Real-world cost of care and site of care in patients with multiple sclerosis initiating infused disease-modifying therapies.

AIM: Evaluate the real-world costs over two years and costs by site of care for ocrelizumab (OCR), natalizumab (NTZ), and alemtuzumab (ATZ) in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). METHODS: This retrospective study used HealthCore Integrated Research Database and included continuously enrolled adults with MS initiating OCR, NTZ, and ATZ between April 2017 and July 2019 (i.e. patient identification period). Annual total cost of care (pharmacy and medical costs) was evaluated for the first- and second-year of follow-up, further stratified by site of care. Costs were measured using health plan allowed amount and adjusted to 2019 US dollars. Sensitivity analyses were conducted in patients who completed yearly dosing schedule according to Food and Drug Administration approved prescribing information. RESULTS: Overall, 1,058, 166, and 46 patients were included in OCR, NTZ, and ATZ cohorts, respectively. Mean (standard deviation [SD]) total cost of care during first- and second-year follow-up were $125,597 ($72,274) and $109,618 ($75,085) for OCR, $117,033 ($57,102) and $106,626 ($54,872) for NTZ, and $179,809 ($97,530) and $108,636 ($77,973) for ATZ. Infusible drug cost was the main driver in all three cohorts accounting for >78% of the total costs. Annual total cost of care increased substantially after patients started/switched to infusible DMTs. Across site of care, hospital outpatient infusion was common (OCR 58%, NTZ 37%, ATZ 49%) and expensive followed by physician office infusion (OCR 28%, NTZ 40%, ATZ 16%); home infusion was the least common (<10%) and least expensive. LIMITATIONS: The results were limited to commercially insured patients (specifically those with Anthem-affiliated health plans). CONCLUSIONS: Real-world costs increased after patients started/switched to infusible DMTs. Drug cost is the main driver for the total costs, which varied substantially by site of care. Controlling drug cost markups and using home setting for infusion can reduce costs in the treatment of MS patients.

Ocrelizumab (OCR), natalizumab (NTZ), and alemtuzumab (ATZ) are infusible drugs to treat patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). We did a study to understand the costs of these infusible MS drugs in real-world settings by analyzing a patients' pharmacy and medical claims database. A total of 1,058 patients were included. We found that the annual total costs increased substantially after patients started to use these infusible MS drugs. Specifically, the average first- and second-year total costs for patients were $125,597 and $109,618 for OCR, $117,033 and $106,626 for NTZ, and $179,809 and $108,636 for ATZ, respectively. We also found that the cost of the drug itself is the main driver for the overall healthcare spending, accounting for >78% of the total costs. Additionally, we found that the cost varies depending on where patients receive these infusible MS drugs, and generally speaking, infusions received from hospital outpatient settings would be more expensive than received from home settings. In summary, this study showed that the real-world costs of these infusible MS drugs are very high. Shifting patients away from more costly hospital outpatient departments or using MS drugs that do not require infusion resources (e.g. oral/self-injectable) may help reduce the overall healthcare spending on MS.

Intensive Care Unit Capacity Strain and Outcomes of Critical Illness in a Resource-Limited Setting: A 2-Hospital Study in South Africa.

OBJECTIVE: To measure the association of intensive care unit (ICU) capacity strain with processes of care and outcomes of critical illness in a resource-limited setting. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 5332 patients referred to the ICUs at 2 public hospitals in South Africa using the country's first published multicenter electronic critical care database. We assessed the association between multiple ICU capacity strain metrics (ICU occupancy, turnover, census acuity, and referral burden) at different exposure time points (ICU referral, admission, and/or discharge) with clinical and process of care outcomes. The association of ICU capacity strain at the time of ICU admission with ICU length of stay (LOS), the primary outcome, was analyzed with a multivariable Cox proportional hazard model. Secondary outcomes of ICU triage decision (with strain at ICU referral), ICU mortality (with strain at ICU admission), and ICU LOS (with strain at ICU discharge), were analyzed with linear and logistic multivariable regression. RESULTS: No measure of ICU capacity strain at the time of ICU admission was associated with ICU LOS, the primary outcome. The ICU occupancy at the time of ICU admission was associated with increased odds of ICU mortality (odds ratio = 1.07, 95% confidence interval: 1.02-1.11; P = .004), a secondary outcome, such that a 10% increase in ICU occupancy would be associated with a 7% increase in the odds of ICU mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In a resource-limited setting in South Africa, ICU capacity strain at the time of ICU admission was not associated with ICU LOS. In secondary analyses, higher ICU occupancy at the time of ICU admission, but not other measures of capacity strain, was associated with increased odds of ICU mortality.

