Perioperative toripalimab and chemotherapy in locally advanced gastric or gastro-esophageal junction cancer: a randomized phase 2 trial.

Perioperative chemotherapy is the standard treatment for locally advanced gastric or gastro-esophageal junction cancer, and the addition of programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) inhibitor is under investigation. In this randomized, open-label, phase 2 study (NEOSUMMIT-01), patients with resectable gastric or gastro-esophageal junction cancer clinically staged as cT3-4aN + M0 were randomized (1:1) to receive either three preoperative and five postoperative 3-week cycles of SOX/XELOX (chemotherapy group, n = 54) or PD-1 inhibitor toripalimab plus SOX/XELOX, followed by toripalimab monotherapy for up to 6 months (toripalimab plus chemotherapy group, n = 54). The primary endpoint was pathological complete response or near-complete response rate (tumor regression grade (TRG) 0/1). The results showed that patients in the toripalimab plus chemotherapy group achieved a higher proportion of TRG 0/1 than those in the chemotherapy group (44.4% (24 of 54, 95% confidence interval (CI): 30.9%-58.6%) versus 20.4% (11 of 54, 95% CI: 10.6%-33.5%)), and the risk difference of TRG 0/1 between toripalimab plus chemotherapy group and chemotherapy group was 22.7% (95% CI: 5.8%-39.6%; P = 0.009), meeting a prespecified endpoint. In addition, a higher pathological complete response rate (ypT0N0) was observed in the toripalimab plus chemotherapy group (22.2% (12 of 54, 95% CI: 12.0%-35.6%) versus 7.4% (4 of 54, 95% CI: 2.1%-17.9%); P = 0.030), and surgical morbidity (11.8% in the toripalimab plus chemotherapy group versus 13.5% in the chemotherapy group) and mortality (1.9% versus 0%), and treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events (35.2% versus 29.6%) were comparable between the treatment groups. In conclusion, the addition of toripalimab to chemotherapy significantly increased the proportion of patients achieving TRG 0/1 compared to chemotherapy alone and showed a manageable safety profile. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT04250948 .

Toripalimab Plus Chemotherapy for Recurrent or Metastatic Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: The JUPITER-02 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: There are currently no therapies approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). Gemcitabine-cisplatin is the current standard of care for the first-line treatment of recurrent or metastatic NPC (RM-NPC). Objective: To determine whether toripalimab in combination with gemcitabine-cisplatin will significantly improve progression-free survival and overall survival as first-line treatment for RM-NPC, compared with gemcitabine-cisplatin alone. Design, Setting, and Participants: JUPITER-02 is an international, multicenter, randomized, double-blind phase 3 study conducted in NPC-endemic regions, including mainland China, Taiwan, and Singapore. From November 10, 2018, to October 20, 2019, 289 patients with RM-NPC with no prior systemic chemotherapy in the RM setting were enrolled from 35 participating centers. Interventions: Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive toripalimab (240 mg [n = 146]) or placebo (n = 143) in combination with gemcitabine-cisplatin for up to 6 cycles, followed by maintenance with toripalimab or placebo until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or completion of 2 years of treatment. Main Outcome: Progression-free survival as assessed by a blinded independent central review. Secondary end points included objective response rate, overall survival, progression-free survival assessed by investigator, duration of response, and safety. Results: Among the 289 patients enrolled (median age, 46 [IQR, 38-53 years; 17% female), at the final progression-free survival analysis, toripalimab treatment had a significantly longer progression-free survival than placebo (median, 21.4 vs 8.2 months; HR, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.37-0.73]). With a median survival follow-up of 36.0 months, a significant improvement in overall survival was identified with toripalimab over placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.63 [95% CI, 0.45-0.89]; 2-sided P = .008). The median overall survival was not reached in the toripalimab group, while it was 33.7 months in the placebo group. A consistent effect on overall survival, favoring toripalimab, was found in subgroups with high and low PD-L1 (programmed death-ligand 1) expression. The incidence of all adverse events, grade 3 or greater adverse events, and fatal adverse events were similar between the 2 groups. However, adverse events leading to discontinuation of toripalimab or placebo (11.6% vs 4.9%), immune-related adverse events (54.1% vs 21.7%), and grade 3 or greater immune-related adverse events (9.6% vs 1.4%) were more frequent in the toripalimab group. Conclusions and Relevance: The addition of toripalimab to chemotherapy as first-line treatment for RM-NPC provided statistically significant and clinically meaningful progression-free survival and overall survival benefits compared with chemotherapy alone, with a manageable safety profile. These findings support the use of toripalimab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin as the new standard of care for this patient population. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03581786.

