Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a major cause of disability and mortality globally. Premature fatal and non-fatal CVD is considered to be largely preventable through the control of risk factors by ...lifestyle modifications and preventive medication. Lipid-lowering and antihypertensive drug therapies for primary prevention are cost-effective in reducing CVD morbidity and mortality among high-risk people and are recommended by international guidelines. However, adherence to medication prescribed for the prevention of CVD can be poor. Approximately 9% of CVD cases in the EU are attributed to poor adherence to vascular medications. Low-cost, scalable interventions to improve adherence to medications for the primary prevention of CVD have potential to reduce morbidity, mortality and healthcare costs associated with CVD.
To establish the effectiveness of interventions delivered by mobile phone to improve adherence to medication prescribed for the primary prevention of CVD in adults.
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two other databases on 7 January 2020. We also searched two clinical trials registers on 5 February 2020. We searched reference lists of relevant papers. We applied no language or date restrictions.
We included randomised controlled trials investigating interventions delivered wholly or partly by mobile phones to improve adherence to cardiovascular medications prescribed for the primary prevention of CVD. We only included trials with a minimum of one-year follow-up in order that the outcome measures related to longer-term, sustained medication adherence behaviours and outcomes. Eligible comparators were usual care or control groups receiving no mobile phone-delivered component of the intervention.
We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The main outcomes of interest were objective measures of medication adherence (blood pressure (BP) and cholesterol), CVD events, and adverse events. We contacted study authors for further information when this was not reported.
We included 14 trials with 25,633 randomised participants. Participants were recruited from community-based primary and tertiary care or outpatient clinics. The interventions varied widely from those delivered solely through short messaging service (SMS) to those involving a combination of modes of delivery, such as SMS in addition to healthcare worker training, face-to-face counselling, electronic pillboxes, written materials, and home blood pressure monitors. Some interventions only targeted medication adherence, while others additionally targeted lifestyle changes such as diet and exercise. Due to heterogeneity in the nature and delivery of the interventions and study populations, we reported most results narratively, with the exception of two trials which were similar enough to meaningfully pool in meta-analyses. The body of evidence for the effect of mobile phone-based interventions on objective outcomes of adherence (BP and cholesterol) was of low certainty, due to most trials being at high risk of bias, and inconsistency in outcome effects. Two trials were at low risk of bias. Among five trials (total study enrolment: 5441 participants) recording low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), two studies found evidence for a small beneficial intervention effect on reducing LDL-C (-5.30 mg/dL, 95% confidence interval (CI) -8.30 to -2.30; and -9.20 mg/dL, 95% CI -17.70 to -0.70). The other three studies found results varying from a small reduction (-7.7 mg/dL) to a small increase in LDL-C (0.77 mg/dL). All of which had wide confidence intervals that included no effect. Across 13 studies (25,166 participants) measuring systolic blood pressure, effect estimates ranged from a large reduction (MD -12.45 mmHg, 95% CI -15.02 to -9.88) to a small increase (MD 2.80 mmHg, 95% CI 0.30 to 5.30). We found a similar range of effect estimates for diastolic BP, ranging from -12.23 mmHg (95% CI 14.03 to -10.43) to 1.64 mmHg (95% CI -0.55 to 3.83) (11 trials, 19,716 participants). Four trials showed intervention benefits for systolic and diastolic BP with confidence intervals excluding no effect, and among these were all three of the trials evaluating self-monitoring of blood pressure with mobile phone-based telemedicine. The fourth trial included SMS and provider support (with additional varied features). Seven studies (19,185 participants) reported 'controlled' BP as an outcome, and intervention effect estimates varied from negligible effects (odds ratio (OR) 1.01, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.34) to large improvements in BP control (OR 2.41, 95% CI: 1.57 to 3.68). The three trials of clinician training or decision support combined with SMS (with additional varied features) had confidence intervals encompassing benefits and harms, with point estimates close to zero. Pooled analyses of the two trials of interventions solely delivered through SMS were indicative of little or no beneficial intervention effect on systolic BP (MD -1.55 mmHg, 95% CI -3.36 to 0.25; I
= 0%) and small increases in controlled BP (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.65; I
= 0%). Based on four studies (12,439 participants), there was very low-certainty evidence (downgraded twice for imprecision and once for risk of bias) relating to the intervention effect on combined (fatal and non-fatal) CVD events. Two studies (2535 participants) provided low-certainty evidence for the effect of the intervention on cognitive outcomes, with little or no difference between trial arms for perceived quality of care and satisfaction with treatment. There was moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias) that the interventions did not cause harm, based on six studies (8285 participants). Three studies reported no adverse events attributable to the intervention. One study reported no difference between groups in experience of adverse effects of statins, and that no participants reported intervention-related adverse events. One study stated that potential side effects were similar between groups. One study reported a similar number of deaths in each arm, but did not provide further information relating to potential adverse events.
