Dataset Information

Primary care management for patients receiving long-term antithrombotic treatment: A cluster-randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To examine whether applying case management in general practices reduces thromboembolic events requiring hospitalization and major bleeding events (combined primary outcome). Secondary endpoints were mortality, frequency and duration of hospitalization, severe treatment interactions, adverse events, quality of anticoagulation, health-related quality of life and intervention costs, patients' assessment of chronic illness care, self-reported adherence to medication, GP and HCA knowledge, patient knowledge and satisfaction with shared decision-making.

Methods

Cluster-randomized controlled trial undertaken at 52 general practices in Germany with adult patients with a long-term indication for oral anticoagulation. The complex intervention included training for healthcare assistants, information and quality circles for general practitioners and 24 months of case management for patients. Assessment was after 12 and 24 months. The intention-to-treat population included all randomized practices and patients, while the per-protocol analysis included only those that received treatment without major protocol violations.

Results

The mean (SD) age of the 736 patients was 73.5 (9.4) years and 597 (81.1%) had atrial fibrillation. After 24 months, the primary endpoint had occurred in 40 (11.0%) intervention and 48 (12.9%) control patients (hazard ratio 0.83, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.25; P = .37). Patients' perceived quality of care, their knowledge, and HCAs' knowledge, had improved significantly at 24 months. The other secondary endpoints did not differ between groups. In the intervention group, hospital admissions were significantly reduced in patients that received treatment without major protocol deviations.

Conclusions

Even though the main outcomes did not differ significantly, the intervention appears to have positively influenced several process parameters under 'real-world conditions'.

SUBMITTER: Siebenhofer A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6326474 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Primary care management for patients receiving long-term antithrombotic treatment: A cluster-randomized controlled trial.

Siebenhofer Andrea A Ulrich Lisa-Rebekka LR Mergenthal Karola K Berghold Andrea A Pregartner Gudrun G Kemperdick Birgit B Schulz-Rothe Sylvia S Rauck Sandra S Harder Sebastian S Gerlach Ferdinand Michael FM Petersen Juliana Johanna JJ

PloS one 20190109 1

<h4>Purpose</h4>To examine whether applying case management in general practices reduces thromboembolic events requiring hospitalization and major bleeding events (combined primary outcome). Secondary endpoints were mortality, frequency and duration of hospitalization, severe treatment interactions, adverse events, quality of anticoagulation, health-related quality of life and intervention costs, patients' assessment of chronic illness care, self-reported adherence to medication, GP and HCA know ...[more]

PMID: 30625176

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the effectiveness of an intervention to enhance self management support for patients with chronic conditions in UK primary care.DesignPragmatic, two arm, cluster randomised controlled trial.SettingGeneral practices, serving a population in northwest England with high levels of deprivation.Participants5599 patients with a diagnosis of diabetes (n=2546), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (n=1634), and irritable bowel syndrome (n=1419) from 43 practices (19 intervention and 22 control practices).InterventionPractice level training in a whole systems approach to self management support. Practices were trained to use a range of resources: a tool to assess the support needs of patients, guidebooks on self management, and a web based directory of local self management resources. Training facilitators were employed by the health management organisation.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcomes were shared decision making, self efficacy, and generic health related quality of life measured at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were general health, social or role limitations, energy and vitality, psychological wellbeing, self care activity, and enablement.ResultsWe randomised 44 practices and recruited 5599 patients, representing 43% of the eligible population on the practice lists. 4533 patients (81.0%) completed the six month follow-up and 4076 (72.8%) the 12 month follow-up. No statistically significant differences were found between patients attending trained practices and those attending control practices on any of the primary or secondary outcomes. All effect size estimates were well below the prespecified threshold of clinically important difference.ConclusionsAn intervention to enhance self management support in routine primary care did not add noticeable value to existing care for long term conditions. The active components required for effective self management support need to be better understood, both within primary care and in patients' everyday lives.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN90940049.

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate whether an intervention to improve treatment of depression in older adults in primary care modified the increased risk of death associated with depression.DesignLong term follow-up of multi-site practice randomized controlled trial (PROSPECT-Prevention of Suicide in Primary Care Elderly: Collaborative Trial).Setting20 primary care practices in New York City, Philadelphia, and Pittsburgh, USA, randomized to intervention or usual care.Participants1226 participants identified between May 1999 and August 2001 through a two stage, age stratified (60-74; ≥ 75 years) depression screening of randomly sampled patients; enrollment included patients who screened positive and a random sample of patients who screened negative.InterventionFor two years, a depression care manager worked with primary care physicians in intervention practices to provide algorithm based care for depression, offering psychotherapy, increasing antidepressant dose if indicated, and monitoring symptoms, adverse effects of drugs, and adherence to treatment. This paper reports the long term follow-up.Main outcome measureMortality risk based on a median follow-up of 98 (range 0.8-116.4) months through 2008.ResultsIn baseline clinical interviews, 396 people were classified as having major depression, 203 had clinically significant minor depression, and 627 did not meet criteria for depression. At follow-up, 405 patients had died. Patients with major depression in usual care were more likely to die than were those without depression (hazard ratio 1.90, 95% confidence interval 1.57 to 2.31). In contrast, patients with major depression in intervention practices were at no greater risk than were people without depression (hazard ratio 1.09, 0.83 to 1.44). Patients with major depression in intervention practices, relative to usual care, were 24% less likely to have died (hazard ratio 0.76, 0.57 to 1.00; P=0.05). Preliminary data on cause of death are provided. No significant effect on mortality was found for minor depression.ConclusionsOlder adults with major depression in practices provided with additional resources to intensively manage depression had a mortality risk lower than that observed in usual care and similar to older adults without depression.Trial registrationClinical trials NCT00000367.

