Explore the vast range of titles available.

Communication with family of critically ill patients is often poor and associated with family distress. To determine if an intensive care unit (ICU) communication facilitator reduces family distress and intensity of end-of-life care. We conducted a randomized trial at two hospitals. Eligible patients had a predicted mortality greater than or equal to 30% and a surrogate decision maker. Facilitators supported communication between clinicians and families, adapted communication to family needs, and mediated conflict. Outcomes included depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among family 3 and 6 months after ICU and resource use. We identified 488 eligible patients and randomized 168. Of 352 eligible family members, 268 participated (76%). Family follow-up at 3 and 6 months ranged from 42 to 47%. The intervention was associated with decreased depressive symptoms at 6 months (P = 0.017), but there were no significant differences in psychological symptoms at 3 months or anxiety or PTSD at 6 months. The intervention was not associated with ICU mortality (25% control vs. 21% intervention; P = 0.615) but decreased ICU costs among all patients (per patient: $75,850 control, $51,060 intervention; P = 0.042) and particularly among decedents ($98,220 control, $22,690 intervention; P = 0.028). Among decedents, the intervention reduced ICU and hospital length of stay (28.5 vs. 7.7 d and 31.8 vs. 8.0 d, respectively; P < 0.001). Communication facilitators may be associated with decreased family depressive symptoms at 6 months, but we found no significant difference at 3 months or in anxiety or PTSD. The intervention reduced costs and length of stay, especially among decedents. This is the first study to find a reduction in intensity of end-of-life care with similar or improved family distress. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 00720200).

To compare the efficacy to prevent flares of maintenance versus withdrawal of 5 mg/day prednisone in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients with clinically quiescent disease. A monocentric, 12-month, superiority, open-label, randomised (1:1) controlled trial was conducted with 61 patients continuing 5 mg/day prednisone and 63 stopping it. Eligibility criteria were SLE patients who, during the year preceding the inclusion, had a clinically inactive disease and a stable SLE treatment including 5 mg/day prednisone. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patient experiencing a flare defined with the SELENA-SLEDAI flare index (SFI) at 52 weeks. Secondary endpoints included time to flare, flare severity according to SFI and British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG) index and increase in the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) damage index (SDI). Proportion of patients experiencing a flare was significantly lower in the maintenance group as compared with the withdrawal group (4 patients vs 17; RR 0.2 (95% CI 0.1 to 0.7), p=0.003). Maintenance of 5 mg prednisone was superior with respect to time to first flare (HR 0.2; 95% CI 0.1 to 0.6, p=0.002), occurrence of mild/moderate flares using the SFI (3 patients vs 12; RR 0.2 (95% CI 0.1 to 0.8), p=0.012) and occurrence of moderate/severe flares using the BILAG index (1 patient vs 8; RR 0.1 (95% CI 0.1 to 0.9), p=0.013). SDI increase and adverse events were similar in the two treatment groups. Subgroup analyses of the primary endpoint by predefined baseline characteristics did not show evidence of a different clinical response. Maintenance of long term 5 mg prednisone in SLE patients with inactive disease prevents relapse. NCT02558517; Results.

