Population health interventions for cardiometabolic diseases in primary care: a scoping review and RE-AIM evaluation of current practices

Introduction

Cardiometabolic diseases (CMD) are the leading cause of death in high-income countries and are largely attributable to modifiable risk factors. Population health management (PHM) can effectively identify patient subgroups at high risk of CMD and address missed opportunities for preventive disease management. Guided by the Reach, Efficacy, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework, this scoping review of PHM interventions targeting patients in primary care at increased risk of CMD aims to describe the reported aspects for successful implementation.

Methods

A comprehensive search was conducted across 14 databases to identify papers published between 2000 and 2023, using Arksey and O'Malley's framework for conducting scoping reviews. The RE-AIM framework was used to assess the implementation, documentation, and the population health impact score of the PHM interventions.

Results

A total of 26 out of 1,100 studies were included, representing 21 unique PHM interventions. This review found insufficient reporting of most RE-AIM components. The RE-AIM evaluation showed that the included interventions could potentially reach a large audience and achieve their intended goals, but information on adoption and maintenance was often lacking. A population health impact score was calculated for six interventions ranging from 28 to 62%.

Discussion

This review showed the promise of PHM interventions that could reaching a substantial number of participants and reducing CMD risk factors. However, to better assess the generalizability and scalability of these interventions there is a need for an improved assessment of adoption, implementation processes, and sustainability.

Development of a primary care pharmacy outcomes framework: An umbrella literature review

BACKGROUND

An aging population and rising multi-morbidity has shifted healthcare provision from secondary to primary care. Pharmacy-led services have been introduced to support this. The development of an outcomes framework for these services would facilitate conclusions to be drawn on their effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES

To identify outcomes used to evaluate pharmacy-led medication therapy and disease management services within primary care settings to develop an outcomes framework for future studies.

METHODS

An umbrella literature review was conducted. MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and PsycINFO were searched in June 2020 to identify relevant articles. Eligible reviews were those including studies published from 2010 onwards which reported on the outcomes of pharmacy-led medication therapy and disease management services within primary care, excluding community pharmacy settings. Data were extracted and a content analysis, guided by the ECHO model, stratified the outcomes into four areas: economic, clinical, humanistic and service.

RESULTS

Twenty-four reviews covering 52 unique studies were identified. Pharmacy-led services included: medication reviews (n=24, 46.2%), disease and therapy management (n=17, 32.7%), educational services (n=6, 11.5%), medicines reconciliation (n=3, 5.8%), and medication compliance support (n=1, 1.9%). Services were commonly targeted towards endocrine (n=23, 44.2%) or cardiovascular diseases (n=20, 38.5%). Outcomes most commonly explored were clinical (n=38, 73.1%) and service outcomes (n=37, 71.2%), followed by humanistic (n=23, 44.2%) and economic outcomes (n=13, 25.0%). Overall, 17 sub-categories of outcomes were identified; common sub-categories were: disease indicators [clinical]; medication use and healthcare utilisation [service]; adherence to medicines [humanistic]; and healthcare costs [economic].

CONCLUSIONS

The findings informed the development of an outcomes framework to guide the evaluation of medication therapy and disease management services, and facilitate international standardised outcome measures within primary care pharmacy to be developed. This could help offer vital evidence on the effectiveness of these services to ensure the pharmacy workforce is working optimally to support primary care.

A scoping review of research on Canadian team-based primary care pharmacists

OBJECTIVES

An ageing population with an increasing prevalence of chronic disease and complex medication regimens has placed a strain on healthcare systems in Canada. A limited number of team-based primary care pharmacists are integrated into primary care clinics across the country, working alongside other members of the health care team to identify and resolve drug therapy problems and improve outcomes. While many studies have been completed in the area, the extent of research on integrated team-based primary care pharmacists in Canada is unknown. The objectives of this work were to describe the literature that exists surrounding pharmacists in a primary health care team setting in Canada. A scoping review of research focusing on pharmacists in team-based primary health care settings in Canada was performed. Thematic analysis was then performed to categorize the identified studies.

KEY FINDINGS

The search identified 874 articles, of which 93 met inclusion criteria relevant to the objective. From these 93 studies, 4 themes and 23 subthemes were identified, with some studies having more than one theme or subtheme. Themes identified were the following: primary care pharmacist scope of practice (n = 79 studies), collaboration/communication within the primary care setting (n = 26), chronic disease management (n = 24) and 'other' (n = 15).

SUMMARY

This research quantified and categorized 93 studies on pharmacists in interprofessional primary care teams in Canada. As this is an expanding role for pharmacists in Canada, understanding the current state of the literature is an important consideration when developing future team-based primary care roles.

