Upload
others
View
5
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Accepted Manuscript
Effectiveness of Community Pharmacist Prescribing and Care on Cardiovascular RiskReduction: Randomized Controlled RxEACH Trial
Ross T. Tsuyuki, BSc(Pharm), PharmD, MSc, FCSHP, FACC, Yazid N. Al Hamarneh,BSc(Pharm), PhD, Charlotte A. Jones, MD, PhD, FRCP(c), Brenda R. Hemmelgarn,MD, PhD, FRCP(c)
PII: S0735-1097(16)32407-X
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2016.03.528
Reference: JAC 22446
To appear in: Journal of the American College of Cardiology
Received Date: 29 February 2016
Revised Date: 24 March 2016
Accepted Date: 25 March 2016
Please cite this article as: Tsuyuki RT, Al Hamarneh YN, Jones CA, Hemmelgarn BR, Effectivenessof Community Pharmacist Prescribing and Care on Cardiovascular Risk Reduction: RandomizedControlled RxEACH Trial, Journal of the American College of Cardiology (2016), doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2016.03.528.
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service toour customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergocopyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Pleasenote that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and alllegal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1
Effectiveness of Community Pharmacist Prescribing and Care on Cardiovascular Risk Reduction: Randomized Controlled RxEACH Trial
Ross T. Tsuyuki, BSc(Pharm), PharmD, MSc, FCSHP, FACC1, Yazid N. Al Hamarneh, BSc(Pharm), PhD1, Charlotte A. Jones, MD, PhD, FRCP(c)2, Brenda R Hemmelgarn, MD, PhD, FRCP(c)3 1. EPICORE Centre, Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB. Mazankowski Alberta Heart Institute. [email protected]; [email protected] 2. Southern Medical Program, University of British Columbia, Kelowna, BC. [email protected] 3. Department of Community Health Sciences and Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. [email protected] Brief Title: Pharmacist Prescribing to Reduce Cardiovascular Risk Acknowledgements We would like to acknowledge the funders of RxEACH: Alberta Health (Workforce Planning), The Cardiovascular Health and Stroke Strategic Clinical Network of Alberta Health Services (Agnes Lehman, Louise Morin, Dr. Blair O’Neill, Balraj Mann, Dr. Norm Campbell, and Dr. James Stone), the Interdisciplinary Chronic Disease Collaboration (Sarah Gil), and Merck Canada (investigator-initiated funding for the educational program). We would also like to acknowledge Craig Curtis and Carlee Balint (research pharmacists), Ian Creuer from the Pharmacy Department of Alberta Health Services, and Imran Hassan (biostatistician) from EPICORE Centre for their support. And, none of this could have taken place without the dedication, caring and courage of the RxEACH investigators, listed in descending order of recruitment: Jen Winter and Lonni Johnson (Winter's Pharmacy, Drayton Valley), Tyler Watson and Andrew Fuller (Pharmacare Specialty Pharmacy, Edmonton), Janelle Fox (Pharmasave #325, Bonnyville), Rick Siemens (London Drugs #38, Lethbridge), Jasbir Bhui and Jasmine Basi (Medicine Shoppe #170, Edmonton), Murtaza Hassanali, Shamas Arshad and Manpreet Mann (Shoppers Drug Mart #371, Edmonton), Theresa Lawrence, Michelle Ewen and Maged Radwan (Rexall Pharmacy #7222 and #7266, Blairmore and Pincher Creek), Anita and Bob Brown (Shoppers Drug Mart #2401, Okotoks), Leanna St. Onge, Otti Gohrbandt and Chelsey Collinge (Co-op Pharmacy, Rocky Mountain House), Jelena Okuka and Michelle Teasdale (Co-op Pharmacy, Lloydminster), Hyder Mohammed (Shoppers Drug Mart #2318, Lethbridge), Gehan Rizkalla (Loblaws Pharmacy #4950, Leduc), Dixied Richardson (Safeway Pharmacy #848, Edmonton), Roberta Taylor (Roots & Berries Pharmacy, Maskwacis), Marnie Kachman and Kristy Russ (Medicine Shoppe #264, Leduc), Anita Wong (Rexall Pharmacy #9801, Edmonton), Sheilah Kostecki (Safeway Pharmacy #2730, Calgary), Terrilynn Eriksen and Sharon Beaudry (Costco Pharmacy #254, Grande Prairie), Nader Hammoud (Shoppers Drug Mart #2326, Calgary), Jim Kitagawa (Pharmasave #345, Brooks), Morenike Olaosebikan (Shoppers Drug Mart #381, Edmonton), Rosalia Yeun (Medicine Shoppe #328, Edmonton), Carlene Oleskyn and Jelena Okuka (Meridian Pharmacy, Stony Plain), Dactin and Monika Tran (Sandstone Sarcee, Calgary), Rita
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
2
Lyster and Alex Lischuk (Ritas Apothecary, Barrhead), Barb Bryan and Arin Getz (Sobeys Pharmacy #1129, Calgary), Lyn Gilmore and Rick Krieser (Shoppers Drug Mart #2374, Edmonton), Nermen Kassam (Pharmacy Plus Ltd, Calgary), Azita Rezai (Shoppers Drug Mart #385, Calgary), Tony Nickonchuk, Stacy Billows (Walmart Pharmacy #1068, Peace River), Piere Danis, Brittany Dyjur and Meghan Gainer (Safeway Pharmacy #861, Edmonton), Paulise Ly (Walmart Pharmacy #1144, Calgary), Jody Keller and Wade Mannle (Pharmasave #378, Carstairs), Uzma Saeed (Walmart Pharmacy #1071, Vegreville), Rick Mah (Sobeys Pharmacy #1139, Calgary), Ken Pitcher (Save-On Foods Pharmacy #6642, Lethbridge), Mike, Pat and Vanda Kinshella (Value Drug Mart, Peace River), Nadine Abou-Khair, Aileen Coutts and Sonal Ejner (Coop Pharmacy, Calgary), Duy Troung (Shoppers Drug Mart #2300, St. Albert), Janice Chua (Shoppers Drug Mart #324, Wetaskiwin), Brendan Ihijerika (Guardian Pharmacy, Mundare), Marlene Bykowski (Remedy Rx 222, St. Albert), Jaclyn Katelnikoff (Stafford Pharmacy, Lethbridge), Rashid Jomha (Sobeys Pharmacy #3132, Edmonton), Nick