Routine Hearing Screening for Older Adults in Primary Care: Insights of Patients and Clinic Personnel.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Hearing loss frequently goes undiagnosed and untreated, with serious sequelae. Hearing screening facilitates diagnosis and treatment but is not routinely conducted in primary care. This study addresses attitudes and insights of patients and primary care clinic personnel relative to routinization of hearing screening in primary care for older adults. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Data presented are from the qualitative portion of a larger study. The main study compared screening completion for three approaches to coordinating telephone-based hearing screening with primary care - one offering hearing screening within the primary care encounter and two providing information for at-home screening (one with and one without provider encouragement). Focus groups/interviews were conducted with personnel (n=38) at the six participating clinics, patients who completed screening and were referred for diagnosis (n=14) and patients who did not complete screening (n=10). Analysis used the general inductive approach. RESULTS: Most patients had unaddressed hearing concerns prior to the study. Negative attitudes towards hearing loss/treatment were common, and experiences of family and friends influenced attitudes, but lack of urgency was the primary barrier to screening completion. Respondents favored routine primary care-based hearing screening for older adults, but clinic personnel noted challenges of time, space, workflow, and reimbursement. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Findings favor greater routinization of hearing screening in primary care. Routinization will be enhanced by improved reimbursement for screening and follow-up; specialist engagement with primary care and the public (including leveraging older adults' social networks); and further research on specific integration options.

Design of a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial comparing the effectiveness of shared decision making versus motivational interviewing plus cognitive behavioral therapy for voluntary opioid tapering: The INSPIRE study protocol.

BACKGROUND: This paper describes the design and protocol of a pragmatic, randomized trial to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of shared decision making versus motivational interviewing plus cognitive behavioral therapy for chronic pain for the voluntary tapering of opioid dose in adults with chronic noncancer pain. Integrated Services for Pain: Interventions to Reduce Pain Effectively (INSPIRE) is a multicenter, randomized trial conducted at three academic health centers in the southeastern United States. Participants are adults receiving long-term opioid therapy of at least 20 morphine milligram equivalents daily for chronic noncancer pain. METHODS: Participants were randomized to either the shared decision-making intervention or the motivational interviewing session and cognitive behavioral therapy for chronic pain intervention. All participants also received guideline-concordant care supporting opioid pharmacotherapy. The primary outcome was change from baseline in average daily prescribed opioid dose at 12 months, using prescribing data from electronic health records. Secondary outcomes were Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Pain Interference and Physical Function at 12 months. CONCLUSION: This trial evaluates the comparative effectiveness of shared decision making versus motivational interviewing plus cognitive behavioral therapy for chronic pain for the voluntary tapering of opioid dose in adults with chronic noncancer pain. Results from this study can guide clinicians, researchers, and policymakers as they seek to reduce opioid prescribing and improve management of chronic pain. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03454555 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT03454555). Participant enrollment began on June 26, 2019.

A Pragmatic Clinical Trial of Hearing Screening in Primary Care Clinics: Effect of Setting and Provider Encouragement.

OBJECTIVES: The prevalence of hearing loss increases with age. Untreated hearing loss is associated with poorer communication abilities and negative health consequences, such as increased risk of dementia, increased odds of falling, and depression. Nonetheless, evidence is insufficient to support the benefits of universal hearing screening in asymptomatic older adults. The primary goal of the present study was to compare three hearing screening protocols that differed in their level of support by the primary care (PC) clinic and provider. The protocols varied in setting (in-clinic versus at-home screening) and in primary care provider (PCP) encouragement for hearing screening (yes versus no). DESIGN: We conducted a multisite, pragmatic clinical trial. A total of 660 adults aged 65 to 75 years; 64.1% female; 35.3% African American/Black completed the trial. Three hearing screening protocols were studied, with 220 patients enrolled in each protocol. All protocols included written educational materials about hearing loss and instructions on how to complete the self-administered telephone-based hearing screening but varied in the level of support provided in the clinic setting and by the provider. The protocols were as follows: (1) no provider encouragement to complete the hearing screening at home, (2) provider encouragement to complete the hearing screening at home, and (3) provider encouragement and clinical support to complete the hearing screening after the provider visit while in the clinic. Our primary outcome was the percentage of patients who completed the hearing screening within 60 days of a routine PC visit. Secondary outcomes following patient access of hearing healthcare were also considered and consisted of the percentage of patients who completed and failed the screening and who (1) scheduled, and (2) completed a diagnostic evaluation. For patients who completed the diagnostic evaluation, we also examined the percentage of those who received a hearing loss intervention plan by a hearing healthcare provider. RESULTS: All patients who had provider encouragement and support to complete the screening in the clinic completed the screening (100%) versus 26.8% with encouragement to complete the screening at home. For patients who were offered hearing screening at home, completion rates were similar regardless of provider encouragement (26.8% with encouragement versus 22.7% without encouragement); adjusted odds ratio of 1.25 (95% confidence interval 0.80-1.94). Regarding the secondary outcomes, roughly half (38.9-57.1% depending on group) of all patients who failed the hearing screening scheduled and completed a formal diagnostic evaluation. The percentage of patients who completed a diagnostic evaluation and received a hearing loss intervention plan was 35.0% to 50.0% depending on the group. Rates of a hearing loss intervention plan by audiologists ranged from 28.6% to 47.5% and were higher compared with those by otolaryngology providers, which ranged from 15.0% to 20.8% among the groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the pragmatic clinical trial showed that offering provider encouragement and screening facilities in the PC clinic led to a significantly higher rate of adherence with hearing screening associated with a single encounter. However, provider encouragement did not improve the significantly lower rate of adherence with home-based hearing screening.