Great differences in end-of-life practices in treating the critically ill around the world warrant agreement regarding the major ethical principles. This analysis determines the extent of worldwide consensus for end-of-life practices, delineates where there is and is not consensus, and analyzes reasons for lack of consensus. Critical care societies worldwide were invited to participate. Country coordinators were identified and draft statements were developed for major end-of-life issues and translated into six languages. Multidisciplinary responses using a web-based survey assessed agreement or disagreement with definitions and statements linked to anonymous demographic information. Consensus was prospectively defined as >80% agreement. Definitions and statements not obtaining consensus were revised based on comments of respondents, and then translated and redistributed. Of the initial 1,283 responses from 32 countries, consensus was found for 66 (81%) of the 81 definitions and statements; 26 (32%) had >90% agreement. With 83 additional responses to the original questionnaire (1,366 total) and 604 responses to the revised statements, consensus could be obtained for another 11 of the 15 statements. Consensus was obtained for informed consent, withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment, legal requirements, intensive care unit therapies, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, shared decision making, medical and nursing consensus, brain death, and palliative care. Consensus was obtained for 77 of 81 (95%) statements. Worldwide consensus could be developed for the majority of definitions and statements about end-of-life practices. Statements achieving consensus provide standards of practice for end-of-life care; statements without consensus identify important areas for future research.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of the immunotherapeutic vaccine interferon-α kinoid (IFN-K) in a 36-week (W) phase IIb, randomised, double-blind, placebo (PBO)-controlled trial in adults with active systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) despite standard of care.MethodsPatients with SLE (185) with moderate to severe disease activity and positive interferon (IFN) gene signature were randomised to receive IFN-K or PBO intramuscular injections (days 0, 7 and 28 and W12 and W24). Coprimary endpoints at W36 were neutralisation of IFN gene signature and the BILAG-Based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA) modified by mandatory corticosteroid (CS) tapering.ResultsIFN-K induced neutralising anti-IFN-α2b serum antibodies in 91% of treated patients and reduced the IFN gene signature (p<0.0001). Modified BICLA responses at W36 did not statistically differ between IFN-K (41%) and PBO (34%). Trends on Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Responder Index-4, including steroid tapering at W36, favoured the IFN-K and became significant (p<0.05) in analyses restricted to patients who developed neutralising anti-IFN-α2b antibodies. Attainment of lupus low disease activity state (LLDAS) at W36 discriminated the two groups in favour of IFN-K (53% vs 30%, p=0.0022). A significant CS sparing effect of IFN-K was observed from W28 onwards, with a 24% prednisone daily dose reduction at W36 in IFN-K compared with PBO (p=0.0097). The safety profile of IFN-K was acceptable.ConclusionsIFN-K induced neutralising anti-IFN-α2b antibodies and significantly reduced the IFN gene signature with an acceptable safety profile. Although the clinical coprimary endpoint was not met, relevant secondary endpoints were achieved in the IFN-K group, including attainment of LLDAS and steroid tapering.Trial registration numberNCT02665364.

PurposeIn critically ill adults, withholding parenteral nutrition until 1 week after intensive care admission (Late-PN) facilitated recovery as compared with early supplementation of insufficient enteral nutrition with parenteral nutrition (Early-PN). However, the impact on long-term mortality and functional outcome, in relation to the estimated nutritional risk, remains unclear.MethodsIn this prospective follow-up study of the multicenter EPaNIC randomized controlled trial, we investigated the impact of Late-PN on 2-year mortality (N = 4640) and physical functioning, assessed by the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36; in 3292 survivors, responding 819 [738–1058] days post-randomization). To account for missing data, we repeated the analyses in two imputed models. To identify potential heterogeneity of treatment effects, we investigated the impact of Late-PN in different nutritional risk subgroups as defined by Nutritional Risk Screening-2002-score, modified NUTrition Risk in the Critically Ill-score, and age (above/below 70 years), and we evaluated whether there was statistically significant interaction between classification to a nutritional risk subgroup and the effect of the randomized intervention. Secondary outcomes were SF-36-derived physical and mental component scores (PCS & MCS).ResultsTwo-year mortality (20.5% in Late-PN, 19.8% in Early-PN; P = 0.54) and physical functioning (70 [40–90] in both study-arms; P = 0.99) were similar in both groups, also after imputation of missing physical functioning data. Likewise, Late-PN had no impact on 2-year mortality and physical functioning in any nutritional risk subgroup. PCS and MCS were similar in both groups.ConclusionLate-PN did not alter 2-year survival and physical functioning in adult critically ill patients, independent of anticipated nutritional risk.

