Viral respiratory infections are risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Underlying CVD is also associated with an increased risk of complications following viral respiratory infections, including increased morbidity, mortality, and health care utilization. Globally, these phenomena are observed with seasonal influenza and with the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Persons with CVD represent an important target population for respiratory virus vaccines, with capacity developed within 3 large ongoing influenza vaccine cardiovascular outcomes trials to determine the potential cardioprotective effects of influenza vaccines. In the context of COVID-19, these international trial networks may be uniquely positioned to redeploy infrastructure to study therapies for primary and secondary prevention of COVID-19. Here, we describe mechanistic links between influenza and COVID-19 infection and the risk of acute cardiovascular events, summarize the data to date on the potential cardioprotective effects of influenza vaccines, and describe the ongoing influenza vaccine cardiovascular outcomes trials, highlighting important lessons learned that are applicable to COVID-19.

Background Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a leading cause of mortality and leads to frequent hospital admissions and emergency department (ED) visits. COPD exacerbations are an important patient outcome, and reducing their frequency would result in significant cost savings. Remote monitoring and self-monitoring could both help patients manage their symptoms and reduce the frequency of exacerbations, but they have different resource implications and have not been directly compared. Objective This study aims to compare the effectiveness of implementing a technology-enabled self-monitoring program versus a technology-enabled remote monitoring program in patients with COPD compared with a standard care group. Methods We conducted a 3-arm randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of a remote monitoring and a self-monitoring program relative to standard care. Patients with COPD were recruited from outpatient clinics and a pulmonary rehabilitation program. Patients in both interventions used a Bluetooth-enabled device kit to monitor oxygen saturation, blood pressure, temperature, weight, and symptoms, but only patients in the remote monitoring group were monitored by a respiratory therapist. All patients were assessed at baseline and at 3 and 6 months after program initiation. Outcomes included self-management skills, as measured by the Partners in Health (PIH) Scale; patient symptoms measured with the St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ); and the Bristol COPD Knowledge Questionnaire (BCKQ). Patients were also asked to self-report on health system use, and data on health use were collected from the hospital. Results A total of 122 patients participated in the study: 40 in the standard care, 41 in the self-monitoring, and 41 in the remote monitoring groups. Although all 3 groups improved in PIH scores, BCKQ scores, and SGRQ impact scores, there were no significant differences among any of the groups. No effects were observed on the SGRQ activity or symptom scores or on hospitalizations, ED visits, or clinic visits. Conclusions Despite regular use of the technology, patients with COPD assigned to remote monitoring or self-monitoring did not have any improvement in patient outcomes such as self-management skills, knowledge, or symptoms, or in health care use compared with each other or with a standard care group. This may be owing to low health care use at baseline, the lack of structured educational components in the intervention groups, and the lack of integration of the action plan with the technology. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03741855; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/ NCT03741855

BACKGROUND Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is a leading cause of mortality and leads to frequent hospital admissions and emergency department (ED) visits. COPD exacerbations are an important patient outcome and reducing their frequency would result in significant cost savings. Remote monitoring and self-monitoring could both help patients manage their symptoms and reduce the frequency of exacerbations but they have different resource implications and have not been directly compared. OBJECTIVE The objective of our study was to compare the effectiveness of implementing a technology-enabled self-monitoring program (SM) versus a technology-enabled remote monitoring program (RM) in people with COPD compared to a standard care (SC) group. METHODS We conducted a 3-arm randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of a RM and a SM program relative to standard care. COPD patients were recruited from outpatient clinics and a pulmonary rehabilitation program. Patients in either intervention used a Bluetooth enabled device kit to monitor oxygen saturation, blood pressure, temperature, weight, and symptoms, but only patients in the RM group were monitored by a respiratory therapist. All patients were assessed at baseline, 3 and 6 months after program initiation. Outcomes included self-management skills, as measured by the Partners in Health (PIH) scale, patient symptoms measured with the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), and the Bristol COPD Knowledge Questionnaire (BCKQ). Patients were also asked to self-report on health system usage and data on health utilization was collected from the hospital. RESULTS A total of 122 patients participated in the study, 40 in the SC, 41 in the SM, and 41 in the RM groups. While all three groups improved in PIH, BCKQ scores and SGRQ Impact scores, there were no significant differences between any of the groups. No effects were observed on SGRQ Activity or Symptoms scores, or on hospitalizations, ED visits or clinic visits. CONCLUSIONS Despite regular use of the technology, patients with COPD assigned to remote monitoring or self-monitoring did not have any improvement in patient outcomes like self-management skills, knowledge or symptoms or healthcare utilization compared to each other or to a standard care group. This may be due to low health utilization at baseline, the lack of structured educational components in the intervention groups, and the lack of integration of the action plan with the technology. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03741855; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/ NCT03741855.

