Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of a multicondition collaborative care intervention: a randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Context

Patients with depression and poorly controlled diabetes mellitus, coronary heart disease (CHD), or both have higher medical complication rates and higher health care costs, suggesting that more effective care management of psychiatric and medical disease control might also reduce medical service use and enhance quality of life.

Objective

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a multicondition collaborative treatment program (TEAMcare) compared with usual primary care (UC) in outpatients with depression and poorly controlled diabetes or CHD.

Design

Randomized controlled trial of a systematic care management program aimed at improving depression scores and hemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)), systolic blood pressure (SBP), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels.

Setting

Fourteen primary care clinics of an integrated health care system.

Patients

Population-based screening identified 214 adults with depressive disorder and poorly controlled diabetes or CHD.

Intervention

Physician-supervised nurses collaborated with primary care physicians to provide treatment of multiple disease risk factors.

Main outcome measures

Blinded assessments evaluated depressive symptoms, SBP, and HbA(1c) at baseline and at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Fasting LDL-C concentration was assessed at baseline and at 12 and 24 months. Health plan accounting records were used to assess medical service costs. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were assessed using a previously developed regression model based on intervention vs UC differences in HbA(1c), LDL-C, and SBP levels over 24 months.

Results

Over 24 months, compared with UC controls, intervention patients had a mean of 114 (95% CI, 79 to 149) additional depression-free days and an estimated 0.335 (95% CI, -0.18 to 0.85) additional QALYs. Intervention patients also had lower mean outpatient health costs of $594 per patient (95% CI, -$3241 to $2053) relative to UC patients.

Conclusions

For adults with depression and poorly controlled diabetes, CHD, or both, a systematic intervention program aimed at improving depression scores and HbA(1c), SBP, and LDL-C levels seemed to be a high-value program that for no or modest additional cost markedly improved QALYs.

Trial registration

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00468676

SUBMITTER: Katon W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3840955 | biostudies-literature | 2012 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of a multicondition collaborative care intervention: a randomized controlled trial.

Katon Wayne W Russo Joan J Lin Elizabeth H B EH Schmittdiel Julie J Ciechanowski Paul P Ludman Evette E Peterson Do D Young Bessie B Von Korff Michael M

Archives of general psychiatry 20120501 5

<h4>Context</h4>Patients with depression and poorly controlled diabetes mellitus, coronary heart disease (CHD), or both have higher medical complication rates and higher health care costs, suggesting that more effective care management of psychiatric and medical disease control might also reduce medical service use and enhance quality of life.<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a multicondition collaborative treatment program (TEAMcare) compared with usual primary care (UC) i ...[more]

PMID: 22566583

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: Intensive lifestyle intervention significantly reduces the progression to diabetes in high-risk individuals. OBJECTIVE: It is not known whether a program of moderate intervention might effectively reduce metabolic abnormalities in the general population. DESIGN: Two-arm randomized controlled 1-year trial. PATIENTS: Three hundred and thirty-five patients participated from a dysmetabolic population-based cohort of 375 adults aged 45-64 years in northwestern Italy. MEASUREMENTS: We compared the effectiveness of a general recommendation-based program of lifestyle intervention carried out by trained professionals versus standard unstructured information given by family physicians at reducing the prevalence of multiple metabolic and inflammatory abnormalities. RESULTS: At baseline, clinical/anthropometric/laboratory and lifestyle characteristics of the intervention (n = 169) and control (n = 166) groups were not significantly different. The former significantly reduced total/saturated fat intake and increased polyunsaturated fat/fiber intake and exercise level compared to the controls. Weight, waist circumference, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, and most of the metabolic syndrome components decreased in the intervention group and increased in the controls after 12 months. Lifestyle intervention significantly reduced metabolic syndrome (odds ratio [OR] = 0.28; 95% CI 0.18-0.44), with a 31% (21-41) absolute risk reduction, corresponding to 3.2 (2-5) patients needing to be treated to prevent 1 case after 12 months. The intervention significantly reduced the prevalence of central obesity (OR = 0.33; 0.20-0.56), and hypertriglyceridemia (OR = 0.48; 0.31-0.75) and the incidence of diabetes (OR = 0.23; 0.06-0.85). CONCLUSION: A lifestyle intervention based on general recommendations was effective in reducing multiple metabolic/inflammatory abnormalities. The usual care by family physicians was ineffective at modifying progressive metabolic deterioration in high-risk individuals.

