Vascular biomedicine in an era of chronic disease and multimorbidity

Targeting endothelial cells with golden spice curcumin: A promising therapy for cardiometabolic multimorbidity

Cardiometabolic multimorbidity (CMM) is an increasingly significant global public health concern. It encompasses the coexistence of multiple cardiometabolic diseases, including hypertension, stroke, heart disease, atherosclerosis, and T2DM. A crucial component to the development of CMM is the disruption of endothelial homeostasis. Therefore, therapies targeting endothelial cells through multi-targeted and multi-pathway approaches hold promise for preventing and treatment of CMM. Curcumin, a widely used dietary supplement derived from the golden spice Carcuma longa, has demonstrated remarkable potential in treatment of CMM through its interaction with endothelial cells. Numerous studies have identified various molecular targets of curcumin (such as NF-κB/PI3K/AKT, MAPK/NF-κB/IL-1β, HO-1, NOs, VEGF, ICAM-1 and ROS). These findings highlight the efficacy of curcumin as a therapeutic agent against CMM through the regulation of endothelial function. It is worth noting that there is a close relationship between the progression of CMM and endothelial damage, characterized by oxidative stress, inflammation, abnormal NO bioavailability and cell adhesion. This paper provides a comprehensive review of curcumin, including its availability, pharmacokinetics, pharmaceutics, and therapeutic application in treatment of CMM, as well as the challenges and future prospects for its clinical translation. In summary, curcumin shows promise as a potential treatment option for CMM, particularly due to its ability to target endothelial cells. It represents a novel and natural lead compound that may offer significant therapeutic benefits in the management of CMM.

Smartphone as a Disease Screening Tool: A Systematic Review

Disease screening identifies a disease in an individual/community early to effectively prevent or treat the condition. COVID-19 has restricted hospital visits for screening and other healthcare services resulting in the disruption of screening for cancer, diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases. Smartphone technologies, coupled with built-in sensors and wireless technologies, enable the smartphone to function as a disease-screening and monitoring device with negligible additional costs and potentially higher quality results. Thus, we sought to evaluate the use of smartphone applications for disease screening and the acceptability of this technology in the medical and healthcare sectors. We followed a systematic review process using four databases, including Medline Complete, Web of Science, Embase, and Proquest. We included articles published in English examining smartphone application utilisation in disease screening. Further, we presented and discussed the primary outcomes of the research articles and their statistically significant value. The initial search yielded 1046 studies for the initial title and abstract screening. Of the 105 articles eligible for full-text screening, we selected nine studies and discussed them in detail under four main categories: an overview of the literature reviewed, participant characteristics, disease screening, and technology acceptance. According to our objective, we further evaluated the disease-screening approaches and classified them as clinically administered screening (33%, n = 3), health-worker-administered screening (33%, n = 3), and home-based screening (33%, n = 3). Finally, we analysed the technology acceptance among the users and healthcare practitioners. We observed a significant statistical relationship between smartphone applications and standard clinical screening. We also reviewed user acceptance of these smartphone applications. Hence, we set out critical considerations to provide equitable healthcare solutions without barriers when designing, developing, and deploying smartphone solutions. The findings may increase research opportunities for the evaluation of smartphone solutions as valid and reliable screening solutions.

Self-management program versus usual care for community-dwelling older adults with multimorbidity: A pragmatic randomized controlled trial in Ontario, Canada

Background:

Multimorbidity, the co-existence of 2+ (or 3+) chronic diseases in an individual, is an increasingly common global phenomenon leading to reduced quality of life and functional status, and higher healthcare service use and mortality. There is an urgent need to develop and test new models of care that incorporate the components of multimorbidity interventions recommended by international organizations, including care coordination, interdisciplinary teams, and care plans developed with patients that are tailored to their needs and preferences.

Purpose:

To determine the effectiveness of a 6-month, community-based, multimorbidity intervention compared to usual home care services for community-dwelling older adults (age 65+ years) with multimorbidity (3+ chronic conditions) that were newly referred to and receiving home care services.

Methods:

A pragmatic, parallel, two-arm randomized controlled trial evaluated the intervention, which included in-home visits by an interdisciplinary team, personal support worker visits, and monthly case conferences. The study took place in two sites in central Ontario, Canada. Eligible and consenting participants were randomly allocated to the intervention and control group using a 1:1 ratio. The participants, statistician/analyst, and research assistants collecting assessment data were blinded. The primary outcome was the Physical Component Summary (PCS) score of the 12-Item Short-Form health survey (SF-12). Secondary outcomes included the SF-12 Mental Component Summary (MCS) score, Center for Epidemiological Studies of Depression (CESD-10), Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7), Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Disease, and service use and costs. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) tested group differences using multiple imputation to address missing data, and non-parametric methods explored service use and cost differences.

Results:

59 older adults were randomized into the intervention (n = 30) and control (n = 29) groups. At baseline, groups were similar for the primary outcome and number of chronic conditions (mean of 8.6), but the intervention group had lower mental health status. The intervention was cost neutral and no significant group differences were observed for the primary outcome of PCS from SF-12 (mean difference: −4.94; 95% CI: −12.53 to 2.66; p = 0.20) or secondary outcomes.

Conclusion:

We evaluated a 6-month, self-management intervention for older adults with multimorbidity. While the intervention was cost neutral in comparison to usual care, it was not found to improve the PCS from SF-12 or secondary health outcomes. Recruitment and retention challenges were significant obstacles limiting our ability to assess intervention effectiveness. Yet, the intervention was grounded in internationally-endorsed recommendations and implemented in a practice setting (home care) viewed as a key upstream resource fostering independence in older adults. These features collectively support the identification of ways to recruit/retain older adults and test alternative implementation strategies for interventions that are based on sound principles of multimorbidity management.