Search

Background: COPD causes high morbidity and mortality, emphasizing the need for palliative care. Aim: To assess the effectiveness of palliative care in patients with COPD. Design: Cluster randomized controlled trial (COMPASSION study; Netherlands Trial Register (NTR): NL7644, 07-04-2019). Healthcare providers within the intervention group were trained to implement palliative care components into routine COPD care. Patients completed questionnaires at baseline, after 3 and 6 months; medical records were assessed after 12 months. The primary outcome was quality of life (FACIT-Pal). Secondary outcomes were anxiety, depression, spiritual well-being, satisfaction with care, acute healthcare use, documentation of life-sustaining treatment preferences and place of death. Generalized linear mixed modelling was used for analyses. Setting: Eight hospital regions in the Netherlands. Participants: Patients hospitalized for an acute exacerbation of COPD and positive ProPal-COPD score. Results: Of 222 patients included, 106 responded to the questionnaire at 6 months. Thirty-six of 98 intervention patients (36.7%) received the intervention. Intention-to-treat-analysis showed no effect on the primary outcome (adjusted difference: 1.09; 95% confidence interval: −5.44 to 7.60). In the intervention group, fewer intensive care admissions for COPD took place (adjusted odds ratio: 0.21; 95% confidence interval: 0.03–0.81) and strong indications were found for fewer hospitalizations (adjusted incidence rate ratio: 0.69; 95% confidence interval: 0.46–1.03). Conclusions: We found no evidence that palliative care improves quality of life in patients with COPD. However, it can potentially reduce acute healthcare use. The consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic led to suboptimal implementation and insufficient power, and may have affected some of our findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although guidelines recommend palliative care for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, there is little evidence for the effectiveness of palliative care interventions for this patient group specifically. Aim: To describe the characteristics of palliative care interventions for patients with COPD and their informal caregivers and review the available evidence on effectiveness and implementation outcomes. Design: Systematic review and narrative synthesis (PROSPERO CRD42017079962). Data sources: Seven databases were searched for articles reporting on multi-component palliative care interventions for study populations containing ⩾30% patients with COPD. Quantitative as well as qualitative and mixed-method studies were included. Intervention characteristics, effect outcomes, implementation outcomes and barriers and facilitators for successful implementation were extracted and synthesized qualitatively. Results: Thirty-one articles reporting on twenty unique interventions were included. Only four interventions (20%) were evaluated in an adequately powered controlled trial. Most interventions comprised of longitudinal palliative care, including care coordination and comprehensive needs assessments. Results on effectiveness were mixed and inconclusive. The feasibility level varied and was context-dependent. Acceptability of the interventions was high; having someone to call for support and education about breathlessness were most valued characteristics. Most frequently named barriers were uncertainty about the timing of referral due to the unpredictable disease trajectory (referrers), time availability (providers) and accessibility (patients). Conclusion: Little high-quality evidence is yet available on the effectiveness and implementation of palliative care interventions for patients with COPD. There is a need for well-conducted effectiveness studies and adequate process evaluations using standardized methodologies to create higher-level evidence and inform successful implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In cost-effectiveness analyses in healthcare, Quality-Adjusted Life Years are often used as outcome measure of effectiveness. However, there is an ongoing debate concerning the appropriateness of its use for decision-making in palliative care. Aim: To systematically map pros and cons of using the Quality-Adjusted Life Year to inform decisions on resource allocation among palliative care interventions, as brought forward in the debate, and to discuss the Quality-Adjusted Life Year's value for palliative care. Design: The integrative review method of Whittemore and Knafl was followed. Theoretical arguments and empirical findings were mapped. Data sources: A literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL, in which MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms were Palliative Care, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Quality of Life, and Quality-Adjusted Life Years. Findings: Three themes regarding the pros and cons were identified: (1) restrictions in life years gained, (2) conceptualization of quality of life and its measurement, including suggestions to adapt this, and (3) valuation and additivity of time, referring to changing valuation of time. The debate is recognized in empirical studies, but alternatives not yet applied. Conclusion: The Quality-Adjusted Life Year might be more valuable for palliative care if specific issues are taken into account. Despite restrictions in life years gained, Quality-Adjusted Life Years can be achieved in palliative care. However, in measuring quality of life, we recommend to--in addition to the EQ-5D--make use of quality of life or capability instruments specifically for palliative care. Also, we suggest exploring the possibility of integrating valuation of time in a non-linear way in the Quality-Adjusted Life Year. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]