Background: Patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers have substantial misperceptions regarding hospice, which contributes to its underuse.
Methods: The authors conducted a single-site randomized trial of a video educational tool versus a verbal description of hospice in 150 hospitalized patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers. Patients without a caregiver were eligible. Intervention participants (75 patients and 18 caregivers) viewed a 6-minute video depicting hospice. Control participants (75 patients and 26 caregivers) received a verbal description identical to the video narrative. The primary outcome was patient preference for hospice. Secondary outcomes included patient and/or caregiver knowledge and perceptions of hospice, and hospice use.
Results: Between February 2017 and January 2019, approximately 55.7% of eligible patients (150 of 269 eligible patients) and 44 caregivers were enrolled. After the intervention, there was no difference noted with regard to patients' preferences for hospice (86.7% vs 82.7%; P = .651). Patients in the video group reported greater knowledge regarding hospice (9.0 vs 8.4; P = .049) and were less likely to endorse that hospice is only about death (6.7% vs 21.6%; P = .010). Among deceased patients, those assigned to the intervention were more likely to have used hospice (85.2% vs 63.6%; P = .01) and to have had a longer hospice length of stay (median, 12 days vs 3 days; P < .001). After the intervention, caregivers assigned to view the video were more likely to prefer hospice for their loved ones (94.4% vs 65.4%; P = .031), reported greater knowledge concerning hospice (9.7% vs 8.0%; P = .001), and were less likely to endorse that hospice is only about death (0.0% vs 23.1%; P = .066).
Conclusions: A hospice video did not significantly impact patients' preferences for hospice care. Patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers who were assigned to view the video were more informed regarding hospice and reported more favorable perceptions of hospice. Patients were more likely to use hospice and to have a longer hospice length of stay.
Background: The role of neuroleptics for terminal agitated delirium is controversial. We assessed the effect of three neuroleptic strategies on refractory agitation in patients with cancer with terminal delirium.
Methods: In this single-centre, double-blind, parallel-group, randomised trial, patients with advanced cancer, aged at least 18 years, admitted to the palliative and supportive care unit at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (Houston, TX, USA), with refractory agitation, despite low-dose haloperidol, were randomly assigned to receive intravenous haloperidol dose escalation at 2 mg every 4 h, neuroleptic rotation with chlorpromazine at 25 mg every 4 h, or combined haloperidol at 1 mg and chlorpromazine at 12·5 mg every 4 h, until death or discharge. Rescue doses identical to the scheduled doses were administered at inception, and then hourly as needed. Permuted block randomisation (block size six; 1:1:1) was done, stratified by baseline Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) scores. Research staff, clinicians, patients, and caregivers were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was change in RASS score from time 0 to 24 h. Comparisons among group were done by modified intention-to-treat analysis. This completed study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03021486.
Findings: Between July 5, 2017, and July 1, 2019, 998 patients were screened for eligibility, with 68 being enrolled and randomly assigned to treatment; 45 received the masked study interventions (escalation n=15, rotation n=16, combination n=14). RASS score decreased significantly within 30 min and remained low at 24 h in the escalation group (n=10, mean RASS score change between 0 h and 24 h -3·6 [95% CI -5·0 to -2·2]), rotation group (n=11, -3·3 [–4·4 to -2·2]), and combination group (n=10, -3·0 [–4·6 to -1·4]), with no difference among groups (p=0·71). The most common serious toxicity was hypotension (escalation n=6 [40%], rotation n=5 [31%], combination n=3 [21%]); there were no treatment-related deaths.
Interpretation: Our data provide preliminary evidence that the three strategies of neuroleptics might reduce agitation in patients with terminal agitation. These findings are in the context of the single-centre design, small sample size, and lack of a placebo-only group.
Funding: National Institute of Nursing Research.
Background: Communities have limited understanding of palliative care, creating barriers to informed choice around consideration of a full range of care options in the event of serious illness. Few empirically tested interventions are available to educate community about palliative care, and ultimately improve timely access to these services.
