Secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease in different primary healthcare systems with and without pay-for-performance

Objective: To compare baseline cardiovascular risk management between people recruited from two different healthcare systems, to a research trial of an intervention to optimize secondary prevention. Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: General practices, randomly selected: 16 in Northern Ireland (NI) (UK NHS, ‘strong’ infrastructure); 32 in Republic of Ireland (RoI) (mixed healthcare economy, less infrastructure). Patients: 903 (mean age 67.5 years; 69.9% male); randomly selected, known coronary heart disease. Main outcome measures: Blood pressure, cholesterol, medications; validated questionnaires for diet (DINE), exercise (Godin), quality of life (SF12); healthcare usage. Results: More RoI than NI participants had systolic BP>140 mmHg (37% v 28%, p=0.01) and cholesterol >5mmol/l (24% v 17%, p=0.02): RoI mean systolic BP was higher (139 v 132 mm Hg). More RoI participants reported a high fibre intake (35% v 23%), higher levels of physical activity (62% v 44%), and better physical and mental health (SF12); they had more GP (5.6 v 4.4) and fewer nurse visits (1.6 v 2.1) in the previous year. Fewer in RoI (55% v 70%) were prescribed B blockers. Both groups’ ACE inhibitor (41%; 48%) prescribing was similar; high proportions were prescribed statins (84%; 85%) and aspirin (83%; 77%). Conclusions Blood pressure and cholesterol are better controlled among patients in a primary healthcare system with a ‘strong’ infrastructure supporting computerization and rewarding measured performance but this is not associated with healthier lifestyle or better quality of life. Further exploration of differences in professionals’ and patients’ engagement in secondary prevention in different healthcare systems is needed.

Identifying strategies to maximise recruitment and retention of practices and patients in a multicentre randomised controlled trial of an intervention to optimise secondary prevention for coronary heart disease in primary care.

Background Recruitment and retention of patients and healthcare providers in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is important in order to determine the effectiveness of interventions. However, failure to achieve recruitment targets is common and reasons why a particular recruitment strategy works for one study and not another remain unclear. We sought to describe a strategy used in a multicentre RCT in primary care, to report researchers’ and participants’ experiences of its implementation and to inform future strategies to maximise recruitment and retention. Methods In total 48 general practices and 903 patients were recruited from three different areas of Ireland to a RCT of an intervention designed to optimise secondary prevention of coronary heart disease. The recruitment process involved telephoning practices, posting information, visiting practices, identifying potential participants, posting invitations and obtaining consent. Retention involved patients attending reviews and responding to questionnaires and practices facilitating data collection. Results We achieved high retention rates for practices (100%) and for patients (85%) over an 18-month intervention period. Pilot work, knowledge of the setting, awareness of change in staff and organisation amongst participant sites, rapid responses to queries and acknowledgement of practitioners’ contributions were identified as being important. Minor variations in protocol and research support helped to meet varied, complex and changing individual needs of practitioners and patients and encouraged retention in the trial. A collaborative relationship between researcher and practice staff which required time to develop was perceived as vital for both recruitment and retention. Conclusions Recruiting and retaining the numbers of practices and patients estimated as required to provide findings with adequate power contributes to increased confidence in the validity and generalisability of RCT results. A continuous dynamic process of monitoring progress within trials and tailoring strategies to particular circumstances, whilst not compromising trial protocols, should allow maximal recruitment and retention.

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

Objective: To test the effectiveness of a complex intervention designed, within a theoretical framework, to improve outcomes for patients with coronary heart disease. Design: Cluster randomised controlled multicentre trial. Setting: General practices in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, regions with different healthcare systems. Participants: 903 patients with established coronary heart disease registered with one of 48 practices. Intervention: Tailored care plans for practices (practice based training in prescribing and behaviour change, administrative support, quarterly newsletter), and tailored care plans for patients (motivational interviewing, goal identification, and target setting for lifestyle change) with reviews every four months at the practices. Control practices provided usual care. Main outcome measures: The proportion of patients at 18 month follow-up above target levels for blood pressure and total cholesterol concentration, and those admitted to hospital, and changes in physical and mental health status (SF-12). Results: At baseline the numbers (proportions) of patients above the recommended limits were: systolic blood pressure greater than 140 mm Hg (305/899; 33.9%, 95% confidence interval 30.8% to 33.9%), diastolic blood pressure greater than 90 mm Hg (111/901; 12.3%, 10.2% to 14.5%), and total cholesterol concentration greater than 5 mmol/l (188/860; 20.8%, 19.1% to 24.6%). At the 18 month follow-up there were no significant differences between intervention and control groups in the numbers (proportions) of patients above the recommended limits: systolic blood pressure, intervention 98/360 (27.2%) v control, 133/405 (32.8%), odds ratio 1.51 (95% confidence interval 0.99 to 2.30; P=0.06); diastolic blood pressure, intervention 32/360 (8.9%) v control, 40/405 (9.9%), 1.40 (0.75 to 2.64; P=0.29); and total cholesterol concentration, intervention 52/342 (15.2%) v control, 64/391 (16.4%), 1.13 (0.63 to 2.03; P=0.65). The number of patients admitted to hospital over the 18 month study period significantly decreased in the intervention group compared with the control group: 107/415 (25.8%) v 148/435 (34.0%), 1.56 (1.53 to 2.60; P=0.03). Conclusions: Admissions to hospital were significantly reduced after an intensive 18 month intervention to improve outcomes for patients with coronary heart disease, but no other clinical benefits were shown, possibly because of a ceiling effect related to improved management of the disease. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN24081411.

