Self-Measured Blood Pressure-Guided Pharmacotherapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of United States-Based Telemedicine Trials.

BACKGROUND: The optimal approach to implementing telemedicine hypertension management in the United States is unknown. METHODS: We examined telemedicine hypertension management versus the effect of usual clinic-based care on blood pressure (BP) and patient/clinician-related heterogeneity in a systematic review/meta-analysis. We searched United States-based randomized trials from Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Compendex, Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, and 2 trial registries. We used trial-level differences in BP and its control rate at ≥6 months using random-effects models. We examined heterogeneity in univariable metaregression and in prespecified subgroups (clinicians leading pharmacotherapy [physician/nonphysician], self-management support [pharmacist/nurse], White versus non-White patient predominant trials [>50% patients/trial], diabetes predominant trials [≥25% patients/trial], and White patient predominant but not diabetes predominant trials versus both non-White and diabetes patient predominant trials]. RESULTS: Thirteen, 11, and 7 trials were eligible for systolic and diastolic BP difference and BP control, respectively. Differences in systolic and diastolic BP and BP control rate were -7.3 mm Hg (95% CI, -9.4 to -5.2), -2.7 mm Hg (-4.0 to -1.5), and 10.1% (0.4%-19.9%), respectively, favoring telemedicine. Greater BP reduction occurred in trials where nonphysicians led pharmacotherapy, pharmacists provided self-management support, White patient predominant trials, and White patient predominant but not diabetes predominant trials, with no difference by diabetes predominant trials. CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine hypertension management is more effective than clinic-based care in the United States, particularly when nonphysicians lead pharmacotherapy and pharmacists provide self-management support. Non-White patient predominant trials achieved less BP reduction. Equity-conscious, locally informed adaptation of telemedicine interventions is needed before wider implementation.

Availability of Specialty Services for Cardiovascular Prevention Practice in the Southeastern United States.

OBJECTIVES: A comprehensive cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention approach should address patients' medical, behavioral, and psychological issues. The aim of this study was to understand the clinician-reported availability of a pertinent CVD preventive workforce across various specialties using a survey study in the southeastern United States, an area with a disproportionate burden of CVD and commonly known as the Stroke Belt. METHODS: We surveyed physicians, advanced practice providers (APPs), and pharmacists in internal medicine, family medicine, endocrinology, and cardiology regarding available specialists in CVD preventive practice. We examined categorical variables using the χ2 test and continuous variables using the t test/analysis of variance. RESULTS: A total of 263 clinicians from 21 health systems participated (27.6% response rate, 91.5% from North Carolina). Most were women (54.5%) and physicians (72.5%) specializing in cardiology (43.6%) and working at academic centers (51.3%). Overall, most clinicians stated having adequate specialist services to manage hypertension (86.6%), diabetes mellitus (90.1%), and dyslipidemia (84%), with >50% stating having adequate specialist services for obesity, smoking cessation, diet/nutrition, and exercise counseling. Many reported working with an APP (69%) or a pharmacist (56.5%). Specialist services for exercise therapy, psychology, behavioral counseling, and preventive cardiology were less available. When examined across the four specialties, the majority reported having adequate specialist services for hypertension, diabetes mellitus, obesity, dyslipidemia, and diet/nutrition counseling. Providers from all four specialties were less likely to work with exercise therapists, psychologists, behavioral counselors, and preventive cardiologists. CONCLUSIONS: A majority of providers expressed having adequate specialists for hypertension, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, obesity, smoking cessation, diet/nutrition, and exercise counseling. Most worked together with APPs and pharmacists but less frequently with exercise therapists, psychologists, behavioral counselors, and preventive cardiologists. Further research should explore approaches to use and expand less commonly available specialists for optimal CVD preventive care.

Clinicians' self-reported efficacy in cardiovascular prevention practice in the southeastern United States.

Aim: We assessed self-reported efficacy in cardiovascular prevention practice among internal medicine, family medicine, endocrinology and cardiology clinicians. Patients & methods: We emailed a 21-item questionnaire to 956 physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants and pharmacists. Results: 264 clinicians responded (median age: 39 years, 55% women, 47.9% specialists). Most expressed high self-efficacy in lifestyle counselling, prescribing statins, metformin, and aspirin in primary prevention, but low self-efficacy in managing specialized conditions like elevated lipoprotein(a). Compared with specialists, PCPs expressed lower self-efficacy in managing advanced lipid disorders and higher self-efficacy in prescribing sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists. Conclusion: Self-efficacy in cardiovascular prevention varied across specialties. Future research should explore relevant provider, clinic and system level factors to optimize cardiovascular prevention.

