Skip to content

An Effectiveness-Implementation Trial of SPIRIT in ESRD

An Effectiveness-Implementation Trial of SPIRIT in ESRD

Status
Completed
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT03138564
Enrollment
852
Registered
2017-05-03
Start date
2018-02-15
Completion date
2025-11-21
Last updated
2026-05-07

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

End Stage Renal Disease

Keywords

Nursing, Nephrology, Behavioral Research, Social Research

Brief summary

Despite advances in dialysis, only 50% of dialysis patients are alive 3 years after the onset of end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Although withdrawal of dialysis precedes 1 in 4 deaths of patients with ESRD, withdrawal from dialysis and aggressive treatment is rarely discussed by patients and their surrogates with sufficient time to consider alternatives such as hospice or dying at home. Over the last decade, the researchers have developed and iteratively tested a patient and family-centered advance care planning intervention based on the Representational Approach to Patient Education called "Sharing Patient's Illness Representation to Increase Trust" (SPIRIT). SPIRIT is a 6-step, 2-session, face-to-face intervention to promote cognitive and emotional preparation for end-of-life decision making for patients with ESRD and their surrogates. This study is a multicenter, clinic-level cluster randomized trial to evaluate the effectiveness of SPIRIT delivered by dialysis care providers as part of routine care in free-standing outpatient dialysis clinics compared to usual care plus delayed SPIRIT implementation. The researchers will recruit 400 dyads of patients at high risk of death in the next year and their surrogates from dialysis clinics in four states. Patients and surrogates will complete questionnaires at baseline and two weeks after the intervention. Surrogates will complete a post-bereavement assessment three months after the death of the patient.

Detailed description

End-stage renal disease (ESRD) currently affects nearly 662,000 people in the U.S. While dialysis is the treatment of choice for over 90% of patients with ESRD and is universally covered by Medicare regardless of patient age or means, the likelihood that dialysis can restore health or prolong life is limited; only 50% of dialysis patients are alive 3 years after the onset of ESRD. Thus many dialysis patients and their family members or surrogate decision-makers have to face difficult end-of-life decisions. Although advance care planning (ACP), in which patients and surrogate decision-makers discuss future health states and treatment options, is a central tenet of dialysis care, the vast majority of dialysis patients (\>90%) report never engaging in ACP discussions with their care providers. The lack of effective ACP to prepare patients and their surrogates for end-of-life decision making with sufficient time before death has deleterious consequences at all levels of society. Consequences have been well documented: prolonged use of futile treatment at the end of life, which misuses the healthcare system, high levels of surrogate distress during decision making, which emanates from not having a clear understanding of the patient's wishes, and surrogates experiencing later sequelae of psychosocial morbidities, such as depression and family discord. "Sharing Patient's Illness Representation to Increase Trust" (SPIRIT), a patient and family-centered ACP intervention based on the Representational Approach to Patient Education, was designed by the research team to establish a testable model of how end-of-life care discussions could occur between a dialysis patient and his/her chosen surrogate (usually a spouse or adult child). The discussions, which are facilitated by a trained care provider, are framed around addressing each individual's representations of (beliefs about) the illness and views of life-sustaining measures at the end of life. SPIRIT follows a six-step learning objective over two-sessions, which together take about 60 minutes. The care provider, who is value-neutral, guides the patient in examining his/her values related to end-of-life care, helps the surrogate understand the patient's illness progression, and prepares the surrogate for his/her role as a surrogate in a highly emotionally charged medical setting. Over the last decade, SPIRIT has been tested to establish feasibility, patient-surrogate acceptability, and efficacy. In these explanatory trials carried out in dialysis clinics, SPIRIT was delivered by trained research nurses. Patients and surrogates in SPIRIT showed significant improvement in preparedness for end-of-life decision making, including the extent to which: a) the patient and surrogate agreed on end-of-life care goals, b) the patient had reduced conflict about the benefits and burdens of life-sustaining treatments, and c) the surrogate had increased confidence about the role of surrogate. Key to establishing the utility of this approach for broader generalizability, surrogates who received SPIRIT reported significantly improved post-bereavement psychological outcomes after the patient's death compared to those who did not. The logical, critical next step is to ask: Will SPIRIT be effective as part of routine care in real-world clinical settings with less control? To address this very issue, the researchers will conduct a real-world effectiveness-implementation study, an essential step prior to widespread implementation of SPIRIT. This study is a multicenter, clinic-level cluster randomized trial to evaluate the effectiveness of SPIRIT delivered by dialysis care providers as part of routine care in free-standing outpatient dialysis clinics compared to usual care plus delayed SPIRIT implementation. Simultaneously, the researchers will evaluate the implementation of SPIRIT, including sustainability. This study will use a Type I effectiveness-implementation hybrid approach that combines testing intervention effectiveness and gathering information about implementation of an efficacious intervention in a real world setting. To maximize data on the implementation process and sustainability, the researchers chose a delayed intervention design in which clinics are randomized either to implement SPIRIT immediately after randomization (i.e., initial implementation) or to maintain usual care for a comparison condition and then implement the intervention in control clinics following conclusion of this clinical trial (i.e., delayed implementation). The intent of the delayed implementation group was provide descriptive data for translation of the intervention into clinical practice (versus data collected on dyad participants in this current study), however, this portion of the study could not be performed due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The short-term goal is to generate sufficient evidence to accelerate the integration of SPIRIT into dialysis practice and policy. This study will recruit 400 dyads of patients at high risk of death in the next year and their surrogates (a total of 800 individuals) from dialysis clinics in four states. The dialysis clinics will be randomized to implement SPIRIT or to maintain usual care to serve as a control to the intervention. Participants will complete a follow-up assessment two weeks after the the study intervention. They will then be observed for 9 months (or until the death of the patient) with an optional extension of the observational period for an additional 12 months, for up to 21 months of observation. Individual patient participation will end after the observation period (9 or 21 months) or death, whichever occurs first; surrogate participation will end after the observation period (9 or 21 months) or at the completion of the post-bereavement surveys which are administered 3-months after the death of the patient (up to 24 months).

