Pharmacy care and adherence to primary and secondary prevention cardiovascular medication: a systematic review of studies

Pharmacist management of atrial fibrillation in UK primary care: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) affects up to 2% of the UK population. AF is a potentially long-term condition that needs management, and as such primary care pharmacists may have a substantial role in supporting the management of AF.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to explore the role of primary care pharmacists, working in community pharmacies and general practices (GPs), in supporting the management of AF. Furthermore, this study investigates pharmacists' confidence in their knowledge and their attitudes towards incorporating AF-associated mobile apps use into their current practice.

METHODS

A qualitative study was conducted, using one-to-one semi-structured, audio-recorded interviews with primary care pharmacists. The topic guide was developed based on pharmacy visits and included the most relevant constructs from the 'consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR)'. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed until saturation was achieved, guided by Braun and Clarke's 6-step research method. This study was given a favourable opinion on 5 September 2019 by the University of Birmingham (UOB) Research Ethics Committee (Reference ERN_19-0908).

RESULTS

Thematic saturation was achieved after 11 interviews with primary care pharmacists (seven community pharmacists, and four GP pharmacists). Three main themes emerged relating to (1) the clinical role of pharmacists in the management of AF; (2) knowledge and awareness; and (3) prioritisation of resources. The first highlighted that primary care pharmacists were an underutilised resource within AF management. The second demonstrated that pharmacists, especially those based in the community, felt a lack of confidence in their knowledge of AF and its management, mainly community pharmacists due to other roles taking precedence over clinical roles. Both community and GP pharmacists expressed the need to have further training in this therapeutic area to be able to effectively support patients with AF. The third shed light on the pharmacists' views relating to the technological revolution in healthcare. Pharmacists expressed an interest in using apps to support their current practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Primary care pharmacists supported an extended care to AF management from screening to consultations, yet the provision of such services remains limited and inconsistent. Future research should focus on understanding the ways in which pharmacists' role can be adapted toward greater involvement in clinical care.

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Face-to-face Medication Adherence Interventions for Patients with Long Term Health Conditions

BACKGROUND

Although previous reviews demonstrated effectiveness related to medication adherence interventions, they incorporated various digital platforms and other multiple delivery modes, which makes difficult to distinguish what aspects of the interventions led to effectiveness.

PURPOSE

This review aimed to (i) estimate the efficacy of face-to-face medication adherence interventions on adherence outcomes, in adults with Long Term Health Conditions (LTHCs) and (ii) identify the Behaviour Change Techniques (BCTs) used in the interventions and examine their potential impact on efficacy.

METHODS

Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, Embase, MEDLINE (Ovid), PsycINFO, Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus databases were searched. Randomized controlled trials were included if they described an intervention to improve medication adherence, delivered via face-to-face only, and included patients with LTHCs. Studies were excluded if they used additional delivery modes, involved family members or used a group format. In addition, use of BCTs was coded.

RESULTS

20 studies were included (n = 3667). Statistically significant pooled effects were found favoring the intervention than control, for the following MEMS (electronic monitoring) measures: percentage of prescribed doses taken on time over a period of 3 weeks to 2 months (MD 9.34, 95% CI 4.36-14.33, p = .0002; I2 =0%); percentage of prescribed doses taken for a period of 1 week to 2 months (MD 5.63, 95% CI 1.62-9.64, p = .006; I2 = 51%) and for 1 month (OR = 2.51, 95% CI 1.37-4.57, p = .003; I2 = 0%); percentage of days correct doses taken for 1 month to 14 weeks (MD 6.59, 95% CI 0.74-13.15, p = .03; I2 = 68%). Studies using the Morisky scale showed a significant between group difference for 1-3 months (MD 0.86, 95% CI 0.59-1.13, p < .00001; I2 = 0%). Overall, more BCTs were identified in intervention conditions than in comparison conditions (22 vs. 10). The impact of BCTs on intervention effectiveness could not be established as the analyses were underpowered.

