Background: Breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP) has a negative impact on patients' quality of life, general activities, and is related to worse clinical outcomes. Fentanyl inhalant is a hand-held combination drug-device delivery system providing rapid, multi-dose (25μg/dose) administration of fentanyl via inhalation of a thermally generated aerosol. This multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, multiple-crossover, double-blind study evaluated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of fentanyl inhalant in treating BTcP in opioid-tolerant patients.
Methods: The trial was conducted in opioid-tolerant cancer patients with 1 ~ 4 BTcP outbursts per day. Each patient was treated and observed for 6 episodes of BTcP (4 with fentanyl inhalant, 2 with placebo). During each episode of targeted BTcP, patients were allowed up to six inhalations, with an interval of at least 4 min between doses. Primary outcome was the time-weighted sum of PID (pain intensity difference) scores at 30 min (SPID30).
Results: A total of 335 BTcP episodes in 59 patients were treated. The mean SPID30 was -97.4 ± 48.43 for fentanyl inhalant-treated episodes, and -64.6 ± 40.25 for placebo-treated episodes (p < 0.001). Significant differences in PID for episodes treated with fentanyl inhalant versus placebo was seen as early as 4 min and maintained for up to 60 min. The percentage of episodes reported PI (pain intensity) scores ≤ 3, a ≥ 33% or ≥ 50% reduction in PI scores at 30 min, PR30 (pain relief scores at 30 min) and SPID60 favored fentanyl inhalant over placebo. Only 4.4% of BTcP episodes required rescue medication in fentanyl inhalant group. Most AEs were of mild or moderate severity and typical of opioid drugs.
Conclusion: Treatment with fentanyl inhalant was shown to be a promising therapeutic option for BTcP, with significant pain relief starting very soon after dosing. Confirmation of effectiveness requires a larger phase III trial.
Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05531422 registered on 6 September 2022 after major amendment, NCT04713189 registered on 14 January 2021.
Background: Emerging randomized data, mostly from phase II trials, have suggested that patients with oligometastatic cancers may benefit from ablative treatments such as stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR). However, phase III data testing this paradigm are lacking, and many studies have examined SABR in the setting of metachronous oligometastatic disease. The goal of the SABR-SYNC trial is to assess the effect of SABR in patients with oligometastatic cancers and a synchronous primary tumor.
Methods: One hundred and eighty patients will be randomized in a 1:2 ratio between standard of care (SOC) palliative-intent treatments vs. SOC + ablative therapy (SABR preferred) to all sites of known disease. Randomization will be stratified based on histology and number of metastases at enrollment. SABR may be delivered in 1-, 3- and 5-fraction regimens, with recommended doses of 20 Gy, 30 Gy, and 35 Gy, respectively. Non-SABR local modalities (e.g. surgery, thermal ablation, conventional radiation) may be used for treatment of the primary or metastases at the discretion of the treating physicians, if those modalities are clinically preferred. The primary endpoint is overall survival, and secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, time to development of new metastatic lesions, time to initiation of next systemic therapy, quality of life, and toxicity. Translational endpoints include assessment of circulating tumor DNA and immunological predictors of outcomes.
Discussion: SABR-SYNC will provide phase III data to assess the impact of SABR on overall survival in a population of patients with synchronous oligometastases. The translational component will attempt to identify novel prognostic and predictive biomarkers to aid in clinical decision making.
Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT05717166 (registration date: Feb. 8, 2023).
Background: Deprescribing has been defined as the planned process of reducing or stopping medications that may no longer be beneficial or are causing harm, with the goal of reducing medication burden while improving patient quality of life. At present, little is known about the specific challenges of decision-making to support deprescribing for patients who are accessing palliative care. By exploring the perspectives of healthcare professionals, this qualitative study aimed to address this gap, and explore the challenges of, and potential solutions to, making decisions about deprescribing in a palliative care context.
Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with healthcare professionals in-person or via video call, between August 2022 - January 2023. Perspectives on approaches to deprescribing in palliative care; when and how they might deprescribe; and the role of carers and family members within this process were discussed. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Reflexive thematic analysis enabled the development of themes. QSR NVivo (Version 12) facilitated data management. Ethical approval was obtained from the NHS Health Research Authority (ref 305394).
Results: Twenty healthcare professionals were interviewed, including: medical consultants, nurses, specialist pharmacists, and general practitioners (GPs). Participants described the importance of deprescribing decision-making, and that it should be a considered, proactive, and planned process. Three themes were developed from the data, which centred on: (1) professional attitudes, competency and responsibility towards deprescribing; (2) changing the culture of deprescribing; and (3) involving the patient and family/caregivers in deprescribing decision-making.
Conclusions: This study sought to explore the perspectives of healthcare professionals with responsibility for making deprescribing decisions with people accessing palliative care services. A range of healthcare professionals identified the importance of supporting decision-making in deprescribing, so it becomes a proactive process within a patient's care journey, rather than a reactive consequence. Future work should explore how healthcare professionals, patients and their family can be supported in the shared decision-making processes of deprescribing.
