How can adherence to lipid-lowering medication be improved? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Medication non-adherence and uncertainty: Information-seeking and processing in the Danish LIFESTAT survey

BACKGROUND

Statins are widely prescribed to lower cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. However, statin non-adherence is very high.

PURPOSE

The aim of this paper was to investigate reasons for stopping statin treatment in the general population and to study how aspects of information-seeking and processing is associated with statin non-adherence.

METHODS

This study used a population survey on 3050 Danish residents aged 45-65 years. Reasons for statin discontinuation was studied among those who were previous statin users. The association between information seeking and processing and statin discontinuation were analysed using multivariate logistical regression models.

RESULTS

Experience of side effects and fear of side effects played an important role in the discontinuation of statin treatment. Feelings of uncertainty and confusion regarding information on statins predicted statin discontinuation. This applied to information from both mass media and from general practitioners. There was no clear pattern of information seeking and statin non-adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

The article point to the impact of information-seeking on the decision to take cholesterol-lowering medication. This included contributions from information disseminated by media outlets. Side effects and fear of side effects should be addressed in clinical practice. Health care professionals should pay attention to emotional aspects of how information is disseminated and perceived by statin users.

Interventions for improving adherence to treatment for latent tuberculosis infection: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) control relies on high initiation and completion rates of preventive treatment to preclude progression to tuberculosis disease. Specific interventions may improve initiation and completion rates. The objective was to systematically review data on determinants of initiation, adherence and completion of LTBI treatment, and on interventions to improve initiation and completion.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature (PubMed, Embase) published up to February 2014 was performed. Relevant prospective intervention studies were assessed using GRADE.

RESULTS

Sixty-two articles reporting on determinants of treatment initiation and completion were included and 23 articles on interventions. Determinants of LTBI treatment completion include shorter treatment regimen and directly observed treatment (DOT, positive association), adverse events and alcohol use (negative association), and specific populations with LTBI (both positive and negative associations). A positive effect on completion was noted in intervention studies that used short regimens and social interventions; mixed results were found for intervention studies that used DOT or incentives.

CONCLUSION

LTBI treatment completion can be improved by using shorter regimens and social interventions. Specific needs of the different populations with LTBI should be addressed taking into consideration the setting and condition in which the LTBI treatment programme is implemented.

Low Back Imaging When Not Indicated: A Descriptive Cross-System Analysis

CONTEXT

Guideline-discordant imaging to evaluate incident low back pain is common.

OBJECTIVE

We compared rates of guideline-discordant imaging in patients with low back pain in two care delivery systems with differing abilities to track care through an electronic health record (EHR), and in their patients' insurance status, to measure the association between these factors and rates of ordered low back imaging.

DESIGN

We used data from two Kaiser Permanente (KP) Regions and from OCHIN, a community health center network. We extracted data on imaging performed after index visits for low back pain from June 1, 2011, to May 31, 2012, in these systems. Adjusted logistic regression measured associations between system-level factors and imaging rates.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Imaging rates for incident low back pain using 2 national quality metrics: Clinical Quality Measure 0052, a measure for assessing Meaningful Use of EHRs, and the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set measure "Use of Imaging Studies for Low Back Pain."

RESULTS

Among 19,503 KP patients and 2694 OCHIN patients with incident low back pain, ordered imaging was higher among men and whites but did not differ across health care systems. OCHIN's publicly insured patients had higher rates of imaging compared with those with private or no insurance.

CONCLUSION

Rates of ordered imaging to evaluate incident low back pain among uninsured OCHIN patients were lower than in KP overall; among insured OCHIN patients, rates were higher than in KP overall. Research is needed to establish causality and develop interventions.

A simple informative intervention in primary care increases statin adherence

PURPOSE

To assess the effectiveness of an informative intervention on general practitioners aimed at improving patients' adherence to statin therapy.

