Why the study?
What are the behavioral and institutional barriers that reduce the real-world effectiveness of pharmacologic agents for cardiovascular disease prevention compared to their efficacy in clinical trials?
What are the behavioral and institutional barriers that reduce the real-world effectiveness of pharmacologic agents for cardiovascular disease prevention compared to their efficacy in clinical trials?
Highlights the critical gap between clinical trial efficacy and real-world effectiveness of cardiovascular preventive medications, emphasizing the need for behavioral and epidemiologic research to address treatment barriers.
Multilevel barriers limit real-world use of preventive agents; leaves open questions on effective implementation strategies.
A number of pharmacologic interventions are now recommended for the prevention of cardiovascular disease, based on the results of randomized controlled trials. These include antihypertensive drugs, lipid-lowering agents, antiplatelet and anticoagulant drugs, estrogen replacement therapy, beta-blockers, and angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors. It is likely that additional pharmacologic interactions will soon be proven efficacious. Despite the strength of this evidence and the development of clinical guidelines incorporating their use, a surprisingly low proportion of patients are actively treated with these agents. There may be a variety of explanations for this, including barriers at the level of the patient, health care provider, and health care institution. Finally, a number of questions remain as to the optimal combination of interventions, both behavioral and pharmacologic, which will yield maximal reduction in risk. The description of factors which reduce the effectiveness of pharmacologic interventions below the efficacy demonstrated in randomized clinical trials should be a fertile area for epidemiologic and behavioral research.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pearson et al. (1997) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: