RESUMO
AIMS: Approximately 55% of patients diagnosed with primary or metastatic cancer endure pain directly attributable to the disease. Consequently, it becomes imperative to address pain management through a comparative analysis of stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) and conventional radiation therapy (CRT), especially in light of the less efficacious improvement achieved solely through pharmacological interventions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic exploration was undertaken on PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Elsevier's ScienceDirect databases to identify studies that compare Stereotactic Radiotherapy to Conventional radiation therapy for pain management in individuals with metastatic bone cancer. The analyses were executed utilizing the random-effects model. RESULTS: A cohort of 1152 participants with metastatic bone cancer was analyzed, demonstrating significantly higher complete pain relief in the Stereotactic Radiotherapy group during both early and late follow-up (RR: 1.61; 95% CI: 1.17, 2.23, p-value: 0.004; I2: 0%). Stereotactic Radiotherapy also showed a non-significant increase in the incidence of partial pain relief (RR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.85, 1.34, p-value: 0.56; I2: 18%). Furthermore, Stereotactic Radiotherapy was associated with a significantly reduced risk of stationary pain throughout follow-up (RR: 0.61; 95%CI: 0.48, 0.76, p-value: <0.0001; I2: 0. The incidence of progressive pain was non-significantly reduced with Stereotactic Radiotherapy during both early and late follow-up (RR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.50, 1.17, p-value: 0.22; I2: 0%). Secondary outcomes exhibited a non-significant trend favoring Stereotactic Radiotherapy for dysphagia, esophagitis, pain, and radiodermatitis, while a non-significant increase was observed for nausea, fatigue, and vertebral compression fracture. CONCLUSION: In summary, stereotactic radiation therapy (SRT) has improved in achieving complete pain relief while exhibiting a decreased probability of delivering stationary pain compared to conventional radiation therapy (CRT). Nevertheless, it is crucial in future research to address a noteworthy limitation, specifically, the risk of vertebral compression fracture.
RESUMO
WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Optimal outpatient anticoagulation management requires a systematic and coordinated approach. Extensive evidence regarding the benefits of pharmacist-managed anticoagulation services has been reported in the literature. The quality and outcomes associated with pharmacist-managed anticoagulation clinics under collaborative practice agreements in the Middle East have rarely been reported. The first pharmacist-managed ambulatory anticoagulation clinic in Qatar was launched at Al-Wakrah Hospital in March 2013. The objectives of this study were to: (i) describe the practice model of the clinic, (ii) evaluate the quality of the clinic [i.e. the time in therapeutic range (TTR)] and the clinical outcomes (i.e. the efficacy and safety), and (iii) determine the patients' satisfaction and overall quality of life (QoL). METHODS: Clinical outcome data were collected through a retrospective chart review of all patients managed from March 2013 to October 2014 at the pharmacist-managed anticoagulation clinic. Furthermore, the patient-oriented outcomes data were prospectively collected using the 24-item Duke Anticoagulation Satisfaction Scale (DASS). Each item was assessed using a 7-point Likert-type scale on which lower scores indicated better QoL and greater satisfaction. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The clinical outcome data analyses included 119 patients who were enrolled at the clinic during the 19-month study period. The mean number of international normalized ratio (INR) tests/month was 65 ± 9, the average testing frequency was 2·7 ± 1·6 weeks, and the average %TTR was 76·8 ± 22·9%. There was one major bleeding event (0·67%/year), 12 minor bleeding events (8%/year) and two thromboembolic events (1·35%/year) recorded during the study period. Of the 119 patients, 50 participated in the satisfaction and QoL survey. The median (IQR) total QoL score of these subjects was 63 (48) (minimum-maximum achievable score: 24-168). Seventy-six per cent of the patients indicated 'a lot to very much' in terms of their overall satisfaction with the anticoagulation treatment. The participants who were naïve to anticoagulation treatment reported a significantly greater satisfaction and better QoL than the experienced patients [58 (44) vs. 82 (59); P = 0·009]. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: These findings provide early evidence that the patients who were managed at a pharmacy-based anticoagulation clinic in an evolving healthcare system experienced optimal anticoagulation management.