Background Health systems are increasingly looking toward the private sector to provide digital solutions to address health care demands. Innovation in digital health is largely driven by small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), yet these companies experience significant barriers to entry, especially in public health systems. Complex and fragmented care models, alongside a myriad of relevant stakeholders (eg, purchasers, providers, and producers of health care products), make developing value propositions for digital solutions highly challenging. Objective This study aims to identify areas for health system improvement to promote the integration of innovative digital health technologies developed by SMEs. Methods This paper qualitatively analyzes a series of case studies to identify health system barriers faced by SMEs developing digital health technologies in Canada and proposed solutions to encourage a more innovative ecosystem. The Women’s College Hospital Institute for Health System Solutions and Virtual Care established a consultation program for SMEs to help them increase their innovation capacity and take their ideas to market. The consultation involved the SME filling out an onboarding form and review of this information by an expert advisory committee using guided considerations, leading to a recommendation report provided to the SME. This paper reports on the characteristics of 25 SMEs who completed the program and qualitatively analyzed their recommendation reports to identify common barriers to digital health innovation. Results A total of 2 central themes were identified, each with 3 subthemes. First, a common barrier to system integration was the lack of formal evaluation, with SMEs having limited resources and opportunities to conduct such an evaluation. Second, the health system’s current structure does not create incentives for clinicians to use digital technologies, which threatens the sustainability of SMEs’ business models. SMEs faced significant challenges in engaging users and payers from the public system due to perverse economic incentives. Physicians are compensated by in-person visits, which actively works against the goals of many digital health solutions of keeping patients out of clinics and hospitals. Conclusions There is a significant disconnect between the economic incentives that drive clinical behaviors and the use of digital technologies that would benefit patients’ well-being. To encourage the use of digital health technologies, publicly funded health systems need to dedicate funding for the evaluation of digital solutions and streamlined pathways for clinical integration.

Background COVIDCare@Home (CC@H) is a multifaceted, interprofessional team-based remote monitoring program led by family medicine for patients diagnosed with COVID-19, based at Women’s College Hospital (WCH), an ambulatory academic center in Toronto, Canada. CC@H offers virtual visits (phone and video) to address the clinical needs and broader social determinants of the health of patients during the acute phase of COVID-19 infection, including finding a primary care provider (PCP) and support for food insecurity. Objective The objective of this evaluation is to understand the implementation and quality outcomes of CC@H within the Quadruple Aim framework of patient experience, provider experience, cost, and population health. Methods This multimethod cross-sectional evaluation follows the Quadruple Aim framework to focus on implementation and service quality outcomes, including feasibility, adoption, safety, effectiveness, equity, and patient centeredness. These measures were explored using clinical and service utilization data, patient experience data (an online survey and a postdischarge questionnaire), provider experience data (surveys, interviews, and focus groups), and stakeholder interviews. Descriptive analysis was conducted for surveys and utilization data. Deductive analysis was conducted for interviews and focus groups, mapping to implementation and quality domains. The Ontario Marginalization Index (ON-Marg) measured the proportion of underserved patients accessing CC@H. Results In total, 3412 visits were conducted in the first 8 months of the program (April 8-December 8, 2020) for 616 discrete patients, including 2114 (62.0%) visits with family physician staff/residents and 149 (4.4%) visits with social workers/mental health professionals. There was a median of 5 (IQR 4) visits per patient, with a median follow-up of 7 days (IQR 27). The net promoter score was 77. In addition, 144 (23.3%) of the patients were in the most marginalized populations based on the residential postal code (as per ON-Marg). Interviews with providers and stakeholders indicated that the program continued to adapt to meet the needs of patients and the health care system. Conclusions Future remote monitoring should integrate support for addressing the social determinants of health and ensure patient-centered care through comprehensive care teams.