Association of Ambulatory Hemodynamic Monitoring With Clinical Outcomes in a Concurrent Matched Control Analysis.

Importance: In a randomized clinical trial, heart failure (HF) hospitalizations were lower in patients managed with guidance from an implantable pulmonary artery pressure sensor compared with usual care. It remains unclear if ambulatory monitoring could also improve long-term clinical outcomes in real-world practice. Objective: To determine the association between ambulatory hemodynamic monitoring and rates of HF hospitalization at 12 months in clinical practice. Design, Setting, and Participants: This case-control study of Medicare beneficiaries used claims data collected between June 1, 2014, and March 31, 2016. Medicare patients who received implants of a pulmonary artery pressure sensor were identified from the 100% Medicare claims database. Each patient who received an implant was matched to a control patient by demographic features, history of HF hospitalization, and number of all-cause hospitalizations. Propensity scoring based on comorbidities (arrhythmia, hypertension, diabetes, pulmonary disease, and renal disease) was used for additional matching. Data analysis was completed from July 2017 through January 2019. Exposures: Implantable pulmonary artery pressure monitoring system. Main Outcomes and Measures: The rates of HF hospitalization were compared using the Andersen-Gill method. Days lost owing to events were compared using a nonparametric bootstrap method. Results: The study cohort consisted of 1087 patients who received an implantable pulmonary artery pressure sensors and 1087 matched control patients. The treatment and control cohorts were well matched by age (mean [SD], 72.7 [10.2] years vs 72.9 [10.1] years) and sex (381 of 1087 female patients [35.1%] in each group), medical history, comorbidities, and timing of preimplant HF hospitalization. At 12 months postimplant, 616 HF hospitalizations occurred in the treatment cohort compared with 784 HF hospitalizations in the control cohort. The rate of HF hospitalization was lower in the treatment cohort at 12 months postimplant (hazard ratio [HR], 0.76 [95% CI, 0.65-0.89]; P \u3c .001). The percentage of days lost to HF hospitalizations or death were lower in the treatment group (HR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.64-0.84]; P \u3c .001) and the percentage of days lost owing to all-cause hospitalization or death were also lower (HR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.68-0.88]; P \u3c .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Patients with HF who were implanted with a pulmonary artery pressure sensor had lower rates of HF hospitalization than matched controls and spent more time alive out of hospital. Ambulatory hemodynamic monitoring may improve outcomes in patients with chronic HF

Ustekinumab as Induction and Maintenance Therapy for Crohn’s Disease

BACKGROUND Ustekinumab, a monoclonal antibody to the p40 subunit of interleukin-12 and inter-leukin-23, was evaluated as an intravenous induction therapy in two populations with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease. Ustekinumab was also evaluated as subcutaneous maintenance therapy. METHODS We randomly assigned patients to receive a single intravenous dose of ustekinumab (either 130 mg or approximately 6 mg per kilogram of body weight) or placebo in two induction trials. The UNITI-1 trial included 741 patients who met the criteria for primary or secondary nonresponse to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists or had unacceptable side effects. The UNITI-2 trial included 628 patients in whom conventional therapy failed or unacceptable side effects occurred. Patients who completed these induction trials then participated in IM-UNITI, in which the 397 patients who had a response to ustekinumab were randomly assigned to receive subcutaneous maintenance injections of 90 mg of ustekinumab (either every 8 weeks or every 12 weeks) or placebo. The primary end point for the induction trials was a clinical response at week 6 (defined as a decrease from baseline in the Crohn’s Disease Activity Index [CDAI] score of ≥100 points or a CDAI score <150). The primary end point for the maintenance trial was remission at week 44 (CDAI score <150). RESULTS The rates of response at week 6 among patients receiving intravenous ustekinumab at a dose of either 130 mg or approximately 6 mg per kilogram were significantly higher than the rates among patients receiving placebo (in UNITI-1, 34.3%, 33.7%, and 21.5%, respectively, with P≤0.003 for both comparisons with placebo; in UNITI-2, 51.7%, 55.5%, and 28.7%, respectively, with P<0.001 for both doses). In the groups receiving maintenance doses of ustekinumab every 8 weeks or every 12 weeks, 53.1% and 48.8%, respectively, were in remission at week 44, as compared with 35.9% of those receiving placebo (P = 0.005 and P = 0.04, respectively). Within each trial, adverse-event rates were similar among treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease, those receiving intravenous ustekinumab had a significantly higher rate of response than did those receiving placebo. Subcutaneous ustekinumab maintained remission in patients who had a clinical response to induction therapy. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT01369329, NCT01369342, and NCT01369355.

The GUIDE-HF trial of pulmonary artery pressure monitoring in heart failure: Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic

Aims: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, important changes in heart failure (HF) event rates have been widely reported, but few data address potential causes for these changes; several possibilities were examined in the GUIDE-HF study. Methods and results: From 15 March 2018 to 20 December 2019, patients were randomized to haemodynamic-guided management (treatment) vs. control for 12 months, with a primary endpoint of all-cause mortality plus HF events. Pre-COVID-19, the primary endpoint rate was 0.553 vs. 0.682 events/patient-year in the treatment vs. control group [hazard ratio (HR) 0.81, P = 0.049]. Treatment difference was no longer evident during COVID-19 (HR 1.11, P = 0.526), with a 21% decrease in the control group (0.536 events/patient-year) and no change in the treatment group (0.597 events/patient-year). Data reflecting provider-, disease-, and patient-dependent factors that might change the primary endpoint rate during COVID-19 were examined. Subject contact frequency was similar in the treatment vs. control group before and during COVID-19. During COVID-19, the monthly rate of medication changes fell 19.2% in the treatment vs. 10.7% in the control group to levels not different between groups (P = 0.362). COVID-19 was infrequent and not different between groups. Pulmonary artery pressure area under the curve decreased -98 mmHg-days in the treatment group vs. -100 mmHg-days in the controls (P = 0.867). Patient compliance with the study protocol was maintained during COVID-19 in both groups. Conclusion: During COVID-19, the primary event rate decreased in the controls and remained low in the treatment group, resulting in an effacement of group differences that were present pre-COVID-19. These outcomes did not result from changes in provider- or disease-dependent factors; pulmonary artery pressure decreased despite fewer medication changes, suggesting that patient-dependent factors played an important role in these outcomes. Clinical Trials.gov: NCT03387813. Key questions: What factors explain the loss of treatment effect and reduction in heart failure events during COVID-19? Key findings: The treatment effect change was not due to COVID-19-related events. Patient management was sustained but not intensified during COVID-19. Patient status improved during COVID-19 and pulmonary artery pressure reduced in both groups. Take home message: Patient behaviour probably improved during COVID-19, given that patient status and pulmonary artery pressure improved during COVID-19 despite fewer medication changes and without increased contact from providers

Routinising research : academic skills in analogue and digitial worlds

This paper explores research routines which are so mundane that they are rarely noticed and may be hard to even verbalise. How does one acquire the bodily dexterity of rifling through a filing cabinet, skimming Google lists, or judging a book by holding in it one’s hands? Drawing on interviews with and observations among scholars of both the analogue and digital generations, mainly in the social and cultural sciences, I look at how such routines are established, naturalised and transformed. They may be seen as methods slowly turning into habits taken for granted. To what extent do such practices, which are often seen as intensely personal, actually mirror norms and cultural conventions of specific academic settings? With a focus on materialities and sensibilities, I discuss three arenas of everyday academic activities: writing, reading and handling information