Interventions

BEHAVIORALSPIRIT

SPIRIT is a two-session, structured psychoeducational intervention assisting patients clarify their end-of-life preferences and helping surrogates understand the patient's wishes and prepare for the surrogate role. During the first session (about 45 minutes) individualized information is provided about the effectiveness of life-sustaining treatment for people with end-organ failure, and the care provider will assist the patient to examine his/her values about life-sustaining treatment. The surrogate will receive help preparing for end-of-life decision-making and the emotional burden of decision-making. A Goals-of-Care document will be completed to indicate the patient's preferences. Two weeks later, the second session (about 15 minutes) addresses remaining or new concerns. The patient's Goals-of-Care document will be reviewed. The patient's end-of-life preferences and surrogate's name and relationship to the patient will be documented in the medical record.

As required by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), written information on advance directives (ADs) is provided to a patient on the first day of dialysis, and a social worker reviews this information with patients and encourages them to complete an AD. This typically takes about 10 minutes.

Sponsors

Emory University
Lead SponsorOTHER
National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR)
CollaboratorNIH

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
SUPPORTIVE_CARE
Masking
NONE

Intervention model description

Dialysis clinics are randomized to provide the intervention or usual care. Patients of those clinics will be given the opportunity to participate in the study and will receive the intervention or usual care based on which clinic they attend.

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

for Patients: * on either hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis * able to understand and speak English

Exclusion criteria

for Patients: * lack of an available surrogate * too ill or cognitively impaired to participate based on clinicians' judgment * already enrolled in hospice Inclusion Criteria for Surrogates: * are chosen as a surrogate by the patient * paid caregivers who will not be participating in medical decisions for the patient

