No abstract

Older adults are vastly underrepresented in clinical trials in spite of shouldering a disproportionate burden of disease and consumption of prescription drugs and therapies, restricting treatments' generalizability, efficacy, and safety. Eliminating Disparities in Clinical Trials, a national initiative comprising a stakeholder network of researchers, community advocates, policymakers, and federal representatives, undertook a critical analysis of older adults' structural barriers to clinical trial participation. We present practice and policy change recommendations emerging from this process and their rationale, which spanned multiple themes: (1) decision making with cognitively impaired patients; (2) pharmacokinetic differences and physiological age; (3) health literacy, communication, and aging; (4) geriatric training; (5) federal monitoring and accountability; (6) clinical trial costs; and (7) cumulative effects of aging and ethnicity.

Purpose The vast majority of patients with cancer at the end of life receive parenteral hydration in hospitals and no hydration in hospice, with limited evidence supporting either practice. In this randomized controlled trial, we determined the effect of hydration on symptoms associated with dehydration, quality of life, and survival in patients with advanced cancer. Patients and Methods We randomly assigned 129 patients with cancer from six hospices to receive parenteral hydration (normal saline 1 L per day) or placebo (normal saline 100 mL per day) daily over 4 hours. The primary outcome was change in the sum of four dehydration symptoms (fatigue, myoclonus, sedation and hallucinations, 0 = best and 40 = worst possible) between day 4 and baseline. Secondary outcomes included Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS), Nursing Delirium Screening Scale (NuDESC), Unified Myoclonus Rating Scale (UMRS), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–Fatigue (FACIT-F), Dehydration Assessment Scale, creatinine, urea, and overall survival. Intention-to-treat analysis was conducted to examine the change by day 4 ± 2 and day 7 ± 2 between groups. Results The hydration (n = 63) and placebo (n = 66) groups had similar baseline characteristics. We found no significant differences between the two groups for change in the sum of four dehydration symptoms (−3.3 v −2.8, P = .77), ESAS (all nonsignificant), MDAS (1 v 3.5, P = .084), NuDESC (0 v 0, P = .13), and UMRS (0 v 0, P = .54) by day 4. Results for day 7, including FACIT-F, were similar. Overall survival did not differ between the two groups (median, 21 v 15 days, P = .83). Conclusion Hydration at 1 L per day did not improve symptoms, quality of life, or survival compared with placebo.

Purpose The purpose of this study was to identify factors associated with at-home death among patients with advanced cancer and create a decision-making model for discharging patients from an acute-care hospital. Patients and Methods We conducted an observational cohort study to identify the association between place of death and the clinical and demographic characteristics of patients with advanced cancer who received care from a palliative home care team (PHCT) and of their primary caregivers. We used logistic regression analysis to identify the predictors of at-home death. Results We identified 380 patients who met the study inclusion criteria; of these, 245 patients (64%) died at home, 72 (19%) died in an acute-care hospital, 60 (16%) died in a palliative care unit, and three (1%) died in a nursing home. Median follow-up was 48 days. We included the 16 variables that were significant in univariate analysis in our decision-making model. Five variables predictive of at-home death were retained in the multivariate analysis: caregiver's preferred place of death, patients' preferred place of death, caregiver's perceived social support, number of hospital admission days, and number of PHCT visits. A subsequent reduced model including only those variables that were known at the time of discharge (caregivers' preferred place of death, patients' preferred place of death, and caregivers' perceived social support) had a sensitivity of 96% and a specificity of 81% in predicting place of death. Conclusion Asking a few simple patient- and family-centered questions may help to inform the decision regarding the best place for end-of-life care and death.