Stakeholder Perspectives on Minimum Clinically Important Difference and Noninferiority Margin for Hospital-Free Days to Assess Interventions

Default Palliative Care Consultation for Seriously Ill Hospitalized Patients: A Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Trial

Importance

Increasing inpatient palliative care delivery is prioritized, but large-scale, experimental evidence of its effectiveness is lacking.

Objective

To determine whether ordering palliative care consultation by default for seriously ill hospitalized patients without requiring greater palliative care staffing increased consultations and improved outcomes.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A pragmatic, stepped-wedge, cluster randomized trial was conducted among patients 65 years or older with advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dementia, or kidney failure admitted from March 21, 2016, through November 14, 2018, to 11 US hospitals. Outcome data collection ended on January 31, 2019.

Intervention

Ordering palliative care consultation by default for eligible patients, while allowing clinicians to opt-out, was compared with usual care, in which clinicians could choose to order palliative care.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was hospital length of stay, with deaths coded as the longest length of stay, and secondary end points included palliative care consult rate, discharge to hospice, do-not-resuscitate orders, and in-hospital mortality.

Results

Of 34 239 patients enrolled, 24 065 had lengths of stay of at least 72 hours and were included in the primary analytic sample (10 313 in the default order group and 13 752 in the usual care group; 13 338 [55.4%] women; mean age, 77.9 years). A higher percentage of patients in the default order group received palliative care consultation than in the standard care group (43.9% vs 16.6%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 5.17 [95% CI, 4.59-5.81]) and received consultation earlier (mean [SD] of 3.4 [2.6] days after admission vs 4.6 [4.8] days; P < .001). Length of stay did not differ between the default order and usual care groups (percent difference in median length of stay, -0.53% [95% CI, -3.51% to 2.53%]). Patients in the default order group had higher rates of do-not-resuscitate orders at discharge (aOR, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.21-1.63]) and discharge to hospice (aOR, 1.30 [95% CI, 1.07-1.57]) than the usual care group, and similar in-hospital mortality (4.7% vs 4.2%; aOR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.68-1.08]).

Conclusions and Relevance

Default palliative care consult orders did not reduce length of stay for older, hospitalized patients with advanced chronic illnesses, but did improve the rate and timing of consultation and some end-of-life care processes.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02505035.

Meaningful benefit and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in Alzheimer's disease: Open peer commentary

Introduction

Approval of the anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies has stimulated an important discussion of the value to be placed on the magnitude of slowing achieved by treatment compared to placebo.

Methods

The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was reviewed in the context of other measures and analyses that provide perspective on the meaningfulness of treatment responses.

Results

TheMCID is a clinician-anchored approach to making this determination. The MCID applies best to symptomatic therapies for which the drug-placebo difference remains constant. Disease-modifying therapies produce a progressive divergence of drug and placebo trajectories; early in the course the MCID would not be achieved, later the MCID will be achieved, and with continuing therapy the MCID will be exceeded. Clinicians are not the only stakeholders involved in determining the value proposition of slowing disease progression. Patient-reported outcomes and caregiver-related measures offer important complementary insights. Analytic approaches also widen the perspective on the observed drug-placebo differences. Risk ratios, numbers needed to treat versus number needed to harm, time-to-event analyses, and predictive benefits based on biomarkers all add depth to the discussion.

Discussion

Multiple stakeholder perspectives are needed to determine the importance to be attributed to the therapeutic changes observed with monoclonal antibody therapies and other emerging treatments.