Nikki McCaffrey

Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Randomized Trial of Octreotide in Malignant Bowel Obstruction

CONTEXT Does octreotide reduce vomiting in cancer-associated bowel obstruction? OBJECTIVES To evaluate the net effect of adding octreotide or placebo to standardized therapies on the number of days free of vomiting for populations presenting with vomiting and inoperable bowel obstruction secondary to cancer or its treatment. METHODS Twelve services enrolled people with advanced cancer presenting with vomiting secondary to bowel obstruction where surgery or anti-cancer therapies were not indicated immediately. In a double-blind study, participants were randomized to placebo or octreotide (600 μg/24 hours by infusion). Both arms received standardized supportive therapy (infusion of ranitidine [200 mg/24 hours], dexamethasone [8 mg/24 hours], and parenteral hydration [10-20 mL/kg/24 hours]). The primary outcome was patient-reported days free of vomiting at 72 hours. RESULTS In a study that recruited to the numbers identified in its power calculation, 87 participants provided data at 72 hours (45, octreotide arm). Seventeen people (octreotide) and 14 (placebo) were free of vomiting for 72 hours (P = 0.67). Mean days free of vomiting were 1.87 (SD 1.10; octreotide) and 1.69 (SD 1.15; placebo; P = 0.47). An adjusted multivariate regression of the incidence of vomiting over the study showed a reduced number of episodes of vomiting in the octreotide group (incidence rate ratio = 0.40; 95% CI: 0.19-0.86; P = 0.019); however, people in the octreotide arm were 2.02 times more likely to be administered hyoscine butylbromide (P = 0.004), potentially reflecting increased colicky pain. CONCLUSION Although there was no reduction in the number of days free of vomiting, the multivariate analysis suggests that further study of somatostatin analogues in this setting is warranted.

Better informing decision making with multiple outcomes cost-effectiveness analysis under uncertainty in cost-disutility space

Introduction Comparing multiple, diverse outcomes with cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is important, yet challenging in areas like palliative care where domains are unamenable to integration with survival. Generic multi-attribute utility values exclude important domains and non-health outcomes, while partial analyses—where outcomes are considered separately, with their joint relationship under uncertainty ignored—lead to incorrect inference regarding preferred strategies. Objective The objective of this paper is to consider whether such decision making can be better informed with alternative presentation and summary measures, extending methods previously shown to have advantages in multiple strategy comparison. Methods Multiple outcomes CEA of a home-based palliative care model (PEACH) relative to usual care is undertaken in cost disutility (CDU) space and compared with analysis on the cost-effectiveness plane. Summary measures developed for comparing strategies across potential threshold values for multiple outcomes include: expected net loss (ENL) planes quantifying differences in expected net benefit; the ENL contour identifying preferred strategies minimising ENL and their expected value of perfect information; and cost-effectiveness acceptability planes showing probability of strategies minimising ENL. Results Conventional analysis suggests PEACH is cost-effective when the threshold value per additional day at home ( 1) exceeds

Preliminary development and validation of a new end-of-life patient-reported outcome measure assessing the ability of patients to finalise their affairs at the end of life

1,068 or dominated by usual care when only the proportion of home deaths is considered. In contrast, neither alternative dominate in CDU space where cost and outcomes are jointly considered, with the optimal strategy depending on threshold values. For example, PEACH minimises ENL when 1=

Is home-based palliative care cost-effective? An economic evaluation of the Palliative Care Extended Packages at Home (PEACH) pilot

2,000 and 2=

Consumer Directed Care in Australia: early perceptions and experiences of staff, clients and carers

2,000 (threshold value for dying at home), with a 51.6% chance of PEACH being cost-effective. Conclusion Comparison in CDU space and associated summary measures have distinct advantages to multiple domain comparisons, aiding transparent and robust joint comparison of costs and multiple effects under uncertainty across potential threshold values for effect, better informing net benefit assessment and related reimbursement and research decisions.

Carer Preferences in Economic Evaluation and Healthcare Decision Making

Introduction The ability of patients to finalise their affairs at the end of life is an often neglected aspect of quality of life (QOL) measurement in palliative care effectiveness research despite compelling evidence of the high value patients place on this domain. Objective This paper describes the preliminary development and evaluation of a new, single-item, end-of-life patient-reported outcome measure (EOLPRO) designed to capture changes in the ability of patients to finalise their affairs at the end of life. Methods Cognitive interviews with purposively sampled Australian palliative care patients (N = 9) were analysed thematically to explore content validity. Simultaneously, secondary analysis of data from a randomised controlled trial comparing ketamine and placebo for the management of cancer pain (N = 185) evaluated: construct validity; test-retest reliability; and responsiveness. Results Preliminary findings suggest patients interpret the new measure consistently. The EOLPRO captures the ability to complete physical tasks and finalise practical matters although it is unclear whether emotional tasks or resolution of relationship issues are considered. Personal and financial affairs should be separated to allow for differences in ability for these two types of affairs. The significant correlation between performance status and EOLPRO scores (r = 0.41, p<0.01, n = 137) and expected relationships between EOLPRO and proximity to death and constipation demonstrated construct validity. Pre- and post-treatment EOLPRO scores moderately agreed (n = 14, κ = 0.52 [95% CI 0.19, 0.84]) supporting reliability. The measure’s apparent lack of sensitivity to discriminate between treatment responders and non-responders may be confounded. Conclusion Based on the preliminary findings, the EOLPRO should be separated into ‘personal’ and ‘financial’ affairs with further testing suggested, particularly to verify coverage and responsiveness. Initial evaluation suggests that the single-item EOLPRO is a useful addition to QOL outcome measurement in palliative care effectiveness research because common palliative care specific QOL questionnaires do not include or explicitly capture this domain.

Bringing the economic cost of informal caregiving into focus

Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a home-based palliative care model relative to usual care in expediting discharge or enabling patients to remain at home. Design Economic evaluation of a pilot randomised controlled trial with 28 days follow-up. Methods Mean costs and effectiveness were calculated for the Palliative Care Extended Packages at Home (PEACH) and usual care arms including: days at home; place of death; PEACH intervention costs; specialist palliative care service use; acute hospital and palliative care unit inpatient stays; and outpatient visits. Results PEACH mean intervention costs per patient (

Chronic breathlessness associated with poorer physical and mental health-related quality of life (SF-12) across all adult age groups

3489) were largely offset by lower mean inpatient care costs (

An economic view on the current state of the economics of palliative and end-of-life care:

2450) and in this arm, participants were at home for one additional day on average. Consequently, PEACH is cost-effective relative to usual care when the threshold value for one extra day at home exceeds

Potential economic impact on hospitalisations of the Palliative Care Clinical Studies Collaborative (PaCCSC) ketamine randomised controlled trial

1068, or