RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Healthy NYC is an innovative survey panel created by the New York City (NYC) Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) that offers a cost-effective mechanism for collecting priority and timely health information. Between November 2020 and June 2021, invitations for six different surveys were sent to Healthy NYC panelists by postal mail, email, and text messages. Panelists had the option to complete surveys online or via paper survey. METHODS: We analyzed whether panelists varied by sociodemographic characteristics based on the contact mode they provided and the type of invitation that led to their response using logistic regression models. Poisson regression models were used to determine whether the number of invitations received before participating in a survey was associated with sociodemographic characteristics. RESULTS: Younger age and higher education were positively associated with providing an email or text contact. Furthermore, age, race, and income were significant predictors for invitation modes that led to a survey response. Black panelists had 72% greater odds (OR 1.72 95% CI: 1.11-2.68) of responding to a mail invite and 33% lesser odds (OR 0.67, 95% CI: 0.54-0.83) of responding to an email invite compared with White panelists. Additionally, in five of the six surveys, more than half of the respondents completed surveys after two invites. Email invitations garnered the highest participation rates. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend using targeted invitation modes as an additional strategy to improve participation in panels. For lower-income panelists who do not provide an email address, it may be reasonable to offer additional response options that do not require internet access. Our study's findings provide insight into how panels can tailor outreach to panelists, especially among underrepresented groups, in the most economical and efficient ways.
Assuntos
Nível de Saúde , Renda , Cidade de Nova Iorque , Inquéritos e Questionários , Correio Eletrônico , InternetRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Potent P2Y12 inhibitors such as ticagrelor and prasugrel are superior to clopidogrel in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Whether this benefit extends to a patient population with chronic coronary syndromes (CCS) is unclear. AIMS: We sought to compare the safety and efficacy of prasugrel and ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients undergoing PCI for CCS. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing PCI for CCS at a tertiary centre between 2014 and 2019 who were discharged on prasugrel or ticagrelor were compared with those on clopidogrel. The primary endpoint was the composite of death and myocardial infarction (MI), with secondary outcomes including rates of bleeding, stroke, and target vessel revascularisation at 1 year. RESULTS: Overall, 11,508 patients were included in the study (ticagrelor/prasugrel n=2,860 [24.9%], clopidogrel n=8,648 [75.1%]) with an increasing frequency of potent P2Y12 inhibitor use over the study period (ptrend<0.001). Clopidogrel was used more frequently in patients with multimorbid risk factors, whereas anatomical or procedural complexity was associated with ticagrelor/prasugrel use (left main PCI, bifurcation PCI, number of lesions, rotational atherectomy). No difference in the incidence of death or MI was noted across the groups (ticagrelor/prasugrel vs clopidogrel: 2.7% vs 3.1%, adjusted hazard ratio [adjHR] 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.62-1.17; p=0.33) or secondary outcomes including bleeding (adjHR 0.75, 95% CI: 0.46-1.21; p=0.23) on propensity score stratification analysis. Additionally, no difference in the primary outcome was observed across subgroups, including those undergoing complex PCI. CONCLUSIONS: Ticagrelor and prasugrel are increasingly used in patients with CCS undergoing PCI with similar 1-year efficacy and safety when compared to clopidogrel. Whether use of these agents can be beneficial in patients undergoing PCI for CCS with a high thrombotic and low bleeding risk warrants further study.