Project description:ImportanceLong-term evidence for the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of collaborative dementia care management (CDCM) is lacking.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether 6 months of CDCM is associated with improved patient clinical outcomes and caregiver burden and is cost-effective compared with usual care over 36 months.Design, setting, and participantsThis was a prespecified secondary analysis of a general practitioner (GP)-based, cluster randomized, 2-arm clinical trial conducted in Germany from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2014, with follow-up until March 31, 2018. Participants were aged 70 years or older, lived at home, and screened positive for dementia. Data were analyzed from March 2011 to March 2018.InterventionThe intervention group received CDCM, comprising a comprehensive needs assessment and individualized interventions by nurses specifically qualified for dementia care collaborating with GPs and health care stakeholders over 6 months. The control group received usual care.Main outcomes and measuresMain outcomes were neuropsychiatric symptoms (Neuropsychiatric Inventory [NPI]), caregiver burden (Berlin Inventory of Caregivers' Burden in Dementia [BIZA-D]), health-related quality of life (HRQOL, measured by the Quality of Life in Alzheimer Disease scale and 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey [SF-12]), antidementia drug treatment, potentially inappropriate medication, and cost-effectiveness (incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year [QALY]) over 36 months. Outcomes between groups were compared using multivariate regression models adjusted for baseline scores.ResultsA total of 308 patients, of whom 221 (71.8%) received CDCM (mean [SD] age, 80.1 [5.3] years; 142 [64.3%] women) and 87 (28.2%) received usual care (mean [SD] age, 79.2 [4.5] years; 50 [57.5%] women), were included in the clinical effectiveness analyses, and 428 (303 [70.8%] CDCM, 125 [29.2%] usual care) were included in the cost-effectiveness analysis (which included 120 patients who had died). Participants receiving CDCM showed significantly fewer behavioral and psychological symptoms (adjusted mean difference [AMD] in NPI score, -10.26 [95% CI, -16.95 to -3.58]; P = .003; Cohen d, -0.78 [95% CI, -1.09 to -0.46]), better mental health (AMD in SF-12 Mental Component Summary score, 2.26 [95% CI, 0.31-4.21]; P = .02; Cohen d, 0.26 [95% CI, -0.11 to 0.51]), and lower caregiver burden (AMD in BIZA-D score, -0.59 [95% CI, -0.81 to -0.37]; P < .001; Cohen d, -0.71 [95% CI, -1.03 to -0.40]). There was no difference between the CDCM group and usual care group in use of antidementia drugs (adjusted odds ratio, 1.91 [95% CI, 0.96-3.77]; P = .07; Cramér V, 0.12) after 36 months. There was no association with overall HRQOL, physical health, or use of potentially inappropriate medication. The CDCM group gained QALYs (0.137 [95% CI, 0.000 to 0.274]; P = .049; Cohen d, 0.20 [95% CI, -0.09 to 0.40]) but had no significant increase in costs (437€ [-5438€ to 6313€] [US $476 (95% CI, -$5927 to $6881)]; P = .87; Cohen d, 0.07 [95% CI, -0.14 to 0.28]), resulting in a cost-effectiveness ratio of 3186€ (US $3472) per QALY. Cost-effectiveness was significantly better for patients living alone (CDCM dominated, with lower costs and more QALYs gained) than for those living with a caregiver (47 538€ [US $51 816] per QALY).Conclusions and relevanceIn this secondary analysis of a cluster randomized clinical trial, CDCM was associated with improved patient, caregiver, and health system-relevant outcomes over 36 months beyond the intervention period. Therefore, it should become a health policy priority to initiate translation of CDCM into routine care.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01401582.

Project description:UnlabelledHip fracture patients can benefit from nutritional supplementation during their recovery. Up to now, cost-effectiveness evaluation of nutritional intervention in these patients has not been performed. Costs of nutritional intervention are relatively low as compared with medical costs. Cost-effectiveness evaluation shows that nutritional intervention is likely to be cost-effective.IntroductionPrevious research on the effect of nutritional intervention on clinical outcome in hip fracture patients yielded contradictory results. Cost-effectiveness of nutritional intervention in these patients remains unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate cost-effectiveness of nutritional intervention in elderly subjects after hip fracture from a societal perspective.MethodsOpen-label, multi-centre randomized controlled trial investigating cost-effectiveness of intensive nutritional intervention comprising regular dietetic counseling and oral nutritional supplementation for 3 months postoperatively. Patients allocated to the control group received care as usual. Costs, weight and quality of life were measured at baseline and at 3 and 6 months postoperatively. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for weight at 3 months and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) at 6 months postoperatively.ResultsOf 152 patients enrolled, 73 were randomized to the intervention group and 79 to the control group. Mean costs of the nutritional intervention was 613 Euro. Total costs and subcategories of costs were not significantly different between both groups. Based on bootstrapping of ICERs, the nutritional intervention was likely to be cost-effective for weight as outcome over the 3-month intervention period, regardless of nutritional status at baseline. With QALYs as outcome, the probability for the nutritional intervention being cost-effective was relatively low, except in subjects aged below 75 years.ConclusionIntensive nutritional intervention in elderly hip fracture patients is likely to be cost-effective for weight but not for QALYs. Future cost-effectiveness studies should incorporate outcome measures appropriate for elderly patients, such as functional limitations and other relevant outcome parameters for elderly.

