Evaluation of a digital patient education programme in patients with coronary artery disease, a survey-based study.

INTRODUCTION: Patient education programmes focusing on risk factor modification and lifestyle changes are well established as part of cardiac rehabilitation in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). As participation rates are low, digital patient education programmes (DPE) are interesting alternatives to increase access. Understanding patients' perceptions of DPE are important in terms of successful implementation in clinical practice but are not well known. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess patients' perceptions of using a DPE in terms of end-user acceptance and usability, perceived significance for lifestyle changes and secondary preventive goal fulfilment in patients with CAD. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey-based study. The survey was distributed to all 1625 patients with acute coronary syndrome or chronic CAD with revascularisation, who were registered users of the DPE between 2020 and 2022 as part of cardiac rehabilitation. The survey contained 64 questions about e.g., acceptance and usability, perceived significance for making lifestyle changes and secondary preventive goal fulfilment. Patients who had never logged in to the DPE received questions about their reasons for not logging in. Data were analysed descriptively. RESULTS: A total of 366 patients (mean age: 69.1 ± 11.3 years, 20% female) completed the survey and among those 207 patients (57%) had used the DPE. Patients reported that the DPE was simple to use (80%) and improved access to healthcare (67-75%). A total of 69% of the patients were generally satisfied with the DPE, > 60% reported that the DPE increased their knowledge about secondary preventive treatment goals and approximately 60% reported having a healthy lifestyle today. On the other hand, 35% of the patients would have preferred a hospital-based education programme. Among the 159 patients (43%) who had never used the DPE, the most reported reason was a perceived need for more information about how to use the DPE (52%). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows an overall high level of patient acceptance and usability of the DPE, which supports its continued development and long-term role in cardiac rehabilitation in patients with CAD. Future studies should assess associations between participation in the DPE and clinical outcomes, such as secondary preventive goal fulfilment and hospitalisation.

Impact of walk advice alone or in combination with supervised or home-based structured exercise on patient-reported physical function and generic and disease-specific health related quality of life in patients with intermittent claudication, a secondary analysis in a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Supervised exercise is an integral part of the recommended first-line treatment for patients with intermittent claudication (IC). By reflecting the patients' perspectives, patient-reported outcome measurements provide additional knowledge to the biomedical endpoints and are important outcomes to include when evaluating exercise interventions in patients with IC. We aimed to evaluate the one-year impact of three strategies: unsupervised Nordic pole walk advice (WA), WA + six months of home-based structured exercise (HSEP) or WA + six months of hospital-based supervised exercise (SEP) on health-related quality of life and patient-reported physical function in patients with IC. METHODS: This secondary exploratory analysis of a multi-center, randomized clinical trial compared three exercise strategies. The primary outcome of the secondary analysis was the one-year change in the 36-Item Short-Form (SF-36). Secondary outcomes were three- and six-months SF-36 changes alongside three, six- and 12-months changes in the disease-specific Vascular Quality of Life instrument (VascuQoL) and the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS). The Kruskal-Wallis test with Bonferroni-adjusted post-hoc tests were used for between-group comparisons. Effect size calculations were used to describe the size of observed treatment effects, and the clinical meaningfulness of observed changes in the VascuQoL summary score at one year was studied using established minimally important difference (MID) thresholds. RESULTS: A total of 166 patients with IC, mean age: 72.1 (SD 7.4) years, 41% women, were randomized. No significant between-group differences were observed over time for the SF-36 or the PSFS scores whereas some significant between-group differences were observed in the VascuQoL domain and summary scores over time, favoring SEP and/or HSEP over WA. The observed SF-36 and VascuQoL domain and summary score effect sizes were small to moderate, and many domain score effect sizes also remained unchanged over time. A significantly higher proportion of the patients in the SEP group reached the VascuQoL summary score MID of improvement in one year. CONCLUSION: Clinically important improvements were observed in SEP using the VascuQoL, while we did not observe any significant between-group differences using the SF-36. Whereas effect sizes for the observed changes over time were generally small, a significantly higher proportion of patients in SEP reached the VascuQoL MID of improvement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02341716, January 19, 2015 (retrospectively registered).

