Search

ObjectiveTo explore trends in blood pressure (BP) control before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.Patients and methodsHealth systems participating in the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet) Blood Pressure Control Laboratory Surveillance System responded to data queries, producing 9 BP control metrics. Averages of the BP control metrics (weighted by numbers of observations in each health system) were calculated and compared between two 1-year measurement periods (January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019, and January 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020).ResultsAmong 1,770,547 hypertensive persons in 2019, BP control to

BackgroundPolyclonal convalescent plasma may be obtained from donors who have recovered from coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). The efficacy of this plasma in preventing serious complications in outpatients with recent-onset Covid-19 is uncertain.MethodsIn this multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of Covid-19 convalescent plasma, as compared with control plasma, in symptomatic adults (≥18 years of age) who had tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, regardless of their risk factors for disease progression or vaccination status. Participants were enrolled within 8 days after symptom onset and received a transfusion within 1 day after randomization. The primary outcome was Covid-19-related hospitalization within 28 days after transfusion.ResultsParticipants were enrolled from June 3, 2020, through October 1, 2021. A total of 1225 participants underwent randomization, and 1181 received a transfusion. In the prespecified modified intention-to-treat analysis that included only participants who received a transfusion, the primary outcome occurred in 17 of 592 participants (2.9%) who received convalescent plasma and 37 of 589 participants (6.3%) who received control plasma (absolute risk reduction, 3.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 1.0 to 5.8; P = 0.005), which corresponded to a relative risk reduction of 54%. Evidence of efficacy in vaccinated participants cannot be inferred from these data because 53 of the 54 participants with Covid-19 who were hospitalized were unvaccinated and 1 participant was partially vaccinated. A total of 16 grade 3 or 4 adverse events (7 in the convalescent-plasma group and 9 in the control-plasma group) occurred in participants who were not hospitalized.ConclusionsIn participants with Covid-19, most of whom were unvaccinated, the administration of convalescent plasma within 9 days after the onset of symptoms reduced the risk of disease progression leading to hospitalization. (Funded by the Department of Defense and others; CSSC-004 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04373460.).

SARS-CoV-2 accesses host cells via angiotensin-converting enzyme-2, which is also affected by commonly used angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), raising concerns that ACEI or ARB exposure may portend differential COVID-19 outcomes. In parallel cohort studies of outpatient and inpatient COVID-19-diagnosed adults with hypertension, we assessed associations between antihypertensive exposure (ACEI/ARB vs. non-ACEI/ARB antihypertensives, as well as between ACEI- vs. ARB) at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, using electronic health record data from PCORnet health systems. The primary outcomes were all-cause hospitalization or death (outpatient cohort) or all-cause death (inpatient), analyzed via Cox regression weighted by inverse probability of treatment weights. From February 2020 through December 9, 2020, 11,246 patients (3477 person-years) and 2200 patients (777 person-years) were included from 17 health systems in outpatient and inpatient cohorts, respectively. There were 1015 all-cause hospitalization or deaths in the outpatient cohort (incidence, 29.2 events per 100 person-years), with no significant difference by ACEI/ARB use (adjusted HR 1.01; 95% CI 0.88, 1.15). In the inpatient cohort, there were 218 all-cause deaths (incidence, 28.1 per 100 person-years) and ACEI/ARB exposure was associated with reduced death (adjusted HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.57, 0.99). ACEI, versus ARB exposure, was associated with higher risk of hospitalization in the outpatient cohort, but no difference in all-cause death in either cohort. There was no evidence of effect modification across pre-specified baseline characteristics. Our results suggest ACEI and ARB exposure have no detrimental effect on hospitalizations and may reduce death among hypertensive patients diagnosed with COVID-19.

Background: Insufficient support for balancing career and family responsibilities hinders retention of physician-scientists. Programs to improve retention of this important group of faculty are crucial. Understanding the experiences of program implementers is key to refining and improving program offerings. Methods: We conducted an interpretive, descriptive, and qualitative study as part of an ongoing evaluation of the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation's Fund to Retain Clinical Scientists (FRCS) awards. We conducted telephone interviews with 12 program directors representing all 10 US medical schools who received the Doris Duke funding in 2016. Results: Of the 12 participants, 10 were women (83.3%). Participating program directors perceived the FRCS award as capable of producing paradigmatic changes regarding how responsibilities at home and work in academic medicine are viewed and integrated by early-career faculty members. The main qualitative themes that captured directors' experiences implementing the program were as follows: (1) championing a new paradigm of support, (2) lessons learned while implementing the new paradigm, (3) results of the new paradigm, and (4) sustaining the paradigm. Conclusions: These findings may help to inform development of similar programs to retain and support the career progress of physician-scientists with extraprofessional caregiving responsibilities. The interviews illuminate ways in which the Doris Duke FRCS award has driven institutional culture change by normalizing discussion and prompted reassessment of extraprofessional challenges and how best to aid early-career faculty members in overcoming these challenges.