Project description:BackgroundLong-term weight loss in people living with obesity can reduce the risk and progression of noncommunicable diseases. Observational studies suggest that digital coaching can lead to long-term weight loss.ObjectiveWe investigated whether an eHealth lifestyle coaching program for people living with obesity with or without type 2 diabetes led to significant, long-term (12-month) weight loss compared to usual care.MethodsIn a randomized controlled trial that took place in 50 municipalities in Denmark, 340 people living with obesity with or without type 2 diabetes were enrolled from April 16, 2018, to April 1, 2019, and randomized via an automated computer algorithm to an intervention (n=200) or a control (n=140) group. Patients were recruited via their general practitioners, the Danish diabetes organization, and social media. The digital coaching intervention consisted of an initial 1-hour face-to-face motivational interview followed by digital coaching using behavioral change techniques enabled by individual live monitoring. The primary outcome was change in body weight from baseline to 12 months.ResultsData were assessed for 200 participants, including 127 from the intervention group and 73 from the control group, who completed 12 months of follow-up. After 12 months, mean body weight and BMI were significantly reduced in both groups but significantly more so in the intervention group than the control group (-4.5 kg, 95% CI -5.6 to -3.4 vs -1.5 kg, 95% CI -2.7 to -0.2, respectively; P<.001; and -1.5 kg/m2, 95% CI -1.9 to -1.2 vs -0.5 kg/m2, 95% CI -0.9 to -0.1, respectively; P<.001). Hemoglobin A1c was significantly reduced in both the intervention (-6.0 mmol/mol, 95% CI -7.7 to -4.3) and control (-4.9 mmol/mol, 95% CI -7.4 to -2.4) groups, without a significant group difference (all P>.46).ConclusionsCompared to usual care, digital lifestyle coaching can induce significant weight loss for people living with obesity, both with and without type 2 diabetes, after 12 months.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03788915; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03788915.

Project description:BackgroundEarly diagnosis of dementia is important because this allows those with dementia and their families to engage support and plan ahead. However, dementia remains underdetected and suboptimally managed in general practice. Our objective was to test the effect of a workplace-based tailored educational intervention developed for general practice on the clinical management of people with dementia.MethodsThe tailored educational intervention was tested in an unblinded cluster randomized controlled trial with a pre/post-intervention design, with two arms: usual/normal care control versus educational intervention. The primary outcome measure was an increase in the proportion of patients with dementia who received at least two documented dementia-specific management reviews per year. Case identification was a secondary outcome measure.Results23 practices in South-East England participated. A total of 1,072 patients with dementia (intervention: 512, control: 560) had information in their medical records showing the number of reviews within 12 months (or a proportion of) before intervention or randomization and within 12 months (or a proportion of) after. The mean total number of dementia management reviews after the educational intervention for people with dementia was 0.89 (SD 1.09; minimum 0; median 1; maximum 8) compared with 0.89 (SD 0.92; minimum 0; median 1; maximum 4) before intervention. In the control group prior to randomization the mean total number of dementia management reviews was 1.66 (SD 1.87; minimum 0; median 1; maximum 12) and in the period after randomization it was 1.56 (SD 1.79; minimum 0; median 1; maximum 11). Case detection rates were unaffected. The estimated incidence rate ratio for intervention versus control group was 1.03 (P = 0.927, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.86).ConclusionsThe trial was timely, coinciding with financial incentives for dementia management in general practice (through the Quality Outcomes Framework); legal imperatives (in the form of the Mental Capacity Act 2005); policy pressure (The National Dementia Strategy 2009); and new resources (such as dementia advisors) that increased the salience of dementia for general practitioners. Despite this the intervention did not alter the documentation of clinical management of patients with dementia in volunteer practices, nor did it increase case identification.Trial registrationNCT00866099/Clinical Trials.