METHODS

In the local health unit (LHU) of Bergamo, Lombardy (Italy), each general practitioner received a synthetic scientific document on dyslipidaemia and statins and aggregated data on adherence in 2006 for his/her patients compared to the means in the LHU and in his/her working district. Furthermore, a sample of seven districts received also a table of adherence levels for single patients. Patient's level data were retrieved from the health care utilisation databases of the LHU. Adherence parameters (proportion of patients with only one prescription, medication possession ratio [MPR] and proportion of non-persistent patients) were assessed after 1 year of follow-up.

RESULTS

Overall, 5833 and 4788 new statin users were enrolled before and after the intervention, respectively. The percentage of patients with only one prescription decreased from 28.0 to 23.9 % (p < 0.001). MPR increased from 70.3 to 76.0 % (p < 0.001), and proportion of patients with MPR ≥ 80 % increased from 45.4 to 56.4 % (p < 0.001). The persistence also showed an improvement, both in terms of decreasing proportion of non-persistent (from 51.9 to 41.4 %, p < 0.001) and of increasing duration of continued therapy (from 235 to 264 mean days of persistent therapy, p < 0.001). There were not significant differences between the two types of intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

This intervention resulted in an overall improvement of the short-term adherence to therapy. This tool can be replicated in other local contexts and with other chronic therapies.

The economics of medicines optimization: policy developments, remaining challenges and research priorities

BACKGROUND

This review scopes the evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions to improve suboptimal use of medicines in order to determine the evidence gaps and help inform research priorities.

SOURCES OF DATA

Systematic searches of the National Health Service (NHS) Economic Evaluation Database, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT

The majority of the studies evaluated interventions to improve adherence, inappropriate prescribing and prescribing errors.

AREAS OF CONTROVERSY

Interventions tend to be specific to a particular stage of the pathway and/or to a particular disease and have mostly been evaluated for their effect on intermediate or process outcomes.

GROWING POINTS

Medicines optimization offers an opportunity to improve health outcomes and efficiency of healthcare.

AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH

The available evidence is insufficient to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions to address suboptimal medicine use in the UK NHS. Decision modelling, evidence synthesis and elicitation have the potential to address the evidence gaps and help prioritize research.

Interventions to improve safe and effective medicines use by consumers: an overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Many systematic reviews exist on interventions to improve safe and effective medicines use by consumers, but research is distributed across diseases, populations and settings. The scope and focus of such reviews also vary widely, creating challenges for decision-makers seeking to inform decisions by using the evidence on consumers' medicines use.This is an update of a 2011 overview of systematic reviews, which synthesises the evidence, irrespective of disease, medicine type, population or setting, on the effectiveness of interventions to improve consumers' medicines use.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions which target healthcare consumers to promote safe and effective medicines use, by synthesising review-level evidence.

