Effect of tailored practice and patient care plans on secondary prevention of heart disease in general practice: cluster randomised controlled trial

Is a targeted intensive intervention effective for improvements in hypertension control? A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

High blood pressure (BP) is one of the most important risk factors for stroke, and antihypertensive therapy significantly reduces the risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. However, achieving a regulated BP in hypertensive patients is still a challenge.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of an intervention targeting GPs' management of hypertension.

METHODS

A cluster randomized trial comprising 124 practices and 2646 patients with hypertension. In the Capital Region of Denmark, the participating GPs were randomized to an intensive or to a moderately intensive intervention group or to a control group and in Region Zealand and Region of Southern Denmark, practices were randomized into a moderately intensive intervention and to a control group. The main outcome measures were change in proportion of patients with high BP and change in systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) from the first to the second registration.

RESULTS

The proportion of patients with high BP in 2007 was reduced in 2009 by ~9% points. The mean SBP was reduced significantly from 2007 to 2009 by 3.61 mmHg [95% confidence interval (CI): -4.26 to -2.96], and the DBP was reduced significantly by 1.99 mmHg (95% CI: -2.37 to -1.61). There was no additional impact in either of the intervention groups.

CONCLUSION

There was no impact of the moderate intervention and no additional impact of the intensive intervention on BP.

Cardiovascular risk management in patients with coronary heart disease in primary care: variation across countries and practices. An observational study based on quality indicators

BACKGROUND

Primary care has an important role in cardiovascular risk management (CVRM) and a minimum size of scale of primary care practices may be needed for efficient delivery of CVRM . We examined CVRM in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) in primary care and explored the impact of practice size.

METHODS

In an observational study in 8 countries we sampled CHD patients in primary care practices and collected data from electronic patient records. Practice samples were stratified according to practice size and urbanisation; patients were selected using coded diagnoses when available. CVRM was measured on the basis of internationally validated quality indicators. In the analyses practice size was defined in terms of number of patients registered of visiting the practice. We performed multilevel regression analyses controlling for patient age and sex.

RESULTS

We included 181 practices (63% of the number targeted). Two countries included a convenience sample of practices. Data from 2960 CHD patients were available. Some countries used methods supplemental to coded diagnoses or other inclusion methods introducing potential inclusion bias. We found substantial variation on all CVRM indicators across practices and countries. We computed aggregated practice scores as percentage of patients with a positive outcome. Rates of risk factor recording varied from 55% for physical activity as the mean practice score across all practices (sd 32%) to 94% (sd 10%) for blood pressure. Rates for reaching treatment targets for systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure and LDL cholesterol were 46% (sd 21%), 86% (sd 12%) and 48% (sd 22%) respectively. Rates for providing recommended cholesterol lowering and antiplatelet drugs were around 80%, and 70% received influenza vaccination. Practice size was not associated to indicator scores with one exception: in Slovenia larger practices performed better. Variation was more related to differences between practices than between countries.

CONCLUSIONS

CVRM measured by quality indicators showed wide variation within and between countries and possibly leaves room for improvement in all countries involved. Few associations of performance scores with practice size were found.

Relative cost effectiveness of the SPHERE intervention in selected patient subgroups with existing coronary heart disease

Heterogeneity exists within the patient population with coronary heart disease and the cost effectiveness of treatment may vary across subgroups within the overall population. This study compares the cost effectiveness of a secondary prevention intervention for a combined patient population relative to three selected subgroups: patients aged over 70 years; patients with a diagnosis other than angina only (that is, patients with a history of myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass graft and/or percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty); and patients with diabetes. The results for the general population have been published elsewhere, but ongoing budget constraints require consideration of the appropriateness of targeting resources to patient subgroups. We adopt a probabilistic model to combine within trial and beyond trial impacts of treatment to estimate the lifetime health care costs and quality-adjusted life years of two primary care-based secondary prevention strategies: SPHERE Intervention--tailored practice and patient care plans and Control--standardised usual care. In all cases, the intervention was associated with mean cost savings and mean QALYs gains, when compared to the control, though statistical significance was never achieved. However, the probability of the intervention being cost effective was higher than 85% in all analyses across a range of potential cost-effectiveness threshold values. There is no compelling statistical evidence to support the targeting of specific subgroups across the general population. However, if affordability constraints are binding, the results do allow a tentative ranking of priorities based on the probabilistic subgroup analysis.

