Patients In Disease Management Program Research Articles

Efficacy of Disease Management Programs Asthma and COPD? Results of a Cross-Sectional Study

The efficacy of the German disease management programs (DMP) asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) cannot be shown with the legally bound documentations. Studies with control groups are rare. Aim of this work was to investigate in a cross-sectional study whether the disease control differs in participants (DMP+) and non-participants (DMP - ) of the DMPs asthma and COPD. The study was a prospective multicenter cross-sectional study. Primary endpoints were the Asthma Control Test™ (ACT) in the asthma part of the study and the COPD Assessment Test™ (CAT) for the COPD part. A total of 1038 asthma patients and 846 COPD patients were included, of whom about 70 % participated in the corresponding DMP. The ACT total score was higher in asthma DMP+ patients than in DMP- patients (mean difference 0.86; 95 % CI: 0.29 - 1.43;p = 0.003), but not clinically relevant. For COPD there was no clinically relevant difference in COPD disease impact (0.52; 95 % CI: - 0.71 - 1.75; p = 0.405). Although DMP patients had to be enrolled in the respective DMP for at least one year, only 60 % of these patients had participated in a structured education. We did not observe a difference in disease control in DMP patients who respectively participated and did not participate in a structured education. There was no clinically relevant difference in disease control between DMP+ and DMP- patients. The efficacy of DMPs has been demonstrated internationally in randomized controlled trials. Randomized controlled trials should be conducted in Germany for demonstrating efficacy of DMPs asthma and COPD. drks.de, DRKS00007664, Registration date: Jan 15, 2015.

Influence of Risk on Reduction of Readmission and Death by Disease Management Programs in Heart Failure

Disease management programs (DMPs) may reduce short-term readmission or death after heart failure (HF) hospitalization. We sought to determine if targeting of DMP to the highest-risk patients could improve efficiency. Patients (n = 412) admitted with HF were randomized to usual care or an intensive DMP including optimizing intravascular volume status at discharge, increased self-care education, exercise guidance, closer home surveillance, and increased intensity of HF nurse follow-up. Both treatment groups were similar in demographics, medication use, Charlson comorbidity index, ejection fraction, and left ventricular and atrial volumes. Readmission or death occurred in 74/197 (37%) usual care and 50/215 (23%) DMP patients within 30 days (relative risk [RR] 0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46-0.84), and 113/197 (57%) usual care and 78/215 (36%) DMP patients within 90 days, (RR 0.63, 9%% CI 0.51-0.78). The predicted risk of death and readmission (estimated from our previously developed risk score) was similar between treatment groups (mean predicted risk 38.6 ± 22.2% vs 39.4 ± 21.9%; P = .73) and similar across categories of predicted risk between the treatment groups. For 30-day readmission or death, patients from the 2 highest risk quintiles showed a benefit from intervention, and there was an interaction between intervention and predicted risk (P = .02). For 90-day readmission or death, most patients-other than those in the lowest-risk quintile-benefited from the intervention. Use of a risk score may permit targeting of DMP to reduce HF admission. Intensive DMP may reduce short-term readmission or death, particularly in high-risk patients.

Efficacy of Disease Management Programs Asthma and COPD? Results of a Cross-Sectional Study

The efficacy of the German disease management programs (DMP) asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) cannot be shown with the legally bound documentations. Studies with control groups are rare. Aim of this work was to investigate in a cross-sectional study whether the disease control differs in participants (DMP+) and non-participants (DMP-) of the DMPs asthma and COPD. The study was a prospective multicenter cross-sectional study. Primary endpoints were the Asthma Control Test™ (ACT) in the asthma part of the study and the COPD Assessment Test™ (CAT) for the COPD part. A total of 1038 asthma patients and 846 COPD patients were included, of whom about 70 % participated in the corresponding DMP. The ACT total score was higher in asthma DMP+ patients than in DMP- patients (mean difference 0.86; 95 %CI:0.29 - 1.43;p = 0.003), but not clinically relevant. For COPD there was no clinically relevant difference in COPD disease impact (0.52; 95 %CI:-0.71 - 1.75;p = 0.405). Although DMP patients had to be enrolled in the respective DMP for at least one year, only 60 % of these patients had participated in a structured education. We did not observe a difference in disease control in DMP patients who respectively participated and did not participate in a structured education. There was no clinically relevant difference in disease control between DMP+ and DMP- patients. The efficacy of DMPs has been demonstrated internationally in randomized controlled trials. Randomized controlled trials should be conducted in Germany for demonstrating efficacy of DMPs asthma and COPD. drks.de, DRKS00007664, Registration date: Jan 15, 2015.

