Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
JAMA. 2024 Aug 13;332(6):471-481. doi: 10.1001/jama.2024.10398.
Despite the evidence for early palliative care improving outcomes, it has not been widely implemented in part due to palliative care workforce limitations.
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.
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.
Noninferiority (margin = -4.5) of the effect of stepped vs early palliative care on patient-reported QOL on the FACT-L at week 24.
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).
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.
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03337399.
尽管有证据表明早期姑息治疗可以改善预后,但由于姑息治疗劳动力的限制,它并未得到广泛实施。
评估一种阶梯式护理模式,为晚期癌症患者提供资源密集度较低且更以患者为中心的姑息治疗。
设计、设置和参与者:这是一项在马萨诸塞州波士顿、宾夕法尼亚州费城和北卡罗来纳州达勒姆的 3 所学术医疗中心进行的随机、非盲、非劣效性试验,于 2018 年 2 月 12 日至 2022 年 12 月 15 日期间入组了 507 名在过去 12 周内被诊断为晚期肺癌的患者。
干预的第 1 步是在入组后 4 周内进行初始姑息治疗访问,随后仅在癌症治疗发生变化或住院后进行访问。在第 1 步中,患者每 6 周完成一次生活质量评估(功能性评估癌症治疗-肺 [FACT-L];范围为 0-136,分数越高表示生活质量越好),并且从基线下降 10 分或更多的患者将被升级为每 4 周与姑息治疗临床医生会面(干预步骤 2)。被分配到早期姑息治疗的患者在入组后每 4 周接受一次姑息治疗访问。
在第 24 周时,阶梯式与早期姑息治疗对患者报告的生活质量(FACT-L)的影响的非劣效性(边界= -4.5)。
样本(n=507)主要包括晚期非小细胞肺癌患者(78.3%;平均年龄 66.5 岁;51.4%为女性;84.6%为白人)。到第 24 周时,阶梯式姑息治疗的平均姑息治疗访问次数为 2.4 次,早期姑息治疗为 4.7 次(调整后的平均差异,-2.3;P<0.001)。第 24 周时,阶梯式姑息治疗组的 FACT-L 评分不劣于接受早期姑息治疗组的评分(调整后的 FACT-L 平均评分分别为 100.6 和 97.8,差异为 2.9;单侧 95%置信下限下限为 -0.1;P<0.001 用于非劣效性)。尽管两组之间的临终关怀沟通率也同样不劣效,但在临终关怀天数方面,非劣效性未得到证实(调整后的平均天数,阶梯式姑息治疗组为 19.5 天,早期姑息治疗组为 34.6 天;P=0.91)。
一种阶梯式护理模式,仅在患者癌症轨迹的关键节点提供姑息治疗访问,并使用生活质量下降来触发更密集的姑息治疗暴露,可减少姑息治疗访问次数,而不会降低患者生活质量的获益。虽然阶梯式姑息治疗与更少的临终关怀天数相关,但它是一种更具可扩展性的方法,可以提供早期姑息治疗,以增强患者报告的结果。
ClinicalTrials.gov 标识符:NCT03337399。