Models for Delivering Weight Management in Primary Care: Qualitative Results from the MOST Obesity Study.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States (US). Primary care medical practices can educate patients about the health effects of obesity and help patients with obesity lose and manage their weight. However, implementation of weight management in primary care is challenging. We sought to examine how practices that implement weight management services do so feasibly. METHODS: Multiple methods including site visits, observations, interviews, and document reviews were utilized to identify and learn from primary care practices located across the US. A qualitative multidimensional classification of empirical cases was performed to identify unique delivery features that were feasible to implement in primary care. RESULTS: Across 21 practices, 4 delivery models were identified: group, integrated into standard primary care, hiring an "other" professional, and using a specific program. Model characteristics included who delivered the weight management services, whether delivered to an individual or group, the types of approaches used, and how the care was reimbursed or paid. Most practices integrated weight management services and primary care delivery, although some created specific carve-out programs. CONCLUSION: This study identified 4 models that may serve to overcome challenges in delivering weight management services in primary care. Based on practice characteristics, preferences, and resources, primary care practices can identify a model for successfully implementing weight management services that best fits their context and needs. It is time for primary care to truly address obesity care as the health issue it is and make it a standard of care for all patients with obesity.

Pragmatic evaluation of events and benefits of lipid lowering in older adults (PREVENTABLE): Trial design and rationale.

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.

Primary care provider uptake of intensive behavioral therapy for obesity in Medicare patients, 2013-2019.

BACKGROUND: The delivery of Intensive Behavioral Therapy (IBT) for obesity by primary care providers (PCPs) has been covered by Medicare to support elderly individuals with obesity (BMI > 30 kg/m2) in managing their weight since 2011 for individual therapy and 2015 for group therapy. We conducted a cohort study of PCPs in an attempt to understand patterns of uptake of IBT for obesity services among PCPs serving the Medicare population across the U.S. METHODS: We used the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Provider Utilization and Payment Data from 2013 to 2019 to identify all PCPs who served more than 10 Medicare beneficiaries in each of the seven-year period to form a longitudinal panel. The procedure codes G0447 and G0473 were used to identify PCPs who provided IBT; and the characteristics of these providers were compared by the IBT-uptake status. RESULTS: Of the 537,754 eligible PCPs who served Medicare patients in any of the seven years, only 1.2% were found to be IBT service providers in at least one year from 2013 through 2019 (246 always users, 1,358 early adopters, and 4,563 late adopters). IBT providers shared a few common characteristics: they were more likely to be male, internal medicine providers, saw a higher number of Medicare beneficiaries, and practiced in the South and Northeast regions. Having higher proportion of patients with hyperlipidemia was associated with higher likelihood of a provider being an IBT-user. CONCLUSIONS: Very few PCPs continuously billed IBT services for Medicare patients with obesity. Further investigation is needed to mitigate barriers to the uptake of IBT services among PCPs.

