BACKGROUND:Peripheral arterial disease patients are less likely than other high-risk patients to achieve ideal low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels. This randomized controlled trial assessed whether a telephone counseling intervention, designed to help peripheral arterial disease patients request more intensive cholesterol-lowering therapy from their physician, achieved lower LDL cholesterol levels than 2 control conditions. METHODS: There were 355 peripheral arterial disease participants with baseline LDL cholesterol ≥70 mg/dL enrolled. The primary outcome was change in LDL cholesterol level at 12-month follow-up. There were 3 parallel arms: telephone counseling intervention, attention control condition, and usual care. The intervention consisted of patient-centered counseling, delivered every 6 weeks, encouraging participants to request increases in cholesterol-lowering therapy from their physician. The attention control condition consisted of telephone calls every 6 weeks providing information only. The usual care condition participated in baseline and follow-up testing. RESULTS: At 12-month follow-up, participants in the intervention improved their LDL cholesterol level, compared with those in attention control (-18.4 mg/dL vs -6.8 mg/dL, P=.010) but not compared with those in usual care (-18.4 mg/dL vs -11.1 mg/dL, P=.208). Intervention participants were more likely to start a cholesterol-lowering medication or increase their cholesterol-lowering medication dose than those in the attention control (54% vs 18%, P=.001) and usual care (54% vs 31%, P <.001) conditions. CONCLUSION:Telephone counseling that helped peripheral arterial disease patients request more intensive cholesterol-lowering therapy from their physician achieved greater LDL cholesterol decreases than an attention control arm that provided health information alone.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Peripheral arterial diseasepatients are less likely than other high-risk patients to achieve ideal low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels. This randomized controlled trial assessed whether a telephone counseling intervention, designed to help peripheral arterial diseasepatients request more intensive cholesterol-lowering therapy from their physician, achieved lower LDL cholesterol levels than 2 control conditions. METHODS: There were 355 peripheral arterial diseaseparticipants with baseline LDL cholesterol ≥70 mg/dL enrolled. The primary outcome was change in LDL cholesterol level at 12-month follow-up. There were 3 parallel arms: telephone counseling intervention, attention control condition, and usual care. The intervention consisted of patient-centered counseling, delivered every 6 weeks, encouraging participants to request increases in cholesterol-lowering therapy from their physician. The attention control condition consisted of telephone calls every 6 weeks providing information only. The usual care condition participated in baseline and follow-up testing. RESULTS: At 12-month follow-up, participants in the intervention improved their LDL cholesterol level, compared with those in attention control (-18.4 mg/dL vs -6.8 mg/dL, P=.010) but not compared with those in usual care (-18.4 mg/dL vs -11.1 mg/dL, P=.208). Intervention participants were more likely to start a cholesterol-lowering medication or increase their cholesterol-lowering medication dose than those in the attention control (54% vs 18%, P=.001) and usual care (54% vs 31%, P <.001) conditions. CONCLUSION: Telephone counseling that helped peripheral arterial diseasepatients request more intensive cholesterol-lowering therapy from their physician achieved greater LDL cholesterol decreases than an attention control arm that provided health information alone.
Authors: Mary McGrae McDermott; Elizabeth A Hahn; Philip Greenland; David Cella; Judith K Ockene; Donna Brogan; William H Pearce; Alan T Hirsch; Kendra Hanley; Linda Odom; Shaheen Khan; Michael H Criqui; Martin S Lipsky; Stacie Hudgens Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: G H Beaton; J Milner; P Corey; V McGuire; M Cousins; E Stewart; M de Ramos; D Hewitt; P V Grambsch; N Kassim; J A Little Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 1979-12 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Mary McGrae McDermott; Aimee Luna Mandapat; Amanda Moates; Monique Albay; Eric Chiou; Lillian Celic; Philip Greenland Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2003-10-13
Authors: Scott M Grundy; James I Cleeman; C Noel Bairey Merz; H Bryan Brewer; Luther T Clark; Donald B Hunninghake; Richard C Pasternak; Sidney C Smith; Neil J Stone Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2004-08-04 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Michael D Murray; Lisa E Harris; J Marc Overhage; Xiao-Hua Zhou; George J Eckert; Faye E Smith; Nancy Nienaber Buchanan; Fredric D Wolinsky; Clement J McDonald; William M Tierney Journal: Pharmacotherapy Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 4.705
Authors: Roberta K Oka; Michael S Conte; Christopher D Owens; Joseph Rapp; Gordon Fung; Hugh F Alley; John C Giacomini; Jonathan Myers; Emile R Mohler Journal: Vasc Med Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 3.239
Authors: Margarita Alegría; Nicholas Carson; Michael Flores; Xinliang Li; Ping Shi; Anna Sophia Lessios; Antonio Polo; Michele Allen; Mary Fierro; Alejandro Interian; Aida Jimenez; Martin La Roche; Catherine Lee; Roberto Lewis-Fernández; Gabriela Livas-Stein; Laura Safar; Catherine Schuman; Joan Storey; Patrick E Shrout Journal: JAMA Psychiatry Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 21.596
Authors: Sherry L Pagoto; Mary M McDermott; George Reed; Philip Greenland; Kathy M Mazor; Judith K Ockene; Matt Whited; Kristin Schneider; Brad Appelhans; Kathy Leung; Philip Merriam; Ira Ockene Journal: Psychosom Med Date: 2012-11-28 Impact factor: 4.312
Authors: Molly E Waring; Mellanie T Hills; Darleen M Lessard; Jane S Saczynski; Brooke A Libby; Marta M Holovatska; Alok Kapoor; Catarina I Kiefe; David D McManus Journal: JMIR Cardio Date: 2019-11-14