John D. Piette

Randomized trial of a daily electronic home monitoring system in patients with advanced heart failure: the Weight Monitoring in Heart Failure (WHARF) trial.

BACKGROUND Heart failure treatment guidelines emphasize daily weight monitoring for patients with heart failure, but data to support this practice are lacking. Using a technology-based heart failure monitoring system, we determined whether daily reporting of weight and symptoms in patients with advanced heart failure would reduce rehospitalization and mortality rates despite aggressive guideline-driven heart failure care. METHODS This was a randomized, controlled trial. Patients hospitalized with New York Heart Association class III or IV heart failure, with a left ventricular ejection fraction < or =35% were randomized to receive heart failure program care or heart failure program care plus the AlereNet system (Alere Medical, Reno, Nev) and followed-up for 6 months. The primary end point was 6-month hospital readmission rate. Secondary end points included mortality, heart failure hospitalization readmission rate, emergency room visitation rate, and quality of life. RESULTS Two hundred eighty patients from 16 heart failure centers across the United States were randomized: 138 received the AlereNet system and 142 received standard care. Mean age was 59 +/- 15 years and 68% were male. The population had very advanced heart failure, New York Heart Association class III (75%) or IV (25%), as evidenced by serum norepinepherine levels, 6-minute walk distance and outcomes. No differences in hospitalization rates were observed. There was a 56.2% reduction in mortality (P <.003) for patients randomized to the AlereNet group. CONCLUSIONS This is the largest multicenter, randomized trial of a technology-based daily weight and symptom-monitoring system for patients with advanced heart failure. Despite no difference in the primary end point of rehospitalization rates, mortality was significantly reduced for patients randomized to the AlereNet system without an increase in utilization, despite specialized and aggressive heart failure care in both groups.

National Standards for Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support

By the most recent estimates, 18.8 million people in the U.S. have been diagnosed with diabetes and an additional 7 million are believed to be living with undiagnosed diabetes. At the same time, 79 million people are estimated to have blood glucose levels in the range of prediabetes or categories of increased risk for diabetes. Thus, more than 100 million Americans are at risk for developing the devastating complications of diabetes (1). Diabetes self-management education (DSME) is a critical element of care for all people with diabetes and those at risk for developing the disease. It is necessary in order to prevent or delay the complications of diabetes (2–6) and has elements related to lifestyle changes that are also essential for individuals with prediabetes as part of efforts to prevent the disease (7,8). The National Standards for Diabetes Self-Management Education are designed to define quality DSME and support and to assist diabetes educators in providing evidence-based education and self-management support. The Standards are applicable to educators in solo practice as well as those in large multicenter programs—and everyone in between. There are many good models for the provision of diabetes education and support. The Standards do not endorse any one approach, but rather seek to delineate the commonalities among effective and excellent self-management education strategies. These are the standards used in the field for recognition and accreditation. They also serve as a guide for nonaccredited and nonrecognized providers and programs. Because of the dynamic nature of health care and diabetes-related research, the Standards are reviewed and revised approximately every 5 years by key stakeholders and experts within the diabetes education community. In the fall of 2011, a Task Force was jointly convened by the American Association of Diabetes Educators (AADE) and the American Diabetes Association …