Interventions for improving medication-taking ability and adherence in older adults prescribed multiple medications

BACKGROUND

Older people taking multiple medications represent a large and growing proportion of the population. Managing multiple medications can be challenging, and this is especially the case for older people, who have higher rates of comorbidity and physical and cognitive impairment than younger adults. Good medication-taking ability and medication adherence are necessary to ensure safe and effective use of medications.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions designed to improve medication-taking ability and/or medication adherence in older community-dwelling adults prescribed multiple long-term medications.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts from inception until June 2019. We also searched grey literature, online trial registries, and reference lists of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster-RCTs. Eligible studies tested interventions aimed at improving medication-taking ability and/or medication adherence among people aged ≥ 65 years (or of mean/median age > 65 years), living in the community or being discharged from hospital back into the community, and taking four or more regular prescription medications (or with group mean/median of more than four medications). Interventions targeting carers of older people who met these criteria were also included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently reviewed abstracts and full texts of eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias of included studies. We conducted meta-analyses when possible and used a random-effects model to yield summary estimates of effect, risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes, along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Narrative synthesis was performed when meta-analysis was not possible. We assessed overall certainty of evidence for each outcome using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Primary outcomes were medication-taking ability and medication adherence. Secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life (HRQoL), emergency department (ED)/hospital admissions, and mortality.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 50 studies (14,269 participants) comprising 40 RCTs, six cluster-RCTs, and four quasi-RCTs. All included studies evaluated interventions versus usual care; six studies also reported a comparison between two interventions as part of a three-arm RCT design. Interventions were grouped on the basis of their educational and/or behavioural components: 14 involved educational components only, 7 used behavioural strategies only, and 29 provided mixed educational and behavioural interventions. Overall, our confidence in results regarding the effectiveness of interventions was low to very low due to a high degree of heterogeneity of included studies and high or unclear risk of bias across multiple domains in most studies. Five studies evaluated interventions for improving medication-taking ability, and 48 evaluated interventions for improving medication adherence (three studies evaluated both outcomes). No studies involved educational or behavioural interventions alone for improving medication-taking ability. Low-quality evidence from five studies, each using a different measure of medication-taking ability, meant that we were unable to determine the effects of mixed interventions on medication-taking ability. Low-quality evidence suggests that behavioural only interventions (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.38; 4 studies) and mixed interventions (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.37; 12 studies) may increase the proportions of people who are adherent compared with usual care. We could not include in the meta-analysis results from two studies involving mixed interventions: one had a positive effect on adherence, and the other had little or no effect. Very low-quality evidence means that we are uncertain of the effects of educational only interventions (5 studies) on the proportions of people who are adherent. Low-quality evidence suggests that educational only interventions (SMD 0.16, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.43; 5 studies) and mixed interventions (SMD 0.47, 95% CI -0.08 to 1.02; 7 studies) may have little or no impact on medication adherence assessed through continuous measures of adherence. We excluded 10 studies (4 educational only and 6 mixed interventions) from the meta-analysis including four studies with unclear or no available results. Very low-quality evidence means that we are uncertain of the effects of behavioural only interventions (3 studies) on medication adherence when assessed through continuous outcomes. Low-quality evidence suggests that mixed interventions may reduce the number of ED/hospital admissions (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.90; 11 studies) compared with usual care, although results from six further studies that we were unable to include in meta-analyses indicate that the intervention may have a smaller, or even no, effect on these outcomes. Similarly, low-quality evidence suggests that mixed interventions may lead to little or no change in HRQoL (7 studies), and very low-quality evidence means that we are uncertain of the effects on mortality (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.30; 7 studies). Moderate-quality evidence shows that educational interventions alone probably have little or no effect on HRQoL (6 studies) or on ED/hospital admissions (4 studies) when compared with usual care. Very low-quality evidence means that we are uncertain of the effects of behavioural interventions on HRQoL (1 study) or on ED/hospital admissions (2 studies). We identified no studies evaluating effects of educational or behavioural interventions alone on mortality. Six studies reported a comparison between two interventions; however due to the limited number of studies assessing the same types of interventions and comparisons, we are unable to draw firm conclusions for any outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Behavioural only or mixed educational and behavioural interventions may improve the proportion of people who satisfactorily adhere to their prescribed medications, but we are uncertain of the effects of educational only interventions. No type of intervention was found to improve adherence when it was measured as a continuous variable, with educational only and mixed interventions having little or no impact and evidence of insufficient quality to determine the effects of behavioural only interventions. We were unable to determine the impact of interventions on medication-taking ability. The quality of evidence for these findings is low due to heterogeneity and methodological limitations of studies included in the review. Further well-designed RCTs are needed to investigate the effects of interventions for improving medication-taking ability and medication adherence in older adults prescribed multiple medications.

