Search results

The main objective of this pragmatic randomized clinical trial (PCT) is to identify the optimal dose of aspirin for secondary prevention in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). A total of 15,076 high-risk patients with a history of a myocardial infarction (MI) or documented ASCVD were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive 81 mgs versus 325 mgs of aspirin every day. This trial addressed the following specific aims:

1. To compare the effectiveness of two doses of aspirin (81 mg and 325 mg) in reducing a composite of all-cause mortality and hospitalization for nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke, and the primary safety endpoint of major bleeding. Secondary endpoints include the components of the primary endpoint and hospitalization for transient ischemic attack, unstable angina, or coronary revascularization procedures.
2. To compare the effects of aspirin in selected subgroups of patients by sex, age, race, Internet users vs. non-users, and those with diabetes or advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD).
3. To develop and refine the infrastructure for PCORnet to conduct multiple comparative effectiveness trials in the future.
4. To explore biological mediators of heterogeneity of response to aspirin and of impact on clinical events.

People experiencing homelessness (PEH) were among the most likely to contract the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Many PEH utilized high-density public places to satisfy their basic needs (e.g., soup kitchens for sustenance, public libraries for restrooms). This made it difficult for them to limit close contact with others and put them at increased risk of contracting and transmitting COVID-19. Furthermore, it was difficult to follow recommended protective measures--such as handwashing and social distancing--when living in shelters or on the streets.

PEH were at higher risk of COVID-19 related hospitalization and death than the rest of the population. The poor living conditions of PEH accelerated aging, leading them to experience geriatric conditions and medical complications more typical of individuals 10-20 years older. They were also at increased risk of cardiovascular and respiratory disease, HIV/AIDS, and diabetes, all conditions that increase vulnerability to serious COVID-19-related complications and death. These risks were compounded by the fact that PEH also faced significant barriers to accessing quality health care. In the absence of protective action, it was estimated that more than 21,000 PEH would require hospitalization due to COVID-19, more than 7,000 would require critical care, and nearly 3,500 would die.

Consequently, the COVID-19 pandemic made housing and health care for PEH one of the top priorities for the U.S. health care and public health systems. State and local governments across the country used federal relief funds to allocate private hotel rooms as protective shelter for vulnerable PEH. In Los Angeles County (LAC), which contains the largest unsheltered homeless population in the nation, 2,400 PEH were placed in hotels. COVID-19 response plans included accommodating up to 15,000 PEH in hotels who would then be moved to permanent housing in 90 days. This rapid push into housing amid a pandemic necessitated a delicate balance between social distancing and maintaining patients' basic needs, continuity of existing care, and personal and social well-being.

Permanent supportive housing (PSH)--programs that provide immediate access to independent living situations coupled with support services--is the most effective approach for serving PEH. Numerous studies have demonstrated PSH's effectiveness in improving housing retention, quality of life, and HIV outcomes. Though evidence concerning its impact on other health outcomes, health behaviors, and health care utilization is limited, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine has nonetheless recognized PSH as extremely beneficial for PEH's health. COVID-19 was what this organization termed a "housing-sensitive condition"--one whose transmissibility, course, and medical management are particularly influenced by homelessness. Consequently, the National Alliance to End Homelessness recommended the use of PSH as part of its framework to address COVID-19 and homelessness.

However, significant questions remain about what types of PSH programs can best address COVID-19-related risk and promote patient-centered outcomes at a time of social and community disruption. There are two distinct approaches to implementing PSH: place-based (PB) PSH, or single-site housing placement in a congregate residence with on-site services, and scattered-site (SS) PSH, which uses apartments rented from a private landlord to house clients while providing mobile case management services. The strengths and weaknesses of these two approaches remain largely unknown but may have direct implications for adherence to COVID-19 prevention protocols and other health-related outcomes.

For people with serious chronic conditions, healthcare that defaults to all available treatments without considering patient preferences risks harms that may exceed benefits. Advance care planning (ACP) has the potential to align healthcare with what is important to patients and maximize quality of life. While primary care is where most people receive most of their care, engaging patients in ACP is not routine in primary care given competing demands and limited resources. Primary care clinicians, patients, and families agree that it is preferred to make plans before there is a medical crisis. The research team's goal was to make ACP routine in primary care and to "move it upstream" so that it included improving the quality of the last years of life as well as respecting wishes for end of life care.

This study included a comparative effectiveness trial of team-based versus individual clinician-focused ACP in primary care practices. The research team adapted Ariadne Labs' Serious Illness Care Program (SICP) and aimed to determine if a team approach produces better patient outcomes and explore factors influencing implementation of ACP across practices.

