Dataset Information

Impact of Interdisciplinary Outpatient Specialty Palliative Care on Survival and Quality of Life in Adults With Advanced Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In advanced cancer, patients want to know how their care options may affect survival and quality of life, but the impact of outpatient specialty palliative care on these outcomes in cancer is uncertain.

Purpose

To estimate the impact of outpatient specialty palliative care programs on survival and quality of life in adults with advanced cancer.

Methods

Following PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing outpatient specialty palliative care with usual care in adults with advanced cancer. Primary outcomes were 1 year survival and quality of life. Analyses were stratified to compare preliminary studies against higher-quality studies. Secondary outcomes were survival at other endpoints and physical and psychological quality-of-life measures.

Results

From 2,307 records, we identified nine studies for review, including five high-quality studies. In the three high-quality studies with long-term survival data (n = 646), patients randomized to outpatient specialty palliative care had a 14% absolute increase in 1 year survival relative to controls (56% vs. 42%, p < .001). The survival advantage was also observed at 6, 9, 15, and 18 months, and median survival was 4.56 months longer (14.55 vs. 9.99 months). In the five high-quality studies with quality-of-life data (n = 1,398), outpatient specialty palliative care improved quality-of-life relative to controls (g = .18, p < .001), including for physical and psychological measures.

Conclusions

Patients with advanced cancer randomized to receive outpatient specialty palliative care lived longer and had better quality of life. Findings have implications for improving care in advanced cancer.

SUBMITTER: Hoerger M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6546936 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Emergency department (ED)-initiated palliative care has been shown to improve patient-centred outcomes in older adults with serious, life-limiting illnesses. However, the optimal modality for providing such interventions is unknown. This study aims to compare nurse-led telephonic case management to specialty outpatient palliative care for older adults with serious, life-limiting illness on: (1) quality of life in patients; (2) healthcare utilisation; (3) loneliness and symptom burden and (4) caregiver strain, caregiver quality of life and bereavement. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:This is a protocol for a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel, two-arm randomised controlled trial in ED patients comparing two established models of palliative care: nurse-led telephonic case management and specialty, outpatient palliative care. We will enrol 1350 patients aged 50+ years and 675 of their caregivers across nine EDs. Eligible patients: (1) have advanced cancer (metastatic solid tumour) or end-stage organ failure (New York Heart Association class III or IV heart failure, end-stage renal disease with glomerular filtration rate <15 mL/min/m2, or global initiative for chronic obstructive lung disease stage III, IV or oxygen-dependent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease); (2) speak English; (3) are scheduled for ED discharge or observation status; (4) reside locally; (5) have a working telephone and (6) are insured. Patients will be excluded if they: (1) have dementia; (2) have received hospice care or two or more palliative care visits in the last 6 months or (3) reside in a long-term care facility. We will use patient-level block randomisation, stratified by ED site and disease. Effectiveness will be compared by measuring the impact of each intervention on the specified outcomes. The primary outcome will measure change in patient quality of life. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Institutional Review Board approval was obtained at all study sites. Trial results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT03325985; Pre-results.

Project description:BackgroundThe Emergency Medicine Palliative Care Access (EMPallA) trial is a large, multicenter, parallel, two-arm randomized controlled trial in emergency department (ED) patients comparing two models of palliative care: nurse-led telephonic case management and specialty, outpatient palliative care. This report aims to: 1) report baseline demographic and quality of life (QOL) data for the EMPallA cohort, 2) identify the association between illness type and baseline QOL while controlling for other factors, and 3) explore baseline relationships between illness type, symptom burden, and loneliness.MethodsPatients aged 50+ years with advanced cancer (metastatic solid tumor) or end-stage organ failure (New York Heart Association Class III or IV heart failure, end stage renal disease with glomerular filtration rate < 15 mL/min/m2, or Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease Stage III, IV, or oxygen-dependent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease defined as FEV1 < 50%) are eligible for enrollment. Baseline data includes self-reported demographics, QOL measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G), loneliness measured by the Three-Item UCLA Loneliness Scale, and symptom burden measured by the Edmonton Revised Symptom Assessment Scale. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze demographic variables, a linear regression model measured the importance of illness type in predicting QOL, and chi-square tests of independence were used to quantify relationships between illness type, symptom burden, and loneliness.ResultsBetween April 2018 and April 3, 2020, 500 patients were enrolled. On average, end-stage organ failure patients had lower QOL as measured by the FACT-G scale than cancer patients with an estimated difference of 9.6 points (95% CI: 5.9, 13.3), and patients with multiple conditions had a further reduction of 7.4 points (95% CI: 2.4, 12.5), when adjusting for age, education level, race, sex, immigrant status, presence of a caregiver, and hospital setting. Symptom burden and loneliness were greater in end-stage organ failure than in cancer.ConclusionsThe EMPallA trial is enrolling a diverse sample of ED patients. Differences by illness type in QOL, symptom burden, and loneliness demonstrate how distinct disease trajectories manifest in the ED.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03325985 . Registered October 30, 2017.

