A randomized trial to assess the impact of opinion leader endorsed evidence summaries on the use of secondary prevention strategies in patients with coronary artery disease: the ESP-CAD trial protocol [NCT00175240]

BACKGROUND: Although numerous therapies have been shown to be beneficial in the prevention of myocardial infarction and/or death in patients with coronary disease, these therapies are under-used and this gap contributes to sub-optimal patient outcomes. To increase the uptake of proven efficacious therapies in patients with coronary disease, we designed a multifaceted quality improvement intervention employing patient-specific reminders delivered at the point-of-care, with one-page treatment guidelines endorsed by local opinion leaders ("Local Opinion Leader Statement"). This trial is designed to evaluate the impact of these Local Opinion Leader Statements on the practices of primary care physicians caring for patients with coronary disease. In order to isolate the effects of the messenger (the local opinion leader) from the message, we will also test an identical quality improvement intervention that is not signed by a local opinion leader ("Unsigned Evidence Statement") in this trial. METHODS: Randomized trial testing three different interventions in patients with coronary disease: (1) usual care versus (2) Local Opinion Leader Statement versus (3) Unsigned Evidence Statement. Patients diagnosed with coronary artery disease after cardiac catheterization (but without acute coronary syndromes) will be randomly allocated to one of the three interventions by cluster randomization (at the level of their primary care physician), if they are not on optimal statin therapy at baseline. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients demonstrating improvement in their statin management in the first six months post-catheterization. Secondary outcomes include examinations of the use of ACE inhibitors, anti-platelet agents, beta-blockers, non-statin lipid lowering drugs, and provision of smoking cessation advice in the first six months post-catheterization in the three treatment arms. Although randomization will be clustered at the level of the primary care physician, the design effect is anticipated to be negligible and the unit of analysis will be the patient. DISCUSSION: If either the Local Opinion Leader Statement or the Unsigned Evidence Statement improves secondary prevention in patients with coronary disease, they can be easily modified and applied in other communities and for other target conditions

Secondary Prevention Medication Use After Myocardial Infarction in U.S. Nursing Home Residents

Background/objectivesSecondary prevention medications are recommended for older adults after acute myocardial infarction (AMI), but little is known about whether nursing home (NH) residents receive these medications. The objective was to evaluate new use of secondary prevention medications after AMI in NH residents who were previously nonusers and to evaluate what factors were associated with use.DesignRetrospective cohort using linked national Minimum Data Set assessments; Online Survey, Certification and Reporting records; and Medicare claims.SettingU.S. NHs.ParticipantsNational cohort of 11,192 NH residents aged 65 and older who were hospitalized for an AMI between May 2007 and March 2010, had no beta-blocker or statin use for 4 months or longer before the hospitalization, and survived 14 days or more after NH readmission.MeasurementsThe outcome was the number of secondary prevention medications initiated within 30 days of NH readmission.ResultsThirty-seven percent of residents had no secondary prevention medications initiated after AMI, 41% had 1 initiated, and 22% had 2 initiated. After covariate adjustment, fewer secondary prevention medications were used in older residents (proportional odds ratio (POR) = 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI)  = 0.40-0.57 for ≥95 vs 65-74); women (POR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.80-0.96);and those with a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order (POR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.83-0.98), functional impairment (dependent or totally dependent vs independent to limited assistance, POR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.69-0.86), and cognitive impairment (moderate to severe vs no impairment, POR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.70-0.89).ConclusionMore than one-third of older NH residents in the United States do not have any secondary prevention medications initiated after AMI, with fewer medications initiated in older residents; women; and those with, DNR orders, poor physical function, and cognitive impairment. A lack of evidence about the safety and effectiveness of secondary preventions medications in the NH population and unmeasured person-centered goals of care are plausible explanations for these findings