Prevalence and benefits of care plans and care planning for people with long-term conditions in England

OBJECTIVES

Among patients with long-term conditions, to determine the prevalence and benefits of care planning discussions and of care plans.

METHODS

Data from the 2009/10 General Practice Patient Survey, a cross sectional survey of 5.5 million patients in England. Outcomes were patient reports of: care planning discussions; perceived benefit from care planning discussions and resultant care plans. Patient and practice variables were included in multilevel logistic regression to investigate predictors of each outcome.

RESULTS

Half the respondents (49%) reported a long-term condition and were eligible to answer the care planning questions. Of these, 84% reported having a care planning discussion during the last 12 months and most reported some benefit. Only 12% who reported a care planning discussion also reported being told they had a care plan. Patients who reported having a care plan were more likely to report benefits from care planning discussions. Several factors predicted the reporting of care planning and care plans of which the most important was patients' reports of the quality of interpersonal care.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a gap between policy and current practice which might reflect uncertainty as to the benefits of care plans. There is, therefore, a need for rigorous evaluation of care plans.

Modelling coronary heart disease mortality in Northern Ireland between 1987 and 2007: broader lessons for prevention

AIMS

To quantify how much of the coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality decline in Northern Ireland between 1987 and 2007 could be attributed to medical and surgical treatments and how much to changes in population cardiovascular risk factors.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The IMPACT mortality model was used to integrate data on uptake and effectiveness of cardiological treatments and risk factor trends in the Northern Ireland population between 1987 and 2007. The main data sources were official population and mortality statistics, hospital administration systems, primary care datasets, published trials and meta-analyses, clinical audits, and national surveys. Between 1987 and 2007, CHD mortality rates in Northern Ireland decreased by 52% in men and 60% in women aged 25-84 years. This resulted in 3180 fewer deaths in 2007 than expected if 1987 mortality rates had persisted. Approximately 35% of this decrease was attributed to increased uptake of treatments in individuals and 60% to population risk factor reductions (principally blood pressure, total cholesterol, and smoking); however, these reductions were partially offset by adverse trends in diabetes, physical inactivity, and obesity.

CONCLUSION

Approximately 60% of the substantial CHD mortality decline in Northern Ireland between 1987 and 2007 was attributable to major cardiovascular risk factor changes and approximately 35% was attributable to treatments. However, adverse trends in diabetes, obesity, and physical inactivity are of major concern.

Improving care after myocardial infarction using a 2-year internet-delivered intervention: the Department of Veterans Affairs myocardial infarction-plus cluster-randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular risk reduction in ambulatory patients who survive myocardial infarction (MI) is effective but underused. We sought to evaluate a provider-directed, Internet-delivered intervention to improve cardiovascular management for post-MI outpatients.

METHODS

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) MI-Plus study was a cluster-randomized trial involving 168 community-based primary care clinics and 847 providers in 26 states, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico, from January 1, 2002, through December 31, 2008, with the clinic as the randomization unit. We collected administrative data for 15,847 post-MI patients and medical record data for 10,452 of these. A multicomponent, Internet-delivered intervention included quarterly educational modules, practice guidelines, monthly literature summaries, and automated e-mail reminders delivered to providers for 27 months. Main outcome measures included percentage of patients who achieved each of 7 clinical indicators, a composite score of the 7 clinical indicators, and mean low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and hemoglobin A(1c) levels.

RESULTS

Clinics had a median of 3 providers (interquartile range, 2-6), with a median of 50.0% of providers (33.3%-66.7%) participating in the study. Patients in intervention clinics had greater improvements (from 70.0% to 85.5%) in the percentages prescribed β-blockers than patients in control clinics (71.9% to 84.0%; adjusted improvement gain for intervention vs control, 2.6%; 95% CI, 0.1%-4.1%). We found nonsignificant differences in improvements favoring patients in intervention clinics for 5 of 6 remaining clinical indicators and levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and hemoglobin A(1c).

CONCLUSION

A longitudinal, Internet-delivered intervention improved only 1 of 7 clinical indicators of cardiovascular management in ambulatory post-MI patients.

Translating policy into practice: a case study in the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease

BACKGROUND

This paper focuses on the relationships between health 'policy' as it is embodied in official documentation, and health 'practice' as reported and reflected on in the talk of policy-makers, health professionals and patients. The specific context for the study involves a comparison of policies relating to the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD) in the two jurisdictions of Ireland - involving as they do a predominantly state funded (National Health Service) system in the north and a mixed health-care economy in the south. The key question is to determine how the detail of health policy as contained in policy documents connects to and gets translated into practice and action.