Specialty preference for cardiovascular prevention practice in the Southeast US and role of a preventive cardiologist.

INTRODUCTION: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention is practiced concurrently by providers from several specialties. Our goal was to understand providers' preference of specialties in CVD prevention practice and the role of preventive cardiologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 11 October 2021 and 1 March 2022, we surveyed providers from internal medicine, family medicine, endocrinology, and cardiology specialties to examine their preference of specialties in managing various domains of CVD prevention. We examined categorical variables using Chi square test and continuous variables using t or analysis of variance test. RESULTS: Of 956 invitees, 263 from 21 health systems and 9 states responded. Majority of respondents were women (54.5%), practicing physicians (72.5%), specializing in cardiology (43.6%), and working at academic centers (51.3%). Respondents favored all specialties to prescribe statins (43.2%), ezetimibe (37.8%), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors (30.5%), and aspirin in primary prevention (36.3%). Only 7.9% and 9.5% selected cardiologists and preventive cardiologists, respectively, to prescribe SGLT2 inhibitors. Most preferred specialists (i.e. cardiology and endocrinology) to manage advanced lipid disorders, refractory hypertension, and premature coronary heart disease. The most common conditions selected for preventive cardiologists to manage were genetic lipid disorders (17%), cardiovascular risk assessment (15%), dyslipidemia (13%), and refractory/resistant hypertension (12%). CONCLUSIONS: For CVD prevention practice, providers favored all specialties to manage common conditions, specialists to manage complex conditions, and preventive cardiologists to manage advanced lipid disorders. Cardiologists were least preferred to prescribe SGLT2 inhibitor. Future research should explore reasons for selected CVD prevention practice preferences to optimize care coordination and for effective use of limited expertise.

Heterogeneity of the Effect of Telemedicine Hypertension Management Approach on Blood Pressure: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of US-based Clinical Trials.

Background: Telemedicine management of hypertension (TM-HTN) uses home blood pressure (BP) to guide pharmacotherapy and telemedicine-based self-management support (SMS). Optimal approach to implementing TM-HTN in the US is unknown. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and a meta-analysis to examine the effect of TM-HTN vs. usual clinic-based care on BP and assessed heterogeneity by patient- and clinician-related factors. We searched US-based randomized clinical trials among adults from Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and Compendex, Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, and two trial registries to 7/7/2023. Two authors extracted, and a third author confirmed data. We used trial-level differences in systolic BP (SBP), diastolic BP (DBP) and BP control rate at ≥6 months using random-effects models. We examined heterogeneity of effect in univariable meta-regression and in pre-specified subgroups [clinicians leading pharmacotherapy (physician vs. non-physician), SMS (pharmacist vs. nurse), White vs. non-White patient predominant trials (>50% patients/trial), diabetes predominant trials (≥25% patients/trial) and in trials that have majority of both non-White patients and patients with diabetes vs. White patient predominant but not diabetes predominant trials. Results: Thirteen, 11 and 7 trials were eligible for SBP, DBP and BP control, respectively. Differences in SBP, DBP and BP control rate were -7.3 mmHg (95% CI: - 9.4, -5.2), -2.7 mmHg (-4.0, -1.5) and 10.1% (0.4%, 19.9%), respectively, favoring TM-HTN. More BP reduction occurred in trials with non-physician vs. physician led pharmacotherapy (9.3/4.0 mmHg vs. 4.9/1.1 mmHg, P<0.01 for both SBP/DBP), pharmacist vs. nurses provided SMS (9.3/4.1 mmHg vs. 5.6/1.0 mmHg, P=0.01 for SBP, P<0.01 for DBP), and White vs. non-White patient predominant trials (9.3/4.0 mmHg vs. 4.4/1.1 mmHg, P<0.01 for both SBP/DBP), with no difference by diabetes predominant trials. Lower BP reduction occurred in both diabetes and non-White patient predominant trials vs. White patient predominant but not diabetes predominant trials (4.5/0.9 mmHg vs. 9.5/4.2 mmHg, P<0.01 for both SBP/DBP). Conclusions: TM-HTN is more effective than clinic-based care in the US, particularly when non-physician led pharmacotherapy and pharmacist provided SMS. Non-White patient predominant trials seemed to achieve lesser BP reduction. Equity conscious, locally informed adaptation of TM-HTN is needed before wider implementation. Clinical Perspective: What Is New?: In this systematic review and meta-analysis of US-based clinical trials, we found that telemedicine management of hypertension (TM-HTN) was more effective in reducing and controlling blood pressure (BP) compared with clinic based hypertension (HTN) care.The BP reduction was more evident when pharmacotherapy was led by non-physician compared with physicians and HTN self-management support was provided by clinical pharmacists compared with nurses,Non-White patient predominant trials achieved lesser BP reductions than White patient predominant trials.What Are the Clinical Implications?: Before wider implementation of TM-HTN intervention in the US, locally informed adaptation, such as optimizing the team-based HTN care approach, can provide more effective BP control.Without equity focused tailoring, TM-HTN intervention implemented as such can exacerbate inequities in BP control among non-White patients in the US.

