IMPORTANCE Adherence to cardioprotective medication regimens in the year after hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is poor.OBJECTIVE To test a multifaceted intervention to improve adherence to cardiac medications. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSIn this randomized clinical trial, 253 patients from 4 Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers located in Denver (Colorado), Seattle (Washington); Durham (North Carolina), and Little Rock (Arkansas) admitted with ACS were randomized to the multifaceted intervention (INT) or usual care (UC) prior to discharge. INTERVENTIONSThe INT lasted for 1 year following discharge and comprised (1) pharmacist-led medication reconciliation and tailoring; (2) patient education; (3) collaborative care between pharmacist and a patient's primary care clinician and/or cardiologist; and (4) 2 types of voice messaging (educational and medication refill reminder calls). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome of interest was proportion of patients adherent to medication regimens based on a mean proportion of days covered (PDC) greater than 0.80 in the year after hospital discharge using pharmacy refill data for 4 cardioprotective medications (clopidogrel, β-blockers, 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors [statins], and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers [ACEI/ARB]). Secondary outcomes included achievement of blood pressure (BP) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level targets. RESULTSOf 253 patients, 241 (95.3%) completed the study (122 in INT and 119 in UC). In the INT group, 89.3% of patients were adherent compared with 73.9% in the UC group (P = .003). Mean PDC was higher in the INT group (0.94 vs 0.87; P< .001). A greater proportion of intervention patients were adherent to clopidogrel (86.8% vs 70.7%; P = .03), statins (93.2% vs 71.3%; P < .001), and ACEI/ARB (93.1% vs 81.7%; P = .03) but not β-blockers (88.1% vs 84.8%; P = .59). There were no statistically significant differences in the proportion of patients who achieved BP and LDL-C level goals. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEA multifaceted intervention comprising pharmacist-led medication reconciliation and tailoring, patient education, collaborative care between pharmacist and patients' primary care clinician and/or cardiologist, and voice messaging increased adherence to medication regimens in the year after ACS hospital discharge without improving BP and LDL-C levels. Understanding the impact of such improvement in adherence on clinical outcomes is needed prior to broader dissemination of the program.TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00903032

Background-Adherence to cardioprotective medications in the year after acute coronary syndrome hospitalization is generally poor and is associated with increased risk of rehospitalization and mortality. Few interventions have specifically targeted this high-risk patient population to improve medication adherence. We hypothesize that a multifaceted patientcentered intervention could improve adherence to cardioprotective medications. Methods and Results-To evaluate this intervention, we propose enrolling 280 patients with a recent acute coronary syndrome event into a multicenter randomized, controlled trial. The intervention comprises4 main components: (1) pharmacist-led medication reconciliation and tailoring; (2) patient education; (3) collaborative care between pharmacist and primary care provider/cardiologist; and (4) 2 types of voice messaging (educational and medication refill reminder calls). Patients in the intervention arm will visit with the study pharmacist ≈1 week post-hospital discharge. The pharmacist will work with the patient and collaborate with providers to reconcile medication issues. Voice messages will augment the educational process and remind patients to refill their cardioprotective medications. The study will compare the intervention versus usual care for 12 months. The primary outcome of interest is adherence using the ReComp method. Secondary and tertiary outcomes include achievement of targets for blood pressure and low-density lipoprotein, and reduction in the combined cardiovascular end points of myocardial infarction hospitalization, coronary revascularization, and all-cause mortality. Finally, we will also evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the intervention compared with usual care. Conclusions-If the intervention is effective in improving medication adherence and demonstrating a lower cost, the intervention has the potential to improve cardiovascular outcomes in this high-risk patient population. (Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2012;5:571-576.)

This study uses a sample survey to analyse the capital budgeting practices of Cambodian companies in the manufacturing sector. The findings show that payback period, NPV, discounted payback period and accounting rate of return are the most popular evaluation techniques. The study also finds that interest rate risk as well as business cycle risk are mainly adjusted with a discount rate, and the commonly used method for calculating cost of capital is the after tax cost of debt and the weighted average cost of capital (WACC). Furthermore, the finding suggests that the longer the existence of a company, the more likely for it to use NPV method. The finding also reveals that the higher the amount of capital investment, the more it is likely to use the NPV method, while the smaller the amount of capital investment, the more likely the payback method will be used. With higher educational background, NPV and ARR are most likely the methods to be used in capital budgeting among the Cambodian firms.

Background: Despite the success of pharmacist-led interventions to improve medication adherence, pharmacists’ perspectives of these interventions are unknown. Our objective was to understand the pharmacists’ perspectives of a successful multifaceted intervention to improve medication adherence after acute coronary syndrome (ACS) hospitalization. Methods: We ascertained pharmacist perspectives’ through qualitative inquiry that included an open-ended survey, semi-structured interviews, and a focus group with the four pharmacists who participated in the intervention. Transcripts of surveys and interviews were analyzed using a content analysis approach. The intervention components included: 1) patient education; 2) assessment tools for potential medication adherence barriers; 3) collaborative care; and 4) automated medication refill reminders and educational messages. Pharmacists’ perspectives on each of these components were evaluated. Results: The pharmacists felt the intervention could be sustained in routine clinical care and identified key themes that facilitated intervention success. Pharmacists believed educating patients about their cardiovascular medications filled a gap in usual care. In addition, assessment tools that identified medication discrepancies and gaps in knowledge were helpful in tailoring patient education, while face-to-face conversations were more helpful in identifying mental and cognitive deficits that were barriers to adherence. Pharmacists also noted that the intervention led to the development of bi-directional relationships with patients through increased in-person and tele-health communication. As a result, poor adherence related to medication side effects was more readily addressed. Potential areas for improvement identified by the pharmacists included 1) emphasizing in-person visits to build relationships (begin the educational process while the patient is hospitalized and schedule both the follow-up clinic appointment and pharmacy visit at the same time); 2) utilizing the patient centered medical home concept to improve access to providers; 3) allowing sites to determine provider type to support the personal contact (i.e. pharmacist, nurse practitioner, registered nurse); and 4) employing interactive voice response (IVR) technology to facilitate communication. Conclusions: Pharmacists’ perspectives of a medication adherence intervention gave insights into reasons for the intervention success and suggestions for improvements and dissemination. We found that in-person meetings between pharmacists and patients led to bi-directional conversations and relationships with providers, which positively influenced patient adherence behavior. Future interventions designed to improve medication adherence should incorporate these pharmacist-identified factors.