BACKGROUND: Many individuals at higher risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) do not receive recommended treatments. Prior interventions using personalized risk information to promote prevention did not test clinic-wide effectiveness. OBJECTIVE AND DESIGN: To perform a 9-month cluster-randomized trial, comparing a strategy of electronic health record-based identification of patients with increased CVD risk and individualized mailed outreach to usual care. PARTICIPANTS: Patients of participating physicians with a Framingham Risk Score of at least 5 %, low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol level above guideline threshold for drug treatment, and not prescribed a lipid-lowering medication were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. INTERVENTION: Patients of physicians randomized to the intervention group were mailed individualized CVD risk messages that described benefits of using a statin (and controlling hypertension or quitting smoking when relevant). MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was occurrence of a LDL-cholesterol level, repeated in routine practice, that was at least 30 mg/dl lower than prior. A secondary outcome was lipid-lowering drug prescribing. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01286311. KEY RESULTS:Fourteen physicians with 218 patients were randomized to intervention, and 15 physicians with 217 patients to control. The mean patient age was 60.7 years and 77% were male. There was no difference in the primary outcome (11.0 % vs. 11.1 %, OR 0.99, 95 % CI 0.56-1.74, P = 0.96), but intervention group patients were twice as likely to receive a prescription for lipid-lowering medication (11.9 %, vs. 6.0 %, OR 2.13, 95 % CI 1.05-4.32, p = 0.038). In post hoc analysis with extended follow-up to 18 months, the primary outcome occurred more often in the intervention group (22.5 % vs. 16.1 %, OR 1.59, 95 % CI 1.05-2.41, P = 0.029). CONCLUSIONS: In this effectiveness trial, individualized mailed CVD risk messages increased the frequency of new lipid-lowering drug prescriptions, but we observed no difference in proportions lowering LDL-cholesterol after 9 months. With longer follow-up, the intervention's effect on LDL-cholesterol levels was apparent.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Many individuals at higher risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) do not receive recommended treatments. Prior interventions using personalized risk information to promote prevention did not test clinic-wide effectiveness. OBJECTIVE AND DESIGN: To perform a 9-month cluster-randomized trial, comparing a strategy of electronic health record-based identification of patients with increased CVD risk and individualized mailed outreach to usual care. PARTICIPANTS: Patients of participating physicians with a Framingham Risk Score of at least 5 %, low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol level above guideline threshold for drug treatment, and not prescribed a lipid-lowering medication were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. INTERVENTION: Patients of physicians randomized to the intervention group were mailed individualized CVD risk messages that described benefits of using a statin (and controlling hypertension or quitting smoking when relevant). MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was occurrence of a LDL-cholesterol level, repeated in routine practice, that was at least 30 mg/dl lower than prior. A secondary outcome was lipid-lowering drug prescribing. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01286311. KEY RESULTS: Fourteen physicians with 218 patients were randomized to intervention, and 15 physicians with 217 patients to control. The mean patient age was 60.7 years and 77% were male. There was no difference in the primary outcome (11.0 % vs. 11.1 %, OR 0.99, 95 % CI 0.56-1.74, P = 0.96), but intervention group patients were twice as likely to receive a prescription for lipid-lowering medication (11.9 %, vs. 6.0 %, OR 2.13, 95 % CI 1.05-4.32, p = 0.038). In post hoc analysis with extended follow-up to 18 months, the primary outcome occurred more often in the intervention group (22.5 % vs. 16.1 %, OR 1.59, 95 % CI 1.05-2.41, P = 0.029). CONCLUSIONS: In this effectiveness trial, individualized mailed CVD risk messages increased the frequency of new lipid-lowering drug prescriptions, but we observed no difference in proportions lowering LDL-cholesterol after 9 months. With longer follow-up, the intervention's effect on LDL-cholesterol levels was apparent.
Authors: D A Wood; K Kotseva; S Connolly; C Jennings; A Mead; J Jones; A Holden; D De Bacquer; T Collier; G De Backer; O Faergeman Journal: Lancet Date: 2008-06-14 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Stacey L Sheridan; Anthony J Viera; Mori J Krantz; Christa L Ice; Lesley E Steinman; Karen E Peters; Laurie A Kopin; Danielle Lungelow Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2010-02-08
Authors: Stephen D Persell; Darren Kaiser; Nancy C Dolan; Beth Andrews; Sue Levi; Janardan Khandekar; Thomas Gavagan; Jason A Thompson; Elisha M Friesema; David W Baker Journal: Med Care Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Lori Mosca; Emelia J Benjamin; Kathy Berra; Judy L Bezanson; Rowena J Dolor; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; L Kristin Newby; Ileana L Piña; Véronique L Roger; Leslee J Shaw; Dong Zhao; Theresa M Beckie; Cheryl Bushnell; Jeanine D'Armiento; Penny M Kris-Etherton; Jing Fang; Theodore G Ganiats; Antoinette S Gomes; Clarisa R Gracia; Constance K Haan; Elizabeth A Jackson; Debra R Judelson; Ellie Kelepouris; Carl J Lavie; Anne Moore; Nancy A Nussmeier; Elizabeth Ofili; Suzanne Oparil; Pamela Ouyang; Vivian W Pinn; Katherine Sherif; Sidney C Smith; George Sopko; Nisha Chandra-Strobos; Elaine M Urbina; Viola Vaccarino; Nanette K Wenger Journal: Circulation Date: 2011-02-14 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Rita F Redberg; Emelia J Benjamin; Vera Bittner; Lynne T Braun; David C Goff; Stephen Havas; Darwin R Labarthe; Marian C Limacher; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Samia Mora; Thomas A Pearson; Martha J Radford; Gerald W Smetana; John A Spertus; Erica W Swegler Journal: Circulation Date: 2009-09-21 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Stacey L Sheridan; Lindy B Draeger; Michael P Pignone; Thomas C Keyserling; Ross J Simpson; Barbara Rimer; Shrikant I Bangdiwala; Jianwen Cai; Ziya Gizlice Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2011-12-05 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: J S Benner; L Erhardt; M Flammer; R A Moller; N Rajicic; K Changela; C Yunis; S B Cherry; Z Gaciong; E S Johnson; M C J M Sturkenboom; J García-Puig; X Girerd Journal: Int J Clin Pract Date: 2008-08-07 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Kunal N Karmali; Stephen D Persell; Pablo Perel; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Mark A Berendsen; Mark D Huffman Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-03-14
Authors: Priya B Patel; Christina L Marcaccio; Livia E V M de Guerre; Virendra I Patel; Grace Wang; Kristina Giles; Marc L Schermerhorn Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2021-10-13 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Kevin Fiscella; Paul C Winters; Michael Mendoza; Gary J Noronha; Carlos M Swanger; John D Bisognano; Robert J Fortuna Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Laney K Jones; Samuel S Gidding; Terry L Seaton; Anne Goldberg; Christina Gregor; Amy C Sturm; Ross C Brownson; Alanna Kulchak Rahm; Marc S Williams Journal: Res Social Adm Pharm Date: 2019-06-15
Authors: Barbora Silarova; Joanne Lucas; Adam S Butterworth; Emanuele Di Angelantonio; Christine Girling; Kathryn Lawrence; Stuart Mackintosh; Carmel Moore; Rupert A Payne; Stephen J Sharp; Guy Shefer; Zoe Tolkien; Juliet Usher-Smith; Matthew Walker; John Danesh; Simon Griffin Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2015-09-07 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Zainab Samaan; Karleen M Schulze; Catherine Middleton; Jane Irvine; Phillip Joseph; Andrew Mente; Baiju R Shah; Guillaume Pare; Dipika Desai; Sonia S Anand Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2013-08-20