Association of Obesity and Diabetes with SARS-Cov-2 Infection and Symptoms in the COVID-19 Community Research Partnership.

OBJECTIVE: Obesity and diabetes are established risk factors for severe SARS-CoV-2 outcomes, but less is known about their impact on susceptibility to COVID-19 infection and general symptom severity. We hypothesized that those with obesity or diabetes would be more likely to self-report a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and among those with a positive test, have greater symptom severity and duration. METHODS: Among 44,430 COVID-19 Community Research Partnership participants, we evaluated the association of self-reported and electronic health record obesity and diabetes with a self-reported positive COVID-19 test at any time. Among the 2,663 participants with a self-reported positive COVID-19 test during the study, we evaluated the association of obesity and diabetes with self-report of symptom severity, duration, and hospitalization. Logistic regression models were adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and healthcare worker status. RESULTS: We found a positive graded association between Body Mass Index (BMI) category and positive COVID-19 test (Overweight OR = 1.14 [1.05-1.25]; Obesity I OR = 1.29 [1.17-2.42]; Obesity II OR = 1.34 [1.19-1.50]; Obesity III OR = 1.53 [1.35-1.73]), and a similar but weaker association with COVID-19 symptoms and severity among those with a positive test. Diabetes was associated with COVID-19 infection but not symptoms after adjustment, with some evidence of an interaction between obesity and diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: While the limitations of this health system convenience sample include generalizability and selection around test-seeking, the strong graded association of BMI and diabetes with self-reported COVID-19 infection suggests that obesity and diabetes may play a role in risk for symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 beyond co-occurrence with socioeconomic factors.

Breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 Infections after Vaccination in North Carolina.

We characterize the overall incidence and risk factors for breakthrough infection among fully vaccinated participants in the North Carolina COVID-19 Community Research Partnership cohort. Among 15,808 eligible participants, 638 reported a positive SARS-CoV-2 test after vaccination. Factors associated with a lower risk of breakthrough in the time-to-event analysis included older age, prior SARS-CovV-2 infection, higher rates of face mask use, and receipt of a booster vaccination. Higher rates of breakthrough were reported by participants vaccinated with BNT162b2 or Ad26.COV2.S compared to mRNA-1273, in suburban or rural counties compared to urban counties, and during circulation of the Delta and Omicron variants.

Relation of Left Ventricular Hypertrophy Subtype to Long-Term Mortality in Those With Subclinical Cardiovascular Disease (from the Multiethnic Study of Atherosclerosis [MESA]).