Seven practice-based research networks (PBRNs) in the United States and Canada randomized their primary care practices to team-based or individual clinician-focused versions of SICP. Team members and clinicians completed training, and implementation was supported through practice facilitation. Consented patient participants completed a baseline survey after initial conversations and follow-up surveys at 6 and 12 months later. Forty practices (21 team, 19 clinician) completed training and referred patients to the study. Half of the practices were rural, 80 percent were family medicine, and 33 percent were medical residency training sites. 535 healthcare staff completed training. Both arms trained primary care providers; the team arm also trained nurses, medical assistants, and other roles. 1,321 patients and care partners were referred; and 917 consented and were enrolled (455 from team practices, 462 from clinician). Data from 802 patients were included in the primary analyses. Qualitative implementation data was collected during practice facilitation and from practice interviews.

This collection includes quantitative data collected from primary care practices (DS1) and team members and clinicians (DS2) from study sites located in the United States.

Many research studies seek to learn how treatments affect patients' quality of life. Quality of life includes mood and energy. It also includes how people view their roles in their families or communities and whether they can perform those roles. Researchers use surveys to ask about patients' quality of life. But patients may answer the same question differently depending on different characteristics, such as their age or where they live. Some patients may think about their work roles while others may think about their families or social lives. How patients think about quality of life can affect what researchers learn about the effects of treatment.

In this study, the research team tested two surveys they created to measure differences in how patients think about their quality of life. The first, long survey had 74 questions, and the second, short survey had 23 questions.

The primary aim of this randomized clinical trial is to compare the effectiveness of the Specific Carbohydrate Diet (SCD) and the Mediterranean style diet (MSD) in inducing symptomatic and clinical remission in patients with Crohn's disease. Secondary objectives are to compare the effectiveness of the SCD and MSD in reducing mucosal and systemic inflammation, assessed by measuring the concentration of fecal calprotectin (FCP) and C-reactive protein (CRP) respectively; to compare the diets' effectiveness in improving fatigue, pain, and joint symptoms; and to determine the proportion of patients who continue study diets when prepared food is no longer provided without cost and their reasons for discontinuing the diets. The research aims were guided by crowdsourcing patient-generated research priorities; those that received the most support from Patient-Powered Research Network (PPRN) members were related to diet.

Based on the book Breaking the Vicious Cycle (Gottschall 1987), the Specific Carbohydrate Diet (SCD) restricts all but simple carbohydrates. Fresh fruits, vegetables, unprocessed meats, lactose-free cheeses, and certain legumes are permitted; grains, processed foods, canned foods, and milk are not permitted. The Mediterranean style diet (MSD) involves a high intake of olive oil, fruit, nuts, vegetables, and cereals; moderate intake of legumes, fish, seafood, and poultry; and low dairy intake. Red and processed meats, soda drinks, bakery foods, and sweets are not permitted. The MSD was selected as the alternative diet in this trial due to its easier implementation, consistency with U.S. Department of Agriculture and World Health Organization recommendations, and evidence of its role in overall health and specific benefits for Crohn's patients.

A total of 194 adult patients with mild to moderate Crohn's disease were enrolled and randomized into either the SCD (intervention) or MSD (control) diet groups at 33 different sites across the United States. Patients received meal delivery for their assigned diet for six weeks, then were provided instructions and recipes to adhere to the diet on their own for weeks seven through twelve. Outcome measures were taken at baseline, six weeks, and twelve weeks.

This study consists of a two-group, randomized, controlled comparative effectiveness trial with 300 individuals from Appalachian Kentucky who do not have a primary care provider (and thus are not able to receive the standard of care without intercession) and who are at risk for CVD (cardiovascular disease) by virtue of having two or more modifiable CVD risk factors. The researchers compared (1) the standard of care alone, referral to a primary care provider for management of CVD risk factors, with (2) standard of care supplemented by patient-centered, culturally appropriate, self-care CVD risk reduction intervention (HeartHealth) designed to improve multiple CVD risk factors while overcoming barriers to success.

The researchers compared the 4 month (short-term) and 1 year (long-term) impact of the interventions on: 1) CVD risk factors selected by patients (i.e., tobacco use, blood pressure, lipid profile, HgA1c for diabetics, body mass index, waist circumference, depressive symptoms, or physical activity level); 2) all CVD risk factors for each patient; 3) quality of life; 4) patient and healthcare provider satisfaction; 5) desirability and adoptability by assessing adherence to recommended CVD risk reduction protocols, and retention of recruited individuals.

Demographic variables include gender, age, ethnicity, marital status, employment status, and level of education.

Chronic low back pain is a leading cause of disability and reduced quality of life for nearly 100 million individuals in the United States. Approximately 5 to 10 percent of these individuals are prescribed opioids for treating their chronic low back pain. Limited data exists on the long-term efficacy of opioid treatment while much concern exists regarding the harm they can do to a person. Despite medication treatment patients still suffer from inadequate pain relief, impaired function, and quality of life.

This study sought to compare the long-term effectiveness of two types of alternative therapy approaches - mindfulness based therapy (MBT) and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) - for treating chronic low back pain especially those being treated by opioids.