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

Objectives: The Secondary Prevention of Heart disEase in geneRal practicE (SPHERE) trial has recently reported. This study examines the cost-effectiveness of the SPHERE intervention in both healthcare systems on the island of Ireland. Methods: Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis. A probabilistic model was developed to combine within-trial and beyond-trial impacts of treatment to estimate the lifetime costs and benefits of two secondary prevention strategies: Intervention - tailored practice and patient care plans; and Control - standardized usual care. Results: The intervention strategy resulted in mean cost savings per patient of 512.77 (95 percent confidence interval [CI], 1086.46-91.98) and an increase in mean quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) per patient of 0.0051 (95 percent CI, 0.0101-0.0200), when compared with the control strategy. The probability of the intervention being cost-effective was 94 percent if decision makers are willing to pay €45,000 per additional QALY. Conclusions: Decision makers in both settings must determine whether the level of evidence presented is sufficient to justify the adoption of the SPHERE intervention in clinical practice. Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010.

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

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

Blood pressure lowering in patients without prior cerebrovascular disease for prevention of cognitive impairment and dementia

Background: This is an update of a previous review (McGuinness 2006). Hypertension and cognitive impairment are prevalent in older people. Hypertension is a direct risk factor for vascular dementia (VaD) and recent studies have suggested hypertension impacts upon prevalence of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Therefore does treatment of hypertension prevent cognitive decline?
Objectives: To assess the effects of blood pressure lowering treatments for the prevention of dementia and cognitive decline in patients with hypertension but no history of cerebrovascular disease.
Search strategy: The Specialized Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group, The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS as well as many trials databases and grey literature sources were searched on 13 February 2008 using the terms: hypertens$ OR anti-hypertens$. Selection criteria: Randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trials in which pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions to lower blood pressure were given for at least six months.
Data collection and analysis: Two independent reviewers assessed trial quality and extracted data. The following outcomes were assessed: incidence of dementia, cognitive change from baseline, blood pressure level, incidence and severity of side effects and quality of life.
Main results: Four trials including 15,936 hypertensive subjects were identified. Average age was 75.4 years. Mean blood pressure at entry across the studies was 171/86 mmHg. The combined result of the four trials reporting incidence of dementia indicated no significant difference between treatment and placebo (236/7767 versus 259/7660, Odds Ratio (OR) = 0.89, 95% CI 0.74, 1.07) and there was considerable heterogeneity between the trials. The combined results from the three trials reporting change in Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) did not indicate a benefit from treatment (Weighted Mean Difference (WMD) = 0.42, 95%CI 0.30, 0.53). Both systolic and diastolic blood pressure levels were reduced significantly in the three trials assessing this outcome (WMD = -10.22, 95% CI -10.78, -9.66 for systolic blood pressure, WMD = -4.28, 95% CI -4.58, -3.98 for diastolic blood pressure). Three trials reported adverse effects requiring discontinuation of treatment and the combined results indicated no significant difference (OR = 1.01, 95% CI 0.92, 1.11). When analysed separately, however, more patients on placebo in Syst Eur 1997 were likely to discontinue treatment due to side effects; the converse was true in SHEP 1991. Quality of life data could not be analysed in the four studies. Analysis of the included studies in this review was problematic as many of the control subjects received antihypertensive treatment because their blood pressures exceeded pre-set values. In most cases the study became a comparison between the study drug against a usual antihypertensive regimen.
Authors' conclusions: There is no convincing evidence fromthe trials identified that blood pressure lowering in late-life prevents the development of dementia or cognitive impairment in hypertensive patients with no apparent prior cerebrovascular disease. There were significant problems identified with analysing the data, however, due to the number of patients lost to follow-up and the number of placebo patients who received active treatment. This introduced bias. More robust results may be obtained by conducting a meta-analysis using individual patient data.