Reducing Cardiovascular Disparities Through Community-Engaged Implementation Research: A National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Workshop Report

Cardiovascular disparities remain pervasive in the United States. Unequal disease burden is evident among population groups based on sex, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, educational attainment, nativity, or geography. Despite the significant declines in cardiovascular disease mortality rates in all demographic groups during the last 50 years, large disparities remain by sex, race, ethnicity, and geography. Recent data from modeling studies, linked micromap plots, and small-area analyses also demonstrate prominent variation in cardiovascular disease mortality rates across states and counties, with an especially high disease burden in the southeastern United States and Appalachia. Despite these continued disparities, few large-scale intervention studies have been conducted in these high-burden populations to examine the feasibility of reducing or eliminating cardiovascular disparities. To address this challenge, on June 22 and 23, 2017, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute convened experts from a broad range of biomedical, behavioral, environmental, implementation, and social science backgrounds to summarize the current state of knowledge of cardiovascular disease disparities and propose intervention strategies aligned with the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute mission. This report presents the themes, challenges, opportunities, available resources, and recommended actions discussed at the workshop.

Cardiothoracic surgery training grants provide protected research time vital to the development of academic surgeons

BACKGROUND

The Ruth L. Kirschstein Institutional National Research Service Award (T32) provides institutions with financial support to prepare trainees for careers in academic medicine. In 1990, the Cardiac Surgery Branch of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) was replaced by T32 training grants, which became crucial sources of funding for cardiothoracic (CT) surgical research. We hypothesized that T32 grants would be valuable for CT surgery training and yield significant publications and subsequent funding.

METHODS

Data on all trainees (past and present) supported by CT T32 grants at two institutions were obtained (T32), along with information on trainees from two similarly sized programs without CT T32 funding (Non-T32). Data collected were publicly available and included publications, funding, degrees, fellowships, and academic rank. Non-surgery residents and residents who did not pursue CT surgery were excluded.

RESULTS

Out of 76 T32 trainees and 294 Non-T32 trainees, data on 62 current trainees or current CT surgeons (T32: 42 vs Control: 20) were included. Trainees who were supported by a CT T32 grant were more likely to pursue CT surgery after residency (T32: 40% [30/76] vs Non-T32: 7% [20/294], P < .0001), publish manuscripts during residency years (P < .0001), obtain subsequent NIH funding (T32: 33% [7/21] vs Non-T32: 5% [1/20], P = .02), and pursue advanced fellowships (T32: 41% [9/22] vs Non-T32: 10% [2/20], P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

T32 training grants supporting CT surgery research are vital to develop academic surgeons. These results support continued funding by the NHLBI to effectively develop and train the next generation of academic CT surgeons.

Initial Outcomes for the NHLBI K99/R00 Pathway to Independence Program in Relation to Long-Standing Career Development Programs: Implications for Trainees, Mentors, and Institutions

Sufficient history now exists to assess the NIH Pathway to Independence Award (K99/R00), first offered in 2007 to support the career development of biomedical researchers. The success of K99 principal investigators (PIs) in obtaining subsequent grant support was compared to PIs supported by the long-standing K08 and K23 programs. For cardiovascular K awards initiated in fiscal years 2007–2009, K99 PIs were more successful in obtaining subsequent grant support than the other groups. Although a bibliometric analysis showed similar publication quality for all groups, the K99 group was most persistent in applying for the next grant. Possible implications of these findings for all K Award PIs, their mentor’s, and institutions are presented.

Toward Independence: Resubmission Rate of Unfunded National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute R01 Research Grant Applications Among Early Stage Investigators

PURPOSE

The current, budget-driven low rate of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding for biomedical research has raised concerns about new investigators' ability to become independent scientists and their willingness to persist in efforts to secure funding. The authors sought to determine resubmission rates for unfunded National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) early stage investigator (ESI) independent research grant (R01) applications and to identify resubmission predictors.

