Ted R Mikuls1, T Craig Cheetham2, Gerald D Levy3, Nazia Rashid4, Artak Kerimian3, Kimberly J Low3, Brian W Coburn5, David T Redden6, Kenneth G Saag7, P Jeffrey Foster7, Lang Chen7, Jeffrey R Curtis7. 1. Division of Rheumatology, University of Nebraska Medical Center and Veterans Affairs (VA) Nebraska-Western Iowa Health Care System, Omaha, Neb. Electronic address: tmikuls@unmc.edu. 2. Department of Research and Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena, Calif; Western University of Health Sciences, College of Pharmacy, Pomona, Calif. 3. Department of Research and Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena, Calif. 4. Drug Information Services, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Downey, Calif. 5. Division of Rheumatology, University of Nebraska Medical Center and Veterans Affairs (VA) Nebraska-Western Iowa Health Care System, Omaha, Neb. 6. Department of Biostatistics, University of Alabama at Birmingham. 7. Division of Rheumatology, University of Alabama at Birmingham.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to test a pharmacist-led intervention to improve gout treatment adherence and outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a site-randomized trial (n=1463 patients) comparing a 1-year, pharmacist-led intervention to usual care in patients with gout initiating allopurinol. The intervention was delivered primarily through automated telephone technology. Co-primary outcomes were the proportion of patients adherent (proportion of days covered ≥0.8) and achieving a serum urate <6.0 mg/dl at 1 year. Outcomes were reassessed at year 2. RESULTS: Patients who underwent intervention were more likely than patients of usual care to be adherent (50% vs 37%; odds ratio [OR] 1.68; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.30, 2.17) and reach serum urate goal (30% vs 15%; OR 2.37; 95% CI 1.83, 3.05). In the second year (1 year after the intervention ended), differences were attenuated, remaining significant for urate goal but not for adherence. The intervention was associated with a 6%-16% lower gout flare rate during year 2, but the differences did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: A pharmacist-led intervention incorporating automated telephone technology improved adherence and serum urate goal in patients with gout initiating allopurinol. Although this light-touch, low-tech intervention was efficacious, additional efforts are needed to enhance patient engagement in gout management and ultimately to improve outcomes.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to test a pharmacist-led intervention to improve gout treatment adherence and outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a site-randomized trial (n=1463 patients) comparing a 1-year, pharmacist-led intervention to usual care in patients with gout initiating allopurinol. The intervention was delivered primarily through automated telephone technology. Co-primary outcomes were the proportion of patients adherent (proportion of days covered ≥0.8) and achieving a serum urate <6.0 mg/dl at 1 year. Outcomes were reassessed at year 2. RESULTS:Patients who underwent intervention were more likely than patients of usual care to be adherent (50% vs 37%; odds ratio [OR] 1.68; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.30, 2.17) and reach serum urate goal (30% vs 15%; OR 2.37; 95% CI 1.83, 3.05). In the second year (1 year after the intervention ended), differences were attenuated, remaining significant for urate goal but not for adherence. The intervention was associated with a 6%-16% lower gout flare rate during year 2, but the differences did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: A pharmacist-led intervention incorporating automated telephone technology improved adherence and serum urate goal in patients with gout initiating allopurinol. Although this light-touch, low-tech intervention was efficacious, additional efforts are needed to enhance patient engagement in gout management and ultimately to improve outcomes.
Authors: Nathan L Kleinman; Richard A Brook; Pankaj A Patel; Arthur K Melkonian; Truman J Brizee; James E Smeeding; Nancy Joseph-Ridge Journal: Value Health Date: 2007 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Michael A Becker; H Ralph Schumacher; Robert L Wortmann; Patricia A MacDonald; Denise Eustace; William A Palo; Janet Streit; Nancy Joseph-Ridge Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-12-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Theodore R Fields; Adam Rifaat; Arthur M F Yee; Dalit Ashany; Katherine Kim; Matthew Tobin; Nicole Oliva; Kara Fields; Monica Richey; Shanthini Kasturi; Adena Batterman Journal: Semin Arthritis Rheum Date: 2016-10-24 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: W Zhang; M Doherty; T Bardin; E Pascual; V Barskova; P Conaghan; J Gerster; J Jacobs; B Leeb; F Lioté; G McCarthy; P Netter; G Nuki; F Perez-Ruiz; A Pignone; J Pimentão; L Punzi; E Roddy; T Uhlig; I Zimmermann-Gòrska Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2006-05-17 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Amir Qaseem; Russell P Harris; Mary Ann Forciea; Thomas D Denberg; Michael J Barry; Cynthia Boyd; R. Dobbin Chow; Linda L Humphrey; Devan Kansagara; Sandeep Vijan; Timothy J Wilt Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2016-11-01 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Corinna Koebnick; Annette M Langer-Gould; Michael K Gould; Chun R Chao; Rajan L Iyer; Ning Smith; Wansu Chen; Steven J Jacobsen Journal: Perm J Date: 2012
Authors: Allyce B Counsell; Amy D Nguyen; Melissa T Baysari; Diluk R W Kannangara; Andrew J McLachlan; Richard O Day Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2018-05-09 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Mark D Russell; Andrew I Rutherford; Benjamin Ellis; Sam Norton; Abdel Douiri; Martin C Gulliford; Andrew P Cope; James B Galloway Journal: Lancet Reg Health Eur Date: 2022-05-25
Authors: James R O'Dell; Mary T Brophy; Michael H Pillinger; Tuhina Neogi; Paul M Palevsky; Hongsheng Wu; Anne Davis-Karim; Jeff A Newcomb; Ryan Ferguson; David Pittman; Grant W Cannon; Thomas Taylor; Robert Terkeltaub; Amy C Cannella; Bryant R England; Lindsay N Helget; Ted R Mikuls Journal: NEJM Evid Date: 2022-02-03
Authors: Min Kyung Chung; Sung Soo Kim; Yun Hong Cheon; Seung Jae Hong; Hyo Jin Choi; Mi Ryoung Seo; Jiwon Hwang; Joong Kyong Ahn; Sang Heon Lee; Hong Ki Min; Hoon Suk Cha; Shin Seok Lee; Jennifer Lee; Ki Won Moon; Chang Keun Lee; Hyun Ok Kim; Young Sun Suh; Seung Cheol Shim; Seong Wook Kang; Jinhyun Kim; Sang Tae Choi; Jung Soo Song; Jisoo Lee Journal: J Korean Med Sci Date: 2021-08-16 Impact factor: 2.153
Authors: Samantha S R Crossfield; Lana Yin Hui Lai; Sarah R Kingsbury; Paul Baxter; Owen Johnson; Philip G Conaghan; Mar Pujades-Rodriguez Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-10-24 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Rachel Murdoch; Michael J Barry; Hyon K Choi; Daniel Hernandez; Brianne Johnsen; Manuel Labrador; Susan Reid; Jasvinder A Singh; Robert Terkeltaub; Janitzia Vázquez Mellado; Nicola Dalbeth Journal: RMD Open Date: 2021-04
Authors: Constance P Fontanet; Niteesh K Choudhry; Wendy Wood; Ted Robertson; Nancy Haff; Rebecca Oran; Ellen S Sears; Erin Kim; Kaitlin Hanken; Renee A Barlev; Julie C Lauffenburger; Candace H Feldman Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-11-24 Impact factor: 2.692