The feasibility of a randomised controlled trial to compare the cost-effectiveness of palliative cardiology or usual care in people with advanced heart failure: Two exploratory prospective cohorts

Palliation of heart failure: value-based supportive care

OBJECTIVES

Heart failure (HF) is a prevalent condition associated with poor quality-of-life and high symptom burden. As patients reach ceilings of survival-extending interventions, their priorities may be more readily addressed through the support of palliative care services; however, the best model of care remains unestablished.We aimed to create and evaluate a cospeciality cross-boundary service model for patients with HF that better provides for their palliative care needs in the latter stages of life, while delivering a more cost-effective patient journey.

METHODS

In 2016, the Heart Failure Supportive Care Service (HFSCS) was established to provide patient-centred holistic support to patients with advanced HF. Patient experience questionnaires were developed and distributed in mid-2018 and end-of-2020. Indexed hospital admission data (in-patient bed days pre-referral/post-referral) were used allowing statistical comparisons by paired t-tests.

RESULTS

From 2016-2020, 236 patients were referred to the HFSCS. Overall, 75/118 questionnaires were returned. Patients felt that the HFSCS delivered compassionate care (84%) that improved symptoms and quality of life (80% and 65%). Introduction of the HFSCS resulted in a reduction in HF-related admissions: actual days 18.3 to 4 days (p<0.001), indexed days 0.05 to 0.032 days (p=0.03). Cost mapping revealed an estimated average saving of at least £10 218.36 per referral and a total estimated cost saving of approximately £2.4 million over 5 years.

CONCLUSION

This service demonstrates that a cospeciality cross-boundary method of care delivery successfully provides the benefits of palliative care to patients with HF in a value-based manner, while meeting the priorities of care that matter to patients most.

A pilot study on the effect of advance care planning implementation on healthcare utilisation and satisfaction in patients with advanced heart failure

BACKGROUND

Patients with advanced heart failure may benefit from palliative care, including advance care planning (ACP). ACP, which can include referral back to the general practitioner (GP), may prevent unbeneficial hospital admissions and interventional/surgical procedures that are not in accordance with the patient's personal goals of care.

AIM

To implement ACP in patients with advanced heart failure and explore the effect of ACP on healthcare utilisation as well as the satisfaction of patients and cardiologists.

METHODS

In this pilot study, we enrolled 30 patients with New York Heart Association class III/IV heart failure who had had at least one unplanned hospital admission in the previous year because of heart failure. A structured ACP conversation was held and documented by the treating physician. Primary outcome was the number of visits to the emergency department and/or admissions within 3 months after the ACP conversation. Secondary endpoints were the satisfaction of patients and cardiologists as established by using a five-point Likert scale.

RESULTS

Median age of the patients was 81 years (range 33-94). Twenty-seven ACP documents could be analysed (90%). Twenty-one patients (78%) did not want to be readmitted to the hospital and subsequently none of them were readmitted during follow-up. Twenty-two patients (81%) discontinued all hospital care. All patients who died during follow-up (n = 12, 40%) died at home. Most patients and cardiologists indicated that they would recommend the intervention to others (80% and 92% respectively).

CONCLUSION

ACP, and subsequent out-of-hospital care by the GP, was shown to be applicable in the present study of patients with advanced heart failure and evident palliative care needs. Patients and cardiologists were satisfied with this intervention.

Economic Evaluation of Palliative Care Interventions: A Review of the Evolution of Methods From 2011 to 2019

BACKGROUND

End-of-life care is a driver of increasing healthcare costs; however, palliative care interventions may significantly reduce these costs. Economic evaluations that measure the incremental cost per quality adjusted life years (QALY) are warranted to inform cost-effectiveness of the intervention relative to a comparator and permit evaluation of investment against other therapeutic interventions. Evidence from the literature up to 2011 indicates a scarcity of cost-utility studies in palliative care research.

AIM

This literature review evaluates economic studies published between 2011 and 2019 to determine whether the methods of economic evaluations have evolved since 2011.

DESIGN AND DATA SOURCES

A literature search was completed using CENTRAL, OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE and other sources for publications between 2011 and 2019. Study characteristics, methodology and key findings of publications that met the inclusion criteria were reviewed. Quality of studies were assessed using indicators developed by authors of the previous literature review.

RESULTS

46 papers were included for qualitative synthesis. Among them only 6 studies conducted formal cost-effectiveness evaluations-of these 5 measured QALYs and 1 employed probabilistic analyses. In addition, with the exception of 1 costing analysis, all other economic evaluations undertook a healthcare payer perspective. Quality of evidence were comparable to the previous literature review published in 2011.