Leong (Shoppers Drug Mart #328, Edmonton), Peter Lok (Shoppers Drug Mart #357, Ponoka), Kim Lau (Remedy's Rx #223, Calgary), Brittany Zelmer (Safeway Pharmacy #864, Edmonton), Anar Dato (Shoppers Drug Mart #2391, Calgary), Kelly Laforge (Shoppers Drug Mart #2448, Edmonton), Todd Pranchau (Shoppers Drug Mart #2450, Sylvan Lake), Folake Adeniji (Shoppers Drug Mart #310, Leduc), Brad Couldwell and Trudy Arbo (Shoppers Drug Mart #321, Calgary), Anita and Reid McDonald (Sunset Ridge Pharmacy, Calgary), Jacki Swindelhurst (Rexall Pharmacy #7245, Drayton Valley). Funding for the RxEACH study was provided by Alberta Health, the Cardiovascular Health and Stroke Strategic Clinical Network of Alberta Health Services and Merck Canada (for development of the educational materials only). None of these sponsors had any role in the design, conduct, collection, analysis or interpretation or data or the preparation, review or approval of this manuscript. Disclosures: Ross T. Tsuyuki: Investigator-Initiated Research Grants from: Merck, Sanofi, AstraZeneca Consulting: Merck All other authors have no disclosures. Corresponding Author: Ross T. Tsuyuki BSc(Pharm), PharmD, MSc, FCSHP, FACC Professor of Medicine (Cardiology), Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry University of Alberta EPICORE Centre, 4-000 Research Transition Facility University of Alberta Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2V2 Telephone: 780-492-8526 Fax: 780-492-6059 E-mail: [email protected]
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
3
ABSTRACT Background: Despite the risk associated with hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, and smoking, these cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors remain poorly identified and controlled. Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of a community pharmacy-based case finding and intervention on cardiovascular risk. Methods: RxEACH was a randomized trial conducted in 56 community pharmacies across Alberta, Canada. Participants were recruited by their pharmacist, enrolling adults at high risk for CVD: those with diabetes, chronic kidney disease, previous vascular disease and/or Framingham Risk > 20% with ≥1 uncontrolled risk factor (blood pressure, LDL-cholesterol (LDL-c), HbA1c, or smoking). Patients were randomized to intervention or usual care groups. Intervention group received a Medication Therapy Management review from their pharmacist with CVD risk assessment and education. Pharmacists prescribed medications and ordered laboratory tests as per their scope of practice to achieve treatment targets. Subjects received monthly follow-up visits for 3 months. Usual care group received usual pharmacist care with no specific intervention. Primary outcome was difference in change in estimated CVD risk between intervention and usual care groups at 3 months. CVD risk was estimated using the greater of Framingham, International Score, or United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study risk engines. Results: We enrolled 723 patients. Mean age was 62 (standard deviation, SD 12) years, 58% male and 27% smokers. After adjusting for baseline values and center effect, there was a 21% difference in CVD risk (p<0.001) between intervention and usual care groups. Intervention group had greater reductions of 0.2 mmol/L in LDL-c (p<0.001), 9.37 mmHg systolic blood pressure (p<0.001), 0.92% HbA1c (p<0.001), and 20.2% in smoking cessation (p=0.002). Conclusions: RxEACH was the first large randomized trial of CVD risk reduction by community pharmacists, demonstrating a significant reduction in the risk for CVD events. Engagement of community pharmacists with an expanded scope of practice could have significant public health implications. Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01979471 Key Words: blood pressure, dyslipidemia, diabetes, smoking, cardiovascular risk, pharmacists Abbreviations ACR = albumin to creatinine ratio ASA = acetylsalicylic acid, aspirin CVD = cardiovascular disease eGFR = estimated glomerular filtration rate HbA1c = glycated hemoglobin LDL-c = low density lipoprotein cholesterol SD = standard deviation UKPDS = United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
4
Introduction
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death worldwide, accounting for nearly
one third of all deaths (1). Most CVDs are caused by modifiable risk factors, including tobacco
smoking, hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes, physical inactivity, high fat diet and obesity (1).
Despite decreases in rates over the last few decades, CVDs remain one of the leading causes of
death in Canada and the United States (2, 3). CVD also carries a financial burden on the North
American economy with a cost close to $ 21 billion every year divided between loss of
productivity and healthcare costs in Canada (2) and $444 billion overall cost in the US (4).
Notwithstanding major advances in treatment, the prevalence of poorly controlled CVD risk
factors is still substantial in North America (5,-7). Recent studies have indicated that almost 50%
of the community dwelling patients with type 2 diabetes are not at their HbA1c, (8) or
cholesterol (9,10) targets, and between 50-62% are not at their blood pressure targets (9,10). In
one of these studies, only 13% achieved the composite triple target (10). Furthermore, less than
half of the patients with hyperlipidemia were reportedly receiving the appropriate treatment (9).