The Health Effects of Restricting Prescription Medication Use Because of Cost

Background:High out-of-pocket expenditures for prescription medications could lead people with chronic illnesses to restrict their use of these medications. Whether adults experience adverse health outcomes after having restricted medication use because of cost is not known. Methods:We analyzed data from 2 prospective cohort studies of adults who reported regularly taking prescription medications using 2 waves of the Health and Retirement Study (HRS), a national survey of adults aged 51 to 61 in 1992, and the Asset and Health Dynamics Among the Oldest Old (AHEAD) Study, a national survey of adults aged 70 or older in 1993 (n = 7991). We used multivariable logistic and Poisson regression models to assess the independent effect on health outcomes over 2 to 3 years of follow up of reporting in 1995–1996 having taken less medicine than prescribed because of cost during the prior 2 years. After adjusting for differences in sociodemographic characteristics, health status, smoking, alcohol consumption, body mass index (BMI), and comorbid chronic conditions, we determined the risk of a significant decline in overall health among respondents in good to excellent health at baseline and of developing new disease-related adverse outcomes among respondents with cardiovascular disease, diabetes, arthritis, and depression. Results:In adjusted analyses, 32.1% of those who had restricted medications because of cost reported a significant decline in their health status compared with 21.2% of those who had not (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.76; confidence interval [CI], 1.27–2.44). Respondents with cardiovascular disease who restricted medications reported higher rates of angina (11.9% vs. 8.2%; AOR, 1.50; CI, 1.09–2.07) and experienced higher rates of nonfatal heart attacks or strokes (7.8% vs. 5.3%; AOR, 1.51; CI, 1.02–2.25). After adjusting for potential confounders, we found no differences in disease-specific complications among respondents with arthritis and diabetes, and increased rates of depression only among the older cohort. Conclusions:Cost-related medication restriction among middle-aged and elderly Americans is associated with an increased risk of a subsequent decline in their self-reported health status, and among those with preexisting cardiovascular disease with higher rates of angina and nonfatal heart attacks or strokes. Such cost-related medication restriction could be a mechanism for worse health outcomes among low-income and other vulnerable populations who lack adequate insurance coverage.

Cost-Related Medication Underuse Among Chronically III Adults: the Treatments People Forgo, How Often, and Who Is at Risk

OBJECTIVES We sought information about the cost-related underuse of medications-which medications are underused, by whom, and how often. METHODS Chronically ill adults were asked to identify how often they underused prescription medication for 16 health conditions because of the cost. RESULTS Eighteen percent of respondents cut back on medication use owing to cost in the previous year, and 14% used less medication at least monthly. Although rates of underuse varied substantially across treatments, prescription coverage and out-of-pocket costs were determinants of underuse across medication types. CONCLUSIONS Many chronically ill adults frequently cut back on medications owing to cost. Patients are selective about the treatments they forgo. Out-of-pocket costs and inadequate prescription coverage may lead to adherence problems for many important medication types.

Health insurance status, cost-related medication underuse, and Outcomes among diabetes patients in three systems of care

BackgroundChronically ill patients often experience difficulty paying for their medications and, as a result, use less than prescribed. ObjectivesThe objectives of this study were to determine the relationship between patients with diabetes’ health insurance coverage and cost-related medication underuse, the association between cost-related underuse and health outcomes, and the role of comorbidity in this process. Research DesignWe used a patient survey with linkage to insurance information and hemoglobin A1C (A1C) test results. Patients.We studied 766 adults with diabetes recruited from 3 Veterans Affairs (VA), 1 county, and 1 university healthcare system. Main Outcomes.Main outcomes consisted of self-reported medication underuse as a result of cost, A1C levels, symptom burden, and Medical Outcomes Study 12-Item Short-Form physical and mental functioning scores. ResultsFewer VA patients reported cost-related medication underuse (9%) than patients with private insurance (18%), Medicare (25%), Medicaid (31%), or no health insurance (40%; P <0.0001). Underuse was substantially more common among patients with multiple comorbid chronic illnesses, except those who used VA care. The risk of cost-related underuse for patients with 3+ comorbidities was 2.8 times as high among privately insured patients as VA patients (95% confidence interval, 1.2–6.5), and 4.3 to 8.3 times as high among patients with Medicare, Medicaid, or no insurance. Individuals reporting cost-related medication underuse had A1C levels that were substantially higher than other patients (P <0.0001), more symptoms, and poorer physical and mental functioning (all P <0.05). ConclusionsMany patients with diabetes use less of their medication than prescribed because of the cost, and those reporting cost-related adherence problems have poorer health. Cost-related adherence problems are especially common among patients with diabetes with comorbid diseases, although the VA’s drug coverage may protect patients from this increased risk.

