Andrea L Cheville1, Timothy Moynihan2, Jeph Herrin3, Charles Loprinzi2, Kurt Kroenke4. 1. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 2. Department of Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 3. Cancer Outcomes, Public Policy and Effectiveness Research Center, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut. 4. Center for Implementing Evidence-Based Practice, Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Most patients with advanced-stage cancer develop impairment and pain-driven functional losses that jeopardize their independence. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether collaborative telerehabilitation and pharmacological pain management improve function, lessen pain, and reduce requirements for inpatient care. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: The Collaborative Care to Preserve Performance in Cancer (COPE) study was a 3-arm randomized clinical trial conducted at 3 academic medical centers within 1 health care system. Patient recruitment began in March 2013 and follow-up concluded in October 2016. Participants (N = 516) were low-level community or household ambulators with stage IIIC or IV solid or hematologic cancer. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly assigned to the (1) control arm, (2) telerehabilitation arm, or (3) telerehabilitation with pharmacological pain management arm. All patients underwent automated function and pain monitoring with data reporting to their care teams. Participants in arms 2 and 3 received 6 months of centralized telerehabilitation provided by a physical therapist-physician team. Those in arm 3 also received nurse-coordinated pharmacological pain management. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Blinded assessment of function using the Activity Measure for Postacute Care computer adaptive test, pain interference and average intensity using the Brief Pain Inventory, and quality of life using the EQ-5D-3L was performed at baseline and months 3 and 6. Hospitalizations and discharges to postacute care facilities were recorded. RESULTS: The study included 516 participants (257 women and 259 men; mean [SD] age, 65.6 [11.1] years), with 172 randomized to 1 of 3 arms. Compared with the control group, the telerehabilitation arm 2 had improved function (difference, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.08-2.35; P = .03) and quality of life (difference, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.004-0.071; P = .01), while both telerehabilitation arms 2 and 3 had reduced pain interference (arm 2, -0.4; 95% CI, -0.78 to -0.09; P = .01 and arm 3, -0.4; 95% CI, -0.79 to -0.10; P = .01), and average intensity (arm 2, -0.4; 95% CI, -0.78 to -0.07; P = .02 and arm 3, -0.5; 95% CI, -0.84 to -0.11; P = .006). Telerehabilitation was associated with higher odds of home discharge in arms 2 (odds ratio [OR], 4.3; 95% CI, 1.3-14.3; P = .02) and 3 (OR, 3.8; 95% CI, 1.1-12.4; P = .03) and fewer days in the hospital in arm 2 (difference, -3.9 days; 95% CI, -2.4 to -4.6; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Collaborative telerehabilitation modestly improved function and pain, while decreasing hospital length of stay and the requirement for postacute care, but these outcomes were not enhanced with the addition of pharmacological pain management. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01721343.
IMPORTANCE: Most patients with advanced-stage cancer develop impairment and pain-driven functional losses that jeopardize their independence. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether collaborative telerehabilitation and pharmacological pain management improve function, lessen pain, and reduce requirements for inpatient care. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: The Collaborative Care to Preserve Performance in Cancer (COPE) study was a 3-arm randomized clinical trial conducted at 3 academic medical centers within 1 health care system. Patient recruitment began in March 2013 and follow-up concluded in October 2016. Participants (N = 516) were low-level community or household ambulators with stage IIIC or IV solid or hematologic cancer. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly assigned to the (1) control arm, (2) telerehabilitation arm, or (3) telerehabilitation with pharmacological pain management arm. All patients underwent automated function and pain monitoring with data reporting to their care teams. Participants in arms 2 and 3 received 6 months of centralized telerehabilitation provided by a physical therapist-physician team. Those in arm 3 also received nurse-coordinated pharmacological pain management. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Blinded assessment of function using the Activity Measure for Postacute Care computer adaptive test, pain interference and average intensity using the Brief Pain Inventory, and quality of life using the EQ-5D-3L was performed at baseline and months 3 and 6. Hospitalizations and discharges to postacute care facilities were recorded. RESULTS: The study included 516 participants (257 women and 259 men; mean [SD] age, 65.6 [11.1] years), with 172 randomized to 1 of 3 arms. Compared with the control group, the telerehabilitation arm 2 had improved function (difference, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.08-2.35; P = .03) and quality of life (difference, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.004-0.071; P = .01), while both telerehabilitation arms 2 and 3 had reduced pain interference (arm 2, -0.4; 95% CI, -0.78 to -0.09; P = .01 and arm 3, -0.4; 95% CI, -0.79 to -0.10; P = .01), and average intensity (arm 2, -0.4; 95% CI, -0.78 to -0.07; P = .02 and arm 3, -0.5; 95% CI, -0.84 to -0.11; P = .006). Telerehabilitation was associated with higher odds of home discharge in arms 2 (odds ratio [OR], 4.3; 95% CI, 1.3-14.3; P = .02) and 3 (OR, 3.8; 95% CI, 1.1-12.4; P = .03) and fewer days in the hospital in arm 2 (difference, -3.9 days; 95% CI, -2.4 to -4.6; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Collaborative telerehabilitation modestly improved function and pain, while decreasing hospital length of stay and the requirement for postacute care, but these outcomes were not enhanced with the addition of pharmacological pain management. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01721343.
Authors: Andrew D Auerbach; Sunil Kripalani; Eduard E Vasilevskis; Neil Sehgal; Peter K Lindenauer; Joshua P Metlay; Grant Fletcher; Gregory W Ruhnke; Scott A Flanders; Christopher Kim; Mark V Williams; Larissa Thomas; Vernon Giang; Shoshana J Herzig; Kanan Patel; W John Boscardin; Edmondo J Robinson; Jeffrey L Schnipper Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Addie Middleton; Brian Downer; Allen Haas; Yu-Li Lin; James E Graham; Kenneth J Ottenbacher Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2018-01-19 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Kurt Kroenke; Matthew J Bair; Teresa M Damush; Jingwei Wu; Shawn Hoke; Jason Sutherland; Wanzhu Tu Journal: JAMA Date: 2009-05-27 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Gabriel A Brooks; Ling Li; Hajime Uno; Michael J Hassett; Bruce E Landon; Deborah Schrag Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Duc M Ha; Allan V Prochazka; David B Bekelman; Jennifer E Stevens-Lapsley; Edward D Chan; Robert L Keith Journal: JNCI Cancer Spectr Date: 2021-01-23
Authors: Nicole L Stout; Justin C Brown; Anna L Schwartz; Timothy F Marshall; Anna M Campbell; Larissa Nekhlyudov; David S Zucker; Karen M Basen-Engquist; Grace Campbell; Jeffrey Meyerhardt; Andrea L Cheville; Kelley R Covington; Jennifer A Ligibel; Jonas M Sokolof; Kathryn H Schmitz; Catherine M Alfano Journal: Cancer Date: 2020-03-25 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Kelley R Covington; Timothy Marshall; Grace Campbell; Grant R Williams; Jack B Fu; Tiffany D Kendig; Nancy Howe; Catherine M Alfano; Mackenzi Pergolotti Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-04-26 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: P Connor Johnson; Alisha Yi; Nora Horick; Hermioni L Amonoo; Richard A Newcomb; Mitchell W Lavoie; Julia Rice; Matthew J Reynolds; Christine S Ritchie; Ryan D Nipp; Areej El-Jawahri Journal: Oncologist Date: 2021-08-12 Impact factor: 5.837