The clinical and biochemical profile of differing Left ventricular hypertrophy phenotypes and its effect on long-term outcomes is ill-defined. The study investigated the differences in risk profiles and prognostic effect of concentric (CH) and eccentric hypertrophy (EH) on long-term adverse outcomes in a contemporary, ethnically diverse cohort. We analyzed follow-up data over 15 years from the Multiethnic Study of Atherosclerosis study. A total of 4,979 participants with cardiac magnetic resonance performed at baseline enrollment were included. Descriptive statistics, Kaplan-Meier curves, and regression models were applied. Independent variables associated with CH were black and Hispanic race/ethnicity, systolic blood pressure, and metabolic syndrome. Independent variables associated with EH were systolic blood pressure and urine creatinine, whereas serum creatinine had an inverse association. The primary end point of all-cause death (n = 1,137, 22.8%) occurred in 21.7%, 47.4%, and 56.6% of participants with no, CH, or EH, respectively (p- < 0.001). Age (hazard ratio [HR] per year = 1.10 [1.09 to 1.11], p <0.001), male gender (HR = 1.48 [1.29 to 1.69], p <0.001), black race (HR = 1.17 [1.005 to 1.36], p = 0.04), fasting glucose (HR = 1.005 [1.003 to 1.007], p <0.001), baseline creatinine (HR per mg/100 ml = 1.29 [1.15 to 1.46], p <0.001), left ventricular ejection fraction (HR per 1% = 0.98 [0.98 to 0.99], p = 0.005), IL-6 (HR per pg/ml = 1.17 [1.12 to 1.22], p <0.001), CH (HR = 1.84 [1.41 to 2.41], p <0.001), and EH (HR = 2.58 [1.77 to 3.76], p <0.001) were significant predictors of all-cause mortality. In conclusion, CH and EH are 2 distinct clinical phenotypes of left ventricular hypertrophy with differing gender and racial predisposition, both of which are associated with worse long-term adverse outcomes.

Analysis of accumulated SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion in North Carolina: The COVID-19 Community Research Partnership.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 Community Research Partnership is a population-based longitudinal syndromic and sero-surveillance study. The study includes over 17,000 participants from six healthcare systems in North Carolina who submitted over 49,000 serology results. The purpose of this study is to use these serology data to estimate the cumulative proportion of the North Carolina population that has either been infected with SARS-CoV-2 or developed a measurable humoral response to vaccination. METHODS: Adult community residents were invited to participate in the study between April 2020 and February 2021. Demographic information was collected and daily symptom screen was completed using a secure, HIPAA-compliant, online portal. A portion of participants were mailed kits containing a lateral flow assay to be used in-home to test for presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM or IgG antibodies. The cumulative proportion of participants who tested positive at least once during the study was estimated. A standard Cox proportional hazards model was constructed to illustrate the probability of seroconversion over time up to December 20, 2020 (before vaccines available). A separate analysis was performed to describe the influence of vaccines through February 15, 2021. RESULTS: 17,688 participants contributed at least one serology result. 68.7% of the population were female, and 72.2% were between 18 and 59 years of age. The average number of serology results submitted per participant was 3.0 (±1.9). By December 20, 2020, the overall probability of seropositivity in the CCRP population was 32.6%. By February 15, 2021 the probability among healthcare workers and non-healthcare workers was 83% and 49%, respectively. An inflection upward in the probability of seropositivity was demonstrated around the end of December, suggesting an influence of vaccinations, especially for healthcare workers. Among healthcare workers, those in the oldest age category (60+ years) were 38% less likely to have seroconverted by February 15, 2021. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this study suggest more North Carolina residents may have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 than the number of documented cases as determined by positive RNA or antigen tests. The influence of vaccinations on seropositivity among North Carolina residents is also demonstrated. Additional research is needed to fully characterize the impact of seropositivity on immunity and the ultimate course of the pandemic.

