Factors Associated With Access to and Timing of Coronavirus Testing Among US Adults After Onset of Febrile Illness.

ImportanceActive SARS-CoV-2 (coronavirus) transmission continues in the US. It is unclear whether better access to coronavirus testing and more consistent use of testing could substantially reduce transmission.ObjectiveTo describe coronavirus testing in persons with new onset of febrile illness and analyze whether there are changes over time and differences by race and ethnicity.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study used data from the COVID-19 Citizen Science Study, launched in March 2020, which recruited participants via press release, word-of-mouth, and partner organizations. Participants completed daily surveys about COVID-19 symptoms and weekly surveys about coronavirus testing. All adults (aged at least 18 years) with a smartphone were eligible to join. For this analysis, US participants with new onset of febrile illness from April 2020 to October 2020 were included. Data analysis was performed from November 2020 to March 2021.Main outcomes and measuresReceipt of a coronavirus test result within 7 days of febrile illness onset.ResultsOf the 2679 participants included in this analysis, the mean (SD) age was 46.3 (13.4) years, 1983 were female (74%), 2017 were college educated (75%), and a total of 3865 distinct new febrile illness episodes were reported (300 episodes [7.8%] from Hispanic participants, 71 episodes [1.8%] from Black participants, and 3494 episodes [90.4%] from not Black, not Hispanic participants) between April 2 and October 23, 2020. In weekly surveys delivered during the 14 days after fever onset, 12% overall (753 participants) indicated receipt of a test result. Using serial survey responses and parametric time-to-event modeling, it was estimated that by 7 days after onset of febrile illness, a total of 20.5% (95% CI, 19.1%-22.0%) had received a test result. This proportion increased from 9.8% (95% CI, 7.5%-12.0%) early in the epidemic to 24.1% (95% CI, 21.5%-26.7%) at the end of July, but testing rates did not substantially improve since then, increasing to 25.9% (95% CI; 21.6%-30.3%) in late October at the start of the winter surge. Black participants reported receiving a test result about half as often as others (7% [7 of 103] of survey responses vs 12% [53 of 461] for Hispanic vs 13% [693 of 5516] for not Black, not Hispanic; P = .03). This association was not statistically significant in adjusted time-to-event models (hazard ratio = 0.59 vs not Black, not Hispanic participants; 95% CI, 0.26-1.34).Conclusions and relevanceSystematic underuse of coronavirus testing was observed in this cohort study through late October 2020, at the beginning of the winter COVID-19 surge, which may have contributed to preventable coronavirus transmission

Improvement in Blood Pressure Control in Safety Net Clinics Receiving 2 Versions of a Scalable Quality Improvement Intervention: BP MAP A Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Trial.

Background Uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) remains a leading cause of death in the United States. The American Medical Association developed a quality improvement program to improve BP control, but it is unclear how to efficiently implement this program at scale across multiple health systems. Methods and Results We conducted BP MAP (Blood Pressure Measure Accurately, Act Rapidly, and Partner With Patients), a comparative effectiveness trial with clinic-level randomization to compare 2 scalable versions of the quality improvement program: Full Support (with support from quality improvement expert) and Self-Guided (using only online materials). Outcomes were clinic-level BP control (<140/90 mm Hg) and other BP-related process metrics calculated using electronic health record data. Difference-in-differences were used to compare changes in outcomes from baseline to 6 months, between intervention arms, and to a nonrandomized Usual Care arm composed of 18 health systems. A total of 24 safety-net clinics in 9 different health systems underwent randomization and then simultaneous implementation. BP control increased from 56.7% to 59.1% in the Full Support arm, and 62.0% to 63.1% in the Self-Guided arm, whereas BP control dropped slightly from 61.3% to 60.9% in the Usual Care arm. The between-group differences-in-differences were not statistically significant (Full Support versus Self-Guided=+1.2% [95% CI, -3.2% to 5.6%], P=0.59; Full Support versus Usual Care=+3.2% [-0.5% to 6.9%], P=0.09; Self-Guided versus Usual Care=+2.0% [-0.4% to 4.5%], P=0.10). Conclusions In this randomized trial, 2 methods of implementing a quality improvement intervention in 24 safety net clinics led to modest improvements in BP control that were not statistically significant. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03818659

Improvement in Blood Pressure Control in Safety Net Clinics Receiving 2 Versions of a Scalable Quality Improvement Intervention: BP MAP A Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Trial

Background Uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) remains a leading cause of death in the United States. The American Medical Association developed a quality improvement program to improve BP control, but it is unclear how to efficiently implement this program at scale across multiple health systems. Methods and Results We conducted BP MAP (Blood Pressure Measure Accurately, Act Rapidly, and Partner With Patients), a comparative effectiveness trial with clinic‐level randomization to compare 2 scalable versions of the quality improvement program: Full Support (with support from quality improvement expert) and Self‐Guided (using only online materials). Outcomes were clinic‐level BP control (<140/90 mm Hg) and other BP‐related process metrics calculated using electronic health record data. Difference‐in‐differences were used to compare changes in outcomes from baseline to 6 months, between intervention arms, and to a nonrandomized Usual Care arm composed of 18 health systems. A total of 24 safety‐net clinics in 9 different health systems underwent randomization and then simultaneous implementation. BP control increased from 56.7% to 59.1% in the Full Support arm, and 62.0% to 63.1% in the Self‐Guided arm, whereas BP control dropped slightly from 61.3% to 60.9% in the Usual Care arm. The between‐group differences‐in‐differences were not statistically significant (Full Support versus Self‐Guided=+1.2% [95% CI, −3.2% to 5.6%], P=0.59; Full Support versus Usual Care=+3.2% [−0.5% to 6.9%], P=0.09; Self‐Guided versus Usual Care=+2.0% [−0.4% to 4.5%], P=0.10). Conclusions In this randomized trial, 2 methods of implementing a quality improvement intervention in 24 safety net clinics led to modest improvements in BP control that were not statistically significant. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03818659

Individualized Studies of Triggers of Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation

ImportanceAtrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia. Although patients have reported that various exposures determine when and if an AF event will occur, a prospective evaluation of patient-selected triggers has not been conducted, and the utility of characterizing presumed AF-related triggers for individual patients remains unknown.ObjectiveTo test the hypothesis that n-of-1 trials of self-selected AF triggers would enhance AF-related quality of life.Design, setting, and participantsA randomized clinical trial lasting a minimum of 10 weeks tested a smartphone mobile application used by symptomatic patients with paroxysmal AF who owned a smartphone and were interested in testing a presumed AF trigger. Participants were screened between December 22, 2018, and March 29, 2020.Interventionsn-of-1 Participants received instructions to expose or avoid self-selected triggers in random 1-week blocks for 6 weeks, and the probability their trigger influenced AF risk was then communicated. Controls monitored their AF over the same time period.Main outcomes and measuresAF was assessed daily by self-report and using a smartphone-based electrocardiogram recording device. The primary outcome comparing n-of-1 and control groups was the Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality-of-Life (AFEQT) score at 10 weeks. All participants could subsequently opt for additional trigger testing.ResultsOf 446 participants who initiated (mean [SD] age, 58 [14] years; 289 men [58%]; 461 White [92%]), 320 (72%) completed all study activities. Self-selected triggers included caffeine (n = 53), alcohol (n = 43), reduced sleep (n = 31), exercise (n = 30), lying on left side (n = 17), dehydration (n = 10), large meals (n = 7), cold food or drink (n = 5), specific diets (n = 6), and other customized triggers (n = 4). No significant differences in AFEQT scores were observed between the n-of-1 vs AF monitoring-only groups. In the 4-week postintervention follow-up period, significantly fewer daily AF episodes were reported after trigger testing compared with controls over the same time period (adjusted relative risk, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.43- 0.83; P &lt; .001). In a meta-analysis of the individualized trials, only exposure to alcohol was associated with significantly heightened risks of AF events.Conclusions and relevancen-of-1 Testing of AF triggers did not improve AF-associated quality of life but was associated with a reduction in AF events. Acute exposure to alcohol increased AF risk, with no evidence that other exposures, including caffeine, more commonly triggered AF.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03323099

Factors associated with anxiety during the first two years of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States: An analysis of the COVID-19 Citizen Science study.

COVID-19 increased the prevalence of clinically significant anxiety in the United States. To investigate contributing factors we analyzed anxiety, reported online via monthly Generalized Anxiety Disorders-7 (GAD-7) surveys between April 2020 and May 2022, in association with self-reported worry about the health effects of COVID-19, economic difficulty, personal COVID-19 experience, and subjective social status. 333,292 anxiety surveys from 50,172 participants (82% non-Hispanic white; 73% female; median age 55, IQR 42-66) showed high levels of anxiety, especially early in the pandemic. Anxiety scores showed strong independent associations with worry about the health effects of COVID-19 for oneself or family members (GAD-7 score +3.28 for highest vs. lowest category; 95% confidence interval: 3.24, 3.33; p<0.0001 for trend) and with difficulty paying for basic living expenses (+2.06; 1.97, 2.15, p<0.0001) in multivariable regression models after adjusting for demographic characteristics, COVID-19 case rates and death rates, and personal COVID-19 experience. High levels of COVID-19 health worry and economic stress were each more common among participants reporting lower subjective social status, and median anxiety scores for those experiencing both were in the range considered indicative of moderate to severe clinical anxiety disorders. In summary, health worry and economic difficulty both contributed to high rates of anxiety during the first two years of the COVID-19 pandemic in the US, especially in disadvantaged socioeconomic groups. Programs to address both health concerns and economic insecurity in vulnerable populations could help mitigate pandemic impacts on anxiety and mental health

Factors associated with anxiety during the first two years of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States: An analysis of the COVID-19 Citizen Science study.

