Randomized trial of care management to improve Parkinson disease care quality.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Connor KI
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6550506 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ImportanceThe travel required to receive deep brain stimulation (DBS) programming causes substantial burden on patients and limits who can access DBS therapy.ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of home health DBS postoperative management in an effort to reduce travel burden and improve access.Design, settings, and participantsThis open-label randomized clinical trial was conducted at University of Florida Health from November 2017 to April 2020. Eligible participants had a diagnosis of Parkinson disease (PD) and were scheduled to receive DBS independently of the study. Consenting participants were randomized 1:1 to receive either standard of care or home health postoperative DBS management for 6 months after surgery. Primary caregivers, usually spouses, were also enrolled to assess caregiver strain.InterventionsThe home health postoperative management was conducted by a home health nurse who chose DBS settings with the aid of the iPad-based Mobile Application for PD DBS system. Prior to the study, the home health nurse had no experience providing DBS care.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the number of times each patient traveled to the movement disorders clinic during the study period. Secondary outcomes included changes from baseline on the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale part III.ResultsApproximately 75 patients per year were scheduled for DBS. Of the patients who met inclusion criteria over the entire study duration, 45 either declined or were excluded for various reasons. Of the 44 patients enrolled, 19 of 21 randomized patients receiving the standard of care (mean [SD] age, 64.1 [10.0] years; 11 men) and 23 of 23 randomized patients receiving home health who underwent a minimum of 1 postoperative management visit (mean [SD] age, 65.0 [10.9] years; 13 men) were included in analysis. The primary outcome revealed that patients randomized to home health had significantly fewer clinic visits than the patients in the standard of care arm (mean [SD], 0.4 [0.8] visits vs 4.8 [0.4] visits; P < .001). We found no significant differences between the groups in the secondary outcomes measuring the efficacy of DBS. No adverse events occurred in association with the study procedure or devices.Conclusions and relevanceThis study provides evidence supporting the safety and feasibility of postoperative home health DBS management.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02474459.
| S-EPMC8240011 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIndividuals with Parkinson disease (PD) can improve their overall mobility and participation in daily activities as they engage in frequent exercise. Despite the need for individually tailored exercises, persons with PD often face barriers to accessing physical rehabilitation professionals who can provide them. Telerehabilitation (TR) may facilitate access to necessary and individually tailored rehabilitation for individuals with PD.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility of TR for individuals with PD and explore clinical outcomes compared to in-person care.MethodsThis was a pilot randomized controlled trial conducted at 2 outpatient neurorehabilitation clinics with 3 study groups: clinic+TR, TR-only, and usual care (UC). TR was administered using a web-based application with a mobile app option. One-hour interventions were performed weekly for 4 weeks, in-person for the clinic+TR and UC groups and virtually for the TR-only group. Home exercises were provided on paper for the UC group and via the web-based platform for the clinic+TR and TR-only groups. Feasibility was assessed by recruitment and retention success and patient and therapist satisfaction, as rated in surveys. Clinical outcomes were explored using performance and patient-reported measures in between- and within-group analyses.ResultsOf 389 patients screened, 68 (17.5%) met eligibility criteria, and 20 (29.4% of those eligible) were enrolled (clinic+TR, n=6; TR-only, n=6; and UC, n=8). One patient (TR-only) was withdrawn due to a non-study-related injurious fall. Regardless of group allocation, both patients and therapists generally rated the mode of care delivery as "good" or "very good" across all constructs assessed, including overall satisfaction and safety. In the analysis of all groups, there were no differences in clinical outcomes at the discharge visit. Within-group differences (from baseline to discharge) were also generally not significant except in the UC group (faster 5-time sit-to-stand time and higher mini balance evaluation systems test balance score) and clinic+TR group (higher mini balance evaluation systems test balance score).ConclusionsHigh satisfaction amongst patients and clinicians regardless of group, combined with nonsignificant between-group differences in clinical outcomes, suggest that TR is feasible for individuals with PD in early-moderate stages. Future trials with a larger sample are necessary to test clinical effectiveness. As larger trials enroll patients with diverse characteristics (eg, in terms of age, disease progression, caregiver support, technology access and capacity, etc), they could begin to identify opportunities for matching patients to the optimal utilization of TR as part of the therapy episode.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT06246747; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06246747.