METHODS

The data sources for the study include relevant health-care policy documents (N=5) and progress reports (N=6) in the two Irish jurisdictions, and semi-structured interviews with a range of policy-makers (N=28), practice nurses (14), general practitioners (12) and patients (13) to explore their awareness of the documents' contents and how they saw the impact of 'policy' on primary care practice.

RESULTS

The findings suggest that although strategic policy documents can be useful for highlighting and channelling attention to health issues that require concerted action, they have little impact on what either professionals or lay people do.

CONCLUSION

To influence the latter and to encourage a systematic approach to the delivery of health care it seems likely that contractual arrangements - specifying tasks to be undertaken and methods for monitoring and reporting on activity - are required.

Developing appropriate methods for cost-effectiveness analysis of cluster randomized trials

AIM

Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) may use data from cluster randomized trials (CRTs), where the unit of randomization is the cluster, not the individual. However, most studies use analytical methods that ignore clustering. This article compares alternative statistical methods for accommodating clustering in CEAs of CRTs.

METHODS

Our simulation study compared the performance of statistical methods for CEAs of CRTs with 2 treatment arms. The study considered a method that ignored clustering--seemingly unrelated regression (SUR) without a robust standard error (SE)--and 4 methods that recognized clustering--SUR and generalized estimating equations (GEEs), both with robust SE, a "2-stage" nonparametric bootstrap (TSB) with shrinkage correction, and a multilevel model (MLM). The base case assumed CRTs with moderate numbers of balanced clusters (20 per arm) and normally distributed costs. Other scenarios included CRTs with few clusters, imbalanced cluster sizes, and skewed costs. Performance was reported as bias, root mean squared error (rMSE), and confidence interval (CI) coverage for estimating incremental net benefits (INBs). We also compared the methods in a case study.

RESULTS

Each method reported low levels of bias. Without the robust SE, SUR gave poor CI coverage (base case: 0.89 v. nominal level: 0.95). The MLM and TSB performed well in each scenario (CI coverage, 0.92-0.95). With few clusters, the GEE and SUR (with robust SE) had coverage below 0.90. In the case study, the mean INBs were similar across all methods, but ignoring clustering underestimated statistical uncertainty and the value of further research.

CONCLUSIONS

MLMs and the TSB are appropriate analytical methods for CEAs of CRTs with the characteristics described. SUR and GEE are not recommended for studies with few clusters.

Improved delivery of cardiovascular care (IDOCC) through outreach facilitation: study protocol and implementation details of a cluster randomized controlled trial in primary care

Background

There is a need to find innovative approaches for translating best practices for chronic disease care into daily primary care practice routines. Primary care plays a crucial role in the prevention and management of cardiovascular disease. There is, however, a substantive care gap, and many challenges exist in implementing evidence-based care. The Improved Delivery of Cardiovascular Care (IDOCC) project is a pragmatic trial designed to improve the delivery of evidence-based care for the prevention and management of cardiovascular disease in primary care practices using practice outreach facilitation.

Methods

The IDOCC project is a stepped-wedge cluster randomized control trial in which Practice Outreach Facilitators work with primary care practices to improve cardiovascular disease prevention and management for patients at highest risk. Primary care practices in a large health region in Eastern Ontario, Canada, were eligible to participate. The intervention consists of regular monthly meetings with the Practice Outreach Facilitator over a one- to two-year period. Starting with audit and feedback, consensus building, and goal setting, the practices are supported in changing practice behavior by incorporating chronic care model elements. These elements include (a) evidence-based decision support for providers, (b) delivery system redesign for practices, (c) enhanced self-management support tools provided to practices to help them engage patients, and (d) increased community resource linkages for practices to enhance referral of patients. The primary outcome is a composite score measured at the level of the patient to represent each practice's adherence to evidence-based guidelines for cardiovascular care. Qualitative analysis of the Practice Outreach Facilitators' written narratives of their ongoing practice interactions will be done. These textual analyses will add further insight into understanding critical factors impacting project implementation.

