From hypertension control to global cardiovascular risk management: an educational intervention in a cluster-randomised controlled trial

Cardiovascular disease risk communication and prevention: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Knowledge of quantifiable cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk may improve health outcomes and trigger behavioural change in patients or clinicians. This review aimed to investigate the impact of CVD risk communication on patient-perceived CVD risk and changes in CVD risk factors.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and PsycINFO databases were searched from inception to 6 June 2023, supplemented by citation analysis. Randomized trials that compared any CVD risk communication strategy versus usual care were included. Paired reviewers independently screened the identified records and extracted the data; disagreements were resolved by a third author. The primary outcome was the accuracy of risk perception. Secondary outcomes were clinician-reported changes in CVD risk, psychological responses, intention to modify lifestyle, and self-reported changes in risk factors and clinician prescribing of preventive medicines.

RESULTS

Sixty-two trials were included. Accuracy of risk perception was higher among intervention participants (odds ratio = 2.31, 95% confidence interval = 1.63 to 3.27). A statistically significant improvement in overall CVD risk scores was found at 6-12 months (mean difference = -0.27, 95% confidence interval = -0.45 to -0.09). For primary prevention, risk communication significantly increased self-reported dietary modification (odds ratio = 1.50, 95% confidence interval = 1.21 to 1.86) with no increase in intention or actual changes in smoking cessation or physical activity. A significant impact on patients' intention to start preventive medication was found for primary and secondary prevention, with changes at follow-up for the primary prevention group.

CONCLUSIONS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, communicating CVD risk information, regardless of the method, reduced the overall risk factors and enhanced patients' self-perceived risk. Communication of CVD risk to patients should be considered in routine consultations.

Development of a shared decision-making intervention to improve drug safety and to reduce polypharmacy in frail elderly patients living at home

Objectives

For patients with geriatric frailty, reducing inappropriate medication is an important goal to improve patient safety in primary care. GP-side barriers include knowledge gaps, legal concerns, and lack of communication between the actors involved. The aim was to develop a multi-faceted intervention to facilitate deprescribing and shared prioritisation among frail elderlies with polypharmacy living at home.

Methods

Mixed methods study including: 1) scoping review on family conferences, expert panels; 2) group discussions with GPs, mapping of needs and challenges in Primary Care; 3) workshops and expert interviews with GPs, patient advocates, researchers as a basis for a theoretical intervention model; 4) piloting.

Results

A major challenge for GPs is to conduct a productive discussion with patients and family cares on deprescribing and drug safety. A guideline for a structured family conference with a medication check and geriatric assessment was developed and proved to be feasible in the pilot study.

Conclusion

The intervention developed to facilitate deprescribing and shared prioritisation of drug therapy based on family conferences seems suitable to be tested in a subsequent cRCT.

Innovation

Adapting family conferences to primary care for frail patients with polypharmacy.

What is the volume, diversity and nature of recent, robust evidence for the use of peer support in health and social care? An evidence and gap map

Background

Peer support interventions involve people drawing on shared personal experience to help one another improve their physical or mental health, or reduce social isolation. If effective, they may also lessen the demand on health and social care services, reducing costs. However, the design and delivery of peer support varies greatly, from the targeted problem or need, the setting and mode of delivery, to the number and content of sessions. Robust evidence is essential for policymakers commissioning peer support and practitioners delivering services in health care and community settings. This map draws together evidence on different types of peer support to support the design and delivery of interventions.

Objectives

The aim of this map was to provide an overview of the volume, diversity and nature of recent, high quality evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the use of peer support in health and social care.

Search Methods

We searched MEDLINE, seven further bibliographic databases, and Epistemonikos for systematic reviews (in October 2020), randomised controlled trials (in March 2021) and economic evaluations (in May 2021) on the effectiveness of peer support interventions in health and social care. We also conducted searches of Google Scholar, two trial registers, PROSPERO, and completed citation chasing on included studies.

Selection Criteria

Systematic reviews, randomised controlled trials and economic evaluations were included in the map. Included studies focused on adult populations with a defined health or social care need, were conducted in high-income countries, and published since 2015. Any measure of effectiveness was included, as was any form of peer support providing the peer had shared experience with the participant and a formalised role.

Data Collection and Analysis

Data were extracted on the type of peer support intervention and outcomes assessed in included studies. Standardised tools were used to assess study quality for all studies: assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews 2 for systematic reviews; Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised controlled trials; and consensus health economic criteria list for economic evaluations.

Main Results

We included 91 studies: 32 systematic reviews; 52 randomised controlled trials; and 7 economic evaluations. Whilst most included systematic reviews and economic evaluations were assessed to be of low or medium quality, the majority of randomised controlled trials were of higher quality. There were concentrations of evidence relating to different types of peer support, including education, psychological support, self-care/self-management and social support. Populations with long-term health conditions were most commonly studied. The majority of studies measured health-related indicators as outcomes; few studies assessed cost-effectiveness. Studies were unevenly distributed geographically, with most being conducted in the USA. Several gaps were evident regarding the delivery of peer support, particularly the integration of peers and professionals in delivering support and interventions of longer duration.