Project description:Background Survival and health status (eg, symptoms and quality of life) are key outcomes in clinical trials of heart failure treatment. However, health status can only be recorded on survivors, potentially biasing treatment effect estimates when there is differential survival across treatment groups. Joint modeling of survival and health status can address this bias. Methods and Results We analyzed patient-level data from the PARTNER 1B trial (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) of transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus standard care. Health status was quantified with the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) at randomization, 1, 6, and 12 months. We compared hazard ratios for survival and mean differences in KCCQ scores at 12 months using several models: the original growth curve model for KCCQ scores (ignoring death), separate Bayesian models for survival and KCCQ scores, and a Bayesian joint longitudinal-survival model fit to either 12 or 30 months of survival follow-up. The benefit of transcatheter aortic valve replacement on 12-month KCCQ scores was greatest in the joint-model fit to all survival data (mean difference, 33.7 points; 95% credible intervals [CrI], 24.2-42.4), followed by the joint-model fit to 12 months of survival follow-up (32.3 points; 95% CrI, 22.5-41.5), a Bayesian model without integrating death (30.4 points; 95% CrI, 21.4-39.3), and the original growth curve model (26.0 points; 95% CI, 18.7-33.3). At 12 months, the survival benefit of transcatheter aortic valve replacement was also greater in the joint model (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CrI, 0.32-0.73) than in the nonjoint Bayesian model (0.54; 95% CrI, 0.37-0.75) or the original Kaplan-Meier estimate (0.55; 95% CI, 0.40-0.74). Conclusions In patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and prohibitive surgical risk, the estimated benefits of transcatheter aortic valve replacement on survival and health status compared with standard care were greater in joint Bayesian models than other approaches.

Project description:BackgroundWith increasing use of real world data in observational health care research, data quality assessment of these data is equally gaining in importance. Electronic health record (EHR) or claims datasets can differ significantly in the spectrum of care covered by the data.ObjectiveIn our study, we link provider specialty with diagnoses (encoded in International Classification of Diseases) with a motivation to characterize data completeness.MethodsWe develop a set of measures that determine diagnostic span of a specialty (how many distinct diagnosis codes are generated by a specialty) and specialty span of a diagnosis (how many specialties diagnose a given condition). We also analyze ranked lists for both measures. As use case, we apply these measures to outpatient Medicare claims data from 2016 (3.5 billion diagnosis-specialty pairs). We analyze 82 distinct specialties present in Medicare claims (using Medicare list of specialties derived from level III Healthcare Provider Taxonomy Codes).ResultsA typical specialty diagnoses on average 4,046 distinct diagnosis codes. It can range from 33 codes for medical toxicology to 25,475 codes for internal medicine. Specialties with large visit volume tend to have large diagnostic span. Median specialty span of a diagnosis code is 8 specialties with a range from 1 to 82 specialties. In total, 13.5% of all observed diagnoses are generated exclusively by a single specialty. Quantitative cumulative rankings reveal that some diagnosis codes can be dominated by few specialties. Using such diagnoses in cohort or outcome definitions may thus be vulnerable to incomplete specialty coverage of a given dataset.ConclusionWe propose specialty fingerprinting as a method to assess data completeness component of data quality. Datasets covering a full spectrum of care can be used to generate reference benchmark data that can quantify relative importance of a specialty in constructing diagnostic history elements of computable phenotype definitions.