A phase III randomized controlled trial of a stepped collaborative care intervention versus standard of care.

Authors

null

Jennifer Lynne Steel

Univ of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA

Jennifer Lynne Steel , Vincent Edgar Reyes , Lauren Terhorst , Charles Joseph George , Jonas T. Johnson , Michael Krauze , Jason Bierenbaum , Nishant Tageja , Gauri J. Kiefer , Marci Lee Nilsen , Gaurav Goel , Robert Alan VanderWeele , Christopher Ritchie Marsh , Gopala Amarnath Ramineni , Dan Paul Zandberg , Michael Antoni , Samer Tohme , David A. Geller

Organizations

Univ of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Bethel Park, PA, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, University of Pittsburg School of Medicine Eye and Ear Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, UPMC Cancer Center - Hillman Cancer Center 2nd Floor, Monroeville, PA, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Cancer Center, Greensburg, PA, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, UPMC Cancer Center - Upper St. Clair, Pittsburgh, PA, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Cancer Center, Indiana, PA, UPMC Hillman Cancer Center, Pittsburgh, PA, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Liver Cancer Center, Pittsburgh, PA

Research Funding

U.S. National Institutes of Health
U.S. National Institutes of Health

Background: The aims of this study were to screen patients for symptoms of depression, pain, and/or fatigue and test the efficacy of a stepped collaborative care (SCC) intervention compared to standard of care (SC). When compared to SC, we expected that the patients randomized to the SCC intervention would report greater improvements in patient quality of life (QoL) and lower health care utilization and costs. Family caregivers, of patients randomized to the SCC, were expected to have lower risk of cardiovascular disease when compared to family caregivers, of patients randomized to SC. Methods: Of the 459 patients and 211 caregivers enrolled in this trial, patients’ mean age was 66 years, the majority were female (56.2%) and Caucasian (92.6%). Family caregivers had a mean age of 62 years, the majority were female (69%) and Caucasian (87%). Patients were screened for clinical levels of depression, pain, and/or fatigue and then were randomized to the SCC intervention or SC arm (referral to a community provider for treatment). Family caregivers were administered questionnaires and provided blood and anthropometric data to assess risk of CVD using the ASCVD calculator. Family caregivers did not receive the intervention. Health care utilization was collected from the patients' medical record and activity-based costs were used to assess health care savings. Intent to treat analyses using general linear mixed models were employed to test the hypotheses. Results: General linear mixed models revealed an interaction of quadratic time by arm effect with patients who were randomized to the SCC intervention having greater 0-to-6-month improvement in overall QoL versus patients randomized to the SC arm [t(579) = 2.23, p = .0259]. No group difference was observed in 6-to-12 month change in QoL suggesting maintenance of gains were observed at 12 months [t(561) = -1.34, p > .10]. Multivariate analyses showed a similar pattern of more rapid gains in the subscales of QoL at 6-months in the patients randomized to the SCC intervention when compared to patients in the SC arm on the emotional well-being [t(1,856) = 2.27, p = 0.012], functional well-being [t(1, 891) = 1.73, p = 0.042]; and physical well-being subscales [t(1,777) = 1.84, p = 0.033]. Family caregivers, of patients who were randomly assigned to the SCC intervention, had lower lifetime cardiovascular risk, when compared family caregivers of patients who were randomized to the SC (uMVχ2=9.00, p = 0.027). Activity based costs savings of $12,546 per patient per year in activity-based costs were observed for patients randomized to the SCC intervention versus SC. The drivers of the activity-based cost savings appear to be reductions in complication and readmission rates. Conclusions: Cancer centers, and payors, interested in novel delivery and payment models may consider this integrated strategy to improve patient quality of life and save health care costs. Clinical trial information: NCT02944136.

Disclaimer

This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org

Abstract Details

Meeting

2023 ASCO Annual Meeting

Session Type

Publication Only

Session Title

Publication Only: Symptoms and Survivorship

Track

Symptom Science and Palliative Care

Sub Track

Psychosocial and Communication Research

Clinical Trial Registration Number

NCT02944136

Citation

J Clin Oncol 41, 2023 (suppl 16; abstr e24191)

DOI

10.1200/JCO.2023.41.16_suppl.e24191

Abstract #

e24191

Abstract Disclosures