What's behind the white coat: Potential mechanisms of physician-attributable variation in critical care.

BACKGROUND: Critical care intensity is known to vary across regions and centers, yet the mechanisms remain unidentified. Physician behaviors have been implicated in the variability of intensive care near the end of life, but physician characteristics that may underlie this association have not been determined. PURPOSE: We sought to identify behavioral attributes that vary among intensivists to generate hypotheses for mechanisms of intensivist-attributable variation in critical care delivery. METHODS: We administered a questionnaire to intensivists who participated in a prior cohort study in which intensivists made prognostic estimates. We evaluated the degree to which scores on six attribute measures varied across intensivists. Measures were selected for their relevance to preference-sensitive critical care: a modified End-of-Life Preferences (EOLP) scale, Life Orientation Test-Revised (LOT-R), Jefferson Scale of Empathy (JSE), Physicians' Reactions to Uncertainty (PRU) scale, Collett-Lester Fear of Death (CLFOD) scale, and a test of omission bias. We conducted regression analyses assessing relationships between intensivists' attribute scores and their prognostic accuracy, as physicians' prognostic accuracy may influence preference-sensitive decisions. RESULTS: 20 of 25 eligible intensivists (80%) completed the questionnaire. Intensivists' scores on the EOLP, LOT-R, PRU, CLFOD, and omission bias measures varied considerably, while their responses on the JSE scale did not. There were no consistent associations between attribute scores and prognostic accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: Intensivists vary in feasibly measurable attributes relevant to preference-sensitive critical care delivery. These attributes represent candidates for future research aimed at identifying mechanisms of clinician-attributable variation in critical care and developing effective interventions to reduce undue variation.

Effect of Financial Incentives on Patient Use of Mailed Colorectal Cancer Screening Tests: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Mailing fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kits to patients' homes has been shown to boost colorectal cancer screening rates, but response rates remain limited, and organized programs typically require repeated outreach attempts. Behavioral economics has shown that offering salient financial incentives to patients may increase participation in preventive health. Objective: To compare the impact of different financial incentives for mailed FIT outreach. Design, Setting, and Participants: This 4-parallel-arm randomized clinical trial included patients aged 50 to 75 years who had an established primary care clinician, at least 2 visits in the prior 2 years, and were eligible for colorectal cancer screening and not up-to-date. This study was conducted at urban primary care practices at an academic health system from December 2015 to February 2018. Data analysis was conducted from March 2018 to September 2018. Interventions: Eligible patients received a letter from their primary care clinician that included a mailed FIT kit and instructions for use. They were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive (1) no financial incentive; (2) an unconditional $10 incentive included with the mailing; (3) a $10 incentive conditional on FIT completion; or (4) a conditional lottery with a 1-in-10 chance of winning $100 after FIT completion. Main Outcomes and Measures: Fecal immunochemical test completion within 2 and 6 months of initial outreach. Results: A total of 897 participants were randomized, with a median age of 57 years (interquartile range, 52-62 years); 56% were women, and 69% were black. The overall completion rate across all arms was 23.5% at 2 months. The completion rate at 2 months was 26.0% (95% CI, 20.4%-32.3%) in the no incentive arm, 27.2% (95% CI, 21.5%-33.6%) in the unconditional incentive arm, 23.2% (95% CI, 17.9%-29.3%) in the conditional incentive arm, and 17.7% (95% CI, 13.0%-23.3%) in the lottery incentive arm. None of the arms with an incentive were statistically superior to the arm without incentive. The overall FIT completion rate across all arms was 28.9% at 6 months, and there was also no difference by arm. The completion rate at 6 months was 32.7% (95% CI, 26.6%-39.3%) in the no incentive arm, 31.7% (95% CI, 25.7%-38.2%) in the unconditional incentive arm, 26.8% (95% CI, 21.1%-33.1%) in the conditional incentive arm, and 24.3% (95% CI, 18.9%-30.5%) in the lottery incentive arm. Conclusions and Relevance: Mailed FIT resulted in high colorectal cancer screening response rates in this population, but different forms of financial incentives of the same expected value ($10) did not incrementally increase FIT completion rates. The incentive value may have been too small or financial incentives may not be effective in this context. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02594150.

