Durham, NC - Long-term adherence to secondary-prevention therapies for coronary artery disease remains poor, a new study has shown [1]. Reporting their findings online January 9, 2006 in Circulation, Dr L Kristin Newby (Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC) and colleagues say considerable attention must be focused on understanding and improving long-term compliance to achieve better clinical outcomes.
 |
|
Dr L Kristin Newby (Source: Duke University Medical Center)
|
Nearly half the CAD patients in the seven-year study admitted they don't consistently take beta blockers, lipid-lowering therapy, and other medications, the researchers found.
"We've focused very well on in-hospital use of therapies, but this is a very controlled environment," Newby told heartwire. "When they become outpatients, it's a much more variable environment, and this highlights where our next major focus needs to be." Only a few prior studies have evaluated long-term use of therapies, she adds.
In an accompanying editorial [2], Dr Sidney C Smith Jr (Center for Cardiovascular Science and Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill) says the report by Newby et al "is of particular interest because it provides information on the use of medical therapies over time and examines consistency of use long term and its relationship to mortality."
Drug use did increase year to year, but consistent use lagged
The researchers used the Duke Databank for Cardiovascular Disease to analyze medication adherence among 31 750 patients who had undergone a cardiac procedure at Duke, had at least one coronary artery more than 50% blocked, or had coronary artery bypass surgery. All patients reported their use of aspirin, beta blockers, and lipid-lowering drugs in annual surveys between 1995 and 2002.
Patients had to have at least two consecutive surveys returned during the study. Consistent use was defined as reporting use of medications on at least two successive occasions and continuing to report use through the end of the study period. ACE-inhibitor use was also recorded for patients with and without heart failure. The researchers found the use of all drugs and combinations increased year to year.
Use of therapies in 2002
Use of therapies
| 2002 figures (%)
| HR for mortality*
|
Ever use of aspirin
| 83
| |
Consistent use of aspirin
| 71
| 0.58
|
Ever use of beta blocker
| 61
| |
Consistent use of beta blocker
| 46
| 0.63
|
Ever use of lipid-lowering therapy
| 63
| |
Consistent use of lipid-lowering therapy
| 44
| 0.52
|
Ever use of aspirin plus beta blockers
| 54
| |
Consistent use of aspirin plus beta blockers
| 36
| 0.61
|
Ever use of all 3 drugs
| 39
| |
Consistent use of all 3 drugs
| 21
| 0.67
|
*Among consistent users compared with never users; adjusted for potential confounders
To download table as a slide, click on slide logo below
Among patients who had not experienced heart failure, 39% reported using ACE inhibitors in 2002; however, consistent use was only 20%. Among patients who had experienced heart failure, ACE inhibitor use was 51% in 2002 and consistent use was 39%.
Consistent use of any of the therapies was associated with higher survival rates (compared with never users). Specifically, those who were consistent in their use of aspirin saw a 42% reduction in risk of death, while beta-blocker use led to a 37% reduction and lipid-lowering therapy a 48% reduction. Patients who took aspirin plus beta blockers had a 39% reduction while those taking all three had a 33% reduction in mortality. Heart-failure patients consistently taking ACE inhibitors had a 25% reduction in mortality, but no association was found among patients who used ACE inhibitors but had not experienced heart failure.
Newby et al say their findings in more than 30 000 patients across multiple categories of evidence-based medications and a seven-year period of observation extend those of previous studies.
"Despite marked increases in the yearly prevalence of use in our study population from 1995 to 2003, consistent use lagged substantially behind, suggesting that in addition to the importance of prescribing, additional factors are important in determining long-term adherence," they write.
Long-term use paradoxically lower in those at highest risk
The researchers also found that, paradoxically, consistent use of evidence-based medicines was lower among groups with the highest risk of poor outcomes, who would therefore benefit most from sustained therapy. Older patients, those with heart failure, smokers, and diabetics were least likely to consistently take medication.
"These findings suggest that it may be possible to design educational and compliance intervention programs targeted to groups of patients at high risk for both underuse of medications in secondary prevention and adverse clinical outcomes."
They also observed that for each agent studied, the strongest factor associated with consistent use was baseline use of other evidence-based medicines. "This most likely reflects characteristics involved in both physician prescription of evidence-based medicines in general and patient compliance with a program of therapy."
Newby told heartwirethat to tackle this problem "will require a multipronged approach. Long-term adherence programs need to involve the patient, their families, pharmacies, outpatient clinicians and nurses, and other mid-level healthcare providers."
She believes cardiologists are interested in compliance in their patients, "but once we finish a procedure and discharge, it does become difficult to have an impact. We need better communication with primary-care providers," she concludes.
Sources
-
Newby LK, Allen LaPointe NM, Chen AY, et al. Long-term adherence to evidence-based secondary prevention therapies in coronary artery disease. Circulation 2006; DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.505636. Available at: http://circ.ahajournals.org.
-
Smith SC Jr. Evidence-based medicine making the grade. Miles to go before we rest. Circulation 2006; DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.592238. Available at: http://circ.ahajournals.org.
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
January 9, 2006 05:39 (EST)
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
scary isn't it? As medical providers, we need to do a better job of educating patients on 1) lifestyle changes and 2) why they need to take these particular medicines for a usually asymptomatic condition (heart disease). I've found that when you explain to people how their meds work (in simple, easy-to-understand terms) they seem more interested in taking them. I also use the sales-pitch approach and try to reinforce that taking these medicines (aspirin, statin, b-blocker, aceI) can not only PREVENT future heart attacks, but can limit the damage done by the first one and possibly limit damage from any future ones -- but only if you happen to be taking the medicine on the day you have a CV event. ("They can't help you if you don't take them" speech.)
