N/A
N=1,494
Introducing Palliative Care (PC) Within the Treatment of End Stage Liver Disease (ESLD)
End Stage Liver Disease · Decompensated Cirrhosis of Liver
Bottom Line
View on ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03540771 ↗Enrolled (actual)
1,494
Serious AEs
0.0%
Results posted
Oct 2025
Primary outcome: Primary: Quality of Life (QOL) — 7.02; 8.01 score on a scale
Study Design & Population
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- N/A
- Interventions
- Palliative Care (Other)
- Age
- Adult, Older Adult · 18+ yrs
- Sex
- All
- Sponsor
- Albert Einstein Healthcare Network
- Primary completion
- Jun 2025
Outcome Measures
| Outcome | Result | p-value |
|---|---|---|
| PRIMARY Quality of Life (QOL) |
7.02; 8.01 | — |
| SECONDARY Patient's Symptom Burden |
-5.31; -7.52 | — |
| SECONDARY Patient's Depression Severity |
-0.90; -1.18 | — |
| SECONDARY Patient Satisfaction |
0.91; 3.37 | — |
| SECONDARY Distress |
-0.34; -0.27 | — |
| SECONDARY Goal Concordant Care Questionnaire/ GCC (Patients) |
0.17; 0.35; 0.53; 0.71 | — |
| SECONDARY Caregiver Burden (Completed by the Caregivers of Patients Who Were Enrolled as a Dyad). Caregivers Were Consented Separately. |
-0.69; 0.73 | — |
| SECONDARY Caregiver Quality of Life |
0.19; 0.18; -0.10; -0.49 | — |
| SECONDARY Goal Concordant Care/ GCC (Caregivers) |
0.21; 0.45; 0.32; 0.87 | — |
| SECONDARY Mortality Over 12 Months. |
84; 81 | — |
Summary
This is a comparative effectiveness study of two pragmatic models aiming to introduce palliative care for end stage liver disease patients. The 2 comparators are:
Model 1: Consultative Palliative Care (i.e. direct access to Palliative Care provider), Model 2: Trained Hepatologist- led PC intervention (i.e. a hepatologist will receive formal training to deliver Palliative Care services)
Primary Outcome: The change in quality of life from baseline to 3 months post enrollment as assessed by FACT-Hep (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy- Hepatobiliary).
Primary Hypothesis: Compared to consultative PC, the trained hepatologist-led PC for ESLD patients will show superior primary outcome. In the event of nonsignificant superiority, the trained hepatologist-led PC led will show non-inferiority (NI) by ruling out a 4-point reduction (NI margin) in mean of the primary outcome as compared to the consultative PC.
Power: The study has 83.2% power to detect minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 9 points in mean of the primary outcome between the two randomized arms. We have 79.2% power for the noninferiority hypothesis, under assumption that the trained hepatologist-led PC arm performs better than the consultative PC arm by half of the above MCID.
Setting: 19 Clinical Centers across US are recruited to participate in this study.
Qualitative nested study will interview patients, caregivers and providers to assess their experiences with participating in the palliative care trial.
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria
Eligible patients were adults (≥18 years) with:
- cirrhosis and a decompensation event indicative of ESLD (such as ascites, variceal bleeding or hepatic encephalopathy) within the prior 6 months, or
- hepatocellular cancer (HCC) except Barcelona Stage D, or multifocal HCC (as defined by standard guidelines and confirmed by treating hepatologist).
Additional inclusion criteria included English literacy and the capacity to complete study assessments.
Exclusion criteria were hepatologist assessed life expectancy <6 months, prior liver transplantation, anticipated liver transplantation within 3 months, inability to consent, or receipt of PC within the previous three months.
Data sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03540771). Outcome figures and adverse-event rates are extracted automatically from the registry's posted results and are provided for clinician reference, not as a substitute for the primary publication.