The Enhancing Secondary Prevention in Coronary Artery Disease trial

Background

Proven efficacious therapies are sometimes underused in patients with chronic cardiac conditions, resulting in suboptimal outcomes. We evaluated whether evidence summaries, which were either unsigned or signed by local opinion leaders, improved the quality of secondary prevention care delivered by primary care physicians of patients with coronary artery disease.

Methods

We performed a randomized trial, clustered at the level of the primary care physician, with 3 study arms: control, unsigned statements or opinion leader statements. The statements were faxed to primary care physicians of adults with coronary artery disease at the time of elective cardiac catheterization. The primary outcome was improvement in statin management (initiation or dose increase) 6 months after catheterization.

Results

We enrolled 480 adults from 252 practices. Although statin use was high at baseline (n = 316 [66%]), most patients were taking a low dose (mean 32% of the guideline-recommended dose), and their low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels were elevated (mean 3.09 mmol/L). Six months after catheterization, statin management had improved in 79 of 157 patients (50%) in the control arm, 85 of 158 (54%) patients in the unsigned statement group (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.18, 95% CI 0.71–1.94, p = 0.52) and 99 of 165 (60%) patients in the opinion leader statement group (adjusted OR 1.51, 95% CI 0.94–2.42, p = 0.09). The mean fasting LDL cholesterol levels after 6 months were similar in all 3 study arms: 2.35 (standard deviation [SD] 0.86) mmol/L in the control arm compared with 2.24 (SD 0.73) among those in the opinion leader group (p = 0.48) and 2.19 (SD 0.68) in the unsigned statement group (p = 0.32).

Interpretation

Faxed evidence reminders for primary care physicians, even when endorsed by local opinion leaders, were insufficient to optimize the quality of care for adults with coronary artery disease. ClinicalTrials.gov trial register no. {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT00175240","term_id":"NCT00175240"}}NCT00175240.Despite the abundant evidence base for the secondary prevention of coronary artery disease,¹ many of these therapies are underused in clinical practice.^1–4 These gaps between evidence and clinical reality are linked to poor outcomes for patients.⁵ Improved uptake of secondary-prevention therapies would reduce cardiac morbidity and mortality.⁶ However, most quality-improvement initiatives in coronary artery disease have focused on patients in hospital. Few studies have evaluated means of translating evidence into clinical practice for outpatients cared for by primary care physicians.⁷Previously,⁸ we developed and tested the Local Opinion Leader Statement (Appendix 1, available at www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/cmaj.090917/DC1), a quality-improvement tool consisting of a 1-page summary of evidence with explicit treatment advice about secondary prevention of coronary artery disease. This summary was endorsed by local opinion leaders and was faxed to the primary care physicians of patients with coronary artery disease. Although this fax did not lead to a significant improvement in statin prescribing, our pilot trial was small (117 patients) and enrolled patients with chronic coronary artery disease at the time they presented to their community pharmacy for medication refills. We hypothesized that this was not a “teachable moment” and that if the intervention was given at a time when the diagnosis was made, it would be more influential on the primary care physician.Thus, we designed this trial to test the impact of the opinion leader statement if it was sent to the primary physician at the time when patients were diagnosed with coronary artery disease. In addition, because local opinion leaders are not always self-evident and conducting surveys to identify them for each condition and in each locale would be time-consuming and expensive, we also evaluated the impact of an unsigned statement.