Underrepresentation of Women in Reduced Ejection Heart Failure Clinical Trials With Improved Mortality or Hospitalization.

BACKGROUND: There are established sex-specific differences in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) outcomes. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) based on cardiovascular outcome benefits, typically either reduced cardiovascular mortality or hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), influence current guidelines for therapy. OBJECTIVES: The authors evaluate the representation of women in HFrEF RCTs that observed reduced all-cause or cardiovascular mortality or HHF. METHODS: We queried Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Excerpta Medica dataBASE, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, and PubMed for HFrEF RCTs that reported a statistically significant benefit of intervention resulting in improved mortality or HHF published from 1980 to 2021. We estimated representation using the participation-to-prevalence ratio (PPR). A PPR of 0.8 to 1.2 was considered representative. RESULTS: The final analysis included 33 RCTs. Women represented only 23.2% of all enrolled participants (n = 24,366/104,972), ranging from 11.4% to 40.1% per trial. Overall PPR was 0.58, with per-trial PPR estimates ranging from 0.29 to 1.00. Only 5 trials (15.2%) had a PPR of women representative of the disease population. Representation did not change significantly over time. The proportion of women in North American trials was significantly greater than trials conducted in Europe (P = 0.03). The proportion of women was greater in industry trials compared to government-funded trials (P = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Women are underrepresented in HFrEF RCTs that have demonstrated mortality or HHF benefits and influence current guidelines. Representation is key to further delineation of sex-specific differences in major trial results. Sustained efforts are warranted to ensure equitable and appropriate inclusion of women in HFrEF trials.

Online Patient Education Materials Related to Lipoprotein(a): Readability Assessment.

BACKGROUND: Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is a highly proatherogenic lipid fraction that is a clinically significant risk modifier. Patients wanting to learn more about Lp(a) are likely to use online patient educational materials (OPEMs). However, the readability of OPEMs may exceed the health literacy of the public. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the readability of OPEMs related to Lp(a). We hypothesized that the readability of these online materials would exceed the sixth grade level recommended by the American Medical Association. METHODS: Using an online search engine, we queried the top 20 search results from 10 commonly used Lp(a)-related search terms to identify a total of 200 websites. We excluded duplicate websites, advertised results, research journal articles, or non-patient-directed materials, such as those intended only for health professionals or researchers. Grade level readability was calculated using 5 standard readability metrics (automated readability index, SMOG index, Coleman-Liau index, Gunning Fog score, Flesch-Kincaid score) to produce robust point (mean) and interval (CI) estimates of readability. Generalized estimating equations were used to model grade level readability by each search term, with the 5 readability scores nested within each OPEM. RESULTS: A total of 27 unique websites were identified for analysis. The average readability score for the aggregated results was a 12.2 (95% CI 10.9798-13.3978) grade level. OPEMs were grouped into 6 categories by primary source: industry, lay press, research foundation and nonprofit organizations, university or government, clinic, and other. The most readable category was OPEMs published by universities or government agencies (9.0, 95% CI 6.8-11.3). The least readable OPEMs on average were the ones published by the lay press (13.0, 95% CI 11.2-14.8). All categories exceeded the sixth grade reading level recommended by the American Medical Association. CONCLUSIONS: Lack of access to readable OPEMs may disproportionately affect patients with low health literacy. Ensuring that online content is understandable by broad audiences is a necessary component of increasing the impact of novel therapeutics and recommendations regarding Lp(a).

Women Living with Familial Hypercholesterolemia: Challenges and Considerations Surrounding Their Care.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To highlight the gender-based differences in presentation and disparities in care for women with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH). RECENT FINDINGS: Women with FH experience specific barriers to care including underrepresentation in research, significant underappreciation of risk, and interrupted therapy during childbearing. National and international registry and clinical trial data show significant healthcare disparities for women with FH. Women with FH are less likely to be on guideline-recommended high-intensity statin medications and those placed on statins are more likely to discontinue them within their first year. Women with FH are also less likely to be on regimens including non-statin agents such as PCSK9 inhibitors. As a result, women with FH are less likely to achieve target low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) targets, even those with prior atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). FH is common, under-diagnosed, and under-treated. Disparities of care are more pronounced in women than men. Additionally, FH weighs differently on women throughout the course of their lives starting from choosing contraceptives as young girls along with lipid-lowering therapy, timing pregnancy, choosing breastfeeding or resumption of therapy, and finally deciding goals of care during menopause. Early identification and appropriate treatment prior to interruptions of therapy for childbearing can lead to marked reduction in morbidity and mortality. Women access care differently than men and increasing awareness among all providers, especially cardio-obstetricians, may improve diagnostic rates. Understanding the unique challenges women with FH face is crucial to close the gaps in care they experience.

Facilitating primary care provider use in a patient-centered medical home intervention study for chronic hemodialysis patients.

Patients with chronic kidney disease have a high disease burand may benefit from primary care services and care coord A medical home model with direct access to primary care services is one approach that may address this need, yet has not been examined. As a substudy of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) patient-centered medical home for kidney disease (PCMH-KD) health system intervention study, we examined the uptake of free primary care physician (PCP) services. The PCORI PCMH-KD study was an initial step toward integrating PCPs, a nurse coordinator, a pharmacist, and community health workers (CHWs) within the health care delivery team. Adult chronic hemodialysis (CHD) at two urban dialysis centers were enrolled in the intervention. We examined trends and factors associated with the use of the PCMH-KD PCP among two groups of patients based on their report of having a regular physician for at least six months (established-PCP) or not (no-PCP). Of the 173 enrolled patients, 91 (53%) patients had at least one visit with the PCMH-KD PCP. The rate of visits was higher in those in the no-PCP group compared with those in the established-PCP group (62% vs. 41%, respectively). Having more visits with the CHW was positively associated with having a visit with the PCMH-KD PCPs for both groups. Embedded CHWs within the care team played a role in facilithe uptake of PCMH-KD PCP. Lessons from this health system intervention can inform future approaches on the integration of PCPs and care coordination for CHD patients.