Impact of Disease Management Programs on HbA1c Values in Type 2 Diabetes Patients in Germany.

The aim was to analyze the impact of disease management programs on HbA1c values in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients in Germany. This study included 9017 patients followed in disease management programs (DMPs) who started an antihyperglycemic treatment upon inclusion in a DMP. Standard care (SC) patients were included after individual matching (1:1) to DMP cases based on age, gender, physician (diabetologist versus nondiabetologist care), HbA1c values at baseline, and index year. The main outcome was the share of patients with HbA1c <7.5% or 6.5% after at least 6 months and less than 12 months of therapy in DMP and SC groups. Multivariate logistic regression models were fitted with HbA1c level as a dependent variable and the potential predictor (DMP versus SC). The mean age was 64.3 years and 54.7% of the patients were men. The mean HbA1c level at baseline was equal to 8.7%. In diabetologist practices, 64.7% of DMP patients and 55.1% of SC patients had HbA1c levels <7.5%, while 23.4% of DMP patients and 16.9% of SC patients had HbA1c levels <6.5% ( P values < .001). By comparison, in general practices, 72.4% of DMP patients and 65.7% of SC patients had HbA1c levels <7.5%, while 29.0% of DMP patients and 25.4% of SC patients had HbA1c levels <6.5% ( P values < .001). DMPs increased the likelihood of HbA1c levels lower than 7.5% or 6.5% after 6 months of therapy in both diabetologist and general care practices. The present study indicates that the enrollment of T2DM patients in DMPs has a positive impact on HbA1c values in Germany.

Evaluation of a disease management program for COPD using propensity matched control group.

Disease management programs (DMPs) have proliferated recently as a means of improving the quality and efficiency of care for patients with chronic illness. These programs include education about disease, optimization of evidence-based medications, information and support from case managers, and institution of self-management principles. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in Singapore and worldwide. DMP aims to reduce mortality, hospitalizations, and average length of stay in such patients. This study assesses the outcomes of the DMP, comparing the propensity score matched DMP patients with controls. DMP patients were compared with the controls, who were COPD patients fulfilling the DMP's inclusion criteria but not included in the program. Control patients were identified from Operations Data Store (ODS) database. The outcomes of interest were average length of stay, number of days admitted to hospital per 100 person days, readmission, and mortality rates per person year. The risk of death and readmission was estimated using Cox, and competing risk regression respectively. Propensity score was estimated to identify the predictors of DMP enrolment. DMP patients and controls were matched on their propensity score. There were 170 matched DMP patients and control patients having 287 and 207 hospitalizations respectively. Program patient had lower mortality than the controls (0.12 vs. 0.27 per person year); cumulative 1-year survival was 91% among program patient and 76% among the control patients. Readmission, and hospital days per 100 person-days was higher for the program patients (0.36 vs. 0.17 per person year), and (2.19 vs. 1.88 per person year) respectively. Participation in "DMP" was associated with lower all-cause mortality when compared to the controls. This survival gain in the program patients was paradoxically associated with an increase in readmission rate and total hospital days.

Better lipid target achievement for secondary prevention through disease management programs for diabetes mellitus and coronary heart disease in clinical practice in Germany

