When does early palliative care influence aggressive care at the end of life?

Specialist Palliative Care Use and End-of-Life Care in Patients With Metastatic Cancer

CONTEXT

For patients with advanced cancer, high intensity treatment at the end of life is measured as a reflection of the quality of care. Use of specialist palliative care has been promoted to improve care quality, but whether its use is associated with decreased treatment intensity on a population-level is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether receipt of specialist palliative care use is associated with differences in end-of-life quality metrics in patients with metastatic cancer.

METHODS

Retrospective propensity-matched cohort of patients age ≥ 65 who died with metastatic cancer in U.S. hospitals with palliative care programs that participated in the National Palliative Care Registry in 2018-2019. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to assess the impact of specialist palliative care on use of chemotherapy in the last 14 days of life, use of intensive care unit (ICU) in the last 30 days of life, use of hospice, and hospice enrollment ≥ three days.

RESULTS

After 1:2 matching, our cohort consisted of 15,878 exposed and 31,756 unexposed patients. Receipt of specialist palliative care was associated with a decrease in use of chemotherapy (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.59 [0.50-0.70]) and ICU at the end of life (aHR 0.86 [0.80-0.92]), and an increase in hospice use (aHR 1.92 [1.85-1.99]) and hospice enrollment for ≥three days (aHR 2.00 [1.93-2.07]).

CONCLUSION

On a population-level, use of specialist palliative care was associated with improved metrics for quality end-of-life care for patients dying with metastatic cancer, underscoring the importance of its integration into cancer care.

Can an Integrated Palliative and Oncology Co-rounding Model Reduce Aggressive Care at the End of Life? Secondary Analysis of an Open-label Stepped-wedge Cluster-randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Clinical trial evidence on the effect of palliative care models in reducing aggressive end-of-life care is inconclusive. We previously reported on an integrated inpatient palliative care and medical oncology co-rounding model that significantly reduced hospital bed-days and postulate additional effect on reducing care aggressiveness.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effect of a co-rounding model vs usual care in reducing receipt of aggressive treatment at end-of-life.

METHODS

Secondary analysis of an open-label stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial comparing two integrated palliative care models within the inpatient oncology setting. The co-rounding model involved pooling specialist palliative care and oncology into one team with daily review of admission issues, while usual care constituted discretionary specialist palliative care referrals by the oncology team. We compared odds of receiving aggressive care at end-of-life: acute healthcare utilization in last 30 days of life, death in hospital, and cancer treatment in last 14 days of life between patients in two trial arms.

RESULTS

2145 patients were included in the analysis, and 1803 patients died by 4th April 2021. Median overall survival was 4.90 (4.07 - 5.72) months in co-rounding and 3.75 (3.22 - 4.21) months in usual care, with no difference in survival (P = .12). We found no significant differences between both models with respect to receipt of aggressive care at end-of-life. (Odds Ratio .67 - 1.27; all P > .05).

CONCLUSION

The co-rounding model within an inpatient setting did not reduce aggressiveness of care at end-of-life. This could be due in part to the overall focus on resolving episodic admission issues.

The Financial Impact of Palliative Care and Aggressive Cancer Care on End-of-Life Health Care Costs

BACKGROUND

Medicare cancer expenditures in the last month of life have increased. Aggressive cancer care at the end-of-life (ACEOL) is considered poor quality care. We used Geisinger Health Plan (GHP) last month's costs for cancer patients who died in 2018 and 2019 to determine the costs of and influence of Palliative Care (PC) on ACEOL.

METHOD

Patients with GHP ages 18-99 who died in 2018 and 2019 were included. Demographic, clinical characteristics, and Charlson Comorbid Index were compared across care groups defined as no ACEOL indicator, 1 or more than 1 indicator. Differences between groups were compared with Kruskal-Wallis tests and one-way ANOVA for 3 groups. Median two-sample tests and independent t-tests compared groups of 2. A P-value </= .05 indicated statistical significance.

RESULTS

Of 608 eligible patients; 261 had no indicator, 133 had 1 and 214 > 1. There were incremental cost increases with each additional ACEOL indicator (p = < .0001). Palliative Care <90 days before death was associated with increased costs while consultations >90 days before death lowered cost (P < .0001) due to reduced chemotherapy in the last month. Completed ADs reduced cost by $4000.

DISCUSSION

ACEOL indicators multiply costs during the last month of life. Palliative care instituted >90 days before death reduces chemotherapy in the last month of life and AD reduces health care costs.

CONCLUSION

Cancer health care costs increase with indicators of ACEOL. Palliative care consultations >90 days before death; ADs reduce cancer health care costs.