Text Messages to Improve Medication Adherence and Secondary Prevention After Acute Coronary Syndrome: The TEXTMEDS Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: TEXTMEDS (Text Messages to Improve Medication Adherence and Secondary Prevention After Acute Coronary Syndrome) examined the effects of text message-delivered cardiac education and support on medication adherence after an acute coronary syndrome. METHODS: TEXTMEDS was a single-blind, multicenter, randomized controlled trial of patients after acute coronary syndrome. The control group received usual care (secondary prevention as determined by the treating clinician); the intervention group also received multiple motivational and supportive weekly text messages on medications and healthy lifestyle with the opportunity for 2-way communication (text or telephone). The primary end point of self-reported medication adherence was the percentage of patients who were adherent, defined as >80% adherence to each of up to 5 indicated cardioprotective medications, at both 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 1424 patients (mean age, 58 years [SD, 11]; 79% male) were randomized from 18 Australian public teaching hospitals. There was no significant difference in the primary end point of self-reported medication adherence between the intervention and control groups (relative risk, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.84-1.03]; P=0.15). There was no difference between intervention and control groups at 12 months in adherence to individual medications (aspirin, 96% vs 96%; ß-blocker, 84% vs 84%; angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker, 77% vs 80%; statin, 95% vs 95%; second antiplatelet, 84% vs 84% [all P>0.05]), systolic blood pressure (130 vs 129 mm Hg; P=0.26), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (2.0 vs 1.9 mmol/L; P=0.34), smoking (P=0.59), or exercising regularly (71% vs 68%; P=0.52). There were small differences in lifestyle risk factors in favor of intervention on body mass index <25 kg/m2 (21% vs 18%; P=0.01), eating ≥5 servings per day of vegetables (9% vs 5%; P=0.03), and eating ≥2 servings per day of fruit (44% vs 39%; P=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: A text message-based program had no effect on medical adherence but small effects on lifestyle risk factors. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=364448; Unique identifier: ANZCTR ACTRN12613000793718.

Effects of fenofibrate on cardiovascular events in patients with diabetes, with and without prior cardiovascular disease: The Fenofibrate Intervention and Event Lowering in Diabetes (FIELD) study.

BACKGROUND: In the FIELD study, comparison of the effect of fenofibrate on cardiovascular disease (CVD) between those with prior CVD and without was a prespecified subgroup analysis. METHODS: The effects of fenofibrate on total CVD events and its components in patients who did (n = 2,131) and did not (n = 7,664) have a history of CVD were computed by Cox proportional hazards modeling and compared by testing for treatment-by-subgroup interaction. The analyses were adjusted for commencement of statins, use of other CVD medications, and baseline covariates. Effects on other CVD end points were explored. RESULTS: Patients with prior CVD were more likely than those without to be male, to be older (by 3.3 years), to have had a history of diabetes for 2 years longer at baseline, and to have diabetic complications, hypertension, and higher rates of use of insulin and CVD medications. Discontinuation of fenofibrate was similar between the subgroups, but more patients with prior CVD than without, and also more placebo than fenofibrate-assigned patients, commenced statin therapy. The borderline difference in the effects of fenofibrate between those who did (hazard ratio [HR] 1.02, 95% CI 0.86-1.20) and did not have prior CVD (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.70-0.94; heterogeneity P = .045) became nonsignificant after adjustment for baseline covariates and other CVD medications (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.81-1.14 vs HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.67-0.90) (heterogeneity P = .06). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings do not support treating patients with fenofibrate differently based on any history of CVD, in line with evidence from other trials.

Risk stratification in the setting of non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes 1999-2007.

It is unclear if clinician risk stratification has changed with time. The aim of this study was to assess the temporal change in the concordance between patient presenting risk and the intensity of evidence-based therapies received for non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes over a 9-year period. Data from 3,562 patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes enrolled in the Australian and New Zealand population of the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) from 1999 to 2007 were analyzed. Patients were stratified to risk groups on the basis of the GRACE risk score for in-hospital mortality. Main outcome measures included in-hospital use of widely accepted evidence-based medications, investigations, and procedures. Invasive management was consistently higher in low-risk patients than in intermediate- or high-risk patients (coronary angiography 66.7% vs 63.5% vs 35.3%, p <0.001; percutaneous coronary intervention 31.1% vs 22.0% vs 12.9%, p <0.001). Absolute rates of angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention in the high-risk group remained 24% and 15% lower compared to the low-risk group in the most recent time period (2005 to 2007). In-hospital use of thienopyridine, low-molecular weight heparin, and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors showed a similar inverse relation with risk. Prescription of aspirin, ß blockers, statins, and angiotensin receptor blockers was inversely related to risk before 2004, although this inverse relation was no longer present in the most recent time period (2005 to 2007). Only in-hospital use of unfractionated heparin showed use concordant with patient risk status. In conclusion, despite an overall increase in the uptake of evidence-based therapies, most investigations and treatments are not targeted on the basis of patient risk. Clinician risk stratification remains suboptimal compared to objective measures of patient risk.