Biomedical subjects

Victor Villagra

Publications and source records attributed to Victor Villagra.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Gender-specific care of the patient with diabetes: review and recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Men and women differ in their experience of diabetes mellitus (DM). For optimal prevention and treatment of the disease, these differences must be acknowledged. Unfortunately, most studies of diabetes have focused almost exclusively on men. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this review was to survey the literature about the sex-specific features of DM and to make recommendations for the gender-specific care of patients. METHODS: An initial literature search was performed with Google Scholar and MEDLINE (1995-2005) using the search terms sex/gender, women, diabetes mellitus, and coronary artery disease, and specific topic headings such as polycystic ovary syndrome. The bibliographies of articles were used extensively to augment the search, and more specific search terms were included. The strength of each recommendation was assessed. RESULTS: : Even when women were included in clinical trials, investigators typically made no attempt to assess the impact of sex differences on the reported results. Existing studies, however, reveal several differences between men and women with diabetes. The prevalence of DM is growing fastest for older minority women. Women with diabetes, regardless of menopausal status, have a 4- to 6-fold increase in the risk of developing coronary artery disease (CAD), whereas men with diabetes have a 2- to 3-fold increase in risk. Women with diabetes have a poorer prognosis after myocardial infarction and a higher risk of death overall from cardiovascular disease than do men with diabetes. Women with type 2 DM experience more symptoms of hyperglycemia than do their male counterparts. Obesity, an important contributor to type 2 DM, is more prevalent in women. Women with diabetes have an increased risk of hypertension compared with men with diabetes. Women have a more severe type of dyslipidemia than do men (low levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, small particle size of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and high levels of triglycerides), and these risk factors for CAD have a stronger influence in women. Oxidative stress may confer a greater increase in the risk of CAD for women with diabetes than for men with diabetes. Many other sex differences in DM are due to women's reproductive physiology. Polycystic ovary syndrome is an important correlate of insulin resistance and the metabolic syndrome. Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) increases the risk of cardiovascular disease and type 2 DM. Women are less likely than men to receive aggressive treatment for CAD and to achieve treatment goals. Critical recommendations for women include exercise, testing for CAD, daily aspirin to counteract the prothrombotic state, depression screening, careful treatment to avoid weight gain, long-term follow-up of children of women with GDM, control of risk factors for CAD, and aggressive treatment with coronary angioplasty for CAD. Disease management programs for patients with diabetes have been shown to save money and improve outcomes, and should continue to incorporate information about sex-specific differences in DM as it becomes available. CONCLUSION: Gender-specific care of the patient with diabetes should be informed by evidence-based recommendations.

Cardiovascular Diseases↗

PubMed2004

Principles for assessing disease management outcomes.

Disease management (DM) is rapidly becoming an important force in the late 20th and early 21st century as a strategy for managing the chronic illness of large populations. Given the increasing visibility of DM programs, the clinical, economic and financial impact of this support are vital to DM program accountability and its acceptance as a solution to the twin challenges of achieving affordable, quality health care. Measuring and reporting outcomes in DM is difficult. DM programs must adapt to local market conditions and customer desires, which in turn limits generalizability, and still account for the overlapping/interlocking/multifaceted nature of the interventions included in any DM program. The Disease Management Association of America convened a Steering Committee to suggest a preferred approach, not a mandated or standardized approach for DM program evaluation. This paper presents the Steering Committee's "Consensus Statement" and "Guiding Principles" for robust evaluation.

Disease Management↗

PubMed2004

Strategies to control costs and quality: a focus on outcomes research for disease management.

Rapid adoption of disease management has outpaced systematic evaluation of its net value in improving health outcomes and mitigating healthcare cost. This article identifies areas in which outcomes research in disease management is needed to demonstrate its value or to enhance its performance. Patient identification for disease management relies on administrative database queries but the trade-offs in sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value of alternative queries are not well known. Large-scale deployment, rapid patient engagement, and repeated interactions between patients and nurses could be important attributes for attaining measurable improvements in quality and cost reduction over short periods of time, but these hypothesis need to be tested. There is a trend toward integration of multiple chronic disease management programs onto a single platform. To support this trend, there is a need for a corresponding set of integrated clinical guidelines or "meta-guidelines" that combine the contents of individual practice guidelines. The relative contribution of various disease management interventions in improving clinical results, lowering costs, and their respective ease of implementation is not known. Research leading to a better understanding of tradeoffs could lead to more rational resource allocation and better overall outcomes. Coordination between disease management programs and physician practices is lacking. Research aimed at defining operational and technical interfaces and cultural and behavioral professional adjustments necessary to achieve integration and coordination is needed. The lack of a consistent analytical framework for evaluating clinical and financial outcomes has made comparisons of reported results impossible and has rendered many reports unreliable. Theoretical work on a standard methodology that integrates clinical and financial outcomes and empiric validation is needed.

Aged↗

PubMed2003

Determining the value of disease management programs.

BACKGROUND: Increasing prevalence, rising costs, and persisting deficiencies in quality of care for chronic diseases pose economic and policy challenges to providers and purchasers. Disease management (DM) programs may address these challenges, but neither purchasers nor providers can assess their value. The potpourri of current quality indicators provides limited insight into the actual clinical benefit achieved. A conference sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and held in October 2002 explored new approaches to measuring and reporting the value of DM for diabetes mellitus. RESULTS: Quantifying the value of DM requires measuring clinical benefit and net impact on health care costs for the entire population with diabetes. If quality is measured with indicators that are clearly linked to outcomes, clinical benefit can be estimated. Natural history models combine the expected benefits of improvements in multiple indicators to yield a single, composite measure, the quality-adjusted life-year. Such metrics could fairly express, in terms of survival and complications prevention, relatively disparate DM programs' benefits. Measuring and comparing health care costs requires data validation and appropriate case-mix adjustment. Comparing value across programs may provide more accurate assessments of performance, enhance quality improvement efforts within systems, and contribute generalizable knowledge on the utility of DM approaches. CONCLUSIONS: Conference attendees recommended pilot projects to further explore use of natural history models for measuring and reporting the value of DM.

Chronic Disease↗