Pharmacological treatment of cancer pain and opioid induced nausea and vomiting: online survey and comparison with current guidelines.

PURPOSE: We assumed that in Palliative Care, even in common clinical situations, the choice of drugs differs substantially between physicians. Therefore, we assessed the practice of pharmaceutical treatment choices of physicians for cancer pain and opioid-induced nausea and vomiting (OINV) and the rationale for their choices. METHODS: An online survey was conducted with physicians covering the following domains: i) Cancer pain therapy: non-opioids in addition to opioids: choice of drug ii) prevention of OINV: choice of drug and mode of application. Current guidelines concerning cancer pain therapy and prevention of OINV were compared. RESULTS: Two-hundred-forty European physicians responded to our survey. i) Use of non-opioids in addition to opioids for the treatment of cancer pain: Only 1.3% (n = 3) of respondents never used an additional non-opioid. Others mostly used: dipyrone/metamizole (49.2%, n = 118), paracetamol/acetaminophen (34.2%, n = 82), ibuprofen / other NSAIDs (11.3%, n = 27), specific Cox2-inhibitors (2.1%, n = 5), Aspirin (0.4%, n = 1), no answer (2.9%, n = 7). ii) Antiemetics to prevent OINV: The drugs of choice were metoclopramide (58.3%, n = 140), haloperidol (26.3%, n = 63), 5-HT3 antagonists (9.6%, n = 23), antihistamines (1.3%, n = 3) and other (2.9%, n = 7); no answer (1.7%, n = 4). Most respondents prescribed the substances on-demand (59.6%, n = 143) while others (36.3%, n = 87) provided them as around the clock medication. Over both domains, most physicians answered that their choices were not based on solid evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Guidelines were inconsistent regarding if and what non-opioid to use for cancer pain and recommend anti-dopaminergic drugs for prevention or treatment of OINV. CONCLUSIONS: Physician's practice in palliative care for the treatment of cancer pain and OINV differed substantially. Respondents expressed the lack of high-quality evidence- based information from RCTs. We call for evidence from methodologically high-quality RCTs to be available to inform physicians about the benefits and harms of pharmacological treatments for common symptoms in palliative care.

Screening for Palliative Care Need in Oncology: Validation of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures.

CONTEXT: Leading oncology societies recommend monitoring symptoms and support needs through patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), but their use for assessing specialist palliative care (SPC) need has not yet been explored. Research on SPC integration has focused on staff-assessed screening tools, which are time-consuming. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the diagnostic validity of the Integrated Palliative Outcome Scale (IPOS) and NCCN Distress Thermometer (NCCN DT) in identifying need for SPC in patients with incurable cancer. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, patients with incurable cancer (prognosis <2 years) completed PROMs. In an independent process, the palliative care consultation service (PCCS) assessed the need for SPC in each patient through multiprofessional case review, and this was used as the reference standard. ROC analyses were employed to determine diagnostic validity. RESULTS: Of the 208 participants, 71 (34.1 %) were classified as having SPC need by the PCCS. Aiming for a minimum sensitivity of 80%, a cut-off of ≥2 items with high/very high burden in the IPOS resulted in a 90.2% sensitivity (specificity = 50; AUC = 0.791; CI 95%= 0.724-0.858). A cut-off of ≥5 resulted in a sensitivity of 80 % for NCCN DT (specificity = 49.5 %; AUC = 0.687; CI 95% = 0.596-0.777). CONCLUSION: PROMs are useful for identifying SPC need in cancer patients. Their implementation might facilitate timely integration of SPC. Future research should focus on an integrated assessment approach with PROMs that combines the requirements of the different specialties to save patient and staff resources.

