IMPACT OF A DRUG-USE REVIEW PROGRAM INTERVENTION ON PRESCRIBING AFTER PUBLICATION OF A RANDOMIZED CLINICAL-TRIAL

The effect of a drug-use review (DUR) program intervention on physician prescribing after the results of a randomized clinical trial were published was studied. A Veterans Administration (VA) cooperative study published in June 1986 showed that congestive heart failure (CHF) patients who had hydralazine and isosorbide added to their drug therapy had less mortality than patients given digoxin and diuretics with or without prazosin. Physicians with at least one CHF patient who was receiving the less effective therapy were randomly assigned to intervention and control groups. In September 1986, intervention-group physicians (n = 288) were mailed a letter and questionnaire from the DUR program coordinator, the journal article, and a drug history profile of a CHF patient who might benefit from the information. Control physicians received no mailing. The questionnaire asked whether the physicians already knew about the VA study, intended to alter their prescribing, and could identify factors that would affect their decision. Two thirds of intervention-group physicians were already aware of the VA study. One third indicated that they intended to alter drug therapy based on the study results; factors significantly associated with the intent to adopt a change were physician training and experience, comments by peers, new drug availability, and the size of the reduction in mortality. During four months after the intervention, only 5 physicians in the two groups switched their patients to both hydralazine and isosorbide (full change); 23 switched them to at least one of the drugs or discontinued prazosin (partial change). There was no significant difference in the number of full or partial changes between groups. Physicians who received an educational intervention after publication of study results where no more innovative in their prescribing than physicians who did not.