Diabetes Control With Reciprocal Peer Support Versus Nurse Care Management: A Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND Resource barriers complicate diabetes care management. Support from peers may help patients manage their diabetes. OBJECTIVE To compare a reciprocal peer-support (RPS) program with nurse care management (NCM). DESIGN Randomized, controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00320112) SETTING 2 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs health care facilities. PATIENTS 244 men with hemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) levels greater than 7.5% during the previous 6 months. MEASUREMENTS The primary outcome was 6-month change in HbA(1c) level. Secondary outcomes were changes in insulin therapy; blood pressure; and patient reports of medication adherence, diabetes-related support, and emotional distress. INTERVENTION Patients in the RPS group attended an initial group session to set diabetes-related behavioral goals, receive peer communication skills training, and be paired with another age-matched peer patient. Peers were encouraged to talk weekly using a telephone platform that recorded call occurrence and provided reminders to promote peer contact. These patients could also participate in optional group sessions at 1, 3, and 6 months. Patients in the NCM group attended a 1.5-hour educational session and were assigned to a nurse care manager. RESULTS Of the 244 patients enrolled, 216 (89%) completed the HbA(1c) assessments and 231 (95%) completed the survey assessments at 6 months. Mean HbA(1c) level decreased from 8.02% to 7.73% (change, -0.29%) in the RPS group and increased from 7.93% to 8.22% (change, 0.29%) in the NCM group. The difference in HbA(1c) change between groups was 0.58% (P = 0.004). Among patients with a baseline HbA(1c) level greater than 8.0%, those in the RPS group had a mean decrease of 0.88%, compared with a 0.07% decrease among those in the NCM group (between-group difference, 0.81%; P < 0.001). Eight patients in the RPS group started insulin therapy, compared with 1 patient in the NCM group (P = 0.020). Groups did not differ in blood pressure, self-reported medication adherence, or diabetes-specific distress, but the RPS group reported improvement in diabetes social support. LIMITATION The study included only male veterans and lasted only 6 months. CONCLUSION Reciprocal peer support holds promise as a method for diabetes care management.

Dimensions of patient-provider communication and diabetes self-care in an ethnically diverse population.

AbstractBACKGROUND: Patient-provider communication is essential for effective care of diabetes and other chronic illnesses. However, the relative impact of general versus disease-specific communication on self-management is poorly understood, as are the determinants of these 2 communication dimensions. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Three VA heath care systems, 1 county health care system, and 1 university-based health care system. PATIENTS: Seven hundred fifty-two diabetes patients were enrolled. Fifty-two percent were nonwhite, 18% had less than a high-school education, and 8% were primarily Spanish-speaking. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Patients’ assessments of providers’ general and diabetes-specific communication were measured using validated scales. Self-reported foot care; and adherence to hypoglycemic medications, dietary recommendations, and exercise were measured using standard items. General and diabetes-specific communication reports were only moderately correlated (r=.35) and had differing predictors. In multivariate probit analyses, both dimensions of communication were independently associated with self-care in each of the 4 areas examined. Sociodemographically vulnerable patients (racial and language minorities and those with less education) reported communication that was as good or better than that reported by other patients. Patients receiving most of their diabetes care from their primary provider and patients with a longer primary care relationship reported better general communication. VA and county clinic patients reported better diabetes-specific communication than did university clinic patients. CONCLUSIONS: General and diabetes-specific communication are related but unique facets of patient-provider interactions, and improving either one may improve self-management. Providers in these sites are communicating successfully with vulnerable patients. These findings reinforce the potential importance of continuity and differences among VA, county, and university health care systems as determinants of patient-provider communication.

Beyond comorbidity counts: how do comorbidity type and severity influence diabetes patients' treatment priorities and self-management?

