Whittle, Jeff

Abstract Whether initiation of statins could increase survival free of dementia and disability in adults aged ≥75 years is unknown. PREVENTABLE, a double‐blind, placebo‐controlled randomized pragmatic clinical trial, will compare high‐intensity statin therapy (atorvastatin 40 mg) with placebo in 20,000 community‐dwelling adults aged ≥75 years without cardiovascular disease, disability, or dementia at baseline. Exclusion criteria include statin use in the prior year or for >5 years and inability to take a statin. Potential participants are identified using computable phenotypes derived from the electronic health record and local referrals from the community. Participants will undergo baseline cognitive testing, with physical testing and a blinded lipid panel if feasible. Cognitive testing and disability screening will be conducted annually. Multiple data sources will be queried for cardiovascular events, dementia, and disability; survival is site‐reported and supplemented by a National Death Index search. The primary outcome is survival free of new dementia or persisting disability. Co‐secondary outcomes are a composite of cardiovascular death, hospitalization for unstable angina or myocardial infarction, heart failure, stroke, or coronary revascularization; and a composite of mild cognitive impairment or dementia. Ancillary studies will offer mechanistic insights into the effects of statins on key outcomes. Biorepository samples are obtained and stored for future study. These results will inform the benefit of statins for increasing survival free of dementia and disability among older adults. This is a pioneering pragmatic study testing important questions with low participant burden to align with the needs of the growing population of older adults.

Background: Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is an important cause of cardiovascular mortality; however, its genetic determinants remain incompletely defined. In total, 10 previously identified risk loci explain a small fraction of AAA heritability. Methods: We performed a genome-wide association study in the Million Veteran Program testing ≈18 million DNA sequence variants with AAA (7642 cases and 172 172 controls) in veterans of European ancestry with independent replication in up to 4972 cases and 99 858 controls. We then used mendelian randomization to examine the causal effects of blood pressure on AAA. We examined the association of AAA risk variants with aneurysms in the lower extremity, cerebral, and iliac arterial beds, and derived a genome-wide polygenic risk score (PRS) to identify a subset of the population at greater risk for disease. Results: Through a genome-wide association study, we identified 14 novel loci, bringing the total number of known significant AAA loci to 24. In our mendelian randomization analysis, we demonstrate that a genetic increase of 10 mm Hg in diastolic blood pressure (odds ratio, 1.43 [95% CI, 1.24–1.66]; P =1.6×10 −6 ), as opposed to systolic blood pressure (odds ratio, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.97–1.15]; P =0.2), likely has a causal relationship with AAA development. We observed that 19 of 24 AAA risk variants associate with aneurysms in at least 1 other vascular territory. A 29-variant PRS was strongly associated with AAA (odds ratio PRS , 1.26 [95% CI, 1.18–1.36]; P PRS =2.7×10 −11 per SD increase in PRS), independent of family history and smoking risk factors (odds ratio PRS+family history+smoking , 1.24 [95% CI, 1.14–1.35]; P PRS =1.27×10 −6 ). Using this PRS, we identified a subset of the population with AAA prevalence greater than that observed in screening trials informing current guidelines. Conclusions: We identify novel AAA genetic associations with therapeutic implications and identify a subset of the population at significantly increased genetic risk of AAA independent of family history. Our data suggest that extending current screening guidelines to include testing to identify those with high polygenic AAA risk, once the cost of genotyping becomes comparable with that of screening ultrasound, would significantly increase the yield of current screening at reasonable cost.

Orthostatic hypotension (OH) is frequently observed with hypertension treatment, but its contribution to adverse outcomes is unknown. The SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) was a randomized trial of adults, age ≥50 years at high risk for cardiovascular disease with a seated systolic blood pressure (BP) of 130 to 180 mm Hg and a standing systolic BP ≥110 mm Hg. Participants were randomized to a systolic BP treatment goal of either <120 or <140 mm Hg. OH was defined as a drop in systolic BP ≥20 or diastolic BP ≥10 mm Hg 1 minute after standing from a seated position. We used Cox models to examine the association of OH with cardiovascular disease or adverse study events by randomized BP goal. During the follow-up period (median 3years), there were 1170 (5.7%) instances of OH among those assigned a standard BP goal and 1057 (5.0%) among those assigned the intensive BP goal. OH was not associated with higher risk of cardiovascular disease events (primary outcome: hazard ratio 1.06 [95% CI, 0.78–1.44]). Moreover, OH was not associated with syncope, electrolyte abnormalities, injurious falls, or acute renal failure. OH was associated with hypotension-related hospitalizations or emergency department visits (hazard ratio, 1.77 [95% CI, 1.11–2.82]) and bradycardia (hazard ratio, 1.94 [95% CI, 1.19–3.15]), but these associations did not differ by BP treatment goal. OH was not associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular disease events, and BP treatment goal had no effect on OH’s association with hypotension and bradycardia. Symptomless OH during hypertension treatment should not be viewed as a reason to down-titrate therapy even in the setting of a lower BP goal. Clinical Trial Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01206062.

