Group Coping Intervention in Patients With Chronic Graft-Versus-Host Disease: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: More than half the long-term survivors of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation develop chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), a debilitating inflammatory syndrome. Supportive interventions to assist survivors in coping with chronic GVHD are critically needed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a pilot randomized clinical trial of a multidisciplinary group intervention (Horizons Program; n=39) versus minimally enhanced usual care (n=41) for patients with moderate or severe chronic GVHD. Horizons participants received 8 weekly sessions about GVHD and coping co-led by a transplant clinician and a behavioral health expert via a secure videoconferencing platform. Participants completed the following surveys before randomization, at 10 weeks, and at 18 weeks: Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Bone Marrow Transplant Scale (FACT-BMT) for quality of life (QoL), Lee Symptom Scale for symptom burden, and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Depression Symptoms (HADS) for mood. The primary endpoint was feasibility (≥50% enrollment, ≥80% attendance in half the sessions for the Horizons arm only, and ≥80% retention). We also explored preliminary efficacy of the Horizons intervention on changes in patient-reported outcomes with linear mixed effects models and estimates of effect size at 10 weeks. RESULTS: We enrolled and registered 80 (67.2%) of 119 eligible patients (mean age, 62 years; 48.8% female). Of the participants in the Horizons Program, 84.6% attended at least half the sessions. Of registered participants, 91.3% completed assessment follow-ups (Horizons, 35/39 [89.7%]; minimally enhanced usual care, 38/41 [92.7%]). Horizons participants reported improvements in QoL (b = 2.24; d=0.53), anxiety symptoms (b = -0.10; d=0.34), and depression symptoms (b = -0.71; d=0.44) compared with participants who received minimally enhanced usual care. CONCLUSIONS: Participation in a multidisciplinary group intervention study was feasible for patients with chronic GVHD, with promising signals for improving QoL and mood. A full-scale efficacy trial is needed to confirm effects on patient-reported outcomes.

Multiply robust generalized estimating equations for cluster randomized trials with missing outcomes.

Generalized estimating equations (GEEs) provide a useful framework for estimating marginal regression parameters based on data from cluster randomized trials (CRTs), but they can result in inaccurate parameter estimates when some outcomes are informatively missing. Existing techniques to handle missing outcomes in CRTs rely on correct specification of a propensity score model, a covariate-conditional mean outcome model, or require at least one of these two models to be correct, which can be challenging in practice. In this article, we develop new weighted GEEs to simultaneously estimate the marginal mean, scale, and correlation parameters in CRTs with missing outcomes, allowing for multiple propensity score models and multiple covariate-conditional mean models to be specified. The resulting estimators are consistent provided that any one of these models is correct. An iterative algorithm is provided for implementing this more robust estimator and practical considerations for specifying multiple models are discussed. We evaluate the performance of the proposed method through Monte Carlo simulations and apply the proposed multiply robust estimator to analyze the Botswana Combination Prevention Project, a large HIV prevention CRT designed to evaluate whether a combination of HIV-prevention measures can reduce HIV incidence.

Stepped Palliative Care for Patients With Advanced Lung Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Despite the evidence for early palliative care improving outcomes, it has not been widely implemented in part due to palliative care workforce limitations. Objective: To evaluate a stepped-care model to deliver less resource-intensive and more patient-centered palliative care for patients with advanced cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, nonblinded, noninferiority trial of stepped vs early palliative care conducted between February 12, 2018, and December 15, 2022, at 3 academic medical centers in Boston, Massachusetts, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Durham, North Carolina, among 507 patients who had been diagnosed with advanced lung cancer within the past 12 weeks. Intervention: Step 1 of the intervention was an initial palliative care visit within 4 weeks of enrollment and subsequent visits only at the time of a change in cancer treatment or after a hospitalization. During step 1, patients completed a measure of quality of life (QOL; Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung [FACT-L]; range, 0-136, with higher scores indicating better QOL) every 6 weeks, and those with a 10-point or greater decrease from baseline were stepped up to meet with the palliative care clinician every 4 weeks (intervention step 2). Patients assigned to early palliative care had palliative care visits every 4 weeks after enrollment. Main Outcomes and Measures: Noninferiority (margin = -4.5) of the effect of stepped vs early palliative care on patient-reported QOL on the FACT-L at week 24. Results: The sample (n = 507) mostly included patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (78.3%; mean age, 66.5 years; 51.4% female; 84.6% White). The mean number of palliative care visits by week 24 was 2.4 for stepped palliative care and 4.7 for early palliative care (adjusted mean difference, -2.3; P < .001). FACT-L scores at week 24 for the stepped palliative care group were noninferior to scores among those receiving early palliative care (adjusted FACT-L mean score, 100.6 vs 97.8, respectively; difference, 2.9; lower 1-sided 95% confidence limit, -0.1; P < .001 for noninferiority). Although the rate of end-of-life care communication was also noninferior between groups, noninferiority was not demonstrated for days in hospice (adjusted mean, 19.5 with stepped palliative care vs 34.6 with early palliative care; P = .91). Conclusions and Relevance: A stepped-care model, with palliative care visits occurring only at key points in patients' cancer trajectories and using a decrement in QOL to trigger more intensive palliative care exposure, resulted in fewer palliative care visits without diminishing the benefits for patients' QOL. While stepped palliative care was associated with fewer days in hospice, it is a more scalable way to deliver early palliative care to enhance patient-reported outcomes. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03337399.

Randomized Controlled Trial of a Nurse-Led Brief Behavioral Intervention for Dyspnea in Patients With Advanced Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: In patients with lung cancer, dyspnea is one of the most prevalent and disabling symptoms, for which effective treatments are lacking. We examined the efficacy of a nurse-led brief behavioral intervention to improve dyspnea in patients with advanced lung cancer. METHODS: Patients with advanced lung cancer reporting at least moderate breathlessness (n = 247) were enrolled in a randomized trial of a nurse-led two-session intervention (focused on breathing techniques, postural positions, and fan therapy) versus usual care. At baseline and weeks 8 (primary end point), 16, and 24, participants completed measures of dyspnea (Modified Medical Research Council Dyspnea Scale [mMRCDS]; Cancer Dyspnoea Scale [CDS]), quality of life (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung [FACT-L]), psychological symptoms (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), and activity level (Godin-Shephard Leisure Time Physical Activity Questionnaire). To examine intervention effects, we conducted analysis of covariance and longitudinal mixed effects models. RESULTS: The sample (Agemean = 66.15 years; 55.9% female) primarily included patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (85.4%). Compared with usual care, the intervention improved the primary outcome of patient-reported dyspnea on the mMRCDS (difference = -0.33 [95% CI, -0.61 to -0.05]) but not the CDS total score at 8 weeks. Intervention patients also reported less dyspnea on the CDS sense of discomfort subscale (difference = -0.59 [95% CI, -1.16 to -0.01]) and better functional well-being per the FACT-L (difference = 1.39 [95% CI, 0.18 to 2.59]) versus the control group. Study groups did not differ in overall quality of life, psychological symptoms, or activity level at 8 weeks or longitudinally over 24 weeks. CONCLUSION: For patients with advanced lung cancer, a scalable behavioral intervention alleviated the intractable symptom of dyspnea. Further research is needed on ways to enhance intervention effects over the long-term and across additional outcomes.