Improving blood pressure control through pharmacist interventions: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Details

Ressource 1Download: BIB_5843DF507CB0.P001.pdf (598.21 [Ko])
State: Public
Version: author
Serval ID
serval:BIB_5843DF507CB0
Type
Article: article from journal or magazin.
Collection
Publications
Institution
Title
Improving blood pressure control through pharmacist interventions: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Journal
Journal of the American Heart Association
Author(s)
Santschi V., Chiolero A., Colosimo A.L., Platt R.W., Taffé P., Burnier M., Burnand B., Paradis G.
ISSN
2047-9980 (Electronic)
ISSN-L
2047-9980
Publication state
Published
Issued date
2014
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Volume
3
Number
2
Pages
e000718
Language
english
Notes
Publication types: Journal Article ; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Publication Status: epublish PDF : Original Research
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Control of blood pressure (BP) remains a major challenge in primary care. Innovative interventions to improve BP control are therefore needed. By updating and combining data from 2 previous systematic reviews, we assess the effect of pharmacist interventions on BP and identify potential determinants of heterogeneity.
METHODS AND RESULTS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of pharmacist interventions on BP among outpatients with or without diabetes were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and CENTRAL databases. Weighted mean differences in BP were estimated using random effect models. Prediction intervals (PI) were computed to better express uncertainties in the effect estimates. Thirty-nine RCTs were included with 14 224 patients. Pharmacist interventions mainly included patient education, feedback to physician, and medication management. Compared with usual care, pharmacist interventions showed greater reduction in systolic BP (-7.6 mm Hg, 95% CI: -9.0 to -6.3; I(2)=67%) and diastolic BP (-3.9 mm Hg, 95% CI: -5.1 to -2.8; I(2)=83%). The 95% PI ranged from -13.9 to -1.4 mm Hg for systolic BP and from -9.9 to +2.0 mm Hg for diastolic BP. The effect tended to be larger if the intervention was led by the pharmacist and was done at least monthly.
CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacist interventions - alone or in collaboration with other healthcare professionals - improved BP management. Nevertheless, pharmacist interventions had differential effects on BP, from very large to modest or no effect; and determinants of heterogeneity could not be identified. Determining the most efficient, cost-effective, and least time-consuming intervention should be addressed with further research.
Pubmed
Web of science
Open Access
Yes
Create date
04/07/2014 17:52
Last modification date
20/08/2019 15:12
Usage data