Intuitive vs Deliberative Approaches to Making Decisions About Life Support: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Patients with serious illnesses are often encouraged to actively deliberate about the desirability of life support. Yet it is unknown whether deliberation changes the substance or quality of such decisions. Objective: To identify differences in decisions about life support interventions and goals of care made intuitively vs deliberatively by patients with serious illnesses. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial in which patients were asked to express treatment preferences in a series of clinical scenarios. Participants were 199 hospitalized patients aged 60 years and older with serious oncologic, cardiac, and pulmonary illnesses treated in a large, urban academic hospital from July 1, 2015, through March 15, 2016. Interventions: Patients in the intuitive group were subjected to a cognitive load and instructed to answer each question immediately based on gut instinct. Patients in the deliberative group were not cognitively loaded, were instructed to think carefully about their answers, and were required to explain their answers. Main Outcomes and Measures: Choices regarding life support (4 scenarios) and goals of care (1 scenario), concordance of these choices with patients' valuations of health states that could follow from them, and decisional uncertainty. Results: Of 199 patients, 132 (66%) were male and the mean (SD) age was 67.2 (5.0) years. Similar proportions of patients in the intuitive group (n = 97) and the deliberative group (n = 102) said they would accept a feeding tube for chronic aspiration (42% vs 44%, respectively; difference, -2%; 95% CI, -16% to 12%; P = .79), antibiotics for life-threatening infection in the event of terminal illness (39% vs 43%, respectively; difference, -4%; 95% CI, -18% to 10%; P = .57), a trial of mechanical ventilation (59% vs 60%, respectively; difference,-1%; 95% CI, -15% to 13%; P = .88), and a tracheostomy tube (37% vs 41%, respectively; difference, -4%; 95% CI, -22% to 13%; P = .64). Patients in the deliberative group were slightly more likely than patients in the intuitive group to choose a palliative approach to treatment in the event of serious illness (45% vs 30%, respectively; difference, 15%; 95% CI, 1%-29%; P = .04). Across scenarios, decisional uncertainty was similar between the 2 groups (all P > .05), and intuitive decisions were either equally or more closely aligned with patients' health state valuations than deliberative decisions. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, encouraging hospitalized patients with serious illnesses to deliberate on end-of-life decisions did not change the content or improve the quality of these decisions. It is important to evaluate whether decision aids and structured communication interventions improve seriously ill patients' choices. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02487810.

Active Choice Intervention Increases Advance Directive Completion: A Randomized Trial.

Background. Many people recognize the potential benefits of advance directives (ADs), yet few actually complete them. It is unknown whether an active choice intervention influences AD completion. Methods. New employees were randomized to an active choice intervention (n = 642) or usual care (n = 637). The active choice intervention asked employees to complete an AD, confirm prior AD completion, or fill out a declination form. In usual care, participants could complete an AD, confirm prior completion, or skip the task. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess the relationship between the intervention arm and both AD completion online and the return of a signed AD by mail, as well as assess interactions between intervention group and age, gender, race, and clinical degree status. Results. Participants assigned to the active choice intervention more commonly completed ADs online (35.1% v. 20.4%, P < 0.001) (odds ratio [OR] = 2.10; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.63-2.71; number needed to treat = 6.8) and returned signed ADs by mail (7.8% v. 3.9%, P = 0.003; number needed to treat = 25.6). The effect of the intervention was significantly greater among men (OR = 4.13; 95% CI = 2.32-7.35) than among women (OR = 1.74; 95% CI = 1.30-2.32) (interaction P value < 0.001). Responses to all eight choices made in the ADs were similar between groups (all P > 0.10). Limitations. A young and healthy participant may not benefit from AD completion as an older or seriously ill patient would. Conclusions. The active choice intervention significantly increased the proportion of participants completing an AD without changing the choices in ADs. This relationship was especially strong among men and may be a useful method to increase AD completion rates without altering choices.

Associations of Intensive Care Unit Capacity Strain with Disposition and Outcomes of Patients with Sepsis Presenting to the Emergency Department.

RATIONALE: Intensive care unit (ICU) capacity strain refers to the potential limits placed on an ICU's ability to provide high-quality care for all patients who may need it at a given time. Few studies have investigated how fluctuations in ICU capacity strain might influence care outside the ICU. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether ICU capacity strain is associated with initial level of inpatient care and outcomes for emergency department (ED) patients hospitalized for sepsis. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients with sepsis admitted from the ED to a medical ward or ICU at three hospitals within the University of Pennsylvania Health System between 2012 and 2015. Patients were excluded if they required life support therapies, defined as invasive or noninvasive ventilatory support or vasopressors, at the time of admission. The exposures were four measures of ICU capacity strain at the time of the ED disposition decision: ICU occupancy, ICU turnover, ICU census acuity, and ward occupancy. The primary outcome was the decision to admit to a ward or to an ICU. Secondary analyses assessed the association of ICU capacity strain with in-hospital outcomes, including mortality. RESULTS: Among 77,142 hospital admissions from the ED, 3,067 patients met the study's eligibility criteria. The ICU capacity strain metrics varied between and within study hospitals over time. In unadjusted analyses, ICU occupancy, ICU turnover, ICU census acuity, and ward occupancy were all negatively associated with ICU admission. In the fully adjusted model including patient-level covariates, only ICU occupancy remained associated with ICU admission (odds ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.96; P = 0.005), such that a 10% increase in ICU occupancy (e.g., one additional patient in a 10-bed ICU) was associated with a 13% decrease in the odds of ICU admission. Among the subset of patients admitted initially from the ED to a medical ward, ICU occupancy at the time of admission was associated with increased odds of hospital mortality (odds ratio, 1.61; 95% confidence interval, 1.21-2.14; P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The odds that patients in the ED with sepsis who do not require life support therapies will be admitted to the ICU are reduced when those ICUs experience high occupancy but not high levels of other previously explored measures of capacity strain. Patients with sepsis admitted to the wards during times of high ICU occupancy had increased odds of hospital mortality.

Timely follow-up of positive cancer screening results: A systematic review and recommendations from the PROSPR Consortium.

Timely follow-up for positive cancer screening results remains suboptimal, and the evidence base to inform decisions on optimizing the timeliness of diagnostic testing is unclear. This systematic review evaluated published studies regarding time to follow-up after a positive screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancers. The quality of available evidence was very low or low across cancers, with potential attenuated or reversed associations from confounding by indication in most studies. Overall, evidence suggested that the risk for poorer cancer outcomes rises with longer wait times that vary within and across cancer types, which supports performing diagnostic testing as soon as feasible after the positive result, but evidence for specific time targets is limited. Within these limitations, we provide our opinion on cancer-specific recommendations for times to follow-up and how existing guidelines relate to the current evidence. Thresholds set should consider patient worry, potential for loss to follow-up with prolonged wait times, and available resources. Research is needed to better guide the timeliness of diagnostic follow-up, including considerations for patient preferences and existing barriers, while addressing methodological weaknesses. Research is also needed to identify effective interventions for reducing wait times for diagnostic testing, particularly in underserved or low-resource settings. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:199-216. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Willingness to participate in pragmatic dialysis trials: the importance of physician decisional autonomy and consent approach.

BACKGROUND: Pragmatic clinical trials embedded in routine delivery of clinical care can lead to improvements in quality of care, but often have design features that raise ethical concerns. METHODS: We performed a discrete choice experiment and used conjoint analysis to assess how specific attributes of pragmatic dialysis trials influenced patients' and physicians' willingness to have their dialysis facility participate in a hypothetical trial of hypertension management. Electronic survey data were collected from 200 patients enrolled from 11 outpatient hemodialysis units and from 203 nephrologists. The three attributes studied were physicians' treatment autonomy, participants' research burden, and the approach to consent. The influence of each attribute was quantified using mixed-effects logistic regression. RESULTS: Similar proportions of patients were willing to have their facilities participate in a trial with high vs. low physician autonomy (77% vs. 79%; p = 0.13) and research burden (76% vs. 80%; p = 0.06). Opt-in, opt-out, and notification-only consent approaches were acceptable to most patients (84%, 82%, and 81%, respectively), but compared to each of these consent approaches, fewer patients (66%) were willing to have their facility participate in a trial that used no notification (p < 0.001 for each 2-way comparison). Among the physicians, similar proportions were willing to participate in trials with high and low physician autonomy (61% and 61%, respectively, p = 0.96) or with low and high burden (60 and 61%, respectively, p = 0.79). However, as for the patients, the consent approach influenced trial acceptability with 77%, 69%, and 62% willing to participate using opt-in, opt-out, and notification-only, respectively, compared to no notification (36%) (p < 0.001 for each 2-way comparison). CONCLUSIONS: Curtailing physician's treatment autonomy and increasing the burden associated with participation did not influence patients' or physicians' willingness to participate in the hypothetical research, suggesting that pragmatic dialysis trials are generally acceptable to patients and physicians. Both patients and physicians preferred consent approaches that include at least some level of patient notification, but the majority of patients were still willing to participate in trials that did not notify patients of the research.

Approximately One In Three US Adults Completes Any Type Of Advance Directive For End-Of-Life Care.

Efforts to promote the completion of advance directives implicitly assume that completion rates of these documents, which help ensure care consistent with people's preferences in the event of incapacity, are undesirably low. However, data regarding completion of advance directives in the United States are inconsistent and of variable quality. We systematically reviewed studies published in the period 2011-16 to determine the proportion of US adults with a completed living will, health care power of attorney, or both. Among the 795,909 people in the 150 studies we analyzed, 36.7 percent had completed an advance directive, including 29.3 percent with living wills. These proportions were similar across the years reviewed. Similar proportions of patients with chronic illnesses (38.2 percent) and healthy adults (32.7 percent) had completed advance directives. The findings provide benchmarks for gauging future policies and practices designed to motivate completion of advance directives, particularly among those people most likely to benefit from having these documents on record.

Six-Month Morbidity and Mortality among Intensive Care Unit Patients Receiving Life-Sustaining Therapy. A Prospective Cohort Study.

RATIONALE: Understanding long-term outcomes of critically ill patients may inform shared decision-making in the intensive care unit (ICU). OBJECTIVES: To quantify 6-month functional outcomes of general ICU patients, and develop a multivariable model comprising factors present during the first ICU day to predict which patients will return to their baseline function 6 months later. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study in three medical ICUs and two surgical ICUs in three hospitals. We enrolled patients who spent at least 3 days in the ICU and received mechanical ventilation for more than 48 hours and/or vasoactive infusions for more than 24 hours. RESULTS: We measured 6-month outcomes including survival, return to original place of residence, and physical and cognitive function. Of 303 enrolled patients, 299 (98.7%) had complete follow-up at 6 months. Among the 169 patients (56.5%) who survived to 6 months, 82.8% returned home, 81.9% were able to toilet, 71.3% were able to ambulate 10 stairs, and 62.4% reported normal cognition. Overall, 31.1% of patients returned to their baseline status on these measures. Factors associated with not returning to baseline included higher APACHE III score, being a medical patient, older age, nonwhite race, recent hospitalization, prior transplantation, and a history of cancer or of neurologic or liver disease. A model including only these Day 1 factors had good discrimination (area under receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.778; 95% confidence interval, 0.724-0.832) and calibration (difference between observed and expected P value, 0.36). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients spending at least 3 days in an ICU and requiring even brief periods of life-sustaining therapy, nearly one-half will be dead and less than one-third will have returned to their baseline status at 6 months. Of those who survive, the majority of patients will be back at home at 6 months. Future research is needed to validate this multivariable model, including readily available patient characteristics available on the first ICU day, that seems to identify patients who will return to baseline at 6 months.

Discriminative Accuracy of Physician and Nurse Predictions for Survival and Functional Outcomes 6 Months After an ICU Admission.

