documented interactions, and (4) the challenge in interpreting temporal trends in health metrics, which can be obscured by changing clinical and administrative processes.

Validation of the Intermountain Risk Score and Get with the Guidelines-Heart Failure Score in predicting mortality.

OBJECTIVE: The Intermountain Risk Score (IMRS) was evaluated for validation as a mortality predictor and compared with the American Heart Association's Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure (GWTG-HF) risk score in a rural heart failure (HF) population. BACKGROUND: IMRS predicts mortality in general populations using common, inexpensive laboratory tests, patient age and sex, but requires validation in patients with HF. METHODS: Individuals were selected from the GWTG-HF registry at Essentia Health. This included consecutive HF inpatients age ≥18 years admitted July 2017-June 2019. IMRS was calculated using sex-specific weightings of the complete blood count, basic metabolic profile, and age. RESULTS: A total of 703 individuals (mean age: 74.12, 44.38% female) were studied. The 30-day IMRS predicted 30-day mortality for both sexes (females n=312: OR=1.19 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.32) per +1, p<0.001; males n=391: OR=1.23 (CI 1.12 to 1.36) per +1, p<0.001). The GWTG-HF risk score (only available in n=300, 42.7%) was independent of IMRS for 30-day mortality (OR=1.11 (CI 1.06 to 1.16) per +1, p<0.001). Using thresholds in bivariate modelling, IMRS (high vs low risk, OR=8.25 (CI 2.19 to 31.09), p=0.002) and the GWTG-HF score (tertile 3 vs 1: OR=2.18 (CI 0.84 to 5.68), p=0.11) independently predicted mortality. In multivariable analyses including covariables, IMRS (high vs low risk: OR=6.69 (CI 1.75 to 25.60), p=0.005) and the GWTG-HF score (tertile 3 vs 1: OR=2.62 (CI 0.96 to 7.12), p=0.06) remained predictors of mortality. Results were similar for 1-year mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The IMRS and GWTG-HF scores predicted mortality of patients with HF in a large rural healthcare system. Future study of these scores as initial clinical risk estimators for evaluating their utility in improving patient health outcomes and increasing cost effectiveness is warranted.

Comparative Effectiveness of Aspirin Dosing in Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: The appropriate dose of aspirin to lower the risk of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke and to minimize major bleeding in patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is a subject of controversy. METHODS: Using an open-label, pragmatic design, we randomly assigned patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease to a strategy of 81 mg or 325 mg of aspirin per day. The primary effectiveness outcome was a composite of death from any cause, hospitalization for myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for stroke, assessed in a time-to-event analysis. The primary safety outcome was hospitalization for major bleeding, also assessed in a time-to-event analysis. RESULTS: A total of 15,076 patients were followed for a median of 26.2 months (interquartile range [IQR], 19.0 to 34.9). Before randomization, 13,537 (96.0% of those with available information on previous aspirin use) were already taking aspirin, and 85.3% of these patients were previously taking 81 mg of daily aspirin. Death, hospitalization for myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for stroke occurred in 590 patients (estimated percentage, 7.28%) in the 81-mg group and 569 patients (estimated percentage, 7.51%) in the 325-mg group (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91 to 1.14). Hospitalization for major bleeding occurred in 53 patients (estimated percentage, 0.63%) in the 81-mg group and 44 patients (estimated percentage, 0.60%) in the 325-mg group (hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.77). Patients assigned to 325 mg had a higher incidence of dose switching than those assigned to 81 mg (41.6% vs. 7.1%) and fewer median days of exposure to the assigned dose (434 days [IQR, 139 to 737] vs. 650 days [IQR, 415 to 922]). CONCLUSIONS: In this pragmatic trial involving patients with established cardiovascular disease, there was substantial dose switching to 81 mg of daily aspirin and no significant differences in cardiovascular events or major bleeding between patients assigned to 81 mg and those assigned to 325 mg of aspirin daily. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; ADAPTABLE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02697916.).

Clinician engagement in the ADAPTABLE (Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-Term Effectiveness) trial.

BACKGROUND: ADAPTABLE (Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-Term Effectiveness) is a pragmatic clinical trial examining high-dose versus low-dose aspirin among patients with cardiovascular disease. ADAPTABLE is leveraging novel approaches for clinical trial conduct to expedite study completion and reduce costs. One pivotal aspect of the trial conduct is maximizing clinician engagement. METHODS/RESULTS: Clinician engagement can be diminished by barriers including time limitations, insufficient research infrastructure, lack of research training, inadequate compensation for research activities, and clinician beliefs. We used several key approaches to boost clinician engagement such as empowering clinician champions, including a variety of clinicians, nurses and advanced practice providers, periodic newsletters and coordinated team celebrations, and deploying novel technological solutions. Specifically, some centers generated electronic health records-based best practice advisories and research dashboards. Future large pragmatic trials will benefit from standardization of the various clinician engagement strategies especially studies leveraging electronic health records-based approaches like research dashboards. Financial or academic "credit" for clinician engagement in clinical research may boost participation rates in clinical studies. CONCLUSION: Maximizing clinician engagement is important for the success of clinical trials; the strategies employed in the ADAPTABLE trial may serve as a template for future pragmatic studies.