Cost-Effectiveness of Exercise Therapy in Patients with Intermittent Claudication-A Comparison of Supervised Exercise, Home-Based Structured Exercise, and Walk Advice from the SUNFIT Trial.

Hospital-based supervised exercise (SEP) is a guideline-recommended intervention for patients with intermittent claudication (IC). However, due to the limited availability of SEP, home-based structured exercise programs (HSEP) have become increasingly popular alongside the "go home and walk" advice. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of walk advice (WA) with Nordic pole walking vs. SEP combined with WA or HSEP combined with WA. We used data from the SUNFIT RCT (NCT02341716) to measure quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over a 12-month follow-up, and economic costs were obtained from a hospital cost-per-patient accounting system. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated, and uncertainty was assessed using nonparametric bootstrapping. The average health-care-cost per patient was similar in the WA (EUR 1781, n = 51) and HSEP (EUR 1820, n = 48) groups but higher in the SEP group (EUR 4619, n = 50, p-value < 0.01). Mean QALYs per patient during the follow-up were similar with no statistically significant differences. The findings do not support SEP as a cost-effective treatment for IC, as it incurred significantly higher costs without providing additional health improvements over WA with or without HSEP during the one-year observation period. The analysis also suggested that HSEP may be cost-effective compared to WA, but only with a 64% probability.

The Impact of Nordic Pole Walk Advice Alone or in Combination With Exercise Strategies on Daily Physical Activity in Patients With Intermittent Claudication: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The impact of exercise interventions on physical activity (PA) remains undetermined in intermittent claudication, which is why it is important to include objectively measured PA as an additional endpoint. The aim of this prespecified secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial was to investigate the impact of unsupervised Nordic pole walk advice (WA) alone or in combination with hospital-based supervised exercise (SEP) or home-based structured exercise (HSEP) on PA in patients with intermittent claudication. METHODS: In total, 166 patients with intermittent claudication (mean age = 72 [SD = 7.4] y; 41% women) were randomized to 3 intermittent claudication-treatment strategies: WA, WA + SEP, or WA + HSEP. All patients received Nordic poles and standardized WA (≥30 min, 3 times weekly). Patients randomized to HSEP and SEP accepted participation in an additional 6-months exercise program. PA was measured with an accelerometer-based activPAL3 monitor for 7 days at baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months. PA outcomes were steps per day, time spent within a stepping cadence ≥100 steps per minute, time spent upright, number of body transitions from sitting to standing, and number of sitting bouts of >30 minutes and >60 minutes. RESULTS: At 1 year, no intergroup differences were observed in any of the PA variables, whereas significant intergroup differences were observed at 3 months regarding time spent within a stepping time cadence ≥100 steps per minute. The mean change for HSEP (2.47 [SD = 10.85] min) was significantly different from the mean change for WA (-3.20 [SD = 6.24] min). At 6 months, the number of sitting bouts (>60 min) for SEP was significantly different from WA (mean change = 0.24 [SD = 0.69] vs -0.23 [SD = 0.81]). CONCLUSION: This study indicates that the addition of 6 months of HSEP or SEP does not improve PA at 1 year, as compared to unsupervised WA alone. Factors of importance for increasing PA in patients with intermittent claudication require further investigation. IMPACT: At the 1-year follow-up, the addition of intermittent claudication-tailored additional exercise strategies did not improve daily PA in patients with intermittent claudication compared with unsupervised Nordic pole WA alone. Future studies may explore the role of behavior change techniques to increase PA in this patient group.

Effectiveness of supervised exercise, home-based exercise, or walk advice strategies on walking performance and muscle endurance in patients with intermittent claudication (SUNFIT trial): a randomized clinical trial.

