O’Brien, Emily C.

Background Reductions in blood pressure (BP) control among patients with hypertension were observed early in the COVID‐19 pandemic. The degree to which BP control may have returned to prepandemic levels is unknown. Methods Individuals aged 18 to 85 years with hypertension from 17 health systems participating in the National Patient‐Centered Clinical Research Network were identified using electronic health record data collected as part of routine care. BP control (percentage of patients whose most recent BP measurement was <140/<90 mm Hg) was estimated in a series of 12‐month rolling measurement periods from 2017 through 2022 (January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017; April 1, 2017 through March 31, 2018; … January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022). Differences in average BP control between 2022 (January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022) and 2019 (January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019) were estimated overall (adjusted for age, sex, and race and ethnicity) and by race and ethnicity (adjusted for age and sex). Results Our sample included 1 193 314 persons with hypertension in 2019 (48.9% aged 65–85 years, 52.9% men, 66.2% non‐Hispanic White) and 1 499 418 individuals in 2022 (50.6% aged 65–85 years, 47.1% men, 62.7% non‐Hispanic White). The weighted average BP control dropped from 65.3% in 2019 to 61.8% in 2020 and then partially recovered to 62.6% in 2022 (adjusted mean difference, −2.6 percentage points [95% CI, −5.0 to −0.2]). Non‐Hispanic Asian individuals experienced the largest temporal drop in BP control, declining from 68.4% in 2019 to 63.9% in 2022. Conclusions BP control was disrupted during the COVID‐19 pandemic and had not fully rebounded to prepandemic levels by the end of 2022. Continued surveillance is needed to determine whether the decline in BP control will persist and will result in future adverse cardiovascular events.

ImportanceAtrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common, chronic, cardiac arrythmia in older US adults. It is not known whether AF is independently associated with increased risk of retinal stroke (central retinal artery occlusion), a subtype of ischemic stroke that causes severely disabling visual loss in most cases and is a harbinger of further vascular events.ObjectiveTo determine whether there is an association between AF and retinal stroke.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis retrospective cohort study was performed between July 2023 and May 2024 using computerized inpatient, outpatient, emergency department, and skilled nursing facility claims files for a 5% sample of US fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries aged 66 years and older between 2000 and 2020. Follow-up ended at death, conclusion of fee-for-service Medicare coverage, end of the study period, or loss to follow-up of 85% of the study cohort.ExposureAF, based on validated International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification and International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis codes.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary end point was incident retinal stroke in the primary diagnostic position of a single claim in any venue of care. Secondary end points included retinal stroke in any position of a single claim, 1 positive control end point (cerebral ischemic stroke), and 4 negative control end points (central retinal vein occlusion, urinary tract infection, humeral fracture, and cataract). Unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and rate differences were computed across matched and overlap-weighted cohorts with and without AF (defined as 1 inpatient claim or 2 outpatient claims within a 365-day period).ResultsIn total, 1 090 144 patients (591 400 female [54.3%]; mean [SD] age, 76.92 [7.09] years) were included in the study; 545 072 patients had AF and 545 072 were matched controls. The median (IQR) follow-up was 45 (18 to 90) months. In total, 1333 patients with AF (rate, 0.55 per 1000 person-years) and 1082 AF-free matched controls (rate, 0.50 per 1000 person-years) experienced retinal stroke. The cause-specific, adjusted HR of retinal stroke after overlap weighting was 1.14 (95% CI, 1.02 to 1.28; adjusted rate difference, 0.05 [95% CI, −0.01 to 0.11]). AF was associated with cerebral ischemic stroke (adjusted HR, 1.73 [95% CI, 1.69 to 1.76]; adjusted rate difference, 10.11 [95% CI, 9.72 to 10.49]). Of 4 prespecified negative control end points, AF was not associated with central retinal vein occlusion but was associated with urinary tract infection, cataract, and humeral fracture.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries aged 66 years and older, AF was independently associated with retinal stroke. The magnitude of the association was small, and a contribution from residual, unmeasured confounding could not be excluded.