Toripalimab plus axitinib in patients with metastatic mucosal melanoma: 3-year survival update and biomarker analysis.

BACKGROUND: Mucosal melanoma is an aggressive melanoma subtype with poor response to antiprogrammed cell death-1 (PD-1) monotherapy. Axitinib in combination with toripalimab, a humanized IgG4 mAb against PD-1, showed a promising response rate in patients with metastatic mucosal melanoma (MM) in a phase Ib study. Here, we report the updated overall survival (OS), duration of response (DoR), and biomarker analysis results. METHODS: Patients with advanced MM received toripalimab 1 or 3 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks combined with axitinib 5 mg orally two times per day until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Tumor programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression, tumor mutational burden (TMB), and gene expression profile (GEP) by messenger RNA sequencing were evaluated for correlation with survival. RESULTS: As of April 2, 2021, the median follow-up was 42.5 months. Among 29 chemotherapy-naïve patients with metastatic MM, the median OS was 20.7 months (95% CI 9.7 to 32.7 months); the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 7.5 months (95% CI 3.8 to 14.8 months); and the median DoR was 13.4 months (95% CI 5.5 to 20.6 months). The OS rates of 1, 2, and 3 years were 62.1%, 44.8%, and 31.0%, respectively. Biomarker analysis found that PD-L1 expression and TMB level were not associated with survival benefits. In contrast, a 12-GEP signature correlated with improved PFS (17.7 vs 5.7 months, p=0.0083) and OS (35.6 vs 17.6 months, p=0.039). CONCLUSIONS: The 3-year survival update confirmed the antitumor activity and long-term survival benefit of the toripalimab plus axitinib combination in patients with advanced MM. The 12-gene GEP is of value in predicting the outcomes of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor and PD-1 blockade combination therapy, but requires further validation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT03086174.

Axitinib in Combination With Toripalimab, a Humanized Immunoglobulin G4 Monoclonal Antibody Against Programmed Cell Death-1, in Patients With Metastatic Mucosal Melanoma: An Open-Label Phase IB Trial.

PURPOSE: Metastatic mucosal melanoma responds poorly to anti-programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) monotherapy. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) has been shown to play an important immunosuppressive role in the tumor microenvironment. The combination of VEGF inhibition and PD-1 blockade provides therapeutic opportunities for patients refractory to either therapy alone. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a single-center, phase IB trial evaluating the safety and preliminary efficacy of toripalimab, a humanized immunoglobulin G4 monoclonal antibody against PD-1 in combination with the VEGF receptor inhibitor axitinib in patients with advanced melanoma, including patients with chemotherapy-naïve mucosal melanomas (88%). Patients received toripalimab at 1 or 3 mg/kg via intravenous infusion every 2 weeks, in combination with axitinib 5 mg orally twice a day, in a dose-escalation and cohort-expansion study until confirmed disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or voluntary withdrawal. The primary objective was safety. Secondary objectives included efficacy, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity, and tumor tissue biomarkers. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients were enrolled. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed. Ninety-seven percent of patients experienced treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). The most common TRAEs were mild (grade 1 or 2) and included diarrhea, proteinuria, hand and foot syndrome, fatigue, AST or ALT elevation, hypertension, hypo- or hyperthyroidism, and rash. Grade 3 or greater TRAEs occurred in 39.4% of patients. By the cutoff date, among 29 patients with chemotherapy-naïve mucosal melanoma, 14 patients (48.3%; 95% CI, 29.4% to 67.5%) achieved objective response, and the median progression-free survival time was 7.5 months (95% CI, 3.7 months to not reached) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1. CONCLUSION: The combination of toripalimab plus axitinib was tolerable and showed promising antitumor activity in patients with treatment-naïve metastatic mucosal melanoma. Patients enrolled in this study were all Asian, and this combination therapy must be validated in a randomized phase III trial that includes a non-Asian population before it can become a standard of care.

