The effectiveness of chronic care management for heart failure: meta-regression analyses to explain the heterogeneity in outcomes

Objective: To support decision making on how to best redesign chronic care by studying the heterogeneity in effectiveness across chronic care management evaluations for heart failure.\ud \ud Data Sources: Reviews and primary studies that evaluated chronic care management interventions.\ud \ud Study design: A systematic review including meta-regression analyses to investigate three potential sources of heterogeneity in effectiveness: study quality, length of follow-up, and number of Chronic Care Model (CCM) components.\ud \ud Principal findings: Our meta-analysis showed that chronic care management reduces mortality by a mean of 18% (95% CI: 0.72-0.94) and hospitalization by a mean of 18% (95% CI: 0.76-0.93) and improves quality of life by 7.14 points (95% CI: -9.55 - -4.72) on the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire. We could not explain the considerable differences in hospitalization and quality of life across the studies.\ud \ud Conclusion: Chronic care management significantly reduces mortality. Positive effects on hospitalization and quality of life were shown, however, with substantial heterogeneity in effectiveness. This heterogeneity is not explained by study quality, length of follow-up, or the number of CCM components. More attention to the development and implementation of chronic care management is needed to support informed decision making on how to best redesign chronic care

The effects of once- versus twice-weekly sessions on psychotherapy outcomes in depressed patients

Background It is unclear what session frequency is most effective in cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) and interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) for depression.Aims Compare the effects of once weekly and twice weekly sessions of CBT and IPT for depression.Method We conducted a multicentre randomised trial from November 2014 through December 2017. We recruited 200 adults with depression across nine specialised mental health centres in the Netherlands. This study used a 2 × 2 factorial design, randomising patients to once or twice weekly sessions of CBT or IPT over 16-24 weeks, up to a maximum of 20 sessions. Main outcome measures were depression severity, measured with the Beck Depression Inventory-II at baseline, before session 1, and 2 weeks, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 months after start of the intervention. Intention-to-treat analyses were conducted.Results Compared with patients who received weekly sessions, patients who received twice weekly sessions showed a statistically significant decrease in depressive symptoms (estimated mean difference between weekly and twice weekly sessions at month 6: 3.85 points, difference in effect size d = 0.55), lower attrition rates (n = 16 compared with n = 32) and an increased rate of response (hazard ratio 1.48, 95% CI 1.00-2.18).Conclusions In clinical practice settings, delivery of twice weekly sessions of CBT and IPT for depression is a way to improve depression treatment outcomes

Meta-analysis of the effectiveness of chronic care management for diabetes: Investigating heterogeneity in outcomes

Purpose  The study aims to support decision making on how best to redesign diabetes care by investigating three potential sources of heterogeneity in effectiveness across trials of diabetes care management. Methods  Medline, CINAHL and PsycInfo were searched for systematic reviews and empirical studies focusing on: (1) diabetes mellitus; (2) adult patients; and (3) interventions consisting of at least two components of the chronic care model (CCM). Systematic reviews were analysed descriptively; empirical studies were meta-analysed. Pooled effect measures were estimated using a meta-regression model that incorporated study quality, length of follow-up and number of intervention components as potential predictors of heterogeneity in effects. Results  Overall, reviews (n = 15) of diabetes care programmes report modest improvements in glycaemic control. Empirical studies (n = 61) show wide-ranging results on HbA1c, systolic blood pressure and guideline adherence. Differences between studies in methodological quality cannot explain this heterogeneity in effects. Variety in length of follow-up can explain (part of) the variability, yet not across all outcomes. Diversity in the number of included intervention components can explain 8–12% of the heterogeneity in effects on HbA1c and systolic blood pressure. Conclusions  The outcomes of chronic care management for diabetes are generally positive, yet differ considerably across trials. The most promising results are attained in studies with limited follow-up (<1 year) and by programmes including more than two CCM components. These factors can, however, explain only part of the heterogeneity in effectiveness between studies. Other potential sources of heterogeneity should be investigated to ensure implementation of evidence-based improvements in diabetes care