Megan Bannon1, Natalie C Ernecoff2, J Nicholas Dionne-Odom3, Camilla Zimmermann4, Jennifer Corbelli1, Michele Klein-Fedyshin5, Robert M Arnold6, Yael Schenker6, Dio Kavalieratos2,6. 1. 1Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 2. 2Department of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 3. 3School of Nursing, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama. 4. 4Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 5. 5Health Sciences Library System, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 6. 6Section of Palliative Care and Medical Ethics, Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
Background: In 2016, Kavalieratos and colleagues performed a systematic review of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of palliative care (PC) interventions. The majority of RCTs included focused on oncology, with fewer in heart failure (HF). Cancer patients' often predictable decline differs from the variable illness trajectories of HF; however, both groups experience similar palliative needs, and accordingly, PC in HF continues to grow. Objective: To investigate if PC interventions differ between cancer and HF patients. Design: In this secondary analysis, we compare PC interventions for cancer and HF patients evaluated in the 2016 systematic review. Settings/Subjects: We included a total of 25 trials, 19 of which included 3730 cancer patients, and 6 of which included 1049 HF patients (mean age, 67 years). Measurements: We compared the following five characteristics among included trials: PC domains addressed, duration, location, provider specialization, and measured outcomes. Results: The content of the cancer and HF interventions was similar. HF interventions tended to include more home-based (50% vs. 37%) and specialty PC interventions (67% vs. 47%), although these results did not reach statistical significance. Both cancer and HF interventions favored longer durations (i.e., more than one month; 79% and 67%). No HF intervention RCTs included caregiver outcomes, whereas 32% of cancer interventions did. Conclusions: There were no substantial differences in content of cancer and HF interventions, although the latter tended to be delivered by PC specialists at home. There is a need for scalable interventions that incorporate the needs and preferences of individual patients, regardless of diagnosis.
Background: In 2016, Kavalieratos and colleagues performed a systematic review of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of palliative care (PC) interventions. The majority of RCTs included focused on oncology, with fewer in heart failure (HF). Cancerpatients' often predictable decline differs from the variable illness trajectories of HF; however, both groups experience similar palliative needs, and accordingly, PC in HF continues to grow. Objective: To investigate if PC interventions differ between cancer and HF patients. Design: In this secondary analysis, we compare PC interventions for cancer and HF patients evaluated in the 2016 systematic review. Settings/Subjects: We included a total of 25 trials, 19 of which included 3730 cancerpatients, and 6 of which included 1049 HF patients (mean age, 67 years). Measurements: We compared the following five characteristics among included trials: PC domains addressed, duration, location, provider specialization, and measured outcomes. Results: The content of the cancer and HF interventions was similar. HF interventions tended to include more home-based (50% vs. 37%) and specialty PC interventions (67% vs. 47%), although these results did not reach statistical significance. Both cancer and HF interventions favored longer durations (i.e., more than one month; 79% and 67%). No HF intervention RCTs included caregiver outcomes, whereas 32% of cancer interventions did. Conclusions: There were no substantial differences in content of cancer and HF interventions, although the latter tended to be delivered by PC specialists at home. There is a need for scalable interventions that incorporate the needs and preferences of individual patients, regardless of diagnosis.
Entities:
Keywords:
models of palliative care; palliative care interventions; randomized clinical trials; systematic review
Authors: Karen E Steinhauser; Robert M Arnold; Maren K Olsen; Jennifer Lindquist; Judith Hays; Laura L Wood; Allison M Burton; James A Tulsky Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2011-01-28 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Dio Kavalieratos; Jennifer Corbelli; Di Zhang; J Nicholas Dionne-Odom; Natalie C Ernecoff; Janel Hanmer; Zachariah P Hoydich; Dara Z Ikejiani; Michele Klein-Fedyshin; Camilla Zimmermann; Sally C Morton; Robert M Arnold; Lucas Heller; Yael Schenker Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-11-22 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Dio Kavalieratos; Arif H Kamal; Amy P Abernethy; Andrea K Biddle; Timothy S Carey; Sandesh Dev; Bryce B Reeve; Morris Weinberger Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2014-03-03 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Marie Bakitas; Kathleen Doyle Lyons; Mark T Hegel; Stefan Balan; Frances C Brokaw; Janette Seville; Jay G Hull; Zhongze Li; Tor D Tosteson; Ira R Byock; Tim A Ahles Journal: JAMA Date: 2009-08-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Dio Kavalieratos; Laura P Gelfman; Laura E Tycon; Barbara Riegel; David B Bekelman; Dara Z Ikejiani; Nathan Goldstein; Stephen E Kimmel; Marie A Bakitas; Robert M Arnold Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2017-10-10 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Tammy C Hoffmann; Paul P Glasziou; Isabelle Boutron; Ruairidh Milne; Rafael Perera; David Moher; Douglas G Altman; Virginia Barbour; Helen Macdonald; Marie Johnston; Sarah E Lamb; Mary Dixon-Woods; Peter McCulloch; Jeremy C Wyatt; An-Wen Chan; Susan Michie Journal: BMJ Date: 2014-03-07
Authors: Elisabeth P Dellon; Melissa Basile; Mara R Hobler; Anna M Georgiopoulos; Elaine Chen; Jessica Goggin; Christopher H Goss; Sarah E Hempstead; Albert Faro; Dio Kavalieratos Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2020-02-05 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Natalie C Ernecoff; Devon Check; Megan Bannon; Laura C Hanson; James Nicholas Dionne-Odom; Jennifer Corbelli; Michele Klein-Fedyshin; Yael Schenker; Camilla Zimmermann; Robert M Arnold; Dio Kavalieratos Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2019-10-23 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Kieran L Quinn; Amy T Hsu; Glenys Smith; Nathan Stall; Allan S Detsky; Dio Kavalieratos; Douglas S Lee; Chaim M Bell; Peter Tanuseputro Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2020-02-19 Impact factor: 5.501