Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
J Gen Intern Med. 2013 Apr;28(4):554-60. doi: 10.1007/s11606-012-2268-1. Epub 2012 Nov 11.

Electronic health record-based patient identification and individualized mailed outreach for primary cardiovascular disease prevention: a cluster randomized trial.

Author information

1
Division of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA. spersell@nmff.org

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Many individuals at higher risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) do not receive recommended treatments. Prior interventions using personalized risk information to promote prevention did not test clinic-wide effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE AND DESIGN:

To perform a 9-month cluster-randomized trial, comparing a strategy of electronic health record-based identification of patients with increased CVD risk and individualized mailed outreach to usual care.

PARTICIPANTS:

Patients of participating physicians with a Framingham Risk Score of at least 5 %, low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol level above guideline threshold for drug treatment, and not prescribed a lipid-lowering medication were included in the intention-to-treat analysis.

INTERVENTION:

Patients of physicians randomized to the intervention group were mailed individualized CVD risk messages that described benefits of using a statin (and controlling hypertension or quitting smoking when relevant).

MAIN MEASURES:

The primary outcome was occurrence of a LDL-cholesterol level, repeated in routine practice, that was at least 30 mg/dl lower than prior. A secondary outcome was lipid-lowering drug prescribing. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01286311.

KEY RESULTS:

Fourteen physicians with 218 patients were randomized to intervention, and 15 physicians with 217 patients to control. The mean patient age was 60.7 years and 77% were male. There was no difference in the primary outcome (11.0 % vs. 11.1 %, OR 0.99, 95 % CI 0.56-1.74, P = 0.96), but intervention group patients were twice as likely to receive a prescription for lipid-lowering medication (11.9 %, vs. 6.0 %, OR 2.13, 95 % CI 1.05-4.32, p = 0.038). In post hoc analysis with extended follow-up to 18 months, the primary outcome occurred more often in the intervention group (22.5 % vs. 16.1 %, OR 1.59, 95 % CI 1.05-2.41, P = 0.029).

CONCLUSIONS:

In this effectiveness trial, individualized mailed CVD risk messages increased the frequency of new lipid-lowering drug prescriptions, but we observed no difference in proportions lowering LDL-cholesterol after 9 months. With longer follow-up, the intervention's effect on LDL-cholesterol levels was apparent.

PMID:
23143672
PMCID:
PMC3599027
DOI:
10.1007/s11606-012-2268-1
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Springer Icon for PubMed Central
    Loading ...
    Support Center