Project description:BackgroundWorld-wide healthcare systems are faced with an epidemic of type 2 diabetes. In the United Kingdom, clinical care is primarily provided by general practitioners (GPs) rather than hospital specialists. Intermediate care clinics for diabetes (ICCD) potentially provide a model for supporting GPs in their care of people with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes and in their management of cardiovascular risk factors. This study aims to (1) compare patients with type 2 diabetes registered with practices that have access to an ICCD service with those that have access only to usual hospital care; (2) assess the cost-effectiveness of the intervention; and (3) explore the views and experiences of patients, health professionals and other stakeholders.Methods/designThis two-arm cluster randomized controlled trial (with integral economic evaluation and qualitative study) is set in general practices in three UK Primary Care Trusts. Practices are randomized to one of two groups with patients referred to either an ICCD (intervention) or to hospital care (control). Intervention group: GP practices in the intervention arm have the opportunity to refer patients to an ICCD - a multidisciplinary team led by a specialist nurse and a diabetologist. Patients are reviewed and managed in the ICCD for a short period with a goal of improving diabetes and cardiovascular risk factor control and are then referred back to practice. orControl groupStandard GP care, with referral to secondary care as required, but no access to ICCD. Participants are adults aged 18 years or older who have type 2 diabetes that is difficult for their GPs to control. The primary outcome is the proportion of participants reaching three risk factor targets: HbA1c (≤7.0%); blood pressure (<140/80); and cholesterol (<4 mmol/l), at the end of the 18-month intervention period. The main secondary outcomes are the proportion of participants reaching individual risk factor targets and the overall 10-year risks for coronary heart disease(CHD) and stroke assessed by the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) risk engine. Other secondary outcomes include body mass index and waist circumference, use of medication, reported smoking, emotional adjustment, patient satisfaction and views on continuity, costs and health related quality of life. We aimed to randomize 50 practices and recruit 2,555 patients.DiscussionForty-nine practices have been randomized, 1,997 patients have been recruited to the trial, and 20 patients have been recruited to the qualitative study. Results will be available late 2012.Trial registration[ClinicalTrials.gov: Identifier NCT00945204].

Project description:IntroductionWorldwide, demographic ageing is a major social, economic and health challenge. Despite the increase in life expectancy, elderly often live with multiple chronic conditions, exposing them to multiple medications. Concerns have been raised about the growing issue of inappropriate long-term usage of proton-pump inhibitors (PPI), which have been associated with adverse outcomes and increased healthcare costs. Deprescribing is a recommended intervention to reduce or withdraw medicines that might be causing harm or might no longer be of benefit. This protocol details a trial to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a collaborative deprescribing intervention of PPI among community-dwelling elderly, involving community pharmacists and general practitioners.Methods and analysisA pragmatic, multicentre, two-arm, non-randomised controlled trial of a structured PPI collaborative deprescribing intervention in the primary care setting with a 6-month follow-up will be conducted. Patients must be 65 years old or older, live in the community and have been using PPI for more than 8 weeks. We hypothesize that the intervention will reduce the PPI usage in the intervention group compared to the control group. The primary outcome is the successful discontinuation or dose decrease of any PPI, defined as a statistically significant absolute 20% reduction in medication use between the intervention and control groups at 3- and 6-month follow-ups. An economic evaluation will be conducted alongside the trial. This study was approved by the Ethics Research Committee of Nova Medical School, NOVA University of Lisbon and by the Ethics Committee from the Local Health Unit Alto Minho, Portugal.DiscussionThis pragmatic trial will provide evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a patient-centred collaborative deprescribing intervention in the community setting in Portugal. It will also inform improvements for the development of future multi-faceted interventions that aim to optimise medication for the community-dwelling elderly.Clinical trial registrationISRCTN 49637686.

Project description:Fatigue is a common yet difficult to treat condition in primary care. The objective of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a brief cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) based fatigue self-management (FSM) intervention as compared to usual care among patients with chronic fatigue in primary care.An economic evaluation alongside of a parallel randomized controlled study design was used. Computer-generated variable-sized block randomization plan was used to assign patients into treatment groups and data collection staff were blinded to group assignments. Patients aged between 18 and 65 years with at least six months of persistent fatigue and no medical or psychiatric exclusions were enrolled from a large primary care practice in Stony Brook, New York. The FSM group (n = 37) received two sessions of a nurse-delivered, fatigue self-management protocol and a self-help book and the usual care group (n = 36) received regular medical care. The effectiveness measure was the Fatigue Severity Scale and the cost measure was total health care expenditures derived from monthly health services use diaries during follow-up. A societal perspective was adopted and bootstrapped incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and net monetary benefit (NMB) were calculated as measures of cost-effectiveness.The ICER for FSM was -$$2358, indicating that FSM dominates UC and it may generate societal cost savings as compared to usual care. Complete case analysis yielded smaller ICER (-$1199) with greater uncertainties. Net monetary benefit analysis showed that FSM has a probability of 0.833 (95% CI: 0.819, 0.847) to achieve positive NMB and the favorable results were not sensitive to assumptions about informal care or treatment costs.This economic evaluation found initial evidence that a two-session brief CBT-based FSM may be cost-effective as compared to usual care over 12 months. The FSM intervention is potentially a promising intervention for chronic fatigue patients in primary care. Additional research is needed to examine the reproducibility and generalizability of these findings.ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00997451, March 28, 2009).

Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of a multicondition collaborative care intervention: a randomized controlled trial.

Context

Objective

Design

Setting

Patients

Intervention

Main outcome measures

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of a multicondition collaborative care intervention: a randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets