Search

BackgroundGuidelines recommend measuring blood pressure (BP) in both arms, adopting the higher arm readings for diagnosis and management. Data to support this recommendation are lacking. We evaluated associations of higher and lower arm systolic BPs with diagnostic and treatment thresholds, and prognosis in hypertension, using data from the Inter-arm Blood Pressure Difference-Individual Participant Data Collaboration.MethodsOne-stage multivariable Cox regression models, stratified by study, were used to examine associations of higher or lower reading arm BPs with cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular events, in individual participant data meta-analyses pooled from 23 cohorts. Cardiovascular events were modelled for Framingham and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk scores. Model fit was compared throughout using Akaike information criteria. Proportions reclassified across guideline recommended intervention thresholds were also compared.ResultsWe analyzed 53 172 participants: mean age 60 years; 48% female. Higher arm BP, compared with lower arm, reclassified 12% of participants at either 130 or 140 mm Hg systolic BP thresholds (both P

Aims Adapting interventions with an existing evidence base offers a more efficient approach than developing a new intervention. The aim of this study was to describe the process of adapting a home-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programme (REACH-HF) intervention originally developed in the UK for people with heart failure (HF) to the Danish health system—the 'DK:REACH-HF' programme. Methods and results We followed methodological framework for the conduct and reporting of studies adapting interventions, utilizing documentary analysis, qualitative interviews, stakeholder consultations, and mapping of the Danish policy context. Our study found broad support for the REACH-HF intervention as an alternative to existing centre-based CR. We also identified three key areas of adaptation for the Danish context. First, reduce the word count of the intervention's resources by linking to existing publicly available CR materials. Second, while retaining REACH-HF core components, adapt its content and delivery to reflect differences between Denmark and UK. Third, develop a digital version of the intervention. Conclusion Using an evidence-based approach, we successfully adapted the REACH-HF intervention to the context of the Danish healthcare setting, maintaining core components of the original intervention and developing both a paper-based and digital version of the programme material. To inform scaled national implementation of the DK:REACH-HF programme, we seek to undertake a pilot study to test the adapted intervention materials feasibility and acceptability to healthcare practitioners, patients, and their caregivers and confirm the positive impact on the outcomes of HF patients and caregivers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Adaptation seeks to transfer and implement healthcare interventions developed and evaluated in one context to another. The aim of this scoping review was to understand current approaches to the adaptation of complex interventions for people with long-term conditions (LTCs) and to identify issues for studies performed in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Bibliographic databases were searched from 2000 to October 2022. This review involved five stages: (i) definition of the research question(s); (ii) identifying relevant studies; (iii) study selection; (iv) data charting; and (v) data synthesis. Extraction included an assessment of the: rationale for adaptation; stages and levels of adaptation; use of theoretical frameworks, and quality of reporting using a checklist based on the 2021 ADAPT guidance. Twenty-five studies were included from across 21 LTCs and a range of complex interventions. The majority (16 studies) focused on macro (national or international) level interventions. The rationale for adaptation included intervention transfer across geographical settings [high-income country (HIC) to LMIC: six studies, one HIC to another: eight studies, one LMIC to another: two studies], or transfer across socio-economic/racial groups (five studies), or transfer between different health settings within a single country (one study). Overall, studies were judged to be of moderate reporting quality (median score 23, maximum 46), and typically focused on early stages of adaptation (identification and development) with limited outcome evaluation or implementation assessment of the adapted version of the intervention. Improved reporting of the adaptation for complex interventions targeted at LTCs is needed. Development of future adaptation methods guidance needs to consider the needs and priorities of the LMIC context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The editorial discusses the use of surrogate end points in clinical trials to reduce sample sizes and follow-up times, ultimately cutting costs. While surrogate end points, such as biomarkers, are increasingly used in trials, controversies exist due to their variable appropriateness and potential for overestimating treatment efficacy. New SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions aim to improve reporting standards for trials using surrogate end points, enhancing transparency and interpretation of study findings for various stakeholders. [Extracted from the article]

