Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
ICES, Toronto, Ottawa and North, Ontario, Canada.
JAMA. 2020 Oct 13;324(14):1439-1450. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.14205.
The evidence for palliative care exists predominantly for patients with cancer. The effect of palliative care on important end-of-life outcomes in patients with noncancer illness is unclear.
To measure the association between palliative care and acute health care use, quality of life (QOL), and symptom burden in adults with chronic noncancer illnesses.
MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and PubMed from inception to April 18, 2020.
Randomized clinical trials of palliative care interventions in adults with chronic noncancer illness. Studies involving at least 50% of patients with cancer were excluded.
Two reviewers independently screened, selected, and extracted data from studies. Narrative synthesis was conducted for all trials. All outcomes were analyzed using random-effects meta-analysis.
Acute health care use (hospitalizations and emergency department use), disease-generic and disease-specific quality of life (QOL), and symptoms, with estimates of QOL translated to units of the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Palliative Care scale (range, 0 [worst] to 184 [best]; minimal clinically important difference, 9 points) and symptoms translated to units of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale global distress score (range, 0 [best] to 90 [worst]; minimal clinically important difference, 5.7 points).
Twenty-eight trials provided data on 13 664 patients (mean age, 74 years; 46% were women). Ten trials were of heart failure (n = 4068 patients), 11 of mixed disease (n = 8119), 4 of dementia (n = 1036), and 3 of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (n = 441). Palliative care, compared with usual care, was statistically significantly associated with less emergency department use (9 trials [n = 2712]; 20% vs 24%; odds ratio, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.68-1.00]; I2 = 3%), less hospitalization (14 trials [n = 3706]; 38% vs 42%; odds ratio, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.65-0.99]; I2 = 41%), and modestly lower symptom burden (11 trials [n = 2598]; pooled standardized mean difference (SMD), -0.12; [95% CI, -0.20 to -0.03]; I2 = 0%; Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale score mean difference, -1.6 [95% CI, -2.6 to -0.4]). Palliative care was not significantly associated with disease-generic QOL (6 trials [n = 1334]; SMD, 0.18 [95% CI, -0.24 to 0.61]; I2 = 87%; Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Palliative Care score mean difference, 4.7 [95% CI, -6.3 to 15.9]) or disease-specific measures of QOL (11 trials [n = 2204]; SMD, 0.07 [95% CI, -0.09 to 0.23]; I2 = 68%).
In this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of patients with primarily noncancer illness, palliative care, compared with usual care, was statistically significantly associated with less acute health care use and modestly lower symptom burden, but there was no significant difference in quality of life. Analyses for some outcomes were based predominantly on studies of patients with heart failure, which may limit generalizability to other chronic illnesses.
姑息治疗的证据主要存在于癌症患者中。姑息治疗对非癌症疾病患者重要的临终结局的影响尚不清楚。
测量姑息治疗与慢性非癌症疾病成人的急性医疗保健使用、生活质量 (QOL) 和症状负担之间的关联。
从开始到 2020 年 4 月 18 日,MEDLINE、Embase、CINAHL、PsycINFO 和 PubMed。
随机临床试验,涉及慢性非癌症疾病的姑息治疗干预。排除至少 50%的患者患有癌症的研究。
两位审查员独立筛选、选择和提取研究数据。所有试验均进行叙述性综合。使用随机效应荟萃分析分析所有结果。
急性医疗保健使用(住院和急诊使用)、疾病特异性和疾病一般性的生活质量 (QOL) 以及症状,估计 QOL 转化为慢性疾病治疗-姑息治疗量表功能评估的单位 (范围,0 [最差] 至 184 [最佳];最小临床重要差异,9 分) 和症状转化为埃德蒙顿症状评估量表全球困扰评分的单位 (范围,0 [最佳] 至 90 [最差];最小临床重要差异,5.7 分)。
28 项试验提供了 13664 名患者的资料 (平均年龄 74 岁;46%为女性)。10 项试验为心力衰竭 (n=4068 例患者),11 项为混合疾病 (n=8119 例),4 项为痴呆 (n=1036 例),3 项为慢性阻塞性肺疾病 (n=441 例)。与常规护理相比,姑息治疗与急诊使用减少相关 (9 项试验 [n=2712];20%比 24%;比值比,0.82 [95%置信区间,0.68-1.00];I2=3%),住院减少 (14 项试验 [n=3706];38%比 42%;比值比,0.80 [95%置信区间,0.65-0.99];I2=41%),症状负担略有降低 (11 项试验 [n=2598];标准化均数差 (SMD),-0.12 [95%置信区间,-0.20 至 -0.03];I2=0%;埃德蒙顿症状评估量表评分平均差异,-1.6 [95%置信区间,-2.6 至 -0.4])。姑息治疗与疾病一般性 QOL 无显著相关性 (6 项试验 [n=1334];SMD,0.18 [95%置信区间,-0.24 至 0.61];I2=87%;慢性疾病治疗-姑息治疗量表评分平均差异,4.7 [95%置信区间,-6.3 至 15.9]) 或疾病特异性 QOL 测量值 (11 项试验 [n=2204];SMD,0.07 [95%置信区间,-0.09 至 0.23];I2=68%)。
在这项针对主要患有非癌症疾病的患者的随机临床试验的系统评价和荟萃分析中,与常规护理相比,姑息治疗与急性医疗保健使用减少和症状负担略有降低相关,但生活质量无显著差异。一些结果的分析主要基于心力衰竭患者的研究,这可能限制了对其他慢性疾病的推广。