| S-EPMC11325111 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The primary care evaluation of chest pain represents a significant diagnostic challenge.To determine if electronic alerts to physicians can improve the quality and safety of chest pain evaluations.Randomized, controlled trial conducted between November 2008 and January 2010 among 292 primary care clinicians caring for 7,083 adult patients with chest pain and no history of cardiovascular disease.Clinicians received alerts within the electronic health record during office visits for chest pain. One alert recommended performance of an electrocardiogram and administration of aspirin for high risk patients (Framingham Risk Score (FRS)???10%), and a second alert recommended against performance of cardiac stress testing for low risk patients (FRS?<?10%).The primary outcomes included performance of an electrocardiogram and administration of aspirin therapy for high risk patients; and avoidance of cardiac stress testing for low risk patients.The majority (81%) of patients with chest pain were classified as low risk. High risk patients were more likely than low risk patients to be evaluated in the emergency department (11% versus 5%, p?<?0.01) and to be hospitalized (7% versus 3%, p?<?0.01). Acute myocardial infarction occurred among 26 (0.4%) patients, more commonly among high risk compared to low risk patients (1.1% versus 0.2%, p?<?0.01). Among high risk patients, there was no difference between the intervention and control groups in rates of performing electrocardiograms (51% versus 48%, p?=?0.33) or administering aspirin (20% versus 18%, p?=?0.43). Among low risk patients, there was no difference between intervention and control groups in rates of cardiac stress testing (10% versus 9%, p?=?0.40).Primary care management of chest pain is suboptimal for both high and low risk patients. Electronic alerts do not increase risk-appropriate care for these patients.
| S-EPMC3304044 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Maternal and perinatal mortality are major problems for which progress in sub-Saharan Africa has been inadequate, even though childbirth services are available, even in the poorest countries. Reducing them is the aim of two of the main Millennium Development Goals. Many initiatives have been undertaken to remedy this situation, such as the Advances in Labour and Risk Management (ALARM) International Program, whose purpose is to improve the quality of obstetric services in low-income countries. However, few interventions have been evaluated, in this context, using rigorous methods for analyzing effectiveness in terms of health outcomes. The objective of this trial is to evaluate the effectiveness of the ALARM International Program (AIP) in reducing maternal mortality in referral hospitals in Senegal and Mali. Secondary goals include evaluation of the relationships between effectiveness and resource availability, service organization, medical practices, and satisfaction among health personnel. METHODS/DESIGN: This is an international, multi-centre, controlled cluster-randomized trial of a complex intervention. The intervention is based on the concept of evidence-based practice and on a combination of two approaches aimed at improving the performance of health personnel: 1) Educational outreach visits; and 2) the implementation of facility-based maternal death reviews. The unit of intervention is the public health facility equipped with a functional operating room. On the basis of consent provided by hospital authorities, 46 centres out of 49 eligible were selected in Mali and Senegal. Using randomization stratified by country and by level of care, 23 centres will be allocated to the intervention group and 23 to the control group. The intervention will last two years. It will be preceded by a pre-intervention one-year period for baseline data collection. A continuous clinical data collection system has been set up in all participating centres. This, along with the inventory of resources and the satisfaction surveys administered to the health personnel, will allow us to measure results before, during, and after the intervention. The overall rate of maternal mortality measured in hospitals during the post-intervention period (Year 4) is the primary outcome. The evaluation will also include cost-effectiveness.
| S-EPMC2758868 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGroup patient visits are medical appointments shared among patients with a common medical condition. This care delivery method has demonstrated benefits for individuals with chronic conditions but has not been evaluated for Parkinson disease (PD).MethodsWe conducted a 12-month, randomized trial of group patient visits vs usual (one-on-one) care for patients with PD. Visits were led by one of 3 study physicians, included patients and caregivers, and lasted approximately 90 minutes. Those receiving group visits had 4 sessions over 12 months. The primary outcome measure was feasibility as measured by the ability to recruit participants and by the proportion of participants who completed the study. The primary efficacy outcome was quality of life as measured by the PD Questionnaire-39.ResultsThirty patients and 27 caregivers enrolled in the study. Thirteen of the 15 patients randomized to group patient visits and 14 of the 15 randomized to usual care completed the study. Quality of life measured 12 months after baseline between the 2 groups was not different (25.9 points for group patient visits vs 26.0 points for usual care; p = 0.99).ConclusionsGroup patient visits may be a feasible means of providing care to individuals with PD and may offer an alternative or complementary method of care delivery for some patients and physicians.Classification of evidenceThis study provides Class II evidence that group patient visits did not improve quality of life for individuals with PD over a 1-year period.