Aim: To test the acceptability (primary outcome), and feasibility of a narrative approach to public health communication seeking to improve attitudes to possible access to palliative care in the event of serious illness.
Design: Randomised phase II trial with six parallel experimental conditions. Outcomes tested included measures of acceptability, feasibility and change in attitudes to possible access to palliative care post-intervention. Contrasts planned for exploratory testing included format, message content and narrator.
Setting/participants: Community-based sample of consecutive English-speaking adults who volunteered their participation in response to a study advertisement distributed online through established community groups.
Results: A narrative approach to public health communication was found to be acceptable to community members, and feasible to deliver online. Exploratory data suggested it immediately improved attitudes towards possible access to palliative care in the event of serious illness, with the narrative detailing a description of the evidence delivered by a healthcare professional appearing to be the most promising strategy.
Conclusions: This study provides preliminary data to inform a future, longitudinal trial evaluating effectiveness and ultimately other evidence-based, public health approaches to improve community engagement with palliative care. Further studies are required to confirm the generalisability of findings to a broader representative sample and other settings including internationally.
Context: Although it is well known that patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (PC) experience significant symptom burden, few strategies for effective symptom intervention are available for them.
Objectives: To investigate the efficacy of minocycline, an anti-inflammatory agent, for symptom reduction in patients with advanced PC.
Methods: We conducted Phase II, randomized, and placebo-controlled trial to obtain preliminary estimates of the effects on symptom reduction with 100 mg of minocycline or placebo given twice a day. Eligible patients had diagnosed advanced PC and were scheduled for standard chemotherapy. Patient-reported symptoms were measured weekly during the eight-week trial using the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) module in patients with gastrointestinal cancer. The primary outcome measure was the area under the curve values of the five most severe symptoms in the two arms.
Results: Of the 44 patients recruited, 31 (71%) were evaluable for the primary efficacy analysis, with 18 received minocycline and 13 placebo. Fatigue, pain, disturbed sleep, lack of appetite, and drowsiness were the most severe symptoms reported by both groups. No significant differences in area under the curve values over time between the study arms were found for the composite MDASI score or single-item scores of the five most severe MDASI items. No treatment-related deaths were reported, and no Grade 3–4 toxicities were observed.
Conclusion: Minocycline is safe for use in patients receiving treatment for PC. There is no observed symptom reduction with minocycline on the major symptom burden associated with advanced PC compared with placebo. Attrition because of rapid disease progression impacted the study significantly.
Context: Previous work has found that facilitated advance care planning (ACP) interventions are effective in increasing ACP uptake among patients with severe respiratory disease.
Objectives: The objective of this study was to investigate whether a nurse-led, facilitated ACP intervention among participants with severe respiratory disease impacts self-reported or clinical outcomes.
Methods: A multicenter, open-label, patient-preference, randomized controlled trial of a nurse-led facilitated ACP intervention was performed. Outcome measures included self-report scales (health care satisfaction and EQ-5D-5L health-related quality of life at three- and six-month follow-up), 12-month mortality, and health care utilization during the final 90 days of life.
Results: One hundred forty-nine participants were recruited across two study settings (metropolitan tertiary hospital respiratory department and rural sites) and 106 were allocated to receive the ACP intervention. There was no effect of the intervention on satisfaction with health care, health-related quality of life, or 12-month mortality rates. Among those participants who died during the follow-up period (N = 54), those allocated to the ACP intervention had significantly fewer outpatient consultations (7.51 vs. 13.6, P < 0.001). There were no changes in emergency department attendances, total hospital admissions or length of stay, or home nursing visits. Among those allocated to the ACP intervention, there was a reduced length of stay in acute hospital settings (7.76 vs. 11.5 nights, P < 0.001) and increased length of stay in palliative hospital settings (5.54 vs. 2.08, P < 0.001) during the final 90 days of life.
Conclusion: A facilitated ACP intervention among patients with severe respiratory disease did not have an impact on satisfaction, health-related quality of life, or 12-month mortality rate. Facilitated ACP may be associated with a different type of health care utilization during the end-of-life period.
Background: Oncologists often struggle with managing the unique care needs of older adults with cancer. This study sought to determine the feasibility of delivering a transdisciplinary intervention targeting the geriatric-specific (physical function and comorbidity) and palliative care (symptoms and prognostic understanding) needs of older adults with advanced cancer.
Methods: Patients aged =65 years with incurable gastrointestinal or lung cancer were randomly assigned to a transdisciplinary intervention or usual care. Those in the intervention arm received 2 visits with a geriatrician, who addressed patients’ palliative care needs and conducted a geriatric assessment. We predefined the intervention as feasible if >70% of eligible patients enrolled in the study and >75% of eligible patients completed study visits and surveys. At baseline and week 12, we assessed patients’ quality of life (QoL), symptoms, and communication confidence. We calculated mean change scores in outcomes and estimated intervention effect sizes (ES; Cohen’s d) for changes from baseline to week 12, with 0.2 indicating a small effect, 0.5 a medium effect, and 0.8 a large effect. Results: From February 2017 through June 2018, we randomized 62 patients (55.9% enrollment rate [most common reason for refusal was feeling too ill]; median age, 72.3 years; cancer types: 56.5% gastrointestinal, 43.5% lung). Among intervention patients, 82.1% attended the first visit and 79.6% attended both. Overall, 89.7% completed all study surveys. Compared with usual care, intervention patients had less QoL decrement (–0.77 vs –3.84; ES = 0.21), reduced number of moderate/severe symptoms (–0.69 vs +1.04; ES = 0.58), and improved communication confidence (+1.06 vs –0.80; ES = 0.38).
Conclusions: In this pilot trial, enrollment exceeded 55%, and >75% of enrollees completed all study visits and surveys. The transdisciplinary intervention targeting older patients’ unique care needs showed encouraging ES estimates for enhancing patients’ QoL, symptom burden, and communication confidence.
BACKGROUND: Recent studies have shown substantial deficiencies in the quality or quantity (or both) of communication and decision-making during serious illness. We evaluated the efficacy of a novel decision support intervention, the Plan Well Guide, in increasing completion of a standard medical order form for advance medical care planning and improving decisional outcomes in nonacademic primary care settings.
METHODS: We conducted a randomized trial in 3 primary care practices in Lethbridge, Alberta in 2017-2018. We recruited "patients at high risk" referred by the primary care doctor who required establishment or review of their Goals of Care Designation (GCD). Enrolled patients were randomly allocated to receive the Plan Well Guide, delivered by a trained facilitator, or usual care. Eight to 12 weeks after the intervention, a research assistant blinded to intervention assignment contacted the patients in both groups by telephone to do a final outcome assessment. The primary outcome was completion of GCD forms; secondary outcomes included decisional conflict scores and ratings of satisfaction.
RESULTS: A total of 123 patients (59 women [48.0%]; mean age 73.9 yr) were enrolled, 66 in the intervention arm and 57 in the usualcare arm; 119 patients completed the trial. After the intervention, GCD completion rates in the intervention and usual-care groups were 95.3% and 90.9%, respectively (risk difference [RD] 4%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -14% to 22%), and the rate of concordance between medical orders and expressed preferences on follow-up was 78% and 66%, respectively (RD 12%, 95% CI -7% to 30%). Significantly fewer patients in the intervention group than in the usual-care group had written medical orders for intensive care unit care and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (22 [34%] v. 33 [60%], RD -26%, 95% CI -42% to -8%). Patients in the intervention group had lower decisional conflict scores than those in the usual-care group (mean 30.9 v. 43.1, adjusted mean difference -12.0, 95% CI -23.2 to -0.8). Physicians considered patients in the intervention group to have lower decisional conflict than those in the usual-care group, although not significantly so (mean score 10.4 v. 14.9, adjusted mean difference -4.7, 95% CI -9.9 to 0.4) and spent less time with the former (mean 9.7 v. 13.2 min, adjusted mean difference -3.5, 95% CI -5.5 to -1.5 min).