Aims:Disease management programs (DMP) for diabetes mellitus (DM) or coronary heart disease (CHD) address the treatment of lipid disorders. The current registry aimed to compare drug utilization, lipid lowering effects and further outcomes of outpatients at high cardiovascular risk in DMP for DM or CHD compared to patients in routine care (no-DMP).Methods:This was a prospective non-interventional registry with a 1 year follow-up which enrolled consecutive patients with known DM and/or any vascular disease on simvastatin 40 mg monotherapy, to document lipid target achievement in clinical practice in Germany according to existing guidelines. Drug use (maintenance, add-on, switch, discontinuation) and other components of care were upon the discretion of the treating physician.Results:Of a total of 12,154 patients (mean age 65.8 years, 61.2% males), 3273 were in DMP CHD, 3265 in DMP DM and 1760 in DMP CHD + DM. In DMP patients compared to no-DMP patients, comorbidities/risk factors were more frequent. More patients in the DMP groups attained the target level of low density lipoprotein (LDL-C) <70 mg/dl (1.8 mmol/l) at baseline (8.5% DMP vs. 5.7% no-DMP), at 6 month (10.3% vs. 7.4%) and 12 month follow-up (10.1% vs. 7.1%). Cholesterol absorption inhibitors were added in 16% of the patients at the end of the baseline or at the follow-up visits, while statin treatment (including mean dose) remained largely unchanged. Target achievement rates were highest for all time points in the DMP CHD + DM group. With respect to limitations, this study was restricted to lipid disorders as qualifying diagnosis and simvastatin as qualifying treatment, which is a potential cause of selection bias. Information on non-pharmacological measures was not collected, and the 12-month follow-up period was relatively short.Conclusion:Patients in DMP compared to those not in DMP achieved better LDL-C lowering and higher control rates, but overall lipid target achievement rates need to be improved. Longer-term observations are needed to corroborate these findings.

Impact of disease management programs on women with breast cancer in Germany.

The aim of the study was to analyze the impact of disease management programs (DMPs) on adherence in women with breast cancer (BC) in Germany. Data on 4915 BC patients [1874 DMP and 3041 standard care (SC)] who started hormone therapy between 2008 and 2013 in 234 gynecological practices in Germany were analyzed retrospectively. The primary outcome measure was the rate of discontinuation of hormone therapy within 3 years of the start of treatment. Discontinuation of therapy was defined as a period of at least 90 days without treatment. A multivariate Cox regression model was created to determine the effect of DMPs on the risk of discontinuation. Region (western vs. eastern Germany), patient age, and concomitant diagnoses (depression, osteoporosis, thrombosis, and diabetes) were included as covariates. There was a significant difference between DMPs and SC in terms of age (63 ± 12 years vs. 64 ± 12 years, p value = 0.0012) and region (79.2% of patients living in western Germany vs. 88.6%, p value < 0.0001), but not initial therapy (51.8% vs. 52%, p value = 0.8696). Depression was also more common in patients in DMPs than those in SC (26.8% vs. 17.3%, p value < 0.0001). Within 3 years of therapy initiation, 32.7% of DMP patients and 39.6% of SC patients had discontinued their treatment (p < 0.001). Women with BC who were enrolled in a DMP had a lower risk of discontinuing therapy (HR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.85-0.98, p value = 0.0092). This risk was also slightly higher in western Germany (HR = 1.13, 95% CI: 1.02-1.24, p value = 0.0143). Involvement in DMPs has a positive impact on the adherence of BC patients.

Disease management programs for type 2 diabetes in Germany: a systematic literature review evaluating effectiveness.

Disease management programs (DMPs) are intended to improve the care of persons with chronic diseases. Despite numerous studies there is no unequivocal evidence about the effectiveness of DMPs in Germany. We conducted a systematic literature review in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and CCMed databases. Our analysis included all controlled studies in which patients with type 2 diabetes enrolled in a DMP were compared to type 2 diabetes patients receiving routine care with respect to process, outcome, and economic parameters. The 9 studies included in the analysis were highly divergent with respect to their characteristics and the process and outcome parameters studied in each. No study had data beyond the year 2008. In 3 publications, the DMP patients had a lower mortality than the control patients (2.3%, 11.3%, and 7.17% versus 4.7%, 14.4%, and 14.72%). In 2 publications, DMP participation was found to be associated with a mean survival time of 1044.94 (± 189.87) days, as against 985.02 (± 264.68) in the control group. No consistent effect was seen with respect to morbidity, quality of life, or economic parameters. 7 publications from 5 studies revealed positive effects on process parameters for DMP participants. The observed beneficial trends with respect to mortality and survival time, as well as improvements in process parameters, indicate that DMPs can, in fact, improve the care of patients with diabetes. Further evaluation is needed, because some changes in outcome parameters (an important indicator of the quality of care) may only be observable over a longer period of time.

