Publications

BACKGROUND: Disparities in type 2 diabetes (T2DM) risk, care, and complications impact Black Americans more than that of their White counterparts. This study aims to examine the association between discrimination, racism, and T2DM care and outcomes in Black Americans.

METHOD: The systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines.

RESULTS: A total of six original research articles met the inclusion criteria, comprising three quantitative and three qualitative studies. Overall, the systematic review findings revealed that among Black Americans, perceived interpersonal discrimination and racism by healthcare professionals are associated with patients' behaviors that impact T2DM outcomes. The findings also revealed that provider-level factors such as communication, provider assumptions and attitudes, information sharing, shared decision-making, and disease management behaviors might influence T2DM outcomes in this population.

DISCUSSION: Better T2DM-related outcomes depend on optimal disease control through adequate disease management. Building a therapeutic and culturally appropriate relationship free of discrimination and racism is vital for optimal disease management and decreasing health disparities in this patient population.

CONCLUSION: Perceived interpersonal racism and discrimination by healthcare providers, among other sociocultural factors, play a crucial role in influencing some patient behaviors that affect T2DM health outcomes in this population. Efforts to decrease health disparities in this specific community should also focus on interventions addressing provider-level factors and behaviors perceived as racist or discriminatory.

BACKGROUND: Mobile health (mHealth) technology has the potential to support shared decision-making (SDM) and improve hypertension control. However, our understanding of the variations in individuals' involvement in SDM and mHealth usage across different racial and ethnic groups in the United States is still limited.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the extent of involvement in SDM and the usage of mHealth technology in health-related activities among US adults with hypertension from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds and to examine whether the mHealth usage differed by individuals' level of engagement in SDM.

METHODS: This study used cross-sectional data from the 2017 to 2020 Health Information National Trends Survey, which was conducted on US adults with self-reported hypertension, and race and ethnicity data were included. The exposure of interest was race and ethnicity. The outcomes were SDM and mHealth usage. SDM was assessed using an item: "In the past 12 months, how often did your health professional: involve you in decisions about your healthcare as much as you wanted?" mHealth usage was defined as using a smartphone or tablet to engage in (1) making health decisions, (2) discussing health decisions with health providers, (3) tracking health progress, and (4) sharing health information. Weighted multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine the association between race and ethnicity and SDM or mHealth usage adjusted for covariates and stratified by the level of engagement in SDM.

RESULTS: This study included 4893 adults with hypertension, and the mean age was 61 (SD 13) years. The sample was 53% female, 61% (n=3006) non-Hispanic White, 19% (n=907) non-Hispanic Black or African American, 12% (n=605) Hispanic, 4% (n=193) non-Hispanic Asian, and 4% (n=182) non-Hispanic other. Compared to the non-Hispanic White adults, non-Hispanic Black adults were more likely to use mHealth to make health decisions (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.70, 95% CI 1.23-2.34), share health information (aOR 1.46, 95% CI 1.02-2.08), and discuss health decisions with health providers (aOR 1.38, 95% CI 1.02-1.87). Significant associations were observed specifically among those who were always involved in SDM. Asian adults were less likely to be involved in SDM (aOR 0.51, 95% CI 0.26-0.99) and were more likely to use mHealth to track progress on a health-related goal (aOR 2.07, 95% CI 1.28-3.34) than non-Hispanic White adults. Hispanic adults were less likely to use mHealth to share health information (aOR 0.47, 95% CI 0.33-0.67) and discuss health decisions with health providers (aOR 0.65, 95% CI 0.46-0.94) compared to non-Hispanic White adults.

CONCLUSIONS: This study observed racial and ethnic disparities in SDM and mHealth usage among US adults with hypertension. These findings emphasize the significance of comprehending the involvement of SDM and the usage of mHealth technology within racially and ethnically diverse populations.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Blood pressure (BP) fluctuations outside of clinic are increasingly recognized for their role in the development of cardiovascular disease, syncope, and premature death and as a promising target for tailored hypertension treatment. However, current cuff-based BP devices, including home and ambulatory devices, are unable to capture the breadth of BP variability across human activities, experiences, and contexts.

RECENT FINDINGS: Cuffless, wearable BP devices offer the promise of beat-to-beat, continuous, noninvasive measurement of BP during both awake and sleep periods with minimal patient inconvenience. Importantly, cuffless BP devices can characterize BP variability, allowing for the identification of patient-specific triggers of BP surges in the home environment. Unfortunately, the pace of evidence, regulation, and validation testing has lagged behind the pace of innovation and direct consumer marketing. We provide an overview of the available technologies and devices for cuffless BP monitoring, considerations for the calibration and validation of these devices, and the promise and pitfalls of the cuffless BP paradigm.