Post Hoc Analyses of Anxiety Measures in Adult Patients With Generalized Anxiety Disorder Treated With Vilazodone.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate vilazodone, currently approved for major depressive disorder in adults, for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). METHOD: Three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies showing positive results for vilazodone (2,040 mg/d) in adult patients with GAD (DSM-IV-TR) were pooled for analyses; data were collected from June 2012 to March 2014. Post hoc outcomes in the pooled intent-to-treat population (n = 1,462) included mean change from baseline to week 8 in Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HARS) total score, psychic and somatic anxiety subscale scores, and individual item scores; HARS response (≥ 50% total score improvement) and remission (total score ≤ 7) at week 8; and category shifts, defined as HARS item score ≥ 2 at baseline (moderate to very severe symptoms) and score of 0 at week 8 (no symptoms). RESULTS: The least squares mean difference was statistically significant for vilazodone versus placebo in change from baseline to week 8 in HARS total score (-1.83, P < .0001) and in psychic anxiety (-1.21, P < .0001) and somatic anxiety (-0.63, P < .01) subscale scores; differences from placebo were significant on 11 of 14 HARS items (P < .05). Response rates were higher with vilazodone than placebo (48% vs 39%, P < .001), as were remission rates (27% vs 21%, P < .01). The percentage of patients who shifted to no symptoms was significant for vilazodone on several items: anxious mood, tension, intellectual, depressed mood, somatic-muscular, somatic-sensory, cardiovascular, respiratory, and autonomic symptoms (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with vilazodone versus placebo was effective in adult GAD patients, with significant differences between treatment groups found on both psychic and somatic HARS items. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT01629966, NCT01766401, NCT01844115.

Characterizing sexual function in patients with generalized anxiety disorder: a pooled analysis of three vilazodone studies.

BACKGROUND: Vilazodone has been shown to reduce core symptoms of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) in three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. Since sexual dysfunction (SD) is not well characterized in GAD, a post hoc analysis of these trials was conducted to evaluate the effects of vilazodone on sexual functioning in GAD patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were pooled from one fixed-dose trial of vilazodone 20 and 40 mg/day (NCT01629966) and two flexible-dose studies of vilazodone 20-40 mg/day (NCT01766401, NCT01844115) in adults with GAD. Sexual functioning was assessed using the Changes in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ). Outcomes included mean change from baseline to end of treatment (EOT) in CSFQ total score and percentage of patients shifting from SD at baseline (CSFQ total score ≤47 for males, ≤41 for females) to normal functioning at EOT. Treatment-emergent adverse events related to sexual functioning were also analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 1,373 patients were included in the analyses. SD at baseline was more common in females (placebo, 46.4%; vilazodone, 49%) than in males (placebo, 35.1%; vilazodone, 40.9%). CSFQ total score improvement was found in both females (placebo, +1.2; vilazodone, +1.6) and males (placebo, +2.1; vilazodone, +1.0), with no statistically significant differences between treatment groups. The percentage of patients who shifted from SD at baseline to normal sexual functioning at EOT was higher in males (placebo, 40.6%; vilazodone, 35.7%) than in females (placebo, 24.9%; vilazodone, 34.9%); no statistical testing was performed. Except for erectile dysfunction and delayed ejaculation in vilazodone-treated males (2.4% and 2.1%, respectively), no treatment-emergent adverse events related to sexual functioning occurred in ≥2% of patients in either treatment group. CONCLUSION: Approximately 35%-50% of patients in the vilazodone GAD studies had SD at baseline. Vilazodone and placebo had similar effects on CSFQ outcomes in both females and males, indicating a limited adverse impact on sexual functioning with vilazodone.

Efficacy and Safety of Vilazodone in Patients With Generalized Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Flexible-Dose Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of vilazodone as an acute treatment for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). Vilazodone is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor and 5-HT1A receptor partial agonist approved for the treatment of major depressive disorder in adults. METHODS: This was a randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter, flexible-dose study conducted from May 2013-March 2014. Adult patients (18-70 years, inclusive) who met DSM-IV-TR criteria for GAD were randomized (1:1) to placebo or vilazodone 20-40 mg/d for 8 weeks of double-blind treatment. Primary and secondary efficacy parameters were change from baseline to week 8 in the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HARS) total score and in the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) total score, respectively, analyzed using a mixed-effects model for repeated measures approach on a modified intent-to-treat population. Safety outcomes were summarized descriptively. RESULTS: Efficacy analyses were based on 400 patients (placebo = 200, vilazodone = 200); 76% completed the study (placebo = 81%, vilazodone = 71%). The least squares mean difference (95% CI) in total score change from baseline to week 8 was statistically significant for vilazodone versus placebo on the HARS (-2.20 [-3.72 to -0.68]; P = .0048) and on the SDS (-1.89 [-3.52 to -0.26]; P = .0236). Treatment-emergent adverse events reported in ≥ 5% of vilazodone patients and at least twice the rate of placebo were nausea, diarrhea, dizziness, fatigue, delayed ejaculation, and erectile dysfunction. CONCLUSION: Statistically significant differences in favor of vilazodone 20-40 mg/d versus placebo were seen on all measures of anxiety and functional impairment in patients with GAD. Vilazodone was generally well tolerated, and no new safety concerns were noted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01844115.

Vilazodone in patients with generalized anxiety disorder: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, flexible-dose study.

Vilazodone is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor and a 5-HT1A receptor partial agonist that is approved for treatment of major depressive disorder in adults in the USA and Mexico. The efficacy, safety, and tolerability of vilazodone for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) were investigated in a clinical trial (NCT01766401 ClinicalTrials.gov). Participants (18-70 years, inclusive) who met Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed., text revision, criteria for GAD were randomized (1:1) to placebo or flexible-dose vilazodone (20-40 mg/day) for 8 weeks of double-blind treatment. Primary and secondary efficacy parameters were changes from baseline to week 8 in Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety and Sheehan Disability Scale total scores, respectively. Analysis was based on a mixed-effects model for repeated measures approach on the intent-to-treat population. The intent-to-treat population comprised 395 patients (placebo=197, vilazodone=198); 77% completed the study. The least squares mean difference in change from baseline to week 8 in the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety total score was statistically significant for vilazodone versus placebo [-1.50 (-2.96, -0.04), P=0.0438]. The mean change from baseline to week 8 in the Sheehan Disability Scale total score for vilazodone versus placebo was not statistically significant. Adverse events were reported in 60% of placebo-treated and 83% of vilazodone-treated patients. This was a positive clinical trial of 20-40 mg/day vilazodone versus placebo in the treatment of GAD.

A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, fixed-dose phase III study of vilazodone in patients with generalized anxiety disorder.

BACKGROUND: Vilazodone, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor and 5-HT1A receptor partial agonist, is approved for treating major depressive disorder in adults. This study (NCT01629966 ClinicalTrials.gov) evaluated the efficacy and safety of vilazodone in adults with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). METHODS: A multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, fixed-dose study in patients with GAD randomized (1:1:1) to placebo (n = 223), or vilazodone 20 mg/day (n = 230) or 40 mg/day (n = 227). Primary and secondary efficacy parameters were total score change from baseline to week 8 on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAMA) and Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), respectively, analyzed using a predefined mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM). Safety outcomes were presented by descriptive statistics. RESULTS: The least squares mean difference (95% confidence interval) in HAMA total score change from baseline (MMRM) was statistically significant for vilazodone 40 mg/day versus placebo (-1.80 [-3.26, -0.34]; P = .0312 [adjusted for multiple comparisons]), but not for vilazodone 20 mg/day versus placebo. Mean change from baseline in SDS total score was not significantly different for either dose of vilazodone versus placebo when adjusted for multiplicity; significant improvement versus placebo was noted for vilazodone 40 mg/day without adjustment for multiplicity (P = .0349). The incidence of adverse events was similar for vilazodone 20 and 40 mg/day (∼71%) and slightly lower for placebo (62%). Nausea, diarrhea, dizziness, vomiting, and fatigue were reported in ≥5% of patients in either vilazodone group and at least twice the rate of placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Vilazodone was effective in treating anxiety symptoms of GAD. No new safety concerns were identified.

