作者: Pedro Amariles , Daniel Sabater-Hernández , Emilio García-Jiménez , Miguel Ángel Rodríguez-Chamorro , Rosa Prats-Más
DOI: 10.18553/JMCP.2012.18.4.311
关键词: Randomized controlled trial 、 Medical prescription 、 Medicine 、 Pharmacist 、 Blood pressure 、 Internal medicine 、 Pharmacotherapy 、 Surgery 、 Randomization 、 Kidney disease 、 Stroke
摘要: BACKGROUND: Although some studies have demonstrated that pharmacist intervention can improve drug therapy among patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD), more evidence derived from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is needed, including assessment of the effect community interventions in CVD. OBJECTIVE: To assess effectiveness Dader Method for pharmaceutical care on achieving therapeutic goals blood pressure (BP), total cholesterol (TC), and both BP TC (BP/TC) CVD and/or high or intermediate (CV) risk attending pharmacies Spain. METHODS: Patients aged 25 to 74 years a prescription at least 1 indicated CV factors were 2 groups: an group received care, which was provided by specially trained pharmacists working collaboration physicians, control usual (routine dispensing counseling) verbal written counseling regarding prevention. recruited December 2005 September 2006, groups followed 8 months. Study outcomes assessed baseline 16 32 weeks after randomization. The primary outcome measures proportions BP, TC, BP/TC (BP lower than 140/90 mm Hg uncomplicated hypertension 130/80 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, history myocardial infarction stroke; 200 mg per dL without 175 CVD). Secondary mean values. manually 10-minute rest supine position. This measurement performed twice every participant, average measurements calculated. measured during study visit using enzymatic dry method. Statistical analyses 2-tailed McNemar tests, Pearson chi-square Student’s t-tests; P < 0.05 considered statistically significant. RESULTS: 714 included (356 intervention, 358 control), [SD] age 62.8 [8.1] years. similar clinical demographic characteristics, proportion BP/TC. After months follow-up, there significant differences favor who achieved (52.5% vs. 43.0%, = 0.017), (56.5% 44.1%, 0.001), (37.1% 21.8%, <0.001).