Dataset Information

Objective Risk Assessment vs Standard Care for Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Although international guidelines recommend use of the Global Registries of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) risk score (GRS) to guide acute coronary syndrome (ACS) treatment decisions, the prospective utility of the GRS in improving care and outcomes is unproven.

Objective

To assess the effect of routine GRS implementation on guideline-indicated treatments and clinical outcomes of hospitalized patients with ACS.

Design, setting, and participants

Prospective cluster (hospital-level) randomized open-label blinded end point (PROBE) clinical trial using a multicenter ACS registry of acute care cardiology services. Fixed sampling of the first 10 patients within calendar month, with either ST-segment elevation or non-ST-segment elevation ACS. The study enrolled patients from June 2014 to March 2018, and data were analyzed between February 2020 and April 2020.

Interventions

Implementation of routine risk stratification using the GRS and guideline recommendations.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary outcome was a performance score based on receipt of early invasive treatment, discharge prescription of 4 of 5 guideline-recommended pharmacotherapies, and cardiac rehabilitation referral. Clinical outcomes included a composite of all-cause death and/or myocardial infarction (MI) within 1 year.

Results

This study enrolled 2318 patients from 24 hospitals and was stopped prematurely owing to futility. Of the patients enrolled, median age was 65 years (interquartile range, 56-74 years), 29.5% were women (n = 684), and 62.9% were considered high risk (n = 1433). Provision of all 3 measures among high-risk patients did not differ between the randomized arms (GRS: 424 of 717 [59.9%] vs control: 376 of 681 [55.2%]; odds ratio [OR], 1.04; 95% CI, 0.63-1.71; P = .88). The provision of early invasive treatment was increased compared with the control arm (GRS: 1042 of 1135 [91.8%] vs control: 989 of 1183 [83.6%]; OR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.30-3.96; P = .004). Prescription of 4 of 5 guideline-recommended pharmacotherapies (GRS: 864 of 1135 [76.7%] vs control: 893 of 1183 [77.5%]; OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.68-1.38) and cardiac rehabilitation (GRS: 855 of 1135 [75.1%] vs control: 861 of 1183 [72.8%]; OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.32-1.44) were not different. By 12 months, GRS intervention was not associated with a significant reduction in death or MI compared with the control group (GRS: 96 of 1044 [9.2%] vs control: 146 of 1087 [13.4%]; OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.38-1.14).

Conclusions and relevance

Routine GRS implementation in cardiology services with high levels of clinical care was associated with an increase in early invasive treatment but not other aspects of care. Low event rates and premature study discontinuation indicates the need for further, larger scale randomized studies.

Trial registration

anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12614000550606.

SUBMITTER: Chew DP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7726696 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThere are few data on remote postdischarge treatment of patients with acute myocardial infarction.ObjectiveTo compare the safety and efficacy of allied health care practitioner-led remote intensive management (RIM) with cardiologist-led standard care (SC).Design, setting, and participantsThis intention-to-treat feasibility trial randomized patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing early revascularization and with N-terminal-pro-B-type natriuretic peptide concentration more than 300 pg/mL to RIM or SC across 3 hospitals in Singapore from July 8, 2015, to March 29, 2019. RIM participants underwent 6 months of remote consultations that included β-blocker and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker (ACE-I/ARB) dose adjustment by a centralized nurse practitioner team while SC participants were treated face-to-face by their cardiologists.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary safety end point was a composite of hypotension, bradycardia, hyperkalemia, or acute kidney injury requiring hospitalization. To assess the efficacy of RIM in dose adjustment of β-blockers and ACE-I/ARBs compared with SC, dose intensity scores were derived by converting comparable doses of different β-blockers and ACE-I/ARBs to a scale from 0 to 5. The primary efficacy end point was the 6-month indexed left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) adjusted for baseline LVESV.ResultsOf 301 participants, 149 (49.5%) were randomized to RIM and 152 (50.5%) to SC. RIM and SC participants had similar mean (SD) age (55.3 [8.5] vs 54.7 [9.1] years), median (interquartile range) N-terminal-pro-B-type natriuretic peptide concentration (807 [524-1360] vs 819 [485-1320] pg/mL), mean (SD) baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (57.4% [11.1%] vs 58.1% [10.3%]), and mean (SD) indexed LVESV (32.4 [14.1] vs 30.6 [11.7] mL/m2); 15 patients [5.9%] had a left ventricular ejection fraction <40%. The primary safety end point occurred in 0 RIM vs 2 SC participants (1.4%) (P = .50). The mean β-blocker and ACE-I/ARB dose intensity score at 6 months was 3.03 vs 2.91 (adjusted mean difference, 0.12 [95% CI, -0.02 to 0.26; P = .10]) and 2.96 vs 2.77 (adjusted mean difference, 0.19 [95% CI, -0.02 to 0.40; P = .07]), respectively. The 6-month indexed LVESV was 28.9 vs 29.7 mL/m2 (adjusted mean difference, -0.80 mL/m2 [95% CI, -3.20 to 1.60; P = .51]).Conclusions and relevanceAmong low-risk patients with revascularization after myocardial infarction, RIM by allied health care professionals was feasible and safe. There were no differences in achieved medication doses or indices of left ventricular remodeling. Further studies of RIM in higher-risk cohorts are warranted.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02468349.

