Faculty Bibliography

IMPORTANCE/UNASSIGNED:Among older adults with ischemic heart disease, participation in traditional ambulatory cardiac rehabilitation (CR) remains low. While mobile health CR (mHealth-CR) provides a novel opportunity to deliver care, age-specific impairments to technology use may limit uptake, and efficacy data are currently lacking. OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:To test whether mHealth-CR improves functional capacity in older adults. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS/UNASSIGNED:The RESILIENT phase 2, multicenter, randomized clinical trial recruited patients aged 65 years or older with ischemic heart disease (defined as a hospital visit for myocardial infarction or coronary revascularization) from 5 academic hospitals in New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts between January 9, 2020, and April 22, 2024. INTERVENTION/UNASSIGNED:Participants were randomized 3:1 to mHealth-CR or usual care. mHealth-CR consisted of commercially available software delivered on a tablet computer, coupled with remote monitoring and weekly exercise therapist telephone calls, delivered over a 3-month duration. As RESILIENT was a trial conducted in a routine care setting to inform decision-making, participants in both arms were also allowed to receive traditional CR at their cardiologist's discretion. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES/UNASSIGNED:The primary outcome was change from baseline to 3 months in functional capacity, measured by 6-minute walk distance (6MWD). Secondary outcomes were health status (12-Item Short Form Health Survey [SF-12]), residual angina, and impairment in activities of daily living. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:A total of 400 participants (median age, 71.0 years [range, 65.0-91.0 years]; 291 [72.8%] male) were randomized to mHealth-CR (n = 298) or usual care (n = 102) and included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Of those, 356 participants (89.0%) returned in person for 6MWD assessment at 3 months. For the primary outcome, there was no adjusted difference in 6MWD between participants receiving mHealth-CR vs usual care (15.6 m; 95% CI, -0.3 to 31.5 m; P = .06). Among subgroups, there was an improvement in 6MWD among women (36.6 m; 95% CI, 8.7-64.4 m). There were no differences in any secondary outcomes between groups (eg, adjusted difference in SF-12 physical component scores at 3 months: -1.9 points; 95% CI, -3.9 to 0.2 points). Based on inverse propensity score weighting, there was no effect of mHealth-CR on 6MWD among those who did not attend traditional CR (25.7 m; 95% CI, -8.7 to 60.2 m). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE/UNASSIGNED:In this randomized clinical trial of mHealth-CR vs usual care, mHealth-CR did not significantly increase 6MWD or result in improvements in secondary outcomes. The findings suggest the older adult population may require more age-tailored mHealth strategies to effectively improve outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION/UNASSIGNED:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03978130.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:The relationship between the extent and severity of stress-induced ischemia and the extent and severity of anatomic coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with obstructive CAD is multifactorial and includes the intensity of stress achieved, type of testing used, presence and extent of prior infarction, collateral blood flow, plaque characteristics, microvascular disease, coronary vasomotor tone, and genetic factors. Among chronic coronary disease participants with site-determined moderate or severe ischemia, we investigated associations between ischemia severity on stress testing and the extent of CAD on coronary computed tomography angiography. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:Clinically indicated stress testing included nuclear imaging, echocardiography, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, or nonimaging exercise tolerance test. Among those with preserved renal function who underwent coronary computed tomography angiography, we examined relationships between ischemia and CAD by coronary computed tomography angiography, overall, and by stress test modality, regardless of subsequent randomization. Core laboratories categorized ischemia as severe, moderate, mild, or none, while the extent and severity of anatomic CAD were categorized based on the modified Duke prognostic index. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Among 3601 participants with interpretable stress tests and coronary computed tomography angiography, ischemia severity was weakly associated with CAD extent/severity (r=0.27), with modest variability in strength of association by modality: nuclear (n=1532; r=0.40), echocardiography (n=827; r=0.15), cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (n=108; r=0.31), and exercise tolerance test (n=1134; r=0.18). The extent of infarction on nuclear imaging and echocardiography was weakly associated with CAD extent/severity. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Overall, ischemia severity on stress testing showed weak to moderate associations with the anatomic extent of CAD in this cohort with moderate or severe ischemia on local interpretation and controlled symptoms. REGISTRATION/UNASSIGNED:URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01471522.

BACKGROUND:Whether revascularisation (REV) improves outcomes in patients with three-vessel coronary artery disease (3V-CAD) is uncertain. AIMS/OBJECTIVE:Our objective was to evaluate outcomes with REV (percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI] or coronary artery bypass graft surgery [CABG]) versus medical therapy in patients with 3V-CAD. METHODS:ISCHEMIA participants with 3V-CAD on coronary computed tomography angiography without prior CABG were included. Outcomes following initial invasive management (INV) with REV (PCI or CABG) versus initial conservative management (CON) with medical therapy alone were evaluated. Regression modelling was used to estimate the outcomes if all participants were to undergo prompt REV versus those assigned to CON. Outcomes were cardiovascular (CV) death/myocardial infarction (MI), death, CV death, and quality of life. Bayesian posterior probability for benefit (Pr [benefit]) for 1 percentage point lower 4-year rates with REV versus CON were evaluated. RESULTS:Among 1,236 participants with 3V-CAD (612 INV/624 CON), REV was associated with lower 4-year CV death/MI (adjusted 4-year difference: -4.4, 95% credible interval [CrI] -8.7 to -0.3 percentage points, Pr [benefit]=94.8%) when compared with CON, with similar results for PCI versus CON (-5.8, 95% CrI: -10.8 to -0.5 percentage points, Pr [benefit]=96.4%) and CABG versus CON (-3.7, 95% CrI: -8.8 to 1.5 percentage points, Pr [benefit]=84.7%). Adjusted 4-year REV versus CON differences were as follows: death -1.2 (95% CrI: -4.7 to 2.2) percentage points, CV death -2.3 (95% CrI: -5.5 to 0.8) percentage points, with similar results for PCI and for CABG. The Pr (benefit) for death with REV (PCI or CABG) versus CON was 49-63%. The adjusted 12-month Seattle Angina Questionnaire-7 summary score differences favoured REV: REV versus CON 4.6 (95% CrI: 2.7-6.4) percentage points; PCI versus CON 3.6 (95% CrI: 1.2-5.8) percentage points and CABG versus CON 4.3 (95% CrI: 1.5-6.9) percentage points with high Pr (benefit). CONCLUSIONS:In participants with 3V-CAD, REV (either PCI or CABG) was associated with a lower 4-year CV death/MI rate and improved quality of life, with similar results for PCI versus CON and CABG versus CON. The differences in all-cause mortality between REV and CON were small with wide confidence intervals. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01471522).

