Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up
N/A N=1,494 Randomized Supportive Care

Introducing Palliative Care (PC) Within the Treatment of End Stage Liver Disease (ESLD)

End Stage Liver Disease · Decompensated Cirrhosis of Liver

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

OutcomeResultp-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.

View full record on ClinicalTrials.gov →

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.

Back to search