Interrater agreement of multi-professional case review as reference standard for specialist palliative care need: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: A wide variety of screening tools for the need for specialist palliative care (SPC) have been proposed for the use in oncology. However, as there is no established reference standard for SPC need to compare their results with, their sensitivity and specificity have not yet been determined. The aim of the study was to explore whether SPC need assessment by means of multi-professional case review has sufficient interrater agreement to be employed as a reference standard. METHODS: Comprehensive case descriptions were prepared for 20 inpatients with advanced oncologic disease at the University Hospital Freiburg (Germany). All cases were presented to the palliative care teams of three different hospitals in independent, multi-professional case review sessions. The teams assessed whether patients had support needs in nine categories and subsequently concluded SPC need (yes / no). Interrater agreement regarding SPC need was determined by calculating Fleiss' Kappa. RESULTS: In 17 out of 20 cases the three teams agreed regarding their appraisal of SPC need (substantial interrater agreement: Fleiss' Kappa κ = 0.80 (95% CI: 0.55-1.0; p < 0.001)). The number of support needs was significantly lower for patients who all teams agreed had no SPC need than for those with agreed SPC need. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed expert case review process shows sufficient reliability to be used as a reference standard. Key elements of the case review process (e.g. clear definition of SPC need, standardized review of the patients' support needs) and possible modifications to simplify the process are discussed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00021686, registered 17.12.2020.

Pharmacological interventions for pruritus in adult palliative care patients.

BACKGROUND: This is the second update of the original Cochrane review published in 2013 (issue 6), which was updated in 2016 (issue 11). Pruritus occurs in patients with disparate underlying diseases and is caused by different pathologic mechanisms. In palliative care patients, pruritus is not the most prevalent but is a burdening symptom. It can cause considerable discomfort and negatively affect patients' quality of life. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of different pharmacological treatments compared with active control or placebo for preventing or treating pruritus in adult palliative care patients. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (OVID) and Embase (OVID) up to 6 July 2022. In addition, we searched trial registries and checked the reference lists of all relevant studies, key textbooks, reviews and websites, and we contacted investigators and specialists in pruritus and palliative care regarding unpublished data. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of different pharmacological treatments, compared with a placebo, no treatment, or an alternative treatment, for preventing or treating pruritus in palliative care patients. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the identified titles and abstracts, performed data extraction and assessed the risk of bias and methodological quality. We summarised the results descriptively and quantitatively (meta-analyses) according to the different pharmacological interventions and the diseases associated with pruritus. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created 13 summary of findings tables. MAIN RESULTS: In total, we included 91 studies and 4652 participants in the review. We added 42 studies with 2839 participants for this update. Altogether, we included 51 different treatments for pruritus in four different patient groups. The overall risk of bias profile was heterogeneous and ranged from high to low risk. The main reason for giving a high risk of bias rating was a small sample size (fewer than 50 participants per treatment arm). Seventy-nine of 91 studies (87%) had fewer than 50 participants per treatment arm. Eight (9%) studies had low risk of bias in the specified key domains; the remaining studies had an unclear risk of bias (70 studies, 77%) or a high risk of bias (13 studies, 14%). Using GRADE criteria, we judged that the certainty of evidence for the primary outcome (i.e. pruritus) was high for kappa-opioid agonists compared to placebo and moderate for GABA-analogues compared to placebo. Certainty of evidence was low for naltrexone, fish-oil/omega-3 fatty acids, topical capsaicin, ondansetron and zinc sulphate compared to placebo and gabapentin compared to pregabalin, and very low for cromolyn sodium, paroxetine, montelukast, flumecinol, and rifampicin compared to placebo. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence mainly due to serious study limitations regarding risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency. For participants suffering from uraemic pruritus (UP; also known as chronic kidney disease (CKD)-associated pruritus (CKD-aP)), treatment with GABA-analogues compared to placebo likely resulted in a large reduction of pruritus (visual analogue scale (VAS) 0 to 10 cm): mean difference (MD) -5.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.56 to -4.55; five RCTs, N = 297, certainty of evidence: moderate. Treatment with kappa-opioid receptor agonists (difelikefalin, nalbuphine, nalfurafine) compared to placebo reduced pruritus slightly (VAS 0 to 10 cm, MD -0.96, 95% CI -1.22 to -0.71; six RCTs, N = 1292, certainty of evidence: high); thus, this treatment was less effective than GABA-analogues. Treatment with montelukast compared to placebo may result in a reduction of pruritus, but the evidence is very uncertain (two studies, 87 participants): SMD -1.40, 95% CI -1.87 to -0.92; certainty of evidence: very low. Treatment with fish-oil/omega-3 fatty acids compared to placebo may result in a large reduction of pruritus (four studies, 160 observations): SMD -1.60, 95% CI -1.97 to -1.22; certainty of evidence: low. Treatment with cromolyn sodium compared to placebo may result in a reduction of pruritus, but the evidence is very uncertain (VAS 0 to 10 cm, MD -3.27, 95% CI -5.91 to -0.63; two RCTs, N = 100, certainty of evidence: very low). Treatment with topical capsaicin compared with placebo may result in a large reduction of pruritus (two studies; 112 participants): SMD -1.06, 95% CI -1.55 to -0.57; certainty of evidence: low. Ondansetron, zinc sulphate and several other treatments may not reduce pruritus in participants suffering from UP. In participants with cholestatic pruritus (CP), treatment with rifampicin compared to placebo may reduce pruritus, but the evidence is very uncertain (VAS: 0 to 100, MD -42.00, 95% CI -87.31 to 3.31; two RCTs, N = 42, certainty of evidence: very low). Treatment with flumecinol compared to placebo may reduce pruritus, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR > 1 favours treatment group; RR 2.32, 95% CI 0.54 to 10.1; two RCTs, N = 69, certainty of evidence: very low). Treatment with the opioid antagonist naltrexone compared to placebo may reduce pruritus (VAS: 0 to 10 cm, MD -2.42, 95% CI -3.90 to -0.94; two RCTs, N = 52, certainty of evidence: low). However, effects in participants with UP were inconclusive (percentage of difference -12.30%, 95% CI -25.82% to 1.22%, one RCT, N = 32). In palliative care participants with pruritus of a different nature, the treatment with the drug paroxetine (one study), a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, compared to placebo may reduce pruritus slightly by 0.78 (numerical analogue scale from 0 to 10 points; 95% CI -1.19 to -0.37; one RCT, N = 48, certainty of evidence: low). Most adverse events were mild or moderate. Two interventions showed multiple major adverse events (naltrexone and nalfurafine). AUTHORS CONCLUSIONS: Different interventions (GABA-analogues, kappa-opioid receptor agonists, cromolyn sodium, montelukast, fish-oil/omega-3 fatty acids and topical capsaicin compared to placebo) were effective for uraemic pruritus. GABA-analogues had the largest effect on pruritus. Rifampin, naltrexone and flumecinol tended to be effective for cholestatic pruritus. However, therapies for patients with malignancies are still lacking. Due to the small sample sizes in most meta-analyses and the heterogeneous methodological quality of the included trials, the results should be interpreted cautiously in terms of generalisability.