Care Team Integration in Primary Care Improves One-Year Clinical and Financial Outcomes in Diabetes: A Case for Value-Based Care

Despite significant treatment advances, diabetes outcomes remain suboptimal and health care costs continue to rise. There are limited data on the feasibility and financial implications of integrating a diabetes-specific care team in the primary care setting (ie, where the majority of diabetes is treated). This pragmatic quality improvement project investigated whether a cardiometabolic care team intervention (CMC-TI) could achieve greater improvements in clinical, behavioral, and cost outcomes compared to usual diabetes care in a large primary care group in Southern California. Over 12 months, n = 236 CMC-TI and n = 239 usual care patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes were identified using the electronic medical record. In the CMC-TI group, a registered nurse (RN)/certified diabetes educator care manager, medical assistant health coach, and RN depression care manager utilized electronic medical record-based risk stratification reports, standardized decision-support tools, live and remote tailored treatments, and coaching to manage care. Results indicated that the CMC-TI group achieved greater improvements in glycemic and lipid control, diabetes self-management behaviors, and emotional distress over 1 year compared with the usual care group (all P < .05). The CMC-TI group also had a significant 12.6% reduction in total health care costs compared to a 51.7% increase in the usual care group during the same period and inclusive of CMC-TI program costs. Patients and providers reported high satisfaction with CMC-TI. These findings highlight that team-based care management interventions that utilize nurses, medical assistant health coaches, and behavioral specialists to support diabetes patients can help primary care practices achieve value-based targets of improved health, cost, and patient experience.

Interventions for improving modifiable risk factor control in the secondary prevention of stroke

BACKGROUND

People with stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA) are at increased risk of future stroke and other cardiovascular events. Stroke services need to be configured to maximise the adoption of evidence-based strategies for secondary stroke prevention. Smoking-related interventions were examined in a separate review so were not considered in this review. This is an update of our 2014 review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of stroke service interventions for implementing secondary stroke prevention strategies on modifiable risk factor control, including patient adherence to prescribed medications, and the occurrence of secondary cardiovascular events.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (April 2017), the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group Trials Register (April 2017), CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library 2017, issue 3), MEDLINE (1950 to April 2017), Embase (1981 to April 2017) and 10 additional databases including clinical trials registers. We located further studies by searching reference lists of articles and contacting authors of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of organisational or educational and behavioural interventions (compared with usual care) on modifiable risk factor control for secondary stroke prevention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four review authors selected studies for inclusion and independently extracted data. The quality of the evidence as 'high', 'moderate', 'low' or 'very low' according to the GRADE approach (GRADEpro GDT).Three review authors assessed the risk of bias for the included studies. We sought missing data from trialists.The results are presented in 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

The updated review included 16 new studies involving 25,819 participants, resulting in a total of 42 studies including 33,840 participants. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool and assessed three studies at high risk of bias; the remainder were considered to have a low risk of bias. We included 26 studies that predominantly evaluated organisational interventions and 16 that evaluated educational and behavioural interventions for participants. We pooled results where appropriate, although some clinical and methodological heterogeneity was present.Educational and behavioural interventions showed no clear differences on any of the review outcomes, which include mean systolic and diastolic blood pressure, mean body mass index, achievement of HbA1c target, lipid profile, mean HbA1c level, medication adherence, or recurrent cardiovascular events. There was moderate-quality evidence that organisational interventions resulted in improved blood pressure control, in particular an improvement in achieving target blood pressure (odds ratio (OR) 1.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09 to1.90; 13 studies; 23,631 participants). However, there were no significant changes in mean systolic blood pressure (mean difference (MD), -1.58 mmHg 95% CI -4.66 to 1.51; 16 studies; 17,490 participants) and mean diastolic blood pressure (MD -0.91 mmHg 95% CI -2.75 to 0.93; 14 studies; 17,178 participants). There were no significant changes in the remaining review outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found that organisational interventions may be associated with an improvement in achieving blood pressure target but we did not find any clear evidence that these interventions improve other modifiable risk factors (lipid profile, HbA1c, medication adherence) or reduce the incidence of recurrent cardiovascular events. Interventions, including patient education alone, did not lead to improvements in modifiable risk factor control or the prevention of recurrent cardiovascular events.

A review of interventions ≥ 6 months by pharmacists on adherence to medicines in cardiovascular disease: Characteristics of what works and what doesn't

BACKGROUND

Nonadherence to cardiovascular medicines occurs in 60% of subjects with chronic cardiovascular disease and leads to poor outcomes. In an attempt to improve adherence and cardiovascular outcomes, interventions are often used. Interventions may involve a pharmacist, but it is not always clear whether these are effective.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this review is to determine whether interventions by pharmacists, alone, discussing adherence to medicines, improve adherence to medicines for cardiovascular disease. Subsequently, the review links the characteristics of the individual studies with effectiveness or lack of effect. The second objective of this review is to consider whether any improvement in adherence with interventions by pharmacist is associated with better clinical outcomes.