There is low-certainty evidence on the effects of mobile phone-delivered interventions to increase adherence to medication prescribed for the primary prevention of CVD. Trials of BP self-monitoring with mobile-phone telemedicine support reported modest benefits. One trial at low risk of bias reported modest reductions in LDL cholesterol but no benefits for BP. There is moderate-certainty evidence that these interventions do not result in harm. Further trials of these interventions are warranted.
Although the use of oral anticoagulants (vitamin K antagonists) has been abandoned in primary cardiovascular prevention due to lack of a favorable benefit-to-risk ratio, the indications for aspirin ...use in this setting continue to be a source of major debate, with major international guidelines providing conflicting recommendations. Here, we review the evidence in favor and against aspirin therapy in primary prevention based on the evidence accumulated so far, including recent data linking aspirin with cancer protection. While awaiting the results of several ongoing studies, we argue for a pragmatic approach to using low-dose aspirin in primary cardiovascular prevention and suggest its use in patients at high cardiovascular risk, defined as ≥2 major cardiovascular events (death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) projected per 100 person-years, who are not at increased risk of bleeding.
Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids from oily fish (long-chain omega-3 (LCn3)), including eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)), as well as from plants (alpha-linolenic acid ...(ALA)) may benefit cardiovascular health. Guidelines recommend increasing omega-3-rich foods, and sometimes supplementation, but recent trials have not confirmed this.
To assess the effects of increased intake of fish- and plant-based omega-3 fats for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, adiposity and lipids.
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase to February 2019, plus ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry to August 2019, with no language restrictions. We handsearched systematic review references and bibliographies and contacted trial authors.
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that lasted at least 12 months and compared supplementation or advice to increase LCn3 or ALA intake, or both, versus usual or lower intake.
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed validity. We performed separate random-effects meta-analysis for ALA and LCn3 interventions, and assessed dose-response relationships through meta-regression.
