Search

Abstract Background Scientifically rigorous general population-based studies comparing chiropractic with primary-care medical patients within and between countries have not been published. The objective of this study is to compare care seekers of doctors of chiropractic (DCs) and general practitioners (GPs) in the United States and Canada on a comprehensive set of sociodemographic, quality of life, and health-related variables. Methods Data are from the Joint Canada/U.S. Survey of Health (JCUSH), 2002–03, a random sample of adults in Canada (N = 3505) and the U.S. (N = 5183). Respondents were categorized according to their pattern of health-care use in the past year. Distributions, percentages, and estimates (adjusted odds ratios) weighted to reflect the complex survey design were produced. Results Nearly 80% of respondents sought care from GPs; 12% sought DC care. Compared with GP only patients, DC patients in both countries tend to be under 65 and white, with arthritis and disabling back or neck pain. U.S. DC patients are more likely than GP only patients to be obese and to lack a regular doctor; Canadian DC patients are more likely than GP only patients to be college educated, to have higher incomes, and dissatisfied with MD care. Compared with seekers of both GP and DC care, DC only patients in both countries have fewer chronic conditions, take fewer drugs, and have no regular doctor. U.S. DC only patients are more likely than GP+DC patients to be uninsured and dissatisfied with health care; Canadian DC only patients are more likely than GP+DC patients to be under 45, male, less educated, smokers, and not obese, without disabling back or neck pain, on fewer drugs, and lacking a regular doctor. Conclusion Chiropractic and GP patients are dissimilar in both Canada and the U.S., with key differences between countries and between DC patients who do and do not seek care from GPs. Such variation has broad and potentially far-reaching health policy and research implications.

Aims: The 4822 patients randomized in the PARAGON-HF trial were a subset of 5746 initially eligible patients who entered sequential run-in periods. We identified patient factors associated with study discontinuation during the run-in period and estimated the implications of these discontinuations for the overall study result., Methods and Results: We utilized multivariable logistic regression models to identify patient factors associated with study discontinuation during the run-in period. The efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan in a broader cohort approximating the full run-in population was estimated by weighting randomized patients according to the inverse probability of run-in completion. A total of 924 (16.1%) subjects failed to complete the run-in period. In multivariable models, non-completion was associated with region other than Central Europe, lower systolic blood pressure, lower serum sodium, lower haemoglobin, lower estimated glomerular filtration rate, higher N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, higher New York Heart Association functional class, prior heart failure (HF) hospitalization, and lack of prior use of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors or beta-blocker. In repeat analysis of the effect of randomized treatment in PARAGON-HF giving greater weight to participants resembling those who failed to complete the run-in period, the incidence of HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death was higher, and sacubitril/valsartan treatment reduced the composite of total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death compared with valsartan (rate ratio 0.86; 95% confidence interval 0.74-1.00)., Conclusion: Patients with more advanced HF were at higher risk for non-completion of the run-in period in PARAGON-HF. Re-analysis of study outcomes accounting for the effect of run-in non-completion did not alter the estimated treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan vs. valsartan., (© 2021 European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: Soluble ST2 (sST2) is associated with cardiac remodeling and fibrosis. In chronic heart failure, the predictive value of sST2 has not been evaluated in a model that includes both NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) and hs-TnT (high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T), in a trial in which treatment had a major impact. Therefore, the effects of treatment on sST2 levels in PARADIGM-HF trial (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure), the relationships between sST2 and outcomes, and the prognostic utility of various sST2 partition values were examined., Methods and Results: Baseline (n=2002), 1-month (n=1936), and 8-month postrandomization (n=1758) sST2 levels were compared between treatment groups (sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril). Relationships between baseline sST2 and (1) heart failure hospitalization, (2) cardiovascular death, and (3) combined heart failure hospitalization and cardiovascular death were assessed using restricted cubic spline models. Adjusted Cox proportional hazards models were used to examine the impact of sST2 change from baseline to 1 month on the hazard of experiencing each outcome. Sacubitril/valsartan led to more reductions and fewer increases in sST2 levels versus enalapril. After adjusting for other predictors, including NT-proBNP and hs-TnT, baseline sST2 remained an independent predictor of outcomes. Associations between baseline sST2 and outcomes were linear. sST2 increases at 1 month were associated with worse subsequent outcomes and decreased with better outcomes ( P =0.001, 0.012, and 0.009 for the 3 outcomes, respectively)., Conclusions: Sacubitril/valsartan resulted in greater reductions and less increases in sST2 levels than enalapril. No specific threshold was associated with risk, as linear relationships between baseline sST2 and outcomes were observed. Changes in sST2 from baseline to 1 month were independently associated with the risk of outcomes., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01035255., (© 2018 American Heart Association, Inc.)