Key result
Primary care case management did not significantly reduce the combined rate of thromboembolic events requiring hospitalization and major bleeding complications compared to routine care (HR 0.83).
Why the study?
To examine whether applying case management in general practices reduces thromboembolic events requiring hospitalization and major bleeding events in patients receiving long-term antithrombotic treatment.
Does a primary care case management intervention reduce thromboembolic events requiring hospitalization and major bleeding events in adult patients receiving long-term antithrombotic treatment?
RCT (n=736)
Open-label
Cluster-randomized
Yes
Does a primary care case management intervention reduce thromboembolic events requiring hospitalization and major bleeding events in adult patients receiving long-term antithrombotic treatment?
A primary care case management intervention for patients on long-term antithrombotic treatment did not significantly reduce thromboembolic or major bleeding events compared to routine care, though it improved patient knowledge and perceived quality of care.
PURPOSE: To examine whether applying case management in general practices reduces thromboembolic events requiring hospitalization and major bleeding events (combined primary outcome). Secondary endpoints were mortality, frequency and duration of hospitalization, severe treatment interactions, adverse events, quality of anticoagulation, health-related quality of life and intervention costs, patients' assessment of chronic illness care, self-reported adherence to medication, GP and HCA knowledge, patient knowledge and satisfaction with shared decision-making. METHODS: Cluster-randomized controlled trial undertaken at 52 general practices in Germany with adult patients with a long-term indication for oral anticoagulation. The complex intervention included training for healthcare assistants, information and quality circles for general practitioners and 24 months of case management for patients. Assessment was after 12 and 24 months. The intention-to-treat population included all randomized practices and patients, while the per-protocol analysis included only those that received treatment without major protocol violations. RESULTS: The mean (SD) age of the 736 patients was 73.5 (9.4) years and 597 (81.1%) had atrial fibrillation. After 24 months, the primary endpoint had occurred in 40 (11.0%) intervention and 48 (12.9%) control patients (hazard ratio 0.83, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.25; P = .37). Patients' perceived quality of care, their knowledge, and HCAs' knowledge, had improved significantly at 24 months. The other secondary endpoints did not differ between groups. In the intervention group, hospital admissions were significantly reduced in patients that received treatment without major protocol deviations. CONCLUSIONS: Even though the main outcomes did not differ significantly, the intervention appears to have positively influenced several process parameters under 'real-world conditions'.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Siebenhofer et al. (2019) conducted an RCT in Long-term indication for oral anticoagulation (n=736). Primary care case management vs. Routine care was evaluated on Combination of all thromboembolic events requiring hospitalization and major bleeding complications (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.25, p=0.37). Primary care case management did not significantly reduce the combined rate of thromboembolic events requiring hospitalization and major bleeding complications compared to routine care (HR 0.83).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: