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

Genetic determinants of treatment benefit of the angiotensin-converting enzyme-inhibitor perindopril in patients with stable coronary artery disease

Aims The efficacy of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE)-inhibitors in stable coronary artery disease (CAD) may be increased by targeting the therapy to those patients most likely to benefit. However, these patients cannot be identified by clinical characteristics. We developed a genetic profile to predict the treatment benefit of ACE-inhibitors exist and to optimize therapy with ACE-inhibitors. Methods and resultsIn 8907 stable CAD patients participating in the randomized placebo-controlled EUROPA-trial, we analysed 12 candidate genes within the pharmacodynamic pathway of ACE-inhibitors, using 52 haplotype-tagging-single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). The primary outcome was the reduction in cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and resuscitated cardiac arrest during 4.2 years of follow-up. Multivariate Cox regression was performed with multiple testing corrections using permutation analysis. Three polymorphisms, located in the angiotensin-II type I receptor and bradykinin type I receptor genes, were significantly associated with the treatment benefit of perindopril after multivariate adjustment for confounders and correction for multiple testing. A pharmacogenetic score, combining these three SNPs, demonstrated a stepwise reduction of risk in the placebo group and a stepwise decrease in treatment benefit of perindopril with an increasing scores (interaction P < 0.0001). A pronounced treatment benefit was observed in a subgroup of 73.5 of the patients [hazard ratio (HR) 0.67; 95 confidence interval (CI) 0.56-0.79], whereas no benefit was apparent in the remaining 26.5 (HR 1.26; 95 CI 0.97-1.67) with a trend towards a harmful effe