Aims To determine whether baseline metabolic syndrome (MetS) modifies the effect of intensive blood pressure control on cardiovascular (CV) outcomes, and whether the effects varied by race/ethnicity. Methods We performed post hoc analyses among non‐Hispanic black, non‐hispanic white and Hispanic participants, with and without MetS, in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT), who were randomized to a systolic blood pressure (SBP) target of <120 mm Hg (intensive group, N = 4544) or an SBP target of <140 mm Hg (standard group, N = 4553). The median follow‐up was 3.26 years. The primary outcome was the composite of the first occurrence of myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, non‐myocardial infarction acute coronary syndrome or CV death. Results Overall, 3521/9097 participants (38.7%) met the criteria for MetS at baseline. Baseline characteristics were similar in the two SBP target groups within each MetS subgroup, except body mass index was slightly higher in the standard arm of the MetS subgroup (33.3 ± 5.6 vs 33.0 ± 5.3 kg/m 2 ; P < .01), but were similar across treatment arms in the non‐MetS subgroup. The hazard ratio for the primary outcome was similarly reduced in participants with or without baseline MetS: 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57, 0.96) and 0.71 (95% CI 0.57, 0.87), respectively (adjusted P value for treatment by subgroup interaction = .98). Similarly, there was no evidence of treatment × MetS subgroup interaction for all‐cause mortality (adjusted interaction P value = .98). The findings were also similar across race/ethnic subgroups. Conclusions In this analysis the CV benefit of intensive SBP control did not differ among participants by baseline MetS status, regardless of race/ethnicity.

Background: In individuals with a low diastolic blood pressure (DBP), the potential benefits or risks of intensive systolic blood pressure (SBP) lowering are unclear. Methods: SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) was a randomized controlled trial that compared the effects of intensive (target <120 mm Hg) and standard (target <140 mm Hg) SBP control in 9361 older adults with high blood pressure at increased risk of cardiovascular disease. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular disease events. All-cause death and incident chronic kidney disease were secondary outcomes. This post hoc analysis examined whether the effects of the SBP intervention differed by baseline DBP. Results: Mean baseline SBP and DBP were 139.7±15.6 and 78.1±11.9 mm Hg, respectively. Regardless of the randomized treatment, baseline DBP had a U-shaped association with the hazard of the primary cardiovascular disease outcome. However, the effects of the intensive SBP intervention on the primary outcome were not influenced by baseline DBP level ( P for interaction=0.83). The primary outcome hazard ratio for intensive versus standard treatment was 0.78 (95% confidence interval, 0.57–1.07) in the lowest DBP quintile (mean baseline DBP, 61±5 mm Hg) and 0.74 (95% confidence interval, 0.61–0.90) in the upper 4 DBP quintiles (mean baseline DBP, 82±9 mm Hg), with an interaction P value of 0.78. Results were similar for all-cause death and kidney events. Conclusions: Low baseline DBP was associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease events, but there was no evidence that the benefit of the intensive SBP lowering differed by baseline DBP. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01206062.

Objective The aim of the study was to determine how frequently mental status and mental status changes are documented in the written patient summary (“sign-out”) provided to covering physicians. Patients and Methods This was a retrospective cohort study of general medical patients hospitalized between March 16, 2009, and March 15, 2010, conducted at 2 teaching hospitals. Participants included patients with mental status change adverse events (MSAEs) and their providers. Chart review was performed to identify patients with MSAEs and details about these events. Sign-outs were reviewed for documentation of mental status. Main outcome measures were (1) proportion of patients with MSAEs who had mental status ever recorded in sign-out entries and (2) the proportion of patients with MSAEs whose change in mental status was recorded in the sign-out. Results Sixty-eight patients had MSAEs and were included in the sample. Fifty percent of MSAEs were attributed to medications; 75% of these events were first detected by nurses. Only 25% of patients with MSAEs had their change in mental status recorded in sign-outs. Conclusions Recording mental status in written sign-outs is uncommon. Particularly concerning is that patients with MSAEs identified by chart review seldom had sign-outs that reflected those events. Interventions should be designed to increase the recording of this information in sign-outs.

BACKGROUNDInaccurate or incomplete information in the written portion of the patient handoff, or sign‐out, may be associated with adverse events in hospitalized patients. Little is known about what information providers actually include in written sign‐out documents and how sign‐outs change over time.OBJECTIVES(1) Provide a descriptive analysis of initial and subsequent hospital day‐written sign‐out content, and (2) evaluate the relationship between team workload and sign‐out composition.DESIGNRetrospective review of sign‐out documents from a larger observational study of general medicine patients admitted to housestaff and hospitalist teams at 3 hospitals.MAIN MEASURESThe presence of 13 components of a high‐quality sign‐out. We performed descriptive analyses and compared initial and subsequent day sign‐outs for content.KEY RESULTSWe reviewed 200 patient hospitalizations (200 initial handoffs, 580 subsequent day handoffs). Initial sign‐out entries contained a mean of 7.54 (standard deviation: 2.27) key sign‐out components. Subsequent day sign‐outs contained a higher percentage of certain key elements but had more vague language. The number of elements present in the sign‐out was reduced as patient census increased (r = −0.295, P < 0.01).CONCLUSIONSSign‐out composition changes over time, and is associated with workload. Future interventions to improve quality should take these factors into consideration. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2015;10:534–536. © 2015 Society of Hospital Medicine.