Comparative effectiveness trial of early palliative care delivered via telehealth versus in person among patients with advanced lung cancer.
Rattachement africain : us. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
LBA3 Background: National guidelines recommend the early integration of palliative and oncology care for patients with advanced cancer, given robust evidence showing that this care model improves quality of life (QOL) and other important outcomes. However, most patients do not receive early palliative care (EPC) in the outpatient setting due to limited access and resources. To overcome these barriers, we conducted a large-scale comparative effectiveness trial of EPC delivered via secure video versus in person among patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and their caregivers. Methods: Between 6/14/2018 and 5/4/2023, we enrolled 1250 patients with advanced NSCLC, diagnosed in the past 12 weeks, into a randomized trial of telehealth versus in-person EPC across 22 cancer centers in the US. Patients were randomly assigned to meet with a palliative care clinician every four weeks from enrollment through the course of disease either via video or in the outpatient clinic. Participants completed self-report measures at baseline and weeks 12 and 24. The primary aim was to evaluate the equivalence of the effect of telehealth versus in-person EPC on QOL at week 24, using regression modeling with an equivalence margin of ±4 points on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L, range = 0-136). We also compared rates of caregiver participation in EPC visits and patient-reported depression and anxiety symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-9; Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), coping (Brief COPE), and perceptions of prognosis (Perceptions of Treatment and Prognosis Questionnaire) between groups. Study recruitment ceased for two months at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: Participants (mean age = 65.5 years; 54.0% female; 82.1% White) had a mean of 4.75 and 4.92 palliative care encounters by week 24 in the telehealth and in-person groups, respectively. Due to the pandemic, the in-person group had 3.9% of visits occur via video. QOL scores at week 24 for patients assigned to the telehealth group were equivalent to those receiving in-person EPC (adjusted means: 99.67 versus 97.67, p < 0.043 for equivalence). The rate of caregiver participation in EPC visits was lower in the telehealth versus in-person group (36.6% versus 49.7%, p < 0.0001). Study groups did not differ in depression and anxiety symptoms, use of coping skills, or perceptions of the goal of treatment and curability of their cancer. Conclusions: The delivery of EPC via video versus in-person visits demonstrated equivalent effects on QOL in patients with advanced NSCLC. The two modalities also did not differ across a range of patient-reported outcomes, though caregivers attended more in-person versus video visits. The findings underscore the considerable potential for improving access to and broader dissemination of this evidence-based care model through telehealth delivery. Clinical trial information: NCT03375489 .
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Comparative effectiveness trial of early palliative care delivered via telehealth versus in person among patients with advanced lung cancer.
- Date Crossref
- 10/06/2024
- Éditeur
- American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Où se fait cette recherche
-
Harvard University pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
Massachusetts General Hospital pays non établi dans la noticeÉtablissement de santé
-
Johns Hopkins University pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute pays non établi dans la noticeStructure de recherche
-
Mayo Clinic pays non établi dans la noticeÉtablissement de santé
-
University of Colorado Anschutz pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
University of Wisconsin–Madison pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center pays non établi dans la noticeStructure de recherche
-
City Of Hope National Medical Center pays non établi dans la noticeÉtablissement de santé
-
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
Vanderbilt University Medical Center pays non établi dans la noticeÉtablissement de santé
-
University of Michigan pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
Harvard University, Massachusetts General Hospital et Johns Hopkins University, avec 9 autres affiliations.
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.