Effect of a Collaborative Care Intervention vs Usual Care on Health Status of Patients With Chronic Heart Failure: The CASA Randomized Clinical Trial

    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid

Abstract

Importance

Many patients with chronic heart failure experience reduced health status despite receiving conventional therapy.

Objective

To determine whether a symptom and psychosocial collaborative care intervention improves heart failure–specific health status, depression, and symptom burden in patients with heart failure.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A single-blind, 2-arm, multisite randomized clinical trial was conducted at Veterans Affairs, academic, and safety-net health systems in Colorado among outpatients with symptomatic heart failure and reduced health status recruited between August 2012 and April 2015. Data from all participants were included regardless of level of participation, using an intent-to-treat approach.

Interventions

Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive the Collaborative Care to Alleviate Symptoms and Adjust to Illness (CASA) intervention or usual care. The CASA intervention included collaborative symptom care provided by a nurse and psychosocial care provided by a social worker, both of whom worked with the patients’ primary care clinicians and were supervised by a study primary care clinician, cardiologist, and palliative care physician.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was patient-reported heart failure–specific health status, measured by difference in change scores on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (range, 0-100) at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included depression (measured by the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire), anxiety (measured by the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire), overall symptom distress (measured by the General Symptom Distress Scale), specific symptoms (pain, fatigue, and shortness of breath), number of hospitalizations, and mortality.

Results

Of 314 patients randomized (157 to intervention arm and 157 to control arm), there were 67 women and 247 men, mean (SD) age was 65.5 (11.4) years, and 178 (56.7%) had reduced ejection fraction. At 6 months, the mean Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score improved 5.5 points in the intervention arm and 2.9 points in the control arm (difference, 2.6; 95% CI, –1.3 to 6.6; P = .19). Among secondary outcomes, depressive symptoms and fatigue improved at 6 months with CASA (effect size of –0.29 [95% CI, –0.53 to –0.04] for depressive symptoms and –0.30 [95% CI, –0.55 to –0.06] for fatigue; P = .02 for both). There were no significant changes in overall symptom distress, pain, shortness of breath, or number of hospitalizations. Mortality at 12 months was similar in both arms (10 patients died receiving CASA, and 13 patients died receiving usual care; P = .52).

Conclusions and Relevance

This multisite randomized clinical trial of the CASA intervention did not demonstrate improved heart failure–specific health status. Secondary outcomes of depression and fatigue, both difficult symptoms to treat in heart failure, improved.

Trial Registration

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01739686

Related Topics

    loading  Loading Related Articles