We included 86 RCTs (162,796 participants) in this review update and found that 28 were at low summary risk of bias. Trials were of 12 to 88 months' duration and included adults at varying cardiovascular risk, mainly in high-income countries. Most trials assessed LCn3 supplementation with capsules, but some used LCn3- or ALA-rich or enriched foods or dietary advice compared to placebo or usual diet. LCn3 doses ranged from 0.5 g a day to more than 5 g a day (19 RCTs gave at least 3 g LCn3 daily). Meta-analysis and sensitivity analyses suggested little or no effect of increasing LCn3 on all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.01; 143,693 participants; 11,297 deaths in 45 RCTs; high-certainty evidence), cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.99; 117,837 participants; 5658 deaths in 29 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence), cardiovascular events (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.01; 140,482 participants; 17,619 people experienced events in 43 RCTs; high-certainty evidence), stroke (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.12; 138,888 participants; 2850 strokes in 31 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence) or arrhythmia (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.06; 77,990 participants; 4586 people experienced arrhythmia in 30 RCTs; low-certainty evidence). Increasing LCn3 may slightly reduce coronary heart disease mortality (number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 334, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.00; 127,378 participants; 3598 coronary heart disease deaths in 24 RCTs, low-certainty evidence) and coronary heart disease events (NNTB 167, RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.97; 134,116 participants; 8791 people experienced coronary heart disease events in 32 RCTs, low-certainty evidence). Overall, effects did not differ by trial duration or LCn3 dose in pre-planned subgrouping or meta-regression. There is little evidence of effects of eating fish. Increasing ALA intake probably makes little or no difference to all-cause mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.20; 19,327 participants; 459 deaths in 5 RCTs, moderate-certainty evidence),cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.25; 18,619 participants; 219 cardiovascular deaths in 4 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence), coronary heart disease mortality (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.26; 18,353 participants; 193 coronary heart disease deaths in 3 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence) and coronary heart disease events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.22; 19,061 participants; 397 coronary heart disease events in 4 RCTs; low-certainty evidence). However, increased ALA may slightly reduce risk of cardiovascular disease events (NNTB 500, RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.07; but RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.04 in RCTs at low summary risk of bias; 19,327 participants; 884 cardiovascular disease events in 5 RCTs; low-certainty evidence), and probably slightly reduces risk of arrhythmia (NNTB 91, RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.97; 4912 participants; 173 events in 2 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence). Effects on stroke are unclear. Increasing LCn3 and ALA had little or no effect on serious adverse events, adiposity, lipids and blood pressure, except increasing LCn3 reduced triglycerides by ˜15% in a dose-dependent way (high-certainty evidence).
This is the most extensive systematic assessment of effects of omega-3 fats on cardiovascular health to date. Moderate- and low-certainty evidence suggests that increasing LCn3 slightly reduces risk of coronary heart disease mortality and events, and reduces serum triglycerides (evidence mainly from supplement trials). Increasing ALA slightly reduces risk of cardiovascular events and arrhythmia.
Coronary artery disease (CAD) has substantial heritability and a polygenic architecture. However, the potential of genomic risk scores to help predict CAD outcomes has not been evaluated ...comprehensively, because available studies have involved limited genomic scope and limited sample sizes.
This study sought to construct a genomic risk score for CAD and to estimate its potential as a screening tool for primary prevention.
Using a meta-analytic approach to combine large-scale, genome-wide, and targeted genetic association data, we developed a new genomic risk score for CAD (metaGRS) consisting of 1.7 million genetic variants. We externally tested metaGRS, both by itself and in combination with available data on conventional risk factors, in 22,242 CAD cases and 460,387 noncases from the UK Biobank.
The hazard ratio (HR) for CAD was 1.71 (95% confidence interval CI: 1.68 to 1.73) per SD increase in metaGRS, an association larger than any other externally tested genetic risk score previously published. The metaGRS stratified individuals into significantly different life course trajectories of CAD risk, with those in the top 20% of metaGRS distribution having an HR of 4.17 (95% CI: 3.97 to 4.38) compared with those in the bottom 20%. The corresponding HR was 2.83 (95% CI: 2.61 to 3.07) among individuals on lipid-lowering or antihypertensive medications. The metaGRS had a higher C-index (C = 0.623; 95% CI: 0.615 to 0.631) for incident CAD than any of 6 conventional factors (smoking, diabetes, hypertension, body mass index, self-reported high cholesterol, and family history). For men in the top 20% of metaGRS with >2 conventional factors, 10% cumulative risk of CAD was reached by 48 years of age.
The genomic score developed and evaluated here substantially advances the concept of using genomic information to stratify individuals with different trajectories of CAD risk and highlights the potential for genomic screening in early life to complement conventional risk prediction.
