Exploring New Models for Cardiovascular Risk Reduction: The Heart Outcomes Prevention and Evaluation 4 (HOPE 4) Canada Pilot Study

Lay advisor interventions for hypertension outcomes: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis and a RE-AIM evaluation

Introduction

Lay advisor interventions improve hypertension outcomes; however, the added benefits and relevant factors for their widespread implementation into health systems are unknown. We performed a systematic review to: (1) summarize the benefits of adding lay advisors to interventions on hypertension outcomes, and (2) summarize factors associated with successful implementation in health systems using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework.

Methods

We systematically searched several databases, including Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO from January 1981 to May 2023. All study designs of interventions delivered solely by lay advisors for adults with hypertension were eligible. If both arms received the lay advisor intervention, the study arm with lower intensity was assigned as the low-intensity intervention.

Results

We included 41 articles, of which 22 were RCTs, from 7,267 screened citations. Studies predominantly included socially disadvantaged populations. Meta-analysis (9 RCTs; n = 4,220) of eligible lay advisor interventions reporting outcomes showed improved systolic blood pressure (BP) [-3.72 mm Hg (CI -6.1 to -1.3; I2 88%)], and diastolic BP [-1.7 mm Hg (CI -1 to -0.9; I2 7%)] compared to control group. Pooled effect from six RCTs (n = 3,277) comparing high-intensity with low-intensity lay advisor interventions showed improved systolic BP of -3.6 mm Hg (CI -6.7 to -0.5; I2 82.7%) and improved diastolic BP of -2.1 mm Hg (CI -3.7 to -0.4; I2 70.9%) with high-intensity interventions. No significant difference in pooled odds of hypertension control was noted between lay advisor intervention and control groups, or between high-intensity and low-intensity intervention groups. Most studies used multicomponent interventions with no stepped care elements or reporting of efficacious components. Indicators of external validity (adoption, implementation, maintenance) were infrequently reported.

Discussion

Lay advisor interventions improve hypertension outcomes, with high intensity interventions having a greater impact. Further studies need to identify successful intervention and implementation factors of multicomponent interventions for stepped upscaling within healthcare system settings as well as factors used to help sustain interventions.

Fixed dose combination therapies in primary cardiovascular disease prevention in different groups: an individual participant meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of fixed dose combination (FDC) medications on cardiovascular outcomes in different age groups in an individual participant meta-analysis of three primary prevention randomised trials.

METHODS

Participants at intermediate risk (17.7% mean 10-year Framingham Cardiovascular Risk Score), randomised to FDC of two or more antihypertensives and a statin with or without aspirin, or to their respective control, were followed up for 5 years. Age groups were <60, 60-65 and ≥65 years. The primary outcome was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke or revascularisation. Cox proportional HRs and 95% CIs were computed within each age group.

RESULTS

The primary outcome risk was reduced by 37% (3.3% in FDC vs 5.2% in control (HR 0.63; 95% CI 0.54 to 0.74)) in the total population of 18 162 participants with larger benefits in older groups (HR 0.58; 95% CI 0.42 to 0.78, 60 to 65 years) and (HR 0.57; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.70, ≥65 years), as were their numbers needed to treat to avoid one primary outcome: 53 and 33, respectively. The primary outcome risk was reduced in the two oldest groups with FDC with aspirin (n=8951) by 54% and 54%, and without aspirin (n=12 061) by 34% and 38%. Dizziness, the most frequent FDC adverse effects, was higher in participants aged <65 years. Aspirin was not associated with significant bleeding excess.

CONCLUSIONS

In participants with intermediate cardiovascular risk, FDCs produce larger cardiovascular benefits in older individuals, which appear greater with aspirin.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

HOPE-3, NCT00468923; TIPS-3, NCT016464137; PolyIran, NCT01271985.

Adherence to Cardiovascular Prevention Guidelines in an Academic Centre

Background

Adherence to guidelines is associated with better patient outcomes. Although studies show suboptimal adherence to cardiovascular prevention guidelines among general practitioners, adherence among specialist physicians is understudied. The aim of this analysis was to identify practice gaps among cardiologists in a tertiary academic centre.

Methods

We retrospectively audited cardiology outpatient clinic notes taken at the Cardiology Clinic at the Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CHUM), from the period January 1, 2019 to February 28, 2019. Data were abstracted from hospital medical records. The primary outcome of interest was the rate of adherence to cardiovascular prevention guidelines. We compared the chart-documented practice at our centre to the Canadian hypertension, lipid, diabetes, antiplatelet, and heart failure guidelines in effect at the time of the audit. We also collected information regarding discussions of smoking, alcohol consumption, physical activity, and diet.

Results

A total of 2503 patients were included, with a mean age of 65.6 ± 14.5 years. Dyslipidemia occurred in 63% of patients, hypertension in 55%, and coronary artery disease in 41%. Optimal low-density lipoprotein control was documented as having been achieved in just 39% of cases. Blood pressure control was adequate for 65% of patients, and glycemic control was achieved in 47% of patients with diabetes. Heart failure treatment was optimal in 34% of patients. Nearly all patients with coronary artery disease (95%) had appropriate antithrombotic therapy. The incidence of discussion of nonpharmacologic interventions varied, ranging from 91% (smoking) to 16% (diet).

Conclusions

Primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular events was found to be suboptimal in an academic tertiary-care outpatient cardiology clinic and may be representative of similar shortcomings nationwide. Strategies to ensure guideline adherence are needed.