Cardiotoxicity risk factors with immune checkpoint inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Checkpoint-inhibitor immunotherapies have had a profound effect in the treatment of cancer by inhibiting down-regulation of T-cell response to malignancy. The cardiotoxic potential of these agents was first described in murine models and, more recently, in numerous clinical case reports of pericarditis, myocarditis, pericardial effusion, cardiomyopathy, and new arrhythmias. The objective of our study was to determine the frequency of and associated risk factors for cardiotoxic events in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. METHODS: Medical records of patients who underwent immunotherapy with durvalumab, ipilimumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab at Wake Forest Baptist Health were reviewed. We collected retrospective data regarding sex, cancer type, age, and cardiovascular disease risk factors and medications. We aimed to identify new diagnoses of heart failure, atrial fibrillation, ventricular fibrillation/tachycardia, myocarditis, and pericarditis after therapy onset. To assess the relationship between CVD risk factors and the number of cardiac events, a multivariate model was applied using generalized linear regression. Incidence rate ratios were calculated for every covariate along with the adjusted P-value. We applied a multivariate model using logistic regression to assess the relationship between CVD risk factors and mortality. Odds ratios were calculated for every covariate along with the adjusted P-value. Adjusted P-values were calculated using multivariable regression adjusting for other covariates. RESULTS: Review of 538 medical records revealed the following events: 3 ventricular fibrillation/tachycardia, 12 pericarditis, 11 atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular rate, 0 myocarditis, 8 heart failure. Significant risk factors included female gender, African American race, and tobacco use with IRR 3.34 (95% CI 1.421, 7.849; P = 0.006), IRR 3.39 (95% CI 1.141, 10.055; P = 0.028), and IRR 4.21 (95% CI 1.289, 13.763; P = 0.017) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our study revealed 34 significant events, most frequent being pericarditis (2.2%) and atrial fibrillation (2.0%) with strongest risk factors being female gender, African American race, and tobacco use. Patients who meet this demographic, particularly those with planned pembrolizumab treatment, may benefit from early referral to a cardio-oncologist. Further investigation is warranted on the relationship between CTLA-4 and PD-L1 expression and cardiac adverse events with ICIs, particularly for these subpopulations.

Survey of Adherence with COVID-19 Prevention Behaviors During the 2020 Thanksgiving and Winter Holidays Among Members of the COVID-19 Community Research Partnership.

Prevention behaviors represent important public health tools to limit spread of SARS-CoV-2. Adherence with recommended public health prevention behaviors among 20000 + members of a COVID-19 syndromic surveillance cohort from the mid-Atlantic and southeastern United States was assessed via electronic survey following the 2020 Thanksgiving and winter holiday (WH) seasons. Respondents were predominantly non-Hispanic Whites (90%), female (60%), and ≥ 50 years old (59%). Non-household members (NHM) were present at 47.1% of Thanksgiving gatherings and 69.3% of WH gatherings. Women were more likely than men to gather with NHM (p < 0.0001). Attending gatherings with NHM decreased with older age (Thanksgiving: 60.0% of participants aged < 30 years to 36.3% aged ≥ 70 years [p-trend < 0.0001]; WH: 81.6% of those < 30 years to 61.0% of those ≥ 70 years [p-trend < 0.0001]). Non-Hispanic Whites were more likely to gather with NHM than were Hispanics or non-Hispanic Blacks (p < 0.0001). Mask wearing, reported by 37.3% at Thanksgiving and 41.9% during the WH, was more common among older participants, non-Hispanic Blacks, and Hispanics when gatherings included NHM. In this survey, most people did not fully adhere to recommended public health safety behaviors when attending holiday gatherings. It remains unknown to what extent failure to observe these recommendations may have contributed to the COVID-19 surges observed following Thanksgiving and the winter holidays in the United States.

Changing Attitudes toward the COVID-19 Vaccine among North Carolina Participants in the COVID-19 Community Research Partnership.

Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) vaccine acceptance is variable. We surveyed participants in the COVID-19 Community Research Partnership from 17 December 2020 to 13 January 2021 to assess vaccine receptiveness. Vaccine uptake was then monitored until 15 May 2021; 20,232 participants responded to the receptiveness survey with vaccination status accessed in 18,874 participants via daily follow-up surveys (participants not completing daily surveys ≥30 days to 15 May 2021, were excluded). In the initial survey, 4802 (23.8%) were vaccine hesitant. Hesitancy was most apparent in women (Adjusted RR 0.93, p < 0.001), Black Americans (Adjusted RR 1.39, 1.41, 1.31 to non-Hispanic Whites, Other, and Hispanic or Latino, respectively p < 0.001), healthcare workers (Adjusted RR 0.93, p < 0.001), suburbanites (ref. Urban Adjusted RR 0.85, 0.90 to urban and rural dwellers, respectively, p < 0.01), and those previously diagnosed with COVID-19 (RR 1.20, p < 0.01). Those <50 years were also less accepting of vaccination. Subsequent vaccine uptake was 99% in non-hesitant participants. For those who were unsure, preferred not to answer, or answered "no", vaccination rates were 80% (Adjusted RR 0.86, p < 0.0001), 78% (Adjusted RR 0.83, p < 0.0001), and 52.7% (Adjusted RR 0.65, p < 0.0001), respectively. These findings suggest that initial intent did not correlate with vaccine uptake in our cohort.