The Effect of Tailored, Daily, Smartphone Feedback to Lifestyle Self-Monitoring on Weight Loss at 12 Months: the SMARTER Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Self-monitoring (SM) is the centerpiece of behavioral weight loss treatment, but the efficacy of smartphone-delivered SM feedback (FB) has not been tested in large, long-term, randomized trials. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to establish the efficacy of providing remote FB to diet, physical activity (PA), and weight SM on improving weight loss outcomes when comparing the SM plus FB (SM+FB) condition to the SM-only condition in a 12-month randomized controlled trial. The study was a single-site, population-based trial that took place in southwestern Pennsylvania, USA, conducted between 2018 and 2021. Participants were smartphone users age ≥18 years, able to engage in moderate PA, with a mean BMI between 27 and 43 kg/m2. METHODS: All participants received a 90-minute, one-to-one, in-person behavioral weight loss counseling session addressing behavioral strategies, establishing participants' dietary and PA goals, and instructing on use of the PA tracker (Fitbit Charge 2), smart scale, and diet SM app. Only SM+FB participants had access to an investigator-developed smartphone app that read SM data, in which an algorithm selected tailored messages sent to the smartphone up to 3 times daily. The SM-only participants did not receive any tailored FB based on SM data. The primary outcome was percent weight change from baseline to 12 months. Secondary outcomes included engagement with digital tools (eg, monthly percentage of FB messages opened and monthly percentage of days adherent to the calorie goal). RESULTS: Participants (N=502) were on average 45.0 (SD 14.4) years old with a mean BMI of 33.7 (SD 4.0) kg/m2. The sample was 79.5% female (n=399/502) and 82.5% White (n=414/502). At 12 months, retention was 78.5% (n=394/502) and similar by group (SM+FB: 202/251, 80.5%; SM: 192/251, 76.5%; P=.28). There was significant percent weight loss from baseline in both groups (SM+FB: -2.12%, 95% CI -3.04% to -1.21%, P<.001; SM: -2.39%, 95% CI -3.32% to -1.47%; P<.001), but no difference between the groups (-0.27%; 95% CI -1.57% to 1.03%; t =-0.41; P=.68). Similarly, 26.3% (66/251) of the SM+FB group and 29.1% (73/251) of the SM group achieved ≥5% weight loss (chi-square value=0.49; P=.49). A 1% increase in FB messages opened was associated with a 0.10 greater percent weight loss at 12 months (b=-0.10; 95% CI -0.13 to -0.07; t =-5.90; P<.001). A 1% increase in FB messages opened was associated with 0.12 greater percentage of days adherent to the calorie goal per month (b=0.12; 95% CI 0.07-0.17; F=22.19; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant between-group differences in weight loss; however, the findings suggested that the use of commercially available digital SM tools with or without FB resulted in a clinically significant weight loss in over 25% of participants. Future studies need to test additional strategies that will promote greater engagement with digital tools. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03367936; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03367936.

Inequities in Hypertension Control in the United States Exposed and Exacerbated by COVID-19 and the Role of Home Blood Pressure and Virtual Health Care During and After the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic is a public health crisis, having killed more than 514 000 US adults as of March 2, 2021. COVID-19 mitigation strategies have unintended consequences on managing chronic conditions such as hypertension, a leading cause of cardiovascular disease and health disparities in the United States. During the first wave of the pandemic in the United States, the combination of observed racial/ethnic inequities in COVID-19 deaths and social unrest reinvigorated a national conversation about systemic racism in health care and society. The 4th Annual University of Utah Translational Hypertension Symposium gathered frontline clinicians, researchers, and leaders from diverse backgrounds to discuss the intersection of these 2 critical social and public health phenomena and to highlight preexisting disparities in hypertension treatment and control exacerbated by COVID-19. The discussion underscored environmental and socioeconomic factors that are deeply embedded in US health care and research that impact inequities in hypertension. Structural racism plays a central role at both the health system and individual levels. At the same time, virtual healthcare platforms are being accelerated into widespread use by COVID-19, which may widen the divide in healthcare access across levels of wealth, geography, and education. Blood pressure control rates are declining, especially among communities of color and those without health insurance or access to health care. Hypertension awareness, therapeutic lifestyle changes, and evidence-based pharmacotherapy are essential. There is a need to improve the implementation of community-based interventions and blood pressure self-monitoring, which can help build patient trust and increase healthcare engagement.