Guidelines recommend using CVD risk assessment equations to guide prevention and
management (11). Despite this, it is often not integrated into clinicians’ daily routine. In one
study, the majority of the patients attending physicians’ clinics reported that they had never
undergone cardiovascular risk assessment (11). Taken together, the high prevalence of CVD and
suboptimal assessment and management of risk factors indicate the need to consider alternative
approaches to this major public health problem.
Community pharmacists are accessible primary healthcare professionals who frequently see
patients with chronic diseases (12); as such, they are well positioned to identify patients with/at
high risk for CVD, determine their CVD risk and assist in their disease management. The
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
5
efficacy of pharmacists’ intervention on individual CVD risk factors has been well demonstrated
(13-17), however their role in targeting multiple risk factors to reduce overall CVD risk has not
been determined. Expansion of the scope of practice of pharmacists; such as in Alberta, Canada,
provides an opportunity for pharmacists to independently prescribe and order laboratory tests.
These added privileges might help to address the phenomenon of therapeutic inertia (18) in the
community.
The purpose of the RxEACH study was to develop and implement a broad-based community
pharmacist-initiated vascular risk reduction case-finding and intervention program in patients at
high risk for cardiovascular disease and to evaluate its impact on risk for cardiovascular events.
Methods
The RxEACH study was a multicenter randomized controlled trial with the patient as the unit of
randomization (Figure 1), conducted in 56 community pharmacies in the province of Alberta,
Canada.
We included adults (≥18 years of age) who were at high risk for cardiovascular events: those
with diabetes, chronic kidney disease (estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of
<60mL/min/1.73m2 upon 2 consecutive measurements within a 3-month period or albumin to
creatinine ratio (ACR) of ≥30 (single measurement), or between 3-29 on 2 consecutive
measurements within a 3-month period), had established atherosclerotic vascular disease (via
patient health records or self-report) including cerebrovascular disease (prior stroke or transient
ischemic attack), cardiovascular disease (myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome, stable
angina, or revascularization), or peripheral arterial disease (symptomatic and/or ankle brachial
index <0.9), or primary prevention patients with multiple risk factors and Framingham risk score
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
6
>20%. In addition, subjects must have had at least one uncontrolled risk factor (blood pressure
>140/90 or >130/80mmHg if diabetic, LDL-c >2.0 mmol/L, HbA1c >7.0%, or current smoker).
We excluded patients who were unwilling to participate or provide written informed consent,
unwilling or unable to participate in regular follow-up visits, or were pregnant.
Pharmacists used a proactive case-finding strategy (19), to identify potential participants, which
focused on their high-risk patients who were receiving metformin (as a marker for Type 2
diabetes), clopidogrel or ASA (for coronary artery disease), antihypertensive agents, statins for
dyslipidemic patients, and known smokers. In addition, pharmacists used newspaper or other
advertising outlets, or in pharmacy heart health clinics.
After obtaining written informed consent, patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to intervention
or usual care groups using a centralized secure website at the data management center
(EPICORE Centre). The randomization scheme was blocked (random block size) and stratified
by pharmacy.
Baseline assessment of cardiovascular risk factors was conducted and the patient’s family
physician was informed of the patient’s inclusion into the study. Any subsequent changes made
to participants’ treatment regimens were also communicated to the physician (as per usual
pharmacist practice in Alberta).
Intervention: Patients randomized to the intervention group received a Medication Therapy
Management consultation from their pharmacist (in Alberta, called a Comprehensive Annual
Care Plan or Standard Medication Management Assessment), which included:
• Patient assessment (blood pressure measurement according to Canadian Hypertension
Education Program guidelines (20), waist circumference, weight and height
measurements)
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
7
• Laboratory assessment of HbA1c, fasting cholesterol profile (if not done within the past 3
months) eGFR and ACR (if not done within the past 12 months)
• Individual assessment of CVD risk and education about this risk:
o The cardiovascular risk was calculated using an online tool. Our system used the
appropriate risk engine based on the patient’s medical history. The United Kingdom
Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) risk engine (21), the International model for
prediction of recurrent cardiovascular disease (22) and Framingham (23) were used
for patients with diabetes, previous vascular disease, CKD or primary prevention,
respectively. In the case where a patient had more than one co-morbidity, the risk
engine estimating the highest risk was used.
o Discussion of CVD risk with the patient using the interactive online tool to explain
his/her individual cardiovascular risk and targets for intervention (see
www.epicore.ualberta.ca/CVrisk) and healthy lifestyle options.
• Providing treatment recommendations based upon the most up to date Canadian clinical
practice guidelines for cardiovascular risk factors
• Prescription adaptation(s), and/or de novo prescriptions where necessary to meet lipid,
blood pressure and glycemic control targets and smoking cessation.
• Regular communication with the patient’s family physician after each contact with the
patient
• Regular follow-up with all patients a minimum of every 3-4 weeks for 3 months
Pharmacists in Alberta can bill the provincial health plan for providing such services.
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
8
Usual care: Patients randomized to the usual care group received usual pharmacist care with no
specific interventions for 3 months. At the end of the 3 months of the usual care period, all
patients were offered the intervention outlined above.
Outcomes: The primary outcome was the difference in change in estimated cardiovascular risk
between intervention and usual care groups at 3 months. We defined cardiovascular risk as the
risk for future cardiovascular events (e.g., myocardial infarction, revascularization,
cardiovascular death) as calculated by the validated risk engines as described above. Secondary
outcomes included the difference in change in individual cardiovascular risk factors between
intervention and usual care groups at 3 months, including systolic and diastolic blood pressure,
LDL-c, HbA1c, and smoking cessation.