Trial registration: Ethical approval was obtained from the NHS Health Research Authority (ref 305394).
Background: Pediatric palliative care (PPC) patients are at an elevated risk of malnutrition. Nutritional inadequacy can also cause micronutrient deficiencies. These factors can lead to weight loss, stunted growth, and poor quality of life. Despite the prevalence of these issues, limited research exists in the micronutrient status of PPC patients. The purpose of this study was to determine the vitamin B12 and D, iron, ferritin, folate, calcium, phosphorus, and magnesium levels of PPC patients to contribute to a better understanding of their micronutrient needs as well as the appropriate management of diet and treatment approaches.
Methods: This was a single-center observational cross-sectional retrospective study. This study evaluated the levels of vitamin B12, 25-hydroxyvitamin D, iron, ferritin, folate, calcium, phosphorus, and magnesium in PPC patients. The patients were classified according to the Chronic Complex Conditions (CCC) v2 and then compared.
Results: A total of 3,144 micronutrient data points were collected from 822 hospitalizations of 364 patients. At least one micronutrient deficiency was identified in 96.9% of the patients. The most prevalent deficiencies were observed for iron, calcium, and phosphate. In addition, 25-hydroxyvitamin D deficiency was observed in one-third of patients. Calcium, magnesium, phosphorus, folate, and 25-hydroxyvitamin D were negatively correlated with age.
Conclusion: The results of this study indicate that micronutrient deficiencies are highly prevalent in PPC patients. These findings have the potential to contribute to improvements in the nutritional and therapeutic management of patients.
Background: While home is frequently expressed as the favorite place of death (PoD) among terminally ill cancer patients, various factors affect the fulfillment of this wish. The determinants of the PoD of cancer patients in countries without healthcare system-integrated palliative and supportive care have not been studied before. This study aimed at identifying the predictors of the PoD of patients who suffer from advanced cancer by developing a reliable predictive model among who received home-based palliative care in Iran as a representative of the countries with isolated provision of palliative care services.
Methods: In a cross-sectional study, electronic records of 4083 advanced cancer patients enrolled in the Iranian Cancer Control Center (MACSA) palliative homecare program, who died between February 2018 and February 2020 were retrieved. Multivariable binary logistic regression analysis as well as subgroup analyses (location, sex, marital status, and tumor topography) was performed to identify the predictors of PoD.
Results: Of the 2398 cases included (mean age (SD) = 64.17 (14.45) year, 1269 (%52.9) male), 1216 (50.7%) patients died at home. Older age, presence and intensity of medical homecare in the last two weeks and registration in the Tehran site of the program were associated with dying at home (P < 0.05). Gynecological or hematological cancers, presence and intensity of the calls received from the remote palliative care unit in the last two weeks were predictors of death at the hospital (p < 0.05). The model was internally and externally validated (AUC = 0.723 (95% CI = 0.702-0.745; P < 0.001) and AUC = 0.697 (95% CI = 0.631-0.763; P < 0.001) respectively).
Conclusion: Our model highlights the demographic, illness-related and environmental determinants of the PoD in communities with patchy provision of palliative care. It also urges policymakers and service providers to identify and take the local determinant of the place of death into account to match the goals of palliative and supportive services with the patient preferences.
Background: Most people diagnosed with dementia live and die in community settings. This study aimed to: (i) describe the palliative care needs of patients with dementia at commencement of community palliative care; (ii) compare palliative care needs between patients with dementia and those with lung cancer and cardiovascular disease (CVD).
Methods: This is a population-based descriptive study that involved 8,727, 7,539 and 25,279 patients who accessed community palliative care across Australia principally because of dementia, CVD and lung cancer. Patients' functional abilities, symptom burden and clinical condition were assessed at commencement of community alliative care using five validated instruments: Resource Utilisation Groups-Activities of Daily Living, Australia-modified Karnofsky Performance Status, Symptoms Assessment Scale, Palliative Care Problem Severity Score and Palliative Care Phase. We fitted ordinal logistic regression models to examine the differences in these assessments for dementia versus CVD and lung cancer, respectively.
Results: Overall, patients with dementia generally had low levels of distress from symptoms but poor functional problems. Compared to the other two diagnostic groups, palliative care for dementia was often initiated later and with shorter contacts. Also, patients with dementia presented with poorer functional performance (adjusted OR (aOR) = 4.02, Confidence Interval (CI): 3.68 - 4.38 for dementia vs CVD; aOR = 17.59, CI: 15.92 - 19.44 for dementia vs lung cancer) and dependency (aOR = 5.68, CI: 5.28 - 6.12 for dementia vs CVD; aOR = 24.97, CI: 22.77 - 27.39 for dementia vs lung cancer), but experienced lower levels of distress and problem severity for the majority of symptoms.