Development of a screening tool for the need of specialist palliative care in oncologic inpatients: study protocol for the ScreeningPALL Study.

INTRODUCTION: A range of referral criteria and scores have been developed in recent years to help with screening for the need of specialist palliative care (SPC) in advanced, incurable cancer patients. However, referral criteria have not yet been widely implemented in oncology, as they usually need to be revised by physicians or nurses with limited time resources. To develop an easily applicable screening for the need for SPC in incurable cancer inpatients, we aim to (a) test inter-rater reliability of multiprofessional expert opinion as reference standard for SPC need (phase I) and (b) explore the diagnostic validity of selected patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and routine data for the need of SPC (phase II). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Inclusion criteria for patients are metastatic or locally advanced, incurable cancer, ≥18 years of age and informed consent by patient or proxy. (Exclusion criteria: malignant haematological disease as main diagnosis). In phase I, three palliative care consultation teams (PCTs) of three German university hospitals assess the SPC need of 20 patient cases. Fleiss' Kappa will be calculated for inter-rater reliability. In phase II, 208 patients are consecutively recruited in four inpatient oncology wards of Freiburg University Hospital. The PCT will provide assessment of SPC need. As potential referral criteria, patients complete PROMs and a selection of routine data on person, disease and treatment is documented. Logistic regression models and ROC analyses are employed to test their utility in screening for SPC need. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Our findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national and international scientific meetings and congresses. Ethical approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of Albert-Ludwigs-University Freiburg, Germany (approval no. 20-1103). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00021686, registered on 17 December 2020.

Implementation of an acute palliative care unit for COVID-19 patients in a tertiary hospital: Qualitative data on clinician perspectives.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, it has become apparent that palliative care has dynamically adapted to the care of dying patients with and without COVID-19 and has developed new forms of collaboration. Evaluation is needed to assess which innovations should be integrated into future pandemic management. AIM: To explore the experiences of stakeholders and staff in implementing and operating an ad hoc unit delivering acute palliative care. What lessons were learned? DESIGN: Qualitative interview study (German Clinical Trials Register; identifier 22,473) with qualitative content analysis. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: During the first wave of the pandemic, the University Medical Center Freiburg (Germany) established an ad hoc unit delivering acute palliative care for COVID-19 patients likely to die. Nurses from non-palliative areas and the specialist palliative care team formed a new team working together there. Twenty-nine individuals from management and staff of this unit were interviewed. RESULTS: Patient care and teamwork were rated positively. Joint familiarization, bedside teaching, and team/management support were evaluated as core elements for success. Challenges for the nurses from non-palliative settings included adapting to palliative care routines and culture of care. The palliative care team had to adjust the high standards of palliative care to pandemic conditions. Due to sufficient hospital-wide capacity, only three COVID-19 patients were treated, significantly fewer than anticipated at planning. CONCLUSIONS: Results show the feasibility of an ad hoc COVID-19 acute palliative care unit. In the event of capacity constraints, such a unit can be a viable part of future pandemic management.

Ift88, but not Kif3a, is required for establishment of the periciliary membrane compartment.

The primary cilium is a sensory organelle at the cell surface with integral functions in cell signaling. It contains a microtubular axoneme that is rooted in the basal body (BB) and serves as a scaffold for the movement of intraflagellar transport (IFT) particles by Kinesin-2 along the cilium. Ift88, a member of the anterograde moving IFT-B1 complex, as well as the Kinesin-2 subunit Kif3a are required for cilia formation. To facilitate signaling, the cilium restricts the access of molecules to its membrane ("ciliary gate"). This is thought to be mediated by cytoskeletal barriers ("subciliary domains") originating from the BB subdistal/distal appendages, the periciliary membrane compartment (PCMC) as well as the transition fibers and zone (TF/TZ). The PCMC is a poorly characterized membrane domain surrounding the ciliary base with exclusion of certain apical membrane proteins. Here we describe that Ift88, but not Kinesin-2, is required for the establishment of the PCMC in MDCK cells. Likewise, in C. elegans mutants of the Ift88 ortholog osm-5 fail to establish the PCMC, while Kinesin-2 deficient osm-3 mutants form PCMCs normally. Furthermore, disruption of IFT-B1 into two subcomplexes, while disrupting ciliogenesis, does not interfere with PCMC formation. Our findings suggest that cilia are not a prerequisite for the formation of the PCMC, and that separate machineries with partially overlapping functions are required for the establishment of each.