INTERPRETATION: The decision-support intervention did not increase GCD completion rates but did seem to improve some aspects of decisional quality while reducing the physician's time to accomplish GCD decisions.
Outpatient palliative care (PC) improved quality of life and symptoms among patients with Parkinson disease and related disorders in a trial in JAMA Neurology.
The study’s 210 patients and 175 caregivers were randomly assigned to outpatient integrative PC or to standard care. Every 3 months for a year, participants received PC visits either in person or via telemedicine from a neurologist, social worker, chaplain, and nurse with guidance from a palliative medicine specialist. Standard care was provided by a neurologist and a primary care clinician.
Background: Intravenous lidocaine infusions have been shown to be effective for cancer related pain, but access is restricted to acute care settings. If able to be shown to be safe and effective, the subcutaneous route could expand access to residential hospices or patients' homes.
Objectives: This randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled, 2 × 2 crossover trial evaluated the effectiveness, safety, toxicity, and impact on quality of life of a limited duration subcutaneous lidocaine infusion (SCLI) for chronic cancer pain.
Mthods: Patients with the life expectancy of three months or more, who were experiencing cancer-related pain with a worst severity of at least 4 on a 0–10 scale despite a trial of at least one opioid and appropriate adjuvant analgesic, received two subcutaneous infusions at least a week apart; lidocaine 10 mg/kg over 5.5 hours and saline placebo. The primary outcome was either a reduction in worst pain intensity of two points out of 10 or a reduction in 24 hours opioid dose of at least 30% without worsening of pain scores, in seven days.
Results: The SCLI was only effective for two subjects. One of these subjects experienced a drop in worst pain score and the other experienced a reduction in opioid dose.
Conclusions: A weight-based subcutaneous infusion of lidocaine does not achieve sufficiently predictable blood levels for determining lidocaine responsiveness. This study does not allow any conclusion to be drawn on whether or not lidocaine would have been more effective had it been titrated to higher blood levels.
Background: Several publications have addressed the need for a systematic integration of oncological care focused on the tumor and palliative care (PC) focused on the patient with cancer. The exponential increase in anticancer treatments and the high number of patients living longer with advanced disease have accentuated this. Internationally, there is now a persuasive argument that introducing PC early during anticancer treatment in patients with advanced disease has beneficial effects on symptoms, psychological distress, and survival.
Methods: This is a national cluster-randomized trial (C-RCT) in 12 Norwegian hospitals. The trial investigates effects of early, systematic integration of oncology and specialized PC in patients with advanced cancer in six intervention hospitals compared with conventional care in six. Hospitals are stratified on the size of local catchment areas before randomization. In the intervention hospitals, a three-part complex intervention will be implemented. The backbone of the intervention is the development and implementation of patient-centered care pathways that contain early, compulsory referral to PC and regular and systematic registrations of symptoms. An educational program must be completed before patient inclusion. A total of 680 patients with advanced cancer and one caregiver per patient are included when patients come for start of last line of chemotherapy, defined according to national treatment guidelines. Data registration, clinical variables, and patient- and caregiver-reported outcomes take place every 2 months for 1 year or until death. The primary outcome is use of chemotherapy in the last 3 months of life by comparing the proportion of patients who receive this in the intervention and control groups. Primary outcome is use of chemotherapy in the last 3 months before death, i.e. number of patients. Secondary outcomes are initiation, discontinuation and number of cycles, last 3 months of life, administration of other medical interventions in the last month of life, symptom burden, quality of life (QoL), satisfaction with information and follow-up, and caregiver health, QoL, and satisfaction with care.
Discussion: Results from this C-RCT will be used to raise the awareness about the positive outcomes of early provision of specialized palliative care using pathways for patients with advanced cancer receiving medical anticancer treatment. The long-term clinical objective is to integrate these patient-centered pathways in Norwegian cancer care. The specific focus on the patient and family and the organization of a predictable care trajectory is consistent with current Norwegian strategies for cancer care.