Discussion

This pragmatic, stepped-wedge randomized controlled trial with both quantitative and process evaluations demonstrates innovative methods of implementing large-scale quality improvement and evidence-based approaches to care delivery. This is the first Canadian study to examine the impact of a large-scale multifaceted cardiovascular quality-improvement program in primary care. It is anticipated that through the evaluation of IDOCC, we will demonstrate an effective, practical, and sustainable means of improving the cardiovascular health of patients across Canada.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00574808

A cluster randomised controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of a structured pulmonary rehabilitation education programme for improving the health status of people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): The PRINCE Study protocol

BACKGROUND

A key strategy in improving care for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is the provision of pulmonary rehabilitation programmes. Pulmonary rehabilitation programmes have been successful in improving patients' sense of dyspnoea and Health Related Quality of Life. However, the effectiveness of structured education pulmonary rehabilitation programmes delivered at the level of the general practice on the health status of people with COPD remains uncertain and there is a need for a robust and fair assessment of this. The PRINCE study will evaluate the effectiveness of a Structured Education Pulmonary Rehabilitation Programme (SEPRP), delivered at the level of the general practice, on the health status of people with COPD.

METHODS/DESIGN

The PRINCE Trial is a two-armed, single blind cluster randomised trial conducted in the primary care setting in Ireland. Randomisation to control and intervention is at the level of the General Practice. Participants in the intervention arm will receive a SEPRP and those allocated to the control arm will receive usual care. Delivery of the SEPRP will be by a practice nurse and physiotherapist in the General Practice (GP) site. The primary outcome measure of the study will be health status as measured by the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ). Blinded outcome assessment will be undertaken at baseline and at twelve-fourteen weeks after completion of the programme. A comparison of outcomes between the intervention and control sites will be made to examine if differences exist and, if so, to what extent between control and experimental groups. Sample size calculations estimate that 32 practices with a minimum of 10 participants per practice are required, in total, to be randomised to control and intervention arms for power of at least 80% with alpha levels of 0.05, to determine a clinically significant change of 0.5 units in the CRQ. A cost effectiveness analysis will also be conducted.

DISCUSSION

The results of this trial are directly applicable to primary care settings in Ireland. Should a SEPRP delivered by practice nurses and physiotherapists in primary care be found to be effective in improving patients' sense of dyspnoea and HRQoL, then the findings would be applicable to many thousands of individuals in Ireland and beyond.

Randomized clinical trial to assess the efficacy of a comprehensive programme of secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease in general practice: the PREseAP study

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of a comprehensive program of secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease in general practice.

METHODS

A cluster randomized clinical trial was carried out in a regular general practice setting. Male and female patients aged under 86 years with a diagnosis of ischemic heart disease, stroke or peripheral artery disease were recruited between January 2004 and May 2005. Study participants were seen at 42 health centers throughout the whole of Spain. The primary endpoint was the combination of all-cause mortality and hospital cardiovascular readmission at 3-year follow-up.

RESULTS

In total, 1224 patients were recruited: 624 in the intervention group and 600 in the control group. The primary endpoint was observed in 29.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 25.5-34.8%) in the intervention group and 25.6% (22.3-29.2%) in the control group (P=.15). At the end of follow-up, 8.5% (6.3-11.3%) in the intervention group and 11% (7.4-16%) in the control group were smokers (P=.07). The mean waist circumference of patients in the intervention and control groups was 100.44 cm (95% CI, 98.97-101.91 cm) and 102.58 cm (95% CI, 100.96-104.21 cm), respectively (P=.07). Overall, 20.9% (15.6-27.7%) of patients in the intervention group and 29.6% (23.9-36.1%) in the control group suffered from anxiety (P=.05), and 29.6% (22.4-37.9%) in the intervention group and 41.4% (35.8-47.3%) in the control group had depression (P=.02).

CONCLUSIONS

A comprehensive program of secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease in general practice was not effective in reducing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. However, some factors associated with a healthy lifestyle were improved and anxiety and depression were reduced.

Systematic review of the effect of diet and exercise lifestyle interventions in the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease

The effectiveness of lifestyle interventions within secondary prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD) remains unclear. This systematic review aimed to determine their effectiveness and included randomized controlled trials of lifestyle interventions, in primary care or community settings, with a minimum follow-up of three months, published since 1990. 21 trials with 10,799 patients were included; the interventions were multifactorial (10), educational (4), psychological (3), dietary (1), organisational (2), and exercise (1). The overall results for modifiable risk factors suggested improvements in dietary and exercise outcomes but no overall effect on smoking outcomes. In trials that examined mortality and morbidity, significant benefits were reported for total mortality (in 4 of 6 trials; overall risk ratio (RR) 0.75 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.65, 0.87)), cardiovascular mortality (3 of 8 trials; overall RR 0.63 (95% CI 0.47, 0.84)), and nonfatal cardiac events (5 of 9 trials; overall RR 0.68 (95% CI 0.55, 0.84)). The heterogeneity between trials and generally poor quality of trials make any concrete conclusions difficult. However, the beneficial effects observed in this review are encouraging and should stimulate further research.

