Effect of Cancer Pain Guideline Implementation on Pain Outcomes Among Adult Outpatients With Cancer-Related Pain: A Stepped Wedge Cluster Randomized Trial.

Importance: An evidence-practice gap exists for cancer pain management, and cancer pain remains prevalent and disabling. Objectives: To evaluate the capacity of 3 cancer pain guideline implementation strategies to improve pain-related outcomes for patients attending oncology and palliative care outpatient services. Design, Setting, and Participants: A pragmatic, stepped wedge, cluster-randomized, nonblinded, clinical trial was conducted between 2014 and 2019. The clusters were cancer centers in Australia providing oncology and palliative care outpatient clinics. Participants included a consecutive cohort of adult outpatients with advanced cancer and a worst pain severity score of 2 or more out of 10 on a numeric rating scale (NRS). Data were collected between August 2015 and May 2019. Data were analyzed July to October 2019 and reanalyzed November to December 2021. Interventions: Guideline implementation strategies at the cluster, health professional, and patient levels introduced with the support of a clinical champion. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary measure of effect was the percentage of participants initially screened as having moderate to severe worst pain (NRS ≥ 5) who experienced a clinically important improvement of 30% or more 1 week later. Secondary outcomes included mean average pain, patient empowerment, fidelity to the intervention, and quality of life and were measured in all participants with a pain score of 2 or more 10 at weeks 1, 2, and 4. Results: Of 8099 patients screened at 6 clusters, 1564 were eligible, and 359 were recruited during the control phase (mean [SD] age, 64.2 [12.1] years; 196 men [55%]) and 329 during the intervention phase (mean [SD] age, 63.6 [12.7] years; 155 men [47%]), with no significant differences between phases on baseline measures. The mean (SD) baseline worst pain scores were 5.0 (2.6) and 4.9 (2.6) for control and intervention phases, respectively. The mean (SD) baseline average pain scores were 3.5 (2.1) for both groups. For the primary outcome, the proportions of participants with a 30% or greater reduction in a pain score of 5 or more of 10 at baseline were similar in the control and intervention phases (31 of 280 participants [11.9%] vs 30 of 264 participants [11.8%]; OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.79-1.60; P = .51). No significant differences were found in secondary outcomes between phases. Fidelity to the intervention was low. Conclusions and Relevance: A suite of implementation strategies was insufficient to improve pain-related outcomes for outpatients with cancer-related pain. Further evaluation is needed to determine the required clinical resources needed to enable wide-scale uptake of the fundamental elements of cancer pain care. Ongoing quality improvement activities should be supported to improve sustainability.

Protocol for a phase III pragmatic stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening and guidelines with, versus without, implementation strategies for improving pain in adults with cancer attending outpatient oncology and palliative care services: the Stop Cancer PAIN trial.

BACKGROUND: Pain is a common and distressing symptom in people with cancer, but is under-recognised and under-treated. Australian guidelines for 'Cancer Pain Management in Adults' are available on the Cancer Council Australia Cancer Guideline Wiki. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a suite of guideline implementation strategies for improving pain outcomes in adults with cancer in oncology and palliative care outpatient settings. METHODS: The study will use a stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled design, with oncology and palliative care outpatient services as the clusters. Patients will be eligible if they are adults with cancer and pain presenting to participating services during the study period. During an initial control arm, services will routinely screen patients for average and worst pain over the past 24 h using a 0-10 numerical rating scale (NRS) and have unfettered access to online guidelines. During the intervention arm, staff at each service will be encouraged to use: 1) a patient education booklet and self-management resource; 2) an online spaced learning cancer pain education module for clinicians from different disciplines; and 3) audit and feedback of service performance on key indices of cancer pain screening, assessment and management. Service-based clinical change champions will lead implementation of these strategies. The trial's primary outcome will be the probability that patients initially screened as having moderate-severe (≥5/10 NRS) worst pain experience a clinically important improvement one week later, defined as ≥ 30% reduction. Secondary outcomes will include patient empowerment and quality of life, carer experience, and cost-effectiveness. For the main analysis, linear mixed models will be used, accounting for clustering and the longitudinal design. Eighty-two patients per service at six services (N = 492) will provide > 90% power. A qualitative sub-study and analyses of structural and process factors will explore opportunities for further refinement and tailoring of the intervention. DISCUSSION: This pragmatic trial will inform implementation of guidelines across a range of oncology and palliative care outpatient service contexts. If found effective, the implementation strategies will be made freely available on the Wiki alongside the guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered 23/01/2015 on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ( ACTRN12615000064505 ).

