Differential effects of an electronic symptom monitoring intervention based on the age of patients with advanced cancer

BACKGROUND

Symptom monitoring interventions enhance patient outcomes, including quality of life (QoL), health care utilization, and survival, but it remains unclear whether older and younger patients with cancer derive similar benefits. We explored whether age moderates the improved outcomes seen with an outpatient electronic symptom monitoring intervention.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We carried out a secondary analysis of data from a randomized trial of 766 patients receiving chemotherapy for metastatic solid tumors. Patients received an electronic symptom monitoring intervention integrated with oncology care or usual oncology care alone. The intervention consisted of patients reporting their symptoms, which were provided to their physicians at clinic visits, and nurses receiving alerts for severe/worsening symptoms. We used regression models to determine whether age (older or younger than 70 years) moderated the effects of the intervention on QoL (EuroQol EQ-5D), emergency room (ER) visits, hospitalizations, and survival outcomes.

RESULTS

Enrollment rates for younger (589/777 = 75.8%) and older (177/230 = 77.0%) patients did not differ. Older patients (median age = 75 years, range 70-91 years) were more likely to have an education level of high school or less (26.6% versus 20.9%, P = 0.029) and to be computer inexperienced (50.3% versus 23.4%, P < 0.001) compared with younger patients (median age = 58 years, range 26-69 years). Younger patients receiving the symptom monitoring intervention experienced lower risk of ER visits [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.74, P = 0.011] and improved survival (HR = 0.76, P = 0.011) compared with younger patients receiving usual care. However, older patients did not experience significantly lower risk of ER visits (HR = 0.90, P = 0.613) or improved survival (HR = 1.06, P = 0.753) with the intervention. We found no moderation effects based on age for QoL and risk of hospitalizations.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with advanced cancer, age moderated the effects of an electronic symptom monitoring intervention on the risk of ER visits and survival, but not QoL. Symptom monitoring interventions may need to be tailored to the unique needs of older adults with cancer.

Pilot randomized trial of an electronic symptom monitoring intervention for hospitalized patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

Hospitalized patients with cancer experience a high symptom burden, which is associated with poor health outcomes and increased health care utilization. However, studies investigating symptom monitoring interventions in this population are lacking. We conducted a pilot randomized trial to assess the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of a symptom monitoring intervention to improve symptom management in hospitalized patients with advanced cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We randomly assigned patients with advanced cancer who were admitted to the inpatient oncology service to a symptom monitoring intervention or usual care. Patients in both arms self-reported their symptoms daily (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System and Patient Health Questionnaire-4). Patients assigned to the intervention had their symptom reports presented graphically with alerts for moderate/severe symptoms during daily team rounds. The primary end point of the study was feasibility. We defined the intervention as feasible if >75% of participants hospitalized >2 days completed >2 symptom reports. We observed daily rounds to determine whether clinicians discussed and developed a plan to address patients' symptoms. We used regression models to assess intervention effects on patients' symptoms throughout their hospitalization, readmission risk, and hospital length of stay (LOS).

RESULTS

Among 150 enrolled patients (81.1% enrollment), 94.2% completed >2 symptom reports. Clinicians discussed 60.4% of the symptom reports and developed a plan to address the symptoms highlighted by the symptom reports 20.8% of the time. Compared with usual care, intervention patients had a greater proportion of days with lower psychological distress (B = 0.12, P = 0.008), but no significant difference in the proportion of days with improved Edmonton Symptom Assessment System-physical symptoms (B = 0.07, P = 0.138). Intervention patients had lower readmission risk (hazard ratio = 0.68, P = 0.224), although this difference was not significant. We found no significant intervention effects on hospital LOS (B = 0.16, P = 0.862).

CONCLUSIONS

This symptom monitoring intervention is feasible and demonstrates encouraging preliminary efficacy for improving patients' symptoms and readmission risk.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02891993.