Acceptance and Commitment Therapy plus usual care for improving quality of life in people with motor neuron disease (COMMEND): a multicentre, parallel, randomised controlled trial in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Motor neuron disease is a progressive, fatal neurodegenerative disease for which there is no cure. Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) is a psychological therapy incorporating acceptance, mindfulness, and behaviour change techniques. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of ACT plus usual care, compared with usual care alone, for improving quality of life in people with motor neuron disease. METHODS: We conducted a parallel, multicentre, two-arm randomised controlled trial in 16 UK motor neuron disease care centres or clinics. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older with a diagnosis of definite or laboratory-supported probable, clinically probable, or possible familial or sporadic amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; progressive muscular atrophy; or primary lateral sclerosis; which met the World Federation of Neurology's El Escorial diagnostic criteria. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive up to eight sessions of ACT adapted for people with motor neuron disease plus usual care or usual care alone by a web-based system, stratified by site. Participants were followed up at 6 months and 9 months post-randomisation. Outcome assessors and trial statisticians were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was quality of life using the McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire-Revised (MQOL-R) at 6 months post-randomisation. Primary analyses were multi-level modelling and modified intention to treat among participants with available data. This trial was pre-registered with the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN12655391). FINDINGS: Between Sept 18, 2019, and Aug 31, 2022, 435 people with motor neuron disease were approached for the study, of whom 206 (47%) were assessed for eligibility, and 191 were recruited. 97 (51%) participants were randomly assigned to ACT plus usual care and 94 (49%) were assigned to usual care alone. 80 (42%) of 191 participants were female and 111 (58%) were male, and the mean age was 63·1 years (SD 11·0). 155 (81%) participants had primary outcome data at 6 months post-randomisation. After controlling for baseline scores, age, sex, and therapist clustering, ACT plus usual care was superior to usual care alone for quality of life at 6 months (adjusted mean difference on the MQOL-R of 0·66 [95% CI 0·22-1·10]; d=0·46 [0·16-0·77]; p=0·0031). Moderate effect sizes were clinically meaningful. 75 adverse events were reported, 38 of which were serious, but no adverse events were deemed to be associated with the intervention. INTERPRETATION: ACT plus usual care is clinically effective for maintaining or improving quality of life in people with motor neuron disease. As further evidence emerges confirming these findings, health-care providers should consider how access to ACT, adapted for the specific needs of people with motor neuron disease, could be provided within motor neuron disease clinical services. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment and Motor Neurone Disease Association.

The involvement of palliative care with neurology - a comparison of UK, Switzerland and Italy.

OBJECTIVES: To ascertain the involvement of palliative care with neurology services in the care of people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) in the United Kingdom, Italy and Switzerland, in particular the collaboration with and referral from neurology, the involvement in multidisciplinary team care and in the respiratory support of ALS patients. METHODS: In 2019, two online surveys were undertaken of palliative care specialists, using specialist groups of the European Academy of Neurology, European Association of Palliative Care and the Association of Palliative Medicine for Great Britain and Ireland. RESULTS: The respondents were specialist palliative care professionals, predominantly senior doctors, involved in the care of people with ALS. As the numbers of respondents from many countries were in single figures the analysis was restricted to the United Kingdom, Italy and Switzerland. The time of involvement varied, with early involvement commonest in the UK. Barriers to referral included neurologists not referring and financial issues, particularly in Switzerland. The reluctance of patients and families to see palliative care services was reported as less than 20% in all countries. Respondents were often involved in the care of people receiving noninvasive ventilation (NIV), in all countries. and with tracheostomy ventilation (TV), particularly in Italy. CONCLUSIONS: Palliative care services are often involved in the care of people with ALS, but the extent and timing of involvement varies. The use of clinical guidelines and education on palliative care for neurology services may encourage collaboration, for the benefit of people with ALS and their families.

Palliative opioid use, palliative sedation and euthanasia: reaffirming the distinction.

We read with interest the extended essay published from Riisfeldt and are encouraged by an empirical ethics article which attempts to ground theory and its claims in the real world. However, such attempts also have real-world consequences. We are concerned to read the paper's conclusion that clinical evidence weakens the distinction between euthanasia and normal palliative care prescribing. This is important. Globally, the most significant barrier to adequate symptom control in people with life-limiting illness is poor access to opioid analgesia. Opiophobia makes clinicians reluctant to prescribe and their patients reluctant to take opioids that might provide significant improvements in quality of life. We argue that the evidence base for the safety of opioid prescribing is broader than that presented, restricting the search to palliative care literature produces significant bias as safety experience and literature for opioids and sedatives exists in many fields. This is not acknowledged in the synthesis presented. By considering additional evidence, we reject the need for agnosticism and reaffirm that palliative opioid prescribing is safe. Second, palliative sedation in a clinical context is a poorly defined concept covering multiple interventions and treatment intentions. We detail these and show that continuous deep palliative sedation (CDPS) is a specific practice that remains controversial globally and is not considered routine practice. Rejecting agnosticism towards opioids and excluding CDPS from the definition of routine care allows the rejection of Riisfeldt's headline conclusion. On these grounds, we reaffirm the important distinction between palliative care prescribing and euthanasia in practice.