Conclusion: Community palliative care is often an ideal care option for many patients, particularly for those with dementia. We call for expansion of the palliative care workforce and options for home care support to optimize accessibility of community palliative care for dementia.
Background: Despite increasing interest in quality end-of-life care (EOLC), critically ill patients often receive suboptimal care. Critical care nurses play a crucial role in EOLC, but face numerous barriers that hinder their ability to provide compassionate and effective care.
Methods: An integrative literature review was conducted to investigate barriers impacting the quality of end-of-life care. This review process involved searching database like MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, EBSCO, and ScienceDirect up to November 2023. Search strategies focused on keywords related to barriers in end-of-life care and critical care nurses from October 30th to November 10th, 2023. The inclusion criteria specified full-text English articles published between 2010 and 2023 that addressed barriers perceived by critical care nurses. This integrative review employs an integrated thematic analysis approach, which combines elements of deductive and inductive analysis, to explore the identified barriers, with coding and theme development overseen by the primary and secondary authors.
Results: Out of 103 articles published, 11 articles were included in the review. There were eight cross-sectional descriptive studies and three qualitative studies, which demonstrated barriers affecting end-of-life care quality. Quality appraisal using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool was completed by two authors confirmed the high credibility of the selected studies, indicating the presence of high-quality evidence across the reviewed articles. Thematic analysis led to the three main themes (1) barriers related to patients and their families, (2) barriers related to nurses and their demographic characteristics, and (3) barriers related to health care environment and institutions.
Conclusion: This review highlights barriers influencing the quality of end of life care perceived by critical care nurses and the gaps that need attention to improve the quality of care provided for patients in their final stages and their fsmilies within the context of critical care. This review also notes the need for additional research to investigate the uncover patterns and insights that have not been fully explored in the existing literature to enhance understanding of these barriers. This can help to inform future research, care provision, and policy-making. Specifically, this review examines how these barriers interact, their cumulative impact on care quality, and potential strategies to overcome.
Background: Central pain, characterized by neuropathic pain, can manifest due to injury to the superior spinothalamic tract. The brainstem includes sensory and motor pathways as well as nuclei of the cranial nerves, and therefore cancer metastasis in the region requires early intervention. Although stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is commonly employed for the treatment of brain metastasis, it poses risks of late complications like radiation necrosis (RN). RN exacerbates the progression of brain lesions within the irradiated area, and in the brainstem, it can damage multiple nerves, including the superior spinothalamic tract. Central neuropathic pain is often intractable and empirically managed with a combination of conventional drugs, such as serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) and anticonvulsants. However, their efficacy is often limited, leading to a decline in performance status (PS) and quality of life (QOL).
Case presentation: We present the case of a 53-year-old man diagnosed with stage IV lung cancer, referred to our palliative care team for managing severe central pain resulting from SRS-related RN in the pons. Despite administration of opioids, including oxycodone and hydromorphone, and adjuvant analgesics, the patient continued to require frequent use of immediate-release opioids. The addition of methadone alone proved successful in achieving optimal pain control.
Conclusions: Provided that RN in the brainstem can lead to intractable neuropathic pain, it is advisable to avoid SRS for brainstem metastasis when possible. Add-on methadone should be considered as a viable pain management medication for patients experiencing unresolved central pain.
Background: The majority of palliative care patients express a preference for remaining at home for as long as possible. Despite progression of disease there is a strong desire to die at home. Nonetheless, there are transfers between care settings, demonstrating a discrepancy between desired and actual place of death.
Aim: To map the prevalence of patients near death undergoing specialized palliative home care and being transferred to inpatient care in Sweden.
Methods: A national retrospective cross-sectional study based on data from the Swedish Register of Palliative Care. Patients ≥ 18 years of age enrolled in specialized palliative home care with dates of death between 1 November 2015 and 31 October 2022 were included (n = 39,698). Descriptive statistics were used.
Results: Seven thousand three hundred eighty-three patients (18.6%), approximately 1,000 per year, were transferred to inpatient care and died within seven days of arrival. A considerable proportion of these patients died within two days after admission. The majority (73.6%) were admitted to specialized palliative inpatient care units, 22.9% to non-specialized palliative inpatient care units and 3.5% to additional care units. Transferred patients had more frequent dyspnoea (30.9% vs. 23.2%, p < 0.001), anxiety (60.2% vs. 56.5%, p < 0.001) and presence of several simultaneous symptoms was significantly more common (27.0% vs. 24.8%, p 0.001).
Conclusion: The results show that patients admitted to specialized palliative home care in Sweden are being transferred to inpatient care near death. A notable proportion of these patients dies within two days of admission. Common features, such as symptoms and symptom burden, can be observed in the patients transferred. The study highlights a phenomenon that may be experienced by patients, relatives and healthcare personnel as a significant event in a vulnerable situation. A deeper understanding of the underlying causes of these transfers is required to ascertain whether they are compatible with good palliative care and a dignified death.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：