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Dyad Congruence on Goals-of-Care ToolBaseline, Week 2The Goals-of-Care Tool which includes two scenarios describing medical conditions commonly occurring in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients. Possible responses to the scenarios are: "The goals of care should focus on delaying my death, and thus I want to continue life-sustaining treatment", "The goals of care should focus on my comfort and peace, and thus I do not want life-sustaining treatment, including dialysis", and "I am not sure". Patients and surrogates complete this tool independently and their responses are compared to determine dyad congruence. A dyad is assigned with "1" if each member of the dyad chose the same response (either comfort care only or continue aggressive care) in both scenarios. In all other cases, the dyad is assigned with "0", which includes: 1) the patient and surrogate responses are the same in one of the two scenarios, 2) the patient and surrogate responses differ in both scenarios, and 3) the patient and surrogate responses are both "I am not sure".
Patient's Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) ScoreBaseline, Week 2Patient decisional conflict is measured using the 13-item Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS), a validated measure in the context of end-of-life decision making. Participants indicate their level of agreement with statements about their plans for their future medical care by selecting (1) Strongly Agree, (2) Agree, (3) Neither Agree nor Disagree, (4) Disagree, or (5) Strongly Disagree. The total score ranges from 13 to 65 with higher scores indicating greater difficulty in weighing benefits and burdens of life-sustaining treatments and decision making.
Surrogate's Decision Making Confidence (DMC) Scale ScoreBaseline, Week 2Surrogate decision-making confidence is measured using the 5-item Decision Making Confidence (DMC) scale. Surrogates indicate how confident they are about making medical decisions if the patient becomes unable to make their own decisions by their level of agreement with statements along a scale of (0) "Not confident at all" to (4) "Very confident". Total scores range from 0 to 20, with higher scores indicating greater confidence.
Composite Outcome of Dyad Congruence and Surrogate DMC ScoreBaseline, Week 2The composite outcome combines dyad congruence on Goals-of-Care scenarios and surrogate DMC scores. If the dyad congruence is 1 and the surrogate's DMC \>=3, then the composite outcome value for the dyad is "1". In all other cases, the dyad's composite outcome value is "0".

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
End-of-life Treatment Intensity Among Participants With MedicareUpon patient death (up to 21 months)The use of intensive procedures during end-of-life treatment is identified through the United States Renal Data System (USRDS). Among participants having Medicare, admission to hospice, withdrawal of dialysis, and institutional death were documented.
End-of-life Treatment Intensity Among Participants With Medicare as the Primary PayerUpon patient death (up to 21 months)The use of intensive procedures during end-of-life treatment is identified through the United States Renal Data System (USRDS). Among participants having Medicare as the primary payer, admission to the hospital, intensive care unit, or a skilled nursing facility was documented, as well as intensive procedures of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), intubation, mechanical ventilation, and feeding (gastronomy or jejunal) tube insertion.
Surrogate's Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Anxiety Subscale ScoreBaseline, 3 months after patient death (up to 24 months)Surrogate post-bereavement anxiety symptoms were measured with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Anxiety subscale. Surrogates indicate their level of agreement with statements by selecting responses rated from 0 (the problem in the statement is not an issue) to 3 (the problem in the statement is a very big issue). Scores for the anxiety subscale range from 0 to 21 with higher scores indicating greater symptom severity. A score of 0-7 indicates "normal", 8-10 indicates "borderline abnormal", and 11-21 indicates "abnormal" levels of anxiety.
Surrogate's Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Depression Subscale ScoreBaseline, 3 months after patient death (up to 24 months)Surrogate post-bereavement symptoms of depression were measured with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Depression subscale. Surrogates indicate their level of agreement with statements by selecting responses rated from 0 (the problem in the statement is not an issue) to 3 (the problem in the statement is a very big issue). Total scores of the depression subscale range from 0 to 21 with higher scores indicating greater symptom severity. A score of 0-7 indicates "normal", 8-10 indicates "borderline abnormal", and 11-21 indicates "abnormal" levels of depression.
Surrogate's Post-Traumatic Symptoms Scale-10 (PTSS-10) ScoreBaseline, 3 months after patient death (up to 24 months)Surrogate post-bereavement traumatic distress was measured with the Post-Traumatic Symptoms Scale-10 (PTSS-10). Surrogates indicate how often they have experienced symptoms of post-traumatic stress by responding to 10 symptoms on a scale of 1 to 7 where 1 = "never" and 7 = "always". Total scale scores range from 10 to 70 and higher scores indicate more intense symptoms.

