RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The ISCHEMIA trial (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches) postulated that patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and moderate or severe ischemia would benefit from revascularization. We investigated the relationship between severity of CAD and ischemia and trial outcomes, overall and by management strategy. METHODS: In total, 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia were randomized to an initial invasive or conservative management strategy. Blinded, core laboratoryinterpreted coronary computed tomographic angiography was used to assess anatomic eligibility for randomization. Extent and severity of CAD were classified with the modified Duke Prognostic Index (n=2475, 48%). Ischemia severity was interpreted by independent core laboratories (nuclear, echocardiography, magnetic resonance imaging, exercise tolerance testing, n=5105, 99%). We compared 4-year event rates across subgroups defined by severity of ischemia and CAD. The primary end point for this analysis was all-cause mortality. Secondary end points were myocardial infarction (MI), cardiovascular death or MI, and the trial primary end point (cardiovascular death, MI, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest). RESULTS: Relative to mild/no ischemia, neither moderate ischemia nor severe ischemia was associated with increased mortality (moderate ischemia hazard ratio [HR], 0.89 [95% CI, 0.611.30]; severe ischemia HR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.571.21]; P=0.33). Nonfatal MI rates increased with worsening ischemia severity (HR for moderate ischemia, 1.20 [95% CI, 0.861.69] versus mild/no ischemia; HR for severe ischemia, 1.37 [95% CI, 0.981.91]; P=0.04 for trend, P=NS after adjustment for CAD). Increasing CAD severity was associated with death (HR, 2.72 [95% CI, 1.066.98]) and MI (HR, 3.78 [95% CI, 1.638.78]) for the most versus least severe CAD subgroup. Ischemia severity did not identify a subgroup with treatment benefit on mortality, MI, the trial primary end point, or cardiovascular death or MI. In the most severe CAD subgroup (n=659), the 4-year rate of cardiovascular death or MI was lower in the invasive strategy group (difference, 6.3% [95% CI, 0.2%12.4%]), but 4-year all-cause mortality was similar. CONCLUSIONS: Ischemia severity was not associated with increased risk after adjustment for CAD severity. More severe CAD was associated with increased risk. Invasive management did not lower all-cause mortality at 4 years in any ischemia or CAD subgroup.
Asunto(s)
Enfermedad de la Arteria Coronaria , Intervención Coronaria Percutánea , Isquemia , Revascularización Miocárdica , Puente de Arteria CoronariaRESUMEN
CONTEXT: Refill reminders can help patients improve adherence to inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) therapy. However, little is known about patient preferences for reminder type or whether patients who express a preference differ from patients who do not. OBJECTIVES: To describe patient preferences for ICS prescription refill reminder type and to compare baseline ICS therapy adherence, measured as proportion of days covered (PDC) 1 year before initiating preference-based reminders, between patients who did and did not express a preference. DESIGN: This substudy within a randomized multi-intervention study was conducted at Kaiser Permanente Colorado. Adults with asthma randomized to intervention were offered the opportunity to choose text, telephone, or email reminders. Patients who did and did not provide a preference were compared by baseline characteristics using log-binomial models. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The primary outcomes were reminder preference and type. RESULTS: A total of 1497 of 4545 patients (32.9%) expressed a preference; 789 (52.7%) chose text. The adjusted relative risk (aRR) of not providing a preference increased with decreasing PDC (PDC of 0.50 to < 0.80: aRR, 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-1.25; PDC < 0.5: aRR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.59-1.95) compared with patients with a PDC of 0.80 or greater. CONCLUSION: Among patients who expressed a preference, text reminders were preferred. Patients who expressed a preference had higher baseline adherence. Further research is needed to determine whether expressing a preference for a refill reminder type is itself associated with adherence. Given that offering the opportunity to choose a reminder type only engaged a subset of patients, further work is needed to understand how best to leverage technology-enabled communication outreach to help patients optimize adherence.