METHODS

A literature search of PubMed and CINAHL for 'pharmacist', 'medicine' with 'adherence' or 'compliance' or 'persistence' was undertaken. To be included in this review, papers had to be of a pharmacist working alone and in person in an intervention of subjects with hypertension, hyperlipidemia (prior to or after a coronary artery event) or heart failure. The paper had to be published in a peer review journal, with a measure of adherence to medicines. The effectiveness of the intervention had to be evaluated after ≥6 months.

RESULTS

Only 3 out of 8 interventions by pharmacists in hypertension, and 5 out of 12 interventions in subjects with hyperlipidemia led to improved adherence to medicines. In contrast, all 6 interventions by a pharmacist in subjects with heart failure were successful in improving adherence. One characteristic of successful interventions by pharmacists to improve adherence to cardiovascular medicines is that they must be more than brief/single interventions. A second characteristic is that the intervention should not involve subjects who are already highly adherent, as it is unlikely adherence can be improved in this population. Only 2 of 3 successful interventions in hypertension were associated with small reductions in blood pressure, and only one intervention in hyperlipidemia was shown to decrease LDL-cholesterol to a small extent. In subjects with heart failure, 5 of the 6 successful studies of the successful interventions by pharmacists to increase adherence also showed improved clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

When planning an intervention to improve adherence to medicines and cardiovascular outcomes in subjects with hypertension or hyperlipidemic, by a pharmacist alone, or as part of a multi-faceted interventions, it is essential to use an intervention that has been shown to be effective, as most interventions are not effective at improving adherence or only improve adherence and clinical outcomes to a small extent. In heart failure, there is well documented evidence of interventions by pharmacists that do improve clinical outcomes, which should be adopted widely.

The degree of integration of non-dispensing pharmacists in primary care practice and the impact on health outcomes: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

A non-dispensing pharmacist conducts clinical pharmacy services aimed at optimizing patients individual pharmacotherapy. Embedding a non-dispensing pharmacist in primary care practice enables collaboration, probably enhancing patient care. The degree of integration of non-dispensing pharmacists into multidisciplinary health care teams varies strongly between settings. The degree of integration may be a determinant for its success.

OBJECTIVES

This study investigates how the degree of integration of a non-dispensing pharmacist impacts medication related health outcomes in primary care.

METHODS

In this literature review we searched two electronic databases and the reference list of published literature reviews for studies about clinical pharmacy services performed by non-dispensing pharmacists physically co-located in primary care practice. We assessed the degree of integration via key dimensions of integration based on the conceptual framework of Walshe and Smith. We included English language studies of any design that had a control group or baseline comparison published from 1966 to June 2016. Descriptive statistics were used to correlate the degree of integration to health outcomes. The analysis was stratified for disease-specific and patient-centered clinical pharmacy services.

RESULTS

Eighty-nine health outcomes in 60 comparative studies contributed to the analysis. The accumulated evidence from these studies shows no impact of the degree of integration of non-dispensing pharmacists on health outcomes. For disease specific clinical pharmacy services the percentage of improved health outcomes for none, partial and fully integrated NDPs is respectively 75%, 63% and 59%. For patient-centered clinical pharmacy services the percentage of improved health outcomes for none, partial and fully integrated NDPs is respectively 55%, 57% and 70%.

CONCLUSIONS

Full integration adds value to patient-centered clinical pharmacy services, but not to disease-specific clinical pharmacy services. To obtain maximum benefits of clinical pharmacy services for patients with multiple medications and comorbidities, full integration of non-dispensing pharmacists should be promoted.

Patient-Centered Interventions to Improve Adherence to Statins: A Narrative Synthesis of Systematically Identified Studies

Poor adherence to statins increases cardiovascular disease risk. We systematically identified 32 controlled studies that assessed patient-centered interventions designed to improve statin adherence. The limited number of studies and variation in study characteristics precluded strict quality criteria or meta-analysis. Cognitive education or behavioural counselling delivered face-to-face multiple times consistently improved statin adherence compared with control groups (7/8 and 3/3 studies, respectively). None of four studies using medication reminders and/or adherence feedback alone reported significantly improved statin adherence. Single interventions that improved statin adherence but were not conducted face-to-face included cognitive education in the form of genetic test results (two studies) and cognitive education via a website (one study). Similar mean adherence measures were reported for 17 intervention arms and were thus compared in a sub-analysis: 8 showed significantly improved statin adherence, but effect sizes were modest (+7 to +22 % points). In three of these studies, statin adherence improved despite already being high in the control group (82-89 vs. 57-69 % in the other studies). These three studies were the only studies in this sub-analysis to include cognitive education delivered face-to-face multiple times (plus other interventions). In summary, the most consistently effective interventions for improving adherence to statins have modest effects and are resource-intensive. Research is needed to determine whether modern communications, particularly mobile health platforms (recently shown to improve medication adherence in other chronic diseases), can replicate or even enhance the successful elements of these interventions while using less time and fewer resources.

