Validation of the Rapid Prime Diet Quality Score Screener (rPDQS), A Brief Dietary Assessment Tool With Simple Traffic Light Scoring.

BACKGROUND: Dietary pattern is a determinant of chronic disease, but nonregistered dietitian nutritionist (non-RDN) clinicians rarely assess diet because of barriers such as time constraints and lack of valid, brief diet quality assessment tools. OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to evaluate the relative validity of a brief diet quality screener using both a numeric scoring system and a simple traffic light scoring system. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study was conducted using the CloudResearch online platform to compare participants' responses to the 13-item rapid Prime Diet Quality Score screener (rPDQS) and the Automated Self-Administered 24-hour (ASA24) Dietary Assessment Tool. PARTICIPANTS/SETTING: The study was conducted in July and August 2021 and included 482 adults ≥18 years of age or older sampled to be representative of the US population. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: All participants completed the rPDQS and an ASA24; of these, 190 completed a second ASA24 and rPDQS. Responses to rPDQS items were coded using both traffic light (eg, green = healthiest intake, red = least healthy intake) and numeric (eg, consume < 1 time a week, consume ≥ 2 times per day) scoring methods and were compared with food group equivalents and Healthy Eating Index-2015 (HEI-2015) scores estimated from ASA24s. STATISTICAL ANALYSES: Deattenuated Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to account for within-person variation in 24-hour diet recalls. RESULTS: Overall, 49% of participants were female, 62% were ≥35 years, and 66% were non-Hispanic White, 13% non-Hispanic Black, 16% Hispanic/Latino, and 5% Asian. For both food groups to encourage (eg, vegetables, whole grains) and to consume in moderation (eg, processed meats, sweets), there were statistically significant associations with intakes assessed by rPDQS, using both traffic light and numeric scoring methods. Total rPDQS scores correlated with the HEI-2015, r = 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.65, 0.82). CONCLUSIONS: The rPDQS is a valid, brief diet quality screener that identifies clinically relevant patterns of food intake. Future research is needed to test whether the simple traffic light scoring system is an effective tool that can help non-RDN clinicians provide brief dietary counseling or make referrals to registered dietitian nutritionists, as needed.

Association of Supine Hypertension Versus Standing Hypotension With Adverse Events Among Middle-Aged Adults.

BACKGROUND: Management of orthostatic hypotension (OH) prioritizes prevention of standing hypotension, sometimes at the expense of supine hypertension. It is unclear whether supine hypertension is associated with adverse outcomes relative to standing hypotension. OBJECTIVES: To compare the long-term clinical consequences of supine hypertension and standing hypotension among middle-aged adults with and without OH. METHODS: The ARIC study (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities) measured supine and standing blood pressure (BP) in adults aged 45 to 64 years, without neurogenic OH, between 1987 and 1989. We defined OH as a positional drop in systolic BP ≥20 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥10 mm Hg, supine hypertension as supine BP≥140/≥90 mm Hg, and standing hypotension as standing BP≤105/≤65 mm Hg. Participants were followed for >30 years. We used Cox regression models to examine associations with cardiovascular disease events, all-cause mortality, falls, and syncope. RESULTS: Of 12 489 participants (55% female, 26% Black, mean age 54 years, SD 6), 4.4% had OH. Among those without OH (N=11 943), 19% had supine hypertension and 21% had standing hypotension, while among those with OH (N=546), 58% had supine hypertension and 38% had standing hypotension. Associations with outcomes did not differ by OH status (P-interactions >0.25). Supine hypertension was associated with heart failure (hazard ratio, 1.83 [95% CI, 1.68-1.99]), falls (hazard ratio, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.02-1.22]), and all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.45 [95% CI, 1.37-1.54]), while standing hypotension was only significantly associated with mortality (hazard ratio, 1.06 [95% CI, 1.00-1.14]). CONCLUSIONS: Supine hypertension was associated with higher risk of adverse events than standing hypotension, regardless of OH status. This challenges conventional OH management, which prioritizes standing hypotension over supine hypertension.

Standing Blood Pressure and Risk of Falls, Syncope, Coronary Heart Disease, and Mortality.

BACKGROUND: ACC/AHA guidelines caution against the use of antihypertensive therapy in the setting of low standing systolic BP (SBP) < 110 mm Hg due to unclear benefits. METHODS: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study measured supine and standing SBP in adults aged 45-64 years between 1987 and 1989. We used Cox regression to evaluate the associations of low standing SBP (<110 mm Hg) with risk of falls, syncope, coronary heart disease (CHD), and mortality through December 31, 2019. Falls and syncope were ascertained by hospitalization and outpatient claims; CHD events were adjudicated. Associations were examined overall and in strata of hypertension stage, 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk, age, and sex. RESULTS: Among 12,467 adults followed a median of 24 years (mean age at enrollment 54.1 ±â€…5.8 years, 55% women, 26% Black adults), 3,000 (24%) had a standing SBP < 110 mm Hg. A standing SBP < 110 mm Hg compared to standing SBP ≥ 110 mm Hg was not significantly associated with falls or syncope, and was associated with a lower risk of CHD events and mortality with HRs of 1.02 (95% CI 0.94, 1.11), 1.02 (0.93, 1.11), 0.88 (0.80, 0.97), and 0.91 (0.86, 0.97), respectively. There were no clinically meaningful differences when stratified by hypertension stage, 10-year ASCVD risk, age, and sex. CONCLUSIONS: In this community-based population, low standing SBP was common and not significantly associated with falls or syncope, but was associated with a lower risk of CHD and mortality. These findings do not support screening for low standing BP as a risk factor for adverse events.