Lauren Galbraith1,2, Casey Jacobs3, Brenda R Hemmelgarn1,2,4, Maoliosa Donald1,2, Braden J Manns1,2,4, Min Jun1,2. 1. Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 2. Interdisciplinary Chronic Disease Collaboration, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 3. Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Production Animal Health, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 4. Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Abstract
Background: Primary care providers manage the majority of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), although the most effective chronic disease management (CDM) strategies for these patients are unknown. We assessed the efficacy of CDM interventions used by primary care providers managing patients with CKD. Methods: The Medline, Embase and Cochrane Central databases were systematically searched (inception to November 2014) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing education-based and computer-assisted CDM interventions targeting primary care providers managing patients with CKD in the community. The efficacy of CDM interventions was assessed using quality indicators [use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB), proteinuria measurement and achievement of blood pressure (BP) targets] and clinical outcomes (change in BP and glomerular filtration rate). Two independent reviewers evaluated studies for inclusion, quality and extracted data. Random effects models were used to estimate pooled odds ratios (ORs) and weighted mean differences for outcomes of interest. Results: Five studies (188 clinics; 494 physicians; 42 852 patients with CKD) were included. Two studies compared computer-assisted intervention strategies with usual care, two studies compared education-based intervention strategies with computer-assisted intervention strategies and one study compared both these intervention strategies with usual care. Compared with usual care, computer-assisted CDM interventions did not increase the likelihood of ACEI/ARB use among patients with CKD {pooled OR 1.00 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83-1.21]; I2 = 0.0%}. Similarly, education-related CDM interventions did not increase the likelihood of ACEI/ARB use compared with computer-assisted CDM interventions [pooled OR 1.12 (95% CI 0.77-1.64); I2 = 0.0%]. Inconsistencies in reporting methods limited further pooling of data. Conclusions: To date, there have been very few randomized trials testing CDM interventions targeting primary care providers with the goal of improving care of people with CKD. Those conducted to date have shown minimal impact, suggesting that other strategies, or multifaceted interventions, may be required to enhance care for patients with CKD in the community.
Background: Primary care providers manage the majority of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), although the most effective chronic disease management (CDM) strategies for these patients are unknown. We assessed the efficacy of CDM interventions used by primary care providers managing patients with CKD. Methods: The Medline, Embase and Cochrane Central databases were systematically searched (inception to November 2014) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing education-based and computer-assisted CDM interventions targeting primary care providers managing patients with CKD in the community. The efficacy of CDM interventions was assessed using quality indicators [use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB), proteinuria measurement and achievement of blood pressure (BP) targets] and clinical outcomes (change in BP and glomerular filtration rate). Two independent reviewers evaluated studies for inclusion, quality and extracted data. Random effects models were used to estimate pooled odds ratios (ORs) and weighted mean differences for outcomes of interest. Results: Five studies (188 clinics; 494 physicians; 42 852 patients with CKD) were included. Two studies compared computer-assisted intervention strategies with usual care, two studies compared education-based intervention strategies with computer-assisted intervention strategies and one study compared both these intervention strategies with usual care. Compared with usual care, computer-assisted CDM interventions did not increase the likelihood of ACEI/ARB use among patients with CKD {pooled OR 1.00 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83-1.21]; I2 = 0.0%}. Similarly, education-related CDM interventions did not increase the likelihood of ACEI/ARB use compared with computer-assisted CDM interventions [pooled OR 1.12 (95% CI 0.77-1.64); I2 = 0.0%]. Inconsistencies in reporting methods limited further pooling of data. Conclusions: To date, there have been very few randomized trials testing CDM interventions targeting primary care providers with the goal of improving care of people with CKD. Those conducted to date have shown minimal impact, suggesting that other strategies, or multifaceted interventions, may be required to enhance care for patients with CKD in the community.
Authors: K R Lorig; D S Sobel; A L Stewart; B W Brown; A Bandura; P Ritter; V M Gonzalez; D D Laurent; H R Holman Journal: Med Care Date: 1999-01 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Chester H Fox; Andrew Swanson; Linda S Kahn; Katheryn Glaser; Brian M Murray Journal: J Am Board Fam Med Date: 2008 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.657
Authors: Chester H Fox; Amanda Brooks; Luis E Zayas; William McClellan; Brian Murray Journal: J Am Board Fam Med Date: 2006 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.657
Authors: Nick Richards; Kevin Harris; Malcolm Whitfield; Donal O'Donoghue; Robert Lewis; Martin Mansell; Stephen Thomas; John Townend; Mick Eames; Daniele Marcelli Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2007-12-09 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: A S Levey; R Atkins; J Coresh; E P Cohen; A J Collins; K-U Eckardt; M E Nahas; B L Jaber; M Jadoul; A Levin; N R Powe; J Rossert; D C Wheeler; N Lameire; G Eknoyan Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2007-06-13 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Paul Arora; Priya Vasa; Darren Brenner; Karl Iglar; Phil McFarlane; Howard Morrison; Alaa Badawi Journal: CMAJ Date: 2013-05-06 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Simon de Lusignan; Simon de Lusignana; Hugh Gallagher; Simon Jones; Tom Chan; Jeremy van Vlymen; Aumran Tahir; Nicola Thomas; Neerja Jain; Olga Dmitrieva; Imran Rafi; Andrew McGovern; Kevin Harris Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2013-03-27 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Rupert W Major; Celia Brown; David Shepherd; Stephen Rogers; Warren Pickering; Graham L Warwick; Shaun Barber; Nuzhat B Ashra; Tom Morris; Nigel J Brunskill Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2019-05-16 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Delphine S Tuot; Charles E McCulloch; Alexandra Velasquez; Dean Schillinger; Chi-Yuan Hsu; Margaret Handley; Neil R Powe Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2018-04-23 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Ype de Jong; Esmee M van der Willik; Jet Milders; Yvette Meuleman; Rachael L Morton; Friedo W Dekker; Merel van Diepen Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2021-09-13 Impact factor: 2.388
Authors: Delphine S Tuot; Anna D Rubinsky; Alexandra Velasquez; Charles E McCulloch; Dean Schillinger; Margaret A Handley; Chi-Yuan Hsu; Neil R Powe Journal: Kidney Med Date: 2019-08-30
Authors: Celia C Kamath; Claudia C Dobler; Rozalina G McCoy; Michelle A Lampman; Atieh Pajouhi; Patricia J Erwin; John Matulis; Muhamad Elrashidi; Joseph Darcel; Mouaz Alsawas; Zhen Wang; Nilay D Shah; M Hassan Murad; Bjorg Thorsteinsdottir Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-10-26 Impact factor: 5.128