The effect of hypertension and hypercholesterolemia screening with subsequent intervention letter on the use of blood pressure and lipid lowering drugs.

Department of Social Pharmacy, Groningen University Institute for Drug Exploration (GUIDE), Groningen, the Netherlands.
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology (Impact Factor: 3.69). 04/2004; 57(3):328-36.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To evaluate the effect of a letter intervention that was send to both the participants of a population screening and their general practitioners. We also tested what predicting variables influenced the GP to actually prescribe blood pressure lowering drugs (BPLD) or lipid lowering drugs (LLD).
The study design was cross sectional, in the PREVEND outpatient clinic in Groningen University Hospital, the Netherlands. We used the clinical data of the 8592 subjects that participated in the first screening of the PREVEND study. Data on drug use was collected from community pharmacies. Drug use was measured the year before and after the screening with the subsequent intervention letter. As control population without intervention, we used the data from the InterAction DataBase (IADB) standardized for the population characteristics of the intervention group. The letter intervention was sent to participants who had shown after screening to have either an elevated blood pressure or plasma cholesterol, and the letter contained the advice to use a BPLD or LLD. Main outcome measures were proportion of patients prescribed BPLD and/or LLD in the year before and after the intervention, and variables that influence the GP to prescribe BPLD and LLD.
Data from the community pharmacy were available from 7567 (88%) subjects. 397 participants (5.2%) received a letter with advice to start a BPLD, and 326 participants (4.3%) received a letter with advice to start a LLD. The prevalence of patients who were using BPLD and LLD before the intervention was not significantly different between the intervention and control group, 16.6 (CI 95% 15.8 -17.5) vs 16.0 and 4.8 (4.4-5.3) vs 4.6, respectively. After the letter intervention, the prevalence of BPLD use was higher in the intervention group compared with the control group (19.4 [18, 5-20, 3]vs 17.0%), as was the prevalence of LLD use (7.1[6.5-7.7) vs 5.4%). The same held true for the incidence of BPLD (3.4[3.0-3.8]vs 2.5%) and LLD use (2.1 [1, 6-2, 4]vs 1.0%), respectively, in the year after the intervention. Univariate and multivariate analysis showed that a higher blood pressure and cholesterol level, but not the presence of other cardiovascular risk factors, were associated to with a greater percentage use of a BPLD and a LLD.
A population survey followed by a letter of intervention to both the patient and GP are effective to improve the use of blood pressure and lipid lowering drugs as a primary prevention in patients with hypertension and hyperlipidemia. Our therapeutic advice however, was followed only in about one of the three subjects with hypertension and one of the four subjects with hyperlipidemia. The levels of blood pressure and plasma total cholesterol are important variables influencing the GP to prescribe a BPLD and/or LLD.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Patient non-compliance with prescribed treatment is an important factor in the lack of success in cardiovascular prevention. Another important cause is non-adherence of caregivers to the guidelines. It is not known how doctors and nurses differ in the application of guidelines. Patient compliance to treatment may vary according to the type of caregiver. To compare adherence to cardiovascular prevention delivered by practice nurses and by general practitioners. Six primary health care centres in the Netherlands (25 general practitioners, six practice nurses). 701 high risk patients were included in a randomised trial. Half of the patients received nurse-delivered care and half received care by general practitioners. For 91% of the patients treatment concerned secondary prevention. The Dutch guideline on cardiovascular prevention was used as protocol. A structured self-administered questionnaire was sent by post to patients. Data were extracted from the practice database and the questionnaire. Intervention was received by 77% of respondents who visited the practice nurse compared to 57% from the general practitioner group (OR = 2.56, p < 0.01). More lifestyle intervention was given by the practice nurse; 46% of patients received at least one lifestyle intervention (weight, diet, exercise, and smoking) compared to 13% in general practitioner group (OR = 3.24, p < 0.001). In addition, after one year more patients from the practice nurse group used cardiovascular drugs (OR = 1.9, p = 0.03). Nurses inquired more frequently about patient compliance to medical treatment (OR = 2.1, p < 0.01). Regarding patient compliance, no statistical difference between study groups in this trial was found. Practice nurses adhered better to the Dutch guideline on cardiovascular prevention than general practitioners did. Lifestyle intervention advice was more frequently given by practice nurses. Improvement of cardiovascular prevention is still necessary. Both caregivers should inquire about patient adherence on a regular basis.
    International journal of nursing studies 12/2010; 48(7):798-807. · 1.91 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Journal of Clinical Hypertension 05/2004; 6(4):164-7. · 2.36 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: En la farmacia comunitaria es necesario desarrollar estrategias para valorar y mejorar el conocimiento de los pacientes sobre la enfermedad cardiovascular (ECV). Se investigó la relación entre conocimiento y riesgo cardiovascular (RCV). En 6 farmacias comunitarias de Granada, Sevilla y Málaga (Andalucía ¿ España). Se realizó un estudio observacional descriptivo durante 15 días sobre el conocimiento y RCV de pacientes. Se aplicó un cuestionario con 10 preguntas para valorar el conocimiento sobre factores de RCV y se calculó el RCV. Los análisis estadísticos utilizados fueron T de Student o X cuadrado. En los 257 pacientes incluidos, la edad promedio fue de 60,9 + 10,8 años, el 5,8% de género masculino,13,2% fuman, 79,0% tienen historia de hipertensión, 42,4% de dislipemia, 19,5% de diabetes tipo 2 y 22,6% de ECV. El puntaje promedio de conocimiento fue de 5,8 + 1,8 (IC95%:5,6-6,1) y fue valorado como adecuado en el 60,7%; (IC95%:54,7-66,7%) de los pacientes. El RCV fue: bajo 35,8%, intermedio 21,0% y alto 43,2. Una menor edad, alto nivel educativo y la práctica de actividad física regular, al igual que la percepción de los pacientes de control o normalidad de los factores de RCV se encontraron asociados con puntajes altos o mejor conocimiento. Sin embargo, no se encontraron diferencias signi- significativas en el conocimiento (p>0,05) entre los pacientes con RCV diferente. El conocimiento adecuado de los pacientes sobre los factores de RCV se asocia con una menor edad, alto nivel educativo, práctica de actividad física y percepción de normalidad de los factores de RCV, pero no con el RCV absoluto.
    Ars pharmaceutica, ISSN 0004-2927, Vol. 46, Nº. 3, 2005, pags. 279-300. 01/2005;


Available from