Project description:ImportancePrescription opioid misuse is a national crisis. Few interventions have improved adherence to opioid-prescribing guidelines.ObjectiveTo determine whether a multicomponent intervention, Transforming Opioid Prescribing in Primary Care (TOPCARE; http://mytopcare.org/), improves guideline adherence while decreasing opioid misuse risk.Design, setting, and participantsCluster-randomized clinical trial among 53 primary care clinicians (PCCs) and their 985 patients receiving long-term opioid therapy for pain. The study was conducted from January 2014 to March 2016 in 4 safety-net primary care practices.InterventionsIntervention PCCs received nurse care management, an electronic registry, 1-on-1 academic detailing, and electronic decision tools for safe opioid prescribing. Control PCCs received electronic decision tools only.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes included documentation of guideline-concordant care (both a patient-PCC agreement in the electronic health record and at least 1 urine drug test [UDT]) over 12 months and 2 or more early opioid refills. Secondary outcomes included opioid dose reduction (ie, 10% decrease in morphine-equivalent daily dose [MEDD] at trial end) and opioid treatment discontinuation. Adjusted outcomes controlled for differing baseline patient characteristics: substance use diagnosis, mental health diagnoses, and language.ResultsOf the 985 participating patients, 519 were men, and 466 were women (mean [SD] patient age, 54.7 [11.5] years). Patients received a mean (SD) MEDD of 57.8 (78.5) mg. At 1 year, intervention patients were more likely than controls to receive guideline-concordant care (65.9% vs 37.8%; P < .001; adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 6.0; 95% CI, 3.6-10.2), to have a patient-PCC agreement (of the 376 without an agreement at baseline, 53.8% vs 6.0%; P < .001; AOR, 11.9; 95% CI, 4.4-32.2), and to undergo at least 1 UDT (74.6% vs 57.9%; P < .001; AOR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.8-5.0). There was no difference in odds of early refill receipt between groups (20.7% vs 20.1%; AOR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.7-1.8). Intervention patients were more likely than controls to have either a 10% dose reduction or opioid treatment discontinuation (AOR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.3-2.1; P < .001). In adjusted analyses, intervention patients had a mean (SE) MEDD 6.8 (1.6) mg lower than controls (P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceA multicomponent intervention improved guideline-concordant care but did not decrease early opioid refills.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01909076.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness and health costs of a new primary care service delivery model (the Optimising Primary Care Management of Knee Osteoarthritis [PARTNER] model) to improve health outcomes for patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) compared to usual care.MethodsThis study was a 2-arm, cluster, superiority, randomized controlled trial with randomization at the general practice level, undertaken in Victoria and New South Wales, Australia. We aimed to recruit 44 practices and 572 patients age ≥45 years with knee pain for >3 months. Professional development opportunities on best practice OA care were provided to intervention group general practitioners (GPs). All recruited patients had an initial GP visit to confirm knee OA diagnosis. Control patients continued usual GP care, and intervention patients were referred to a centralized care support team (CST) for 12-months. Via telehealth, the CST provided OA education and an agreed OA action plan focused on muscle strengthening, physical activity, and weight management. Primary outcomes were patient self-reported change in knee pain (Numerical Rating Scale [range 0-10; higher score = worse]) and physical function (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score activities of daily living subscale [range 0-100; higher score = better] at 12 months. Health care cost outcomes included costs of medical visits and prescription medications over the 12-month period.ResultsRecruitment targets were not reached. A total of 38 practices and 217 patients were recruited. The intervention improved pain by 0.8 of 10 points (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.2, 1.4) and function by 6.5 of 100 points (95% CI 2.3, 10.7), more than usual care at 12 months. Total costs of medical visits and prescriptions were $3,940 (Australian) for the intervention group versus $4,161 for usual care. This difference was not statistically significant.ConclusionThe PARTNER model improved knee pain and function more than usual GP care. The magnitude of improvement is unlikely to be clinically meaningful for pain but is uncertain for function.

Project description:PURPOSE:This randomized clinical trial compared a personally tailored, automated telephone symptom management intervention to improve self-management among long-term survivors of prostate cancer with usual care enhanced with a nontailored newsletter about symptom management. We hypothesized that intervention-group participants would have more confident symptom self-management and reduced symptom burden. METHODS:A total of 556 prostate cancer survivors who, more than 1 year after treatment, were experiencing symptom burden were recruited from April 2015 to February 2017 across four Veterans Affairs sites. Participants were randomly assigned to intervention (n = 278) or usual care (n = 278) groups. We compared differences in the primary (symptom burden according to Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-26 [EPIC], confidence in self-management) and secondary outcomes between groups using intent-to-treat analyses. We compared domain-specific changes in symptom burden from baseline to 5 and 12 months among the intervention group according to the primary symptom focus area (urinary, bowel, sexual, general) of participants. RESULTS:Most of the prostate cancer survivors in this study were married (54.3%), were white (69.2%), were retired (62.4%), and underwent radiation therapy (56.7% v 46.2% who underwent surgery), and the mean age was 67 years. There were no baseline differences in urinary, bowel, sexual, or hormonal domain EPIC scores across groups. We observed higher EPIC scores in the intervention arm in all domain areas at 5 months, though differences were not statistically significant. No differences were found in secondary outcomes; however, coping appraisal was higher (2.8 v 2.6; P = .02) in intervention-arm patients at 5 months. In subgroup analyses, intervention participants reported improvement from baseline at 5 and 12 months in their symptom focus area domains. CONCLUSION:This intervention was well received among veterans who were long-term survivors of prostate cancer. Although overall outcome differences were not observed across groups, the intervention tailored to symptom area of choice may hold promise to improve associated burden.

Dataset Information

Primary care management for patients receiving long-term antithrombotic treatment: A cluster-randomized controlled trial.

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Primary care management for patients receiving long-term antithrombotic treatment: A cluster-randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets