Measuring patients' medical treatment preferences in advance care planning: development and validation of the Treat-Me-ACP instrument - a secondary analysis of a cluster-randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Advance Care Planning interventions should be evaluated as broadly as possible to gain a holistic understanding of the Advance Care Planning process. However, validated early stage outcome instruments are lacking. Therefore, the Treatment-Preference-Measure-Advance Care Planning (Treat-Me-ACP) instrument was developed and validated as part of the cluster-randomized controlled trial STADPLAN (Study on Advance Care Planning in care-dependent community-dwelling older persons) to assess the effects of Advance Care Planning interventions on patients' medical treatment preferences. METHODS: The design of Treat-Me-ACP is based on the Emanuel Medical Directive and the Life Support Preferences Questionnaires. Using a multi-stage team approach a preliminary version of the Treat-Me-ACP was developed and pre-tested. The pre-tested instrument consists of one global medical care goal-item, five hypothetical scenarios with five hypothetical treatments, and one how would you feel-item within each scenario. A total of five scenario preference scores and five treatment preference scores can be formed. This version was subsequently applied to a subsample of the STADPLAN project (n = 80) to assess patient's preferences at baseline (T0) and at 12-month follow-up (T2). The further validation steps were based on this subsample and included: (1) acceptance by using completion rate and frequencies of missing data, (2) internal consistency by using Cronbach's α to test whether it was possible to create preference scores by scenario and treatment, (3) concurrent validation examining the association between the global medical care goal-item and the preference scores and the association between the how would you feel-items and the scenario preference scores, and (4) responsiveness of the instrument to changes in preferences for life-sustaining treatments by comparing preference scores from T0 to T2 between study groups. RESULTS: Acceptance of the instrument was high. Results of concurrent validation indicate that the five scenarios represent the global medical care goal well. The preference scores showed an average tendency for decreasing preferences for life-sustaining treatments across all scales for the intervention group during study follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The Treat-Me-ACP can be used to evaluate the dynamics of patients' medical treatment preferences in Advance Care Planning. It has been validated for care-dependent community-dwelling older persons and can be used as an additional outcome measure in evaluating the effectiveness of ACP interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00016886 on 04/06/2019.

Making the Case for Research on Disease-Modifying Treatments to Tackle Post-lingual Progressive Sensorineural Hearing Loss.

Hearing loss not only has a significant impact on the quality of life of patients and society, but its correlation with cognitive decline in an aging population will also increase the risk of incident dementia. While current management of hearing loss is focused on hearing rehabilitation (and essentially symptomatic), patients are suffering from the burden of progressive hearing loss before hearing aids or cochlear implants are fitted. Although these devices have a significant effect on speech understanding, they do not always lead to normal speech understanding, especially in noisy environments. A significant number of patients suffer from autosomal dominantly inherited disorders that can produce progressive sensorineural hearing loss. This includes DFNA9, a disorder caused by pathologic variants in the COCH gene that leads to post-lingual profound sensorineural hearing loss and bilateral vestibulopathy. Carriers of a pathogenic variant leading to DFNA9 can be diagnosed at the pre-symptomatic or early symptomatic stage which creates a window of opportunity for treatment. Preventing hearing loss from occurring or stabilizing progression would provide the opportunity to avoid hearing aids or cochlear implants and would be able to reduce the increased incidence of dementia. While innovative therapies for restoration of hearing have been studied for restoration of hearing in case of severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss and congenital hearing loss, further research is needed to study how we can modify disease progression in late-onset autosomal dominant hereditary sensorineural hearing loss. Recently, gene editing strategies have been explored in autosomal dominant disorders to disrupt dominant mutations selectively without affecting wild-type alleles.

End-of-life care preferences of the general public and recommendations of healthcare providers: a nationwide survey in Japan.

BACKGROUND: A better understanding of differences between the preferences of the general public and the recommendations of healthcare providers with regard to end-of-life (EOL) care may facilitate EOL discussion. METHODS: The aim of this study was to clarify differences between preferences of the general public and recommendations of healthcare providers with regard to treatment, EOL care, and life-sustaining treatment (LST) based on a hypothetical scenario involving a patient with advanced cancer. This study comprised exploratory post-hoc analyses of "The Survey of Public Attitude Towards Medical Care at the End of life", which was a population based, cross-sectional anonymous survey in Japan to investigate public attitudes toward medical care at the end of life. Persons living in Japan over 20 years old were randomly selected nationwide. Physicians, nurses, and care staff were recruited at randomly selected facilities throughout Japan. The general public data from the original study was combined to the data of healthcare providers in order to conduct exploratory post-hoc analyses. The preferences of the general public and recommendations of healthcare providers with regard to EOL care and LST was assessed based on the hypothetical scenario of an advanced cancer patient. RESULTS: All returned questionnaires were analyzed: 973 from the general public, 1039 from physicians, 1854 from nurses, and 752 from care staff (response rates of 16.2, 23.1, 30.9, and 37.6%, respectively). The proportion of the general public who wanted "chemotherapy or radiation", "ventilation", and "cardiopulmonary resuscitation" was significantly higher than the frequency of these options being recommended by physicians, nurses, and care staff, but the general public preference for "cardiopulmonary resuscitation" was significantly lower than the frequency of its recommendation by care staff. CONCLUSION: Regarding a hypothetical scenario for advanced cancer, the general public preferred more aggressive treatment and more frequent LST than that recommended by healthcare providers.