BackgroundThe 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.MethodsUsing 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.ResultsA 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]).ConclusionsIn 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.).

Introduction:Global data sharing is essential. This is the premise of the Academic Research Organization (ARO) Council, which was initiated in Japan in 2013 and has since been expanding throughout Asia and into Europe and the United States. The volume of data is growing exponentially, providing not only challenges but also the clear opportunity to understand and treat diseases in ways not previously considered. Harnessing the knowledge within the data in a successful way can provide researchers and clinicians with new ideas for therapies while avoiding repeats of failed experiments. This knowledge transfer from research into clinical care is at the heart of a learning health system. Methods:The ARO Council wishes to form a worldwide complementary system for the benefit of all patients and investigators, catalyzing more efficient and innovative medical research processes. Thus, they have organized Global ARO Network Workshops to bring interested parties together, focusing on the aspects necessary to make such a global effort successful. One such workshop was held in Austin, Texas, in November 2017. Representatives from Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, Europe, and the United States reported on their efforts to encourage data sharing and to use research to inform care through learning health systems. Results:This experience report summarizes presentations and discussions at the Global ARO Network Workshop held in November 2017 in Austin, TX, with representatives from Japan, Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, Europe, and the United States. Themes and recommendations to progress their efforts are explored. Standardization and harmonization are at the heart of these discussions to enable data sharing. In addition, the transformation of clinical research processes through disruptive innovation, while ensuring integrity and ethics, will be key to achieving the ARO Council goal to overcome diseases such that people not only live longer but also are healthier and happier as they age. Conclusions:The achievement of global learning health systems will require further exploration, consensus-building, funding aligned with incentives for data sharing, standardization, harmonization, and actions that support global interests for the benefit of patients.

Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted and amplified family caregiving obligations for many clinical investigators and other biomedical researchers. Unpredictable access to daycare, schools, assisted living facilities, informal networks, and [...]

Human research projects must have a scientifically valid study design, analytic plan, and be operationally feasible in order to be successfully completed and thus to have translational impact. To ensure this, institutions that conduct clinical research should have a scientific review process prior to submission to the Institutional Review Committee (IRB). This paper reports the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Consortium Scientific Review Committee (SRC) Consensus Working Group's proposed framework for a SRC process. Recommendations are provided for institutional support and roles of CTSAs, multisite research, criteria for selection of protocols that should be reviewed, roles of committee members, application process, and committee process. Additionally, to support the SCR process effectively, and to ensure efficiency, the Working Group recommends information technology infrastructures and evaluation metrics to determine outcomes are provided.

Pragmatic research that compares interventions to improve the organization and delivery of health care may overlap, in both goals and methods, with quality improvement activities. When activities have attributes of both research and quality improvement, confusion often arises about what ethical oversight is, or should be, required. For routine quality improvement, in which the delivery of health care is modified in minor ways that create only minimal risks, oversight by local clinical or administrative leaders utilizing institutional policies may be sufficient. However, additional consideration should be given to activities that go beyond routine, local quality improvement to first determine whether such non-routine activities constitute research or quality improvement and, in either case, to ensure that independent oversight will occur. This should promote rigor, transparency, and protection of patients' and clinicians' rights, well-being, and privacy in all such activities. Specifically, we recommend that (1) health care organizations should have systematic policies and processes for designating activities as routine quality improvement, non-routine quality improvement, or quality improvement research and determining what oversight each will receive. (2) Health care organizations should have formal and explicit oversight processes for non-routine quality improvement activities that may include input from institutional quality improvement experts, health services researchers, administrators, clinicians, patient representatives, and those experienced in the ethics review of health care activities. (3) Quality improvement research requires review by an institutional review board; for such review to be effective, institutional review boards should develop particular expertise in assessing quality improvement research. (4) Stakeholders should be included in the review of non-routine quality improvement and quality improvement-related research proposals. Only by doing so will we optimally leverage both pragmatic research on health care delivery and local implementation through quality improvement as complementary activities for improving health.

