Key result
The sex-tailored Women's Heart Health Programme significantly improved diabetes control, reducing HbA1c by 0.63% compared to conventional care at 1 year, though it did not significantly improve overall cardiovascular risk factor target attainment.
Why the study?
Does a sex-tailored Women's Heart Health Programme improve cardiovascular risk factors in female patients with heart disease?
RCT (n=100)
Single-blind
computer generated code
No
Does a sex-tailored Women's Heart Health Programme improve cardiovascular risk factors in female patients with heart disease?
Mean Difference: -0.63 (95% CI -1.04–-0.21)
Absolute Event Rate: 6.2% vs 6.3%
p-value: p=0.015
A pilot sex-tailored cardiovascular management program for women showed a non-significant trend toward improved cardiovascular risk factor control at 1 year compared to conventional care.
No significant benefit from the sex-tailored program; leaves open whether larger trials can confirm efficacy in women with heart disease.
BACKGROUND: There is increasing knowledge of sex-specific differences in cardiovascular disease and recognition of sex disparities in management. In our study, we investigated whether a cardiovascular programme tailored to the specific needs of women could lead to improved outcomes. METHODS: We randomised 100 female patients to receive cardiology follow-up with the conventional sex-neutral cardiac programme (control), or the sex-tailored Women's Heart Health Programme (intervention). The intervention group was managed by an all-women multidisciplinary team and received culture-centred health intervention workshops, designed through in-depth interviews with the participants. The primary outcome was cardiovascular risk factor improvement at 1 year. Secondary outcomes include cardiovascular event rates, quality of life scores, and self-reported improvement in knowledge, attitudes, intentions and practices. Generalised structural equation model analysis was used to determine if the intervention group had better outcomes at alpha level 0.1. RESULTS: [CI 0.02-1.46], p = 0.092) at 1 year, but there was no significant difference in blood pressure or lipid control. Overall, there was a trend towards better risk factor control, 31.6% of intervention group versus 26.5% of control group achieved improvement in at least 1 CV risk factor control to target range. There was no significant difference in incidence of cardiovascular events, quality of life, or domains in knowledge, attitudes, intention and practices. CONCLUSION: This pilot study is the first of its kind evaluating a new model of care for women with heart disease. The potential to improve outcomes needs to be studied in a larger trial with longer follow up. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was prospectively registered clinicaltrials.gov on 6 May 2013. Trial Number: 2013/00088. Identifier: NCT02017470.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Low et al. (2018) conducted an RCT in Cardiovascular disease (n=100). Women's Heart Health Programme vs. Conventional sex-neutral cardiac programme was evaluated on HbA1c at 1 year (MD -0.63%, 95% CI -1.04 to -0.21, p=0.015). The sex-tailored Women's Heart Health Programme significantly improved diabetes control, reducing HbA1c by 0.63% compared to conventional care at 1 year, though it did not significantly improve overall cardiovascular risk factor target attainment.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: