Background: People with multiple sclerosis (MS) have complex symptoms and different types of needs. These demands include how to manage the burden of physical disability as well as how to organise daily life, restructure social roles in the family and at work, preserve personal identity and community roles, keep self-sufficiency in personal care, and how to be part of an integrated care network. Palliative care teams are trained to keep open full and competent lines of communication about symptoms and disease progression, advanced care planning, and end-of-life issues and wishes. Teams create a treatment plan for the total management of symptoms, supporting people and families on decision-making. Despite advances in research and the existence of many interventions to reduce disease activity or to slow the progression of MS, this condition remains a life-limiting disease with symptoms that impact negatively the lives of people with it and their families.
Objectives: To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of palliative care interventions compared to usual care for people with any form of multiple sclerosis: relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS), secondary-progressive MS (SPMS), primary-progressive MS (PPMS), and progressive-relapsing MS (PRMS) We also aimed to compare the effects of different palliative care interventions.
Search methods: On 31 October 2018, we conducted a literature search in the specialised register of the Cochrane MS and Rare Diseases of the Central Nervous System Review Group, which contains trials from CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, Clinical trials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We also searched PsycINFO, PEDro and Opengrey. We also handsearched relevant journals and screened the reference lists of published reviews. We contacted researchers in palliative care and multiple sclerosis.
Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster randomised trials were eligible for inclusion, as well as the first phase of cross-over trials. We included studies that compared palliative care interventions versus usual care. We also included studies that compared palliative care interventions versus another type of palliative interventions.
Data collection and analysis: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We summarised key results and certainty of evidence in a 'Summary of Finding' table that reported outcomes at six or more months of post-intervention.
Main results: Three studies (146 participants) met our selection criteria. Two studies compared multidisciplinary, fast-track palliative care versus multidisciplinary standard care while on a waiting-list control, and one study compared a multidisciplinary palliative approach versus multidisciplinary standard care at different time points (12, 16, and 24 weeks). Two were RCTs with parallel design (total 94 participants) and one was a cross-over design (52 participants). The three studies assessed palliative care as a home-based intervention. One of the three studies included participants with 'neurodegenerative diseases', with MS people being a subset of the randomised population. We assessed the risk of bias of included studies using Cochrane's 'Risk of Bias' tool.We found no evidence of differences between intervention and control groups in long-time follow-up (> six months post-intervention) for the following outcomes: mean change in health-related quality of life (SEIQoL - higher scores mean better quality of life; MD 4.80, 95% CI -12.32 to 21.92; participants = 62; studies = 1; very low-certainty evidence), serious adverse events (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.12; participants = 76; studies = 1, 22 events, low-certainty evidence) and hospital admission (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.52; participants = 76; studies = 1, 10 events, low-certainty evidence).The three included studies did not assess the following outcomes at long term follow-up (> six months post intervention): fatigue, anxiety, depression, disability, cognitive function, relapse-free survival, and sustained progression-free survival.We did not find any trial that compared different types of palliative care with each other.
Authors' conclusions: Based on the findings of the RCTs included in this review, we are uncertain whether palliative care interventions are beneficial for people with MS. There is low- or very low-certainty evidence regarding the difference between palliative care interventions versus usual care for long-term health-related quality of life, adverse events, and hospital admission in patients with MS. For intermediate-term follow-up, we are also uncertain about the effects of palliative care for the outcomes: health-related quality of life (measured by different assessments: SEIQoL or MSIS), disability, anxiety, and depression.
Conflict of interest statement
Early palliative care for adults with advanced cancer.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Jun 12;6(6):CD011129. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011129.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017. PMID: 28603881 Free PMC article. Review.
Information provision for people with multiple sclerosis.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Oct 14;10(10):CD008757. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008757.pub3. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018. PMID: 30317542 Free PMC article.
Dietary interventions for multiple sclerosis-related outcomes.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 May 19;5:CD004192. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004192.pub4. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020. PMID: 32428983 Review.
Alemtuzumab for multiple sclerosis.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Apr 15;4(4):CD011203. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011203.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016. PMID: 27082500 Free PMC article. Review.
Telephone interventions, delivered by healthcare professionals, for providing education and psychosocial support for informal caregivers of adults with diagnosed illnesses.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 May 14;5(5):CD012533. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012533.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019. PMID: 31087641 Free PMC article.