Palliative care interventions for people with multiple sclerosis

Top Ten Tips Palliative Care Clinicians Should Know about Multiple Sclerosis

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic, immune-mediated, neurodegenerative condition of the central nervous system, with distinct challenges due to its heterogeneous presentation, prognostic uncertainty, and variable clinical course of neurological and non-neurological symptoms and disability. Although there have been significant advances in management of MS, many patients experience disability progression. Despite MS being a frequent cause of neurological disability, particularly in young persons, involvement of palliative care physicians in the care of patients with MS has been limited. This article provides ten tips for palliative clinicians for caring for patients with MS and their care partners.

Physicians' Conceptions of the Dying Patient: Scoping Review and Qualitative Content Analysis of the United Kingdom Medical Literature

Most people in high income countries experience dying while receiving healthcare, yet dying has no clear beginning, and contexts influence how dying is conceptualised. This study investigates how UK physicians conceptualise the dying patient. We employed Scoping Study Methodology to obtain medical literature from 2006-2021, and Qualitative Content Analysis to analyse stated and implied meanings of language used, informed by social-materialism. Our findings indicate physicians do not conceive a dichotomous distinction between dying and not dying, but construct conceptions of the dying patient in subjective ways linked to their practice. We argue that the focus of future research should be on exploring practice-based challenges in the workplace to understanding patient dying. Furthermore, pre-Covid-19 literature related dying to chronic illness, but analysis of literature published since the pandemic generated conceptions of dying from acute illness. Researchers should note the ongoing effects of Covid-19 on societal and medical awareness of dying.

EAN Guideline on Palliative Care of People with Severe, Progressive Multiple Sclerosis

Background and Purpose: Patients with severe, progressive multiple sclerosis (MS) have complex physical and psychosocial needs, typically over several years. Few treatment options are available to prevent or delay further clinical worsening in this population. The objective was to develop an evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the palliative care of patients with severe, progressive MS. Methods: This guideline was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Formulation of the clinical questions was performed in the Patients-Intervention-Comparator-Outcome format, involving patients, carers and healthcare professionals (HPs). No uniform definition of severe MS exists: in this guideline, constant bilateral support required to walk 20 m without resting (Expanded Disability Status Scale score >6.0) or higher disability is referred to. When evidence was lacking for this population, recommendations were formulated using indirect evidence or good practice statements were devised. Results: Ten clinical questions were formulated. They encompassed general and specialist palliative care, advance care planning, discussing with HPs the patient's wish to hasten death, symptom management, multidisciplinary rehabilitation, interventions for caregivers and interventions for HPs. A total of 34 recommendations (33 weak, 1 strong) and seven good practice statements were devised. Conclusions: The provision of home-based palliative care (either general or specialist) is recommended with weak strength for patients with severe, progressive MS. Further research on the integration of palliative care and MS care is needed. Areas that currently lack evidence of efficacy in this population include advance care planning, the management of symptoms such as fatigue and mood problems, and interventions for caregivers and HPs.

Effect of Short-term Integrated Palliative Care on Patient-Reported Outcomes Among Patients Severely Affected With Long-term Neurological Conditions: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Palliative care has shown benefits in reducing symptom intensity and quality of life in patients with advanced cancer. However, high-quality evidence to support palliative care policy and service developments for patients with long-term neurological conditions (LTNCs) is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness of a short-term integrated palliative care (SIPC) intervention for people with LTNCs.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Multicenter, phase 3, randomized clinical trial conducted from April 1, 2015, to November 30, 2017, with a last follow-up date of May 31, 2018, in 7 UK hospitals with both neurology and palliative care services. A total of 535 patients with LTNC were assessed for eligibility and 350 were randomized. Inclusion criteria were patients 18 years or older with any advanced stage of multiple sclerosis, motor neuron disease, idiopathic Parkinson disease multiple system atrophy, or progressive supranuclear palsy. Data were analyzed from November 2018 to March 2019.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized 1:1 using minimization method to receive SIPC (intervention, n = 176) or standard care (control, n = 174).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Primary outcome was change in 8 key palliative care symptoms from baseline to 12-weeks, measured by the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale for neurological conditions. Secondary outcomes included change in the burden of other symptoms, health-related quality of life, caregiver burden, and costs. Data were collected and analyzed blindly by intention to treat.

RESULTS

A total of 350 patients (mean [SD] age 67 [12] years; years since diagnosis, 12 [range, 0-56]; 51% men; 49% requiring considerable assistance) with an advanced stage of LTNC were recruited, along with informal caregivers (n = 229). There were no between-group differences in primary outcome (effect size, -0.16; 95% CI, -0.37 to 0.05), any other patient-reported outcomes, adverse events, or survival. Although there was more symptom reduction in the SIPC group in relation to mean change in primary outcome, the difference between the groups was not statistically significant (-0.78; 95% CI, -1.29 to -0.26 vs -0.28; 95% CI, -0.82 to 0.26; P = .14). There was a decrease in mean health and social care costs from baseline to 12 weeks -$1367 (95% CI, -$2450 to -$282) in the SIPC group and -653 (95% CI, -$1839 to -$532) in the control group, but this difference was not statistically significant (P = .12). SIPC was perceived by patients and caregivers as building resilience, attending to function and deficits, and enabling caregivers.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, SIPC was not statistically significantly different from standard care for the patient-reported outcomes. However, SIPC was associated with lower cost, and in qualitative analysis was well-received by patients and caregivers, and there were no safety concerns. Further research is warranted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN18337380.