V Shane Pankratz1, E Eunice Choi1, Fares Qeadan2, Donica Ghahate1, Jeanette Bobelu1, Robert G Nelson3, Thomas Faber4, Vallabh O Shah5. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA. 2. Division of Public Health, Department of Family and Preventative Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. 3. Chronic Kidney Disease Section, Phoenix Epidemiology and Clinical Research Branch, NIDDK, NIH, Phoenix, AZ, USA. 4. Indian Health Service, Zuni Comprehensive Care Center, NM, USA. 5. Department of Internal Medicine, University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA. Electronic address: vshah@salud.unm.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Home-Based Kidney Care (HBKC) is a pragmatic treatment approach that addresses patient preferences and cultural barriers to healthcare. We previously reported the results of a clinical trial of HBKC vs. usual care in a cohort of Zuni Indians in New Mexico. This study investigated the potential for differential efficacy of HBKC vs. usual care according to type 2 diabetes (T2DM) status. METHODS: We analyzed the data from all individuals who participated in a randomized clinical trial that compared HBKC to usual care among patients with CKD, and assessed whether the effect of the HBKC intervention affected the subset of patients with T2DM differently than those individuals without T2DM. We used linear regression models to estimate the effect of HBKC on improvement in Patient Activation Measure (PAM) total scores within the groups of participants defined by T2DM status, and to compare the effects between these two groups. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for household clustering. RESULTS: The original study enrolled 63 participants into the HBKC group, and 62 into the usual care. Ninety-eight of these individuals completed the 12-month intervention, 50 in the HBKC group and 48 in the usual care group. The present study compared the intervention effect in the 56 participants with T2DM (24 participants in the HBKC group and 32 in usual care) to the intervention effect in the 42 participants without T2DM (26 participants in the HBKC group and 16 in usual care). Those with T2DM who received the HBKC intervention experienced an average increase in PAM total scores of 16.0 points (95% Confidence Interval: 8.8-23.1) more than those with T2DM who were in the usual care group. For those without T2DM, the intervention had essentially no effect, with those who received the HBKC intervention having an average PAM total scores that was 1.4 points (95% C.I.: -12.4 to 9.6) lower than those who received usual care. There was a significantly different HBKC treatment effect by T2DM status (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: This secondary analysis suggests that the effectiveness of this HBKC intervention on increasing patient activation is most notable among those CKD patients who also have T2DM.
BACKGROUND: Home-Based Kidney Care (HBKC) is a pragmatic treatment approach that addresses patient preferences and cultural barriers to healthcare. We previously reported the results of a clinical trial of HBKC vs. usual care in a cohort of Zuni Indians in New Mexico. This study investigated the potential for differential efficacy of HBKC vs. usual care according to type 2 diabetes (T2DM) status. METHODS: We analyzed the data from all individuals who participated in a randomized clinical trial that compared HBKC to usual care among patients with CKD, and assessed whether the effect of the HBKC intervention affected the subset of patients with T2DM differently than those individuals without T2DM. We used linear regression models to estimate the effect of HBKC on improvement in Patient Activation Measure (PAM) total scores within the groups of participants defined by T2DM status, and to compare the effects between these two groups. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for household clustering. RESULTS: The original study enrolled 63 participants into the HBKC group, and 62 into the usual care. Ninety-eight of these individuals completed the 12-month intervention, 50 in the HBKC group and 48 in the usual care group. The present study compared the intervention effect in the 56 participants with T2DM (24 participants in the HBKC group and 32 in usual care) to the intervention effect in the 42 participants without T2DM (26 participants in the HBKC group and 16 in usual care). Those with T2DM who received the HBKC intervention experienced an average increase in PAM total scores of 16.0 points (95% Confidence Interval: 8.8-23.1) more than those with T2DM who were in the usual care group. For those without T2DM, the intervention had essentially no effect, with those who received the HBKC intervention having an average PAM total scores that was 1.4 points (95% C.I.: -12.4 to 9.6) lower than those who received usual care. There was a significantly different HBKC treatment effect by T2DM status (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: This secondary analysis suggests that the effectiveness of this HBKC intervention on increasing patient activation is most notable among those CKD patients who also have T2DM.
Authors: Jean W MacCluer; Marina Scavini; Vallabh O Shah; Shelley A Cole; Sandra L Laston; V Saroja Voruganti; Susan S Paine; Alfred J Eaton; Anthony G Comuzzie; Francesca Tentori; Dorothy R Pathak; Arlene Bobelu; Jeanette Bobelu; Donica Ghahate; Mildred Waikaniwa; Philip G Zager Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2010-06-19 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Sarah J Schrauben; Jesse Y Hsu; Sylvia E Rosas; Bernard G Jaar; Xiaoming Zhang; Rajat Deo; Georges Saab; Jing Chen; Swati Lederer; Radhika Kanthety; L Lee Hamm; Ana C Ricardo; James P Lash; Harold I Feldman; Amanda H Anderson Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2018-03-24 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Maryam Afkarian; Leila R Zelnick; Yoshio N Hall; Patrick J Heagerty; Katherine Tuttle; Noel S Weiss; Ian H de Boer Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-08-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Vallabh O Shah; Casey Carroll; Ryan Mals; Donica Ghahate; Jeanette Bobelu; Phillip Sandy; Kathleen Colleran; Ronald Schrader; Thomas Faber; Mark R Burge Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-05-08 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Michelle D Smekal; Helen Tam-Tham; Juli Finlay; Maoliosa Donald; Chandra Thomas; Robert G Weaver; Robert R Quinn; Kin Tam; Braden J Manns; Marcello Tonelli; Aminu Bello; Navdeep Tangri; Brenda R Hemmelgarn Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2019-03-29 Impact factor: 2.388
Authors: Wael F Hussein; Paul N Bennett; Sumi J Sun; Marc Reiterman; Emily Watson; Ian M Farwell; Brigitte Schiller Journal: J Patient Exp Date: 2022-07-24
Authors: James E Bailey; Cathy Gurgol; Eric Pan; Shirilyn Njie; Susan Emmett; Justin Gatwood; Lynne Gauthier; Lisa G Rosas; Shannon M Kearney; Samantha Kleindienst Robler; Raymona H Lawrence; Karen L Margolis; Ifeyinwa Osunkwo; Denise Wilfley; Vallabh O Shah Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2021-12-07 Impact factor: 5.428