Countries

United States

Contacts

PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATORMi-Kyung Song, PhD, RN

Emory University

Participant flow

Recruitment details

Participants were recruited from multiple dialysis centers in Georgia, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, USA. Participant enrollment began on February 15, 2018, and follow-up assessments for the primary outcome measures at Week 2 were completed on March 24, 2022. Data collection for secondary outcome measures with surrogates three months after the patient's death was completed July 29, 2022.

Pre-assignment details

42 clinics were enrolled with 23 randomized to the SPIRIT and 19 randomized to usual care. One SPIRIT clinic and 2 control clinics were excluded prior to study initiation. There were 557 eligible patients in SPIRIT clinics and 264 dyads consented to participate; of these, 33 dyads withdrew or became ineligible prior to the baseline visit. In control clinics there were 293 eligible patients and 210 dyads consented to participate; 15 dyads withdrew or became ineligible prior to the baseline visit.

Participants by arm

ArmCount
SPIRIT Clinic - Patients
Patients receiving care at clinics randomized to the SPIRIT intervention
231
SPIRIT Clinic - Surrogates
Surrogates of patients receiving care at clinics randomized to the SPIRIT intervention
231
Comparison Condition Clinic - Patients
Patients receiving care at clinics randomized to the control condition
195
Comparison Condition Clinic - Surrogates
Surrogates of patients receiving care at clinics randomized to the control condition
195
Total852

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicSPIRIT Clinic - PatientsTotalComparison Condition Clinic - SurrogatesComparison Condition Clinic - PatientsSPIRIT Clinic - Surrogates
Age, Continuous61.5 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 12.8
57.8 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 14.6
54.3 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 16.1
62.4 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 12.5
53.2 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 14.7
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Hispanic or Latino
9 Participants28 Participants8 Participants5 Participants6 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Not Hispanic or Latino
222 Participants822 Participants185 Participants190 Participants225 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
0 Participants2 Participants2 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
American Indian or Alaska Native
1 Participants6 Participants1 Participants3 Participants1 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Asian
1 Participants2 Participants0 Participants0 Participants1 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Black or African American
161 Participants584 Participants132 Participants132 Participants159 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
More than one race
2 Participants11 Participants1 Participants4 Participants4 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
0 Participants9 Participants4 Participants3 Participants2 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
White
66 Participants240 Participants57 Participants53 Participants64 Participants
Region of Enrollment
United States
231 participants852 participants195 participants195 participants231 participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
121 Participants538 Participants152 Participants97 Participants168 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
110 Participants314 Participants43 Participants98 Participants63 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
EG002
affected / at risk
EG003
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
54 / 2311 / 23135 / 1950 / 195
other
Total, other adverse events
0 / 2310 / 2310 / 1950 / 195
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 2310 / 2310 / 1950 / 195

Outcome results

Primary

Composite Outcome of Dyad Congruence and Surrogate DMC Score

The composite outcome combines dyad congruence on Goals-of-Care scenarios and surrogate DMC scores. If the dyad congruence is 1 and the surrogate's DMC \>=3, then the composite outcome value for the dyad is 1. In all other cases, the dyad's composite outcome value is 0.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 2

Population: The number of participants analyzed reflects the number of persons with ESRD and surrogate dyads (two persons per dyad). This analysis includes dyads who both completed the assessments at the indicated study visit.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
SPIRIT Clinic - SurrogatesComposite Outcome of Dyad Congruence and Surrogate DMC ScoreNumber of Dyads Where Week 2 Post-Intervention Composite Outcome = 1107 dyads
SPIRIT Clinic - SurrogatesComposite Outcome of Dyad Congruence and Surrogate DMC ScoreNumber of Dyads Where Baseline Composite Outcome = 0139 dyads
SPIRIT Clinic - SurrogatesComposite Outcome of Dyad Congruence and Surrogate DMC ScoreNumber of Dyads Where Week 2 Post-Intervention Composite Outcome = 075 dyads
SPIRIT Clinic - SurrogatesComposite Outcome of Dyad Congruence and Surrogate DMC ScoreNumber of Dyads Where Baseline Composite Outcome = 192 dyads
Comparison Condition Clinic - SurrogatesComposite Outcome of Dyad Congruence and Surrogate DMC ScoreNumber of Dyads Where Week 2 Post-Intervention Composite Outcome = 097 dyads
Comparison Condition Clinic - SurrogatesComposite Outcome of Dyad Congruence and Surrogate DMC ScoreNumber of Dyads Where Baseline Composite Outcome = 0121 dyads
Comparison Condition Clinic - SurrogatesComposite Outcome of Dyad Congruence and Surrogate DMC ScoreNumber of Dyads Where Week 2 Post-Intervention Composite Outcome = 190 dyads
Comparison Condition Clinic - SurrogatesComposite Outcome of Dyad Congruence and Surrogate DMC ScoreNumber of Dyads Where Baseline Composite Outcome = 174 dyads
Primary

Dyad Congruence on Goals-of-Care Tool

The Goals-of-Care Tool which includes two scenarios describing medical conditions commonly occurring in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients. Possible responses to the scenarios are: The goals of care should focus on delaying my death, and thus I want to continue life-sustaining treatment, The goals of care should focus on my comfort and peace, and thus I do not want life-sustaining treatment, including dialysis, and I am not sure. Patients and surrogates complete this tool independently and their responses are compared to determine dyad congruence. A dyad is assigned with 1 if each member of the dyad chose the same response (either comfort care only or continue aggressive care) in both scenarios. In all other cases, the dyad is assigned with 0, which includes: 1) the patient and surrogate responses are the same in one of the two scenarios, 2) the patient and surrogate responses differ in both scenarios, and 3) the patient and surrogate responses are both I am not sure.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 2

Population: The number of participants analyzed reflects the number of persons with ESRD and surrogate dyads (two persons per dyad). This analysis includes dyads who both completed the assessment at the indicated study visit.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
SPIRIT Clinic - SurrogatesDyad Congruence on Goals-of-Care ToolNumber of Congruent Dyads at Baseline (assigned value = 1)98 dyads
SPIRIT Clinic - SurrogatesDyad Congruence on Goals-of-Care ToolNumber of Incongruent Dyads at Baseline (assigned value = 0)133 dyads
SPIRIT Clinic - SurrogatesDyad Congruence on Goals-of-Care ToolNumber of Congruent Dyads at 2 Weeks Post-Intervention (assigned value = 1)111 dyads
SPIRIT Clinic - SurrogatesDyad Congruence on Goals-of-Care ToolNumber of Incongruent Dyads at 2 Weeks Post-Intervention (assigned value = 0)71 dyads
Comparison Condition Clinic - SurrogatesDyad Congruence on Goals-of-Care ToolNumber of Incongruent Dyads at 2 Weeks Post-Intervention (assigned value = 0)93 dyads
Comparison Condition Clinic - SurrogatesDyad Congruence on Goals-of-Care ToolNumber of Congruent Dyads at Baseline (assigned value = 1)76 dyads
Comparison Condition Clinic - SurrogatesDyad Congruence on Goals-of-Care ToolNumber of Congruent Dyads at 2 Weeks Post-Intervention (assigned value = 1)94 dyads
Comparison Condition Clinic - SurrogatesDyad Congruence on Goals-of-Care ToolNumber of Incongruent Dyads at Baseline (assigned value = 0)119 dyads
Primary

Patient's Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) Score

Patient decisional conflict is measured using the 13-item Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS), a validated measure in the context of end-of-life decision making. Participants indicate their level of agreement with statements about their plans for their future medical care by selecting (1) Strongly Agree, (2) Agree, (3) Neither Agree nor Disagree, (4) Disagree, or (5) Strongly Disagree. The total score ranges from 13 to 65 with higher scores indicating greater difficulty in weighing benefits and burdens of life-sustaining treatments and decision making.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 2