Effect of Reducing Sedentary Behavior on Blood Pressure (RESET BP): Rationale, design, and methods.

Sedentary behavior (SB) has recently been recognized as a strong risk factor for cardiovascular disease, with new guidelines encouraging adults to 'sit less, move more.' Yet, there are few randomized trials demonstrating that reducing SB improves cardiovascular health. The Effect of Reducing Sedentary Behavior on Blood Pressure (RESET BP) randomized clinical trial addresses this gap by testing the effect of a 3-month SB reduction intervention on resting systolic BP. Secondary outcomes include other BP measures, pulse wave velocity, plasma renin activity and aldosterone, and objectively-measured SB (via thigh-mounted activPAL) and physical activity (via waist-worn GT3X accelerometer). RESET BP has a targeted recruitment of 300 adults with desk jobs, along with elevated, non-medicated BP (systolic BP 120-159 mmHg or diastolic BP 80-99 mmHg) and physical inactivity (self-reported aerobic physical activity below recommended levels). The multi-component intervention promotes 2-4 fewer hours of SB per day by replacing sitting with standing and light-intensity movement breaks. Participants assigned to the intervention condition receive a sit-stand desk attachment, a wrist-worn activity prompter, behavioral counseling every two weeks (alternating in-person and phone), and twice-weekly automated text messages. Herein, we review the study rationale, describe and evaluate recruitment strategies based on enrollment to date, and detail the intervention and assessment protocols. We also document our mid-trial adaptations to participant recruitment, intervention deployment, and outcome assessments due to the intervening COVID-19 pandemic. Our research methods, experiences to date, and COVID-specific accommodations could inform other research studying BP and hypertension or targeting working populations, including those seeking remote methods.

Angiotensin II receptor blocker or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor use and COVID-19-related outcomes among US Veterans.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) may positively or negatively impact outcomes in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. We investigated the association of ARB or ACEI use with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related outcomes in US Veterans with treated hypertension using an active comparator design, appropriate covariate adjustment, and negative control analyses. METHODS AND FINDINGS: In this retrospective cohort study of Veterans with treated hypertension in the Veterans Health Administration (01/19/2020-08/28/2020), we compared users of (A) ARB/ACEI vs. non-ARB/ACEI (excluding Veterans with compelling indications to reduce confounding by indication) and (B) ARB vs. ACEI among (1) SARS-CoV-2+ outpatients and (2) COVID-19 hospitalized inpatients. The primary outcome was all-cause hospitalization or mortality (outpatients) and all-cause mortality (inpatients). We estimated hazard ratios (HR) using propensity score-weighted Cox regression. Baseline characteristics were well-balanced between exposure groups after weighting. Among outpatients, there were 5.0 and 6.0 primary outcomes per 100 person-months for ARB/ACEI (n = 2,482) vs. non-ARB/ACEI (n = 2,487) users (HR 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73-0.99, median follow-up 87 days). Among outpatients who were ARB (n = 4,877) vs. ACEI (n = 8,704) users, there were 13.2 and 14.8 primary outcomes per 100 person-months (HR 0.91, 95%CI 0.86-0.97, median follow-up 85 days). Among inpatients who were ARB/ACEI (n = 210) vs. non-ARB/ACEI (n = 275) users, there were 3.4 and 2.0 all-cause deaths per 100 person months (HR 1.25, 95%CI 0.30-5.13, median follow-up 30 days). Among inpatients, ARB (n = 1,164) and ACEI (n = 2,014) users had 21.0 vs. 17.7 all-cause deaths, per 100 person-months (HR 1.13, 95%CI 0.93-1.38, median follow-up 30 days). CONCLUSIONS: This observational analysis supports continued ARB or ACEI use for patients already using these medications before SARS-CoV-2 infection. The novel beneficial association observed among outpatients between users of ARBs vs. ACEIs on hospitalization or mortality should be confirmed with randomized trials.