Dataset Information

Comparison of Integrated Outpatient Palliative Care With Standard Care in Patients With Parkinson Disease and Related Disorders: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Parkinson disease and related disorders (PDRD) have consequences for quality of life (QoL) and are the 14th leading cause of death in the United States. Despite growing interest in palliative care (PC) for persons with PDRD, few studies are available supporting its effectiveness.

Objective

To determine if outpatient PC is associated with improvements in patient-centered outcomes compared with standard care among patients with PDRD and their caregivers.

Design, setting, and participants

This randomized clinical trial enrolled participants at 3 academic tertiary care centers between November 1, 2015, and September 30, 2017, and followed them up for 1 year. A total of 584 persons with PDRD were referred to the study. Of those, 351 persons were excluded by phone and 23 were excluded during in-person screenings. Patients were eligible to participate if they had PDRD and moderate to high PC needs. Patients were excluded if they had urgent PC needs, another diagnosis meriting PC, were already receiving PC, or were unable or unwilling to follow the study protocol. Enrolled participants were assigned to receive standard care plus outpatient integrated PC or standard care alone. Data were analyzed between November 1, 2018, and December 9, 2019.

Interventions

Outpatient integrated PC administered by a neurologist, social worker, chaplain, and nurse using PC checklists, with guidance and selective involvement from a palliative medicine specialist. Standard care was provided by a neurologist and a primary care practitioner.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary outcomes were the differences in patient quality of life (QoL; measured by the Quality of Life in Alzheimer Disease scale) and caregiver burden (measured by the Zarit Burden Interview) between the PC intervention and standard care groups at 6 months.

Results

A total of 210 patients with PDRD (135 men [64.3%]; mean [SD] age, 70.1 [8.2] years) and 175 caregivers (128 women [73.1%]; mean [SD] age, 66.1 [11.1] years) were enrolled in the study; 193 participants (91.9%) were white and non-Hispanic. Compared with participants receiving standard care alone at 6 months, participants receiving the PC intervention had better QoL (mean [SD], 0.66 [5.5] improvement vs 0.84 [4.2] worsening; treatment effect estimate, 1.87; 95% CI, 0.47-3.27; P = .009). No significant difference was observed in caregiver burden (mean [SD], 2.3 [5.0] improvement vs 1.2 [5.6] improvement in the standard care group; treatment effect estimate, -1.62; 95% CI, -3.32 to 0.09; P = .06). Other significant differences favoring the PC intervention included nonmotor symptom burden, motor symptom severity, completion of advance directives, caregiver anxiety, and caregiver burden at 12 months. No outcomes favored standard care alone. Secondary analyses suggested that benefits were greater for persons with higher PC needs.

Conclusions and relevance

Outpatient PC is associated with benefits among patients with PDRD compared with standard care alone. This study supports efforts to integrate PC into PDRD care. The lack of diversity and implementation of PC at experienced centers suggests a need for implementation research in other populations and care settings.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02533921.

SUBMITTER: Kluger BM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7042842 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe care of palliative patients takes place as non-specialized and specialized care, in outpatient and inpatient settings. However, palliative care is largely provided as General Outpatient Palliative Care (GOPC). This study aimed to investigate whether the survival curves of GOPC patients differed from those of the more intensive palliative care modalities and whether GOPC palliative care was appropriate in terms of timing.MethodsThe study is based on claims data from a large statutory health insurance. The analysis included 4177 patients who received palliative care starting in 2015 and who were fully insured 1 year before and 1 year after palliative care or until death. The probability of survival was observed for 12 months. Patients were classified into group A, which consisted of patients who received palliative care only with GOPC, and group B including patients who received inpatient or specialized outpatient palliative care. Group A was further divided into two subgroups. Patients who received GOPC on only 1 day were assigned to subgroup A1, and patients who received GOPC on two or more days were assigned to subgroup A2. The survival analysis was carried out using Kaplan-Meier curves. The median survival times were compared with the log-rank test.ResultsThe survival curves differed between groups A and B, except in the first quartile of the survival distribution. The median survival was significantly longer in group A (137 days, n = 2763) than in group B (47 days, n = 1424, p < 0.0001) and shorter in group A1 (35 days, n = 986) than in group A2 (217 days, n = 1767, p < 0.0001). The survival rate during the 12-month follow-up was higher in group A (42%) than in group B (11%) and lower in group A1 (38%) than in group A2 (44%).ConclusionsThe results of the analysis revealed that patients who received the first palliative care shortly before death suspected insufficient care, especially patients who received GOPC for only 1 day and no further palliative care until death or 12-month follow-up. Palliative care should start as early as necessary and be continuous until the end of life.

Project description:ImportanceLimited data suggest that early palliative care (EPC) improves quality of life (QOL) and survival in patients with advanced cancer.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether comprehensive EPC improves QOL; relieves mental, social, and existential burdens; increases survival rates; and helps patients develop coping skills.Design, setting, and participantsThis nonblinded randomized clinical trial (RCT) recruited patients from 12 hospitals in South Korea from September 2017 to October 2018. Patients aged 20 years or older with advanced cancer who were not terminally ill but for whom standard chemotherapy has not been effective were eligible. Participants were randomized 1:1 to the control (receiving usual supportive oncological care) or intervention (receiving EPC with usual oncological care) group. Intention-to-treat data analysis was conducted between September and December 2022.InterventionsThe intervention group received EPC through a structured program of self-study education materials, telephone coaching, and regular assessments by an integrated palliative care team.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the change in overall QOL score (assessed with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 15 Palliative Care) from baseline to 24 weeks after enrollment, with evaluations also conducted at 12 and 18 weeks. Secondary outcomes were social and existential burdens (assessed with the McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire) as well as crisis-overcoming capacity and 2-year survival.ResultsA total of 144 patients (83 males [57.6%]; mean [SD] age, 60.7 (7.2) years) were enrolled, of whom 73 were randomized to the intervention group and 71 to the control group. The intervention group demonstrated significantly greater changes in scores in overall health status or QOL from baseline, especially at 18 weeks (11.00 [95% CI, 0.78-21.22] points; P = .04; effect size = 0.42). However, at 12 and 24 weeks, there were no significant differences observed. Compared with the control group, the intervention group also showed significant improvement in self-management or coping skills over 24 weeks (20.51 [95% CI, 12.41-28.61] points; P < .001; effect size = 0.93). While the overall survival rate was higher in the intervention vs control group, the difference was not significant. In the intervention group, however, those who received 10 or more EPC interventions (eg, telephone coaching sessions and care team meetings) showed a significantly increased probability of 2-year survival (53.6%; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceThis RCT demonstrated that EPC enhanced QOL at 18 weeks; however, no significant improvements were observed at 12 and 24 weeks. An increased number of interventions sessions was associated with increased 2-year survival rates in the intervention group.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03181854.