We also need to avoid polypharmacy as much as possible (I can't recount how many people I've seen started on coumadin, plavix, AND aspirin who haven't had a recent stent, just because they were "vasculopaths." Whatever that means.) Try and maximize the ACE and B-blocker before starting on spironolactone, diuretic, etc. People get overwhelmed if they have too many pills to take at once, and sometimes, they just give up.
And, of course, cost is an issue. I do not agree w/ any of the studies that say that cost doesn't influence whether or not people take their meds. It does.
Aspirin is just as good as Plavix in most situations (except for stenting, unstable angina, allergy to asa, etc.), generic simvastatin is almost as good as high dose lipitor, metoprolol is a good beta blocker, and lisinopril is a good ACEI.
I would rather people take these than NOT take carvedilol, toprol XL, ramipril, etc. |
|
 |
 |
|
|
January 10, 2006 07:28 (EST)
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Just Asking the question more often will yield more information David,
I think we all need to ask the "complaince" question with each visit more often. It should be a simple question asked by the intake person at the office then appropriate conversation targeted during the visit regarding the issue. I've been fooled more than once, so I need to be more diligent.
Also, I think just posting information on the exam room wall is a very good move.
We've stimulated lots of conversation about need for NTG refills just by posting a reminder on the wall. Might be a good place to ask "Are you taking your medication regularly?"
Many folks who "can't afford" their meds are affording their cigarettes so we've designed a chart for patients to see how much money they've spent in a lifetime on cigarettes and how much they are going to spend. We will implement this teaching tool this month.
Additionally, NO second Viagra samples are given to smokers. They can buy their own if they can buy their smokes!
Melissa |
|
 |
 |
|
|
January 10, 2006 09:37 (EST)
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Single versus multiple drugs What do you tell your patients when they say that the compliance study showed that the HR mortality values were the same for patients taking one drug (eg. aspirin or lipid-lowering therapy) than for those taking two or three drugs (aspirin, beta blockers and lipid lowering drugs)? How do you convince them that they will benefit by taking multiple drugs if that compliance study didn't show any additional benefit from multi-drug therapy?
Jeff. |
|
 |
 |
|
|
January 10, 2006 03:51 (EST)
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
you both have excellent points as above
I don't have anything different to add.
The cigarette/booze/gambling issue vs. "I can't afford my meds" does get to me as well. And yeah Melissa, I get lied to every day. Sometimes, I feel like a cop. "No officer, I didn't see that stop sign," vs. "Yes I am taking my simvastatin. . .(even though my LDL is 212)."
Dr. Mann, I know that the NNT for any of these drugs are large, and the benefit is small. Post-MI, I agree, lifestyle is still the way to go.
Personally I would still take an asa/b-blocker/and statin even though I know that the absolute risk reduction would be small. I would also not smoke, not drink heavily, and continue my walking program (and advance it as tolerated) and would try to eat better. Although, in this profession, the microwave is my friend, and I'm beginning to forget what a stove and oven look like.
My question is this, and I need help on this point -- is there NO benefit to triple therapy (b-blocker, statin, asa), or is the benefit just small? If so, where could I go to read up on this? I am very interested.
Thanks. |
|
 |
 |
|
|
January 10, 2006 11:26 (EST)
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
multiple drug therapy The evidence seems pretty clear. In many trials, meta-analyses, and observational studies, the benefit of the drug in question (be it aspirin, an ACE inhibitor, statin, or some other antihypertensive) was independent and additively seen on top of other effective agents (be it aspirin, an ACE inhibitor, statin, or some other antihypertensive).
I favour an intensive treatment approach consisting of moderate to high dose statins, combination antihypertensive therapy (in lower doses of each to minimize side effects), combination antiplatelets, coupled with lifestyle advice (smoking cessation counselling and exercise).
The trial evidence is vast. I could point you to numerous references on the incremental benefits of statins being added to antiplatelets (eg the Pravastatin Pooling Project), ACE inhibitors added to statins (eg, HOPE/Dagenais and Europa/Fox), beta blockers added to both (CAPRICORN/Dargie), clopidogrel on top of other therapies (CURE, CREDO, COMMIT, CLARITY), and so forth. Also see excellent recent studies in the BMJ by Hippisley-Cox and Ebrahim. |
|
 |
 |
|
|
January 11, 2006 04:03 (EST)
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Clear evidence Dan -- if the evidence is so clear, then how do you account for that fact that multiple drug therapy was no better than single drug therapy in this long-term compliance study?
Jeff. |
|
 |
 |
|
|
January 11, 2006 06:03 (EST)
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
explanation As you know, patients who do not comply with their medications are often different in many ways from those who do; therefore, in this observational study, one can not control for all confounders, particularly those that are not measured or poorly measured. |
|
 |
 |
|
|
January 16, 2006 11:15 (EST)
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
BMW vs Ford In my practice, the biggest issue regarding compliance is simply cost of medications. And I have to say, I empathize with them. Plavix($120+/mth), Lipitor(75), Toprol 50, Altace 50, and of course they're taking their osteoporosis meds at about 100 or so. It quickly adds up and leads to depression(oops, they're another 75+ for the SSRI. For those lower income folks, how in the hell are they going to comply? I use a truckload of generics in my practice and find that for the most part, they are quite effective. After all, the BMW may be "better," but the Ford will get you there reliably as well.
We as physicians are our own worst enemy and if we continue to feel the need to push excessive polypharmacy, we shouldn't be suprised when our patients don't take them. BTW, I only give samples to smokers if I had just implanted a stent and they won't buy their PLavix.
On another note, does this compliance issue impact anyone's DES utilization? I think it is an issue. Now, we could argue the utility of DES in general, but I digress. |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |