John R. O’Leary

Health Outcome Prioritization as a Tool for Decision Making Among Older Persons With Multiple Chronic Conditions

Older persons with multiple chronic conditions are at substantial risk for unintended adverse outcomes, such as medication adverse events. Less severe adverse events are commonly referred to as “side effects,” implying that they are secondary to disease-specific benefits. However, patients consider these adverse events to be important outcomes in their own right.1 Such findings suggest that all possible benefits and harms resulting from different treatment options be considered as competing outcomes, among which older persons with multiple chronic conditions face trade-offs. When treatments involve trade-offs, the best option depends upon patients’ preferences. The challenge for older persons with multiple conditions is that these trade-offs encompass both many different specific diseases and non disease-specific health domains.2 One approach to this challenge is to consider treatment in terms of its effects on a set of universal, cross-disease outcomes and to use older persons’ prioritization of these outcomes as an assessment of preferences. These outcomes, examples of which include length of life, physical and cognitive function, and symptoms, include basic domains recognized to be the key components of health.3 The goal of this study was to explore the use of a simple to tool to elicit older persons’ health outcome priorities.

The effects of comorbidity on the benefits and harms of treatment for chronic disease: a systematic review.

Background There are concerns about the potential for unintentional harms when clinical practice guidelines are applied to patients with multimorbidity. The objective was to summarize the evidence regarding the effect(s) of comorbidity on the outcomes of medication for an index chronic condition. Methods A systematic review was conducted of studies published in MEDLINE and Cochrane Trials before May 2012. The search strategy was constructed to identify articles indexed with “comorbidity” or a related term or by a given condition and one or more additional specified comorbid conditions. The search yielded 3252 articles, of which 37 passed the title/abstract screening process, and 22 were included after full-text review. An additional 23 articles were identified by screening the reference lists for included articles. Information was extracted on study design; population; therapy; comparison groups; outcome(s); main findings. Findings Indexing of articles was inconsistent, with no term for “multimorbidity,” and rare use of “comorbidity”. Only one article examined the effects of comorbidity per se, finding no benefit of tight control of DM among persons with high comorbidity, defined using a comorbidity index. The remainder examined pairs of conditions, the majority of which were post-hoc analyses of randomized controlled trials and which found no difference in outcomes according to whether a comorbid condition was present. Several demonstrated no difference or an increased risk of adverse outcome among persons with DM and tight control of HTN as compared to usual control. Several demonstrated lack of benefit of statins among persons with end-stage renal disease. Conclusions There is limited evidence regarding the effects of multiple comorbidities on treatment outcomes. The majority of studies demonstrated no effect of a single comorbid condition on outcomes. Additional studies examining a broad range of comorbidity are required, along with clear and consistent indexing to allow for improved synthesis of the evidence.

Caregiver Burden in Caregivers of Older Adults with Advanced Illness

OBJECTIVES: To examine caregiver burden over time in caregivers of patients with advanced chronic disease.

Increasing engagement in advance care planning using a behaviour change model: study protocol for the STAMP randomised controlled trials

Introduction Advance care planning (ACP) is a key component of high-quality end-of-life care but is underused. Interventions based on models of behaviour change may fill an important gap in available programmes to increase ACP engagement. Such interventions are designed for broad outreach and flexibility in delivery. The purpose of the Sharing and Talking about My Preferences study is to examine the efficacy of three behaviour change approaches to increasing ACP engagement through two related randomised controlled trials being conducted in different settings (Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centre and community). Methods and analysis Eligible participants are 55 years or older. Participants in the community are being recruited in person in primary care and specialty outpatient practices and senior living sites, and participants in the VA are recruited by telephone. In the community, randomisation is at the level of the practice or site, with all persons at a given practice/site receiving either computer-tailored feedback with a behaviour stage-matched brochure (computer-tailored intervention (CTI)) or usual care. At the VA, randomisation is at the level of the participant and is stratified by the number of ACP behaviours completed at baseline. Participants are randomised to one of four groups: CTI, motivational interviewing, motivational enhancement therapy or usual care. The primary outcome is completion of four key ACP behaviours: identification of a surrogate decision maker, communication about goals, completing advance directives and ensuring documents are in the medical record. Analysis will be conducted using mixed effects models, taking into account the clustered randomisation for the community study. Ethics and randomisation The studies have been approved by the appropriate Institutional Review Boards and are being overseen by a Safety Monitoring Committee. The results of these studies will be disseminated to academic audiences and leadership in in the community and VA sites. Trial registration numbers NCT03137459 and NCT03103828.