AIMS: Supervised exercise is a guideline-recommended treatment in intermittent claudication (IC). Hospital-based supervised exercise programmes (SEPs) are underutilized, while home-based structured exercise programmes (HSEPs) have attracted interest. The results from HSEP in IC are inconsistent and may confer no benefit over walk advice (WA) and be less effective than SEP. The aim of the study was to compare the effectiveness of best medical treatment, including Nordic pole WA alone, or WA + SEP or WA + HSEP for patients with IC. METHODS AND RESULTS: This three-armed, multicentre randomized clinical trial enrolled patients with IC; all patients received best medical treatment including walking poles and the advice of regular Nordic pole walking (WA). For HSEP and SEP, additional exercise programmes were provided. The primarily investigated hypothesis was a non-inferiority analysis of SEP vs. HSEP regarding the 6-min walk test (6MWT) maximum distance, with a pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 50 m. Supporting outcomes included muscle endurance tests and the walking impairment questionnaire. Outcomes were assessed at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months by a blinded evaluator. Altogether 166 patients (mean age 72 years; 59% males) were randomized. In HSEP and SEP, 24 and 26% patients, respectively, were fully exercise adherent. All three groups improved pain-free walking distance over time, but there were no significant intergroup differences. The intergroup 6MWT difference between SEP and HSEP from 0 to 12 months was -11.6 m, 95% confidence interval: -36.4 to 13.0 m (i.e. within the pre-specified non-inferiority margin). CONCLUSION: The HSEP was non-inferior to SEP in patients with IC. There were no significant differences observed between the three groups at 1 year. REGISTRATION: ClinicialTrials.gov: NCT02341716.

Patient-reported outcomes in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma treated with melflufen plus dexamethasone: analyses from the Phase II HORIZON study.

Relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) is known to have a high burden of disease and complications associated with refractoriness to prior lines of therapy. Severe pain and fatigue symptoms and impairments in physical and emotional functioning have been strongly linked to reduced health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with RRMM. Assessment of patient reported-outcome measures from the pivotal, Phase II HORIZON study (OP-106; NCT02963493) in patients with RRMM (n = 64) demonstrated that melphalan flufenamide (melflufen) plus dexamethasone treatment preserved HRQoL. Patients had clinically meaningful improvements, even after eight treatment cycles, in relevant scales such as global health status/QoL, physical functioning, emotional functioning, pain, and fatigue. Patients with triple-class-refractory disease (n = 50) displayed similar improvements. Patient-reported outcome deterioration was delayed for a substantial amount of time in patients who experienced a response to melflufen plus dexamethasone treatment relative to patients who did not experience a response. These findings support the notion that treatment with melflufen plus dexamethasone may sustain or improve HRQoL over time in patients with RRMM, including in patients with triple-class-refractory disease for whom outcomes are generally worse. The clinical benefits observed in patients from the HORIZON trial are encouraging and supportive of translation into real-world practice.

A population-adjusted indirect comparison of cardiovascular benefits of once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide and dulaglutide in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes, with or without established cardiovascular disease.

INTRODUCTION: Cardiovascular (CV) effects of once-weekly subcutaneous (s.c.) semaglutide 0.5 and 1 mg and dulaglutide 1.5 mg are reported in their respective placebo-controlled cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs), SUSTAIN 6 and REWIND. There is no head-to-head CVOT comparing these treatments and heterogeneity between their CVOTs renders conventional indirect comparison inappropriate. Therefore, a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was performed to compare the effects of s.c. semaglutide and dulaglutide on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with and without established cardiovascular disease (CVD). METHODS: Individual patient data from SUSTAIN 6 were matched with aggregate data from REWIND, using a propensity score method to balance baseline effect-modifying patient characteristics. Hazard ratios (HRs) for three-point (3P) MACE (CV death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke), anchored via placebo, were then indirectly compared between balanced populations. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the main analysis. RESULTS: After matching, included effect modifiers were balanced. In the main analysis, s.c. semaglutide was associated with a statistically significant 35% reduction in 3P MACE versus placebo (HR, 0.65 [95% confidence interval [CI]; 0.48, 0.87]) and nonsignificantly greater reduction (26%) versus dulaglutide (HR, 0.74 [95% CI; 0.54, 1.01]). Results were supported by all sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated a statistically significant lower risk of 3P MACE for s.c. semaglutide versus placebo, in a population with lower prevalence of pre-existing CVD than that in the pre-specified primary analysis in SUSTAIN 6. Reduction in 3P MACE with s.c. semaglutide was greater than with dulaglutide, although not statistically significant.