Interventions for palliative symptom control in COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: Individuals dying of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may experience distressing symptoms such as breathlessness or delirium. Palliative symptom management can alleviate symptoms and improve the quality of life of patients. Various treatment options such as opioids or breathing techniques have been discussed for use in COVID-19 patients. However, guidance on symptom management of COVID-19 patients in palliative care has often been derived from clinical experiences and guidelines for the treatment of patients with other illnesses. An understanding of the effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological palliative interventions to manage specific symptoms of COVID-19 patients is required. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control in individuals with COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (including Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), medRxiv); Web of Science Core Collection (Science Citation Index Expanded, Emerging Sources); CINAHL; WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease; and COAP Living Evidence on COVID-19 to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions until 23 March 2021. We screened the reference lists of relevant review articles and current treatment guidelines for further literature. SELECTION CRITERIA: We followed standard Cochrane methodology as outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We included studies evaluating palliative symptom management for individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 receiving interventions for palliative symptom control, with no restrictions regarding comorbidities, age, gender, or ethnicity. Interventions comprised pharmacological as well as non-pharmacological treatment (e.g. acupressure, physical therapy, relaxation, or breathing techniques). We searched for the following types of studies: randomized controlled trials (RCT), quasi-RCTs, controlled clinical trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series (with comparison group), prospective cohort studies, retrospective cohort studies, (nested) case-control studies, and cross-sectional studies. We searched for studies comparing pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control with standard care. We excluded studies evaluating palliative interventions for symptoms caused by other terminal illnesses. If studies enrolled populations with or exposed to multiple diseases, we would only include these if the authors provided subgroup data for individuals with COVID-19. We excluded studies investigating interventions for symptom control in a curative setting, for example patients receiving life-prolonging therapies such as invasive ventilation.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used a modified version of the Newcastle Ottawa Scale for non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) to assess bias in the included studies. We included the following outcomes: symptom relief (primary outcome); quality of life; symptom burden; satisfaction of patients, caregivers, and relatives; serious adverse events; and grade 3 to 4 adverse events. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.  As meta-analysis was not possible, we used tabulation to synthesize the studies and histograms to display the outcomes.  MAIN RESULTS: Overall, we identified four uncontrolled retrospective cohort studies investigating pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control in hospitalized patients and patients in nursing homes. None of the studies included a comparator. We rated the risk of bias high across all studies. We rated the certainty of the evidence as very low for the primary outcome symptom relief, downgrading mainly for high risk of bias due to confounding and unblinded outcome assessors. Pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control We identified four uncontrolled retrospective cohort studies (five references) investigating pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control. Two references used the same register to form their cohorts, and study investigators confirmed a partial overlap of participants. We therefore do not know the exact number of participants, but individual reports included 61 to 2105 participants. Participants received multimodal pharmacological interventions: opioids, neuroleptics, anticholinergics, and benzodiazepines for relieving dyspnea (breathlessness), delirium, anxiety, pain, audible upper airway secretions, respiratory secretions, nausea, cough, and unspecified symptoms.  Primary outcome: symptom relief All identified studies reported this outcome. For all symptoms (dyspnea, delirium, anxiety, pain, audible upper airway secretions, respiratory secretions, nausea, cough, and unspecified symptoms), a majority of interventions were rated as completely or partially effective by outcome assessors (treating clinicians or nursing staff). Interventions used in the studies were opioids, neuroleptics, anticholinergics, and benzodiazepines.  We are very uncertain about the effect of pharmacological interventions on symptom relief (very low-certainty evidence). The initial rating of the certainty of evidence was low since we only identified uncontrolled NRSIs. Our main reason for downgrading the certainty of evidence was high risk of bias due to confounding and unblinded outcome assessors. We therefore did not find evidence to confidently support or refute whether pharmacological interventions may be effective for palliative symptom relief in COVID-19 patients. Secondary outcomes We planned to include the following outcomes: quality of life; symptom burden; satisfaction of patients, caregivers, and relatives; serious adverse events; and grade 3 to 4 adverse events. We did not find any data for these outcomes, or any other information on the efficacy and safety of used interventions. Non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control None of the identified studies used non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found very low certainty evidence for the efficacy of pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom relief in COVID-19 patients. We found no evidence on the safety of pharmacological interventions or efficacy and safety of non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control in COVID-19 patients. The evidence presented here has no specific implications for palliative symptom control in COVID-19 patients because we cannot draw any conclusions about the effectiveness or safety based on the identified evidence. More evidence is needed to guide clinicians, nursing staff, and caregivers when treating symptoms of COVID-19 patients at the end of life. Specifically, future studies ought to investigate palliative symptom control in prospectively registered studies, using an active-controlled setting, assess patient-reported outcomes, and clearly define interventions. The publication of the results of ongoing studies will necessitate an update of this review. The conclusions of an updated review could differ from those of the present review and may allow for a better judgement regarding pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control in COVID-19 patients.

Lessons Learned from Introducing Last Aid Courses at a University Hospital in Germany.

