STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of a community pharmacist intervention in patients at high risk for coronary heart disease on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL) levels 1 year after completion of the Second Study of Cardiovascular Risk Intervention by Pharmacists (SCRIP- plus ). METHODS: Patients who completed the original study were invited to make a single return visit to their community pharmacy so that the pharmacist could measure their fasting LDL level using a point-of-care device. The primary outcome was change in LDL level from the 6-month (final) visit to the extended follow-up evaluation. RESULTS: Of the 359 patients who completed the original 6-month visit, data were collected for 162 (45%) patients. The mean +/- SD LDL level at completion of the original study was 107.9 +/- 33.6 mg/dl (2.79 +/- 0.96 mmol/L) (an increase of 2.7 mg/dl [0.07 mmol/L], 95% confidence interval -19.3-7.3 [-0.5-0.19]). Sixty-one (38%) patients were at the target LDL level (< 96.7 mg/dl [< 2.50 mmol/L]). CONCLUSION: The LDL reduction was maintained 1 year after completion of the extended follow-up. Since most patients were still not at the target LDL level, this finding suggests that continuing intervention is necessary to help patients reach this target.
RCT Entities:
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of a community pharmacist intervention in patients at high risk for coronary heart disease on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL) levels 1 year after completion of the Second Study of Cardiovascular Risk Intervention by Pharmacists (SCRIP- plus ). METHODS:Patients who completed the original study were invited to make a single return visit to their community pharmacy so that the pharmacist could measure their fasting LDL level using a point-of-care device. The primary outcome was change in LDL level from the 6-month (final) visit to the extended follow-up evaluation. RESULTS: Of the 359 patients who completed the original 6-month visit, data were collected for 162 (45%) patients. The mean +/- SD LDL level at completion of the original study was 107.9 +/- 33.6 mg/dl (2.79 +/- 0.96 mmol/L) (an increase of 2.7 mg/dl [0.07 mmol/L], 95% confidence interval -19.3-7.3 [-0.5-0.19]). Sixty-one (38%) patients were at the target LDL level (< 96.7 mg/dl [< 2.50 mmol/L]). CONCLUSION: The LDL reduction was maintained 1 year after completion of the extended follow-up. Since most patients were still not at the target LDL level, this finding suggests that continuing intervention is necessary to help patients reach this target.