RESULTS
Study population
A total of 89 patients were included during a 12 months period. Baseline
characteristics were similar across the groups, and did not differ
significantly on any criteria (Table 2).
Sixteen (16) patients were lost to follow-up: 11 did not come back to
the consultation within the three months as planned and five did not get
their therapeutic parameters measured at the follow-up consultation
(Figure 2). Five of these patients were in the control group and 11 in
the intervention group. Baseline characteristics were similar between
the drop out patients and the patients that ended the study (Sup. Data
Table 1).
Duration
Interviews lasted between 10 to 90 minutes, with an average of 36.1
minutes (95% confidence interval 31.6 – 40.6 minutes) and a median of
35 minutes (first-last quartile: 25-45 minutes).
Primary outcome
The per protocol analysis reported a significantly higher
proportion of patients reaching the therapeutic objectives in the
intervention group (61.7% versus 33.3%; p=0.015) (Table 2).
In the sensitivity analysis, the difference between the two groups was
higher in “best case scenario” (71.1% versus 29.5%;
p<0.0001) and lower in the “worst case scenario” (46.7%versus 40.9%; p=0.584) (Table 2).
Subgroup analysis
Number of prescribed
drugs
The proportion of patients achieving therapeutic goals was not different
between the two groups for patients who took less than five different
drugs each day (60.0% vs. 64.3%; p=0.812). Conversely, for
patients taking five or more different drugs, more patients reached the
therapeutic goals in the intervention group compared to the control
group (16.7% vs. 60.0%; p=0.005) (Table 2).
Age
In patients under 60 years old, no difference appeared in the proportion
of patients achieving therapeutic goals between the two groups (50.0%vs. 66.7%; p=0.362) (table 2). On the contrary, in patients over
60 years old, patients in the intervention group reached the therapeutic
goals more than the patients in the control group (26.1% vs.57.9%; p=0.037) (Table 2).