Purpose: Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is a treatment option for cancer pain, but the evidence is inconclusive. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TENS.
Methods: A blinded, randomized, sham-controlled pilot cross-over trial (NCT02655289) was conducted on an inpatient specialist palliative care ward. We included adult inpatients with cancer pain = 3 on an 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS). Intensity-modulated high TENS (IMT) was compared with placebo TENS (PBT). Patients used both modes according to their preferred application scheme during 24 h with a 24-h washout phase. The primary outcome was change in average pain intensity on the NRS during the preceding 24 h. Responders were patients with at least a “slight improvement.”
Results: Of 632 patients screened, 25 were randomized (sequence IMT-PBT = 13 and PBT-IMT = 12). Finally, 11 patients in IMT-PBT and 9 in PBT-IMT completed the study (N = 20). The primary outcome did not differ between groups (IMT minus PBT: - 0.2, 95% confidence interval - 0.9 to 0.6). However, responder rates were higher in IMT (17/20 [85%] vs. 10/20 [50%], p = 0.0428). Two patients experienced an uncomfortable feeling caused by the current, one after IMT and one after PBT. Seven patients (35%) desired a TENS prescription. Women and patients with incident pain were most likely to benefit from TENS.
Conclusion: TENS was safe, but IMT was unlikely to offer more analgesic effects than PBT. Even though many patients desired a TENS prescription, 50% still reported at least “slight pain relief” from PBT. Differences for gender and incident pain aspects demand future trials.
INTRODUCTION: Equitable delivery of advance care planning and symptom management among patients is crucial to improving cancer care. Existing interventions to improve the uptake of these services have predominantly occurred in clinic settings and are limited in their effectiveness, particularly among low-income and minority populations.
METHODS: The "Lay health worker Educates Engages and Activates Patients to Share (LEAPS)" intervention was developed to improve advance care planning and symptom management among low-income and minority hourly-wage workers with cancer, in two community settings. The intervention provides a lay health worker to all patients newly diagnosed with cancer and aims to educate and activate patients to engage in advance care planning and symptom management with their oncology providers. In this randomized clinical trial, we will evaluate the effect on quality of life (primary outcome) using the validated Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General Survey, at enrollment, 4- and 12- months post-enrollment. We will examine between-group differences on our secondary outcomes of patient activation, patient satisfaction with healthcare decision-making, and symptom burden (at enrollment, 4- and 12-months post-enrollment), and total healthcare use and healthcare costs (at 12-months post-enrollment).
DISCUSSION: Multilevel approaches are urgently needed to improve cancer care delivery among low-income and minority patients diagnosed with cancer in community settings. The current study describes the LEAPS intervention, the study design, and baseline characteristics of the community centers participating in the study.
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: A patient-directed, online program (PREPARE for Your Care [PREPARE]; prepareforyourcare.org) has been shown to increase advance care planning (ACP) documentation. However, the mechanisms underlying PREPARE are unknown. Our objectives were to compare the efficacy of PREPARE plus an easy-to-read advance directive (AD) vs an AD alone to increase active patient participation in ACP discussions during clinic visits and to examine effects of active patient participation on ACP documentation.
DESIGN: Audio recordings of postintervention primary care visits from two randomized trials (2013-2016).
SETTING: Seven primary care clinics at a veterans affair and safety-net hospital in San Francisco, CA.
PARTICIPANTS: English- and Spanis-speaking adults, aged 55 years and older, with two or more chronic/serious conditions.
INTERVENTION: PREPARE plus an easy-to-read AD or an AD alone.
MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was the number of active patient participation utterances about ACP (eg, asking questions, stating preferences) measured by the validated Active Patient Participation Coding Scheme. We examined differences in utterances by study arm using mixed effects negative binomial models and utterances as a mediator of PREPARE's effect on documentation using adjusted logistic regression. Models were adjusted for health literacy, prior care planning, and clinician.
