7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Utility of electronic patient records in primary care for stroke secondary prevention trials

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          This study aimed to inform the design of a pragmatic trial of stroke prevention in primary care by evaluating data recorded in electronic patient records (EPRs) as potential outcome measures. The study also evaluated achievement of recommended standards of care; variation between family practices; and changes in risk factor values from before to after stroke.

          Methods

          Data from the UK General Practice Research Database (GPRD) were analysed for 22,730 participants with an index first stroke between 2003 and 2006 from 414 family practices. For each subject, the EPR was evaluated for the 12 months before and after stroke. Measures relevant to stroke secondary prevention were analysed including blood pressure (BP), cholesterol, smoking, alcohol use, body mass index (BMI), atrial fibrillation, utilisation of antihypertensive, antiplatelet and cholesterol lowering drugs. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were estimated by family practice. Random effects models were fitted to evaluate changes in risk factor values over time.

          Results

          In the 12 months following stroke, BP was recorded for 90%, cholesterol for 70% and body mass index (BMI) for 47%. ICCs by family practice ranged from 0.02 for BP and BMI to 0.05 for LDL and HDL cholesterol. For subjects with records available both before and after stroke, the mean reductions from before to after stroke were: mean systolic BP, 6.02 mm Hg; diastolic BP, 2.78 mm Hg; total cholesterol, 0.60 mmol/l; BMI, 0.34 Kg/m 2. There was an absolute reduction in smokers of 5% and heavy drinkers of 4%. The proportion of stroke patients within the recommended guidelines varied from less than a third (29%) for systolic BP, just over half for BMI (54%), and over 90% (92%) on alcohol consumption.

          Conclusions

          Electronic patient records have potential for evaluation of outcomes in pragmatic trials of stroke secondary prevention. Stroke prevention interventions in primary care remain suboptimal but important reductions in vascular risk factor values were observed following stroke. Better recording of lifestyle factors in the GPRD has the potential to expand the scope of the GPRD for health care research and practice.

          Related collections

          Most cited references23

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Change in stroke incidence, mortality, case-fatality, severity, and risk factors in Oxfordshire, UK from 1981 to 2004 (Oxford Vascular Study).

          The incidence of stroke is predicted to rise because of the rapidly ageing population. However, over the past two decades, findings of randomised trials have identified several interventions that are effective in prevention of stroke. Reliable data on time-trends in stroke incidence, major risk factors, and use of preventive treatments in an ageing population are required to ascertain whether implementation of preventive strategies can offset the predicted rise in stroke incidence. We aimed to obtain these data. We ascertained changes in incidence of transient ischaemic attack and stroke, risk factors, and premorbid use of preventive treatments from 1981-84 (Oxford Community Stroke Project; OCSP) to 2002-04 (Oxford Vascular Study; OXVASC). Of 476 patients with transient ischaemic attacks or strokes in OXVASC, 262 strokes and 93 transient ischaemic attacks were incident events. Despite more complete case-ascertainment than in OCSP, age-adjusted and sex-adjusted incidence of first-ever stroke fell by 29% (relative incidence 0.71, 95% CI 0.61-0.83, p=0.0002). Incidence declined by more than 50% for primary intracerebral haemorrhage (0.47, 0.27-0.83, p=0.01) but was unchanged for subarachnoid haemorrhage (0.83, 0.44-1.57, p=0.57). Thus, although 28% more incident strokes (366 vs 286) were expected in OXVASC due to demographic change alone (33% increase in those aged 75 or older), the observed number fell (262 vs 286). Major reductions were recorded in mortality rates for incident stroke (0.63, 0.44-0.90, p=0.02) and in incidence of disabling or fatal stroke (0.60, 0.50-0.73, p<0.0001), but no change was seen in case-fatality due to incident stroke (17.2% vs 17.8%; age and sex adjusted relative risk 0.85, 95% CI 0.57-1.28, p=0.45). Comparison of premorbid risk factors revealed substantial reductions in the proportion of smokers, mean total cholesterol, and mean systolic and diastolic blood pressures and major increases in premorbid treatment with antiplatelet, lipid-lowering, and blood pressure lowering drugs (all p<0.0001). The age-specific incidence of major stroke in Oxfordshire has fallen by 40% over the past 20 years in association with increased use of preventive treatments and major reductions in premorbid risk factors.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Health outcomes associated with various antihypertensive therapies used as first-line agents: a network meta-analysis.