Project description:Smoking accounts for a large proportion of cancer-related mortality, creating a need for better smoking cessation efforts. We investigated whether gain-framed messages (ie, presenting benefits of quitting) will be a more persuasive method to encourage smoking cessation than standard-care messages (ie, presenting both costs of smoking [loss-framed] and benefits of quitting).Twenty-eight specialists working at the New York State Smokers' Quitline (a free telephone-based smoking cessation service) were randomly assigned to provide gain-framed or standard-care counseling and print materials. Smokers (n = 2032) who called the New York State Smokers' Quitline between March 10, 2008, and June 13, 2008, were exposed to either gain-framed (n = 810) or standard-care (n = 1222) messages, and all medically eligible callers received nicotine replacement therapy. A subset of 400 call recordings was coded to assess treatment fidelity. All treated smokers were contacted for 2-week and 3-month follow-up interviews. All statistical tests were two-sided.Specialists providing gain-framed counseling used gain-framed statements statistically significantly more frequently than those providing standard-care counseling as assessed with frequency ratings for the two types of gain-framed statements, achieving benefits and avoiding negative consequences (for achieving benefits, gain-framed mean frequency rating = 3.9 vs standard-care mean frequency rating = 1.4; mean difference = -2.5; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -2.8 to -2.3; P < .001; for avoiding negative consequences, gain-framed mean frequency rating = 1.5 vs standard-card mean frequency rating = 1.0; mean difference = -0.5; 95% CI = -0.6 to -0.3; P < .001). Gain-framed counseling was associated with a statistically significantly higher rate of abstinence at the 2-week follow-up (ie, 99 [23.3%] of the 424 in the gain-framed group vs 76 [12.6%] of the 603 in the standard-care group, P < .001) but not at the 3-month follow-up (ie, 148 [28.4%] of the 522 in the gain-framed group vs 202 [26.6%] of the 760 in the standard-care group, P = .48).Quitline specialists can be trained to provide gain-framed counseling with good fidelity. Also, gain-framed messages appear to be somewhat more persuasive than standard-care messages in promoting early success in smoking cessation.

Project description:Introduction: Severe lung injury is triggered by both the SARS-CoV-2 infection and the subsequent host-immune response in some COVID-19 patients. Methods: We conducted a randomized, single-center, open-label, phase II trial with the aim to evaluate the efficacy and safety of methylprednisolone pulses and tacrolimus plus standard of care (SoC) vs. SoC alone, in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19. The primary outcome was time to clinical stability within 56 days after randomization. Results: From April 1 to May 2, 2020, 55 patients were prospectively included for subsequent randomization; 27 were assigned to the experimental group and 28 to the control group. The experimental treatment was not associated with a difference in time to clinical stability (hazard ratio 0.73 [95% CI 0.39-1.37]) nor most secondary outcomes. Median methylprednisolone cumulative doses were significantly lower (360 mg [IQR 360-842] vs. 870 mg [IQR 364-1451]; p = 0.007), and administered for a shorter time (median of 4.00 days [3.00-17.5] vs. 18.5 days [3.00-53.2]; p = 0.011) in the experimental group than in the control group. Although not statistically significant, those receiving the experimental therapy showed a numerically lower all-cause mortality than those receiving SoC, especially at day 10 [2 (7.41%) vs. 5 (17.9%); OR 0.39 (95% CI 0.05-2.1); p = 0.282]. The total number of non-serious adverse events was 42 in each the two groups. Those receiving experimental treatment had a numerically higher rate of non-serious infectious adverse events [16 (38%) vs. 10 (24%)] and serious infectious adverse events [7 (35%) vs. 3 (23%)] than those receiving SoC. Conclusions: The combined use of methylprednisolone pulses plus tacrolimus, in addition to the SoC, did not significantly improve the time to clinical stability or other secondary outcomes compared with the SoC alone in severe COVID-19. Although not statistically significant, patients receiving the experimental therapy had numerically lower all-cause mortality than those receiving SoC, supporting recent non-randomized studies with calcineurin inhibitors. It is noteworthy that the present trial had a limited sample size and several other limitations. Therefore, further RCTs should be done to assess the efficacy and safety of tacrolimus to tackle the inflammatory stages of COVID-19. Clinical Trial Registration: Identifier [NCT04341038/EudraCT: 2020-001445-39].

Project description:ImportanceAcute bacterial sinusitis is common, but currently recommended antibiotic treatment provides minimal benefit.ObjectiveTo confirm the previous finding that high-dose amoxicillin plus clavulanate (with double the amount of amoxicillin) may be superior to standard-dose amoxicillin plus clavulanate in adults.Design, setting, and participantsThis double-blind, comparative-effectiveness randomized clinical trial was conducted from February 26, 2018, through May 10, 2020, at the academic primary care internal medicine and pediatrics practice of Albany Medical Center, located in Cohoes, New York. Participants included adults aged 18 years or older who were prescribed amoxicillin plus clavulanate for acute bacterial sinusitis diagnosed in accordance with the Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines.InterventionsAmoxicillin 875 mg with clavulanate 125 mg plus either placebo (standard dose) or amoxicillin 875 mg (high dose) twice a day for 7 days.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary efficacy outcome was a global rating of "a lot better" or "no symptoms" at the end of 3 days of treatment using a Global Rating of Improvement scale, with outcomes ranging from 1 (a lot worse) to 6 (no symptoms). The primary adverse effect outcome was severe diarrhea at 3 or 10 days after the start of treatment.ResultsAt an unplanned interim analysis prompted by COVID-19 restrictions, 157 of a projected 240 participants had been enrolled (mean age, 48.5 [range, 18.7-84.0] years; 117 women [74.5%]), with 79 randomized to the standard dose and 78 to the high dose; 9 and 12, respectively, withdrew or were lost to follow-up before the assessment of the primary outcome. At day 3, 31 of 70 participants (44.3%) in the standard-dose group reported a global rating of "a lot better" or "no symptoms," as did 24 of 66 (36.4%) in the high-dose group, for a difference of -7.9% (95% CI, -24.4% to 8.5%; P = .35). The study was, therefore, stopped for futility. Diarrhea was common in both groups by day 3, with any diarrhea reported in 29 of 71 participants (40.8%) receiving the standard dose and 28 of 65 (43.1%) receiving the high dose and severe diarrhea reported in 5 of 71 (7.0%) and 5 of 65 (7.7%), respectively.Conclusions and relevanceThe results of this randomized clinical trial suggest that adults treated for clinically diagnosed acute sinusitis did not appear to benefit from taking high-dose compared with standard-dose amoxicillin plus clavulanate.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03431337.