BACKGROUNDThe majority of older adults have 2 or more chronic conditions and among patients with diabetes, 40% have at least three.OBJECTIVEWe sought to understand how the number, type, and severity of comorbidities influence diabetes patients’ self-management and treatment priorities.DESIGNCross-sectional observation study.PATIENTSA total of 1,901 diabetes patients who responded to the 2003 Health and Retirement Study (HRS) diabetes survey.MEASUREMENTSWe constructed multivariate models to assess the association between presence of comorbidities and each of 2 self-reported outcomes, diabetes prioritization and self-management ability, controlling for patient demographics. Comorbidity was characterized first by a count of all comorbid conditions, then by the presence of specific comorbidity subtypes (microvascular, macrovascular, and non-diabetes related), and finally by severity of 1 serious comorbidity: heart failure (HF).RESULTS40% of respondents had at least 1 microvascular comorbidity, 79% at least 1 macrovascular comorbidity, and 61% at least 1 non-diabetes-related comorbidity. Patients with a greater overall number of comorbidities placed lower priority on diabetes and had worse diabetes self-management ability scores. However, only macrovascular and non-diabetes-related comorbidities, but not microvascular comorbidities, were associated with lower diabetes prioritization, whereas higher numbers of microvascular, macrovascular, and non-diabetes-related conditions were all associated with lower diabetes self-management ability scores. Severe, but not mild, HF was associated with lower diabetes prioritization and self-management scores.CONCLUSIONSThe type and severity of comorbid conditions, and not just the comorbidity count, influence diabetes patients’ self-management. Patients with severely symptomatic comorbidities and those with conditions they consider to be unrelated to diabetes may need additional support in making decisions about care priorities and self-management activities.

Spanish Diabetes Self-Management With and Without Automated Telephone Reinforcement Two randomized trials

OBJECTIVE—To determine 1) whether participants in the Spanish Diabetes Self-Management Program (SDSMP), when compared at 6 months to randomized control subjects, would demonstrate improvements in health status, health behaviors, and self-efficacy; and 2) whether SDSMP participants receiving monthly automated telephone reinforcement would maintain improvements at 18 months better than those not receiving reinforcement. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—A total of 567 Spanish-speaking adults with type 2 diabetes were randomized to a usual-care control group or 6-week community-based, peer-led SDSMP. SDSMP participants were re-randomized to receive 15 months of automated telephone messages or no reinforcement. A1C was measured at baseline and 6 and 18 months. All other data were collected by self-administered questionnaires. RESULTS—At 6 months SDSMP participants compared with control subjects demonstrated improvements in A1C (−0.4%), health distress, symptoms of hypo- and hyperglycemia, and self-efficacy (P < 0.05). At 18 months all improvements persisted (P < 0.05). SDSMP participants also demonstrated improvements in self-rated health and communication with physicians, had fewer emergency room visits (−0.18 visits in 6 months, P < 0.05), and trended toward fewer visits to physicians. At 18 months the only difference between reinforced and nonreinforced participants was increased glucose monitoring for the reinforcement group. CONCLUSIONS—The SDSMP demonstrated effectiveness in lowering A1C and improving health status. Reinforcement did not add to its effectiveness. Given the high needs of the Spanish-speaking population, the SDSMP deserves consideration for implementation.

Efficacy of peer support interventions for depression: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE To assess the efficacy of peer support for reducing symptoms of depression. METHODS Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL and CENTRAL databases were searched for clinical trials published as of April 2010 using Medical Subject Headings and free text terms related to depression and peer support. Two independent reviewers selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared a peer support intervention for depression to usual care or a psychotherapy control condition. Meta-analyses were conducted to generate pooled standardized mean differences (SMD) in the change in depressive symptoms between study conditions. RESULTS Seven RCTs of peer support vs. usual care for depression involving 869 participants were identified. Peer support interventions were superior to usual care in reducing depressive symptoms, with a pooled SMD of -0.59 (95% CI, -0.98 to -0.21; P=.002). Seven RCTs with 301 total participants compared peer support to group cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). There was no statistically significant difference between group CBT and peer interventions, with a pooled SMD of 0.10 (95% CI, -0.20 to 0.39, P=.53). CONCLUSION Based on the available evidence, peer support interventions help reduce symptoms of depression. Additional studies are needed to determine effectiveness in primary care and other settings with limited mental health resources.