            Establishing relative benefit or harm from specific antihypertensive agents is limited by the complex array of studies that compare treatments. Network meta-analysis combines direct and indirect evidence to better define risk or benefit. To summarize the available clinical trial evidence concerning the safety and efficacy of various antihypertensive therapies used as first-line agents and evaluated in terms of major cardiovascular disease end points and all-cause mortality. We used previous meta-analyses, MEDLINE searches, and journal reviews from January 1995 through December 2002. We identified long-term randomized controlled trials that assessed major cardiovascular disease end points as an outcome. Eligible studies included both those with placebo-treated or untreated controls and those with actively treated controls. Network meta-analysis was used to combine direct within-trial between-drug comparisons with indirect evidence from the other trials. The indirect comparisons, which preserve the within-trial randomized findings, were constructed from trials that had one treatment in common. Data were combined from 42 clinical trials that included 192 478 patients randomized to 7 major treatment strategies, including placebo. For all outcomes, low-dose diuretics were superior to placebo: coronary heart disease (CHD; RR, 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-0.92); congestive heart failure (CHF; RR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.42-0.62); stroke (RR, 0.71; 0.63-0.81); cardiovascular disease events (RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.69-0.83); cardiovascular disease mortality (RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.73-0.92); and total mortality (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.84-0.96). None of the first-line treatment strategies-beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, calcium channel blockers (CCBs), alpha-blockers, and angiotensin receptor blockers-was significantly better than low-dose diuretics for any outcome. Compared with CCBs, low-dose diuretics were associated with reduced risks of cardiovascular disease events (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.89-1.00) and CHF (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.67-0.81). Compared with ACE inhibitors, low-dose diuretics were associated with reduced risks of CHF (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.96), cardiovascular disease events (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.89-1.00), and stroke (RR, 0.86; 0.77-0.97). Compared with beta-blockers, low-dose diuretics were associated with a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease events (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.80-0.98). Compared with alpha-blockers, low-dose diuretics were associated with reduced risks of CHF (RR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.43-0.60) and cardiovascular disease events (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.75-0.93). Blood pressure changes were similar between comparison treatments. Low-dose diuretics are the most effective first-line treatment for preventing the occurrence of cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality. Clinical practice and treatment guidelines should reflect this evidence, and future trials should use low-dose diuretics as the standard for clinically useful comparisons.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Aspirin plus dipyridamole versus aspirin alone after cerebral ischaemia of arterial origin (ESPRIT): randomised controlled trial.

              Results of trials of aspirin and dipyridamole combined versus aspirin alone for the secondary prevention of vascular events after ischaemic stroke of presumed arterial origin are inconsistent. Our aim was to resolve this uncertainty. We did a randomised controlled trial in which we assigned patients to aspirin (30-325 mg daily) with (n=1363) or without (n=1376) dipyridamole (200 mg twice daily) within 6 months of a transient ischaemic attack or minor stroke of presumed arterial origin. Our primary outcome event was the composite of death from all vascular causes, non-fatal stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or major bleeding complication, whichever happened first. Treatment was open, but auditing of outcome events was blinded. Primary analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial (number ISRCTN73824458) and with (NCT00161070). Mean follow-up was 3.5 years (SD 2.0). Median aspirin dose was 75 mg in both treatment groups (range 30-325); extended-release dipyridamole was used by 83% (n=1131) of patients on the combination regimen. Primary outcome events arose in 173 (13%) patients on aspirin and dipyridamole and in 216 (16%) on aspirin alone (hazard ratio 0.80, 95% CI 0.66-0.98; absolute risk reduction 1.0% per year, 95% CI 0.1-1.8). Addition of the ESPRIT data to the meta-analysis of previous trials resulted in an overall risk ratio for the composite of vascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction of 0.82 (95% CI 0.74-0.91). Patients on aspirin and dipyridamole discontinued trial medication more often than those on aspirin alone (470 vs 184), mainly because of headache. The ESPRIT results, combined with the results of previous trials, provide sufficient evidence to prefer the combination regimen of aspirin plus dipyridamole over aspirin alone as antithrombotic therapy after cerebral ischaemia of arterial origin.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMC Public Health
                BMC Public Health
                BioMed Central
                1471-2458
                2011
                7 February 2011
                : 11
                : 86
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Division of Health and Social Care Research, King's College London, Capital House, Weston Street, London, UK
                [2 ]Department of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology (IBE) and Munich Centre of Health Sciences (MC-Health), Ludwig-Maximilians University of Munich, Munich, Germany
                Article
                1471-2458-11-86
                10.1186/1471-2458-11-86
                3041663
                21299872
                8db8a676-9862-4bdf-9830-79db12448b03
                Copyright ©2011 Dregan et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 30 June 2010
                : 7 February 2011
                Categories
                Research Article

                Public health
                Public health

                Comments

                Comment on this article