| S-EPMC3100128 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveEpidemiologic studies consistently link caffeine, a nonselective adenosine antagonist, to lower risk of Parkinson disease (PD). However, the symptomatic effects of caffeine in PD have not been adequately evaluated.MethodsWe conducted a 6-week randomized controlled trial of caffeine in PD to assess effects upon daytime somnolence, motor severity, and other nonmotor features. Patients with PD with daytime somnolence (Epworth >10) were given caffeine 100 mg twice daily ×3 weeks, then 200 mg twice daily ×3 weeks, or matching placebo. The primary outcome was the Epworth Sleepiness Scale score. Secondary outcomes included motor severity, sleep markers, fatigue, depression, and quality of life. Effects of caffeine were analyzed with Bayesian hierarchical models, adjusting for study site, baseline scores, age, and sex.ResultsOf 61 patients, 31 were randomized to placebo and 30 to caffeine. On the primary intention-to-treat analysis, caffeine resulted in a nonsignificant reduction in Epworth Sleepiness Scale score (-1.71 points; 95% confidence interval [CI] -3.57, 0.13). However, somnolence improved on the Clinical Global Impression of Change (+0.64; 0.16, 1.13, intention-to-treat), with significant reduction in Epworth Sleepiness Scale score on per-protocol analysis (-1.97; -3.87, -0.05). Caffeine reduced the total Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale score (-4.69 points; -7.7, -1.6) and the objective motor component (-3.15 points; -5.50, -0.83). Other than modest improvement in global health measures, there were no changes in quality of life, depression, or sleep quality. Adverse events were comparable in caffeine and placebo groups.ConclusionsCaffeine provided only equivocal borderline improvement in excessive somnolence in PD, but improved objective motor measures. These potential motor benefits suggest that a larger long-term trial of caffeine is warranted.Classification of evidenceThis study provides Class I evidence that caffeine, up to 200 mg BID for 6 weeks, had no significant benefit on excessive daytime sleepiness in patients with PD.
| S-EPMC3414662 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundStudies suggest that dihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers may be associated with reduced risk for Parkinson disease (PD).ObjectiveTo assess the effect of isradipine, a dihydropyridine calcium-channel blocker, on the rate of clinical progression of PD.DesignMulticenter, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02168842).Setting57 Parkinson Study Group sites in North America.ParticipantsPatients with early-stage PD (duration <3 years) who were not taking dopaminergic medications at enrollment.Intervention5 mg of immediate-release isradipine twice daily or placebo for 36 months.MeasurementsThe primary outcome was change in the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) parts I to III score measured in the antiparkinson medication "ON" state between baseline and 36 months. Secondary outcomes included time to initiation and use of antiparkinson medications, time to onset of motor complications, change in nonmotor disability, and quality-of-life measures.Results336 patients were randomly assigned (mean age, 62 years [SD, 9]; 68% men; disease duration, 0.9 year [SD, 0.7]; mean UPDRS part I to III score, 23.1 [SD, 8.6]); 95% of patients completed the study. Adjusted least-squares mean changes in total UPDRS score in the antiparkinson medication ON state over 36 months for isradipine and placebo recipients were 2.99 (95% CI, 0.95 to 5.03) points versus 3.26 (CI, 1.25 to 5.26) points, respectively, with a treatment effect of -0.27 (CI, -3.02 to 2.48) point (P = 0.85). Statistical adjustment for antiparkinson medication use did not change the findings. Secondary outcomes showed no effect of isradipine treatment. The most common adverse effects of isradipine were edema and dizziness.LimitationThe isradipine dose may have been insufficient to engage the target calcium channels associated with neuroprotective effects.ConclusionLong-term treatment with immediate-release isradipine did not slow the clinical progression of early-stage PD.Primary funding sourceNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.
| S-EPMC7465126 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Feedback is potentially effective in improving the quality of care. However, merely sending reports is no guarantee that performance data are used as input for systematic quality improvement (QI). Therefore, we developed a multifaceted intervention tailored to prospectively analyzed barriers to using indicators: the Information Feedback on Quality Indicators (InFoQI) program. This program aims to promote the use of performance indicator data as input for local systematic QI. We will conduct a study to assess the impact of the InFoQI program on patient outcome and organizational process measures of care, and to gain insight into barriers and success factors that affected the program's impact. The study will be executed in the context of intensive care. This paper presents the study's protocol. METHODS/DESIGN: We will conduct a cluster randomized controlled trial with intensive care units (ICUs) in the Netherlands. We will include ICUs that submit indicator data to the Dutch National Intensive Care Evaluation (NICE) quality registry and that agree to allocate at least one intensivist and one ICU nurse for implementation of the intervention. Eligible ICUs (clusters) will be randomized to receive basic NICE registry feedback (control arm) or to participate in the InFoQI program (intervention arm). The InFoQI program consists of comprehensive feedback, establishing a local, multidisciplinary QI team, and educational outreach visits. The primary outcome measures will be length of ICU stay and the proportion of shifts with a bed occupancy rate above 80%. We will also conduct a process evaluation involving ICUs in the intervention arm to investigate their actual exposure to and experiences with the InFoQI program. DISCUSSION: The results of this study will inform those involved in providing ICU care on the feasibility of a tailored multifaceted performance feedback intervention and its ability to accelerate systematic and local quality improvement. Although our study will be conducted within the domain of intensive care, we believe our conclusions will be generalizable to other settings that have a quality registry including an indicator set available. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN50542146.