SEARCH METHODS

We included systematic reviews published on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects. We identified relevant reviews by handsearching databases from their start dates to March 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We screened and ranked reviews based on relevance to consumers' medicines use, using criteria developed for this overview.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standardised forms to extract data, and assessed reviews for methodological quality using the AMSTAR tool. We used standardised language to summarise results within and across reviews; and gave bottom-line statements about intervention effectiveness. Two review authors screened and selected reviews, and extracted and analysed data. We used a taxonomy of interventions to categorise reviews and guide syntheses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 75 systematic reviews of varied methodological quality. Reviews assessed interventions with diverse aims including support for behaviour change, risk minimisation and skills acquisition. No reviews aimed to promote systems-level consumer participation in medicines-related activities. Medicines adherence was the most frequently-reported outcome, but others such as knowledge, clinical and service-use outcomes were also reported. Adverse events were less commonly identified, while those associated with the interventions themselves, or costs, were rarely reported.Looking across reviews, for most outcomes, medicines self-monitoring and self-management programmes appear generally effective to improve medicines use, adherence, adverse events and clinical outcomes; and to reduce mortality in people self-managing antithrombotic therapy. However, some participants were unable to complete these interventions, suggesting they may not be suitable for everyone.Other promising interventions to improve adherence and other key medicines-use outcomes, which require further investigation to be more certain of their effects, include:· simplified dosing regimens: with positive effects on adherence;· interventions involving pharmacists in medicines management, such as medicines reviews (with positive effects on adherence and use, medicines problems and clinical outcomes) and pharmaceutical care services (consultation between pharmacist and patient to resolve medicines problems, develop a care plan and provide follow-up; with positive effects on adherence and knowledge).Several other strategies showed some positive effects, particularly relating to adherence, and other outcomes, but their effects were less consistent overall and so need further study. These included:· delayed antibiotic prescriptions: effective to decrease antibiotic use but with mixed effects on clinical outcomes, adverse effects and satisfaction;· practical strategies like reminders, cues and/or organisers, reminder packaging and material incentives: with positive, although somewhat mixed effects on adherence;· education delivered with self-management skills training, counselling, support, training or enhanced follow-up; information and counselling delivered together; or education/information as part of pharmacist-delivered packages of care: with positive effects on adherence, medicines use, clinical outcomes and knowledge, but with mixed effects in some studies;· financial incentives: with positive, but mixed, effects on adherence.Several strategies also showed promise in promoting immunisation uptake, but require further study to be more certain of their effects. These included organisational interventions; reminders and recall; financial incentives; home visits; free vaccination; lay health worker interventions; and facilitators working with physicians to promote immunisation uptake. Education and/or information strategies also showed some positive but even less consistent effects on immunisation uptake, and need further assessment of effectiveness and investigation of heterogeneity.There are many different potential pathways through which consumers' use of medicines could be targeted to improve outcomes, and simple interventions may be as effective as complex strategies. However, no single intervention assessed was effective to improve all medicines-use outcomes across all diseases, medicines, populations or settings.Even where interventions showed promise, the assembled evidence often only provided part of the picture: for example, simplified dosing regimens seem effective for improving adherence, but there is not yet sufficient information to identify an optimal regimen.In some instances interventions appear ineffective: for example, the evidence suggests that directly observed therapy may be generally ineffective for improving treatment completion, adherence or clinical outcomes.In other cases, interventions may have variable effects across outcomes. As an example, strategies providing information or education as single interventions appear ineffective to improve medicines adherence or clinical outcomes, but may be effective to improve knowledge; an important outcome for promoting consumers' informed medicines choices.Despite a doubling in the number of reviews included in this updated overview, uncertainty still exists about the effectiveness of many interventions, and the evidence on what works remains sparse for several populations, including children and young people, carers, and people with multimorbidity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This overview presents evidence from 75 reviews that have synthesised trials and other studies evaluating the effects of interventions to improve consumers' medicines use.Systematically assembling the evidence across reviews allows identification of effective or promising interventions to improve consumers' medicines use, as well as those for which the evidence indicates ineffectiveness or uncertainty.Decision makers faced with implementing interventions to improve consumers' medicines use can use this overview to inform decisions about which interventions may be most promising to improve particular outcomes. The intervention taxonomy may also assist people to consider the strategies available in relation to specific purposes, for example, gaining skills or being involved in decision making. Researchers and funders can use this overview to identify where more research is needed and assess its priority. The limitations of the available literature due to the lack of evidence for important outcomes and important populations, such as people with multimorbidity, should also be considered in practice and policy decisions.

Challenges to implementing expanded team models: lessons from a centralised nurse-led cholesterol-lowering programme

BACKGROUND

Lowering low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) is critical to lowering morbidity and mortality. To increase the percentage of patients with DM and CVD at target LDL (<100 mg/dL), we launched an expanded team-based quality improvement programme in which centralised registered nurses (RNs) followed a detailed protocol to adjust cholesterol-lowering medications. Despite the growing use of team-based approaches to improve quality of care, little remains known about how best to implement them.