CONCLUSIONS

Face-to-face interventions increased adherence to medication among adult patients with LTHCs. Although we were able to identify BCTs among interventions, data were insufficient to determine the impact of particular BCTs on intervention effectiveness.

The impact of pharmacy care and motivational interviewing on improving medication adherence in patients with cardiovascular diseases: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is prevalent worldwide, and for many patients, non-adherence to medication remains a problem. Motivational interviewing is a behavioural, communication strategy used as an intervention aimed to improve health outcomes.

AIMS

This systematic review sought to investigate the effect of motivational interviewing delivered as part of pharmacy care on medication adherence, and the effect this has on clinical outcomes. These included systolic and diastolic blood pressure, haemoglobin A1C, lipid profiles and cardiovascular risk scores.

METHOD

A systematic review was conducted in six databases: PubMed Central UK, Cochrane Library, CINAHL (EBSCO), PsycINFO, EMBASE and MEDLINE from the inception of motivational interviewing in 1983 to November 2020. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed motivational interviewing as part of pharmacy care interventions were selected. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the risk of bias for each included study. This review was registered with PROSPERO (registration number CRD42020222954).

RESULTS

A total of eight RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Five out of eight studies demonstrated medication adherence significantly improved following motivational interviewing interventions. One study showed a significant improvement for systolic blood pressure change by 7.2 mmHg (95% CI 1.6-12.8 mmHg); this reduction was observed in patients whose baseline blood pressure was above their target blood pressure. No statistically significant effect was seen across other clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Motivational interviewing could be an effective behavioural strategy to enhance medication adherence in patients with CVD. Although the evidence is promising thus far, further research is required to explore the impact of motivational interviewing on clinical outcomes as well as the feasibility of implementing motivational interviewing interventions within existing pharmacy care services.

Designing a Clinical Pharmacy Primary Care Intervention for Myocardial Infarction Patients Using a Patient and Public Involvement Discussion

Objective: to conduct a Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) focus group session. To help inform the design of a clinical pharmacy intervention in primary care for patients after a coronary event. Methods: this study followed a public involvement method. Community members of the public and community engaged research patients who had experienced myocardial infarction where invited to actively take part in a focus group discussion. This is to share past experiences and provide input and advice into the design of a potential research proposal. The session took place at a cardiac rehabilitation centre. Results: four key themes were identified from the focus group these included: experiences with pharmacy and primary care services, medicines knowledge, the pharmacist role and building rapport with healthcare professionals. Nine participants and three researchers attended the PPI discussion session. Seven of the participants were patients who had experienced a cardiac event in the last three months and two were carers. Primary care pharmacy services both clinical and public health were not very familiar to the participants. Different experiences with clinical pharmacy services were reported by participants, while one experience was reported to be helpful others perceived community pharmacists to be to be busy and isolated behind a counter. A general practice GP based specialist nurse was a familiar model of care unlike a specialist clinical pharmacist GP based care role. Participants reported limited time in GP consultations and the need to book double appointments. Participants stressed the need to receive consistent information about their disease and medication from different professionals involved in their care. Different views were expressed regarding the ability to build rapport with a clinical pharmacist when compared to a GP. Input on study outcomes and design was provided by participants. Conclusion: participants in this session mentioned that a clinical pharmacy intervention after hospital discharge would be useful for their continuity of care. Plans are in place to continue to involve patients and the public in the write up, ethics and dissemination of the potential clinical pharmacy proposal.

Impact of the pharmacist-led intervention on the control of medical cardiovascular risk factors for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in general practice: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

AIMS

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of general practice-based pharmacist interventions in reducing the medical risk factors for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events.

METHODS

A systemic search was undertaken in 8 databases: PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBAS, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, CINAHL Plus, SCOPUS and Science Citation Index, with no start date up to 27 March 2019. Randomised controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of pharmacist-led interventions delivered in the general practice in reducing the medical risk factors of cardiovascular events were included in the review. The risk of bias in the studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.