There are situations in which the requirement to obtain conventional written informed consent can impose significant or even insurmountable barriers to conducting pragmatic clinical research, including some comparative effectiveness studies and cluster-randomized trials. Although certain federal regulations governing research in the United States (45 CFR 46) define circumstances in which any of the required elements may be waived, the same standards apply regardless of whether any single element is to be waived or whether consent is to be waived in its entirety. Using the same threshold for a partial or complete waiver limits the options available to institutional review boards as they seek to optimize a consent process. In this article, we argue that new standards are necessary in order to enable important pragmatic clinical research while at the same time protecting patients' rights and interests.

Background In 2018, the time window for mechanical thrombectomy eligibility in patients with acute ischemic stroke increased from within 6 hours to within 24 hours of symptom onset. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of window expansion on procedural and hospital volumes and patient outcomes at a national level. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with acute ischemic stroke undergoing mechanical thrombectomy using data from the National Inpatient Sample. We compared the numbers of mechanical thrombectomy procedures and performing hospitals between 2017 and 2019 in the USA, and the proportion of patients discharged home/self-care, those with in-hospital mortality and post-procedural intracranial hemorrhage (2019 vs 2017) after adjustment for potential confounders. Results The number of patients with ischemic stroke who underwent mechanical thrombectomy increased from 16 960 in 2017 to 28 120 in 2019. There was an increase in the number of hospitals performing mechanical thrombectomy (501 in 2017, 585 in 2019) and those performing ≥50 procedures/year (97 in 2017, 199 in 2019; P<0.001). The odds of in-hospital mortality decreased (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.94, P=0.008) and the odds of intracranial hemorrhage increased (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.31, P=0.003) in 2019 compared with 2017, with no change in odds of discharge to home. Conclusions The window expansion for mechanical thrombectomy for patients with acute ischemic stroke was associated with an increase in the numbers of mechanical thrombectomy procedures and performing hospitals with a reduction of in-hospital mortality in the USA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is conflicting evidence as to whether intra-arterial thrombolysis (IAT) adds benefit in patients with acute stroke who undergo mechanical thrombectomy (MT). Methods: We conducted a systematic review to identify studies that evaluate IAT in patients with acute stroke who undergo MT. Data were extracted from relevant studies found through a search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science until February 2023. Statistical pooling with random effects meta-analysis was undertaken to evaluate odds of functional independence, mortality, and near-complete or complete angiographic recanalization with IAT compared to no IAT. Results: A total of 18 studies were included (3 matched, 14 unmatched, and 1 randomized). The odds ratio (OR) for functional independence (modified Rankin Scale: 0–2) at 90 days was 1.14 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.95–1.37, p = 0.17, 16 studies involving 7572 patients) with IAT with moderate between-study heterogeneity (I2 = 38.1%). The OR for functional independence with IAT was 1.28 (95% CI: 0.92–1.78, p = 0.15) in studies that were either matched or randomized and 1.24 (95% CI: 0.97–1.58, p = 0.08) in studies with the highest quality score. IAT was associated with higher odds of near-complete or complete angiographic recanalization (OR: 1.65, 95% CI: 1.03–2.65, p = 0.04) in studies that were either matched or of randomized comparisons. Conclusion: Although the odds of functional independence appeared to be higher with IAT and MT compared with MT alone, none of the results were statistically significant. A prominent effect of the design and quality of the studies was observed on the association between IAT and functional independence at 90 days. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Physicians frequently are early adopters of healthy behaviors based on their knowledge and economic resources. The mortality patterns of physicians in the United States, particularly suicide, have not been rigorously described for over a decade. Previous studies have shown lower all-cause mortality among physicians yet reported conflicting results about cause-specific mortality such as suicide. In this study, we compared all-cause and cause-specific mortality in a sample of physicians to the age-gender matched general U.S. population from 1948 through 1998. We also compared the mortality experience across medical specialities. The risk of all-cause mortality was 56% lower than expected in men, and 26% lower in women, compared to the general population. Standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) were markedly lower for diseases strongly linked to smoking, e.g., cardiovascular diseases, respiratory diseases, and lung cancer. Suicide was the only cause of death where risk was greater than the general population. Overall, we found that physicians are at substantially lower risk of dying compared to the general population for all causes of death except suicide. The findings for suicide are strikingly different than other causes of death and should provide impetus for new research on the mental health of physicians.