IMPORTANCE: Predictions of long-term survival and functional outcomes influence decision making for critically ill patients, yet little is known regarding their accuracy. OBJECTIVE: To determine the discriminative accuracy of intensive care unit (ICU) physicians and nurses in predicting 6-month patient mortality and morbidity, including ambulation, toileting, and cognition. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective cohort study conducted in 5 ICUs in 3 hospitals in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and enrolling patients who spent at least 3 days in the ICU from October 2013 until May 2014 and required mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, or both. These patients' attending physicians and bedside nurses were also enrolled. Follow-up was completed in December 2014. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: ICU physicians' and nurses' binary predictions of in-hospital mortality and 6-month outcomes, including mortality, return to original residence, ability to toilet independently, ability to ambulate up 10 stairs independently, and ability to remember most things, think clearly, and solve day-to-day problems (ie, normal cognition). For each outcome, physicians and nurses provided a dichotomous prediction and rated their confidence in that prediction on a 5-point Likert scale. Outcomes were assessed via interviews with surviving patients or their surrogates at 6 months. Discriminative accuracy was measured using positive and negative likelihood ratios (LRs), C statistics, and other operating characteristics. RESULTS: Among 340 patients approached, 303 (89%) consented (median age, 62 years [interquartile range, 53-71]; 57% men; 32% African American); 6-month follow-up was completed for 299 (99%), of whom 169 (57%) were alive. Predictions were made by 47 physicians and 128 nurses. Physicians most accurately predicted 6-month mortality (positive LR, 5.91 [95% CI, 3.74-9.32]; negative LR, 0.41 [95% CI, 0.33-0.52]; C statistic, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.72-0.81]) and least accurately predicted cognition (positive LR, 2.36 [95% CI, 1.36-4.12]; negative LR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.61-0.92]; C statistic, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.54-0.68]). Nurses most accurately predicted in-hospital mortality (positive LR, 4.71 [95% CI, 2.94-7.56]; negative LR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.49-0.75]; C statistic, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.62-0.74]) and least accurately predicted cognition (positive LR, 1.50 [95% CI, 0.86-2.60]; negative LR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.73-1.06]; C statistic, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.48-0.62]). Discriminative accuracy was higher when physicians and nurses were confident about their predictions (eg, for physicians' confident predictions of 6-month mortality: positive LR, 33.00 [95% CI, 8.34-130.63]; negative LR, 0.18 [95% CI, 0.09-0.35]; C statistic, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.84-0.96]). Compared with a predictive model including objective clinical variables, a model that also included physician and nurse predictions had significantly higher discriminative accuracy for in-hospital mortality, 6-month mortality, and return to original residence (P < .01 for all). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: ICU physicians' and nurses' discriminative accuracy in predicting 6-month outcomes of critically ill patients varied depending on the outcome being predicted and confidence of the predictors. Further research is needed to better understand how clinicians derive prognostic estimates of long-term outcomes.

Public Opinion Regarding Financial Incentives to Engage in Advance Care Planning and Complete Advance Directives.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recently instituted physician reimbursements for advance care planning (ACP) discussions with patients. AIM: To measure public support for similar programs. DESIGN: Cross-sectional online and in-person surveys. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: English-speaking adults recruited at public parks in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, from July to August 2013 and online through survey sampling international Web-based recruitment platform in July 2015. Participants indicated support for 6 programs designed to increase advance directive (AD) completion or ACP discussion using 5-point Likert scales. Participants also indicated how much money (US$0-US$1000) was appropriate to incentivize such behaviors, compared to smoking cessation or colonoscopy screening. RESULTS: We recruited 883 participants: 503 online and 380 in-person. The status quo of no systematic approach to motivate AD completion was supported by 67.0% of participants (63.9%-70.1%). The most popular programs were paying patients to complete ADs (58.0%; 54.5%-61.2%) and requiring patients to complete ADs or declination forms for health insurance (54.1%; 50.8%-57.4%). Participants more commonly supported paying patients to complete ADs than paying physicians whose patients complete ADs (22.6%; 19.8%-25.4%) or paying physicians who document ACP discussions (19.1%; 16.5%-21.7%; both P < .001). Participants supported smaller payments for AD completion and ACP than for obtaining screening colonoscopies or stopping smoking. CONCLUSIONS: Americans view payments for AD completion or ACP more skeptically than for other health behaviors and prefer that such payments go to patients rather than physicians. The current CMS policy of reimbursing physicians for ACP conversations with patients was the least preferred of the programs evaluated.