Health related quality of life and comorbidity. A descriptive analysis comparing EQ-5D dimensions of patients in the German disease management program for type 2 diabetes and patients in routine care

BackgroundThe co-occurance of multiple medical conditions has a negative impact on health related quality of life (HRQoL) for patients with type 2 diabetes. These patients demand for intensified care programs. Participation in a disease management program (DMP) for type 2 diabetes has shown to counterbalance this effect. However, it remains unclear which dimensions of HRQoL are influenced by the DMP. The aim of this study was to explore the HRQoL dimensions of patients with type 2 diabetes in the German DMP and patients in routine care (RC).MethodsThis analysis is part of a comparative evaluation of the German DMP for patients with type 2 diabetes. A questionnaire, including the HRQoL measure EQ-5D, was mailed to a random sample of 3,546 patients with type 2 diabetes (59.3% female). The EQ-5D dimensions were analyzed by grouping patients according to their participation in the German DMP for diabetes into DMP and RC.ResultsCompared to patients in DMP, patients in RC reported more problems for the dimensions mobility (P < 0.05), self care (P < 0.05) and performing usual activities (P < 0.01). Depending on the number of other conditions, remarkable differences for reporting "no problems" exist for patients with six or more comorbid conditions regarding the dimensions mobility (RC = 8.7%, DMP = 32.3%), self care (RC = 43.5%, DMP = 64.5%), usual activities (RC = 13.0%, DMP = 33.9%) and anxiety or depression (RC = 37.0%, DMP = 48.4%).ConclusionPatients participating in the German DMP for type 2 diabetes mellitus show significantly higher ratings of their HRQoL in the dimensions mobility, self care and performing usual activities compared to patients in RC. This difference can also be observed in patients with significant comorbidities. As these dimensions are known to be essential for diabetes care, the German DMP may contribute to improved care even for comorbid diabetes patients.

Comorbidity and patient-reported quality of care: an evaluation of the primary care based German disease management program for type 2 diabetes

Previous evaluations of the German disease management program (DMP) for type 2 diabetes show that this approach curbs drug and hospital costs, may reduce mortality and improve quality of diabetes care. Otherwise until now there have been no evaluations which analyse the impact of comorbidity (COMORB) on the effectiveness of German DMP to strengthen patient-reported quality of care. Therefore, the study aimed to assess and compare the impact of comorbidity on patient-reported quality of care for patients participating in DMP and in routine care (RC). A questionnaire including the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) was mailed to a random sample of 3,546 patients. We grouped patients according to their participation into DMP and RC. To compare groups, we performed analysis of covariance. We considered all main effects, the interaction of DMP * COMORB and assessed the estimated PACIC scores for each number of other conditions. 1,532 questionnaires were returned (42.2%). Valid data existed for 1,399 patients. The analysis showed that only participation in the DMP (p < 0.0001) and gender (p < 0.001) had an impact on the PACIC. The estimated PACIC score of patients in DMP was higher than in routine care for all numbers of other conditions. Whereas the increasing number of other conditions was associated with lower PACIC scores in DMP, it was associated with increased PACIC scores in RC. Patients with type 2 diabetes in DMP had higher PACIC scores than patients in RC, irrespective of the number of other conditions. Our study revealed no significant impact of comorbidity on the effect of German DMP on patient-reported quality of care.

Usefulness of frailty profile for targeting older heart failure patients in disease management programs: a cost-effectiveness, pilot study

Disease management programs (DMP) improve outcomes in patients with heart failure. Because older heart failure patients represent a heterogeneous population, the aim of this study was to determine which patients benefit mostly from a DMP, by means of their frailty profile. Heart failure outpatient clinic. Consecutive (n = 173) patients aged more than 70 years were randomized to a multidisciplinary DMP (n = 86) or usual care (n = 87). A modified frailty score (range 1-6) was used as an index of global functional impairment. Mild to moderate frailty (frailty score = 2-3) was associated with significant improvements in outcomes (death and/or heart failure admission, heart failure admissions and all-cause admissions) in DMP patients vs. usual care. Even in more frail patients (frailty score = 4-6) a significant reduction in heart failure admissions was observed. By contrast, nonfrail patients (frailty score = 1) did not derive significant benefit. In the cost-effectiveness analysis, the mean savings per patient, stratified according to their frailty score, were -1003.31 euro for frailty score 1 (95% confidence interval -3717.00-1709.00), 1104.72 euro for frailty score 2 (-280.6-2491.00), 2635.42 euro for frailty score 3 (352.60-4917.00, P = 0.025) and 419.53 euro for frailty score 4-6 (-1909.00-2749.00). Intervention was therefore significantly cost saving in moderately frail, but not in nonfrail or severely frail patients. Thus, DMP was dominant (i.e. both less costly and more effective than usual care) in moderately frail patients. At sensitivity analysis, DMP remained dominant even to changes in cost of intervention and hospitalizations. This suggests that an intensive, hospital-based DMP appears to be more effective in older patients with mild-to-moderate levels of frailty. Thus, a multidimensional assessment of frailty seems to be a useful tool for appropriate selection of model of care.