In recent years, so called "Last Aid courses", concerning end-of-life care for people dying, have successfully been established in community settings in several European countries, Australia, and South-America. To date, they have not been evaluated in hospital settings, where educational needs (concerning care of the dying) are especially high, and may differ from the general population. To evaluate if Last Aid courses are feasible in hospital settings, and if informational needs of hospital staff are met by the curriculum, we introduced Last Aid courses at a university hospital. Five courses were offered; participants of courses 1 and 2 completed surveys with open-ended questions; the answers were used to develop the evaluation questionnaire employed in courses 3-5. In these three courses, 55 of the 56 participants completed an evaluation survey to explore their learning goals and obtain feedback. Courses were fully booked; participants were heterogeneous with regard to their professional background. The most prevalent learning goals were "preparation for emotional aspects in care of dying" (65.5% ratings "very important"), "preparation for medical/care aspects in care of dying" (60.0%), and "knowledge of supportive services and facilities" (54.5%). Overall, the evaluation showed that Last Aid courses were more suitable to educate non-medical hospital staff about care of the dying. Medical staff, in contrast to non-medical staff, more often requested courses with an extended curriculum in order to meet their learning goals. Last Aid courses were well accepted and helped to reduce information deficits on care of the dying in a heterogeneous population of hospital staff.

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for advanced cancer pain inpatients in specialist palliative care-a blinded, randomized, sham-controlled pilot cross-over trial.

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.

Clinical and Morphologic Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Direct Corneal Neurotization.

PURPOSE: To describe clinical outcomes of a minimally invasive technique for direct corneal neurotization to treat neurotrophic keratopathy. METHODS: All cases of corneal neurotization for neurotrophic keratopathy performed by a single surgeon using minimally invasive direct corneal neurotization were reviewed. The supraorbital donor nerve was directly transferred to the cornea through an upper eyelid crease incision using either a combination of endoscopic and direct visualization or direct visualization alone. Detailed ocular and adnexal examinations as well as Cochet-Bonnet esthesiometry of the affected cornea were performed. Corneal histopathology and in vivo confocal microscopy after minimally invasive direct corneal neurotization were reviewed in one patient who underwent simultaneous penetrating keratoplasty. RESULTS: Five consecutive cases in 4 patients were included, with a mean follow up of 15.8 months (range: 11-23 months). Average denervation time was 17.8 months (range: 6-24 months). Baseline corneal conditions were Mackie stage 1 (20%), Mackie stage 2 (40%), and Mackie stage 3 (40%). All patients demonstrated improvements in corneal sensibility and appearance postoperatively. All patients demonstrated stable or improved visual acuity. No patients developed persistent epithelial defects postoperatively, and all achieved return of tactile skin sensation in the donor nerve sensory distribution. In vivo confocal microscopy after minimally invasive direct corneal neurotization and simultaneous penetrating keratoplasty demonstrated regeneration of corneal nerves. Complications included an asymptomatic small bony excrescence lateral to the supraorbital notch in one patient and cataract progression in the patient who underwent penetrating keratoplasty. CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive direct corneal neurotization is a safe and effective treatment of neurotrophic keratopathy.

Divergent function of polycystin 1 and polycystin 2 in cell size regulation.

Autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) is caused by mutations in PKD1 or PKD2, the genes encoding polycystin 1 (PC1) and polycystin 2 (PC2), respectively. PC1 and PC2 localize to the primary cilium and form a protein complex, which is thought to regulate signaling events. PKD1 mutations are associated with a stronger phenotype than PKD2, suggesting the existence of PC1 specific functions in renal tubular cells. However, the evidence for diverging molecular functions is scant. The bending of cilia by fluid flow induces a reduction in cell size through a mechanism that involves the kinase LKB1 but not PC2. Here, using different in vitro approaches, we show that contrary to PC2, PC1 regulates cell size under flow and thus phenocopies the loss of cilia. PC1 is required to couple mechanical deflection of cilia to mTOR in tubular cells. This study pinpoints divergent functions of the polycystins in renal tubular cells that may be relevant to disease severity in ADPKD.

Early palliative care and the opioid crisis: ten pragmatic steps towards a more rational use of opioids.

In palliative care, opioids and other controlled drugs are among the most commonly used and important medications. Opioids are associated with significant risk of dependence and misuse. In many developed countries, there is an epidemic of prescription opioid misuse and overdose deaths. Palliative care has a critical role educating patients about the safe use of opioids, providing universal screening and close monitoring, and prescribing opioids appropriately balancing the risks and benefits. This is particularly important in the era of early palliative care, when patients have much longer survival and potentially greater risk of misuse while on chronic opioid therapy. Here, we provided a critical appraisal of opioid use in the context of opioid crisis and early palliative care. We also present a pragmatic 10-step approach for the judicious use of opioids.