CONCLUSION

Despite the small increase in the number of cost-utility studies, the methods of palliative care economic evaluations have not evolved significantly since 2011. More probabilistic cost-utility analyses of palliative care interventions from a societal perspective are necessary to truly evaluate the value for money.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Palliative Care: Insights from the PAL-HF Trial

BACKGROUND

In a randomized control trial, Palliative Care in Heart Failure (PAL-HF) improved heart failure-related quality of life, though cost-effectiveness remains unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the PAL-HF trial, which provided outpatient palliative care to patients with advanced heart failure.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Outcomes for usual care and PAL-HF strategies were compared using a Markov cohort model over 36 months from a payer perspective. The model parameters were informed by PAL-HF trial data and supplemented with meta-analyses and Medicare administrative data. Outcomes included hospitalization, place of death, Medicare expenditures, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Simulated mortality rates were the same for PAL-HF and usual care cohorts, at 89.7% at 36 months. In the base case analysis, the PAL-HF intervention resulted in an incremental gain of 0.03 QALYs and an incremental cost of $964 per patient for an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $29,041 per QALY. In 1-way sensitivity analyses, an intervention cost of up to $140 per month is cost effective at $50,000 per QALY. Of 1000 simulations, the PC intervention had a 66.1% probability of being cost effective at a $50,000 willingness-to-pay threshold assuming no decrease in hospitalization. In a scenario analysis, PAL-HF decreased payer spending through reductions in noncardiovascular hospitalizations.

CONCLUSIONS

These results from this single-center trial are encouraging that palliative care for advanced heart failure is an economically attractive intervention. Confirmation of these findings in larger multicenter trials will be an important part of developing the evidence to support more widespread implementation of the PAL-HF palliative care intervention.

The AMBER care bundle for hospital inpatients with uncertain recovery nearing the end of life: the ImproveCare feasibility cluster RCT

BACKGROUND

Patients admitted to hospital with a terminal illness and uncertain recovery often receive inconsistent care and do not have the opportunity to die in their preferred place of death. Previous end-of-life care packages, such as the Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient, have sometimes been badly implemented. The AMBER (Assessment; Management; Best practice; Engagement; Recovery uncertain) care bundle was developed to remedy this. It has not been evaluated in a randomised trial, but a definitive trial would face many hurdles.

OBJECTIVE

To optimise the design of and determine the feasibility of a pragmatic, multicentre, cluster randomised controlled trial of the AMBER care bundle compared with best standard care.

DESIGN

A feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial including semistructured interviews with patients and relatives, focus groups with health-care professionals, non-participant observations of multidisciplinary team meetings, a standard care survey, heat maps and case note reviews. Retrospective data were collected from the family or close friends of deceased patients via a bereavement survey.

SETTING

Four general medical wards at district general hospitals in England.

PARTICIPANTS

There were 65 participants (control, n = 36; intervention, n = 29). There were 24 interviews, four focus groups, 15 non-participant meeting observations, six case note reviews and three heat maps, and 15 of out 23 bereavement, standard care surveys were completed.

INTERVENTION

The AMBER care bundle is implemented by a nurse facilitator. It includes the development and documentation of a medical plan, consideration of outcomes, resuscitation and escalation status and daily plan revisiting. The AMBER care bundle encourages staff, patients and families to talk openly about their preferences and priorities should the worst happen.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Two 'candidate' primary outcomes were selected to be evaluated for a future definitive trial: Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale patient/family anxiety and communication subscale and 'howRwe'. The secondary outcome measures were Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale symptoms, Australian-modified Karnofsky Performance Status scale, EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, Client Service Receipt Inventory, recruitment rate, intervention fidelity and intervention acceptability.

RESULTS

Data were collected for 65 patients. This trial was not powered to measure clinical effectiveness, but variance and changes observed in the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale subscale indicated that this measure would probably detect differences within a definitive trial. It was feasible to collect data on health, social and informal care service use and on quality of life at two time points. The AMBER care bundle was broadly acceptable to all stakeholders and was delivered as planned. The emphasis on 'clinical uncertainty' prompted health-care professional awareness of often-overlooked patients. Reviewing patients' AMBER care bundle status was integrated into routine practice. Refinements included simplifying the inclusion criteria and improving health-care professional communication training. Improvements to trial procedures included extending the time devoted to recruitment and simplifying consent procedures. There was also a recommendation to reduce data collected from patients and relatives to minimise burden.

LIMITATIONS

The recruitment rate was lower than anticipated. The inclusion criteria for the trial were difficult to interpret. Information sheets and consent procedures were too detailed and lengthy for the target population. Health-care professionals' enthusiasm and specialty were not considered while picking trial wards. Participant recruitment took place later during hospital admission and the majority of participants were lost to follow-up because they had been discharged. Those who participated may have different characteristics from those who did not.