Despite the availability of effective drug therapies that reduce low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol (LDL-C), cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains an important cause of mortality and morbidity. ...Therefore, additional LDL-C reduction may be warranted, especially for people who are unresponsive to, or unable to take, existing LDL-C-reducing therapies. By inhibiting the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) enzyme, monoclonal antibodies (PCSK9 inhibitors) reduce LDL-C and CVD risk.
Primary To quantify the effects of PCSK9 inhibitors on CVD, all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke, compared to placebo or active treatment(s) for primary and secondary prevention. Secondary To quantify the safety of PCSK9 inhibitors, with specific focus on the incidence of influenza, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and cancer, compared to placebo or active treatment(s) for primary and secondary prevention.
We identified studies by systematically searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science in December 2019. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform in August 2020 and screened the reference lists of included studies. This is an update of the review first published in 2017.
All parallel-group and factorial randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a follow-up of at least 24 weeks were eligible.
Two review authors independently reviewed and extracted data. Where data were available, we calculated pooled effect estimates. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence and in 'Summary of findings' tables.
We included 24 studies with data on 60,997 participants. Eighteen trials randomised participants to alirocumab and six to evolocumab. All participants received background lipid-lowering treatment or lifestyle counselling. Six alirocumab studies used an active treatment comparison group (the remaining used placebo), compared to three evolocumab active comparison trials. Alirocumab compared with placebo decreased the risk of CVD events, with an absolute risk difference (RD) of -2% (odds ratio (OR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 0.94; 10 studies, 23,868 participants; high-certainty evidence), decreased the risk of mortality (RD -1%; OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.96; 12 studies, 24,797 participants; high-certainty evidence), and MI (RD -2%; OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.94; 9 studies, 23,352 participants; high-certainty evidence) and for any stroke (RD 0%; OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.91; 8 studies, 22,835 participants; high-certainty evidence). Compared to active treatment the alirocumab effects, for CVD, the RD was 1% (OR 1.37, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.87; 3 studies, 1379 participants; low-certainty evidence); for mortality, RD was -1% (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.40; 5 studies, 1333 participants; low-certainty evidence); for MI, RD was 1% (OR 1.45, 95% CI 0.64 to 3.28, 5 studies, 1734 participants; low-certainty evidence); and for any stroke, RD was less than 1% (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.13 to 5.61; 5 studies, 1734 participants; low-certainty evidence). Compared to placebo the evolocumab, for CVD, the RD was -2% (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.91; 3 studies, 29,432 participants; high-certainty evidence); for mortality, RD was less than 1% (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.19; 3 studies, 29,432 participants; high-certainty evidence); for MI, RD was -1% (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.82; 3 studies, 29,432 participants; high-certainty evidence); and for any stroke RD was less than -1% (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.94; 2 studies, 28,531 participants; high-certainty evidence). Compared to active treatment, the evolocumab effects, for any CVD event RD was less than -1% (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.14 to 3.04; 1 study, 218 participants; very low-certainty evidence); for all-cause mortality, the RD was less than 1% (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.30; 3 studies, 5223 participants; very low-certainty evidence); and for MI, RD was less than 1% (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.85; 3 studies, 5003 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There were insufficient data on any stroke. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for the clinical endpoint effects of evolocumab and alirocumab were graded as high. There is a strong evidence base to prescribe PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies to people who might not be eligible for other lipid-lowering drugs, or to people who cannot meet their lipid goals on more traditional therapies, which was the main patient population of the available trials. The evidence base of PCSK9 inhibitors compared with active treatment is much weaker (low very- to low-certainty evidence) and it is unclear whether evolocumab or alirocumab might be effectively used as replacement therapies. Related, most of the available studies preferentially enrolled people with either established CVD or at a high risk already, and evidence in low- to medium-risk settings is minimal. Finally, there is very limited evidence on any potential safety issues of both evolocumab and alirocumab. While the current evidence synthesis does not reveal any adverse signals, neither does it provide evidence against such signals. This suggests careful consideration of alternative lipid lowering treatments before prescribing PCSK9 inhibitors.