Key Points: Question: What is the strength of association between surrogate markers used as primary end points in clinical trials to support Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of drugs treating nononcologic chronic diseases and clinical outcomes? Findings: No meta-analyses of clinical trials examining the strength of association between treatment effects measured using surrogate markers and clinical outcomes were identified for 22 (59%) of 37 surrogate markers for 32 chronic diseases, whereas at least 1 was identified for 15 (41%), although few reported high-strength evidence of treatment effect associations. Meaning: Most surrogate markers used as primary end points in clinical trials to support FDA approval of drugs treating nononcologic chronic diseases lack high-strength evidence of associations with clinical outcomes from published meta-analyses. Importance: Surrogate markers are increasingly used as primary end points in clinical trials supporting drug approvals. Objective: To systematically summarize the evidence from meta-analyses, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and pooled analyses (hereafter, meta-analyses) of clinical trials examining the strength of association between treatment effects measured using surrogate markers and clinical outcomes in nononcologic chronic diseases. Data sources: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adult Surrogate Endpoint Table and MEDLINE from inception to March 19, 2023. Study Selection: Three reviewers selected meta-analyses of clinical trials; meta-analyses of observational studies were excluded. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers extracted correlation coefficients, coefficients of determination, slopes, effect estimates, or results from meta-regression analyses between surrogate markers and clinical outcomes. Main Outcomes and Measures: Correlation coefficient or coefficient of determination, when reported, was classified as high strength (r ≥ 0.85 or R2 ≥ 0.72); primary findings were otherwise summarized. Results: Thirty-seven surrogate markers listed in FDA's table and used as primary end points in clinical trials across 32 unique nononcologic chronic diseases were included. For 22 (59%) surrogate markers (21 chronic diseases), no eligible meta-analysis was identified. For 15 (41%) surrogate markers (14 chronic diseases), at least 1 meta-analysis was identified, 54 in total (median per surrogate marker, 2.5; IQR, 1.3-6.0); among these, median number of trials and patients meta-analyzed was 18.5 (IQR, 12.0-43.0) and 90 056 (IQR, 20 109-170 014), respectively. The 54 meta-analyses reported 109 unique surrogate marker–clinical outcome pairs: 59 (54%) reported at least 1 r or R2, 10 (17%) of which reported at least 1 classified as high strength, whereas 50 (46%) reported slopes, effect estimates, or results of meta-regression analyses only, 26 (52%) of which reported at least 1 statistically significant result. Conclusions and Relevance: Most surrogate markers used as primary end points in clinical trials to support FDA approval of drugs treating nononcologic chronic diseases lacked high-strength evidence of associations with clinical outcomes from published meta-analyses. This study examines the strength of association between surrogate markers used as primary end points in clinical trials to support FDA approval of drugs treating nononcologic chronic diseases and clinical outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Chronic pain patients may experience impairments in multiple health-related domains. The design and interpretation of clinical trials of chronic pain interventions, however, remains primarily focused on treatment effects on pain intensity. This study investigates a novel, multidimensional holistic treatment response to evoked compound action potential-controlled closed-loop versus open-loop spinal cord stimulation as well as the degree of neural activation that produced that treatment response. Methods Outcome data for pain intensity, physical function, health-related quality of life, sleep quality and emotional function were derived from individual patient level data from the EVOKE multicenter, participant, investigator, and outcome assessor-blinded, parallel-arm randomized controlled trial with 24 month follow-up. Evaluation of holistic treatment response considered whether the baseline score was worse than normative values and whether minimal clinical important differences were reached in each of the domains that were impaired at baseline. A cumulative responder score was calculated to reflect the total minimal clinical important differences accumulated across all domains. Objective neurophysiological data, including spinal cord activation were measured. Results Patients were randomized to closed-loop (n=67) or open- loop (n=67). A greater proportion of patients with closed-loop spinal cord stimulation (49.3% vs 26.9%) were holistic responders at 24-month follow-up, with at least one minimal clinical important difference in all impaired domains (absolute risk difference: 22.4%, 95% CI 6.4% to 38.4%, p=0.012). The cumulative responder score was significantly greater for closed- loop patients at all time points and resulted in the achievement of more than three additional minimal clinical important differences at 24-month follow-up (mean difference 3.4, 95% CI 1.3 to 5.5, p=0.002). Neural activation was three times more accurate in closed-loop spinal cord stimulation (p<0.001 at all time points). Conclusion The results of this study suggest that closed- loop spinal cord stimulation can provide sustained clinically meaningful improvements in multiple domains and provide holistic improvement in the long-term for patients with chronic refractory pain. Trial registration number NCT02924129. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]