Improvement of Restless Legs Syndrome Under Treatment of Cancer Pain With Morphine and Fentanyl.

Restless-Legs-Syndrome (RLS), also known as Willis-Ekbom disease, is a sleep- and rest related disorder characterized by the unpleasant urge to move the legs. Pharmacological therapy is mainly based on dopamine-agonists and delta-2-alpha calcium channel ligands. Also, randomized-controlled-trials (RCTs) reported effectiveness of oral oxycodone (in combination with naloxone), and intrathecal opioids have also been administered for this indication. In the case reported here, a patient with advanced pancreatic cancer was referred to an acute palliative care unit for the treatment of cancer-related pain. Yet, in thorough exploration of her symptom burden, the patient reported that she felt her quality of life had been predominantly limited by symptoms other than cancer pain. Her medical history and neurological examination revealed that these symptoms were most obviously caused by severe RLS. In the years before, pharmacological therapies with dopamine-agonists and delta-2-alpha calcium channel ligands were initiated, but failed to relieve the RLS. In the palliative care ward, intravenous morphine was successfully titrated to treat her cancer pain. Concurrently, the patient also experienced almost complete relief from her RLS-symptoms and an increase in quality of life. The amelioration of her RLS-symptoms continued after morphine therapy was switched from intravenous to oral administration. Even after the patient was dismissed to home care and opioid rotation to transdermal fentanyl, symptom control of RLS remained excellent. To our knowledge, this is the first report of successfully treating RLS with intravenous and oral morphine. Since morphine is more easily available worldwide and the cost of morphine therapy is substantially lower compared to oxycodone/naloxone, comparisons to morphine may be an intriguing option for future RCTs.

Influence of Lens Status on Outcomes of Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty.

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether lens status influences clinical outcomes of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) in patients who underwent DMEK in phakia, pseudophakia, or combined with cataract surgery (triple). METHODS: A retrospective review of 139 eyes (107 patients) with symptomatic Fuchs' dystrophy or secondary corneal edema was performed. Patients were divided into 3 groups: 1) DMEK + cataract surgery, 2) DMEK in pseudophakia, and 3) DMEK in phakia. RESULTS: Of 139 DMEK surgeries, 61 were DMEK triple (43.9%), 55 pseudophakic DMEK (39.6%), and 23 phakic DMEK (16.5%) procedures. Rebubble occurred in 31 of 134 eyes (23.1%), of which 17 were in eyes after DMEK triple (28.3%), 10 after pseudophakic DMEK (19.6%), and 4 after phakic DMEK (17.4%). There was no statistically significant difference in rebubble rates depending on lens status (P = 0.548). There was no statistically significant difference in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) between eyes that underwent rebubble versus not (P = 0.854). BCVA in patients post-DMEK was 20/25 or better in 81% of cases, and mean BCVA was 20/23. Donor age (P = 0.889), graft cell count (P = 0.525), and graft preparation technique (P = 0.769) were not predictive of rebubbling. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates no difference in DMEK outcome with regard to rebubble rate whether the procedure is performed in combination with cataract surgery, in pseudophakia, or in phakia. Furthermore, donor age, initial graft cell count, and graft preparation technique did not impact rebubble rate. BCVA was also not affected by the need for rebubbling.

A Cilia Independent Role of Ift88/Polaris during Cell Migration.