Effect of Fluvoxamine vs Placebo on Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients With Mild to Moderate COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The effectiveness of fluvoxamine to shorten symptom duration or prevent hospitalization among outpatients with mild to moderate symptomatic COVID-19 is unclear. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of low-dose fluvoxamine (50 mg twice daily) for 10 days compared with placebo for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: The ongoing Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV-6) platform randomized clinical trial was designed to test repurposed medications in outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. A total of 1288 participants aged 30 years or older with test-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and experiencing 2 or more symptoms of acute COVID-19 for 7 days or less were enrolled between August 6, 2021, and May 27, 2022, at 91 sites in the US. Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive 50 mg of fluvoxamine twice daily for 10 days or placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery (defined as the third day of 3 consecutive days without symptoms). There were 7 secondary outcomes, including a composite outcome of hospitalization, urgent care visit, emergency department visit, or death through day 28. Results: Among 1331 participants who were randomized (median age, 47 years [IQR, 38-57 years]; 57% were women; and 67% reported receiving ≥2 doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine), 1288 completed the trial (674 in the fluvoxamine group and 614 in the placebo group). The median time to sustained recovery was 12 days (IQR, 11-14 days) in the fluvoxamine group and 13 days (IQR, 12-13 days) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.96 [95% credible interval, 0.86-1.06], posterior P = .21 for the probability of benefit [determined by an HR >1]). For the composite outcome, 26 participants (3.9%) in the fluvoxamine group were hospitalized, had an urgent care visit, had an emergency department visit, or died compared with 23 participants (3.8%) in the placebo group (HR, 1.1 [95% credible interval, 0.5-1.8], posterior P = .35 for the probability of benefit [determined by an HR <1]). One participant in the fluvoxamine group and 2 participants in the placebo group were hospitalized; no deaths occurred in either group. Adverse events were uncommon in both groups. Conclusions and Relevance: Among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with 50 mg of fluvoxamine twice daily for 10 days, compared with placebo, did not improve time to sustained recovery. These findings do not support the use of fluvoxamine at this dose and duration in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04885530.

Opioid dose and pain effects of an online pain self-management program to augment usual care in adults with chronic pain: a multisite randomized clinical trial.

ABSTRACT: Readily accessible nonpharmacological interventions that can assist in opioid dose reduction while managing pain is a priority for adults receiving long-term opioid therapy (LOT). Few large-scale evaluations of online pain self-management programs exist that capture effects on reducing morphine equivalent dose (MED) simultaneously with pain outcomes. An open-label, intent-to-treat, randomized clinical trial recruited adults (n = 402) with mixed chronic pain conditions from primary care and pain clinics of 2 U.S. academic healthcare systems. All participants received LOT-prescriber-provided treatment of MED ≥ 20 mg while receiving either E-health (a 4-month subscription to the online Goalistics Chronic Pain Management Program), or treatment as usual (TAU). Among 402 participants (279 women [69.4%]; mean [SD] age, 56.7 [11.0] years), 200 were randomized to E-health and 202 to TAU. Of 196 E-heath participants, 105 (53.6%) achieved a ≥15% reduction in daily MED compared with 85 (42.3%) of 201 TAU participants (odds ratio, 1.6 [95% CI, 1.1-2.3]; P = 0.02); number-needed-to-treat was 8.9 (95% CI, 4.8, 66.0). Of 166 E-health participants, 24 (14.5%) achieved a ≥2 point decrease in pain intensity vs 13 (6.8%) of 192 TAU participants (odds ratio, 2.4 [95% CI, 1.2-4.9]; P = 0.02). Benefits were also observed in pain knowledge, pain self-efficacy, and pain coping. The findings suggest that for adults on LOT for chronic pain, use of E-health, compared with TAU, significantly increased participants' likelihood of clinically meaningful decreases in MED and pain. This low-burden online intervention could assist adults on LOT in reducing daily opioid use while self-managing pain symptom burdens.