| S-EPMC3217909 | biostudies-other
Project description:ImportanceParkinson disease and related disorders (PDRD) have consequences for quality of life (QoL) and are the 14th leading cause of death in the United States. Despite growing interest in palliative care (PC) for persons with PDRD, few studies are available supporting its effectiveness.ObjectiveTo determine if outpatient PC is associated with improvements in patient-centered outcomes compared with standard care among patients with PDRD and their caregivers.Design, setting, and participantsThis randomized clinical trial enrolled participants at 3 academic tertiary care centers between November 1, 2015, and September 30, 2017, and followed them up for 1 year. A total of 584 persons with PDRD were referred to the study. Of those, 351 persons were excluded by phone and 23 were excluded during in-person screenings. Patients were eligible to participate if they had PDRD and moderate to high PC needs. Patients were excluded if they had urgent PC needs, another diagnosis meriting PC, were already receiving PC, or were unable or unwilling to follow the study protocol. Enrolled participants were assigned to receive standard care plus outpatient integrated PC or standard care alone. Data were analyzed between November 1, 2018, and December 9, 2019.InterventionsOutpatient integrated PC administered by a neurologist, social worker, chaplain, and nurse using PC checklists, with guidance and selective involvement from a palliative medicine specialist. Standard care was provided by a neurologist and a primary care practitioner.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were the differences in patient quality of life (QoL; measured by the Quality of Life in Alzheimer Disease scale) and caregiver burden (measured by the Zarit Burden Interview) between the PC intervention and standard care groups at 6 months.ResultsA total of 210 patients with PDRD (135 men [64.3%]; mean [SD] age, 70.1 [8.2] years) and 175 caregivers (128 women [73.1%]; mean [SD] age, 66.1 [11.1] years) were enrolled in the study; 193 participants (91.9%) were white and non-Hispanic. Compared with participants receiving standard care alone at 6 months, participants receiving the PC intervention had better QoL (mean [SD], 0.66 [5.5] improvement vs 0.84 [4.2] worsening; treatment effect estimate, 1.87; 95% CI, 0.47-3.27; P = .009). No significant difference was observed in caregiver burden (mean [SD], 2.3 [5.0] improvement vs 1.2 [5.6] improvement in the standard care group; treatment effect estimate, -1.62; 95% CI, -3.32 to 0.09; P = .06). Other significant differences favoring the PC intervention included nonmotor symptom burden, motor symptom severity, completion of advance directives, caregiver anxiety, and caregiver burden at 12 months. No outcomes favored standard care alone. Secondary analyses suggested that benefits were greater for persons with higher PC needs.Conclusions and relevanceOutpatient PC is associated with benefits among patients with PDRD compared with standard care alone. This study supports efforts to integrate PC into PDRD care. The lack of diversity and implementation of PC at experienced centers suggests a need for implementation research in other populations and care settings.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02533921.
| S-EPMC7042842 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine whether providing remote neurologic care into the homes of people with Parkinson disease (PD) is feasible, beneficial, and valuable.MethodsIn a 1-year randomized controlled trial, we compared usual care to usual care supplemented by 4 virtual visits via video conferencing from a remote specialist into patients' homes. Primary outcome measures were feasibility, as measured by the proportion who completed at least one virtual visit and the proportion of virtual visits completed on time; and efficacy, as measured by the change in the Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire-39, a quality of life scale. Secondary outcomes included quality of care, caregiver burden, and time and travel savings.ResultsA total of 927 individuals indicated interest, 210 were enrolled, and 195 were randomized. Participants had recently seen a specialist (73%) and were largely college-educated (73%) and white (96%). Ninety-five (98% of the intervention group) completed at least one virtual visit, and 91% of 388 virtual visits were completed. Quality of life did not improve in those receiving virtual house calls (0.3 points worse on a 100-point scale; 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.0 to 2.7 points; p = 0.78) nor did quality of care or caregiver burden. Each virtual house call saved patients a median of 88 minutes (95% CI 70-120; p < 0.0001) and 38 miles per visit (95% CI 36-56; p < 0.0001).ConclusionsProviding remote neurologic care directly into the homes of people with PD was feasible and was neither more nor less efficacious than usual in-person care. Virtual house calls generated great interest and provided substantial convenience.Clinicaltrialsgov identifierNCT02038959.Classification of evidenceThis study provides Class III evidence that for patients with PD, virtual house calls from a neurologist are feasible and do not significantly change quality of life compared to in-person visits. The study is rated Class III because it was not possible to mask patients to visit type.
| S-EPMC5595275 | biostudies-literature