Abstract Background The NIH Pragmatic Trials Collaboratory supports the design and conduct of 31 embedded pragmatic clinical trials, and many of these trials use patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to provide valuable information about the patients' health and wellness. Often these trials enroll medically underserved patients, including people with incomes below the federal poverty threshold, racial or ethnic minority groups, or rural or frontier communities. Objectives In this series of trial case reports, we provide lessons learned about collecting PROMs in these populations. Unbiased collection of PROM data is critical to increase the generalizability of trial outcomes and to address health inequities. Use of electronic health records (EHRs) and other digital modes of PROM administration has gained traction. However, engagement with these modes is often low among populations prone to disparity due to lower digital proficiency, device access, and uptake of EHR portals and web interfaces. Methods To maximize the completeness and representativeness of their trial outcome data, study teams tested a range of strategies to improve PROM response rates with emphasis on disparities prone and underserved patient groups. This manuscript describes the approaches, their implementation, and the targeted populations. Conclusion Optimized PROM collection required hybrid approaches with multiple outreach modes, high-touch methods, creativity in promoting digital uptake, multimodal participant engagement, and text messaging.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in reduced in-person clinic visits and declines in blood pressure (BP) control among patients with hypertension. The purpose of this study was to report on pre- to post-pandemic trends in BP control and related BP metrics through 2022. Methods: We utilized data from 17 US health systems with electronic health record data standardized to the PCORnet ® Common Data Model. Multiple BP control metrics were calculated as a series of quarterly, 12-month rolling measurement periods from 2017 to 2022 (i.e., 1/1/2017-12/31/2017, 4/1/2017-3/31/2018, …, 1/1/2022-12/31/2022). BP control was defined as the percentage of patients with hypertension whose most recent BP measurement at an ambulatory visit was <140/<90 mmHg. Improvement in BP was defined as the percentage of patients with a reduction of 10 mmHg in systolic BP or achievement of systolic BP <140 mmHg during the last 3 months of the measurement period in patients with previously uncontrolled hypertension. Results: In 2022, 1,499,418 persons with hypertension were included (50% 65-85 years old; 47% men; 11% Hispanic, 3% non-Hispanic Asian, 20% non-Hispanic Black, 63% non-Hispanic White). BP control was relatively stable within health systems prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Worsening of BP control was seen for most health systems in the second quarter of 2020 coinciding with onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (Figure, left panel). The weighted average BP control was 65.3% in 2019, dropped to 61.8% in 2020, and increased to 62.9% in 2021 and 62.6% in 2022. Similar patterns were observed for the improvement in BP metric (Figure, right panel): weighted average 31.4% in 2019, 25.7% in 2020, 29.1% in 2021 and 28.6% in 2022. Conclusion: BP control and improvement in BP decreased substantially during the COVID-19 pandemic. While both metrics improved after 2020, they were still below pre-pandemic levels through 2022. These findings underscore the importance of continued surveillance of BP control and other health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Introduction: Perceived discrimination is known to play a role in the development of cardiovascular (CV) risk factors such as hypertension, but the association with CV outcomes is less clear. A recent report from a multi-ethnic cohort study found a modestly increased risk of CV disease in participants reporting discrimination. We explored this association in an African American (AA) cohort. Hypothesis: Greater perceived discrimination is associated with a higher risk of CV disease Methods: We examined CV outcomes among 5085 AAs in the Jackson Heart Study enrolled in 2000-2004 and followed through December 31, 2012. We stratified participants by quartiles of perceived everyday discrimination and estimated the associations with CV outcomes (all-cause mortality, incident coronary heart disease [CHD], incident stroke, and heart failure [HF] hospitalization) using Cox models. Results: Greater perceived discrimination was more common in participants who were younger, male, had higher education and income, a lower perceived standing in the community, worse perceived healthcare access, and fewer comorbidities. Over a median follow-up of 9.8 years (8.0 years for HF), 573 deaths, 193 incident CHD, 156 incident strokes, and 348 HF hospitalizations occurred. Prior to adjustment, greater perceived discrimination was associated with a lower risk of death, incident CHD, stroke, and HF hospitalization (Table). After adjustment for potential confounders, we found no association of perceived discrimination with incident CHD, stroke or HF hospitalization; however, a decrease in all-cause mortality risk with higher perceived discrimination persisted. Conclusions: We found no independent association of perceived discrimination with risk of incident CV disease or HF hospitalization and a paradoxical negative association with mortality in this AA population. The unexpected finding of a lower risk of death with greater perceived discrimination requires further study.

Abstract Embedded pragmatic clinical trials (ePCTs) play a vital role in addressing current population health problems, and their use of electronic health record (EHR) systems promises efficiencies that will increase the speed and volume of relevant and generalizable research. However, as the number of ePCTs using EHR-derived data grows, so does the risk that research will become more vulnerable to biases due to differences in data capture and access to care for different subsets of the population, thereby propagating inequities in health and the healthcare system. We identify 3 challenges—incomplete and variable capture of data on social determinants of health, lack of representation of vulnerable populations that do not access or receive treatment, and data loss due to variable use of technology—that exacerbate bias when working with EHR data and offer recommendations and examples of ways to actively mitigate bias.

Objective: We aimed to characterize seasonal variation in US population-based blood pressure (BP) control and BP-related metrics and evaluate the association between outdoor temperature and BP control variation. Methods: We queried electronic health records (EHRs) from 26 health systems, representing 21 states, to summarize BP metrics by quarters of 12-month periods from January 2017 to March 2020. Patients with at least one ambulatory visit during the measurement period and a hypertension diagnosis during the first 6 months or prior to the measurement period were included. Changes in BP control, BP improvement, medication intensification, average SBP reduction after medication intensification across quarters and association with outdoor temperature were analyzed using weighted generalized linear models with repeated measures. Results: Among 1 818 041 people with hypertension, the majority were more than 65 years of age (52.2%), female (52.1%), white non-Hispanic (69.8%) and had stage 1/2 hypertension (64.8%). Overall, BP control and process metrics were highest in quarters 2 and 3, and lowest in quarters 1 and 4. Quarter 2 had the highest percentage of improved BP (31.95 ± 0.90%) and average SBP reduction after medication intensification (16 ± 0.23 mmHg). Quarter 3 had the highest percentage of BP controlled (62.25 ± 2.55%) and lowest with medication intensification (9.73 ± 0.60%). Results were largely consistent in adjusted models. Average temperature was associated with BP control metrics in unadjusted models, but associations were attenuated following adjustment. Conclusion: In this large, national, EHR-based study, BP control and BP-related process metrics improved during spring/summer months, but outdoor temperature was not associated with performance following adjustment for potential confounders.

Background Uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) remains a leading cause of death in the United States. The American Medical Association developed a quality improvement program to improve BP control, but it is unclear how to efficiently implement this program at scale across multiple health systems. Methods and Results We conducted BP MAP (Blood Pressure Measure Accurately, Act Rapidly, and Partner With Patients), a comparative effectiveness trial with clinic‐level randomization to compare 2 scalable versions of the quality improvement program: Full Support (with support from quality improvement expert) and Self‐Guided (using only online materials). Outcomes were clinic‐level BP control (<140/90 mm Hg) and other BP‐related process metrics calculated using electronic health record data. Difference‐in‐differences were used to compare changes in outcomes from baseline to 6 months, between intervention arms, and to a nonrandomized Usual Care arm composed of 18 health systems. A total of 24 safety‐net clinics in 9 different health systems underwent randomization and then simultaneous implementation. BP control increased from 56.7% to 59.1% in the Full Support arm, and 62.0% to 63.1% in the Self‐Guided arm, whereas BP control dropped slightly from 61.3% to 60.9% in the Usual Care arm. The between‐group differences‐in‐differences were not statistically significant (Full Support versus Self‐Guided=+1.2% [95% CI, −3.2% to 5.6%], P =0.59; Full Support versus Usual Care=+3.2% [−0.5% to 6.9%], P =0.09; Self‐Guided versus Usual Care=+2.0% [−0.4% to 4.5%], P =0.10). Conclusions In this randomized trial, 2 methods of implementing a quality improvement intervention in 24 safety net clinics led to modest improvements in BP control that were not statistically significant. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT03818659.

