Perceptions of Cardiovascular Health in Underserved Communities

Introduction: Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of deaths and illnesses in US adults, and the prevalence is disproportionately high in underserved populations. In this study, we assessed respondents' understanding of context-specific differences in knowledge and perceptions of disease, risk, and prevention in 6 underserved communities, with the longer-term goal of developing appropriate interventions. Methods: Thirty-nine small-group sessions and 14 interviews yielded data from 318 adults. Each site's researchers coded, analyzed, and extracted key themes from local data. Investigators from all sites synthesized results and identified common themes and differences. Results: Themes clustered in 3 areas (barriers to cardiovascular health, constraints related to multiple roles, and suggestions for effective communications and programs). Barriers spanned individual, social and cultural, and environmental levels; women in particular cited multiple roles (eg, competing demands, lack of self-care). Programmatic suggestions included the following: personal, interactive, social context; information in language that people use; activities built around cultural values and interests; and community orientation. In addition, respondents preferred health-related information from trusted groups (eg, AARP), health care providers (but with noticeable differences of opinion), family and friends, and printed materials. Conclusion: Interventions to decrease barriers to cardiovascular health are needed; these strategies should include family and community context, small groups, interactive methods, culturally sensitive materials, and trusted information sources. New-immigrant communities need culturally and linguistically tailored education before receiving more substantive interventions

Perceptions of Cardiovascular Health in Underserved Communities

Introduction: Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of deaths and illnesses in US adults, and the prevalence is disproportionately high in underserved populations. In this study, we assessed respondents' understanding of context-specific differences in knowledge and perceptions of disease, risk, and prevention in 6 underserved communities, with the longer-term goal of developing appropriate interventions. Methods: Thirty-nine small-group sessions and 14 interviews yielded data from 318 adults. Each site's researchers coded, analyzed, and extracted key themes from local data. Investigators from all sites synthesized results and identified common themes and differences. Results: Themes clustered in 3 areas (barriers to cardiovascular health, constraints related to multiple roles, and suggestions for effective communications and programs). Barriers spanned individual, social and cultural, and environmental levels; women in particular cited multiple roles (eg, competing demands, lack of self-care). Programmatic suggestions included the following: personal, interactive, social context; information in language that people use; activities built around cultural values and interests; and community orientation. In addition, respondents preferred health-related information from trusted groups (eg, AARP), health care providers (but with noticeable differences of opinion), family and friends, and printed materials. Conclusion: Interventions to decrease barriers to cardiovascular health are needed; these strategies should include family and community context, small groups, interactive methods, culturally sensitive materials, and trusted information sources. New-immigrant communities need culturally and linguistically tailored education before receiving more substantive interventions

Thigh-length compression stockings and DVT after stroke

Controversy exists as to whether neoadjuvant chemotherapy improves survival in patients with invasive bladder cancer, despite randomised controlled trials of more than 3000 patients. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effect of such treatment on survival in patients with this disease

Azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Background Azithromycin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its immunomodulatory actions. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Methods In this randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 176 hospitals in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly allocated to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus azithromycin 500 mg once per day by mouth or intravenously for 10 days or until discharge (or allocation to one of the other RECOVERY treatment groups). Patients were assigned via web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment and were twice as likely to be randomly assigned to usual care than to any of the active treatment groups. Participants and local study staff were not masked to the allocated treatment, but all others involved in the trial were masked to the outcome data during the trial. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936. Findings Between April 7 and Nov 27, 2020, of 16 442 patients enrolled in the RECOVERY trial, 9433 (57%) were eligible and 7763 were included in the assessment of azithromycin. The mean age of these study participants was 65·3 years (SD 15·7) and approximately a third were women (2944 [38%] of 7763). 2582 patients were randomly allocated to receive azithromycin and 5181 patients were randomly allocated to usual care alone. Overall, 561 (22%) patients allocated to azithromycin and 1162 (22%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·97, 95% CI 0·87–1·07; p=0·50). No significant difference was seen in duration of hospital stay (median 10 days [IQR 5 to >28] vs 11 days [5 to >28]) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days (rate ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·98–1·10; p=0·19). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, no significant difference was seen in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (risk ratio 0·95, 95% CI 0·87–1·03; p=0·24). Interpretation In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, azithromycin did not improve survival or other prespecified clinical outcomes. Azithromycin use in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 should be restricted to patients in whom there is a clear antimicrobial indication. Funding UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research