Team-based Care to Improve Blood Pressure Control: The CAPTION Trial Barry L. Carter, Pharm.D., FCCP, FAHA, FASH, FAPHA The Patrick E. Keefe Professor in Pharmacy Department of Pharmacy Practice and Science College of Pharmacy and Professor Department of Family Medicine Roy J. and Lucille A. Carver College of Medicine University of Iowa Objectives See Agenda Cluster, Randomized Efficacy Trial OriginalPaper A Cluster Randomized Trial to Evaluate Physician/Pharmacist Collaboration to Improve Blood Pressure Control Barry L. Carter, PharmD; George R. Bergus, MD; Jeffrey D. Dawson, ScD; Karen B. Farris, PhD; William R. Doucette, PhD; Elizabeth A. Chrischilles, PhD; Arthur J. Hartz, MD, PhD Funded by NHLBI: RO1 HL69801 Journal of Clinical Hypertension 2008;10:260-271 Collaborative Management of Hypertension Study: Efficacy Trial • • • • • Only faculty / private physicians involved in the study. Patients 21-85 years with diagnosis of hypertension. Baseline BP: 145-179 SBP or 95-109 DBP for uncomplicated. • 135-179 SBP or 85-109 DBP for diabetes. Clinic BP at 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9 months 24-hour BP at baseline and 9 months Journal of Clinical Hypertension 2008;10:260-271 Physician/Pharmacist Collaborative Management Intervention • Pharmacist conducted interview and assessed patient for strategies to improve BP control. • Pharmacist made recommendations to MD and patient to improve BP control. • Pharmacists and physicians worked to overcome/prevent sub-optimal treatment, clinical inertia, poor adherence, adverse reactions, drug interactions • Pharmacists saw patients at least every 2 months x 9 months. NHLBI: RO1 HL69801 Data Analysis • Continuous variables – likelihood-based mixed models with random patient effects fit to SAS Proc Mixed in an intention-to-treat analysis. • Models adjusted for baseline BP, age, gender, race, education, insurance status, household income, marital status, smoking status, alcohol intake, BMI, number of co-existing conditions, baseline medication adherence and total number of visits during the study. Baseline Demographics Control (n=78) Age BP meds Baseline med adherence # co-existing DX Diabetes BMI (kg/m2) * - p < 0.001 61.0 + 11.3 Intervention (n=101) 59.6 + 13.7* 1.4 + 1.0 1.5 + 1.0 88.6% 71.1%* 0.46 + 0.78 0.47 + 0.81 24.4% 24.8% 31.8 (+14.7) 32.3 (+7.7) Results Intervention - CMH (n=101) Control - CMH (n=78) Systolic BP vs. Time Intervention - post-study (n=64) 160 Control - post-study (n=39) 155 Sustainability 150 SBP mm Hg) 145 140 135 130 * 125 * 120 115 *** * ** ** ** *** *** *** 110 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Time in Months * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001, Carter BL, Bergus GR, Dawson et al. Journal of Clinical Hypertension 2008;10:260-271. Carter BL, Doucette WR. Franciscus CL, et al. Pharmacotherapy 2010;30:228-235. 22 24 26 * Results: BP Control Rates Main Finding: The major reason for the high control was due to intensification of medications. Control Interven- Adjusted tion OR CI; p value All patients 52.9% 89.1% 8.9 3.8-20.7 P<0.001 Diabetes 23.5% 81.8% 40.1 4.1-394.7 P=0.002 - Carter BL, Bergus GR, Dawson et al. Journal of Clinical Hypertension 2008;10:260-271. - Von Muenster SJ, et al. Pharmacy World & Science 2008:30:128-135. Physicians accepted 95.8% of 267 pharmacist recommendations Recommendation Frequency by Visit 0 Mo Opt Added Thiazide n=45 40 2 3 0 0 0 NA Added Other Drug n=79 30 13 18 9 6 3 NA Increased Dose n=89 28 21 14 9 9 8 NA Changed Dose Frequency n=7 2 0 1 3 1 0 NA Switch Within Class n=15 6 3 1 3 2 0 NA Decreased Dose n=14 3 3 3 2 3 0 NA Drug Discontinued n=18 2 4 8 3 1 0 NA 111 46 48 29 22 11 NA 0 - Total n=267 BP Control Rate n=101 2 Mo 4 Mo 6 Mo 8 Mo 9 Mo 52% 67% 73% 84% 89% • Von Muenster SJ, Carter BL, Weber CA et