ArticleJAMA network open2026
End-of-Life Antibiotic Use After the Life-Sustaining Treatment Decisions Act in Korea.
Article in JAMA network open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: South Korea's 2018 Life-Sustaining Treatment Decisions (LSTD) Act was enacted to promote patient autonomy, yet its impact on systemic antibiotic utilization near the end of life in patients with advanced cancer remains unexplored. Objective: To evaluate shifts in systemic antibiotic use among end-of-life patients with advanced cancer following the LSTD Act. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used the National Health Insurance Service database to evaluate decedents with 8 major advanced cancers (lung, liver, stomach, colorectal, pancreatic, prostate, gallbladder or biliary tract, and breast). Inverse probability of treatment weighting was performed to balance cancer types, comorbidities, and demographic characteristics. Data were collected and analyzed between October 2025 and February 2026. Exposures: Implementation of the LSTD Act, comparing the pre-LSTD Act (2012-2017) and post-LSTD Act (2018-2023) eras. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were antibiotic prescription proportion and days of therapy (DOT) per 1000 patient-days during the final 6 months of life. Broad-spectrum antibiotics, defined as antipseudomonal β-lactams, carbapenems, or glycopeptides, were separately analyzed. The utilization patterns were evaluated across 5 predefined intervals using odds ratios and risk ratios. A seasonally adjusted monthly interrupted time-series analysis was performed to characterize the longitudinal shifts in DOT during the final months of life. Results: A total of 743 842 eligible decedents (mean [SD] age, 71.9 [12.2] years; 487 690 male [65.6%]) were evaluated, including 348 813 in the pre-LSTD Act era and 395 029 in the post-LSTD Act era. During the final 6 months of life, the overall prescription proportion increased from 88.3% to 90.8% (odds ratio, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.32-1.37), widening particularly in the final 3 months. Similarly, total antibiotic DOT showed a significant overall increase from 231.4 to 261.6 per 1000 patient-days (risk ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.13-1.14) across all intervals. These 2 measures showed comparable trends across broad-spectrum antibiotics and other classes. Monthly interrupted time-series analysis revealed a significant postenactment slope increase in overall antibiotic DOTs (β = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.67-1.21; P < .001), driven largely by other antibiotics alongside the ongoing increase in broad-spectrum antibiotics. Conclusions and Relevance: In this retrospective cohort study of patients with advanced cancer, the LSTD Act was not associated with reduced end-of-life antibiotic use, suggesting the need to reshape perceptions of antibiotics as potential life-sustaining therapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.