Authors' Conclusions

Although there is evidence available to inform the commissioning and delivery of peer support in health and social care, there are also clear gaps that need to be addressed to further support provision, particularly regarding cost-effectiveness. The effectiveness of peer support in different countries, with varying health and social care systems, is a priority for future research, as is the integration of peers with professionals in delivering peer support.

Cardiovascular risk factor reduction by community health workers in rural India: A cluster randomized trial

BACKGROUND

There is a need to identify and test low-cost approaches for cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk reduction that can enable health systems to achieve such a strategy.

OBJECTIVE

Community health workers (CHWs) are an integral part of health-care delivery system in lower income countries. Our aim was to assess impact of CHW based interventions in reducing CVD risk factors in rural households in India.

METHODS

We performed an open-label cluster-randomized trial in 28 villages in 3 states of India with the household as a unit of randomization. Households with individuals at intermediate to high CVD risk were randomized to intervention and control groups. In the intervention group, trained CHWs delivered risk-reduction advice and monitored risk factors during 6 household visits over 12 months. Households in the non-intervention group received usual care. Primary outcomes were a reduction in systolic BP (SBP) and adherence to prescribed BP lowering drugs.

RESULTS

We randomized 2312 households (3261 participants at intermediate or high risk) to intervention (1172 households) and control (1140 households). At baseline prevalence of tobacco use (48.5%) and hypertension (34.7%) were high. At 12 months, there was significant decline in SBP (mmHg) from baseline in both groups- controls 130.3 ± 21 to 128.3 ± 15; intervention 130.3 ± 21 to 127.6 ± 15 (P < .01 for before and after comparison) but there was no difference between the 2 groups at 12 months (P = .18). Adherence to antihypertensive drugs was greater in intervention vs control households (74.9% vs 61.4%, P = .001).

CONCLUSION

A 12-month CHW-led intervention at household level improved adherence to prescribed drugs, but did not impact SBP. To be more impactful, a more comprehensive solution that addresses escalation and access to useful therapies is needed.

Risk scoring for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND

The current paradigm for cardiovascular disease (CVD) emphasises absolute risk assessment to guide treatment decisions in primary prevention. Although the derivation and validation of multivariable risk assessment tools, or CVD risk scores, have attracted considerable attention, their effect on clinical outcomes is uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of evaluating and providing CVD risk scores in adults without prevalent CVD on cardiovascular outcomes, risk factor levels, preventive medication prescribing, and health behaviours.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library (2016, Issue 2), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to March week 1 2016), Embase (embase.com) (1974 to 15 March 2016), and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S) (1990 to 15 March 2016). We imposed no language restrictions. We searched clinical trial registers in March 2016 and handsearched reference lists of primary studies to identify additional reports.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing the systematic provision of CVD risk scores by a clinician, healthcare professional, or healthcare system compared with usual care (i.e. no systematic provision of CVD risk scores) in adults without CVD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently selected studies, extracted data, and evaluated study quality. We used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool to assess study limitations. The primary outcomes were: CVD events, change in CVD risk factor levels (total cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, and multivariable CVD risk), and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included: lipid-lowering and antihypertensive medication prescribing in higher-risk people. We calculated risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) for continuous data using 95% confidence intervals. We used a fixed-effects model when heterogeneity (I²) was at least 50% and a random-effects model for substantial heterogeneity (I² > 50%). We evaluated the quality of evidence using the GRADE framework.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 41 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving 194,035 participants from 6422 reports. We assessed studies as having high or unclear risk of bias across multiple domains. Low-quality evidence evidence suggests that providing CVD risk scores may have little or no effect on CVD events compared with usual care (5.4% versus 5.3%; RR 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.08; I² = 25%; 3 trials, N = 99,070). Providing CVD risk scores may reduce CVD risk factor levels by a small amount compared with usual care. Providing CVD risk scores reduced total cholesterol (MD -0.10 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.00; I² = 94%; 12 trials, N = 20,437, low-quality evidence), systolic blood pressure (MD -2.77 mmHg, 95% CI -4.16 to -1.38; I² = 93%; 16 trials, N = 32,954, low-quality evidence), and multivariable CVD risk (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.02; I² = 94%; 9 trials, N = 9549, low-quality evidence). Providing CVD risk scores may reduce adverse events compared with usual care, but results were imprecise (1.9% versus 2.7%; RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.04; I² = 0%; 4 trials, N = 4630, low-quality evidence). Compared with usual care, providing CVD risk scores may increase new or intensified lipid-lowering medications (15.7% versus 10.7%; RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.87; I² = 40%; 11 trials, N = 14,175, low-quality evidence) and increase new or increased antihypertensive medications (17.2% versus 11.4%; RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.11; I² = 53%; 8 trials, N = 13,255, low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is uncertainty whether current strategies for providing CVD risk scores affect CVD events. Providing CVD risk scores may slightly reduce CVD risk factor levels and may increase preventive medication prescribing in higher-risk people without evidence of harm. There were multiple study limitations in the identified studies and substantial heterogeneity in the interventions, outcomes, and analyses, so readers should interpret results with caution. New models for implementing and evaluating CVD risk scores in adequately powered studies are needed to define the role of applying CVD risk scores in primary CVD prevention.