Evaluating the efficacy of vilazodone in achieving remission in patients with major depressive disorder: post-hoc analyses of a phase IV trial.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of vilazodone using different definitions of remission. Post-hoc analyses were carried out using data from an 8-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of vilazodone 40 mg/day in adults with major depressive disorder (NCT01473394). The primary efficacy endpoint was a mean change in the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score; additional measures included the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (CGI-S) and Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAMA) scores. In addition to treatment response (MADRS≥50% improvement), post-hoc analyses were carried out for remission of depressive symptoms [MADRS score≤10; MADRS≤5 (complete remission)], anxiety symptoms (HAMA≤7), and combined depression and anxiety symptoms (MADRS/HAMA≤10/≤7), as well as for overall symptom severity (CGI-S=1). Odds ratios (ORs) and numbers needed to treat (NNTs) were also calculated. Significant outcomes were obtained with vilazodone versus placebo for MADRS response (50.6 vs. 33.3%, OR=2.04, P<0.001, NNT=6), remission (34.0 vs. 21.8%, OR=1.82, P=0.003, NNT=9), and complete remission (18.2 vs. 8.3%, OR=2.42, P=0.002, NNT=11). More patients receiving vilazodone rather than placebo also met remission criteria for HAMA (48.8 vs. 35.2%, OR=1.82, P=0.002, NNT=8), MADRS/HAMA (32.1 vs. 20.4%, OR=1.83, P=0.004, NNT=9), and CGI-S (24.1 vs. 11.5%, OR=2.41, P<0.001, NNT=8). Treatment with vilazodone 40 mg/day may help adult patients with major depressive disorder achieve remission of depression and/or anxiety symptoms.

An examination of adherence to pain medication plans in older cancer patients in hospice care.

CONTEXT: Timely and appropriate management of pain is essential to promote comfort at the end of life. OBJECTIVES: To determine if pain-related factors and nonpharmacologic interventions affect medication adherence in older cancer patients in community-based hospices. METHODS: The study involved cancer patients aged 55 years and older, newly admitted to one of the 13 community-based hospices in the midwestern U.S. A descriptive design with patients or their proxies providing information during two telephonic interviews and review of their hospice medical records were used. RESULTS: A total sample of 65 patients was obtained, with data directly from 32 patients during Interview 1 (T(1)), 25 during Interview 2 (T(2)), and proxy reports for 33 (T(1)) and 30 (T(2)) patients. The overall mean pain medication adherence scores (maximum 9) for all patients were 8.43 (T(1)) and 8.38 (T(2)). For component analysis (three components; maximum of three points each), patients were the least adherent with opioid orders at both time points (2.65). Patients were the most adherent to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory/acetaminophen orders at T(1) (2.91) and medications for neuropathic pain at T(2) (2.89). Data provided statistical evidence that patients with more hours of controlled pain in the past 24 hours were more likely to have had better adherence, whereas patients with higher levels of comfort over the last few days were more likely to have had worse adherence. CONCLUSION: This study identified that pain medication adherence among older adults with cancer receiving hospice care is high. However, hospices must be alert to the fact that even as patients become more comfortable, adherence must continue to be emphasized to ensure that pain does not redevelop or exacerbate, if pain relief is a patient priority.

The effect of a translating research into practice (TRIP)--cancer intervention on cancer pain management in older adults in hospice.

BACKGROUND: Pain is a major concern for individuals with cancer, particularly older adults who make up the largest segment of individuals with cancer and who have some of the most unique pain challenges. One of the priorities of hospice is to provide a pain-free death, and while outcomes are better in hospice, patients still die with poorly controlled pain. OBJECTIVE: This article reports on the results of a Translating Research into Practice intervention designed to promote the adoption of evidence-based pain practices for older adults with cancer in community-based hospices. SETTING: This Institutional Human Subjects Review Board-approved study was a cluster randomized controlled trial implemented in 16 Midwestern hospices. METHODS: Retrospective medical records from newly admitted patients were used to determine the intervention effect. Additionally, survey and focus group data gathered from hospice staff at the completion of the intervention phase were analyzed. RESULTS: Improvement on the Cancer Pain Practice Index, an overall composite outcome measure of evidence-based practices for the experimental sites, was not significantly greater than control sites. Decrease in patient pain severity from baseline to post-intervention in the experimental group was greater; however, the result was not statistically significant (P = 0.1032). CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate a number of factors that may impact implementation of multicomponent interventions, including unique characteristics and culture of the setting, the level of involvement with the change processes, competing priorities and confounding factors, and complexity of the innovation (practice change). Our results suggest that future study is needed on specific factors to target when implementing a community-based hospice intervention, including determining and measuring intervention fidelity prospectively.