COVID-19 increased the prevalence of clinically significant anxiety in the United States. To investigate contributing factors we analyzed anxiety, reported online via monthly Generalized Anxiety Disorders-7 (GAD-7) surveys between April 2020 and May 2022, in association with self-reported worry about the health effects of COVID-19, economic difficulty, personal COVID-19 experience, and subjective social status. 333,292 anxiety surveys from 50,172 participants (82% non-Hispanic white; 73% female; median age 55, IQR 42-66) showed high levels of anxiety, especially early in the pandemic. Anxiety scores showed strong independent associations with worry about the health effects of COVID-19 for oneself or family members (GAD-7 score +3.28 for highest vs. lowest category; 95% confidence interval: 3.24, 3.33; p&lt;0.0001 for trend) and with difficulty paying for basic living expenses (+2.06; 1.97, 2.15, p&lt;0.0001) in multivariable regression models after adjusting for demographic characteristics, COVID-19 case rates and death rates, and personal COVID-19 experience. High levels of COVID-19 health worry and economic stress were each more common among participants reporting lower subjective social status, and median anxiety scores for those experiencing both were in the range considered indicative of moderate to severe clinical anxiety disorders. In summary, health worry and economic difficulty both contributed to high rates of anxiety during the first two years of the COVID-19 pandemic in the US, especially in disadvantaged socioeconomic groups. Programs to address both health concerns and economic insecurity in vulnerable populations could help mitigate pandemic impacts on anxiety and mental health

Tracking Blood Pressure Control Performance and Process Metrics in 25 US Health Systems: The PCORnet Blood Pressure Control Laboratory.

Background The National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network Blood Pressure Control Laboratory Surveillance System was established to identify opportunities for blood pressure (BP) control improvement and to provide a mechanism for tracking improvement longitudinally. Methods and Results We conducted a serial cross-sectional study with queries against standardized electronic health record data in the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet) common data model returned by 25 participating US health systems. Queries produced BP control metrics for adults with well-documented hypertension and a recent encounter at the health system for a series of 1-year measurement periods for each quarter of available data from January 2017 to March 2020. Aggregate weighted results are presented overall and by race and ethnicity. The most recent measurement period includes data from 1&nbsp;737&nbsp;995 patients, and 11&nbsp;956&nbsp;509 patient-years were included in the trend analysis. Overall, 15% were Black, 52% women, and 28% had diabetes. BP control (&lt;140/90&nbsp;mm&nbsp;Hg) was observed in 62% (range, 44%-74%) but varied by race and ethnicity, with the lowest BP control among Black patients at 57% (odds ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.66-0.94). A new class of antihypertensive medication (medication intensification) was prescribed in just 12% (range, 0.6%-25%) of patient visits where BP was uncontrolled. However, when medication intensification occurred, there was a large decrease in systolic BP (≈15&nbsp;mm&nbsp;Hg; range, 5-18&nbsp;mm&nbsp;Hg). Conclusions Major opportunities exist for improving BP control and reducing disparities, especially through consistent medication intensification when BP is uncontrolled. These data demonstrate substantial room for improvement and opportunities to close health equity gaps

Disruption in Blood Pressure Control With the COVID-19 Pandemic: The PCORnet Blood Pressure Control Laboratory

ObjectiveTo explore trends in blood pressure (BP) control before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.Patients and methodsHealth systems participating in the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet) Blood Pressure Control Laboratory Surveillance System responded to data queries, producing 9 BP control metrics. Averages of the BP control metrics (weighted by numbers of observations in each health system) were calculated and compared between two 1-year measurement periods (January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019, and January 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020).ResultsAmong 1,770,547 hypertensive persons in 2019, BP control to &lt;140/&lt;90 mm Hg varied across 24 health systems (range, 46%-74%). Reduced BP control occurred in most health systems with onset of the COVID-19 pandemic; the weighted average BP control was 60.5% in 2019 and 53.3% in 2020. Reductions were also evident for BP control to &lt;130/&lt;80 mm Hg (29.9% in 2019 and 25.4% in 2020) and improvement in BP (reduction of 10 mm Hg in systolic BP or achievement of systolic BP &lt;140 mm Hg; 29.7% in 2019 and 23.8% in 2020). Two BP control process metrics exhibited pandemic-associated disruption: repeat visit in 4 weeks after a visit with uncontrolled hypertension (36.7% in 2019 and 31.7% in 2020) and prescription of fixed-dose combination medications among those with 2 or more drug classes (24.6% in 2019 and 21.5% in 2020).ConclusionBP control decreased substantially during the COVID-19 pandemic, with a corresponding reduction in follow-up health care visits among persons with uncontrolled hypertension. It is unclear whether the observed decline in BP control during the pandemic will contribute to future cardiovascular events