Efficacy of Once-Weekly Semaglutide vs Empagliflozin Added to Metformin in Type 2 Diabetes: Patient-Level Meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: No head-to-head trials have directly compared once-weekly (OW) semaglutide, a human glucagon-like peptide-1 analog, with empagliflozin, a sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor, in type 2 diabetes (T2D). OBJECTIVE: We indirectly compared the efficacy of OW semaglutide 1 mg vs once-daily (OD) empagliflozin 25 mg in patients with T2D inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy, using individual patient data (IPD) and meta-regression methodology. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, AND INTERVENTIONS: IPD for patients with T2D receiving metformin monotherapy and randomized to OW semaglutide 1 mg (SUSTAIN 2, 3, 8 trials), or to OD empagliflozin 25 mg (PIONEER 2 trial) were included. Meta-regression analyses were adjusted for potential prognostic factors and effect modifiers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary efficacy outcomes were change from baseline to end-of-treatment (~1 year) in HbA1c (%-point) and body weight (kg). Responder outcomes and other clinically relevant efficacy measures were analyzed. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar between OW semaglutide (n = 995) and empagliflozin (n = 410). Our analyses showed that OW semaglutide significantly reduced mean HbA1c and body weight vs empagliflozin (estimated treatment difference: -0.61%-point [95% confidence interval (CI): -0.72; -0.49] and -1.65 kg [95% CI: -2.22; -1.08], respectively; both P < 0.0001). Complementary analyses supported the robustness of these results. A significantly greater proportion of patients on OW semaglutide vs empagliflozin also achieved HbA1c targets and weight-loss responses. CONCLUSIONS: This indirect comparison suggests that OW semaglutide 1 mg provides superior reductions in HbA1c and body weight vs OD empagliflozin 25 mg in patients with T2D when added to metformin monotherapy.

Semaglutide improves health-related quality of life versus placebo when added to standard of care in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk (SUSTAIN 6).

AIM: To assess what drives change in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in type 2 diabetes in the SUSTAIN 6 trial and identify potential mediators of the treatment effect of semaglutide on HRQoL scores. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Short Form (SF)-36v2® questionnaire [comprising physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS)] was used to assess changes in HRQoL from baseline to week 104, by treatment, in a prespecified analysis. This post-hoc analysis assessed change in PCS and MCS using the following factors as parameter/covariate, using descriptive statistics and linear regressions: major adverse cardiac events, hypoglycaemia, gastrointestinal adverse events, at least one episode of nausea, vomiting or diarrhoea, and change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), body weight, blood pressure, heart rate and estimated glomerular filtration rate. RESULTS: Mean change in overall PCS score was +1.0 with semaglutide versus +0.4 with placebo, and +0.5 versus -0.2 for MCS. The treatment effect of semaglutide versus placebo (unadjusted estimate) was 0.7 [(95% confidence interval 0.1, 1.2); P = 0.018] on PCS and this was reduced when adjusted for change in HbA1c [0.4 (-0.2, 1.0), P = .167] and body weight [0.3 (-0.3, 0.9), P = .314]. The unadjusted treatment effect on MCS [0.7 (-0.0, 1.5), P = .054] was only reduced when adjusted for change in HbA1c [0.3 (-0.4, 1.1), P = .397]. When adjusting for all other parameters separately, the estimated effect of semaglutide on PCS and MCS qualitatively did not change. CONCLUSIONS: Semaglutide improved HRQoL versus placebo; greater improvements with semaglutide versus placebo were possibly mediated, in part, by change in HbA1c and body weight. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01720446 (SUSTAIN 6).