Effect of a Patient Decision Aid on Preferences for Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Older Adults: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Guidelines recommend individualized decision-making for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among adults aged 76 to 84 years, a process that includes a consideration of health state and patient preference. Objective: To determine whether a targeted patient decision aid would align older adults' screening preference with their potential to benefit from CRC screening. Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a prespecified secondary analysis from a randomized clinical trial. Participants aged 70 to 84 years who were not up to date with screening and had an appointment within 6 weeks were purposively sampled by health state (poor, intermediate, or good) at 14 community-based primary care practices and block randomized to receive the intervention or control. Patients were recruited from March 1, 2012, to February 28, 2015, and these secondary analyses were performed from January 15 to March 1, 2022. Interventions: Patient decision aid targeted to age and sex. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome of this analysis was patient preference for CRC screening. The a priori hypothesis was that the decision aid (intervention) group would reduce the proportion preferring screening among those in poor and intermediate health compared with the control group. Results: Among the 424 participants, the mean (SD) age was 76.8 (4.2) years; 248 (58.5%) of participants were women; and 333 (78.5%) were White. The proportion preferring screening in the intervention group was less than in the control group for those in the intermediate health state (34 of 76 [44.7%] vs 40 of 73 [54.8%]; absolute difference, -10.1% [95% CI, -26.0% to 5.9%]) and in the poor health state (24 of 62 [38.7%] vs 33 of 61 [54.1%]; absolute difference, -15.4% [95% CI, -32.8% to 2.0%]). These differences were not statistically significant. The proportion of those in good health who preferred screening was similar between the intervention and control groups (44 of 74 [59.5%] for intervention vs 46 of 75 [61.3%] for control; absolute difference, -1.9% [95% CI, -17.6% to 13.8%]). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this secondary analysis of a clinical trial did not demonstrate statistically significant differences in patient preferences between the health groups. Additional studies that are appropriately powered are needed to determine the effect of the decision aid on the preferences of older patients for CRC screening by health state. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01575990.

Fluvoxamine for Outpatient Treatment of COVID-19: A Decentralized, Placebo-controlled, Randomized, Platform Clinical Trial.

Background: The effectiveness of fluvoxamine to shorten symptom duration or prevent hospitalization among outpatients in the US with mild to moderate symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is unclear. Design: ACTIV-6 is an ongoing, decentralized, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled platform trial testing repurposed medications in outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. A total of 1288 non-hospitalized adults aged ≥30 years with confirmed COVID-19 experiencing ≥2 symptoms of acute infection for ≤7 days prior to randomization were randomized to receive fluvoxamine 50 mg or placebo twice daily for 10 days. The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery, defined as the third of 3 consecutive days without symptoms. Secondary outcomes included composites of hospitalization or death with or without urgent or emergency care visit by day 28. Results: Of 1331 participants randomized (mean [SD] age, 48.5 [12.8] years; 57% women; 67% reported receiving at least 2 doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine), 1288 completed the trial (n=614 placebo, n=674 fluvoxamine). Median time to recovery was 13 days (IQR 12-13) in the placebo group and 12 days (IQR 11-14) in the fluvoxamine group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.96, 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.86-1.07; posterior probability for benefit [HR>1]=0.22). Twenty-six participants (3.9%) in the fluvoxamine group were hospitalized or had urgent or emergency care visits compared with 23 (3.8%) in the placebo group (HR 1.1, 95% CrI 0.6-1.8; posterior probability for benefit [HR<1]=0.340). One participant in the fluvoxamine group and 2 in the placebo group were hospitalized; no deaths occurred. Adverse events were uncommon in both groups. Conclusions: Treatment with fluvoxamine 50 mg twice daily for 10 days did not improve time to recovery, compared with placebo, among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. These findings do not support the use of fluvoxamine at this dose and duration in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19.

A pragmatic clinical trial of hearing screening in primary care clinics: cost-effectiveness of hearing screening.

BACKGROUND: Hearing loss is a high prevalence condition among older adults, is associated with higher-than-average risk for poor health outcomes and quality of life, and is a public health concern to individuals, families, communities, professionals, governments, and policy makers. Although low-cost hearing screening (HS) is widely available, most older adults are not asked about hearing during health care visits. A promising approach to addressing unmet needs in hearing health care is HS in primary care (PC) clinics; most PC providers (PCPs) do not inquire about hearing loss. However, no cost assessment of HS in community PC settings has been conducted in the United States. Thus, this study conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of HS using results from a pragmatic clinic trial that compared three HS protocols that differed in the level of support and encouragement provided by the PC office and the PCPs to older adults during their routine visits. Two protocols included HS at home (one with PCP encouragement and one without) and one protocol included HS in the PC office. METHODS: Direct costs of the HS included costs of: (1) educational materials about hearing loss, (2) PCP educational and encouragement time, and (3) access to the HS system. Indirect costs for in-office HS included cost of space and minimal staff time. Costs were tracked and modeled for each phase of care during and following the HS, including completion of a diagnostic assessment and follow-up with the recommended treatment plan. RESULTS: The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the average cost per patient is highest in the patient group who completed the HS during their clinic visit, but the average cost per patient who failed the HS is by far the lowest in that group, due to the higher failure rate, that is, rate of identification of patients with suspected hearing loss. Estimated benefits of HS in terms of improvements in quality of life were also far greater when patients completed the HS during their clinic visit. CONCLUSIONS: Providing HS to older adults during their PC visit is cost-effective and accrues greater estimated benefits in terms of improved quality of life. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov (Registration Identification Number: NCT02928107).

