Efficacy Of Disease Management Programs 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.

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.

Disease Management plus Recommended Care versus Recommended Care Alone for Ambulatory Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

Rationale: The efficacy of disease management programs in the treatment of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remains uncertain.Objectives: To study the effect of disease management (DM) added to recommended care (RC) in ambulatory patients with COPD.Measurements and Main Results: In this trial, 1,202 patients with COPD (age, ≥40 yr), with moderate to very severe airflow limitation were randomly assigned either to DM plus RC (study intervention) or to RC alone (control intervention). RC included follow-up by pulmonologists, inhaled long-acting bronchodilators and corticosteroids, smoking cessation intervention, nutritional advice and psychosocial support when indicated, and supervised physical activity sessions. DM, delivered by trained nurses during patients' visits to the designated COPD centers and by remote contacts with the patients between these visits, included patient self-care education, monitoring patients' symptoms and adherence to treatment, provision of advice in case of acute disease exacerbation, and coordination of care vis-à-vis other healthcare providers. The primary composite endpoint was first hospital admission for respiratory symptoms or death from any cause. During 3,537 patient-years, 284 patients (47.2%) in the control group and 264 (44.0%) in the study intervention group had a primary endpoint event. The median (range) time elapsed until a primary endpoint event was 1.0 (0-4.0) years among patients assigned to the study intervention and 1.1 (0-4.1) years among patients assigned to the control intervention; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.92 (95% confidence interval, 0.77-1.08).Conclusions: DM added to RC was not superior to RC alone in delaying first hospital admission or death among ambulatory patients with COPD.

Disease management in the treatment of patients with chronic heart failure who have universal access to health care: a randomized controlled trial

BackgroundThe efficacy of disease management programs in improving the outcome of heart failure patients remains uncertain and may vary across health systems. This study explores whether a countrywide disease management program is superior to usual care in reducing adverse health outcomes and improving well-being among community-dwelling adult patients with moderate-to-severe chronic heart failure who have universal access to advanced health-care services and technologies.MethodsIn this multicenter open-label trial, 1,360 patients recruited after hospitalization for heart failure exacerbation (38%) or from the community (62%) were randomly assigned to either disease management or usual care. Disease management, delivered by multi-disciplinary teams, included coordination of care, patient education, monitoring disease symptoms and patient adherence to medication regimen, titration of drug therapy, and home tele-monitoring of body weight, blood pressure and heart rate. Patients assigned to usual care were treated by primary care practitioners and consultant cardiologists.The primary composite endpoint was the time elapsed till first hospital admission for heart failure exacerbation or death from any cause. Secondary endpoints included the number of all hospital admissions, health-related quality of life and depression during follow-up. Intention-to-treat comparisons between treatments were adjusted for baseline patient data and study center.ResultsDuring the follow-up, 388 (56.9%) patients assigned to disease management and 387 (57.1%) assigned to usual care had a primary endpoint event. The median (range) time elapsed until the primary endpoint event or end of study was 2.0 (0–5.0) years among patients assigned to disease management, and 1.8 (0–5.0) years among patients assigned to usual care (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.908; 95% confidence interval, 0.788 to 1.047). Hospital admissions were mostly (70%) unrelated to heart failure.Patients assigned to disease management had a better health-related quality of life and a lower depression score during follow-up.ConclusionsThis comprehensive disease management intervention was not superior to usual care with respect to the primary composite endpoint, but it improved health-related quality of life and depression. A disease-centered approach may not suffice to make a significant impact on hospital admissions and mortality in patients with chronic heart failure who have universal access to health care.Clinical trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00533013. Trial registration date: 9 August 2007. Initial protocol release date: 20 September 2007.