Selenium is a key component of a number of selenoproteins which protect against oxidative stress and have the potential to prevent chronic diseases including cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, ...observational studies have shown inconsistent associations between selenium intake and CVD risk; in addition, there is concern around a possible increased risk of type 2 diabetes with high selenium exposure.
To determine the effectiveness of selenium only supplementation for the primary prevention of CVD and examine the potential adverse effect of type 2 diabetes.
The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 10 of 12, October 2012) on The Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (Ovid) (1946 to week 2 October 2012); EMBASE Classic + EMBASE (Ovid) (1947 to 2012 Week 42); CINAHL (EBSCO) (to 24 October 2012); ISI Web of Science (1970 to 24 October 2012); PsycINFO (Ovid) (1806 to week 3 October 2012); Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Health Technology Assessment Database and Health Economics Evaluations Database (Issue 4 of 4, October 2012) on The Cochrane Library. Trial registers and reference lists of reviews and articles were searched and experts in the field were approached. No language restrictions were applied.
Randomised controlled trials on the effects of selenium only supplementation on major CVD end-points, mortality, changes in CVD risk factors, and type 2 diabetes were included both in adults of all ages from the general population and in those at high risk of CVD. Trials were only considered where the comparison group was placebo or no intervention. Only studies with at least three months follow-up were included in the meta-analyses, shorter term studies were dealt with descriptively.
Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information.
Twelve trials (seven with duration of at least three months) met the inclusion criteria, with 19,715 participants randomised. The two largest trials that were conducted in the USA (SELECT and NPC) reported clinical events. There were no statistically significant effects of selenium supplementation on all cause mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.08), CVD mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.2), non-fatal CVD events (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.04) or all CVD events (fatal and non-fatal) (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.11). There was a small increased risk of type 2 diabetes with selenium supplementation but this did not reach statistical significance (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.15). Other adverse effects that increased with selenium supplementation, as reported in the SELECT trial, included alopecia (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.62) and dermatitis grade 1 to 2 (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.0 to 1.35). Selenium supplementation reduced total cholesterol but this did not reach statistical significance (WMD - 0.11 mmol/L, 95% CI - 0.3 to 0.07). Mean high density lipoprotein (HDL) levels were unchanged. There was a statistically significant reduction in non-HDL cholesterol (WMD - 0.2 mmol/L, 95% CI - 0.41 to 0.00) in one trial of varying selenium dosage. None of the longer term trials examined effects on blood pressure. Overall, the included studies were regarded as at low risk of bias.
The limited trial evidence that is available to date does not support the use of selenium supplements in the primary prevention of CVD.
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a major cause of disability and mortality globally. Premature fatal and non-fatal CVD is considered to be largely preventable through the control of risk factors via ...lifestyle modifications and preventive medication. Lipid-lowering and antihypertensive drug therapies for primary prevention are cost-effective in reducing CVD morbidity and mortality among high-risk people and are recommended by international guidelines. However, adherence to medication prescribed for the prevention of CVD can be poor. Approximately 9% of CVD cases in the EU are attributed to poor adherence to vascular medications. Low-cost, scalable interventions to improve adherence to medications for the primary prevention of CVD have potential to reduce morbidity, mortality and healthcare costs associated with CVD.
To establish the effectiveness of interventions delivered by mobile phone to improve adherence to medication prescribed for the primary prevention of CVD in adults.
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two other databases on 21 June 2017 and two clinical trial registries on 14 July 2017. We searched reference lists of relevant papers. We applied no language or date restrictions.
We included randomised controlled trials investigating interventions delivered wholly or partly by mobile phones to improve adherence to cardiovascular medications prescribed for the primary prevention of CVD. We only included trials with a minimum of one-year follow-up in order that the outcome measures related to longer-term, sustained medication adherence behaviours and outcomes. Eligible comparators were usual care or control groups receiving no mobile phone-delivered component of the intervention.
We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. We contacted study authors for disaggregated data when trials included a subset of eligible participants.
