Effect of pragmatic versus explanatory interventions on medication adherence in people with cardiometabolic conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Issue 7 (23rd July 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Fitzpatrick, Claire; Gillies, Clare; Seidu, Samuel; Kar, Debasish; Ioannidou, Ekaterini; Davies, Melanie J; Patel, Prashanth; Gupta, Pankaj; Khunti, Kamlesh
• Is Part Of: BMJ open. Volume 10:Issue 7(2020)
• Publication Date: 2020-07-23
• Subjects: diabetes & endocrinology -- cardiology -- diabetes & endocrinology; Medicine -- Research -- Periodicals; 610.72
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-036575
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2044-6055

Abstract

Abstract : Objective: To synthesise findings from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions aimed at increasing medication adherence in individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and/or cardiovascular disease (CVD). And, in a novel approach, to compare the intervention effect of studies which were categorised as being more pragmatic or more explanatory using the Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2 (PRECIS-2) tool, to identify whether study design affects outcomes. As explanatory trials are typically held under controlled conditions, findings from such trials may not be relatable to real-world clinical practice. In comparison, pragmatic trials are designed to replicate real-world conditions and therefore findings are more likely to represent those found if the intervention were to be implemented in routine care. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources: Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, Web of Science and CINAHL from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2018. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: RCTs lasting ≥3 months (90 days), involving ≥200 patients in the analysis, with either established CVD and/or T2DM and which measured medication adherence. From 4403 citations, 103 proceeded to full text review. Studies published in any language other than English and conference abstracts were excluded. Main outcome measure: Change in medication adherence. Results: Of 4403 records identified, 34 studies were considered eligible, of which 28, including 30 861 participants, contained comparable outcome data for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Overall interventions were associated with an increase in medication adherence (OR 1.57 (95% CI: 1.33 to 1.84), p<0.001; standardised mean difference 0.24 (95% CI: −0.10 to 0.59) p=0.101). The effectiveness of interventions did not differ significantly between studies considered pragmatic versus explanatory (p=0.598), but did differ by intervention type, with studies that included a multifaceted rather than a single-faceted intervention having a more significant effect (p=0.010). The analysis used random effect models and used the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool to assess study quality. Conclusions: In this meta-analysis, interventions were associated with a significant increase in medication adherence. Overall multifaceted interventions which included an element of education alongside regular patient contact or follow-up showed the most promise. Effectiveness of interventions between pragmatic and explanatory trials was comparable, suggesting that findings can be transferred from idealised to real-word conditions. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42017059460.