RESULTS

A total of 1604 studies were identified, with 21 randomised controlled trials (8933 patients) meeting the inclusion criteria. Fourteen studies were conducted in patients with diabetes, 7 in hypertension, 2 involving dyslipidaemia, and 2 with hypertension and diabetes together. The most frequently used interventions were medication review and medication management. The quality of the included studies was variable. Patients receiving pharmacist-led interventions were associated with a statistically significant reduction in their systolic blood pressure (-9.33 mmHg [95% Confidence Interval (CI) -13.36 to -5.30]), haemoglobin A1C (-0.76% [95% CI -1.15 to -0.37]) and low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (-15.19 mg/dL [95% CI -24.05 to -6.33]). Moreover, practice-based pharmacists' interventions were also reported to have a positive impact on patient adherence to medications.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this review suggest that pharmacist-led interventions in general practice can significantly reduce the medical risk factors of cardiovascular disease events. These findings support the involvement of pharmacists as healthcare providers in managing patients with hypertension, diabetes and dyslipidaemia.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Medication Reviews Conducted by Pharmacists on Cardiovascular Diseases Risk Factors in Ambulatory Care

Background

Pharmacists‐led medication reviews (MRs) are claimed to be effective for the control of cardiovascular diseases; however, the evidence in the literature is conflicting. The main objective of this meta‐analysis was to analyze the impact of pharmacist‐led MRs on cardiovascular disease risk factors overall and in different ambulatory settings while exploring the effects of different components of MRs.

Methods and Results

Searches were conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and the Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials database. Randomized and cluster randomized controlled trials of pharmacist‐led MRs compared with usual care were included. Settings were community pharmacies and ambulatory clinics. The classification used for MRs was the Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe as basic (type 1), intermediate (type 2), and advanced (type 3). Meta‐analyses in therapeutic goals used odds ratios to standardize the effect of each study, and for continuous data (eg, systolic blood pressure) raw differences were calculated using baseline and final values, with 95% CIs. Prediction intervals were calculated to account for heterogeneity. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of results. Meta‐analyses included 69 studies with a total of 11 644 patients. Sample demographic characteristics were similar between studies. MRs increased control of hypertension (odds ratio, 2.73; 95% prediction interval, 1.05–7.08), type 2 diabetes mellitus (odds ratio, 3.11; 95% prediction interval, 1.17–5.88), and high cholesterol (odds ratio, 1.91; 95% prediction interval, 1.05–3.46). In ambulatory clinics, MRs produced significant effects in control of diabetes mellitus and cholesterol. For community pharmacies, systolic blood pressure and low‐density lipoprotein values decreased significantly. Advanced MRs had larger effects than intermediate MRs in diabetes mellitus and dyslipidemia outcomes. Most intervention components had no significant effect on clinical outcomes and were often poorly described. CIs were significant in all analyses but prediction intervals were not in continuous clinical outcomes, with high heterogeneity present.

Conclusions

Intermediate and advanced MRs provided by pharmacists may improve control of blood pressure, cholesterol, and type 2 diabetes mellitus, as statistically significant prediction intervals were found. However, most continuous clinical outcomes failed to achieve statistical significance, with high heterogeneity present, although positive trends and effect sizes were found. Studies should use a standardized method for MRs to diminish sources of these heterogeneities.

Impact of pharmacy care upon adherence to cardiovascular medicines: a feasibility pilot controlled trial

Objective

To investigate the feasibility and potential impact of a pharmacy care intervention, involving motivational interviews among patients with acute coronary syndrome, on adherence to medication and on health outcomes.

Methods

This article reports a prospective, interventional, controlled feasibility/pilot study. Seventy one patients discharged from a London Heart Attack Centre following acute treatment for a coronary event were enrolled and followed up for 6 months. Thirty two pharmacies from six London boroughs were allocated into intervention or control sites. The intervention was delivered by community pharmacists face-to-face in the pharmacy, or by telephone. Consultations were delivered as part of the New Medicine Service or a Medication Usage Review. They involved a 15-20 min motivational interview aimed at improving protective cardiovascular medicine taking.

Results

At 3 months, there was a statistically significant difference in adherence between the intervention group (M=7.7, SD=0.56) and the control group (M=7.0, SD=1.85), p=0.026. At 6 months, the equivalent figures were for the intervention group M=7.5, SD=1.47 and for the controls M=6.1, SD=2.09 (p=0.004). In addition, there was a statistically significant relationship between the level of adherence at 3 months and beliefs regarding medicines (p=0.028). Patients who reported better adherence expressed positive beliefs regarding the necessity of taking their medicines. However, given the small sample size, no statistically significant outcome difference in terms of recorded blood pressure and low density lipoprotein-cholesterol was observed over the 6 months of the study.

Conclusions

The feasibility, acceptability and potentially positive clinical outcome of the intervention were demonstrated, long with a high level of patient acceptability. It had a significant impact on cardiovascular medicine taking adherence. But these findings must be interpreted with caution. The intervention should be tested in a larger trial to ascertain its full clinical utility.

Trial registration number

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01920009.

Medication Adherence Following Acute Coronary Syndrome: Does One Size Fit All?

Guideline-based management of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is well established, yet some may challenge that strict implementation of guideline recommendations can limit the individualization of therapy. The use of all recommended medications following ACS places a high burden of responsibility and cost on patients, particularly when these medications have not been previously prescribed. Without close attention to avoiding non-adherence to these medications, the full benefits of the guideline recommendations will not be realized in many patients. Using a case example, we discuss how the recognition of adherence barriers can be an effective and efficient process for identifying patients at risk of non-adherence following ACS. For those identified as at risk, the World Health Organization's model of adherence barriers is explored as a potentially useful tool to assist with individualization of therapy and promotion of adherence.

Effect evaluation of an interprofessional medication therapy management approach for multimorbid patients in primary care: a cluster-randomized controlled trial in community care (WestGem study protocol)

Background

Pharmaceutical practice worldwide is developing towards patient care. Medication Review (MR) and Medication Therapy Management (MTM) are evolving as the most prominent services in pharmaceutical care and have a strong potential to provide a large benefit for patients and society. MTMs can only be performed in an interprofessional, collaborative setting. Several international studies have explored the effects of a MTM on the quality of therapy and costs. For Germany the data is still deficient. This study aims to provide data on the effects of an interprofessional MTM regarding quality of therapy, quality of life, costs and cost-effectiveness.

Method/Design

The study is designed as a cluster-randomized controlled trial in primary care, involving 12 outpatient clinics (clusters) and 165 patients. Primary care units are allocated to interventions using a Stepped Wedge Design. All units are initially assigned to the control group. After a 6 month observation period, general practitioners (GP) are randomly allocated to one of three groups and the interprofessional medication therapy management approach is implemented sequentially per each group with a lag of 3 months between. The primary outcome is the change in the quality of therapy measured by the MAI (Medication Appropriateness Index). Secondary outcomes include changes in the number of drug related problems, medication complexity, changes in drug-adherence, changes in health-status and function, quality of life, direct costs and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. The acceptance of the interprofessional Medication Therapy Management approach is assessed by qualitative methods.

Discussion

The patient interview and brown bag review are activities, typically provided by the pharmacist. In this trial the patient is blinded to the pharmacist. The strength of having the patient blinded to the pharmacists is to exclude skepticism of the patient toward unknown pharmacies, which might be a major confounder in a regional and community setting. A weakness is that some patient related data might reach the pharmacists in a way, which might differ from self-acquired data.

Trial registration

Current controlled trials ISRCTN41595373.