9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Interventions supporting long term adherence and decreasing cardiovascular events after myocardial infarction (ISLAND): pragmatic randomised controlled trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          To test a scalable health system intervention to improve long term adherence to secondary prevention treatments among patients who have had a recent myocardial infarction.

          Design

          Three arm, pragmatic randomised controlled trial with blinded outcome assessment.

          Setting

          Nine cardiac centres in Ontario, Canada.

          Participants

          2632 patients with obstructive coronary artery disease after a myocardial infarction, identified from a centralised cardiac registry.

          Interventions

          Participants were randomised 1:1:1 to receive usual care, five mail-outs developed through a user centred design process, or mail-outs plus phone calls. The phone calls were delivered first by an interactive automated system to screen for non-adherence to treatment. Trained lay health workers followed up as necessary. Interventions were coordinated centrally but delivered from each patient’s hospital site.

          Main outcome measures

          Co-primary outcomes were completion of cardiac rehabilitation and adherence to recommended medication. Data were collected by blinded assessors through patient report and from administrative health databases at 12 months.

          Results

          2632 patients (mean age 66, 71% male) were randomised: 878 to the full intervention (mail plus phone calls), 878 to mail only, and 876 to usual care. Of the respondents, 174 (27%) of 643 in the usual care group, 200 (32%) of 628 in the mail only group, and 196 (37%) of 531 allocated to the full intervention completed cardiac rehabilitation (adjusted odds ratio 1.55, 95% confidence interval 1.18 to 2.03). In the mail plus phone group, 11.7%, 6.0%, 14.4%, 32.9%, and 35.0% reported adherence to 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 drug classes after one year, respectively, in comparison with 12.5%, 6.8%, 13.6%, 30.2%, and 36.8% in the mail only group, and 12.2%, 8.4%, 13.1%, 30.3%, and 36.1% in the usual care group, respectively (mail only v usual care, odds ratio 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.81 to 1.19; full intervention v usual care, 0.99, 0.82 to 1.20).

          Conclusions

          Scalable interventions delivered by mail plus phone can increase completion of cardiac rehabilitation after myocardial infarction but not adherence to medication. More intensive interventions should be tested to improve adherence to medication and to evaluate the association between attendance at cardiac rehabilitation and adherence to medication.

          Trial registration

          ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02382731, registered 9 March 2015 before any patient enrolment.

          Related collections

          Most cited references38

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Interventions for enhancing medication adherence.

          People who are prescribed self administered medications typically take only about half their prescribed doses. Efforts to assist patients with adherence to medications might improve the benefits of prescribed medications.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Relationship between adherence to evidence-based pharmacotherapy and long-term mortality after acute myocardial infarction.

            The extent to which drug adherence may affect survival remains unclear, in part because mortality differences may be attributable to "healthy adherer" behavioral attributes more so than to pharmacological benefits. To explore the relationship between drug adherence and mortality in survivors of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Population-based, observational, longitudinal study of 31 455 elderly AMI survivors between 1999 and 2003 in Ontario. All patients filled a prescription for statins, beta-blockers, or calcium channel blockers, with the latter drug considered a control given the absence of clinical trial-proven survival benefits. Patient adherence was subdivided a priori into 3 categories--high (proportion of days covered, > or =80%), intermediate (proportion of days covered, 40%-79%), and low (proportion of days covered, <40%)--and compared with long-term mortality (median of 2.4 years of follow-up) using multivariable survival models (and propensity analyses) adjusted for sociodemographic factors, illness severity, comorbidities, and concomitant use of evidence-based therapies. Among statin users, compared with their high-adherence counterparts, the risk of mortality was greatest for low adherers (deaths in 261/1071 (24%) vs 2310/14,345 (16%); adjusted hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.42; P = .001) and was intermediary for intermediate adherers (deaths in 472/2407 (20%); adjusted hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.25; P = .03). A similar but less pronounced dose-response-type adherence-mortality association was observed for beta-blockers. Mortality was not associated with adherence to calcium channel blockers. Moreover, sensitivity analyses demonstrated no relationships between drug adherence and cancer-related admissions, outcomes for which biological plausibility do not exist. The long-term survival advantages associated with improved drug adherence after AMI appear to be class-specific, suggesting that adherence outcome benefits are mediated by drug effects and do not merely reflect an epiphenomenon of "healthy adherer" behavioral attributes.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Full coverage for preventive medications after myocardial infarction.