al. Description of pharmacist interventions during physician-pharmacist co-management of hypertension. Pharmacy World & Science 2008:30:128-135. “Mixed” Efficacy-Effectiveness trial ORIGINAL INVESTIGATION HEALTH CARE REFORM Physician and Pharmacist Collaboration to Improve Blood Pressure Control Barry L. Carter, PharmD; Gail Ardery, PhD; Jeffrey D. Dawson, ScD; Paul A. James, MD; George R. Bergus, MD; William R. Doucette, PhD; Elizabeth A. Chrischilles, PhD; Carrie L. Franciscus, MA; Yinghui Xu, MS Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00201019 Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(21):1996-2002 Adherence Study: Combination of Efficacy and Effectiveness • Prospective, cluster-randomized controlled trial in 6 community-based family medicine residency clinics all with clinical pharmacist faculty in the medical office. • Research nurse in each clinic measured BP at baseline, 3 and 6 months and 24-hour BP at baseline and 6 months. Intervention • Pharmacist conducted interview and assessed patient for strategies to improve BP control. • Pharmacist made recommendations to MD and patient to improve BP control. • Pharmacists and physicians worked to overcome/prevent sub-optimal treatment, clinical inertia, poor adherence • Pharmacists only encouraged to see patients at baseline and 1 month with a telephone call at 3 months with a goal to achieve BP control by 6 months (but they could see patients more often). Research BP Measurement • Automated Omron Device • Measure 1 BP, record but do not use for research value • Measure 2 BP values and average them if less than 4 mm Hg apart. • If more than 4 mm different, measure a 4th BP and average the 2 closest BP values (from the 2nd to 4th BP measurements). * Systolic Blood Pressure 160 Systolic Blood Pressure (mmHg) 150 * 140 ** 130 120 Prospective study ended Intervention stopped Retrospective evaluation of sustainability… 110 100 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Time (months) 15 16 •- p<0.001; **- p=0.0015; *** - p=0.0023 Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(21):1996-2002 Journal of Clinical Hypertension 2011;13:431-437. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Meta-analysis of Potency of individual components of teambased care Odds that BP was controlled (95% confidence Interval) Studies involving nurses 1.69 (1.48-1.93) [69% increased chance] Studies involving pharmacists within physician offices or clinics 2.48 (2.05-2.99) [148% increased chance] Studies done in community pharmacies 2.89 (1.83-4.55) [189% increased chance] Conclusion: All were effective but interventions by pharmacists appear to be more potent than by nurses. Carter BL, et al. Archives of Internal Medicine 2009; 169:1748-1755. 17 Collaboration Among Pharmacists and Physicians To Improve Outcomes Now (CAPTION) Barry L. Carter, Pharm.D. Principal Investigator, CCC Christopher Coffey, Ph.D. Principal Investigator, DCC Department of Pharmacy Practice and Science, College of Pharmacy and Professor Department of Family Medicine Roy J. and Lucille A. Carver College of Medicine Professor and Director, Clinical Trials Data Management Center * The study is being funded by NHLBI/NIH, R01 HL091841-01A1. College of Public Health Important Concepts that Determine Various Study Methodologies Implementation: is the process of putting to use or integrating evidence-based interventions within a specific setting. Sustainability: describes to what extent an evidence-based intervention can deliver its intended benefits over an extended period of time after external support from the donor agency is terminated. Rabin BA et al. A glossary for dissemination and implementation research in health. J Public Health Management Practice 2008;14:117-123. CAPTION Study Outcomes Primary outcome = BP control @ 9 months (determined via research measurement) BP control defined as: • < 140/90 for patients with uncomplicated hypertension • < 130/80 for patients with diabetes or chronic kidney disease** Outcomes (cont.) Secondary endpoints include: • Mean BP @ 12, 18, 24 months CAPTION 32 offices stratified by degree of pharmacy services and racial minorities: Then randomized to: 1. Usual care group 2. 9-month pharmacist intervention 3. 24-month pharmacist intervention. Subjects followed for 24 months to determine: 1. What happens when the intervention is stopped? 2. Can the intervention be sustained for 2 years? 3. Does the intervention benefit patients from minority groups? Participating Locations Demographics Variable 9 Month (N=194) N (%) 119 (61.3) 24 Month (N=207) N (%) 125 (60.4) Control (N=224) N (%) 133 (59.4) Total (N=625) N (%) 377 (60.3) p-value Age (SD) 60.6 (12.4) 56.7 (11.8) 60.5 (13.8) 59.3 (12.8) 0.055 BMI (SD) 33.8 (8.5) 35.2 (9.0) 32.9 (7.7) 33.9 (8.5) 0.090 DM or CKD * SBP (SD) 102 (52.6%) 109 (52.7%) 103 (46.0%) 314 (50.2%) 0.5995 147.6 (13.7) 149.8 (15.6) 149.6 (15.3) 149.1 (15.0) 0.458 Female 0.938 * - Required a lower treatment goal (<130/80) making it more difficult to achieve control Pharmacist Interventions Group 9 –Month Group 24 – Month Group First 9 Months (rate/month) 9-24 Months (rate/month) 0.576 0.074 0.503 0.261 Primary Outcome 9-Month BP Control Variable BP Control All subjects BP Control Minorities Intervention Groups (N = 401) (N=226 minorities) Control Group (N = 224) (N=111 minorities) Model-Adjusted Difference – Intervention vs. Control (95% CI) p-value 43% 34% 1.57 ( 0.99 , 2.50 ) 0.052 37% 28% 1.54 ( 0.84 , 2.81 ) 0.16 * - Defined as <140/90 for uncomplicated BP and <130/80 for diabetes or CKD Provider Level Attitudes Variable Pharmacy Structure Score *** Low High Pharmacist TPB Mean (SD) Physician TPB Mean (SD 9 Month (N=11) 24 Month (N=9) Control (N=12) p-value 3 (27%) 8 (73%) 3 (33%) 6 (67%) 4 (33%) 8 (67%) 1.00 21.0 (2.18) 21.8 (1.42) 21.2 (3.89) 0.76 19.8 (2.39) 20.2 (1.56) 17.4 (2.85) 0.02 TBP = Theory of Planned Behavior *** - There was a significant relationship between offices with higher PSC and better BP control, adjusted odds ratio and CI = 1.75 ( 1.23 , 2.49 ), p = 0.002 *** - Subjects from sites with higher PSC had a mean lower SBP of 4 mm Hg (p=0.007) and 2 mm DBP (P=0.009) Primary Outcome 9-Month BP Control When Adjusted for Baseline Pharmacy Structure Score Variable BP Control All subjects BP Minority Subjects Intervention Groups (N = 401) (N=226 minorities) Control Group (N = 224) (N=111 minorities) Model-Adjusted Difference – Intervention vs. Control (95% CI) p-value 43% 34% 1.52 ( 1.02 , 2.29 ) 0.042 37% 28% 1.54 ( 0.84 , 2.81 ) 0.016 * - Defined as <140/90 for uncomplicated BP and <130/80 for diabetes or CKD 9 – month BP- All subjects Intervention Control Variable Groups Group (N = 401) (N = 224) ModelAdjusted Difference – Intervention vs. Control (95% CI) p-value SBP Mean (SD) 131.6 (15.8) 138.2 (19.7) -6.07 ( -9.64, -2.50 ) 0.001 DBP Mean (SD) 76.3 (11.1) 78.0 (14.5) -2.89 ( -4.80, -0.99 ) 0.003 Results – Minority subjects Intervention Control Variable Groups Group (N = 226) (N = 111) Model Adjusted Difference – Intervention vs. Control (95% CI) pvalue SBP Mean (SD) 133.0 (16.3) 140.3 (21.4) -6.42 0.006 ( -10.97, -1.87 ) DBP Mean (SD) 77.9 (10.7) 78.8 (15.9) -2.98 ( -5.76, -0.20 ) 0.036 Systolic BP Results BP Control Rates Results Summary: Comparison Of Other Studies With CAPTION • Mean difference (control group minus the intervention group) in SBP was -8 to -10 mm Hg in other studies and -6.1 mm Hg in CAPTION • Mean difference in DBP was -3 to -6 mm Hg in other studies and -2.9 mm Hg in CAPTION • While the effect was slightly less in CAPTION, the results were expected and very similar to other studies Comments and Questions