Sample size and analytical plan: Using the information from Grover and colleagues (24)
(baseline CVD risk and standard deviation), a reduction in estimated risk for cardiovascular
events of 25% in the intervention group and 17.5% in the control group (absolute difference of
7.5%), assuming 90% power and a 2-sided alpha of 0.05, required an overall sample size of 674
patients (337 in each group). This sample size was inflated to 704 (352 in each group) to account
for possible dropouts, losses to follow-up and withdrawals of consent.
All analyses were conducted on an intention to treat basis. In the case of missing data, a last
observation carried forward approach was used. The primary outcome was analyzed using
ANCOVA, adjusting for center effect and all covariates with p<0.25 between groups. Secondary
outcomes of blood pressure, dyslipidemia and HbA1c were analyzed using ANCOVA, adjusting
for center effect and all covariates with p<0.25 between groups. Smoking cessation was analyzed
using Chi Square.
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
9
Data and trial management and biostatistical support was provided by EPICORE Centre
(www.epicore.ualberta.ca).
Pharmacist Training: Pharmacist training was based on the current Canadian guidelines (25-
30). The research team developed an online training program that was reviewed internally and
externally for content validity. The training program was hosted online at the Faculty of
Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Alberta server and provided at face-to-
face regional meetings. The training program included modules on case-finding, cardiovascular
risk calculation and patient communication of cardiovascular risk, chronic kidney disease,
hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes, smoking cessation, diet and lifestyle management, and
documentation of care plans for remuneration by Alberta Health. A hotline was made available
for participating pharmacists to connect them with experts in cardiovascular risk reduction and
study procedures.
RxEACH was approved by the Health Research Ethics Boards of the University of Alberta and
the University of Calgary and was registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01979471).
Results
The RxEACH trial began enrolment on January 27, 2014, with 56 sites (pharmacies) involved
(see Acknowledgements for list of pharmacist investigators). A total of 913 subjects were
screened, 827 of whom were eligible. We randomized 723; 353 were assigned to usual care and
370 to intervention (Figure 1). The last patient was enrolled June 3, 2015 and follow-up was
completed on September 24, 2015. There were 10 early withdrawals in the usual care group
(2.8%) and 19 in the intervention group (5.1%), mostly because of losses to follow-up in both
groups.
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
10
Baseline characteristics are shown in Table 1. The two treatment groups were well balanced in
demographic and clinical parameters (Table 1). The average age was 62 (standard deviation, SD
12) years and 58% were male. In terms of CVD risk factors, 84% had hypertension, 83% had
dyslipidemia, 64% reported sedentary lifestyle, 27% were smokers, mean body mass index was
34 (SD 13.2). In addition, 79% had diabetes, 40% had chronic kidney disease, and 30% had
atherosclerotic vascular disease (stroke/transient ischemic attack, acute coronary syndromes,
angina, revascularization or peripheral arterial disease). A total of 53 patients were high risk
primary prevention (Framingham risk >20%). The inclusion criteria for the study required the
presence of at least one poorly controlled risk factor. Of all the patients enrolled, 79% of those
with diabetes had poor glycemic control (as measured by HbA1c), 72% had poorly controlled
blood pressure, 59% had poorly controlled dyslipidemia, and 27% were smokers (categories not
mutually exclusive).
At the baseline visit, mean blood pressure was 137 (SD 20) / 81 (SD 12), total cholesterol was
4.3 (SD 1.0) mmol/L, LDL cholesterol was 2.4 (SD 1.2) mmol/L and HDL cholesterol was 1.2
(SD 0.4) mmol/L. In the 573 patients with diabetes, the average duration of diabetes was 12 (SD
11) years, and mean HbA1c was 8.6 (SD 2)%. Estimated baseline cardiovascular risk was 26.6
(SD 19.3)% in the usual care group and 25.6 (SD 17.8)% in the intervention group (Table 1).
Estimated cardiovascular risk changed over the 3 month follow-up period from 26.6 (SD 19.3)%
to 25.9 (SD 19.6)% in the usual care group, compared to 25.6 (SD 17.8)% at baseline to 20.5
(SD 15.9)% in the intervention group. This, when adjusted for the center effect, corresponded to
a relative decrease in estimated cardiovascular risk of 21% (an absolute difference of 5.37, 95%
CI -6.56, -4.17, p<0.001) (Figure 2), the primary outcome.
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
11
Table 2 outlines medication use and changes that were made in the study population, and show
more changes in hypgoglycemic, hypertension and dyslipidemia medications in the intervention
group. Secondary outcomes are shown in Table 3. The difference in LDL cholesterol was -0.2
(95% CI -0.31, -0.08, p=0.001) mmol/L, in systolic blood pressure was -9.37 (95% CI -11.07, -
7.67, p<0.001) mmHg, in diastolic blood pressure was -2.92 (95% CI -4.21, -1.62, p< 0.001)
mmHg, in HbA1c (in diabetics only) was -0.92 (95% CI -1.12, -0.72, p<0.001)%. There were
20.2% fewer smokers (95% CI 9.9, 30.4, p<0.001) in the intervention group. Figure 3 shows
achievement of targets for LDL cholesterol, blood pressure, HbA1c and smoking, with the
intervention group showing improvements across all categories. Body mass index changed from
34.08 (SD 15.3) to 32.9 (SD 8.0) in the usual care group, and from 33.27 (SD 10.8) to 32.6 (SD
8.8) in the intervention group. There were no adverse events reported during the trial.
Discussion
Cardiovascular diseases remain the most important causes of death and disability worldwide (1).