RESULTS: Among 393 participants, the mean (SD) age was 66 (8.1) years, 120 (30.5%) had limited health literacy, and 99 (25.2%) were Spanish speaking. PREPARE plus the AD resulted in 41% more active patient participation in ACP discussions compared with the AD alone (mean [SD] = 10.1 [16.8] vs 6.6 [13.4] utterances; incidence rate ratio = 1.41; 95% confidence interval = 1.00-1.98). For every additional utterance, participants had 15% higher odds of ACP documentation, and active patient participation accounted for 16% of PREPARE's effect on documentation.
CONCLUSIONS: The PREPARE program and easy-to-read AD empowered patients to actively participate in ACP discussions during clinical visits more than the AD alone. Increased activation was associated with increased ACP documentation. Therefore, PREPARE may mitigate barriers to ACP among English- and Spanish-speaking older adults.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: “Improving Advance Care Planning by Preparing Diverse Seniors for Decision Making (PREPARE)” NCT01990235 and “Preparing Spanish-Speaking Older Adults for Advance Care Planning and Medical Decision Making (PREPARE)” NCT02072941.
Pain in people with advanced cancer is prevalent. When a stable dose of opioids is established, people still experience episodic breakthrough pain for which dosing of an immediate release opioid is usually a proportion of the total daily dose. This multi-site, double blind, randomised trial tested three dose proportions (1/6, 1/8, 1/12 of total daily dose) in two blocks, each block with three dose proportions in random order (6 numbered bottles in total). When participants required opioid breakthrough doses and it was their first breakthrough dose for that study day, they took the next numbered bottle rather than their usual breakthrough dose. (Subsequent doses on that day reverted to their usual dose.) Eighty five people were randomised in this study of whom 81 took at least one dose and 73 (90%) took at least block one (one of each dose proportion). No dose was found to be optimal at 30 min with approximately one third of participants showing maximal reduction with each dose proportion. Median time to pain relief was 120 min. There were no differences in harms: drowsiness, confusion, nausea or vomiting at 30, 60 or 120 min. This adequately powered study did not show any difference with three dose proportions for reduction in pain intensity, time to pain relief, pain control on the subsequent day nor any difference in harms. From first principles, this suggests 1/12 the 24 hourly dose should be used as the lowest dose that delivers benefit. Future studies should include a placebo arm.
Background: We conducted a multicenter, randomized trial of early integrated palliative and oncology care in patients with advanced cancer to confirm the benefits of early palliative care (PC) seen in prior single-center studies.
Methods: We randomly assigned patients with newly diagnosed incurable cancer to early integrated palliative and oncology care (n = 195) or usual oncology care (n = 196) at sites through the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology. Patients assigned to the intervention were expected to meet with a PC clinician at least monthly until death, whereas usual care patients consulted PC on request. The primary endpoint was the change in quality of life from baseline to week 12 per the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G). Secondary outcomes included anxiety, depression, and communication about prognosis and end-of-life care.
Results: Due to significant morbidity and a high proportion of measures that were not completed within the protocol window or for unknown reasons, the rate of missing data was high. We anticipated that 70% of patients (n = 280) would complete the FACT-G at baseline and week 12, but only 49.3% (n = 193/391) completed the measure. Delivery of the intervention was also suboptimal, as 14.9% (n = 29/195) of intervention patients had no PC visits by week 12. Intervention patients reported a mean 3.35 (standard deviation [SD] = 14.7) increase in FACT-G scores from baseline to week 12 compared with usual care patients who reported a 0.12 (SD = 12.7) increase from baseline (p = 0.10).
Conclusion: This study highlights the difficulties of conducting multicenter trials of supportive care interventions in patients with advanced cancer. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT02349412.
Importance: Parkinson disease and related disorders (PDRD) have consequences for quality of life (QoL) and are the 14th leading cause of death in the United States. Despite growing interest in palliative care (PC) for persons with PDRD, few studies are available supporting its effectiveness.
Objective: To determine if outpatient PC is associated with improvements in patient-centered outcomes compared with standard care among patients with PDRD and their caregivers.
Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial enrolled participants at 3 academic tertiary care centers between November 1, 2015, and September 30, 2017, and followed them up for 1 year. A total of 584 persons with PDRD were referred to the study. Of those, 351 persons were excluded by phone and 23 were excluded during in-person screenings. Patients were eligible to participate if they had PDRD and moderate to high PC needs. Patients were excluded if they had urgent PC needs, another diagnosis meriting PC, were already receiving PC, or were unable or unwilling to follow the study protocol. Enrolled participants were assigned to receive standard care plus outpatient integrated PC or standard care alone. Data were analyzed between November 1, 2018, and December 9, 2019.
Interventions: Outpatient integrated PC administered by a neurologist, social worker, chaplain, and nurse using PC checklists, with guidance and selective involvement from a palliative medicine specialist. Standard care was provided by a neurologist and a primary care practitioner.
Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were the differences in patient quality of life (QoL; measured by the Quality of Life in Alzheimer Disease scale) and caregiver burden (measured by the Zarit Burden Interview) between the PC intervention and standard care groups at 6 months.
Results: A total of 210 patients with PDRD (135 men [64.3%]; mean [SD] age, 70.1 [8.2] years) and 175 caregivers (128 women [73.1%]; mean [SD] age, 66.1 [11.1] years) were enrolled in the study; 193 participants (91.9%) were white and non-Hispanic. Compared with participants receiving standard care alone at 6 months, participants receiving the PC intervention had better QoL (mean [SD], 0.66 [5.5] improvement vs 0.84 [4.2] worsening; treatment effect estimate, 1.87; 95% CI, 0.47-3.27; P = .009). No significant difference was observed in caregiver burden (mean [SD], 2.3 [5.0] improvement vs 1.2 [5.6] improvement in the standard care group; treatment effect estimate, -1.62; 95% CI, -3.32 to 0.09; P = .06). Other significant differences favoring the PC intervention included nonmotor symptom burden, motor symptom severity, completion of advance directives, caregiver anxiety, and caregiver burden at 12 months. No outcomes favored standard care alone. Secondary analyses suggested that benefits were greater for persons with higher PC needs.
onclusions and Relevance: Outpatient PC is associated with benefits among patients with PDRD compared with standard care alone. This study supports efforts to integrate PC into PDRD care. The lack of diversity and implementation of PC at experienced centers suggests a need for implementation research in other populations and care settings.
Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02533921
Background: Among palliative care (PC) patients who are administered paracetamol, the subcutaneous (SC) route is often an alternative to the intravenous (IV) route. Yet pharmacological and clinical data on whether these are equivalent pharmacokinetically are lacking. Many French palliative teams are now empirically using paracetamol by the SC route, but there are no data to support this practice. This trial aims to compare the pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters of paracetomol between the IV and SC routes in PC patients.
Methods/design: This is a randomized, open, crossover study in two PC centers. The primary endpoints are AUC0-t, AUC0-8, Cmax, Vd, and t1/2. All adverse events will be reported for a safety analysis. Twenty adult PC patients with an IV device having spontaneous pain not related to care, with a numeric pain rate scale > 3/10, or having a systematic prescription of paracetamol as the usual treatment will be included. All patients also have to meet all eligibility criteria.
Conclusion: This is the first study comparing PK parameters for IV paracetamol versus SC paracetamol in PC patients.
Background: In medical oncology settings, early specialist palliative care interventions have demonstrated improvements in patient quality of life and survival compared with usual oncologic care. However, the effect of early specialist palliative care interventions in surgical oncology settings is not well studied.