AbstractIn response to the Covid-19 pandemic, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute launched five multisite clinical trials testing candidate host tissue-directed medical interventions to hasten recovery, improve function, and reduce morbidity and mortality. Speed, flexibility, and collaboration were essential. This article from the Steering and Executive committees describes the Collaborating Network of Networks for Evaluating Covid-19 and Therapeutic Strategies (CONNECTS) research program that enrolled 6690 participants and evaluated 18 intervention strategies using 10 molecular agents across the care continuum (outpatient, inpatient, and post discharge), and reports lessons learned from this initiative. Successes include rapid trial execution through collaboration and adaptive platform designs. Challenges that impeded efficiency included time required to execute subcontracts, constraints on clinical research workforce, and limited research infrastructure in nonacademic settings.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Clinical trials suggest that therapeutic-dose heparin may prevent critical illness and vascular complications due to COVID-19, but knowledge gaps exist regarding the efficacy of therapeutic heparin including its comparative effect relative to intermediate-dose anticoagulation. OBJECTIVES/UNASSIGNED:The authors performed 2 complementary secondary analyses of a completed randomized clinical trial: 1) a prespecified per-protocol analysis; and 2) an exploratory dose-based analysis to compare the effect of therapeutic-dose heparin with low- and intermediate-dose heparin. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:Patients who received initial anticoagulation dosed consistently with randomization were included. The primary outcome was organ support-free days (OSFDs), a combination of in-hospital death and days free of organ support through day 21. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Among 2,860 participants, 1,761 (92.8%) noncritically ill and 857 (89.1%) critically ill patients were treated per-protocol. Among noncritically ill per-protocol patients, the posterior probability that therapeutic-dose heparin improved OSFDs as compared with usual care was 99.3% (median adjusted OR: 1.36; 95% credible interval [CrI]: 1.07-1.74). Therapeutic heparin had a high posterior probability of efficacy relative to both low- (94.6%; adjusted OR: 1.26; 95% CrI: 0.95-1.64) and intermediate- (99.8%; adjusted OR: 1.80; 95% CrI: 1.22-2.62) dose thromboprophylaxis. Among critically ill per-protocol patients, the posterior probability that therapeutic heparin improved outcomes was low. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Among noncritically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19 who were randomized to and initially received therapeutic-dose anticoagulation, heparin, compared with usual care, was associated with improved OSFDs, a combination of in-hospital death and days free of organ support. Therapeutic heparin appeared superior to both low- and intermediate-dose thromboprophylaxis.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The Zoster Eye Disease Study (ZEDS) is the first randomized clinical trial to study the efficacy of long-term (1 year) suppressive valacyclovir treatment on herpes zoster ophthalmicus (HZO) outcomes. This article details the baseline characteristics of participants. SETTING/METHODS:The study was set at 95 participating clinical centers in 33 states, Canada, and New Zealand. STUDY POPULATION/METHODS:Immunocompetent adults with a history of a characteristic HZO unilateral rash and documentation of an episode of active dendriform epithelial keratitis, stromal keratitis, endothelial keratitis, or iritis within the preceding year, enrolled in ZEDS from November 2017 to January 2023. INTERVENTION/METHODS:Participants were randomized to double-masked oral valacyclovir 1 gm daily versus placebo for 1 year of treatment and followed for 18 months. RESULTS:Five hundred twenty-seven participants were enrolled across 4 strata according to age at HZO onset (younger or older than 60 years) and duration of HZO at enrollment (less or greater than 6 months), with an even distribution of men and women and a median age of 60 years. More participants with recent (57%, 300/527) than chronic HZO and younger than 60 years at HZO onset (54%, 286/527) were enrolled. Most participants were treated acutely with a recommended antiviral regimen (91%, 480/527) and had not been vaccinated against zoster (79%, 418/527). CONCLUSIONS:The broad ZEDS study population enhances the likelihood that ZEDS will provide generalizable high-quality evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of suppressive valacyclovir for HZO immunocompetent adults and whether it should become standard of care. TRIAL REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03134196.

BACKGROUND:The ISCHEMIA trial found that patients with chronic coronary disease randomized to invasive strategy had better health status than those randomized to conservative strategy. It is unclear how best to translate these population-level results to individual patients. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The authors sought to identify patient characteristics associated with health status from invasive and conservative strategies, and develop a prediction algorithm for shared decision-making. METHODS:One-year disease-specific health status was assessed in ISCHEMIA with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) Summary Score (SAQ SS) and Angina Frequency, Physical Limitations (PL), and Quality of Life (QL) domains (range 0-100, higher = less angina/better health status). RESULTS:Among 4,617 patients from 320 sites in 37 countries, mean SAQ SS was 74.1 ± 18.9 at baseline and 85.7 ± 15.6 at 1 year. Lower baseline SAQ SS and younger age were associated with better 1-year health status with invasive strategy (P interaction = 0.009 and P interaction = 0.004, respectively). For the individual domains, there were significant treatment interactions for baseline SAQ score (Angina Frequency, PL), age (PL, QL), anterior ischemia (PL), and number of baseline antianginal medications (QL), with more benefit of invasive in patients with worse baseline health status, younger age, anterior ischemia, and on more antianginal medications. Parsimonious prediction models were developed for 1-year SAQ domains with invasive or conservative strategies to support shared decision-making. CONCLUSIONS:In the management of chronic coronary disease, individual patient characteristics are associated with 1-year health status, with younger age and poorer angina-related health status showing greater benefit from invasive management. This prediction algorithm can support the translation of the ISCHEMIA trial results to individual patients. (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches [ISCHEMIA]; NCT01471522).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS/OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to determine the prognostic value of coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA)-derived atherosclerotic plaque analysis in ISCHEMIA. METHODS:Atherosclerosis imaging quantitative computed tomography (AI-QCT) was performed on all available baseline CCTAs to quantify plaque volume, composition, and distribution. Multivariable Cox regression was used to examine the association between baseline risk factors (age, sex, smoking, diabetes, hypertension, ejection fraction, prior coronary disease, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and statin use), number of diseased vessels, atherosclerotic plaque characteristics determined by AI-QCT, and a composite primary outcome of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction over a median follow-up of 3.3 (interquartile range 2.2-4.4) years. The predictive value of plaque quantification over risk factors was compared in an area under the curve (AUC) analysis. RESULTS:Analysable CCTA data were available from 3711 participants (mean age 64 years, 21% female, 79% multivessel coronary artery disease). Amongst the AI-QCT variables, total plaque volume was most strongly associated with the primary outcome (adjusted hazard ratio 1.56, 95% confidence interval 1.25-1.97 per interquartile range increase [559 mm3]; P = .001). The addition of AI-QCT plaque quantification and characterization to baseline risk factors improved the model's predictive value for the primary outcome at 6 months (AUC 0.688 vs. 0.637; P = .006), at 2 years (AUC 0.660 vs. 0.617; P = .003), and at 4 years of follow-up (AUC 0.654 vs. 0.608; P = .002). The findings were similar for the other reported outcomes. CONCLUSIONS:In ISCHEMIA, total plaque volume was associated with cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction. In this highly diseased, high-risk population, enhanced assessment of atherosclerotic burden using AI-QCT-derived measures of plaque volume and composition modestly improved event prediction.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Pursuing initial invasive or conservative management of chronic coronary disease (CCD) is a preference-sensitive decision that should include shared decision-making. Communicating the benefits of either approach is challenging, as individual patients rarely achieve the population-averaged outcomes reported in clinical trials. Our objective was to develop a patient decision aid (PDA) with patient-specific estimates of outcomes for initial invasive versus conservative management of CCD, based on the ISCHEMIA trial (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches). METHODS/UNASSIGNED:This was a multiphase mixed-methods study using focus groups of outpatients with CCD, caregivers, clinicians, and researchers. Focus groups were held in Kansas City, MO and New York City, NY between September 2021 and June 2022. Patients with CCD were included if they had a positive stress test within 1 year. Phase 1 focused on patient priorities for outcomes to guide treatment decisions. Phase 2 involved PDA development and refinement. Phase 3 involved further refinement and member checking. Key themes involving shared decision-making and treatment preferences were elicited from focus groups using a deductive approach to develop a PDA representing the outcomes most important to patients. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Of 46 patient and caregiver participants, the mean age was 63.5 years, 53% were female, 61% were White, 24% were Black, and 9% were Hispanic. When deciding between treatments, participants valued shared decision-making but generally deferred decisions to clinicians. The outcomes most important to participants were survival and quality of life, followed by physical functioning and symptoms. To represent these outcomes, participants favored simple visualizations, such as a speedometer or health meter. When deciding between treatment options, participants preferred to use the PDA collaboratively with a clinician instead of as a stand-alone tool. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Our novel, patient-centered approach to developing a PDA for CCD with patient-specific outcomes has the potential to rapidly translate clinical trial results to individual patients and support shared decision-making.