Intervention planning and modification of the BUMP intervention: a digital intervention for the early detection of raised blood pressure in pregnancy

Background: Hypertensive disorders in pregnancy, particularly pre-eclampsia, pose a substantial health risk for both maternal and foetal outcomes. The BUMP (Blood Pressure Self-Monitoring in Pregnancy) interventions are being tested in a trial. They aim to facilitate the early detection of raised blood pressure through self-monitoring. This article outlines how the self-monitoring interventions in the BUMP trial were developed and modified using the person-based approach to promote engagement and adherence. Methods: Key behavioural challenges associated with blood pressure self-monitoring in pregnancy were identified through synthesising qualitative pilot data and existing evidence, which informed guiding principles for the development process. Social cognitive theory was identified as an appropriate theoretical framework. A testable logic model was developed to illustrate the hypothesised processes of change associated with the intervention. Iterative qualitative feedback from women and staff informed modifications to the participant materials. Results: The evidence synthesis suggested women face challenges integrating self-monitoring into their lives and that adherence is challenging at certain time points in pregnancy (for example, starting maternity leave). Intervention modification included strategies to address adherence but also focussed on modifying outcome expectancies, by providing messages explaining pre-eclampsia and outlining the potential benefits of self-monitoring. Conclusions: With an in-depth understanding of the target population, several methods and approaches to plan and develop interventions specifically relevant to pregnant women were successfully integrated, to address barriers to behaviour change while ensuring they are easy to engage with, persuasive and acceptable

Multi-center feasibility study evaluating recruitment, variability in risk factors and biomarkers for a diet and cancer cohort in India

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>India's population exhibits diverse dietary habits and chronic disease patterns. Nutritional epidemiologic studies in India are primarily of cross-sectional or case-control design and subject to biases, including differential recall of past diet. The aim of this feasibility study was to evaluate whether a diet-focused cohort study of cancer could be established in India, providing insight into potentially unique diet and lifestyle exposures.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Field staff contacted 7,064 households within three regions of India (New Delhi, Mumbai, and Trivandrum) and found 4,671 eligible adults aged 35-69 years. Participants completed interviewer-administered questionnaires (demographic, diet history, physical activity, medical/reproductive history, tobacco/alcohol use, and occupational history), and staff collected biological samples (blood, urine, and toenail clippings), anthropometric measurements (weight, standing and sitting height; waist, hip, and thigh circumference; triceps, sub-scapula and supra-patella skin fold), and blood pressure measurements.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Eighty-eight percent of eligible subjects completed all questionnaires and 67% provided biological samples. Unique protein sources by region were fish in Trivandrum, dairy in New Delhi, and pulses (legumes) in Mumbai. Consumption of meat, alcohol, fast food, and soft drinks was scarce in all three regions. A large percentage of the participants were centrally obese and had elevated blood glucose levels. New Delhi participants were also the least physically active and had elevated lipids levels, suggesting a high prevalence of metabolic syndrome.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>A high percentage of participants complied with study procedures including biological sample collection. Epidemiologic expertise and sufficient infrastructure exists at these three sites in India to successfully carry out a modest sized population-based study; however, we identified some potential problems in conducting a cohort study, such as limited number of facilities to handle biological samples.</p

A cross-sectional investigation of regional patterns of diet and cardio-metabolic risk in India

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The role of diet in India's rapidly progressing chronic disease epidemic is unclear; moreover, diet may vary considerably across North-South regions.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The India Health Study was a multicenter study of men and women aged 35-69, who provided diet, lifestyle, and medical histories, as well as blood pressure, fasting blood, urine, and anthropometric measurements. In each region (Delhi, n = 824; Mumbai, n = 743; Trivandrum, n = 2,247), we identified two dietary patterns with factor analysis. In multiple logistic regression models adjusted for age, gender, education, income, marital status, religion, physical activity, tobacco, alcohol, and total energy intake, we investigated associations between regional dietary patterns and abdominal adiposity, hypertension, diabetes, and dyslipidemia.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Across the regions, more than 80% of the participants met the criteria for abdominal adiposity and 10 to 28% of participants were considered diabetic. In Delhi, the "fruit and dairy" dietary pattern was positively associated with abdominal adiposity [highest versus lowest tertile, multivariate-adjusted OR and 95% CI: 2.32 (1.03-5.23); P_trend= 0.008] and hypertension [2.20 (1.47-3.31); P_trend< 0.0001]. In Trivandrum, the "pulses and rice" pattern was inversely related to diabetes [0.70 (0.51-0.95); P_trend= 0.03] and the "snacks and sweets" pattern was positively associated with abdominal adiposity [2.05 (1.34-3.14); P_trend= 0.03]. In Mumbai, the "fruit and vegetable" pattern was inversely associated with hypertension [0.63 (0.40-0.99); P_trend= 0.05] and the "snack and meat" pattern appeared to be positively associated with abdominal adiposity.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Cardio-metabolic risk factors were highly prevalent in this population. Across all regions, we found little evidence of a Westernized diet; however, dietary patterns characterized by animal products, fried snacks, or sweets appeared to be positively associated with abdominal adiposity. Conversely, more traditional diets in the Southern regions were inversely related to diabetes and hypertension. Continued investigation of diet, as well as other environmental and biological factors, will be needed to better understand the risk profile in this population and potential means of prevention.</p

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570