Chavannes, N. H. (2013). Integrated disease management interventions for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (10), [009437].

Objective To investigate the long term effectiveness of integrated disease management delivered in primary care on quality of life in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) compared with usual care.Design 24 month, multicentre, pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial Setting 40 general practices in the western part of the Netherlands Participants Patients with COPD according to GOLD (Global Initiative for COPD) criteria. Exclusion criteria were terminal illness, cognitive impairment, alcohol or drug misuse, and inability to fill in Dutch questionnaires. Practices were included if they were willing to create a multidisciplinary COPD team.

BackgroundGuideline recommendations for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are based on the results of large pharmaceutically-sponsored COPD studies (LPCS). There is a paucity of data on disease characteristics at the primary care level, while the majority of COPD patients are treated in primary care.ObjectiveWe aimed to evaluate the external validity of six LPCS (ISOLDE, TRISTAN, TORCH, UPLIFT, ECLIPSE, POET-COPD) on which current guidelines are based, in relation to primary care COPD patients, in order to inform future clinical practice guidelines and trials.MethodsBaseline data of seven primary care databases (n = 3508) from Europe were compared to baseline data of the LPCS. In addition, we examined the proportion of primary care patients eligible to participate in the LPCS, based on inclusion criteria.ResultsOverall, patients included in the LPCS were younger (mean difference (MD)-2.4; p = 0.03), predominantly male (MD 12.4; p = 0.1) with worse lung function (FEV1% MD -16.4; p<0.01) and worse quality of life scores (SGRQ MD 15.8; p = 0.01). There were large differences in GOLD stage distribution compared to primary care patients. Mean exacerbation rates were higher in LPCS, with an overrepresentation of patients with ≥1 and ≥2 exacerbations, although results were not statistically significant. Our findings add to the literature, as we revealed hitherto unknown GOLD I exacerbation characteristics, showing 34% of mild patients had ≥1 exacerbations per year and 12% had ≥2 exacerbations per year. The proportion of primary care patients eligible for inclusion in LPCS ranged from 17% (TRISTAN) to 42% (ECLIPSE, UPLIFT).ConclusionPrimary care COPD patients stand out from patients enrolled in LPCS in terms of gender, lung function, quality of life and exacerbations. More research is needed to determine the effect of pharmacological treatment in mild to moderate patients. We encourage future guideline makers to involve primary care populations in their recommendations.

No abstract

BackgroundThere is insufficient evidence of the cost-effectiveness of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Disease Management (COPD-DM) programs. The aim of this review is to evaluate the economic impact of COPD-DM programs and investigate the relation between the impact on healthcare costs and health outcomes. We also investigated the impact of patient-, intervention, and study-characteristics.MethodsWe conducted a systematic literature review to identify cost-effectiveness studies of COPD-DM. Where feasible, results were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis and explorative subgroup analyses were performed.ResultsSixteen papers describing 11 studies were included (7 randomized control trials (RCT), 2 pre-post, 2 case–control). Meta-analysis showed that COPD-DM led to hospitalization savings of €1060 (95% CI: €2040 to €80) per patient per year and savings in total healthcare utilization of €898 (95% CI: €1566 to €231) (excl. operating costs). In these health economic studies small but positive results on health outcomes were found, such as the St Georges Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score, which decreased with 1.7 points (95% CI: 0.5-2.9). There was great variability in DM interventions-, study- and patient-characteristics. There were indications that DM showed greater savings in studies with: severe COPD patients, patients with a history of exacerbations, RCT study design, high methodological quality, few different professions involved in the program, and study setting outside Europe.ConclusionsCOPD-DM programs were found to have favourable effects on both health outcomes and costs, but there is considerable heterogeneity depending on patient-, intervention-, and study-characteristics.