Impact Factor 3.845 | CiteScore 3.92
More on impact ›

Clinical Trial ARTICLE Provisionally accepted The full-text will be published soon. Notify me

Front. Pharmacol. | doi: 10.3389/fphar.2019.01112

Impacts of clinical pharmacist intervention on the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease: a randomized controlled clinical study

 Huimin Xu1, Jie Zou2, Xiaoli Ye3, Jiayun Han4, Lan Gao5, Shunbin Luo6, Jingling Wang7, Chunyan Huang8, Xiaofeng Yan1 and  Haibin Dai1*
  • 1Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, China
  • 2The 117th Hospital of PLA, China
  • 3Hangzhou First People's Hospital, China
  • 4Haining People's Hospital, China
  • 5Zhangye People's Hospital, China
  • 6Lishui City People's Hospital, China
  • 7Yinzhou No.2 Hospital, China
  • 8Third Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, China

To investigate the impact of clinical pharmacist intervention on the prognosis of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in Chinese patients with coronary heart disease (CHD). Two hundred and forty patients who had ACS were recruited. Participants were randomly assigned to the intervention group (n = 120) or the control group (n = 120). The intervention group received a medication assessment and education by the clinical pharmacist at discharge and telephone follow-ups at 1 week, 1 month and 3 months after discharge. The control group received usual care. Primary outcomes of this study were the proportion of patients who had major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), including mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), stroke and unplanned cardiac-related rehospitalizations within 6 and 12 months after hospital discharge. Secondary outcome was self-reported medication adherence to evidence-based medications for CHD (antiplatelets, statins, β-blockers, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers). Of 240 enrolled patients, 238 (98.3%) completed 6-month follow-up, and 235 (97.9%) completed 12-month follow-up. There were no significant differences between intervention and control groups in the percentages of patients who incurred MACEs within the 6-month follow-up (3.3% vs 7.6%, respectively, P=0.145) or 12-month follow-up (10.9% vs 12.1%, respectively, P=0.783). Significant improvements were found in the prescribing rates of β-blockers and all 4 classes of medications at discharge in the intervention group compared with the control group (P = 0.001 and P = 0.009, respectively). There was no significant difference between intervention and control groups in the use of all 4 classes of medications at the 6-month follow-up (48.3% vs 45.8%, respectively, P=0.691) and 12-month follow-up (47.9% vs 46.6%, respectively, P=0.836). The use of β-blockers was nonsignificantly higher in the intervention group than the control group at the 6-month follow-up (74.2% vs. 64.4%, P = 0.103) and 12-month follow-up (74.8% vs. 63.8%, P = 0.068). Clinical pharmacist intervention had no significant effects on reduction in cardiovascular events among patients with CHD. Further studies with larger sample size and longer time-frame for both intervention and follow-up are needed to validate the role of clinical pharmacist in the morbidity and mortality of CHD.

Keywords: coronary heart disease, Coronary Artery Disease, pharmacist, cardiovascular events, outcome assessment

Received: 17 Jul 2019; Accepted: 30 Aug 2019.

Copyright: © 2019 Xu, Zou, Ye, Han, Gao, Luo, Wang, Huang, Yan and Dai. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Prof. Haibin Dai, Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310009, Zhejiang Province, China,