Ift88 is a central component of the intraflagellar transport (Ift) complex B, essential for the building of cilia and flagella from single cell organisms to mammals. Loss of Ift88 results in the absence of cilia and causes left-right asymmetry defects, disordered Hedgehog signaling, and polycystic kidney disease, all of which are explained by aberrant ciliary function. In addition, a number of extraciliary functions of Ift88 have been described that affect the cell-cycle, mitosis, and targeting of the T-cell receptor to the immunological synapse. Similarly, another essential ciliary molecule, the kinesin-2 subunit Kif3a, which transports Ift-B in the cilium, affects microtubule (MT) dynamics at the leading edge of migrating cells independently of cilia. We now show that loss of Ift88 impairs cell migration irrespective of cilia. Ift88 is required for the polarization of migrating MDCK cells, and Ift88 depleted cells have fewer MTs at the leading edge. Neither MT dynamics nor MT nucleation are dependent on Ift88. Our findings dissociate the function of Ift88 from Kif3a outside the cilium and suggest a novel extraciliary function for Ift88. Future studies need to address what unifying mechanism underlies the different extraciliary functions of Ift88.

TSC1 activates TGF-ß-Smad2/3 signaling in growth arrest and epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition.

The tuberous sclerosis proteins TSC1 and TSC2 are key integrators of growth factor signaling. They suppress cell growth and proliferation by acting in a heteromeric complex to inhibit the mammalian target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1). In this study, we identify TSC1 as a component of the transforming growth factor ß (TGF-ß)-Smad2/3 pathway. Here, TSC1 functions independently of TSC2. TSC1 interacts with the TGF-ß receptor complex and Smad2/3 and is required for their association with one another. TSC1 regulates TGF-ß-induced Smad2/3 phosphorylation and target gene expression and controls TGF-ß-induced growth arrest and epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT). Hyperactive Akt specifically activates TSC1-dependent cytostatic Smad signaling to induce growth arrest. Thus, TSC1 couples Akt activity to TGF-ß-Smad2/3 signaling. This has implications for cancer treatments targeting phosphoinositide 3-kinases and Akt because they may impair tumor-suppressive cytostatic TGF-ß signaling by inhibiting Akt- and TSC1-dependent Smad activation.

The Rac1 regulator ELMO controls basal body migration and docking in multiciliated cells through interaction with Ezrin.

Cilia are microtubule-based organelles that are present on most cells and are required for normal tissue development and function. Defective cilia cause complex syndromes with multiple organ manifestations termed ciliopathies. A crucial step during ciliogenesis in multiciliated cells (MCCs) is the association of future basal bodies with the apical plasma membrane, followed by their correct spacing and planar orientation. Here, we report a novel role for ELMO-DOCK1, which is a bipartite guanine nucleotide exchange factor complex for the small GTPase Rac1, and for the membrane-cytoskeletal linker Ezrin, in regulating centriole/basal body migration, docking and spacing. Downregulation of each component results in ciliopathy-related phenotypes in zebrafish and disrupted ciliogenesis in Xenopus epidermal MCCs. Subcellular analysis revealed a striking impairment of basal body docking and spacing, which is likely to account for the observed phenotypes. These results are substantiated by showing a genetic interaction between elmo1 and ezrin b. Finally, we provide biochemical evidence that the ELMO-DOCK1-Rac1 complex influences Ezrin phosphorylation and thereby probably serves as an important molecular switch. Collectively, we demonstrate that the ELMO-Ezrin complex orchestrates ciliary basal body migration, docking and positioning in vivo.

Hantavirus infection with severe proteinuria and podocyte foot-process effacement.

Nephropathia epidemica, a zoonosis caused by Hantavirus infection (most commonly subtype Puumala) is associated with flu-like symptoms and acute kidney failure. Kidney manifestations are characterized predominantly by tubulointerstitial nephritis, hemorrhage into medullary tissues, interstitial edema, and tubular cell necrosis. Kidney failure is accompanied by proteinuria, and in some cases, nephrotic-range proteinuria may occur. However, the cellular mechanisms of proteinuria remain to be elucidated. We describe a Hantavirus (Puumala) infection in a 27-year-old man with acute kidney failure and severe and rapidly reversible proteinuria. Light microscopy of a kidney biopsy specimen showed only minor changes of glomeruli. However, transmission electron microscopy revealed podocyte foot-process effacement. Immunofluorescence staining of the slit diaphragm protein podocin and the tight junction protein ZO-1 revealed a partial mislocalization of these proteins. Together, these findings highlight that Hantavirus infection may perturb podocyte integrity, resulting in glomerular proteinuria. These alterations of podocytes and consequently the glomerular filtration barrier may be transient and resolve within weeks.