Project description:BackgroundCurrently, there is a lack of evidence to guide optimal care for acute kidney injury (AKI) survivors. Therefore, post-discharge care by a multidisciplinary care team (MDCT) may improve these outcomes. This study aimed to demonstrate the outcomes of implementing comprehensive care by a MDCT in severe AKI survivors.MethodsThis study was a randomized controlled trial conducted between August 2018 to January 2021. Patients who survived severe AKI stage 2-3 were enrolled and randomized to be followed up with either comprehensive or standard care for 12 months. The comprehensive post-AKI care involved an MDCT (nephrologists, nurses, nutritionists, and pharmacists). The primary outcome was the feasibility outcomes; comprising of the rates of loss to follow up, 3-d dietary record, drug reconciliation, and drug alert rates at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included major adverse kidney events, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and the amount of albuminuria at 12 months.ResultsNinety-eight AKI stage 3 survivors were enrolled and randomized into comprehensive care and standard care groups (49 patients in each group). Compared to the standard care group, the comprehensive care group had significantly better feasibility outcomes; 3-d dietary record, drug reconciliation, and drug alerts (p < 0.001). The mean eGFR at 12 months were comparable between the two groups (66.74 vs. 61.12 mL/min/1.73 m2, p = 0.54). The urine albumin: creatinine ratio (UACR) was significantly lower in the comprehensive care group (36.83 vs. 177.70 mg/g, p = 0.036), while the blood pressure control was also better in the comprehensive care group (87.9% vs. 57.5%, p = 0.006). There were no differences in the other renal outcomes between the two groups.ConclusionsComprehensive care by an MDCT is feasible and could be implemented for severe AKI survivors. MDCT involvement also yields better reduction of the UACR and better blood pressure control. Trial registration Clinicaltrial.gov: NCT04012008 (First registered July 9, 2019).

Project description:Importance:Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and elevated depressive symptoms are at increased risk for recurrent cardiovascular events and mortality, worse quality of life, and higher health care costs. These observational findings prompted multiple scientific panels to advise universal depression screening in survivors of ACS prior to evidence from randomized screening trials. Objective:To determine whether systematically screening for depression in survivors of ACS improves quality of life and depression compared with usual care. Design, Setting, and Participants:A 3-group multisite randomized trial enrolled 1500 patients with ACS from 4 health care systems between November 1, 2013, and March 31, 2017, with follow-up ending July 31, 2018. Patients were eligible if they had been hospitalized for ACS in the previous 2 to 12 months and had no prior history of depression. All analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis. Interventions:Patients with ACS were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive (1) systematic depression screening using the 8-item Patient Health Questionnaire, with notification of primary care clinicians and provision of centralized, patient-preference, stepped depression care for those with positive screening results (8-item Patient Health Questionnaire score ?10; screen, notify, and treat, n?=?499); (2) systematic depression screening, with notification of primary care clinicians for those with positive screening results (screen and notify, n?=?501); and (3) usual care (no screening, n?=?500). Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome was change in quality-adjusted life-years. The secondary outcome was depression-free days. Adverse effects and mortality were assessed by patient interview and hospital records. Results:A total of 1500 patients (424 women and 1076 men; mean [SD] age, 65.9 [11.5] years) were randomized in the 18-month trial. Only 71 of 1000 eligible survivors of ACS (7.1%) had elevated 8-item Patient Health Questionnaire scores indicating depressive symptoms at screening. There were no differences in mean (SD) change in quality-adjusted life-years (screen, notify and treat, -0.06 [0.20]; screen and notify, -0.06 [0.20]; no screen, -0.06 [0.18]; P?=?.98) or cumulative mean (SD) depression-free days (screen, notify and treat, 343.1 [179.0] days; screen and notify, 351.3 [175.0] days; no screen, 339.0 [176.6] days; P?=?.63). Harms including death, bleeding, or sleep difficulties did not differ among groups. Conclusions and Relevance:In patients with ACS without a history of depression, systematic depression screening with or without providing depression treatment did not alter quality-adjusted life-years, depression-free days, or harms. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01993017.