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.

A systematic review of interventions to improve adherence to statin medication: What do we know about what works?

Suboptimal adherence to statin medication is common and leads to serious negative health consequences but may respond to intervention. This review evaluated the effectiveness of interventions intended to improve adherence to statin medication. Data sources included peer-reviewed publications from Cochrane Register of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs), PubMed, CINAHL, and EMBase indexed between 01 October 2008 and 18 October 2015 and studies from reference lists and technical experts. RCTs that evaluated an intervention targeting adherence to self-administered statin medication for primary or secondary prevention were eligible. Two investigators independently reviewed trials, extracted data, and evaluated risk of bias. Twenty-nine RCTs reporting on 39,769 patients met inclusion. Identified RCTs exhibited methodological weaknesses: all but one failed to set inclusion parameters for medication adherence; nearly half lacked sufficient power to detect meaningful effects; and the majority had a risk of bias. Interventions were categorized into five classes (simplification of regimen, prescription cost coverage, reminders, education and information, and multi-faceted) and effects were pooled within each class. Prescription cost coverage, Hedges' g=0.15, 95%CI [0.11:0.21], simplification of drug regimen, Hedges' g=0.38, 95%CI [0.22:0.55], the provision of education, Hedges' g=0.19, 95%CI [0.01:0.37], and the use of multi-faceted interventions, Hedges' g=0.16, 95%CI [0.05:0.27], had small positive effects on statin adherence relative to usual care and reminders were promising, Hedges' g=0.0.27, 95%CI [-0.05:0.60]. In conclusion, there are some successful interventions to improve adherence to statin medication but the effects are small and additional methodologically rigorous trials are needed.

The impact of patient support programs on adherence, clinical, humanistic, and economic patient outcomes: a targeted systematic review

BACKGROUND

Patient support programs (PSPs), including medication management and counseling, have the potential to improve care in chronic disease states with complex therapies. Little is known about the program's effects on improving clinical, adherence, humanistic, and cost outcomes.

PURPOSE

To conduct a targeted review describing medical conditions in which PSPs have been implemented; support delivery components (eg, face-to-face, phone, mail, and internet); and outcomes associated with implementation.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE - 10 years through March 2015 with supplemental handsearching of reference lists.

STUDY SELECTION

English-language trials and observational studies of PSPs providing at minimum, counseling for medication management, measurement of ≥1 clinical outcome, and a 3-month follow-up period during which outcomes were measured.

DATA EXTRACTION

Program characteristics and related clinical, adherence, humanistic, and cost outcomes were abstracted. Study quality and the overall strength of evidence were reviewed using standard criteria.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Of 2,239 citations, 64 studies met inclusion criteria. All targeted chronic disease processes and the majority (48 [75%]) of programs offered in-clinic, face-to-face support. All but 9 (14.1%) were overseen by allied health care professionals (eg, nurses, pharmacists, paraprofessionals). Forty-one (64.1%) reported at least one significantly positive clinical outcome. The most frequent clinical outcome impacted was adherence, where 27 of 41 (66%) reported a positive outcome. Of 42 studies measuring humanistic outcomes (eg, quality of life, functional status), 27 (64%) reported significantly positive outcomes. Only 15 (23.4%) programs reported cost or utilization-related outcomes, and, of these, 12 reported positive impacts.

CONCLUSION

The preponderance of evidence suggests a positive impact of PSPs on adherence, clinical and humanistic outcomes. Although less often measured, health care utilization and costs are also reduced following PSP implementation. Further research is needed to better quantify which support programs, delivery methods, and components offer the greatest value for any particular medical condition.

Pharmacist intervention for blood pressure control: medication intensification and adherence

The objective of this study was to describe medication adherence and medication intensification in a physician-pharmacist collaborative management (PPCM) model compared with usual care. This study was a prospective, cluster, randomized study in 32 primary care offices from 15 states. The primary outcomes were medication adherence and anti-hypertensive medication changes during the first 9 months of the intervention. The 9-month visit was completed by 539 patients, 345 of which received the intervention. There was no significant difference between intervention and usual care patients in regards to medication adherence at 9 months. Intervention patients received significantly more medication changes (4.9 vs.1.1; P = .0003) and had significantly increased use of diuretics and aldosterone antagonists when compared with usual care (P = .01).The PPCM model increased medication intensification; however, no significant change in medication adherence was detected. PPCM models will need to develop non-adherence identification and intervention methods to further improve the potency of the care team.