PROGRAM EVALUATION

To share our experiences and lessons from operating a team-based programme, we conducted a retrospective observational analysis of administrative and clinical data on programme performance. We measured: primary care physician (PCP) and patient acceptance of the programme, number of medication adjustments, change in LDL, per cent of patients achieving target, time to LDL target and the efforts required to achieve these goals.

RESULTS

Using administrative data, we initially identified 374 potential patients for enrolment. Chart review revealed that 203 (54%) were clinically eligible. PCPs agreed to enrol 74% (150/203) of these patients. Thirty-six per cent of PCP-approved patients (54/150) could not be reached via phone and 5.3% (8/150) declined enrolment. Of patients enrolled (n=64), 50% did not complete the programme. Of those enrolled, median LDL decreased by 21 mg/dL and 52% (33/64) achieved the LDL target. Programme RNs spent 12 023 min on programme activities, of which 44.4% (5539) was related to non-enrolled patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Our adoption of a centralised expanded team-based programme for the management of LDL cholesterol uncovered many barriers to efficiency and success. Even though expanded team programmes may be supported by PCPs, the administrative efforts required to identify, enrol and continually engage eligible patients raise many concerns regarding efficiency and highlight infrastructure changes needed for successful team-based approaches.

Risk of cardiovascular disease? A qualitative study of risk interpretation among patients with high cholesterol

Background

Previous studies have shown the importance of paying attention to lay peoples’ interpretations of risk of disease, in order to explain health-related behavior. However, risk interpretations interplay with social context in complex ways. The objective was to explore how asymptomatic patients with high cholesterol interpret risk of cardiovascular disease.

Methods

Fourteen patients with high cholesterol and risk of cardiovascular disease were interviewed, and patterns across patient accounts were identified and analysed from an ethnographic approach.

Results

Information from the general practitioner about high cholesterol and risk of cardiovascular disease was reinterpreted in everyday social life. The risk associated with fatty foods was weighed against the pleasures of social and cultural events in which this type of food was common and cherished.

A positive mindset was applied as a strategy to lower the risk of having high cholesterol, but knowledge about risk was viewed as a cause of anxiety and self-absorption, and this anxiety made the body susceptible to disease, hampering the chances for healthy life.

Conclusion

Interpretations of high cholesterol and risk of cardiovascular disease are embedded in social relations and everyday life concerns. This should be addressed in general practice in preference-sensitive cases about risk-reducing medication.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01187056

The association between achieving low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal and statin treatment in an employee population

Statin medications are recommended for patients who have not achieved low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals through lifestyle modifications. The objective of this retrospective observational study was to examine statin medication usage patterns and the relationship with LDL-C goal levels (according to Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines) among a cohort of employees of a major financial services corporation. From 1995 to 2004, a total of 1607 executives participated in a periodic health examination program. An index date was assigned for each study participant (date of their exam) and statin medication usage was determined from the pharmacy claims database for 365 days before the index date. Patients were identified as adherent to statins if the medication possession ratio was > or =80%. In all, 150 (9.3%) executives filled at least 1 statin prescription in the 365 days prior to their exam. A total of 102 statin users (68%) were adherent to statin medication. Among all executives who received statin treatment, 70% (odds ratio [OR] = 2.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.82, 2.90) achieved near-optimal (<130 mg/dL) and 30% (OR = 1.78, 95% CI = 1.15, 2.76) achieved optimal (<100 mg/dL) LDL-C goals, which is significantly higher than the rates among statin nonusers (55% and 21%). Adherent statin users were more likely to achieve recommended near-optimal LDL-C goals compared to statin nonusers (overall P = 0.002; adherent: OR = 2.75, 95% CI = 1.662, 4.550), while nonadherent statin users were more likely to achieve the optimal goal compared to statin nonusers (OR = 2.223; CI = 1.145, 4.313). Statin usage was associated with improvements in LDL-C goal attainment among executives who participated in a periodic health examination. Appropriate statin medication adherence should be encouraged in working populations in order to achieve LDL-C goals.