While the risk factors for cardiovascular disease are well known, poor identification of those at
risk and poor control of these factors remains an enigma (5-10). In the RxEACH study, we found
that engaging community pharmacists in identifying at-risk candidates (case finding) and
managing their cardiovascular risk factors using an advanced scope of practice that included
prescribing and ordering laboratory tests, resulted in a 21% reduction in their risk for
cardiovascular events in only 3 months. As pharmacists are highly accessible primary healthcare
providers, this could have major public health implications in reducing the burden of CVD if
these practices were widely adopted.
Our results add to an already rich literature on the efficacy of pharmacist care on the individual
components of cardiovascular risk factors. These non-prescribing trials have been elegantly
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
12
summarized in a meta analysis by Santschi and colleagues (15), who noted significant
improvements in dyslipidemia, hypertension, and smoking cessation. Furthermore, our group has
recently published trials of independent pharmacist prescribing in patients with poorly controlled
diabetes (31) and hypertension (32). To our knowledge, RxEACH is the first large scale
randomized trial of overall cardiovascular risk reduction, targeting multiple risk factors together.
O’Donovan and colleagues conducted a literature review to study pharmacist’s use of CV
screening tools and reported that the majority of the screenings were either opportunistic or
referral-based. They highlighted the lack of proactive case finding approach in such programs
(33). Our results take their findings to the next level. They are also consistent with the findings
of Mc Namara and colleagues (34, 35) who conducted a pilot longitudinal pre-and-post-test
study to evaluate the impact of a medication review and educational intervention on patients’ CV
risk in a community pharmacy setting, and reported a significant CV risk reduction over a 6-
month period. RxEACH is also a validation of the merits of a broader scope of practice for
pharmacists, in this case, of independent prescribing authority and ability to order and interpret
laboratory tests. Indeed, we reported recently that of the patients receiving baseline assessments
in RxEACH, 290 had chronic kidney disease, of whom 40% had previous unrecognized chronic
kidney disease (i.e., was identified by the pharmacist in the course of targeted screening for
CKD) (36, 37). As a practice-based trial of an approach to cardiovascular risk reduction, we can
only speculate that the improvements seen were due to changes in medication use (as seen in
Table 2), dosage adjustment, and improved adherence to lifestyle and medications – all of which
were enhanced by the guidelines-recommended follow-up visits performed by the pharmacists.
A number of strengths and limitations warrant mention. Use of a randomized controlled design
portends a high level of causal inference. In terms of sustainability of the intervention, we used
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
13
the medication management remuneration program already established by the Alberta
government (and also present in most US states) which reimburses pharmacists for their care.
Indeed, our study could be seen as a validation of these medication management programs. With
respect to limitations, our follow-up duration was relatively short. The reason for this short
duration was a compromise decision made because investigators (pharmacists) had expressed
concerns over “usual care” in these high-risk patients. We decided to shorten the follow-up
duration to 3 months, and allow usual care allocated patients to cross over to receive the
intervention after 3 months. While 3 month outcomes for smoking cessation are rather short (and
could certainly be subject to recidivism), they may bias against the intervention because of the
short duration to achieve reductions in LDL cholesterol (which respond slowly to medication
changes), blood pressure (which often takes several weeks to see the full effects of a medication
change) and HbA1c (which takes up to 3 months to show full effects of changes in glycemic
control). As such, we may be underestimating the impact on these parameters. Another potential
limitation is generalizability to other pharmacists in other jurisdictions. While pharmacists in the
province of Alberta certainly have a broad scope of practice which includes independent
prescribing and the ability to order laboratory tests, many jurisdictions in North America do
allow for medication management reviews, ability to adjust and adapt prescriptions, make
recommendations to physicians, and receive remuneration for these activities. Training on
cardiovascular risk reduction is widely available and should not limit generalizability of our
findings. We used risk estimation equations for our primary outcome. We acknowledge that
these equations were not designed to measure change. Nevertheless, we wished to capture the
overall effect of a cardiovascular risk reduction program and reported a relative reduction in risk
(as such, biases and limitations would presumably equally present at baseline and at the end of
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
14
follow-up for all patients). Similarly, the lack of a validated equation for patients with CKD
almost certainly underestimated the risk for these patients, but again, reporting of a relative
reduction in risk should alleviate this concern. With regards to smoking cessation, we used
patient self report and assessment by the pharmacist to determine smoking status rather than
methods such as carbon monoxide detection. Finally, due to the nature of the intervention, we
could not blind investigators to treatment allocation.
Cardiovascular diseases remain important public health problems in the United States,
Canada and worldwide (1). As such, our study demonstrating the impact of an advanced scope of
pharmacist practice might have important public health implications. Indeed, engaging
pharmacists could bring another 450,000 helping hands in the United States and Canada to help
reduce the burden of cardiovascular disease. It is important to note that the reductions in
cardiovascular risk were achieved on top of (not instead of) usual physician care.
Interprofessional communication and collaboration remain key. We would encourage
policymakers to consider broadening the scope of practice of pharmacists (like in Alberta) and
for pharmacists and pharmacy professional organizations to seize these opportunities for the
betterment of patient care.
Conclusions
Cardiovascular diseases and their associated risk factors remain an important public health
problem. In the RxEACH study, we demonstrated that pharmacists with an advanced scope of
practice could identify patients with poorly controlled risk factors and significantly reduce their
risk for cardiovascular events. Adopting these practice innovations could have major public
health benefits.
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
15
References
1. WHO. Cardiovascular diseases. 2015. Available at;
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs317/en/. Accessed on February 28, 2016.
2. Heart and Stroke Foundation. Statistics. 2015. Available at;
http://www.heartandstroke.com/site/c.ikIQLcMWJtE/b.3483991/k.34A8/Statistics.htm.
Accessed on February 28, 2016.
3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Leading causes of death. 2015. Available online
from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm. Accessed on February 28,
2016.
4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Million hearts: strategies to reduce the
prevalence of leading cardiovascular disease risk factors---United States, 2011. MMWR
Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2011; 60:1248-51.
5. Lim SS, Vos T, Flaxman AD et al. A comparative assessment of burden of disease injury
attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990-2010: a systematic
analysis for the global burden of disease study 2010. Lancet 2012; 380:2224-60.
6. Mosca L, Barrett-Connor E, Wenger NK. Sex/Gender differences in cardiovascular disease
prevention what a difference a decade makes. Circulation 2011; 124: 2145-54.
7. Braga M, Casanova A, Teoh H et al. Treatment gaps in the management of cardiovascular
risk factors in patients with type 2 diabetes in Canada. Can J Cardiol 2010; 26: 297-302.
8. Al Hamarneh YN, Rosenthal M, Tsuyuki RT, Glycemic control in community dwelling
patients with type 2 diabetes. Can Pharm J 2012; 145: 68-9 e1.
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
16
9. Ritchey MD, Wall HK, Gillespie C, George MG, Jamal A. Million hearts: prevalence of
leading cardiovascular disease risk factors – United States, 2005-2012. MMWR Morb Mortal
Wkly Rep 2014; 63: 462-7.
10. Leiter LA, Berard L, Bowering CK, et al. Type 2 diabetes mellitus management in Canada:
Is it improving?. Can J Diabetes 2013; 37: 82-9.
11. Grover SA, Lowensteyn I. The challenges and benefits of cardiovascular risk assessment in
clinical practice. Can J Cardiol 2011; 27: 481-7.
12. Shiu JR, Simpson SH, Johnson JA, Tsuyuki RT. Quantifying opportunities to affect diabetes
management in the community. Can Pharm J 2006; 139: 37-8.
13. Vivian EM. Improving blood pressure control in a pharmacist-managed hypertension clinic.
Pharmacotherapy 2001; 21:1337-44.
14. Scott DM, Boyd ST, Stephan M et al. Outcomes of pharmacist-managed diabetes care
services in a community health centre. Am J Health-Syst Pharm 2006; 63:2116-22.
15. Santschi V, Chiolero A, Burnand B, Colosimo AL, Paradis G. Impact of pharmacist care in
the management of cardiovascular disease risk factors: a systematic review and meta-analysis
of randomized trials. Arch Intern Med 2011; 171:1441-53.
16. Tsuyuki RT, Johnson JA, Teo KK et al. A Randomized Trial of the Effect of Community
Pharmacist Intervention on Cholesterol Risk Management – The Study of Cardiovascular
Risk Intervention by Pharmacists (SCRIP). Arch Intern Med 2002; 162:1149-55.
17. McLean DL, McAlister FA, Johnson JA et al. A Randomized Trial of the Effect of
Community Pharmacist and Nurse Care on Improving Blood Pressure Management in
Patients with Diabetes Mellitus – Study of Cardiovascular Risk Intervention by Pharmacists-
Hypertension (SCRIP-HTN). Arch Intern Med 2008; 168:2355-61.
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
17
18. Okonofua EC, Simpson KN, Jesri A et al. Therapeutic inertia is an impediment to achieving
the Healthy People 2010 blood pressure control goals. Hypertension 2006; 47: 345-51.
19. Kassamali A, Houle S, Rosenthal M, Tsuyuki RT. Case finding: the missing link in chronic
disease management. Can Pharm J 2011; 144: 170-1.e1
20. Hypertension Canada. Accurate measurement of blood pressure. 2013. Available at:
http://guidelines.hypertension.ca/diagnosis-assessment/measuring-blood-pressure/. Accessed
October 1, 2013
21. Stevens RJ, Kothari V, Adler AI, Stratton IM, Holman RR. The UKPDS risk engine: a model
for the risk of coronary heart disease in type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 56). Clin Sci 2001; 101:
671-9.
22. Wilson PWF, D’Agostino R, Bhatt DL et al. An international model to predict recurrent
cardiovascular disease. Am J Med 2012; 125:695-703.
23. D’Agostino RB, Vasan RS, Pencina MJ et al. General cardiovascular risk profile for use in
primary care: The Framingham heart study. Circulation 2008; 117:743-53.
24. Grover SA, Lowensteyn I, Joseph L, et al. Patient knowledge of coronary risk profile
improves the effectiveness of dyslipidemia therapy. The CHECK-UP Study: a randomized
controlled trial. Arch Intern Med 2007; 167:2296-303
25. International Society of Nephrology. KDIGO 2012 clinical practice guideline for the
evaluation and management of chronic kidney disease. Kidney international Supplements
2013; 3:1-150
26. Canadian Diabetes Association. Canadian diabetes association 2013 clinical practice
guidelines for the prevention and management of diabetes in Canada. Can J Diabetes 2013;
37:S1-S212.
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
18
27. Hackam D, Quinn R, Ravani P, et al. The 2013 Canadian Hypertension Education Program
Recommendations for Blood Pressure Measurement, Diagnosis, Assessment of Risk,
Prevention, and Treatment of Hypertension. Can J Cardiol 2013; 29:528-42.
28. Genest J, McPherson R, Frohlich J et al. 2009 Canadian guidelines for the diagnosis and
treatment of dyslipidemia and prevention of cardiovascular disease in the adult–2009
recommendations. Can J Cardiol 2009; 25:567-79.
29. Anderson TJ, Grégoire J, Hegele RA et al. 2012 update of the Canadian cardiovascular
society guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of dyslipidemia for the prevention of
cardiovascular disease in the adult. Can J Cardiol 2013; 29:151-67.
30. Tobe S, Stone J, Brouwers M et al. Harmonization of guidelines for the prevention and
treatment of cardiovascular disease: the C-CHANGE initiative. CMAJ 2011; 183:E1135-E50.
31. Al Hamarneh YN, Charrois T, Lewanczuk R, Tsuyuki RT. Pharmacist intervention for
glycaemic control in the community (the RxING study). BMJ Open 2013; 3: e003154.
32. Tsuyuki RT, Houle SK, Charrois TL et al. Randomized trial of the effect of pharmacist
prescribing on improving blood pressure in the community: the Alberta clinical trial in
optimizing hypertension (RxACTION). Circulation 2015; 132:93-100.
33. O’Donovan DO, Byrne S, Sahm LJ. Pharmacist’s use of screening tools to estimate risk of
CVD: a review of the literature. Pharmacy 2014; 2:27-39.
34. Mc Namara KP, George J, O’Reilly SL et al. Engaging community pharmacists in the
primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: protocol for the pharmacist assessment of
adherence, risk and treatment of cardiovascular disease (PAART CVD) pilot study. BMC
Health Serv Res 2010; 10: 264-71.
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
19
35. Mc Namara K, Bunker S, Dunbar J et al. Pharmacist assessment and adherence, risk and
treatment of cardiovascular disease (PAART CVD). 2015. Available t;
http://guild.org.au/services-programs/research-and-development/archive---fourth-
agreement/iig-015. Accessed on February 28, 2016.
36. Al Hamarneh YN, Hemmelgarn B, Curtis C et al. Community pharmacists targeted screening
for chronic kidney disease. Can Pharm J 2016: 149:13-7.
37. Curtis C, Balint C, Al Hamarneh YN et al. Online clinical pathway for managing adults with
chronic kidney disease. Can Pharm J 2015: 148: 257-62.
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
20
Figure Legends
Figure 1: Case-finding, enrolment, randomization and completeness of follow-up. This
figure describes the screening and randomization and follow-up of patients in the study.
Figure 2: Primary Outcome: Effect of pharmacist care on estimated risk for
cardiovascular events. This figure outlines the effect of the pharmacist care intervention on
reduction in estimated risk for cardiovascular events from baseline to 3 months in patients
randomized to usual care or intervention groups. Relative risk reduction between usual care
and intervention was 21% (a 5.37% absolute reduction, 95% CI -6.56, 4.17, p< 0.001), after
adjustment for baseline values and the center effect. Est. CV Risk = estimated risk for
cardiovascular events
Figure 3: Achievement of cholesterol, blood pressure and glycemic targets and smoking
status at 3 months. This figure shows the number and proportion of patients achieving the
recommended targets for LDL-c (<2.0 mmol/L), blood pressure (<140/90mmHg or
<130/80mmHg if diabetic), glycemic control via HbA1c (<7,0%), and current smoking status
at the end of follow-up. In all cases, pharmacist care (intervention) resulted in significantly
more patients reaching targets: for LDL-c, an absolute difference of 9.9% (95% CI 2.2, 17.5,
p=0.012); for BP, an absolute difference of 23.1% (95% CI 16.0, 30.1, p<0.001); for HbA1c,
an absolute difference of 17.6% (95% CI 9.9, 25.4, p<0.001); and for smoking, an absolute
difference of 6.9% (95% CI 0.6, 13.2, p=0.032).
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
21
Table 1: Baseline Demographics Baseline Characteristics Usual Care (n=353) Intervention (n=370)
Age, mean, y (SD) 61 (12) 62 (12)
Gender (% male) 58% 57%
Hypertension 82% 85%
Dyslipidemia 82% 83%
Smoking 28% 26%
Sedentary lifestyle 64% 64%
BMI, mean (SD) 34 (15) 33 (11)
Estimated glomerular
filtration rate
mL/min/1.73m2
79.5 (24.4) 78.7 (23.1)
Random ACR (median,
interquartile range) 2.0 (0.8, 7.5) 1.8 (0.9, 6.6)
Diabetes 287 (81%) 286 (77%)
Chronic kidney disease 147 ( (40%) 143 (41%)
Atherosclerotic vascular
disease 101 (28.6%) 119 (32.2%)
Stroke/TIA 11% 8%
Acute coronary
syndromes 7% 7%
Angina 8% 9%
Revascularization 8% 12%
Peripheral arterial
disease 7% 8%
Blood Pressure
Systolic, mmHg 137 (19) 137 (20)
Diastolic, mmHg 81 (12) 81 (11)
Total cholesterol, mmol/L 4.37 (1.3) 4.5 (1.4)
LDL-cholesterol, mmol/L 2.34 (1.1) 2.47 (1.2)
HDL-cholesterol, mmol/L 1.17 (0.38) 1.18 (0.41)
High Risk Primary
Prevention (Framingham
Risk >20%)
28 (7.6%) 25 (7.1%)
Heart failure 13% 5%
Atrial fibrillation 7% 6%
Social factors
Married/Common law 68% 69%
High school or higher 87% 92%
Working for pay/profit 47% 43%
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
22
Caucasian 76% 75%
No alcohol use 59% 55%
No specific diet 64% 68%
Study Qualification:
Uncontrolled HbA1c 230/287 (80.1%) 225/286 (78.7%)
Uncontrolled blood
pressure 257/353 (72.8%) 266/370 (71.9%)
Uncontrolled LDL-c 185/330 (56.1%) 209/346 (60.4)
Current smoking 99/353 (28.1%) 97/370 (26.2%)
Estimated cardiovascular
risk 26.6% (19.3) 25.6% (17.8)
LDL = low density lipoprotein, HDL = high density lipoprotein All values are means (and standard deviation, SD) unless otherwise indicated.
