A randomized trial of an intervention to improve use and adherence to effective coronary heart disease prevention strategies

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Efficacious strategies for the primary prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD) are underused, and, when used, have low adherence. Existing efforts to improve use and adherence to these efficacious strategies have been so intensive that they are impractical for clinical practice.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a randomized trial of a CHD prevention intervention (including a computerized decision aid and automated tailored adherence messages) at one university general internal medicine practice. After obtaining informed consent and collecting baseline data, we randomized patients (men and women age 40-79 with no prior history of cardiovascular disease) to either the intervention or usual care. We then saw them for two additional study visits over 3 months. For intervention participants, we administered the decision aid at the primary study visit (1 week after baseline visit) and then mailed 3 tailored adherence reminders at 2, 4, and 6 weeks. We assessed our outcomes (including the predicted likelihood of angina, myocardial infarction, and CHD death over 10 years (CHD risk) and self-reported adherence) between groups at 3 month follow-up. Data collection occurred from June 2007 through December 2009. All study procedures were IRB approved.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We randomized 160 eligible patients (81 intervention; 79 control) and followed 96% to study conclusion. Mean predicted CHD risk at baseline was 11.3%. The intervention increased self-reported adherence to chosen risk reducing strategies by 25 percentage points (95% CI 8% to 42%), with the biggest effect for aspirin. It also changed predicted CHD risk by -1.1% (95% CI -0.16% to -2%), with a larger effect in a pre-specified subgroup of high risk patients.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>A computerized intervention that involves patients in CHD decision making and supports adherence to effective prevention strategies can improve adherence and reduce predicted CHD risk.</p> <p>Clinical trials registration number</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov: <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00494052">NCT00494052</a></p

A framework for organizing and selecting quantitative approaches for benefit-harm assessment

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Several quantitative approaches for benefit-harm assessment of health care interventions exist but it is unclear how the approaches differ. Our aim was to review existing quantitative approaches for benefit-harm assessment and to develop an organizing framework that clarifies differences and aids selection of quantitative approaches for a particular benefit-harm assessment.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We performed a review of the literature to identify quantitative approaches for benefit-harm assessment. Our team, consisting of clinicians, epidemiologists, and statisticians, discussed the approaches and identified their key characteristics. We developed a framework that helps investigators select quantitative approaches for benefit-harm assessment that are appropriate for a particular decisionmaking context.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Our framework for selecting quantitative approaches requires a concise definition of the treatment comparison and population of interest, identification of key benefit and harm outcomes, and determination of the need for a measure that puts all outcomes on a single scale (which we call a benefit and harm comparison metric). We identified 16 quantitative approaches for benefit-harm assessment. These approaches can be categorized into those that consider single or multiple key benefit and harm outcomes, and those that use a benefit-harm comparison metric or not. Most approaches use aggregate data and can be used in the context of single studies or systematic reviews. Although the majority of approaches provides a benefit and harm comparison metric, only four approaches provide measures of uncertainty around the benefit and harm comparison metric (such as a 95 percent confidence interval). None of the approaches considers the actual joint distribution of benefit and harm outcomes, but one approach considers competing risks when calculating profile-specific event rates. Nine approaches explicitly allow incorporating patient preferences.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The choice of quantitative approaches depends on the specific question and goal of the benefit-harm assessment as well as on the nature and availability of data. In some situations, investigators may identify only one appropriate approach. In situations where the question and available data justify more than one approach, investigators may want to use multiple approaches and compare the consistency of results. When more evidence on relative advantages of approaches accumulates from such comparisons, it will be possible to make more specific recommendations on the choice of approaches.</p