METHOD

The authors used a retrospective cohort study design and retrieved applications submitted in fiscal years 2010-2012 from NIH electronic research administrative sources. They defined ESI applicants as those who have received no prior R01 (or equivalent) funding and are within 10 years of completion of their terminal research degree or medical residency training. ESI applications at the NHLBI were eligible for special funding consideration if they scored above, but within 10 points of, the payline. The primary outcome was application resubmission after failing to secure funding with the first R01 submission.

RESULTS

Over half of the unfunded applications were resubmitted. Some of these were discussed and "percentiled." Among percentiled applications, the only significant predictor of resubmission was the percentile score. Over half (59%) of the ESI R01 grants funded by NHLBI in fiscal years 2010-2012 had percentile scores above but within 10 points of the NHLBI payline, and benefited from the special funding considerations.

CONCLUSIONS

The only independent predictor of resubmission of NHLBI ESI R01 grant applications was percentile score; applicant demographics and institutional factors were not predictive of resubmission.

Effect Sizes and Primary Outcomes in Large-Budget, Cardiovascular-Related Behavioral Randomized Controlled Trials Funded by NIH Since 1980

PURPOSE

We reviewed large-budget, National Institutes of Health (NIH)-supported randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with behavioral interventions to assess (1) publication rates, (2) trial registration, (3) use of objective measures, (4) significant behavior and physiological change, and (5) effect sizes.

METHODS

We identified large-budget grants (>$500,000/year) funded by NIH (National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) or National Institute of Diabetes & Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)) for cardiovascular disease (dates January 1, 1980 to December 31, 2012). Among 106 grants that potentially met inclusion criteria, 20 studies were not published and 48 publications were excluded, leaving 38 publications for analysis. ClinicalTrials.gov abstracts were used to determine whether outcome measures had been pre-specified.

RESULTS

Three fourths of trials were registered in ClinicalTrials.gov and all published pre-specified outcomes. Twenty-six trials reported a behavioral outcome with 81 % reporting significant improvements for the target behavior. Thirty-two trials reported a physiological outcome. All were objectively measured, and 81 % reported significant benefit. Seventeen trials reported morbidity outcomes, and seven reported a significant benefit. Nine trials assessed mortality, and all were null for this outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Behavioral trials complied with trial registration standards. Most reported a physiological benefit, but few documented morbidity or mortality benefits.

Predicting Productivity Returns on Investment: Thirty Years of Peer Review, Grant Funding, and Publication of Highly Cited Papers at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute

There are conflicting data about the ability of peer review percentile rankings to predict grant productivity, as measured through publications and citations. To understand the nature of these apparent conflicting findings, we analyzed bibliometric outcomes of 6873 de novo cardiovascular R01 grants funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) between 1980 and 2011. Our outcomes focus on top-10% articles, meaning articles that were cited more often than 90% of other articles on the same topic, of the same type (eg, article, editorial), and published in the same year. The 6873 grants yielded 62 468 articles, of which 13 507 (or 22%) were top-10% articles. There was a modest association between better grant percentile ranking and number of top-10% articles. However, discrimination was poor (area under receiver operating characteristic curve [ROC], 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.53). Furthermore, better percentile ranking was also associated with higher annual and total inflation-adjusted grant budgets. There was no association between grant percentile ranking and grant outcome as assessed by number of top-10% articles per $million spent. Hence, the seemingly conflicting findings on peer review percentile ranking of grants and subsequent productivity largely reflect differing questions and outcomes. Taken together, these findings raise questions about how best National Institutes of Health (NIH) should use peer review assessments to make complex funding decisions.

Challenges facing early career academic cardiologists

Early career academic cardiologists currently face unprecedented challenges that threaten a highly valued career path. A team consisting of early career professionals and senior leadership members of American College of Cardiology completed this white paper to inform the cardiovascular medicine profession regarding the plight of early career cardiologists and to suggest possible solutions. This paper includes: 1) definition of categories of early career academic cardiologists; 2) general challenges to all categories and specific challenges to each category; 3) obstacles as identified by a survey of current early career members of the American College of Cardiology; 4) major reasons for the failure of physician-scientists to receive funding from National Institute of Health/National Heart Lung and Blood Institute career development grants; 5) potential solutions; and 6) a call to action with specific recommendations.