The RISAP-study: a complex intervention in risk communication and shared decision-making in general practice

Background

General practitioners (GPs) and patients find it difficult to talk about risk of future disease, especially when patients have asymptomatic conditions, and treatment options are unlikely to cause immediate perceptible improvements in well-being. Further studies in risk communication training are needed. Aim:1) to systematically develop, describe and evaluate a complex intervention comprising a training programme for GPs in risk communication and shared decision-making, 2) to evaluate the effect of the training programme on real-life consultations between GPs and patients with high cholesterol levels, and 3) to evaluate patients' reactions during and after the consultations.

Methods/Design

The effect of the complex intervention, based around a training programme, will be evaluated in a cluster-randomised controlled trial with an intervention group and an active control group with 40 GPs and 280 patients in each group.

The GPs will receive a questionnaire at baseline and after 6 months about attitudes towards risk communication and cholesterol-reducing medication. After each consultation with a participating high cholesterol-patient, the GPs will complete a questionnaire about decision satisfaction (Provider Decision Process Assessment Instrument). The patients will receive a questionnaire at baseline and after 3 and 6 months. It includes questions about adherence to chosen treatment (Morisky Compliance Scale), self-rated health (SF-12), enablement (Patient Enablement Instrument), and risk communication and decision-making effectiveness (COMRADE Scale). Prescriptions, contacts to the health services, and cholesterol level will be drawn from the registers.

In each group, 12 consultations will be observed and tape-recorded. The patients from these 24 consultations will be interviewed immediately after the consultation and re-interviewed after 6 months.

Eight purposefully selected GPs from the intervention group will be interviewed in a focus group 6 months after participation in the training programme.

The process and context of the RISAP-study will be investigated in detail using an action research approach, in order to analyse adaptation of the intervention model to the specific context.

Discussion

This study aims at providing GPs and patients with a firm basis for active deliberation about preventive treatment options, with a view to optimising adherence to chosen treatment.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Protocol Registration System NCT01187056

Individual patients hold different beliefs to prescription medications to which they persist vs nonpersist and persist vs nonfulfill

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to explore whether adults hold different beliefs about medications to which they persist vs nonpersist and persist vs nonfulfull.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of adults with asthma, hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, osteoporosis, or other cardiovascular disease from the Harris Interactive Chronic Illness Panel. A quota was set to obtain a sample of respondents who were persistent to a medication for one disease and nonpersistent or nonfulfilling to a medication for a second, different disease. Respondents completed 32 items yielding five multi-item scales: perceived need for medication (k = 12), side-effect concerns (k = 5), medication-safety concerns (k = 5), perceived disease severity (k = 3), and knowledge about the prescribed medication (k = 7). Respondents completed the 32 items twice - once for their persistent medication and a second time for their nonpersistent or nonfulfilling medication. Paired sample t-tests (bivariate) and generalized estimating equations (GEE) models (multivariate) were used to test the study hypotheses.

RESULTS

Overall, 178 respondents were sampled for being persistent to one medication and nonpersistent to another, while 48 respondents were persistent to one medication and nonfulfilling to a second. For the medication to which an individual patient was persistent vs nonpersistent, there was significantly higher perceived need, fewer side-effect concerns, higher perceived disease severity, and better knowledge about the medication. For the medication to which an individual patient was persistent vs nonfulfilling, there was significantly higher perceived need, fewer side-effect concerns, and better knowledge about the medication.

CONCLUSION

Individual patients hold different beliefs about medications to which they persist vs nonpersist or nonfulfill. Patients exhibit different medication-taking behaviors for different medications because they weigh the perceived risks and benefits for each medication separately. These results suggest that adherence interventions should be tailored to patients' beliefs about specific medications.

Improving the physician-patient cardiovascular risk dialogue to improve statin adherence

Background

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a patient education program developed to facilitate statin adherence.

