Open-Label Placebo for the Treatment of Cancer-Related Fatigue in Patients with Advanced Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of an open-labeled placebo (OLP) compared to a waitlist control (WL) in reducing cancer-related fatigue (CRF) in patients with advanced cancer using Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this randomized controlled trial, patients with fatigue ≥4/10 on Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) were randomized to OLP one tablet twice a day or WL for 7 days. On day 8, patients of both arms received a placebo for 3 weeks. Changes in FACIT-F from baseline to day 8 (primary outcome) and at day 29, were assessed. Secondary outcomes included FACT-G, Multidimensional Fatigue Symptom Inventory-SF, Fatigue cluster (defined as a composite of ESAS fatigue, pain, and depression), Center for epidemiologic studies-depression, Godin leisure-time physical activity questionnaire, and global symptom evaluation. RESULTS: A total of 84/90 (93%) patients were evaluable. The mean (SD) FACIT-F change at day 8 was 6.6 (7.6) after OLP, vs. 2.1 (9.4) after WL (P = .016). On days 15 and 29, when all patients received OLP, there was a significant improvement in CRF and no difference between arms. There was also a significant improvement in ESAS fatigue, and fatigue cluster score in the OLP arm on day 8 of the study (0.029, and 0.044, respectively). There were no significant differences in other secondary outcomes and adverse events between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Open-labeled placebo was efficacious in reducing CRF and fatigue clusters in fatigued advanced cancer patients at the end of 1 week. The improvement in fatigue was maintained for 4 weeks. Further studies are needed.

Telehealth Preferences Among Patients With Advanced Cancer in the Post COVID-19 Vaccine Era.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have examined patient preferences for telehealth in palliative care after the availability of COVID-19 vaccines. We examined patient preferences for video versus in-person visits and factors contributing to preferences in the postvaccine era. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional survey of patients who were seen at our palliative care clinic between April 2021 and March 2022. Patients were surveyed directly their preference for either video or in-person visits for outpatient palliative care (primary outcome). We also surveyed preferences including convenience, cost, wait time, and perceptions of COVID-19 safety regarding their palliative virtual-video visit. We examined clinical factors associated with preferences with multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: About 200 patients completed the survey. 132 (67%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 60%, 74%) preferred virtual-video, while 16 (8%) preferred in-person visits during the COVID-19 pandemic. About 120 (61%, 95%CI: 54%, 68%) preferred virtual-video after the pandemic. Patients perceived virtual-video favorably regarding travel and related costs (179 [91%]), convenience (175 [88%]), and wait time (136 [69%]). Multivariable analysis showed concerns for catching COVID-19 from healthcare providers (odds ratio [OR]: 4.20; 95%CI: 1.24-14.25; P = 0.02) and feeling comfortable with computers or mobile devices (OR: 4.59; 95%CI: 1.02, 20.60; P = 0.047) were significantly associated with preferring virtual-video. Patients who were of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity (OR: 0.25; 95%CI: 0.09, 0.71) and had increased dypsnea (OR: 0.74; 95%CI: 0.59, 0.93) were less likely to prefer video over in-person. CONCLUSION: Patients expressed strong preference for video over in-person visits in the outpatient palliative care setting.

Postvaccine Era COVID-19 Pandemic-Related Distress in Palliative Care Patients With Advanced Cancer.

CONTEXT: The COVID-19 pandemic represents a source of distress in patients with advanced cancer; however, few studies have examined the extent of pandemic-related distress in the postvaccine era. OBJECTIVES: We conducted a cross-sectional survey to examine pandemic-related distress among patients seen by palliative care after vaccine availability. METHODS: Patients at our palliative care clinic were surveyed from April 2021 to March 2022 regarding 1) pandemic-related distress level, 2) potential contributors to pandemic-related distress, 3) coping strategies, 4) demographic factors and symptom burden. Univariate and multivariate analyses identified factors associated with pandemic-related distress. RESULTS: A total of 200 patients completed the survey. Of 79 (40%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 33%, 46%) reported worse pandemic-related distress. Patients who reported greater distress were more likely to report worse social isolation (67 [86%] vs. 52 [43%]), staying home more often (75 [95%] vs. 95 [79%]), more negative experience staying at home (26 [33%] vs. 11 [9%]), worse stress with child-care duties (14 [19%] vs. 4 [3%]), less seeing family/friends (63 [81%] vs. 72 [60%]), and more difficulty traveling to medical appointments (27 [35%] vs. 20 [17%]). Thirty-seven patients (19%) reported more difficulty getting medical appointments. In multivariable analysis, younger age (odds ratio [OR], 0.97; 95% CI, 0.92-0.99; P = 0.01), worse isolation status (OR, 6.87; 95% CI, 2.76-17.12; P < 0.001), and more negative attitude towards staying home (OR, 4.49; 95% CI, 1.6-12.57; P = 0.004) were associated with pandemic-related distress. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with advanced cancer continued to experience pandemic-related distress in the postvaccine era. Our findings highlight potential opportunities to support patients.