How usual is usual care in pragmatic intervention studies in primary care? An overview of recent trials

BACKGROUND

Because pragmatic trials are performed to determine if an intervention can improve current practice, they often have a control group receiving 'usual care'. The behaviour of caregivers and patients in this control group should be influenced by the actions of researchers as little as possible. Guidelines for describing the composition and management of a usual care control group are lacking.

AIM

To explore the variety of approaches to the usual care concept in pragmatic trials, and evaluate the influence of the study design on the behaviour of caregivers and patients in a usual care control group.

DESIGN OF STUDY

Review of 73 pragmatic trials in primary care with a usual care control group published between January 2005 and December 2009 in the British Medical Journal, the British Journal of General Practice, and Family Practice. Outcome measures were: description of the factors influencing caregiver and patients in a usual care control group related to an individual randomised design versus cluster randomisation.

RESULTS

In total, 38 individually randomised trials and 35 cluster randomised trials were included. In most trials, caregivers had the freedom to treat control patients according to their own insight; in two studies, treatment options were restricted. Although possible influences on the behaviour of control caregivers and control patients were more often identified in individually randomised trials, these influences were also present in cluster randomised trials. The description of instructions and information provided to the control group was often insufficient, which made evaluation of the trials difficult.

CONCLUSION

Researchers in primary care medicine should carefully consider the design of a usual care control group, especially with regard to minimising the risk of study-induced behavioural change. It is recommended that an adequate description of the information is provided to control caregivers and control patients. A proposal is made for an extension to the CONSORT statement that requires authors to specify details of the usual care control group.

Cluster randomized controlled trial of a patient and general practitioner intervention to improve the management of multiple risk factors after stroke: stop stroke

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Stroke is a major public health concern worldwide and survivors remain at high risk of recurrence. Secondary prevention requires management of multiple risk factors but current management is suboptimal. Evidence of the effectiveness of interventions to improve poststroke risk factor management from well-designed trials is limited. We assessed the effectiveness of a patient and general practitioner systematic follow-up intervention to improve risk factor management after stroke.

METHODS

We undertook a pragmatic cluster trial involving 523 consecutive incident stroke survivors identified using the population South London Stroke Register and registered with general practices in inner-city London. Practices were randomized to receive the intervention or usual care. The intervention entailed systematically identifying stroke survivors' risk factors for recurrence and providing tailored evidence-based management advice to general practitioners, patients, and caregivers at 10 weeks, 5 months, and 8 months poststroke. The primary outcome was management of key modifiable risk factors for stroke at 1 year with 3 end points: treatment with antihypertensive therapy, treatment with antiplatelet therapy, and smoking cessation. Hierarchical testing was used to adjust for multiple endpoints. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered as number ISRCTN10730637.

RESULTS

The absolute risk reduction (and 95% CI) for each outcome was -3.7% (-13.0% to 5.6%) for treatment with antihypertensives; -2.3% (-12.0% to 7.6%) for treatment with antiplatelets; and -0.6% (-14.5% to 13.5%) for smoking cessation. Treatment effects were confirmed in the generalized linear model adjusting for clustering and predefined confounders.

CONCLUSIONS

No improvement in risk factor management was demonstrated as a result of this patient, caregiver, and healthcare professional systematic follow-up system. Further evidence of how to effectively alter behavior of patients/caregivers and professionals is required if tailored information on risk and its treatment is to be of any clinical benefit.

Evaluation of strategies of care in the secondary prevention of heart disease: critical appraisal of a cluster randomized trial

Evaluation of: Murphy AW, Cupples ME, Smith SM, Byrne M, Myrne MC, Newell J; for the SPHERE study team: Effect of tailored practice and patients care plans on secondary prevention of heart disease in general practice: cluster randomized controlled trial. BMJ 339, B4220 (2009). Coronary heart disease is the main cause of morbidity/mortality in developed countries and the costs of this epidemic are a major concern and a focus of public health policies. The cornerstone in controlling the incidence of coronary heart disease is the management of risk factors and an evaluation of the best strategy is of the greatest importance. Murphy et al. conducted a cluster randomized trial to evaluate the strategies of tailored practice and patient care plans on secondary prevention of heart disease in general practice. The study found that at 18 months of follow-up, there were no significant differences between intervention and control groups in the proportion of patients above the recommended limits of systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure and total cholesterol concentrations. The number of patients admitted to hospital significantly decreased in the intervention group. Although secondary prevention programs have positive impacts on the process of care, the benefit was clear after a longer period of follow-up in many studies. The practice of preventive cardiology in patients with coronary heart disease is difficult to achieve, particularly when the population already had a lower prevalence of uncontrolled risk factors, as Murphy et al. found in their study. It is possible that the patients included in this and other studies were at a sufficiently low risk that the likelihood of detecting a beneficial effect in a short period of time was small. There is good evidence that healthcare professionals can help patients; nonetheless, they also need guidance and programs to help them. Some questions regarding these multidisciplinary programs also remain to be answered, and their cost-effectiveness remains unclear. The incremental benefit of secondary prevention programs may be very small in the settings in which those trials were performed, but they certainly will be beneficial in settings where usual care is less optimal; these scenarios are often found around the world.

The cost-effectiveness of the SPHERE intervention for the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease

Objectives: The Secondary Prevention of Heart disEase in geneRal practicE (SPHERE) trial has recently reported. This study examines the cost-effectiveness of the SPHERE intervention in both healthcare systems on the island of Ireland.

Methods: Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis. A probabilistic model was developed to combine within-trial and beyond-trial impacts of treatment to estimate the lifetime costs and benefits of two secondary prevention strategies: Intervention - tailored practice and patient care plans; and Control - standardized usual care.

Results: The intervention strategy resulted in mean cost savings per patient of €512.77 (95 percent confidence interval [CI], −1086.46–91.98) and an increase in mean quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) per patient of 0.0051 (95 percent CI, −0.0101–0.0200), when compared with the control strategy. The probability of the intervention being cost-effective was 94 percent if decision makers are willing to pay €45,000 per additional QALY.

Conclusions: Decision makers in both settings must determine whether the level of evidence presented is sufficient to justify the adoption of the SPHERE intervention in clinical practice.

Service organisation for the secondary prevention of ischaemic heart disease in primary care

BACKGROUND

Ischaemic heart disease (IHD) is a major cause of mortality and morbidity and its prevalence is set to increase. Secondary prevention aims to prevent subsequent acute events in people with established IHD. While the benefits of individual medical and lifestyle interventions is established, the effectiveness of interventions which seek to improve the way secondary preventive care is delivered in primary care or community settings is less so.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of service organisation interventions, identifying which types and elements of service change are associated with most improvement in clinician and patient adherence to secondary prevention recommendations relating to risk factor levels and monitoring (blood pressure, cholesterol and lifestyle factors such as diet, exercise, smoking and obesity) and appropriate prophylactic medication.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1966 to Feb 2008), EMBASE (1980 to Feb 2008), and CINAHL (1981 to Feb 2008). Bibliographies were checked. No language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of service organisation interventions in primary care or community settings in populations with established IHD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Analyses were conducted according to Cochrane recommendations and Odds Ratios (with 95% confidence intervals) reported for dichotomous outcomes, mean differences (with 95% CIs) for continuous outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven studies involving 12,074 people with IHD were included. Increased proportions of patients with total cholesterol levels within recommended levels at 12 months, OR 1.90 (1.04 to 3.48), were associated with interventions that included regular planned appointments, patient education and structured monitoring of medication and risk factors, but significant heterogeneity was apparent. Results relating to blood pressure within target levels bordered on statistical significance. There were no significant effects of interventions on mean blood pressure or cholesterol levels, prescribing, smoking status or body mass index. Few data were available on the effect on diet. There was some suggestion of a "ceiling effect" whereby interventions have a diminishing beneficial effect once certain levels of risk factor management are reached.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is weak evidence that regular planned recall of patients for appointments, structured monitoring of risk factors and prescribing, and education for patients can be effective in increasing the proportions of patients within target levels for cholesterol control and blood pressure. Further research in this area would benefit from greater standardisation of the outcomes measured.