Characteristics, management and attainment of lipid target levels in diabetic and cardiac patients enrolled in Disease Management Program versus those in routine care: LUTZ registry

BackgroundSince 2002 the sick funds in Germany have widely implemented disease management programs (DMPs) for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) and coronary heart disease (CHD). Little is known about the characteristics, treatment and target attainment lipid levels of these patients enrolled in DMPs compared to patients in routine care (non-DMP).MethodsIn an open, non-interventional registry (LUTZ) in Germany, 6551 physicians documented 15,211 patients with DM (10,110 in DMP, 5101 in routine care) and 14,222 (6259 in DMP, 7963 in routine care) over a follow-up period of 4 months. They received the NCEP ATP III guidelines as a reminder on lipid level targets.ResultsWhile demographic characteristics of DMP patients were similar to routine care patients, the former had higher rates of almost all cardiovascular comorbidities. Patients in DMPs received pharmacological treatment (in almost all drug classes) more often than non-DMP patients (e.g. antiplatelets: in DM 27.0% vs 23.8%; in CHD 63.0% vs. 53.6%). The same applied for educational measures (on life style changes and diet etc.). The rate of target level attainment for low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) < 100 mg/dl was somewhat higher in DMP patients at inclusion compared to non-DMP patients (DM: 23.9% vs. 21.3%; CHD: 30.6% vs. 23.8%) and increased after 4 months (DM: 38.3% vs. 36.9%; CHD: 49.8% vs. 43.3%). Individual LDL-C target level attainment rates as assessed by the treating physicians were higher (at 4 months in DM: 59.6% vs. 56.5%; CHD: 49.8% vs 43.3%). Mean blood pressure (BP) and HbA1c values were slightly lowered during follow-up, without substantial differences between DMP and non-DMP patients.ConclusionPatients with DM, and (to a greater extent) with CHD in DMPs compared to non-DMP patients in routine care have a higher burden of comorbidities, but also receive more intensive pharmacological treatment and educational measures. The present data support that the substantial additional efforts in DMPs aimed at improving outcomes resulted in quality gains for achieving target LDL-C levels, but not for BP or HbA1c. Longer-term follow-up is needed to substantiate these results.

Reformoptionen für einen zukünftigen Risikostrukturausgleich in der GKV

AIM OF THE ARTICLE: The risc structure compensation scheme within the German compulsory health insurance system is intended to enforce the principle of solidarity all over the statutory health insurance and not only within the different sickness funds. Differences in the contribution rates should not reflect different risc profiles, but the differences of the efficiency in social care. The criticism against the current adjustment system in Germany is multifarious and points e. g. on the missing orientation to morbidity. This article follows the question, whether this criticism is valid. The variables and methods, which are currently used to calculate the risc structure adjustment are discussed and compared to an alternative proposal for the future form of the risc structure adjustment, which includes both a higher orientation to riscs and incentives for social health insurance funds to decline the costs for the social care system on long-term. Currently, for the calculation of the risc structure adjustment the following variables are used: age, sex, income, number of family members who are exempted from contributions and persons who get occupational disability pension, and number of insured persons who are registered to an accredited Disease-Management-Program (DMP). Especially the last variable includes a high control effort, because the higher co-payments of the adjustment system are aligned to the voluntariness of participation and active collaboration of the patients in DMP. The argument, a further development to a morbidity-oriented risc structure adjustment leads to less cost management of the sickness funds is not totally correct, because not actual, but standardised costs are the basis for compensation. On the other hand the morbidity determined cost components should not totally be adjusted, as a proper distribution of savings to the risc structure adjustment and the single funds would still be an incentive for cost management and prevention. An ongoing refining of the risc structure adjustment might cause new incentive problems. Instead a morbidity orientated risc structure compensation scheme should leave a part of the savings due to better social care structures in the sickness funds and should include outpatient care parameters. The change to a new honorarium system could create a better data basis for this improved form of risc structure adjustment in the future.