We included four trials with 2429 randomised participants. Participants were recruited from community-based primary care or outpatient clinics in high-income (Canada, Spain) and upper- to middle-income countries (South Africa, China). The interventions received varied widely; one trial evaluated an intervention focused on blood pressure medication adherence delivered solely through short messaging service (SMS), and one intervention involved blood pressure monitoring combined with feedback delivered via smartphone. Two trials involved interventions which targeted a combination of lifestyle modifications, alongside CVD medication adherence, one of which was delivered through text messages, written information pamphlets and self-completion cards for participants, and the other through a multi-component intervention comprising of text messages, a computerised CVD risk evaluation and face-to-face counselling. Due to heterogeneity in the nature and delivery of the interventions, we did not conduct a meta-analysis, and therefore reported results narratively.We judged the body of evidence for the effect of mobile phone-based interventions on objective outcomes (blood pressure and cholesterol) of low quality due to all included trials being at high risk of bias, and inconsistency in outcome effects. Of two trials targeting medication adherence alongside other lifestyle modifications, one reported a small beneficial intervention effect in reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (mean difference (MD) -9.2 mg/dL, 95% confidence interval (CI) -17.70 to -0.70; 304 participants), and the other found no benefit (MD 0.77 mg/dL, 95% CI -4.64 to 6.18; 589 participants). One trial (1372 participants) of a text messaging-based intervention targeting adherence showed a small reduction in systolic blood pressure (SBP) for the intervention arm which delivered information-only text messages (MD -2.2 mmHg, 95% CI -4.4 to -0.04), but uncertain evidence of benefit for the second intervention arm that provided additional interactivity (MD -1.6 mmHg, 95% CI -3.7 to 0.5). One study examined the effect of blood pressure monitoring combined with smartphone messaging, and reported moderate intervention benefits on SBP and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (SBP: MD -7.10 mmHg, 95% CI -11.61 to -2.59; DBP: -3.90 mmHg, 95% CI -6.45 to -1.35; 105 participants). There was mixed evidence from trials targeting medication adherence alongside lifestyle advice using multi-component interventions. One trial found large benefits for SBP and DBP (SBP: MD -12.45 mmHg, 95% CI -15.02 to -9.88; DBP: MD -12.23 mmHg, 95% CI -14.03 to -10.43; 589 participants), whereas the other trial demonstrated no beneficial effects on SBP or DBP (SBP: MD 0.83 mmHg, 95% CI -2.67 to 4.33; DBP: MD 1.64 mmHg, 95% CI -0.55 to 3.83; 304 participants).Two trials reported on adverse events and provided low-quality evidence that the interventions did not cause harm. One study provided low-quality evidence that there was no intervention effect on reported satisfaction with treatment.Two trials were conducted in high-income countries, and two in upper- to middle-income countries. The interventions evaluated employed between three and 16 behaviour change techniques according to coding using Michie's taxonomic method. Two trials evaluated interventions that involved potential users in their development.
There is low-quality evidence relating to the effects of mobile phone-delivered interventions to increase adherence to medication prescribed for the primary prevention of CVD; some trials reported small benefits while others found no effect. There is low-quality evidence that these interventions do not result in harm. On the basis of this review, there is currently uncertainty around the effectiveness of these interventions. We identified six ongoing trials being conducted in a range of contexts including low-income settings with potential to generate more precise estimates of the effect of primary prevention medication adherence interventions delivered by mobile phone.
The ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly trial (ASPREE) contributed important knowledge about primary cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention among healthy older adults. The finding that daily ...low-dose aspirin (LDA) does not statistically prevent disability or CVD among adults aged over 70 years when compared with placebo, but does significantly increase risk of haemorrhage, immediately influenced clinical practice guidelines. In this article, we discuss nuances of the trial that may impact the extrapolation of the ASPREE trial results to the everyday individual clinical care of older adults.
PDF