Improving adherence to oral cancer therapy in clinical practice

Adherence to oral chemotherapy regimens maximizes their effectiveness and minimizes any potential toxicities. Factors specifically related to the treatment, patient, and health care provider may influence medication adherence. Treatment-related factors include the complexity of the regimen, the cost of therapy, the possibility of side effects, and the delay in treatment benefits. Meanwhile, patients may not have an adequate support system or an understanding of the need for the medication, and providers may not fully succeed in communicating the importance of adherence and the types of side effects that may occur. Nonadherence may lead to an increased risk of toxicity, decreased effectiveness, and increased utilization of health care resources. Although various methods for measuring adherence are available, self-reporting is the most widely used. Studies describing adherence in a broad range of cancers are reviewed. Treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia has been revolutionized by the development of oral tyrosine kinase inhibitors that are highly effective in managing the disease when taken consistently. However, nonadherence is relatively common and can lead to reduced rates of response and increased medical costs. Similar effects of nonadherence on outcome and cost have also been observed in patients with various other hematologic malignancies and solid tumors. Interventions to improve adherence to oral chemotherapy regimens include communication about the importance of adherence and the potential consequences of nonadherence, simplification of the patient's medication schedule (if possible), and inclusion of a caregiver or family member in the conversation. Written materials should always be provided to accompany verbal instructions. This review summarizes factors influencing medication adherence, impact of nonadherence on patient outcomes, methods for measuring adherence, previous studies of nonadherence in patients with cancer, common barriers to access, and interventions to improve adherence in the community setting.

Interventions for enhancing medication adherence

BACKGROUND

People who are prescribed self administered medications typically take only about half their prescribed doses. Efforts to assist patients with adherence to medications might improve the benefits of prescribed medications.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this review is to assess the effects of interventions intended to enhance patient adherence to prescribed medications for medical conditions, on both medication adherence and clinical outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated searches of The Cochrane Library, including CENTRAL (via http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cochranelibrary/search/), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO (all via Ovid), CINAHL (via EBSCO), and Sociological Abstracts (via ProQuest) on 11 January 2013 with no language restriction. We also reviewed bibliographies in articles on patient adherence, and contacted authors of relevant original and review articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included unconfounded RCTs of interventions to improve adherence with prescribed medications, measuring both medication adherence and clinical outcome, with at least 80% follow-up of each group studied and, for long-term treatments, at least six months follow-up for studies with positive findings at earlier time points.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted all data and a third author resolved disagreements. The studies differed widely according to medical condition, patient population, intervention, measures of adherence, and clinical outcomes. Pooling results according to one of these characteristics still leaves highly heterogeneous groups, and we could not justify meta-analysis. Instead, we conducted a qualitative analysis with a focus on the RCTs with the lowest risk of bias for study design and the primary clinical outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

The present update included 109 new RCTs published since the previous update in January 2007, bringing the total number of RCTs to 182; we found five RCTs from the previous update to be ineligible and excluded them. Studies were heterogeneous for patients, medical problems, treatment regimens, adherence interventions, and adherence and clinical outcome measurements, and most had high risk of bias. The main changes in comparison with the previous update include that we now: 1) report a lack of convincing evidence also specifically among the studies with the lowest risk of bias; 2) do not try to classify studies according to intervention type any more, due to the large heterogeneity; 3) make our database available for collaboration on sub-analyses, in acknowledgement of the need to make collective advancement in this difficult field of research. Of all 182 RCTs, 17 had the lowest risk of bias for study design features and their primary clinical outcome, 11 from the present update and six from the previous update. The RCTs at lowest risk of bias generally involved complex interventions with multiple components, trying to overcome barriers to adherence by means of tailored ongoing support from allied health professionals such as pharmacists, who often delivered intense education, counseling (including motivational interviewing or cognitive behavioral therapy by professionals) or daily treatment support (or both), and sometimes additional support from family or peers. Only five of these RCTs reported improvements in both adherence and clinical outcomes, and no common intervention characteristics were apparent. Even the most effective interventions did not lead to large improvements in adherence or clinical outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Across the body of evidence, effects were inconsistent from study to study, and only a minority of lowest risk of bias RCTs improved both adherence and clinical outcomes. Current methods of improving medication adherence for chronic health problems are mostly complex and not very effective, so that the full benefits of treatment cannot be realized. The research in this field needs advances, including improved design of feasible long-term interventions, objective adherence measures, and sufficient study power to detect improvements in patient-important clinical outcomes. By making our comprehensive database available for sharing we hope to contribute to achieving these advances.