Methods

A controlled trial was designed to test the effectiveness of a multifaceted patient education program to facilitate statin adherence. The program included a brief, in-office physician counseling kit followed by patient mailings. The primary end point was adherence to filling statin prescriptions during a 120-day period. Patients new to statins enrolled and completed a survey. Data from a national pharmacy claims database were used to track adherence.

Results

Patients new to statin therapy exposed to a patient counseling and education program achieved a 12.4 higher average number of statin prescription fill days and were 10% more likely to fill prescriptions for at least 120 days (p = .01).

Conclusion

Brief in-office counseling on cardiovascular risk followed by patient education mailings can be effective in increasing adherence. Physicians found a one-minute counseling tool and pocket guidelines useful in counseling patients.

Retrospective comparison of the effectiveness of a fenofibrate 145 mg formulation compared with the standard 160 mg tablet

OBJECTIVE

To compare changes in lipid levels (total cholesterol [total-C], low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C], triglycerides [TG], and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol [HDL-C]) for patients who switched from standard fenofibrate 160 mg (requiring dosing with food) to fenofibrate 145 mg with no food effect (NFE).

METHODS

The analyses were performed using an electronic medical records dataset from 1 January 2003 to 31 July 2005. Patients were eligible for the analysis if they had a diagnosis of hypertension, dyslipidaemia or diabetes mellitus, were written a prescription for standard fenofibrate 160 mg during the period 1 May 2004 to 30 April 2005, and were written a subsequent prescription for fenofibrate 145 mg NFE at least 60 days after first receiving the 160 mg dose. The outcomes measured were lipid levels: total-C, LDL-C, HDL-C and TG.

RESULTS

491 patients who switched from standard fenofibrate 160 mg to fenofibrate 145 mg NFE met all of the inclusion criteria. Patients who changed therapy to fenofibrate 145 mg NFE from standard fenofibrate 160 mg showed a beneficial response in lipid levels. Statistically significant patient-specific changes in lipid levels were observed for the change from baseline to standard fenofibrate 160 mg for three lipid levels (total-C, HDL-C and TG). Statistically significant changes were observed for the switch to fenofibrate 145 mg NFE for three lipid levels (total-C, LDL-C and TG).

CONCLUSIONS

More patients treated in an outpatient clinical practice had better lipid results when prescribed fenofibrate 145 mg NFE than those prescribed standard fenofibrate 160 mg, suggesting that a less restrictive dosing regimen improves lipid outcomes.

Exploring the gap between National Cholesterol Education Program guidelines and clinical practice in secondary care: results of a cross-sectional study involving over 10 000 patients followed in different specialty settings across Italy

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate implementation of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) control recommendations in secondary care and explore key points in the decisional workup.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In a nationwide survey of secondary-care outpatients (n=11,124), we studied prevalence/predictors of (1) LDL-C value availability; (2) ongoing treatment with statins; (3) achievement of US National Cholesterol Education Program III target LDL-C values. Agreement between US National Cholesterol Education Program III risk category and physicians' personal risk assessments was also studied. LDL-C values were available for 78% evaluable patients; 71% of the patients with dyslipidema were undergoing treatment with statins; 34% patients undergoing treatment had target LDL-C values. At regression analysis, non-availability of LDL-C values was predicted by absence of diabetes, presence of normotension, and advancing age; lack of statins treatment by female sex, diabetes, overweight and northern location (southern location predicted treatment); non-achievement of target LDL-C values by age, diabetes, attending a diabetic clinic, cigarette smoking, history of cardiovascular disease, and taking less than six pills per day. Physicians provided underestimates of patients' risk (39% high-risk patients were rated as intermediate-risk patients and a further 10% as low-risk patients).

CONCLUSION

Suboptimal prevention practice seems to be associated with various factors acting at different levels within the complex process running from individual risk-level ascertainment to LDL-C target achievement. Multicomponent interventions that target the different key steps need to be considered.