A Randomized Trial of Expanding Choice Sets to Motivate Advance Directive Completion.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that advance directives may improve end-of-life care among seriously ill patients, but improving completion rates remains a challenge. OBJECTIVE: This study tested the influence of increasing the number of options for completing an advance directive among seriously ill patients. METHODOLOGY: Outpatients ( N = 316) receiving hemodialysis across 15 dialysis centers in the Philadelphia region between July 2014 and July 2015 were randomized to receive either the option to complete a brief advance directive form or expanded options including a brief, expanded, or comprehensive form. Patients in both groups could decline to complete an advance directive or take their selected version home. The primary outcome was a returned, completed advance directive. Secondary outcomes included whether patients wanted to complete an advance directive, decision satisfaction, quality of life at 3 months, and patient factors associated with advance directive completion. RESULTS: Although offering more advance directive options was not significantly associated with increased rates of completion (13.1% in the standard group v. 12.2% in the expanded group, P = 0.80), it did significantly increase the proportion of patients who wanted to complete an advance directive and took one home (71.9% in standard v. 85.3% in expanded, P = 0.004). There was no difference in satisfaction ( P = 0.65) or change in quality of life between groups ( P = 0.63). A higher baseline quality of life was independently associated with advance directive completion ( P = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: These results suggest that although an expanded choice set may initially nudge patients toward completing advance directives without restricting choice, increasing actual completion requires additional interventions that overcome downstream barriers.

No improvement in the reporting of clinical trial subgroup effects in high-impact general medical journals.

BACKGROUND: When subgroup analyses are not correctly analyzed and reported, incorrect conclusions may be drawn, and inappropriate treatments provided. Despite the increased recognition of the importance of subgroup analysis, little information exists regarding the prevalence, appropriateness, and study characteristics that influence subgroup analysis. The objective of this study is to determine (1) if the use of subgroup analyses and multivariable risk indices has increased, (2) whether statistical methodology has improved over time, and (3) which study characteristics predict subgroup analysis. METHODS: We randomly selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from five high-impact general medical journals during three time periods. Data from these articles were abstracted in duplicate using standard forms and a standard protocol. Subgroup analysis was defined as reporting any subgroup effect. Appropriate methods for subgroup analysis included a formal test for heterogeneity or interaction across treatment-by-covariate groups. We used logistic regression to determine the variables significantly associated with any subgroup analysis or, among RCTs reporting subgroup analyses, using appropriate methodology. RESULTS: The final sample of 416 articles reported 437 RCTs, of which 270 (62 %) reported subgroup analysis. Among these, 185 (69 %) used appropriate methods to conduct such analyses. Subgroup analysis was reported in 62, 55, and 67 % of the articles from 2007, 2010, and 2013, respectively. The percentage using appropriate methods decreased over the three time points from 77 % in 2007 to 63 % in 2013 (p < 0.05). Significant predictors of reporting subgroup analysis included industry funding (OR 1.94 (95 % CI 1.17, 3.21)), sample size (OR 1.98 per quintile (1.64, 2.40), and a significant primary outcome (OR 0.55 (0.33, 0.92)). The use of appropriate methods to conduct subgroup analysis decreased by year (OR 0.88 (0.76, 1.00)) and was less common with industry funding (OR 0.35 (0.18, 0.70)). Only 33 (18 %) of the RCTs examined subgroup effects using a multivariable risk index. CONCLUSIONS: While we found no significant increase in the reporting of subgroup analysis over time, our results show a significant decrease in the reporting of subgroup analyses using appropriate methods during recent years. Industry-sponsored trials may more commonly report subgroup analyses, but without utilizing appropriate methods. Suboptimal reporting of subgroup effects may impact optimal physician-patient decision-making.

Rationale and Design of the Randomized Evaluation of Default Access to Palliative Services (REDAPS) Trial.

