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: 3.58). 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.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To evaluate the effect of a cardio-renal screening programme on desired and undue drug use. Data from the PREVEND cohort (Prevention of REnal and Vascular ENd-stage Disease) were used. The drug use of screened (randomly) selected subjects (n = 2650) was compared with unscreened subjects, matched for age and sex (n = 10 434). Drug use in the overall PREVEND cohort, enriched for albuminuria (n = 6751), was also studied. Screening-related drugs (antihypertensive, antilipidaemic, antidiabetic and antithrombotic) were selected, as well as screening-unrelated drugs (benzodiazepines, drugs for acid-related disorders and painkillers). Time to first prescription after screening is presented as Kaplan-Meier curves. After 6.5 years of follow-up, the incidence of drug use was not significantly different between the screened, randomly selected and unscreened cohorts. Antihypertensives were used by 21.5 and 20.8%, respectively; antilipidaemic 12.8 and 10.2%, antidiabetics 4.0 and 3.9%, and antithrombotic 11.4 and 12.0%. Screening-unrelated drugs were used at comparable frequencies. Compared with the unscreened cohort, screening-related drugs were prescribed more frequently for subjects in the enriched cohort (25.8, 15.5, 5.5 and 13.5% for antihypertensive, antilipidaemic, antidiabetic and antithrombotic, respectively), whereas screening-unrelated drugs were used at comparable frequencies. The incidence of drug use did not differ between the screened, randomly selected and unscreened cohorts. Screening does not lead to more drug prescription, thus arguing against the fear of undue medicalization after screening. The data also show that, for screening to be successful, it should be performed in a targeted population, such as one enriched for albuminuria.
    British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 01/2008; 64(6):810-8. · 3.58 Impact Factor
  • [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
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Lack of treatment initiation or intensification might explain why some patients with type 2 diabetes do not reach target goals. The objective is to assess trends in risk factor treatment, and identify determinants for medication adjustments in patients with uncontrolled hypertension and/or hyperlipidemia. We conducted a cohort study using data from the Zwolle Outpatient Diabetes project Integrated Available Care (ZODIAC)-study in The Netherlands. Management of hypertension and hyperlipidemia was assessed yearly from 1998-2004 by measuring the percentage of patients receiving a treatment initiation or intensification among all patients with elevated risk factor levels. Generalized estimating equation analyses were performed. During the study period, the percentage of patients with an elevated total cholesterol/high-density lipoproteins ratio (>6) decreased considerably (from 29% to 4%) whereas the percentage of hypertensive patients decreased only slightly (>or= 150/85 mmHg; from 58% to 51%). Initiation of lipid-lowering therapy and intensification of antihypertensive therapy was higher in more recent years. However, still two-third of patients with insufficiently controlled blood pressure in 2003 did not receive an initiation or intensification of antihypertensive treatment in the following year. Treatment changes were mainly determined by elevated levels of the corresponding risk factor. We did not observe increased initiation rates for lipid-lowering therapy in patients with both hypertension and hyperlipidemia. Hypertension and hyperlipidemia management in type 2 diabetes patients has improved in the past decade but further improvement is possible. Greater effort is needed to stimulate medication adjustments in patients with insufficiently controlled hypertension and combined risk factors.
    Cardiovascular Diabetology 02/2007; 6:25. · 4.21 Impact Factor


Available from