CONCLUSIONS

This feasibility trial has demonstrated that an evaluation of the AMBER care bundle among an acutely unwell patient population, although technically possible, is not practical or feasible. The intervention requires optimisation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN36040085. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Portfolio registration number 32682.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 55. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Advance care planning for adults with heart failure

BACKGROUND

People with heart failure report various symptoms and show a trajectory of periodic exacerbations and recoveries, where each exacerbation event may lead to death. Current clinical practice guidelines indicate the importance of discussing future care strategies with people with heart failure. Advance care planning (ACP) is the process of discussing an individual's future care plan according to their values and preferences, and involves the person with heart failure, their family members or surrogate decision-makers, and healthcare providers. Although it is shown that ACP may improve discussion about end-of-life care and documentation of an individual's preferences, the effects of ACP for people with heart failure are uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of advance care planning (ACP) in people with heart failure compared to usual care strategies that do not have any components promoting ACP.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Social Work Abstracts, and two clinical trials registers in October 2019. We checked the reference lists of included studies. There were no restrictions on language or publication status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared ACP with usual care in people with heart failure. Trials could have parallel group, cluster-randomised, or cross-over designs. We included interventions that implemented ACP, such as discussing and considering values, wishes, life goals, and preferences for future medical care. The study participants comprised adults (18 years of age or older) with heart failure.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted outcome data from the included studies, and assessed their risk of bias. We contacted trial authors when we needed to obtain missing information.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine RCTs (1242 participants and 426 surrogate decision-makers) in this review. The meta-analysis included seven studies (876 participants). Participants' mean ages ranged from 62 to 82 years, and 53% to 100% of the studies' participants were men. All included studies took place in the US or the UK. Only one study reported concordance between participants' preferences and end-of-life care, and it enrolled people with heart failure or renal disease. Owing to one study with small sample size, the effects of ACP on concordance between participants' preferences and end-of-life care were uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 1.55; participants = 110; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence). It corresponded to an assumed risk of 625 per 1000 participants receiving usual care and a corresponding risk of 744 per 1000 (95% CI 569 to 969) for ACP. There was no evidence of a difference in quality of life between groups (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.06, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.38; participants = 156; studies = 3; low-quality evidence). However, one study, which was not included in the meta-analysis, showed that the quality of life score improved by 14.86 points in the ACP group compared with 11.80 points in the usual care group. Completion of documentation by medical staff regarding discussions with participants about ACP processes may have increased (RR 1.68. 95% CI 1.23 to 2.29; participants = 92; studies = 2; low-quality evidence). This corresponded to an assumed risk of 489 per 1000 participants with usual care and a corresponding risk of 822 per 1000 (95% CI 602 to 1000) for ACP. One study, which was not included in the meta-analysis, also showed that ACP helped to improve documentation of the ACP process (hazard ratio (HR) 2.87, 95% CI 1.09 to 7.59; participants = 232). Three studies reported that implementation of ACP led to an improvement of participants' depression (SMD -0.58, 95% CI -0.82 to -0.34; participants = 278; studies = 3; low-quality evidence). We were uncertain about the effects of ACP on the quality of communication when compared to the usual care group (MD -0.40, 95% CI -1.61 to 0.81; participants = 9; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence). We also noted an increase in all-cause mortality in the ACP group (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.67; participants = 795; studies = 5). The studies did not report participants' satisfaction with care/treatment and caregivers' satisfaction with care/treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

ACP may help to increase documentation by medical staff regarding discussions with participants about ACP processes, and may improve an individual's depression. However, the quality of the evidence about these outcomes was low. The quality of the evidence for each outcome was low to very low due to the small number of studies and participants included in this review. Additionally, the follow-up periods and types of ACP intervention were varied. Therefore, further studies are needed to explore the effects of ACP that consider these differences carefully.

Multi-disciplinary palliative care is effective in people with symptomatic heart failure: A systematic review and narrative synthesis

BACKGROUND

Despite recommendations, people with heart failure have poor access to palliative care.

AIM

To identify the evidence in relation to palliative care for people with symptomatic heart failure.

DESIGN

Systematic review and narrative synthesis. (PROSPERO CRD42016029911).

DATA SOURCES

Databases (Medline, Cochrane database, CINAHL, PsycINFO, HMIC, CareSearch Grey Literature), reference lists and citations were searched and experts contacted. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts and retrieved papers against inclusion criteria. Data were extracted from included papers and studies were critically assessed using a risk of bias tool according to design.

RESULTS

Thirteen interventional and 10 observational studies were included. Studies were heterogeneous in terms of population, intervention, comparator, outcomes and design rendering combination inappropriate. The evaluation phase studies, with lower risk of bias, using a multi-disciplinary specialist palliative care intervention showed statistically significant benefit for patient-reported outcomes (symptom burden, depression, functional status, quality of life), resource use and costs of care. Benefit was not seen in studies with a single component/discipline intervention or with higher risk of bias. Possible contamination in some studies may have caused under-estimation of effect and missing data may have introduced bias. There was no apparent effect on survival.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the results support the use of multi-disciplinary palliative care in people with advanced heart failure but trials do not identify who would benefit most from specialist palliative referral. There are no sufficiently robust multi-centre evaluation phase trials to provide generalisable findings. Use of common population, intervention and outcomes in future research would allow meta-analysis.