Population: This analysis includes patient participants who completed the DCS. One participant in the comparison condition study arm did not answer all items on the scale at the baseline visit and thus their total score could not be computed.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
SPIRIT Clinic - SurrogatesPatient's Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) ScoreBaseline25.6 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 6.22
SPIRIT Clinic - SurrogatesPatient's Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) ScoreTwo Weeks Post-Intervention23.4 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 5.94
Comparison Condition Clinic - SurrogatesPatient's Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) ScoreBaseline24.8 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 5.82
Comparison Condition Clinic - SurrogatesPatient's Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) ScoreTwo Weeks Post-Intervention24.1 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 5.78
Primary

Surrogate's Decision Making Confidence (DMC) Scale Score

Surrogate decision-making confidence is measured using the 5-item Decision Making Confidence (DMC) scale. Surrogates indicate how confident they are about making medical decisions if the patient becomes unable to make their own decisions by their level of agreement with statements along a scale of (0) Not confident at all to (4) Very confident. Total scores range from 0 to 20, with higher scores indicating greater confidence.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 2

Population: This analysis includes participants completing the indicated study visit.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
SPIRIT Clinic - SurrogatesSurrogate's Decision Making Confidence (DMC) Scale ScoreBaseline18.2 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.73
SPIRIT Clinic - SurrogatesSurrogate's Decision Making Confidence (DMC) Scale ScoreTwo Weeks Post-Intervention18.9 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.73
Comparison Condition Clinic - SurrogatesSurrogate's Decision Making Confidence (DMC) Scale ScoreBaseline18.3 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.59
Comparison Condition Clinic - SurrogatesSurrogate's Decision Making Confidence (DMC) Scale ScoreTwo Weeks Post-Intervention18.6 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.16
Secondary

End-of-life Treatment Intensity

The use of intensive procedures during end-of-life treatment will be identified through the United States Renal Data System (USRDS). The use of mechanical ventilation as part of the patient's end-of-life (EOL) treatment will be documented (e.g., mechanical ventilation, feeding tube, dialysis, CPR). The EoL treatment intensity data acquisition will take at least two more years after the participant's death due to the 2-year gap in the administrative data release.

Time frame: Upon patient death (up to 21 months)

Secondary

Surrogate's Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Anxiety Subscale Score

Surrogate post-bereavement anxiety symptoms were measured with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Anxiety subscale. Surrogates indicate their level of agreement with statements by selecting responses rated from 0 (the problem in the statement is not an issue) to 3 (the problem in the statement is a very big issue). Scores for the anxiety subscale range from 0 to 21 with higher scores indicating greater symptom severity. A score of 0-7 indicates normal, 8-10 indicates borderline abnormal, and 11-21 indicates abnormal levels of anxiety.

Time frame: Baseline, 3 months after patient death (up to 24 months)

Population: This analysis includes surrogates from dyads where the patient died during the follow-up period. Per the intent to treat analysis, surrogates of 89 deceased patients were to be analyzed, and baseline values are presented for these participants. Twelve did not complete the post-bereavement survey due to being lost to follow-up or not consenting to participate in the extended follow-up. Baseline and post-bereavement scores are presented for the 77 who completed the post-bereavement assessment.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
SPIRIT Clinic - SurrogatesSurrogate's Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Anxiety Subscale ScoreBaseline for all surrogates where the patient died during the follow-up period4.80 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.99
SPIRIT Clinic - SurrogatesSurrogate's Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Anxiety Subscale ScoreBaseline for surrogates who completed the post-bereavement assessment4.85 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.07
SPIRIT Clinic - SurrogatesSurrogate's Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Anxiety Subscale ScorePost-bereavement assessment (3 months after patient death)5.59 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.58
Comparison Condition Clinic - SurrogatesSurrogate's Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Anxiety Subscale ScoreBaseline for all surrogates where the patient died during the follow-up period4.89 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.83
Comparison Condition Clinic - SurrogatesSurrogate's Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Anxiety Subscale ScoreBaseline for surrogates who completed the post-bereavement assessment4.61 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.81
Comparison Condition Clinic - SurrogatesSurrogate's Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Anxiety Subscale ScorePost-bereavement assessment (3 months after patient death)6.71 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.72
Secondary

Surrogate's Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Depression Subscale Score

Surrogate post-bereavement symptoms of depression were measured with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Depression subscale. Surrogates indicate their level of agreement with statements by selecting responses rated from 0 (the problem in the statement is not an issue) to 3 (the problem in the statement is a very big issue). Total scores of the depression subscale range from 0 to 21 with higher scores indicating greater symptom severity. A score of 0-7 indicates normal, 8-10 indicates borderline abnormal, and 11-21 indicates abnormal levels of depression.