Dissemination and implementation science resources, training, and scientific activities provided through CTSA programs nationally: Opportunities to advance D&I research and training capacity.

Introduction: Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Program hubs are well-positioned to advance dissemination and implementation (D&I) research and training capacity nationally, though little is known about what D&I research support and services CTSAs provide. To address this gap, the CTSA Dissemination, Implementation, and Knowledge Transfer Working Group conducted an environmental scan of CTSAs (2017-2018). Methods: Of 67 CTSA institutions, we contacted 43 that previously reported delivering D&I research services. D&I experts from these institutions were emailed a survey assessing D&I resources, services, training, and scientific projects. Responses were categorized and double-coded by study authors using a content analysis approach. Results: Thirty-five of the 43 D&I experts (81.4%) responded. Challenges to CTSAs in developing and supporting D&I science activities were related to inadequate D&I science workforce (45.7%) and lack of understanding of D&I science (25.7%). Services provided included consultation/mentoring programs (68%), pilot funding/grants (50%), and workshops/seminars/conferences (46%). Training and workforce development in D&I were frequently identified as future priorities. Recommendations included increase training to meet demand (68.6%), accessible D&I tools/resources (34.3%), greater visibility/awareness of D&I methods (34.3%), consultation services (22.9%), and expand D&I science workforce (22.9%). Conclusions: CTSAs have tremendous potential to support the advancement and impact of D&I science across the translational continuum. Despite the growing presence of D&I science in CTSAs, continued commitment and prioritization are needed from CTSA and institutional leadership to raise awareness of D&I science and its value, meet training demands, and develop necessary infrastructure for conducting D&I science.

Assessing Quality in Advance Care Planning Documentation: A Survey of Current Methods.

BACKGROUND: High-quality advance care planning (ACP) documentation facilitates the communication of patients' wishes as they progress in their disease course and travel between health care settings. No consensus exists regarding evaluation of documentation quality, and diverse strategies for assessing quality have been adopted in clinical ACP studies. METHODOLOGY: We conducted a literature review in PubMed and via manual search to identify clinical studies that assessed ACP quality or completeness as an outcome measure over a 5-year period. Studies that treated ACP as a binary outcome variable (present or absent), studies that took place outside of the US, and studies in pediatric populations were excluded from review. RESULTS: We identified 11 studies for inclusion in our review. Across study methodologies, the following 8 quality domains were identified: discussion frequency, documentation accessibility, discussion timing, health care proxy, health goals or values, scope of treatment/code status, prognosis/illness understanding, and end of life (EOL) care planning. Each study assessed between 2 and 6 domains. Divergent methods for assessing quality domains were utilized, including manual qualitative analysis and natural language processing techniques. CONCLUSION: Defining and measuring the quality of documentation is critical to developing ACP programs that improve patient care. Our review provides an adaptable framework centered around quality domains.