              Adherence to medications that are prescribed after myocardial infarction is poor. Eliminating out-of-pocket costs may increase adherence and improve outcomes. We enrolled patients discharged after myocardial infarction and randomly assigned their insurance-plan sponsors to full prescription coverage (1494 plan sponsors with 2845 patients) or usual prescription coverage (1486 plan sponsors with 3010 patients) for all statins, beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors, or angiotensin-receptor blockers. The primary outcome was the first major vascular event or revascularization. Secondary outcomes were rates of medication adherence, total major vascular events or revascularization, the first major vascular event, and health expenditures. Rates of adherence ranged from 35.9 to 49.0% in the usual-coverage group and were 4 to 6 percentage points higher in the full-coverage group (P<0.001 for all comparisons). There was no significant between-group difference in the primary outcome (17.6 per 100 person-years in the full-coverage group vs. 18.8 in the usual-coverage group; hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82 to 1.04; P=0.21). The rates of total major vascular events or revascularization were significantly reduced in the full-coverage group (21.5 vs. 23.3; hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.90 to 0.99; P=0.03), as was the rate of the first major vascular event (11.0 vs. 12.8; hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.99; P=0.03). The elimination of copayments did not increase total spending ($66,008 for the full-coverage group and $71,778 for the usual-coverage group; relative spending, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.50 to 1.56; P=0.68). Patient costs were reduced for drugs and other services (relative spending, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.80; P<0.001). The elimination of copayments for drugs prescribed after myocardial infarction did not significantly reduce rates of the trial's primary outcome. Enhanced prescription coverage improved medication adherence and rates of first major vascular events and decreased patient spending without increasing overall health costs. (Funded by Aetna and the Commonwealth Fund; MI FREEE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00566774.).
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: clinician scientist
                Role: associate professor and scientist
                Role: biostatistician
                Role: programme director
                Role: senior scientist
                Role: professor and senior scientist
                Role: coordinator
                Role: research manager
                Role: scientist and assistant professor
                Role: associate professor
                Role: medical director and associate professor
                Role: director of research and associate professor
                Role: senior scientist
                Role: director and associate professor
                Role: professor
                Role: senior scientist and professor
                Journal
                BMJ
                BMJ
                BMJ-UK
                bmj
                The BMJ
                BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
                0959-8138
                1756-1833
                2020
                10 June 2020
                : 369
                : m1731
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Family and Community Medicine, Women’s College Hospital, 76 Grenville Street, Toronto, ON, M5S1B2, Canada
                [2 ]Institute for Health Systems Solutions and Virtual Care, Women’s College Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
                [3 ]Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
                [4 ]Institute for Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
                [5 ]ICES, Toronto, ON, Canada
                [6 ]Women’s College Research Institute, Women’s College Hospital, Toronto ON, Canada
                [7 ]Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
                [8 ]Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Hamilton Health Sciences, and McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
                [9 ]Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada
                [10 ]School of Population and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
                [11 ]Faculty of Health, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada
                [12 ]KITE Research Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
                [13 ]Department of Family and Emergency Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada
                [14 ]Cardiac Rehabilitation and Secondary Prevention Programme of St Joseph’s Health Care London, ON, Canada
                [15 ]Lawson Health Research Institute, Departments of Medicine, Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Western University, London, ON, Canada
                [16 ]Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
                [17 ]Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
                [18 ]Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: N M Ivers noah.ivers@ 123456utoronto.ca (or @noahivers on Twitter)
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2500-2435
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2516-4952
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3145-1915
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4906-0747
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3978-8961
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7063-3610
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8137-6779
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6856-879X
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2132-0703
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4192-0682
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5456-1351
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8464-1080
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7236-5522
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6206-5318
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6372-1348
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8015-8243
                Article
                iven052681
                10.1136/bmj.m1731
                7284284
                32522811
                d3419bf7-d2f3-4e6b-b8d6-e436853f72e0
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 08 April 2020
                Categories
                Research

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article