Methods: The Surgery for Cancer with Option for Palliative Care Expert (SCOPE) Trial is a single-center, prospective, single-blind, randomized controlled trial of a specialist palliative care intervention for cancer patients undergoing non-palliative surgery. It will enroll 236 patients scheduled for major abdominal operations for malignancy, who will be randomized 1:1 at enrollment to receive usual care (control arm) or specialist palliative care consultation (intervention arm). Intervention arm patients will receive consultations from a palliative care specialist (physician or nurse practitioner) preoperatively and postoperatively. The primary outcome is physical and functional wellbeing at 90 days postoperatively. Secondary outcomes are quality of life at 90 days postoperatively, posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms at 180 days postoperatively, days alive at home without an emergency room visit in the first 90 postoperative days, and overall survival at 1 year postoperatively. Participants will be followed for 3 years after surgery for exploratory analyses of their ongoing quality of life, healthcare utilization, and mortality.
Discussion: SCOPE is an ongoing randomized controlled trial evaluating specialist palliative care interventions for cancer patients undergoing non-palliative oncologic surgery. Findings from the study will inform ways to identify and improve care of surgical patients who will likely benefit from specialist palliative care services.
Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03436290
Background: Despite improvements in medical care, patients with advanced cancer still experience substantial symptom distress. There is increasing interest in the use of medicinal cannabinoids, but there is little high quality evidence to guide clinicians. This study aims to define the role of cannabidiol (CBD) in the management of symptom burden in patients with advanced cancer undergoing standard palliative care.
Methods and design: This study is a multicentre, randomised, placebo controlled, two arm, parallel trial of escalating doses of oral CBD. It will compare efficacy and safety outcomes of a titrated dose of CBD (100 mg/mL formulation, dose range 50 mg to 600 mg per day) against placebo. There is a 2-week patient determined titration phase, using escalating doses of CBD or placebo to reach a dose that achieves symptom relief with tolerable side effects. This is then followed by a further 2-week assessment period on the stable dose determined in collaboration with clinicians.
Discussion: A major strength of this study is that it will target symptom burden as a whole, rather than just individual symptoms, in an attempt to describe the general improvement in wellbeing previously reported by some patients in open label, non controlled trials of medicinal cannabis. Randomisation with placebo is essential because of the well-documented over reporting of benefit in uncontrolled trials and high placebo response rates in cancer pain trials. This will be the first placebo controlled clinical trial to evaluate rigorously the efficacy, safety and acceptability of CBD for symptom relief in advanced cancer patients. This study will provide the medical community with evidence to present to patients wishing to access medicinal cannabis for their cancer related symptoms.
Trial registration number: ALCTRN12618001220257 Registered 20/07/2018.
Background and Objectives: The Acute Kidney Outreach to Reduce Deterioration and Death trial was a large pilot study for a cluster-randomized trial of acute kidney injury (AKI) outreach.
Methods: An observational control (before) phase was conducted in two teaching hospitals (9 miles apart) and their respective catchment areas. In the intervention (after) phase, a working-hours AKI outreach service operated for the intervention hospital/area for 20 weeks, with the other site acting as a control. All AKI alerts in both hospital and community patients were screened for inclusion. Major exclusion criteria were patients who were at the end of life, unlikely to benefit from outreach, lacking mental capacity or already referred to the renal team. The intervention arm included a model of escalation of renal care to AKI patients, depending on AKI stage. The 30-day primary outcome was a combination of death, or deterioration, as shown by any need for dialysis or progression in AKI stage. A total of 1762 adult patients were recruited; 744 at the intervention site during the after phase.
Results: A median of 3.0 non-medication recommendations and 0.5 medication-related recommendations per patient were made by the outreach team a median of 15.7 h after the AKI alert. Relatively low rates of the primary outcomes of death within 30 days (11–15%) or requirement for dialysis (0.4–3.7%) were seen across all four groups. In an exploratory analysis, at the intervention hospital during the after phase, there was an odds ratio for the combined primary outcome of 0.73 (95% confidence interval 0.42–1.26; P = 0.26).
Conclusions: An AKI outreach service can provide standardized specialist care to those with AKI across a healthcare economy. Trials assessing AKI outreach may benefit from focusing on those patients with ‘mid-range’ prognosis, where nephrological intervention could have the most impact.