Publications

BACKGROUND

Although physicians sometimes use the futility rationale to limit the use of life-sustaining treatments, little is known about how surrogate decision makers view this rationale. We sought to determine the attitudes of surrogates of patients who are critically ill toward whether physicians can predict futility and whether these attitudes predict surrogates' willingness to discontinue life support when faced with predictions of futility.

METHODS

This multicenter, mixed qualitative and quantitative study took place at three hospitals in California from 2006 to 2007. We conducted semistructured interviews with surrogate decision makers for 50 patients who were critically ill and incapacitated that addressed their beliefs about medical futility and inductively developed an organizing framework to describe these beliefs. We used a hypothetical scenario with a modified time-trade-off design to examine the relationship between a patient's prognosis and a surrogate's willingness to withdraw life support. We used a mixed-effects regression model to examine the association between surrogates' attitudes about futility and their willingness to limit life support in the face of a very poor prognosis. Validation methods included the use and integration of multiple data sources, multidisciplinary analysis, and member checking.

RESULTS

Sixty-four percent of surrogates (n = 32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 49 to 77%) expressed doubt about the accuracy of physicians' futility predictions, 32% of surrogates (n = 16; 95% CI, 20 to 47%) elected to continue life support with a < 1% survival estimate, and 18% of surrogates (n = 9; 95% CI, 9 to 31%) elected to continue treatment when the physician believed that the patient had no chance of survival. Surrogates with religious objections to the futility rationale (n = 18) were more likely to request continued life support (odds ratio, 4; 95% CI, 1.2 to 14.0; p = 0.03) than those with secular or experiential objections (n = 15; odds ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.3 to 3.4; p = 0.90).

CONCLUSIONS

Doubt about physicians' ability to predict medical futility is common among surrogate decision makers. The nature of the doubt may have implications for responding to conflicts about futility in clinical practice.

Following neuronal injury, microglia initiate repair by phagocytosing dead neurons without eliciting inflammation. Prior evidence indicates triggering receptor expressed by myeloid cells-2 (TREM2) promotes phagocytosis and retards inflammation. However, evidence that microglia and neurons directly interact through TREM2 to orchestrate microglial function is lacking. We here demonstrate that TREM2 interacts with endogenous ligands on neurons. Staining with TREM2-Fc identified TREM2 ligands (TREM2-L) on Neuro2A cells and on cultured cortical and dopamine neurons. Apoptosis greatly increased the expression of TREM2-L. Furthermore, apoptotic neurons stimulated TREM2 signaling, and an anti-TREM2 mAb blocked stimulation. To examine the interaction between TREM2 and TREM2-L in phagocytosis, we studied BV2 microglial cells and their engulfment of apoptotic Neuro2A. One of our anti-TREM2 mAb, but not others, reduced engulfment, suggesting the presence of a functional site on TREM2 interacting with neurons. Further, Chinese hamster ovary cells transfected with TREM2 conferred phagocytic activity of neuronal cells demonstrating that TREM2 is both required and sufficient for competent uptake of apoptotic neuronal cells. Finally, while TREM2-L are expressed on neurons, TREM2 is not; in the brain, it is found on microglia. TREM2 and TREM2-L form a receptor-ligand pair connecting microglia with apoptotic neurons, directing removal of damaged cells to allow repair.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically develop a quality indicator (QI) set for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

METHODS

We used a validated process that combined available scientific evidence and expert consensus to develop a QI set for SLE. We extracted 20 candidate indicators from a systematic literature review of clinical practice guidelines pertaining to SLE. An advisory panel revised and augmented these candidate indicators and, through 2 rounds of voting, arrived at 25 QIs. These QIs advanced to the next phase of the project, in which we employed a modification of the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. A systematic review of the literature was performed for each QI, linking the proposed process of care to potential improved health outcomes. After reviewing this scientific evidence, a second interdisciplinary expert panel convened to discuss the evidence and provide final ratings on the validity and feasibility of each QI.

RESULTS

The final expert panel rated 20 QIs as both valid and feasible. Areas covered included diagnosis, general preventive strategies (e.g., vaccinations, sun avoidance counseling, and screening for cardiovascular disease), osteoporosis prevention and treatment, drug toxicity monitoring, renal disease, and reproductive health.

CONCLUSION

We employed a rigorous multistep approach with systematic literature reviews and 2 expert panels to develop QIs for SLE. This new set of indicators provides an opportunity to assess health care quality in patients with SLE and represents an initial step toward the important goal of improving care in this patient population.