Assessment of pharmacist-led patient counseling in randomized controlled trials: a systematic review

Background Pharmacists' counseling has improved health-related outcomes in many acute and chronic conditions. Several studies have shown how pharmacists have been contributing to reduce morbidity and mortality related to drug-therapy (MMRDT). However, there still is a lack of reviews that assemble evidence-based clinical pharmacists' counseling. Equally, there is also a need to understand structure characteristics, processes and technical contents of these clinical services. Aim of the review To review the structure, processes and technical contents of pharmacist counseling or education reported in randomized controlled trials (RCT) that had positive health-related outcomes. Methods We performed a systematic search in specialized databases to identify RCT published between 1990 and 2013 that have evaluated pharmacists' counseling or educational interventions to patients. Methodological quality of the trials was assessed using the Jadad scale. Pharmacists' interventions with positive clinical outcomes (p < 0.05) were evaluated according to patients' characteristics, setting and timing of intervention, reported written and verbal counseling. Results 753 studies were found and 101 RCT matched inclusion criteria. Most of the included RCTs showed a Jadad score between two (37 studies) and three (32 studies). Pharmacists were more likely to provide counseling at ambulatories (60 %) and hospital discharge (25 %); on the other hand pharmacists intervention were less likely to happen when dispensing a medication. Teaching back and explanations about the drug therapy purposes and precautions related to its use were often reported in RCT, whereas few studies used reminder charts, diaries, group or electronic counseling. Most of studies reported the provision of a printed material (letter, leaflet or medication record card), regarding accessible contents and cultural-concerned informations about drug therapy and disease. Conclusion Pharmacist counseling is an intervention directed to patients' health-related needs that improve inter-professional and inter-institutional communication, by collaborating to integrate health services. In spite of reducing MMRDT, we found that pharmacists' counseling reported in RCT should be better explored and described in details, hence collaborating to improve medication-counseling practice among other countries and settings.

Assessment of pharmacist-led patient counseling in randomized controlled trials: a systematic review

Background Pharmacists' counseling has improved health-related outcomes in many acute and chronic conditions. Several studies have shown how pharmacists have been contributing to reduce morbidity and mortality related to drug-therapy (MMRDT). However, there still is a lack of reviews that assemble evidence-based clinical pharmacists' counseling. Equally, there is also a need to understand structure characteristics, processes and technical contents of these clinical services. Aim of the review To review the structure, processes and technical contents of pharmacist counseling or education reported in randomized controlled trials (RCT) that had positive health-related outcomes. Methods We performed a systematic search in specialized databases to identify RCT published between 1990 and 2013 that have evaluated pharmacists' counseling or educational interventions to patients. Methodological quality of the trials was assessed using the Jadad scale. Pharmacists' interventions with positive clinical outcomes (p < 0.05) were evaluated according to patients' characteristics, setting and timing of intervention, reported written and verbal counseling. Results 753 studies were found and 101 RCT matched inclusion criteria. Most of the included RCTs showed a Jadad score between two (37 studies) and three (32 studies). Pharmacists were more likely to provide counseling at ambulatories (60 %) and hospital discharge (25 %); on the other hand pharmacists intervention were less likely to happen when dispensing a medication. Teaching back and explanations about the drug therapy purposes and precautions related to its use were often reported in RCT, whereas few studies used reminder charts, diaries, group or electronic counseling. Most of studies reported the provision of a printed material (letter, leaflet or medication record card), regarding accessible contents and cultural-concerned informations about drug therapy and disease. Conclusion Pharmacist counseling is an intervention directed to patients' health-related needs that improve inter-professional and inter-institutional communication, by collaborating to integrate health services. In spite of reducing MMRDT, we found that pharmacists' counseling reported in RCT should be better explored and described in details, hence collaborating to improve medication-counseling practice among other countries and settings.

Interventions for improving modifiable risk factor control in the secondary prevention of stroke

BACKGROUND

People with stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA) are at increased risk of future stroke and other cardiovascular events. Evidence-based strategies for secondary stroke prevention have been established. However, the implementation of prevention strategies could be improved.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of stroke service interventions for implementing secondary stroke prevention strategies on modifiable risk factor control, including patient adherence to prescribed medications, and the occurrence of secondary cardiovascular events.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (April 2013), the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group Trials Register (April 2013), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2013, issue 3), MEDLINE (1950 to April 2013), EMBASE (1981 to April 2013) and 10 additional databases. We located further studies by searching reference lists of articles and contacting authors of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of organisational or educational and behavioural interventions (compared with usual care) on modifiable risk factor control for secondary stroke prevention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors selected studies for inclusion and independently extracted data. One review author assessed the risk of bias for the included studies. We sought missing data from trialists.

