Search

Background: Self-measured blood pressure monitoring (SMBP) is an important out-of-office resource that is effective in improving hypertension control. Changes in SMBP use during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have not been described previously., Methods: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data were used to quantify changes in SMBP use between 2019 (prior COVID-19 pandemic) and 2021 (during the COVID-19 pandemic). Fourteen states administered the SMBP module in both years. All data were self-reported from adults who participated in the BRFSS survey. We assessed the receipt of SMBP recommendations from healthcare professionals and actual use of SMBP among those with hypertension (n = 68,820). Among those who used SMBP, we assessed SMBP use at home and sharing BP readings electronically with healthcare professionals., Results: Among adults with hypertension, there was no significant changes between 2019 and 2021 in those reporting SMBP use (57.0% vs. 55.7%) or receiving recommendations from healthcare professionals to use SMBP (66.4% vs. 66.8%). However, among those who used SMBP, there were significant increases in use at home (87.7% vs. 93.5%) and sharing BP readings electronically (8.6% vs. 13.1%) from 2019 to 2021. Differences were noted by demographic characteristics and residence state., Conclusions: Receiving a recommendation from the healthcare provider to use SMBP and actual use did not differ before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, among those who used SMBP, home use and sharing BP readings electronically with healthcare professional increased significantly, although overall sharing remained low (13.1%). Maximizing advances in virtual connections between clinical and community settings should be leveraged for improved hypertension management., (© Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of American Journal of Hypertension Ltd 2024.)

Background: Cruise travel contributed to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission when there were relatively few cases in the United States. By 14 March 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a No Sail Order suspending US cruise operations; the last US passenger ship docked on 16 April., Methods: We analyzed SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks on cruises in US waters or carrying US citizens and used regression models to compare voyage characteristics. We used compartmental models to simulate the potential impact of 4 interventions (screening for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) symptoms; viral testing on 2 days and isolation of positive persons; reduction of passengers by 40%, crew by 20%, and reducing port visits to 1) for 7-day and 14-day voyages., Results: During 19 January to 16 April 2020, 89 voyages on 70 ships had known SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks; 16 ships had recurrent outbreaks. There were 1669 reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections and 29 confirmed deaths. Longer voyages were associated with more cases (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.10, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.03-1.17, P < .003). Mathematical models showed that 7-day voyages had about 70% fewer cases than 14-day voyages. On 7-day voyages, the most effective interventions were reducing the number of individuals onboard (43.3% reduction in total infections) and testing passengers and crew (42% reduction in total infections). All four interventions reduced transmission by 80.1%, but no single intervention or combination eliminated transmission. Results were similar for 14-day voyages., Conclusions: SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks on cruises were common during January-April 2020. Despite all interventions modeled, cruise travel still poses a significant SARS-CoV-2 transmission risk., (Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2021.)

This article describes the October 2020 proceedings of the Million Hearts Cardiac Rehabilitation Think Tank: Accelerating New Care Models, convened with representatives from professional organizations, cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programs, academic institutions, federal agencies, payers, and patient representative groups. As CR delivery evolves, terminology is evolving to reflect not where activities occur (eg, center, home) but how CR is delivered: in-person synchronous, synchronous with real-time audiovisual communication (virtual), or asynchronous (remote). Patients and CR staff may interact through ≥1 delivery modes. Though new models may change how CR is delivered and who can access CR, new models should not change what is delivered-a multidisciplinary program addressing CR core components. During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) public health emergency, Medicare issued waivers to allow virtual CR; it is unclear whether these waivers will become permanent policy post-public health emergency. Given CR underuse and disparities in delivery, new models must equitably address patient and health system contributors to disparities. Strategies for implementing new CR care models address safety, exercise prescription, monitoring, and education. The available evidence supports the efficacy and safety of new CR care models. Still, additional research should study diverse populations, impact on patient-centered outcomes, effect on long-term outcomes and health care utilization, and implementation in diverse settings. CR is evolving to include in-person synchronous, virtual, and remote modes of delivery; there is significant enthusiasm for implementing new care models and learning how new care models can broaden access to CR, improve patient outcomes, and address health inequities.