The long-term impact of tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) discontinuation on resistance and survival in patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST) is unclear. We report the exploratory long-term outcomes of patients with advanced GIST stopping imatinib in the BFR14 trial. BFR14, an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial, was done in 17 comprehensive cancer centres or hospitals across France. Patients with advanced GIST aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–3, no previous treatment with imatinib, and no previous malignancy were eligible. Patients were treated with oral imatinib 400 mg daily. Patients with a complete or partial response, or stable disease, according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (1.0) at 1 year, 3 years, and 5 years from the start of treatment were randomly assigned (1:1) to treatment discontinuation until progression (interruption group) or treatment continuation until progression (continuation group). Randomisation was done centrally with computer-generated permuted blocks of two and six patients stratified by participating centre and presence or absence of residual disease on CT scan. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Secondary endpoints included time to imatinib resistance and overall survival. Analyses were conducted on an intention-to-treat basis in all randomly assigned patients who were not lost to follow-up. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrial.gov, NCT00367861. Between May 12, 2003, and March 16, 2004, after 1 year of imatinib, 32 patients were randomly assigned to the interruption group and 26 to the continuation group. Between June 13, 2005, and May 30, 2007, after 3 years of imatinib, 25 patients were randomly assigned to the interruption group and 25 to the continuation group. Between Nov 9, 2007, and July 12, 2010, after 5 years of imatinib, 14 patients were randomly assigned to the interruption group and 13 to the continuation group. Median follow-up was 235·2 months (IQR 128·8–236·6) after the 1-year randomisation, 200·9 months (190·2–208·4) after the 3-year randomisation, and 164·5 months (134·4–176·4) after the 5-year randomisation. Median progression-free survival in the interruption group versus the continuation group after 1 year of imatinib was 6·1 months (95% CI 2·5–10·1) versus 27·8 months (19·5–37·9; hazard ratio [HR] 0·36 [95% CI 0·20–0·64], log-rank p=0·0003), after 3 years of imatinib was 7·0 months (3·5–11·7) versus 67·0 months (48·8–85·6; 0·15 [0·07–0·32], log-rank p<0·0001), and after 5 years of imatinib was 12·0 months (9·0–16·6) versus not reached (NR; NR–NR; 0·13 [0·03–0·58], log-rank p=0·0016). The median time to imatinib resistance after 1 year of imatinib was 28·7 months (95% CI 18·1–39·1) versus 90·6 months (25·3–156·1; HR 0·93 [95% CI 0·51–1·71], log-rank p=0·82), after 3 years was 66·2 months (43·0–89·6) versus 127·3 months (15·0–239·7; 0·35 [0·17–0·72, log-rank p=0·0028), and after 5 years was 58·6 months (0·0–167·4) versus NR (NR–NR; 0·24 [0·05–1·12], log-rank p=0·049). Median overall survival after 1 year of imatinib was 56·0 months (95% CI 30·3–82·9) versus 105·0 months (20·6–189·6; HR 0·84 [95% CI 0·46–1·54], log-rank p=0·57), after 3 years was 104·0 months (90·7–118·7) versus 134·0 months (89·7–178·3; 0·40 [0·20–0·82], log-rank p=0·0096), and after 5 years was NR (NR–NR) versus 110·4 months (82·7–154·1; 1·28 [0·41–3·99]; log-rank p=0·67), Imatinib interruption in patients with GIST without progressive disease is not recommended. Imatinib interruption in non-progressing patients with GIST was associated with rapid progression, faster resistance to imatinib, and shorter overall survival in the long-term follow-up when compared with imatinib continuation in patients after 3 years and 5 years of imatinib. Centre Léon Bérard, INCa, CONTICANET, Ligue Contre le Cancer, and Novartis.

Purpose Prior studies identified high variability in prevalence of withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment in the ICU. Variability in end-of-life decision-making has been reported at many levels: between countries, ICUs, and individual intensivists. We performed a systematic review examining regional, national, inter-hospital, and inter-physician variability in withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment in the ICU. Methods Using a predefined search strategy, we queried three electronic databases for peer-reviewed articles addressing withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment in adult patients in the ICU. Data were analyzed for variability in prevalence of withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. Withholding of life-sustaining treatment was also examined where information was provided. An assessment tool was developed to quantify the risk of bias in the included articles. Results We identified 1284 studies, with 56 included after review. Most studies had unclear or high risk of bias, primarily due to unclear case definitions or potential confounding. The mean prevalence of withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment for patients who died varied from 0 to 84.1 % between studies, with standard deviation of 23.7 %. Sensitivity analysis of general ICU patients yielded similar results. Withholding also varied between 5.3 and 67.3 % (mean 27.3, SD 18.5 %). Substantial variability was found between world regions, countries, individual ICUs within a country, and individual intensivists within one ICU. Conclusions We identified substantial variability in the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment across world regions and countries. Similar variability existed between ICUs within countries and even between providers within the same ICU. Further study is necessary, and could lead to interventions to improve end-of-life care in the ICU.