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
23
Table 2: Medication Use and Changes
Medications
Baseline
Usual care
Final
Usual care
Baseline
Intervention
Final
Intervention
Hypoglycemic
Medications
N=287 N=282 N=286 N=271
No Medication
19
(6.6%)
13
(4.6%)
26
(9.1%)
12
(4.4%)
1 Medication
121
(42.2%)
116
(41.1%)
115
(40.2%)
100
(36.9%)
2 Medications
99
(34.5%)
106
(37.6%)
97
(33.9%)
96
(35.4%)
3 Medications
43
(15.0%)
44
(15.6%)
42
(14.7%)
52
(19.2%)
4 Medications
4
(1.4%)
2
(0.71%)
5
(1.8%)
8
(3.0%)
5 Medications
1
(0.4%)
1
(0.35%)
1
(0.4%)
3
(1.1%)
Median Number of
Medications/Patient
2
(1-2)
2
(1-2)
2
(1-2)
2
(1-2)
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
24
(Interquartile
Range)
Mean Number of
Medications/Patient
(Standard
Deviation)
1.6
(0.89)
1.7
(0.84)
1.6
(0.93)
1.8
(0.96)
Patients With Any
Medication Change
-
59/282
(20.9%)
-
106/271
(39.1%)
Patients with
Dosage Change
Only
-
93/223
(41.7%)
-
67/165
(40.6%)
Hypertension
Medications
N=289 N=283 N=316 N=300
No Medication
30
(10.4%)
27
(9.5%)
19
(6.0%)
8
(2.7%)
1 Medication
91
(31.5%)
87
(30.7%)
111
(35.1%)
111
(37.0)
2 Medications
91
(31.5%)
84
(29.7%)
116
(36.7%)
100
(33.3%)
3 Medications 59 63 48 55
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
25
(20.4%) (22.3%) (15.2%) (18.3%)
4 Medications
18
(6.2%)
20
(7.1%)
21
(6.7%)
25
(8.3%)
5 Medications 0 2 (0.7%) 1 (0.3%) 1 (0.3%)
Mean Number of
Medications/Patient
(Standard
Deviation)
1.8
(1.1)
1.9
(1.1)
1.8
(1.0)
1.9
(1.0)
Patients With Any
Medication Change
-
62/283
(21.9%)
-
86/300
(28.7%)
Patients With
Dosage Change
Only
-
29/221
(13.1%)
-
35/214
(16.4%)
Dyslipidemia
Medications
N=289 N=280 N=308 N=291
No Medication
80
(27.7%)
71
(25.4%)
89
(28.9%)
94
(22.0%)
1 Medication
196
(67.8%)
197
(70.4%)
202
(65.6%)
208
(71.5%)
2 Medications 11 11 17 19
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
26
(3.8%) (3.9%) (5.5%) (6.5%)
3 Medications
2
(0.7%)
1
(0.4%)
0 0
Median Number of
Medications/Patient
(Interquartile
Range)
1
(0-1)
1
(0-1)
1
(0-1)
1
(1-1)
Mean Number of
Medications/Patient
(Standard
Deviation)
0.8
(0.54)
0.8
(0.51)
0.8
(0.53)
0.8
(0.51)
Patients With Any
Medication Change
-
24/280
(8.6%)
-
54/291
(18.6%)
Patients with
Dosage Change
Only
-
8/256
(3.1%)
-
10/237
(4.2%)
“Patients with any medication change” refers to patients who had any change (addition or discontinuation) of medication by their pharmacist. For example, this might include a change from fluvastatin to rosuvastatin. This category excludes those with dosage changes to existing medications. “Patients with dosage change only” refers to patients who had the dosage adjusted of their medication (either upwards or downwards) by their pharmacist. This category excludes changes to the medication from one drug to another or discontinuation of a medication. “Hypoglycemic medications”, “Hypertension Medications” and Dyslipidemia Medications” refer to only those patients with diabetes, hypertension and dyslipidemia, respectively (hence the
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
27
different denominators). The “Final” visit column excludes patients not completing their final visit.
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
28
Table 3: Secondary Outcomes: Changes in Individual Risk Factors
Risk Factor
Usual Care
Baseline
Usual Care
3 months
Intervention
Baseline
Intervention
3 months
Difference
(95% CI and p
value)
Systolic Blood
Pressure
(mmHg)
137.11
(19.42)
136.27
(17.32)
137.44
(19.68)
127.24
(13.80)
-9.37 mmHg
(-11.07, -
7.67;
p<0.001)
Diastolic Blood
Pressure (mmHg)
81.10
(12.09)
79.95
(11.46)
80.78
(11.43)
76.96
(10.49)
-2.92 mmHg
(-4.21, -1.62;
p<0.001)
LDL-c (mmol/L)
2.34
(1.13)
2.23
(1.02)
2.47
(1.20)
2.07
(0.96)
-0.2 mmol/L
(-0.31, -0.08;
p=0.001)
HbA1c (n = 573)
8.62
(1.96)
8.54
(1.93)
8.61
(1.86)
7.60
(1.43)
-0.92%
(-1.12, -0.72;
p<0.001)
Current smoking,
proportion (%)
99/353
(28.1%)
91/342
(26.6%)
97/370
(26.2%)
69/350
(19.7%)
-20.2%
(-9.9, -30.4;
p<0.001)
Data are presented as mean (SD) unless otherwise stated N = 353 usual care, 370 intervention, unless otherwise indicated
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
29
LDL-c: low density lipoprotein cholesterol
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT