Improving the Approach to Defining, Classifying, Reporting and Monitoring Adverse Events in Seriously Ill Older Adults: Recommendations from a Multi-stakeholder Convening

Stepped Palliative Care for Patients With Advanced Lung Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Despite the evidence for early palliative care improving outcomes, it has not been widely implemented in part due to palliative care workforce limitations.

Objective

To evaluate a stepped-care model to deliver less resource-intensive and more patient-centered palliative care for patients with advanced cancer.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Randomized, nonblinded, noninferiority trial of stepped vs early palliative care conducted between February 12, 2018, and December 15, 2022, at 3 academic medical centers in Boston, Massachusetts, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Durham, North Carolina, among 507 patients who had been diagnosed with advanced lung cancer within the past 12 weeks.

Intervention

Step 1 of the intervention was an initial palliative care visit within 4 weeks of enrollment and subsequent visits only at the time of a change in cancer treatment or after a hospitalization. During step 1, patients completed a measure of quality of life (QOL; Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung [FACT-L]; range, 0-136, with higher scores indicating better QOL) every 6 weeks, and those with a 10-point or greater decrease from baseline were stepped up to meet with the palliative care clinician every 4 weeks (intervention step 2). Patients assigned to early palliative care had palliative care visits every 4 weeks after enrollment.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Noninferiority (margin = -4.5) of the effect of stepped vs early palliative care on patient-reported QOL on the FACT-L at week 24.

Results

The sample (n = 507) mostly included patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (78.3%; mean age, 66.5 years; 51.4% female; 84.6% White). The mean number of palliative care visits by week 24 was 2.4 for stepped palliative care and 4.7 for early palliative care (adjusted mean difference, -2.3; P < .001). FACT-L scores at week 24 for the stepped palliative care group were noninferior to scores among those receiving early palliative care (adjusted FACT-L mean score, 100.6 vs 97.8, respectively; difference, 2.9; lower 1-sided 95% confidence limit, -0.1; P < .001 for noninferiority). Although the rate of end-of-life care communication was also noninferior between groups, noninferiority was not demonstrated for days in hospice (adjusted mean, 19.5 with stepped palliative care vs 34.6 with early palliative care; P = .91).

Conclusions and Relevance

A stepped-care model, with palliative care visits occurring only at key points in patients' cancer trajectories and using a decrement in QOL to trigger more intensive palliative care exposure, resulted in fewer palliative care visits without diminishing the benefits for patients' QOL. While stepped palliative care was associated with fewer days in hospice, it is a more scalable way to deliver early palliative care to enhance patient-reported outcomes.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03337399.

Palliative Care Interventions for Persons With Neurodegenerative Disease: A Scoping Review of Clinical Trial Study Design Features

Background: Within palliative care research, best practice guidelines to conduct scientifically rigorous clinical trials for neurodegenerative diseases are underexplored. This patient population experiences unique challenges, including fluctuations in cognitive capacity, care partner (CP) and proxy involvement, and high adverse events (AEs), that necessitate special consideration when designing clinical trials. Objective: The objective of this study was to describe and identify clinical trial design features that have been documented in studies involving a neuropalliative intervention for persons with neurodegenerative diseases, highlighting features that have been adapted for this unique patient population. Design: We conducted a scoping review of clinical trials with a neuropalliative intervention for persons with neurodegenerative disease. We searched Cochrane, Web of Science, EMBASE, Scopus, and PubMed (MEDLINE) databases for articles published in English between 1950 and 2023. Two reviewers screened, extracted, and synthesized data from the included articles. A third reviewer adjudicated instances of conflict. The data were analyzed using a thematic framework approach. Results: Of 1025 texts, 44 articles were included. Seven study design features were analyzed: (1) consent, (2) proxies and CPs, (3) recruitment strategies, (4) retention strategies, (5) choice of comparator, (6) AEs, and (7) internal validity. This scoping review found disparities in study design features around structured consent, proxies and CPs, comparators, and AEs. Conclusions: To date, neuropalliative care clinical trials have had varied study designs and the majority of research has focused on dementia. Research guideline development for high-quality neuropalliative care clinical trials is greatly needed across the range of neurodegenerative diseases. To increase the scientific rigor of clinical trials and neuropalliative care, we recommend a standardized capacity assessment for consent, defining conditions for the CP, proxy, and AEs, systematizing appropriate comparators, and outlining preemptive recruitment and retention strategies to address the broader unpredictable challenges of palliative care research.

Evaluating palliative care case conferences in primary care for patients with advanced non-malignant chronic conditions: a cluster-randomised controlled trial (KOPAL)

BACKGROUND

Patients with congestive heart failure (CHF), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and dementia are underrepresented in specialist palliative home care (SPHC). However, the complexity of their conditions requires collaboration between general practitioners (GPs) and SPHC teams and timely integration into SPHC to effectively meet their needs.

OBJECTIVE

To facilitate joint palliative care planning and the timely transfer of patients with advanced chronic non-malignant conditions to SPHC.

METHODS

A two-arm, unblinded, cluster-randomised controlled trial. 49 GP practices in northern Germany were randomised using web-based block randomisation. We included patients with advanced CHF, COPD and/or dementia. The KOPAL intervention consisted of a SPHC nurse-patient consultation followed by an interprofessional telephone case conference between SPHC team and GP. The primary outcome was the number of hospital admissions 48 weeks after baseline. Secondary analyses examined the effects on health-related quality of life and self-rated health status, as measured by the EuroQol 5D scale.

RESULTS

A total of 172 patients were included in the analyses. 80.4% of GP practices had worked with SHPC before, most of them exclusively for cancer patients. At baseline, patients reported a mean EQ-VAS of 48.4, a mean quality of life index (EQ-5D-5L) of 0.63 and an average of 0.80 hospital admissions in the previous year. The intervention did not significantly reduce hospital admissions (incidence rate ratio = 0.79, 95%CI: [0.49, 1.26], P = 0.31) or the number of days spent in hospital (incidence rate ratio = 0.65, 95%CI: [0.28, 1.49], P = 0.29). There was also no significant effect on quality of life (∆ = -0.02, 95%CI: [-0.09, 0.05], P = 0.53) or self-rated health (∆ = -2.48, 95%CI: [-9.95, 4.99], P = 0.51).

CONCLUSIONS

The study did not show the hypothesised effect on hospitalisations and health-related quality of life. Future research should focus on refining this approach, with particular emphasis on optimising the timing of case conferences and implementing discussed changes to treatment plans, to improve collaboration between GPs and SPHC teams.