Serum urate is a risk factor for hypertension and gout. The DASH diet and losartan independently lower blood pressure (BP); however, their effects on serum urate are understudied. We performed a post-hoc analysis of the DASH-losartan trial, which randomized participants with hypertension in parallel fashion to the DASH diet or a standard American diet (control) and in crossover fashion to 4-week losartan or placebo. Serum urate was measured at baseline and after each 4-week period. Diets were designed to maintain weight constant. We examined the effects of DASH (vs control) and/or losartan (vs placebo) on serum urate, overall and among those with baseline serum urate ≥6 mg/dL, using generalized estimating equations. Of 55 participants (mean age 52 years, 58% women, 64% Black), mean (±SD) baseline ambulatory SBP/DBP was 146±12/91±9 and mean (±SD) serum urate was 5.2±1.2 mg/dL. The DASH diet did not significantly reduce urate levels overall (mean difference -0.05 mg/dL; 95%CI: -0.39, 0.28), but did decrease levels among participants with baseline hyperuricemia (-0.33 mg/dL; 95%CI: -0.87, 0.21; P-interaction=0.007 across hyperuricemia groups). Losartan significantly decreased serum urate (-0.23 mg/dL; 95%CI: -0.40, -0.05) with greater effects on serum urate among adults <60 years old versus adults ≥60 years old (-0.33 mg/dL vs 0.16 mg/dL, P interaction = 0.003). In summary, the DASH diet significantly decreased serum urate among participants with higher urate at baseline, while losartan significantly reduced serum urate, especially among younger adults. Future research should examine the effects of these interventions in patients with hyperuricemia or gout.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We review under-representation of key demographic groups in cardiovascular clinical trials, focusing on lipid-lowering trials. We outline multilevel strategies to recruit and retain diverse populations in cardiovascular trials.

RECENT FINDINGS: Barriers to participation in trials occur at the study, participant, health system, sponsor, and policy level, requiring a multilevel approach to effectively increase participation of under-represented groups in research. Increasing the representation of marginalized and under-represented groups in leadership positions in clinical trials can ensure that their perspectives and experiences are considered. Trial design should prioritize patient- and community-indicated needs. Women and individuals from racially/ethnically diverse populations remain under-represented in lipid-lowering and other cardiovascular clinical trials relative to their disease burden in the population. This limits the generalizability of trial results to the broader population in clinical practice. Collaboration between community stakeholders, researchers, and community members can facilitate shared learning about trials and build trust.

BACKGROUND: ACC/AHA guidelines caution against the use of antihypertensive therapy in the setting of low standing systolic BP (SBP) < 110 mm Hg due to unclear benefits.

METHODS: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study measured supine and standing SBP in adults aged 45-64 years between 1987 and 1989. We used Cox regression to evaluate the associations of low standing SBP (<110 mm Hg) with risk of falls, syncope, coronary heart disease (CHD), and mortality through December 31, 2019. Falls and syncope were ascertained by hospitalization and outpatient claims; CHD events were adjudicated. Associations were examined overall and in strata of hypertension stage, 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk, age, and sex.

RESULTS: Among 12,467 adults followed a median of 24 years (mean age at enrollment 54.1 ± 5.8 years, 55% women, 26% Black adults), 3,000 (24%) had a standing SBP < 110 mm Hg. A standing SBP < 110 mm Hg compared to standing SBP ≥ 110 mm Hg was not significantly associated with falls or syncope, and was associated with a lower risk of CHD events and mortality with HRs of 1.02 (95% CI 0.94, 1.11), 1.02 (0.93, 1.11), 0.88 (0.80, 0.97), and 0.91 (0.86, 0.97), respectively. There were no clinically meaningful differences when stratified by hypertension stage, 10-year ASCVD risk, age, and sex.

CONCLUSIONS: In this community-based population, low standing SBP was common and not significantly associated with falls or syncope, but was associated with a lower risk of CHD and mortality. These findings do not support screening for low standing BP as a risk factor for adverse events.

BACKGROUND: Management of orthostatic hypotension (OH) prioritizes prevention of standing hypotension, sometimes at the expense of supine hypertension. It is unclear whether supine hypertension is associated with adverse outcomes relative to standing hypotension.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the long-term clinical consequences of supine hypertension and standing hypotension among middle-aged adults with and without OH.

METHODS: The ARIC study (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities) measured supine and standing blood pressure (BP) in adults aged 45 to 64 years, without neurogenic OH, between 1987 and 1989. We defined OH as a positional drop in systolic BP ≥20 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥10 mm Hg, supine hypertension as supine BP≥140/≥90 mm Hg, and standing hypotension as standing BP≤105/≤65 mm Hg. Participants were followed for >30 years. We used Cox regression models to examine associations with cardiovascular disease events, all-cause mortality, falls, and syncope.

RESULTS: Of 12 489 participants (55% female, 26% Black, mean age 54 years, SD 6), 4.4% had OH. Among those without OH (N=11 943), 19% had supine hypertension and 21% had standing hypotension, while among those with OH (N=546), 58% had supine hypertension and 38% had standing hypotension. Associations with outcomes did not differ by OH status (P-interactions >0.25). Supine hypertension was associated with heart failure (hazard ratio, 1.83 [95% CI, 1.68-1.99]), falls (hazard ratio, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.02-1.22]), and all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.45 [95% CI, 1.37-1.54]), while standing hypotension was only significantly associated with mortality (hazard ratio, 1.06 [95% CI, 1.00-1.14]).

CONCLUSIONS: Supine hypertension was associated with higher risk of adverse events than standing hypotension, regardless of OH status. This challenges conventional OH management, which prioritizes standing hypotension over supine hypertension.