The substantial nationwide investment in inpatient palliative care services stems from their great promise to improve patient-centered outcomes and reduce costs. However, robust experimental evidence of these benefits is lacking. The Randomized Evaluation of Default Access to Palliative Services (REDAPS) study is a pragmatic, stepped-wedge, cluster randomized trial designed to test the efficacy and costs of specialized palliative care consultative services for hospitalized patients with advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dementia, or end-stage renal disease, as well as the overall effectiveness of ordering such services by default. Additional aims are to identify the types of services that are most beneficial and the types of patients most likely to benefit, including comparisons between ward and intensive care unit patients. We hypothesize that patient-centered outcomes can be improved without increasing costs by simply changing the default option for palliative care consultation from opt-in to opt-out for patients with life-limiting illnesses. Patients aged 65 years or older are enrolled at 11 hospitals using an integrated electronic health record. As a pragmatic trial designed to enroll between 12,000 and 15,000 patients, eligibility is determined using a validated, electronic health record-based algorithm, and all outcomes are captured via the electronic health record and billing systems data. The time at which each hospital transitions from control, opt-in palliative care consultation to intervention, opt-out consultation is randomly assigned. The primary outcome is a composite measure of in-hospital mortality and length of stay. Secondary outcomes include palliative care process measures and clinical and economic outcomes. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02505035).

Default options in advance directives: study protocol for a randomised clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Although most seriously ill Americans wish to avoid burdensome and aggressive care at the end of life, such care is often provided unless patients or family members specifically request otherwise. Advance directives (ADs) were created to provide opportunities to set limits on aggressive care near life's end. This study tests the hypothesis that redesigning ADs such that comfort-oriented care is provided as the default, rather than requiring patients to actively choose it, will promote better patient-centred outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This multicentre trial randomises seriously ill adults to receive 1 of 3 different ADs: (1) a traditional AD that requires patients to actively choose their goals of care or preferences for specific interventions (eg, feeding tube insertion) or otherwise have their care guided by their surrogates and the prevailing societal default toward aggressive care; (2) an AD that defaults to life-extending care and receipt of life-sustaining interventions, enabling patients to opt out from such care; or (3) an AD that defaults to comfort care, enabling patients to opt into life-extending care. We seek to enrol 270 patients who return complete, legally valid ADs so as to generate sufficient power to detect differences in the primary outcome of hospital-free days (days alive and not in an acute care facility). Secondary outcomes include hospital and intensive care unit admissions, costs of care, hospice usage, decision conflict and satisfaction, quality of life, concordance of preferences with care received and bereavement outcomes for surrogates of patients who die. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Institutional Review Boards at all trial centres, and is guided by a data safety and monitoring board and an ethics advisory board. Study results will be disseminated using methods that describe the results in ways that key stakeholders can best understand and implement. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02017548; Pre-results.

Effect of ICU strain on timing of limitations in life-sustaining therapy and on death.

PURPOSE: The effect of capacity strain in an ICU on the timing of end-of-life decision-making is unknown. We sought to determine how changes in strain impact timing of new do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders and of death. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of 9891 patients dying in the hospital following an ICU stay ≥72 h in Project IMPACT, 2001-2008. We examined the effect of ICU capacity strain (measured by standardized census, proportion of new admissions, and average patient acuity) on time to initiation of DNR orders and time to death for all ICU decedents using fixed-effects linear regression. RESULTS: Increases in strain were associated with shorter time to DNR for patients with limitations in therapy (predicted time to DNR 6.11 days for highest versus 7.70 days for lowest quintile of acuity, p = 0.02; 6.50 days for highest versus 7.77 days for lowest quintile of admissions, p < 0.001), and shorter time to death (predicted time to death 7.64 days for highest versus 9.05 days for lowest quintile of admissions, p < 0.001; 8.28 days for highest versus 9.06 days for lowest quintile of census, only in closed ICUs, p = 0.006). Time to DNR order significantly mediated relationships between acuity and admissions and time to death, explaining the entire effect of acuity, and 65 % of the effect of admissions. There was no association between strain and time to death for decedents without a limitation in therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Strains in ICU capacity are associated with end-of-life decision-making, with shorter times to placement of DNR orders and death for patients admitted during high-strain days.