-
Nirat Beohar,
Charles J Davidson,
Elaine M Massaro,
V S Srinivas, Veronica V Sansing,
Joel Zonszein,
Andrew M Davis,
Tarek Helmy,
Neuza H Lopes,
Stephen B Thomas,
Maria M Brooks
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: We aimed to test the impact of race/ethnicity on coronary artery disease (CAD) after adjusting for baseline risk factors.
Whether race/ethnicity remains an important determinant of the burden of CAD even among patients with long-standing type 2 diabetes (diabetes mellitus) and established CAD is unknown.
Analysis of baseline data from the BARI 2D trial (January 1, 2001, to March 31, 2005) was performed. Myocardial jeopardy index (MJI) was evaluated by a blinded core angiographic laboratory. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to determine the independent association of race/ethnicity on the burden of CAD after adjusting for baseline risk factors. Data were collected from US and Canadian academic and community hospitals. The baseline analysis was performed on patients with long-standing diabetes and documented CAD with no prior revascularization at study entry (n = 1,331). The main outcome measure was MJI, which represents the percentage of myocardium jeopardized by significant lesions (≥50%). The secondary outcome measure was ≥2 lesions with ≥50% stenosis.
Risk factors varied significantly among racial/ethnic groups. Blacks were significantly more likely to be women, have no health insurance, be current smokers, have higher body mass index, have hypertension, have a longer duration of diabetes, a higher hemoglobin A(1c) level, and were more likely to be taking insulin. Their mean total, low-density lipid, and high-density lipid cholesterol levels were higher, whereas their triglycerides were lower than others. After controlling for baseline risk factors, blacks had a significantly lower burden of CAD; the adjusted MJI was 5.43 U lower (95% CI -9.13 to -1.72), and the adjusted number of lesions was 0.53 fewer (95% CI -0.88 to -0.18) in blacks compared to whites.
In the BARI 2D trial, self-reported race/ethnicity is associated with important differences in baseline risk factors and is a powerful predictor of the burden of CAD adjusting for such baseline differences. These findings may help direct medical intervention and resources and further investigation into the basis of racial/ethnic differences in CAD burden.
American heart journal 04/2011; 161(4):755-63. · 4.65 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: We explored whether and how race shapes perceived health status in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease.
We analyzed self-rated health (fair or poor versus good, very good, or excellent) and associated clinical risk factors among 866 White and 333 Black participants in the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation 2 Diabetes trial.
Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument scores, regular exercise, and employment were associated with higher self-rated health (P < .05). Blacks were more likely than were Whites to rate their health as fair or poor (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 1.88; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.38, 2.57; P < .001). Among Whites but not Blacks, a clinical history of myocardial infarction (OR = 1.61; 95% CI = 1.12, 2.31; P < .001) and insulin use (OR = 1.62; 95% CI = 1.10, 2.38; P = .01) was associated with a fair or poor rating. A post-high school education was related to poorer self-rated health among Blacks (OR = 1.86; 95% CI = 1.07, 3.24; P < .001).
Symptomatic clinical factors played a proportionally larger role in self-assessment of health among Whites with diabetes and coronary artery disease than among Blacks with the same conditions.
American Journal of Public Health 02/2010; 100 Suppl 1:S269-76. · 3.93 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to examine measures of chronic disease severity and treatment according to insurance status in a clinical trial setting.
Baseline insurance status of 776 patients with type 2 diabetes and stable coronary artery disease (CAD) enrolled in the United States in the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation 2 Diabetes (BARI 2D) trial was analyzed with regard to measures of metabolic and cardiovascular risk factor control.
Compared with patients with private or public insurance, the uninsured were younger, more often female, and less often white non-Hispanic. Uninsured patients had the greatest burden of CAD. Patients with public insurance were treated with the greatest number of medications, had the greatest self-reported functional status, and the lowest mean glycosylated hemoglobin and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol values. Overall, for 5 measured risk factor targets, the mean number above goal was 2.49 ± 1.18. After adjustment for demographic and clinical variables, insurance status was not associated with a difference in risk factor control.
In the BARI 2D trial, we did not observe a difference in baseline cardiovascular risk factor control according to insurance status. An important observation, however, was that risk factor control overall was suboptimal, which highlights the difficulty in treating type 2 diabetes and CAD irrespective of insurance status.
The Diabetes Educator 36(5):774-83. · 1.96 Impact Factor
-
Donna J Keyser,
Harold Alan Pincus,
Stephen B Thomas,
Nicholas Castle,
Jacob Dembosky,
Raymond Firth,
Michael Greenberg,
Nancy Kaczynski Pollack,
Evelyn Cohen Reis, Veronica V Sansing,
Sarah Scholle
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Local efforts to redesign systems of care offer fertile ground for community-based participatory research approaches to take hold and flourish. Drawing on the experiences of a learning collaborative of maternal and child healthcare stakeholders in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, this article describes 8 action steps for operationalizing key community-based participatory research principles in the context of local systems change. Highlights of the subsequent evolution of the collaborative and its work are provided, as well as comments regarding the generalizability and usefulness of this approach for other public health and community stakeholders who are interested in mobilizing collaborative action for systems change.
Family & community health 33(3):216-27. · 0.99 Impact Factor
