Improving blood pressure control through pharmacist interventions: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Fiche du document
2014
- doi: 10.1161/JAHA.113.000718
- issn: 2047-9980
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1161/JAHA.113.000718
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pmid/24721801
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2047-9980
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/urn/urn:nbn:ch:serval-BIB_5843DF507CB05
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess , Copying allowed only for non-profit organizations , https://serval.unil.ch/disclaimer
Sujets proches
Care and treatment Tsʻeu Tzʻu Ci Tse State trials Administration Resultants Blood--PressureCiter ce document
V. Santschi et al., « Improving blood pressure control through pharmacist interventions: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. », Serveur académique Lausannois, ID : 10.1161/JAHA.113.000718
Métriques
Partage / Export
Résumé
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.