Importance Only modest attention has been paid to the contributions of social determinants of health to atrial fibrillation (AF) risk factors, diagnosis, symptoms, management, and outcomes. The diagnosis of AF provides unique challenges exacerbated by the arrhythmia’s often paroxysmal nature and individuals’ disparate access to health care and technologies that facilitate detection. Social determinants of health affect access to care and management decisions for AF, increasing the likelihood of adverse outcomes among individuals who experience systemic disadvantages. Developing effective approaches to address modifiable social determinants of health requires research to eliminate the substantive inequities in health care delivery and outcomes in AF. Observations The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute convened an expert panel to identify major knowledge gaps and research opportunities in the field of social determinants of AF. The workshop addressed the following social determinants: (1) socioeconomic status and access to care; (2) health literacy; (3) race, ethnicity, and racism; (4) sex and gender; (5) shared decision-making in systemically disadvantaged populations; and (6) place, including rurality, neighborhood, and community. Many individuals with AF have multiple adverse social determinants, which may cluster in the individual and in systemically disadvantaged places (eg, rural locations, urban neighborhoods). Cumulative disadvantages may accumulate over the life course and contribute to inequities in the diagnosis, management, and outcomes in AF. Conclusions and Relevance Workshop participants identified multiple critical research questions and approaches to catalyze social determinants of health research that address the distinctive aspects of AF. The long-term aspiration of this work is to eradicate the substantive inequities in AF diagnosis, management, and outcomes across populations.

ImportanceSelf-measured blood pressure (SMBP) with commercially available connected smartphone applications may help patients effectively use SMBP measurements.ObjectiveTo determine if enhanced SMBP paired with a connected smartphone application was superior to standard SMBP for blood pressure (BP) reduction or patient satisfaction.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis randomized clinical trial was conducted among 23 health systems participating in PCORnet, the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network, and included patients who reported having uncontrolled BP at their last clinic visit, a desire to lower their BP, and a smartphone. Enrollment and randomization occurred from August 3, 2019, to December 31, 2020, which was followed by 6 months of follow-up for each patient. Analysis commenced shortly thereafter.InterventionsEligible participants were randomly assigned to enhanced SMBP using a device that paired with a connected smartphone application (enhanced) or a standard device (standard). Participants received their device in the mail, along with web-based educational materials and phone-based support as needed. No clinician engagement was undertaken, and the study provided no special mechanisms for delivering measurements to clinicians for use in BP management.Main Outcomes and MeasuresReduction in systolic BP, defined as the difference between clinic BP at baseline and the most recent clinic BP extracted from electronic health records at 6 months.ResultsEnrolled participants (1051 enhanced [50.0%] vs 1050 standard [50.0%]; 1191 women [56.7%]) were mostly middle-aged or older (mean [SD] age, 58 [13] years), nearly a third were Black or Hispanic (645 [31%]), and most were relatively comfortable using technology (mean [SD], 4.1 [1.1] of 5). The mean (SD) change in systolic BP from baseline to 6 months was −10.8 (18) mm Hg vs −10.6 (18) mm Hg (enhanced vs standard: adjusted difference, −0.19 mm Hg; 95% CI, −1.83 to 1.44;P = .81). Secondary outcomes were mostly null, except for documented attainment of BP control to lower than 140/&amp;lt;90 mm Hg, which occurred in 32% enhanced vs 29% standard groups (odds ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.01-1.34). Most participants were very likely to recommend their SMBP device to a friend (70% vs 69%).Conclusions and RelevanceThis randomized clinical trial found that enhanced SMBP paired with a smartphone application is not superior to standard SMBP for BP reduction or patient satisfaction.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:NCT03796689