BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Stroke is a major public health concern worldwide and survivors remain at high risk of recurrence. Secondary prevention requires management of multiple risk factors but current management is suboptimal. Evidence of the effectiveness of interventions to improve poststroke risk factor management from well-designed trials is limited. We assessed the effectiveness of a patient and general practitioner systematic follow-up intervention to improve risk factor management after stroke. METHODS: We undertook a pragmatic cluster trial involving 523 consecutive incident stroke survivors identified using the population South London Stroke Register and registered with general practices in inner-city London. Practices were randomized to receive the intervention or usual care. The intervention entailed systematically identifying stroke survivors' risk factors for recurrence and providing tailored evidence-based management advice to general practitioners, patients, and caregivers at 10 weeks, 5 months, and 8 months poststroke. The primary outcome was management of key modifiable risk factors for stroke at 1 year with 3 end points: treatment with antihypertensive therapy, treatment with antiplatelet therapy, and smoking cessation. Hierarchical testing was used to adjust for multiple endpoints. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered as number ISRCTN10730637. RESULTS: The absolute risk reduction (and 95% CI) for each outcome was -3.7% (-13.0% to 5.6%) for treatment with antihypertensives; -2.3% (-12.0% to 7.6%) for treatment with antiplatelets; and -0.6% (-14.5% to 13.5%) for smoking cessation. Treatment effects were confirmed in the generalized linear model adjusting for clustering and predefined confounders. CONCLUSIONS: No improvement in risk factor management was demonstrated as a result of this patient, caregiver, and healthcare professional systematic follow-up system. Further evidence of how to effectively alter behavior of patients/caregivers and professionals is required if tailored information on risk and its treatment is to be of any clinical benefit.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Stroke is a major public health concern worldwide and survivors remain at high risk of recurrence. Secondary prevention requires management of multiple risk factors but current management is suboptimal. Evidence of the effectiveness of interventions to improve poststroke risk factor management from well-designed trials is limited. We assessed the effectiveness of a patient and general practitioner systematic follow-up intervention to improve risk factor management after stroke. METHODS: We undertook a pragmatic cluster trial involving 523 consecutive incident stroke survivors identified using the population South London Stroke Register and registered with general practices in inner-city London. Practices were randomized to receive the intervention or usual care. The intervention entailed systematically identifying stroke survivors' risk factors for recurrence and providing tailored evidence-based management advice to general practitioners, patients, and caregivers at 10 weeks, 5 months, and 8 months poststroke. The primary outcome was management of key modifiable risk factors for stroke at 1 year with 3 end points: treatment with antihypertensive therapy, treatment with antiplatelet therapy, and smoking cessation. Hierarchical testing was used to adjust for multiple endpoints. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered as number ISRCTN10730637. RESULTS: The absolute risk reduction (and 95% CI) for each outcome was -3.7% (-13.0% to 5.6%) for treatment with antihypertensives; -2.3% (-12.0% to 7.6%) for treatment with antiplatelets; and -0.6% (-14.5% to 13.5%) for smoking cessation. Treatment effects were confirmed in the generalized linear model adjusting for clustering and predefined confounders. CONCLUSIONS: No improvement in risk factor management was demonstrated as a result of this patient, caregiver, and healthcare professional systematic follow-up system. Further evidence of how to effectively alter behavior of patients/caregivers and professionals is required if tailored information on risk and its treatment is to be of any clinical benefit.
Authors: Rebecca J Lank; Lynda D Lisabeth; Brisa N Sánchez; Darin B Zahuranec; Kevin A Kerber; Lesli E Skolarus; James F Burke; Deborah A Levine; Erin Case; Devin L Brown; Lewis B Morgenstern Journal: Neurology Date: 2019-01-04 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Judith Z Goldfinger; Ian M Kronish; Kezhen Fei; Albert Graciani; Peri Rosenfeld; Kate Lorig; Carol R Horowitz Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2012-06-15 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: J Jaime Miranda; Miguel G Moscoso; Lijing L Yan; Francisco Diez-Canseco; Germán Málaga; Hector H Garcia; Bruce Ovbiagele Journal: J Neurol Sci Date: 2017-02-15 Impact factor: 3.181
Authors: Eric M Cheng; William E Cunningham; Amytis Towfighi; Nerses Sanossian; Robert J Bryg; Thomas L Anderson; Jeffrey J Guterman; Sandra G Gross-Schulman; Sylvia Beanes; Andrea S Jones; Honghu Liu; Susan L Ettner; Jeffrey L Saver; Barbara G Vickrey Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2011-03
Authors: Teresa M Damush; Laura Myers; Jane A Anderson; Zhangsheng Yu; Susan Ofner; Gloria Nicholas; Barbara Kimmel; Arlene A Schmid; Thomas Kent; Linda S Williams Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Finlay A McAlister; Sumit R Majumdar; Raj S Padwal; Miriam Fradette; Ann Thompson; Brian Buck; Naeem Dean; Jeffrey A Bakal; Ross Tsuyuki; Steven Grover; Ashfaq Shuaib Journal: CMAJ Date: 2014-04-14 Impact factor: 8.262