PurposeTo document and analyse the decision to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment (LST) in a population of very old patients admitted to the ICU.MethodsThis prospective study included intensive care patients aged ≥ 80 years in 309 ICUs from 21 European countries with 30-day mortality follow-up.ResultsLST limitation was identified in 1356/5021 (27.2%) of patients: 15% had a withholding decision and 12.2% a withdrawal decision (including those with a previous withholding decision). Patients with LST limitation were older, more frail, more severely ill and less frequently electively admitted. Patients with withdrawal of LST were more frequently male and had a longer ICU length of stay. The ICU and 30-day mortality were, respectively, 29.1 and 53.1% in the withholding group and 82.2% and 93.1% in the withdrawal group. LST was less frequently limited in eastern and southern European countries than in northern Europe. The patient-independent factors associated with LST limitation were: acute ICU admission (OR 5.77, 95% CI 4.32–7.7), Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) score (OR 2.08, 95% CI 1.78–2.42), increased age (each 5 years of increase in age had a OR of 1.22 (95% CI 1.12–1.34) and SOFA score [OR of 1.07 (95% CI 1.05–1.09 per point)]. The frequency of LST limitation was higher in countries with high GDP and was lower in religious countries.ConclusionsThe most important patient variables associated with the instigation of LST limitation were acute admission, frailty, age, admission SOFA score and country.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov (ID: NTC03134807).

Background: A phase II randomised discontinuation trial assessed cabozantinib (XL184), an orally bioavailable inhibitor of tyrosine kinases including VEGF receptors, MET, and AXL, in a cohort of patients with metastatic melanoma. Methods: Patients received cabozantinib 100 mg daily during a 12-week lead-in. Patients with stable disease (SD) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) at week 12 were randomised to cabozantinib or placebo. Primary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) at week 12 and postrandomisation progression-free survival (PFS). Results: Seventy-seven patients were enroled (62% cutaneous, 30% uveal, and 8% mucosal). At week 12, the ORR was 5%; 39% of patients had SD. During the lead-in phase, reduction in target lesions from baseline was seen in 55% of evaluable patients overall and in 59% of evaluable patients with uveal melanoma. Median PFS after randomisation was 4.1 months with cabozantinib and 2.8 months with placebo (hazard ratio of 0.59; P =0.284). Median PFS from study day 1 was 3.8 months, 6-month PFS was 33%, and median overall survival was 9.4 months. The most common grade 3/4 adverse events were fatigue (14%), hypertension (10%), and abdominal pain (8%). One treatment-related death was reported from peritonitis due to diverticular perforation. Conclusions: Cabozantinib has clinical activity in patients with metastatic melanoma, including uveal melanoma. Further clinical investigation is warranted.

Background Withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment in end-of-life patients is a challenging ethical issue faced by physicians. Understanding physicians’ experiences and factors influencing their decisions can lead to improvement in end-of-life care. Objectives To investigate the experiences of Thai physicians when making decisions regarding the withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments in end-of-life situations. Additionally, the study aims to assess the consensus among physicians regarding the factors that influence these decisions and to explore the influence of families or surrogates on the decision-making process of physicians, utilizing case-based surveys. Methods A web-based survey was conducted among physicians practicing in Chiang Mai University Hospital (June - October 2022). Results Among 251 physicians (response rate 38.3%), most of the respondents (60.6%) reported that they experienced withholding or withdrawal treatment in end-of-life patients. Factors that influence their decision-making include patient’s preferences (100%), prognosis (93.4%), patients’ quality of life (92.8%), treatment burden (89.5%), and families’ request (87.5%). For a chronic disease with comatose condition, the majority of the physicians (47%) chose to continue treatments, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). In contrast, only 2 physicians (0.8%) would do everything, in cases when families or surrogates insisted on stopping the treatment. This increased to 78.1% if the families insisted on continuing treatment. Conclusion Withholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments are common in Thailand. The key factors influencing their decision-making process included patient’s preferences and medical conditions and families’ requests. Effective communication and early engagement in advanced care planning between physicians, patients, and families empower them to align treatment choices with personal values.