MAIN RESULTS

This review included 26 studies involving 8021 participants. Overall the studies were of reasonable quality, but one study was considered at high risk of bias. Fifteen studies evaluated predominantly organisational interventions and 11 studies evaluated educational and behavioural interventions for patients. Results were pooled where appropriate, although some clinical and methodological heterogeneity was present. The estimated effects of organisational interventions were compatible with improvements and no differences in the modifiable risk factors mean systolic blood pressure (mean difference (MD) -2.57 mmHg; 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.46 to 0.31), mean diastolic blood pressure (MD -0.90 mmHg; 95% CI -2.49 to 0.68), blood pressure target achievement (OR 1.24; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.64) and mean body mass index (MD -0.68 kg/m(2); 95% CI -1.46 to 0.11). There were no significant effects of organisational interventions on lipid profile, HbA1c, medication adherence or recurrent cardiovascular events. Educational and behavioural interventions were not generally associated with clear differences in any of the review outcomes, with only two exceptions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Pooled results indicated that educational interventions were not associated with clear differences in any of the review outcomes. The estimated effects of organisational interventions were compatible with improvements and no differences in several modifiable risk factors. We identified a large number of ongoing studies, suggesting that research in this area is increasing. The use of standardised outcome measures would facilitate the synthesis of future research findings.

Collaborative Cardiovascular Risk Reduction in Primary Care II (CCARP II): Implementation of a systematic case-finding process for patients with uncontrolled risk factors

BACKGROUND

Previous pharmacist interventions to reduce cardiovascular (CV) risk have been limited by low patient enrolment. The primary aim of this study was to implement a collaborative pharmacist intervention that used a systematic case-finding procedure to identify and manage patients with uncontrolled CV risk factors.

METHODS

This was an uncontrolled, program implementation study. We implemented a collaborative pharmacist intervention in a primary care clinic. All adults presenting for an appointment with a participating physician were systematically screened and assessed for CV risk factor control by the pharmacist. Recommendations for risk factor management were communicated on a standardized form, and the level of pharmacist follow-up was determined on a case-by-case basis. We recorded the proportion of adults exhibiting a moderate to high Framingham risk score and at least 1 uncontrolled risk factor. In addition, we assessed before-after changes in CV risk factors.

RESULTS

Of the 566 patients who were screened prior to visiting a participating physician, 186 (32.9%) exhibited moderate or high CV risk along with at least 1 uncontrolled risk factor. Physicians requested pharmacist follow-up for 60.8% (113/186) of these patients. Of the patients receiving the pharmacist intervention, 65.5% (74/113) were at least 50% closer to 1 or more of their risk factor targets by the end of the study period. Significant risk factor improvements from baseline were also observed.

DISCUSSION

Through implementation of a systematic case-finding approach that was carried out by the pharmacist on behalf of the clinic team, a large number of patients with uncontrolled risk factors were identified, assessed and managed with a collaborative intervention.

CONCLUSION

Systematic case finding appears to be an important part of a successful intervention to identify and manage individuals exhibiting uncontrolled CV risk factors in a primary care setting.

Utilization of preventive care services and their effect on cardiovascular outcomes in the United States

Objective

To describe and analyze utilization of preventive care services and their effect on cardiovascular outcomes in the United States.

Methods

Data from the 2007 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) were used to analyze utilization of preventive care services and their effect on cardiovascular outcomes. Recommendations by the Seventh Report of the Joint Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Pressure and the National Cholesterol Education Program were used to determine appropriate levels of preventive care utilization. Utilization of blood pressure screening and cholesterol checkup services were used as the dependent variable, while age, gender, race, ethnicity, insurance status, and perceived health status were used as independent variables. Since guidelines differ for people with elevated blood pressure, respondents with elevated blood pressure were identified in the MEPS database by self-reported diagnosis. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the population, while a multivariate logistic regression model was built to predict odds of utilizing appropriate levels of preventive services.

Results

Total number of adult respondents for which data were available for blood pressure checkup and cholesterol checkup was 20,523 and 15,784, respectively. Overall, MEPS respondents were found to adhere to guideline recommendations for preventive care utilization. Multivariate logistic regression showed that odds of utilization of preventive care services were higher for elderly patients (age >65 years) for blood pressure (odds ratio [OR] = 2.39, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.92–2.97) and cholesterol (OR = 3.05, 95% CI: 2.18–4.27) preventive services compared with younger population (age 18–54 years). Males had much lower odds of getting blood pressure (OR = 0.33, 95% CI: 0.30–0.37) and cholesterol (OR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.50–0.70) checks done compared with females. Odds of utilization were nearly similar for all races. Uninsured had lower odds for blood pressure (OR = 0.26, 95% CI: 0.23–0.30) and cholesterol (OR = 0.30, 95% CI: 0.24–0.39) checks compared with privately insured people. Asians had lower odds of getting blood pressure checkups compared to Whites (OR = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.39–0.63). Similar trends were recorded for other covariates such as race and perceived health status.

Conclusion

The study was successful in identifying existing age, race, income, and insurance-status related disparities in preventive care utilization within a US population.