Mode of Action and Effects of Standardized Collaborative Disease Management on Mortality and Morbidity in Patients With Systolic Heart Failure

Background— Trials investigating efficacy of disease management programs (DMP) in heart failure reported contradictory results. Features rendering specific interventions successful are often ill defined. We evaluated the mode of action and effects of a nurse-coordinated DMP (HeartNetCare-HF, HNC). Methods and Results— Patients hospitalized for systolic heart failure were randomly assigned to HNC or usual care (UC). Besides telephone-based monitoring and education, HNC addressed individual problems raised by patients, pursued networking of health care providers and provided training for caregivers. End points were time to death or rehospitalization (combined primary), heart failure symptoms, and quality of life (SF-36). Of 1007 consecutive patients, 715 were randomly assigned (HNC: n=352; UC: n=363; age, 69±12 years; 29% female; 40% New York Heart Association class III-IV). Within 180 days, 130 HNC and 137 UC patients reached the primary end point (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.81–1.30; P =0.89), since more HNC patients were readmitted. Overall, 32 HNC and 52 UC patients died (1 UC patient and 4 HNC patients after dropout); thus, uncensored hazard ratio was 0.62 (0.40–0.96; P =0.03). HNC patients improved more regarding New York Heart Association class ( P =0.05), physical functioning ( P =0.03), and physical health component ( P =0.03). Except for HNC, health care utilization was comparable between groups. However, HNC patients requested counseling for noncardiac problems even more frequently than for cardiovascular or heart-failure–related issues. Conclusions— The primary end point of this study was neutral. However, mortality risk and surrogates of well-being improved significantly. Quantitative assessment of patient requirements suggested that besides (tele)monitoring individualized care considering also noncardiac problems should be integrated in efforts to achieve more sustainable improvement in heart failure outcomes. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.controlled-trials.com . Unique identifier: ISRCTN23325295.

Rationale and design of the Japanese Heart Failure Outpatients Disease Management and Cardiac Evaluation (J-HOMECARE)

Although many studies have demonstrated the efficacy of disease management programs on mortality, morbidity, quality of life (QOL), and medical cost in patients with heart failure (HF), no study has focused on psychological status as an outcome of disease management. In addition, very little information is available on the effectiveness of disease management programs in other areas than the USA and Europe. The Japanese Heart Failure Outpatients Disease Management and Cardiac Evaluation (J-HOMECARE) is a randomized controlled trial in which 156 patients hospitalized with HF will be randomized into usual care or a home-based disease management arm receiving comprehensive advice and counseling by visiting nurses during the initial 2 months and telephone follow-up for the following 4 months after discharge. This study evaluates depression and anxiety (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), mortality, readmission due to HF, and QOL (Short Form-8). Data are collected during index hospitalization and then 2, 6, and 12 months after discharge. This study started in December 2007, and the final results are expected in 2011. The J-HOMECARE will provide important information on the efficacy of disease management for psychological status as well as the effective components of disease management for patients with HF. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01284400).

Using Individualized Predictive Disease Modeling to Identify Patients with the Potential to Benefit from a Disease Management Program for Diabetes Mellitus

Diabetes is an increasing health problem, but efforts to handle this pandemic by disease management programs (DMP) have shown conflicting results. Our hypothesis is that, in addition to a program's content and setting, the choice of the right patients is crucial to a program's efficacy and effectiveness. We used individualized predictive disease modeling (IPDM) on a cohort of 918 patients with type 2 diabetes to identify those patients with the greatest potential to benefit from inclusion in a DMP. A portion of the patients (4.7%) did not have even a theoretical potential for an increase in life expectancy and would therefore be unlikely to benefit from a DMP. Approximately 16.1% had an increase in life expectancy of less than half a year. Stratification of the entire cohort by surrogate parameters like preventable 10-year costs or gain in life expectancy was much more effective than stratification by classical clinical parameters such as high HbA1c level. Preventable costs increased up to 50.6% (or 1,010 per patient (1 = US dollars 1.28), p < 0.01) and life expectancy increased up to 54.8% (or 2.3 years, p < 0.01). IPDM is a valuable strategy to identify those patients with the greatest potential to avoid diabetes-related complications and thus can improve the overall effectiveness and efficacy of DMPs for diabetes mellitus.