Time frame: Baseline, 3 months after patient death (up to 24 months)

Population: This analysis includes surrogates from dyads where the patient died during the follow-up period. Per the intent to treat analysis, surrogates of 89 deceased patients were to be analyzed, and baseline values are presented for these participants. Twelve did not complete the post-bereavement survey due to being lost to follow-up or not consenting to participate in the extended follow-up. Baseline and post-bereavement scores are presented for the 77 who completed the post-bereavement assessment.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
SPIRIT Clinic - SurrogatesSurrogate's Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Depression Subscale ScoreBaseline for all surrogates where the patient died during the follow-up period3.28 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.62
SPIRIT Clinic - SurrogatesSurrogate's Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Depression Subscale ScoreBaseline for surrogates who completed the post-bereavement assessment3.04 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.36
SPIRIT Clinic - SurrogatesSurrogate's Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Depression Subscale ScorePost-bereavement assessment (3 months after patient death)4.26 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.94
Comparison Condition Clinic - SurrogatesSurrogate's Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Depression Subscale ScoreBaseline for all surrogates where the patient died during the follow-up period2.83 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.8
Comparison Condition Clinic - SurrogatesSurrogate's Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Depression Subscale ScoreBaseline for surrogates who completed the post-bereavement assessment2.71 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.76
Comparison Condition Clinic - SurrogatesSurrogate's Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Depression Subscale ScorePost-bereavement assessment (3 months after patient death)4.23 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.69
Secondary

Surrogate's Post-Traumatic Symptoms Scale-10 (PTSS-10) Score

Surrogate post-bereavement traumatic distress was measured with the Post-Traumatic Symptoms Scale-10 (PTSS-10). Surrogates indicate how often they have experienced symptoms of post-traumatic stress by responding to 10 symptoms on a scale of 1 to 7 where 1 = never and 7 = always. Total scale scores range from 10 to 70 and higher scores indicate more intense symptoms.

Time frame: Baseline, 3 months after patient death (up to 24 months)

Population: This analysis includes surrogates from dyads where the patient died during the follow-up period. Per the intent to treat analysis, surrogates of 89 deceased patients were to be analyzed, and baseline values are presented for these participants. Twelve did not complete the post-bereavement survey due to being lost to follow-up or not consenting to participate in the extended follow-up. Baseline and post-bereavement scores are presented for the 77 who completed the post-bereavement assessment.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
SPIRIT Clinic - SurrogatesSurrogate's Post-Traumatic Symptoms Scale-10 (PTSS-10) ScoreBaseline for all surrogates where the patient died during the follow-up period19.96 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 9.24
SPIRIT Clinic - SurrogatesSurrogate's Post-Traumatic Symptoms Scale-10 (PTSS-10) ScoreBaseline for surrogates who completed the post-bereavement assessment19.30 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 7.81
SPIRIT Clinic - SurrogatesSurrogate's Post-Traumatic Symptoms Scale-10 (PTSS-10) ScorePost-bereavement assessment (3 months after patient death)26.4 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 12.2
Comparison Condition Clinic - SurrogatesSurrogate's Post-Traumatic Symptoms Scale-10 (PTSS-10) ScoreBaseline for all surrogates where the patient died during the follow-up period21.97 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 9.87
Comparison Condition Clinic - SurrogatesSurrogate's Post-Traumatic Symptoms Scale-10 (PTSS-10) ScoreBaseline for surrogates who completed the post-bereavement assessment21.97 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 10.26
Comparison Condition Clinic - SurrogatesSurrogate's Post-Traumatic Symptoms Scale-10 (PTSS-10) ScorePost-bereavement assessment (3 months after patient death)29.3 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 13.3

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: May 8, 2026