Differences in Cardiovascular Risk, Coronary Artery Disease, and Cardiac Events Between Black and White Individuals Enrolled in the PROMISE Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Race and ethnicity have been studied as risk factors in cardiovascular disease. How risk factors, epicardial coronary artery disease, and cardiac events differ between Black and White individuals undergoing noninvasive testing for coronary artery disease is not known. OBJECTIVE: To assess differences in cardiovascular risk burden, coronary plaque, and major adverse cardiac events between Black and White individuals assigned to receive coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) or functional testing for stable chest pain. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A nested observational cohort study within the PROMISE trial was conducted at 193 outpatient sites in North America. A total of 1071 non-Hispanic Black (hereafter Black) and 7693 non-Hispanic White (hereafter White) participants with stable chest pain undergoing noninvasive cardiovascular testing were included. This analysis was conducted from February 13, 2015, to November 2, 2021. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina over a median follow-up of 24.4 months. RESULTS: Among 1071 Black individuals (12.2%) (women, 646 [60.3%]; mean [SD] age, 59 [8] years) and 7693 White individuals (87.8%) (women, 4029 [52.4%]; mean [SD] age, 61.1 [8.4] years), Black participants had a higher cardiovascular risk burden (more hypertension and diabetes), yet there was a similarly low major adverse cardiovascular events rate over a median 2-year follow-up (32 [3.0%] vs 243 [3.2%]; P = .84). Sensitivity analyses restricted to the 79.8% (6993 of 8764) individuals with a normal or mildly abnormal noninvasive testing result and the 54.3% (4559 of 8396) not receiving statin therapy yielded similar findings. In comparison of Black and White individuals in the CCTA group (n = 3323), significant coronary stenosis (hazard ratio [HR], 7.21; 95% CI, 1.94-26.76 vs HR, 4.30; 95% CI, 2.62-7.04) and high-risk plaque (HR, 3.47; 95% CI, 1.00-12.06 vs HR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.37-3.57) were associated with major adverse cardiovascular events in both Black and White patients. However, with respect to epicardial coronary artery disease burden, Black individuals had a less-prevalent coronary artery calcium score greater than 0 (45.1% vs 63.2%; P < .001), coronary stenosis greater than or equal to 50% (32 [8.7%] vs 430 [14.6%]; P = .001), and high-risk plaque (139 [37.6%] vs 1547 [52.4%]; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The findings of this study suggest that, despite a greater cardiovascular risk burden in Black persons, rates of coronary artery calcium, stenosis, and high-risk plaque observed via CCTA were lower in Black persons than White persons. This result suggests differences in cardiovascular risk burden and coronary plaque in Black and White individuals with stable chest pain.

Cardiovascular risk and outcomes in symptomatic patients with suspected coronary artery disease and non coronary vascular disease: A report from the PROMISE trial.

BACKGROUND: Non-coronary vascular disease (NCVD) is associated with adverse cardiovascular events. Little is known about physician risk assessment, prevalence of coronary artery disease (CAD), cardiac catheterization, and the performance of the atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk score in patients with NCVD. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of outpatients with angina and no known CAD from the PROMISE trial. NCVD included carotid artery stenosis ≥50%, or history of stroke or peripheral artery disease. Multivariable models of physician estimates of the probability of obstructive CAD, prevalence of non-obstructive and obstructive CAD, referral to cardiac catheterization, and all-cause death/myocardial infarction/unstable angina were performed. RESULTS: Among 10,001 patients in the PROMISE trial, 379 (3.8%) patients had NCVD. Only 8.5% of participants with NCVD were categorized as high-risk for obstructive CAD by physicians, though 15.5% (25/161) had obstructive CAD in those randomized to coronary computed tomography (CTA). NCVD was independently associated with non-obstructive (aOR = 1.58; 95% CI 1.18-2.61; P = .006) but not obstructive CAD by CTA. Adjusted referral to cardiac catheterization was similar with and without NCVD (aOR 1.04; 95% CI 0.88-1.94, P = .19). NCVD was associated with an increased risk of all-cause death/MI/UA (aOR 2.03; 95% CI 1.37-3.01, P < .001). There was no interaction between NCVD status and ASCVD risk score. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with NCVD and angina, NCVD had increased adjusted risks of CAD and adverse outcomes which were not well described by ASCVD risk score and were underrecognized by physicians. Increased awareness and better risk stratification tools for patients with NCVD may be necessary to recognize the associated CV risk and optimize diagnostic testing and therapies.

Economic outcomes of depression screening after acute coronary syndromes: The CODIACS-QoL randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of screening for depression in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and no history of depression. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomized trial enrolling 1500 patients with ACS between 2013 and 2017. Patients were randomized to no screening, screening and notifying the primary care provider (PCP), and screening, notifying the PCP, and providing enhanced depression treatment. Outcomes measured were Healthcare utilization, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS: 7.1% of patients screened positive for depressive symptoms. There was no significant difference in usage of mental health services, cardiovascular tests and procedures, and medications. Mean total costs in No Screen group ($7440), in Screen, Notify, and Treat group ($6745), and in Screen and Notify group ($6204). The difference was only significant in the Screen and Notify group versus the No Screen group (-$1236, 95% confidence interval -$2388 to -$96). Because mean QALYs were higher (+0.003 QALY in Screen and Notify; +0.004 QALYs in Screen, Notify, and Treat) and mean total costs were lower in both intervention groups, these interventions were cost-effective. There was substantial uncertainty because confidence intervals around cost differences were wide and QALY effects were small. CONCLUSION: Depression screening strategies for patients with ACS may be modestly cost-effective.