The relationships among pain, nonpain symptoms, and quality of life measures in older adults with cancer receiving hospice care.

OBJECTIVE: Gathering firsthand or reported information about patients in the final stages of terminal cancer is difficult due to patient frailty, cognitive impairment, excessive fatigue, and severity of illness, as well as gatekeeping by hospice providers and caregivers, and highly variable documentation practices. We sought to further understand and elucidate end-of-life experiences in older cancer patients through the application of validated tools employed in the hospice setting. This article summarizes data collected about pain, non-pain symptoms, and other aspects of quality of life (QOL) as reported by older hospice patients or by their caregivers during the 2 weeks of hospice care. DESIGN: Data was collected from an ongoing Institutional Human Subjects Review Board-approved research project with 94 older adults with cancer or their caregivers receiving service in a home setting from 14 Midwestern hospices. Participants completed one or two telephone interviews. Instruments used to gather information include the Brief Pain Inventory and the Brief Hospice Inventory. RESULTS: Data analysis showed mean "worst pain" ratings significantly decreased from Interview 1 to Interview 2, and pain reports were significantly correlated with fatigue, anxiety, appetite, comfort, symptom control, and overall QOL. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings reinforce previously held views that older patients with cancer experience pain and non-pain symptoms. And both pain and non-pain symptoms can impact and confound the treatment of other symptoms and interfere with the patient's overall QOL. The results of this study support the assertion that hospice care can have a positive impact on pain severity and related suffering, as well as patient QOL as death approaches.

The cancer pain practice index: a measure of evidence-based practice adherence for cancer pain management in older adults in hospice care.

Various clinical practice guidelines addressing pain assessment and management have been available for several years that pertain, at least to some extent, to older patients with cancer. Nonetheless, systematic evaluations or methodologically sound studies of adherence to pain management practice guidelines within Medicare-certified hospice programs are lacking. As part of a larger translating-research-into-practice pain improvement study involving older patients with cancer in hospice programs, we recognized the need to create a valid and reliable tool that can facilitate critical evaluation of hospice medical records for nurse and physician adherence to pain management guidelines to create a consolidated score for comparative and quality improvement purposes. We report the process used to create this tool, named the Cancer Pain Practice Index, and a guide to its use.

Assessing and treating pain in hospices: current state of evidence-based practices.

The aim of this study was to report on current provider evidence-based assessment and treatment practices for older adults with cancer in community-based hospice settings. Using the Cancer Pain Practices Index, a tool developed by the researchers to measure evidence-based pain management practices, patients received an average of 32% of those key evidence-based practices (EBPs) that were applicable to their situations. When examining individual practices, most of the patients had their pains assessed at admission using a valid pain scale (69.7%) and had primary components of a comprehensive assessment completed at admission (52.7%); most patients with admission reports of pain had an order for pain medication (83.5%). However, data revealed a number of practice gaps, including additional components of a comprehensive assessment completed within 48 hours of admission (0%); review of the pain treatment plan at each reassessment (35.7%); reassessment of moderate or greater pain (5.3%); consecutive pain reports of 5 or greater followed by increases in pain medication (15.8%); monitoring of analgesic-induced side effects (19.3%); initiation of a bowel regimen for patients with an opioid order (32.3%); and documentation of both nonpharmacological therapies (22.5%) and written pain management plans (0.6%). Findings highlight positive EBPs and areas for improving the translation of EBPs into practice. Data suggest that cancer pain is not being documented as consistently assessed, reassessed, or treated in a manner consistent with current EBP recommendations for older adults with cancer in community-based hospices.