Impact of a Formal Advance Care Planning Program on End-of-Life Care for Patients With Heart Failure: Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: There is no evidence on effectiveness of advance care planning (ACP) among patients with heart failure (HF). We examined the effect of an ACP program in facilitating end of life (EOL) care consistent with the preferences of patients with HF (primary aim), and on their decisional conflict, discussion with surrogates, illness understanding, anxiety, depression, and quality of life (secondary aims). METHODS: We randomized 282 patients with HF to receive ACP (n=93) or usual care (control arm, n=189). Primary outcomes were assessed among deceased (n=89) and secondary outcomes from baseline and 6 follow-ups conducted every 4 months. RESULTS: Deceased patients in the ACP arm were no more likely than those in control arm to have wishes followed for EOL treatments (ACP: 35%, Control: 44%; P= .47), or place of death (ACP: 52%, Control: 51%; P = .1.00). A higher proportion in the ACP arm had wishes followed for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ACP: 83%, Control: 62%; P = .12). At first follow-up, patients with ACP had lower decisional conflict (ß = -10.8, P< .01) and were more likely to discuss preferences with surrogates (ß = 1.3, P = .04). ACP did not influence other outcomes. CONCLUSION: This trial did not confirm that our ACP program was effective in facilitating EOL care consistent with patient preferences. The program led to short-term improvements in the decision-making.

Instability in End-of-Life Care Preference Among Heart Failure Patients: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial in Singapore.

BACKGROUND: Efforts to improve quality of end-of-life (EOL) care are increasingly focused on eliciting patients' EOL preference through advance care planning (ACP). However, if patients' EOL preference changes over time and their ACP documents are not updated, these documents may no longer be valid at the time EOL decisions are made. OBJECTIVES: To assess extent and correlates of changes in stated preference for aggressive EOL care over time. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial of a formal ACP program versus usual care in Singapore. PATIENTS: Two hundred eighty-two patients with heart failure (HF) and New York Heart Association Classification III and IV symptoms were recruited and interviewed every 4 months for up to 2 years to assess their preference for EOL care. Analytic sample included 200 patients interviewed at least twice. RESULTS: Nearly two thirds (64%) of patients changed their preferred type of EOL care at least once. Proportion of patients changing their stated preference for type of EOL care increased with time and the change was not unidirectional. Patients who understood their prognosis correctly were less likely to change their preference from non-aggressive to aggressive EOL care (OR 0.66, p value 0.07) or to prefer aggressive EOL care (OR 0.53; p value 0.001). On the other hand, patient-surrogate discussion of care preference was associated with a higher likelihood of change in patient preference from aggressive to non-aggressive EOL care (OR 1.83; p value 0.03). CONCLUSION: The study provides evidence of instability in HF patients' stated EOL care preference. This undermines the value of an ACP document recorded months before EOL decisions are made unless a strategy exists for easily updating this preference. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02299180.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab compared with sorafenib as first-line treatment in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in Singapore.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to explore the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab against sorafenib for first-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in Singapore. METHODS: A partitioned survival model was developed from a healthcare system perspective, with a 10-year lifetime horizon. Clinical inputs and utilities were obtained from the IMbrave150 trial. Healthcare resource use costs were obtained from published local sources; drug costs reflected the most recent public hospital selling prices. Outcomes included life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the model's robustness. RESULTS: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab offered an additional 1.42 life years and 1.09 QALYs, with an additional cost of S$111,847; the ICER was S$102,988/QALY. The World Health Organization considers interventions with ICERs <1 gross domestic product (GDP)/capita to be highly cost-effective. At a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of S$114,165/QALY (Singapore's 2022 GDP/capita), atezolizumab plus bevacizumab is cost-effective compared with sorafenib. The ICER was most sensitive to variations in utilities, but all parameter variations had no significant impact on the model outcomes. CONCLUSION: At a WTP threshold of Singapore's GDP/capita, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab is cost-effective compared with sorafenib.