A pragmatic, phase III, multisite, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-arm, dose increment randomised trial of regular, low-dose extended-release morphine for chronic breathlessness: Breathlessness, Exertion And Morphine Sulfate (BEAMS) study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic breathlessness is highly prevalent and distressing to patients and families. No medication is registered for its symptomatic reduction. The strongest evidence is for regular, low-dose, extended- release (ER) oral morphine. A recent large phase III study suggests the subgroup most likely to benefit have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and modified Medical Research Council breathlessness scores of 3 or 4. This protocol is for an adequately powered, parallel-arm, placebo-controlled, multisite, factorial, block-randomised study evaluating regular ER morphine for chronic breathlessness in people with COPD. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The primary question is what effect regular ER morphine has on worst breathlessness, measured daily on a 0-10 numerical rating scale. Uniquely, the coprimary outcome will use a FitBit to measure habitual physical activity. Secondary questions include safety and, whether upward titration after initial benefit delivers greater net symptom reduction. Substudies include longitudinal driving simulation, sleep, caregiver, health economic and pharmacogenetic studies. Seventeen centres will recruit 171 participants from respiratory and palliative care. The study has five phases including three randomisation phases to increasing doses of ER morphine. All participants will receive placebo or active laxatives as appropriate. Appropriate statistical analysis of primary and secondary outcomes will be used. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been obtained. Results of the study will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals, findings presented at relevant conferences and potentially used to inform registration of ER morphine for chronic breathlessness. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02720822; Pre-results.

Efficacy of Oral Risperidone, Haloperidol, or Placebo for Symptoms of Delirium Among Patients in Palliative Care: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Antipsychotics are widely used for distressing symptoms of delirium, but efficacy has not been established in placebo-controlled trials in palliative care. Objective: To determine efficacy of risperidone or haloperidol relative to placebo in relieving target symptoms of delirium associated with distress among patients receiving palliative care. Design, Setting, and Participants: A double-blind, parallel-arm, dose-titrated randomized clinical trial was conducted at 11 Australian inpatient hospice or hospital palliative care services between August 13, 2008, and April 2, 2014, among participants with life-limiting illness, delirium, and a delirium symptoms score (sum of Nursing Delirium Screening Scale behavioral, communication, and perceptual items) of 1 or more. Interventions: Age-adjusted titrated doses of oral risperidone, haloperidol, or placebo solution were administered every 12 hours for 72 hours, based on symptoms of delirium. Patients also received supportive care, individualized treatment of delirium precipitants, and subcutaneous midazolam hydrochloride as required for severe distress or safety. Main Outcome and Measures: Improvement in mean group difference of delirium symptom score (severity range, 0-6) between baseline and day 3. Five a priori secondary outcomes: delirium severity, midazolam use, extrapyramidal effects, sedation, and survival. Results: Two hundred forty-seven participants (mean [SD] age, 74.9 [9.8] years; 85 women [34.4%]; 218 with cancer [88.3%]) were included in intention-to-treat analysis (82 receiving risperidone, 81 receiving haloperidol, and 84 receiving placebo). In the primary intention-to-treat analysis, participants in the risperidone arm had delirium symptom scores that were significantly higher than those among participants in the placebo arm (on average 0.48 Units higher; 95% CI, 0.09-0.86; P = .02) at study end. Similarly, for those in the haloperidol arm, delirium symptom scores were on average 0.24 Units higher (95% CI, 0.06-0.42; P = .009) than in the placebo arm. Compared with placebo, patients in both active arms had more extrapyramidal effects (risperidone, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.09-1.37; P = .03; and haloperidol, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.17-1.41; P = .01). Participants in the placebo group had better overall survival than those receiving haloperidol (hazard ratio, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.20-2.50; P = .003), but this was not significant for placebo vs risperidone (hazard ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.91-1.84; P = .14). Conclusions and Relevance: In patients receiving palliative care, individualized management of delirium precipitants and supportive strategies result in lower scores and shorter duration of target distressing delirium symptoms than when risperidone or haloperidol are added. Trial Registration: anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12607000562471.

Study protocol: a phase III randomised, double-blind, parallel arm, stratified, block randomised, placebo-controlled trial investigating the clinical effect and cost-effectiveness of sertraline for the palliative relief of breathlessness in people with chronic breathlessness.

INTRODUCTION: Breathlessness remains a highly prevalent and distressing symptom for many patients with progressive life-limiting illnesses. Evidence-based interventions for chronic breathlessness are limited, and there is an ongoing need for high-quality research into developing management strategies for optimal palliation of this complex symptom. Previous studies have suggested that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors such as sertraline may have a role in reducing breathlessness. This paper presents the protocol for a large, adequately powered randomised study evaluating the use of sertraline for chronic breathlessness in people with progressive life-limiting illnesses. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A total of 240 participants with modified Medical Research Council Dyspnoea Scale breathlessness of level 2 or higher will be randomised to receive either sertraline or placebo for 28 days in this multisite, double-blind study. The dose will be titrated up every 3 days to a maximum of 100 mg daily. The primary outcome will be to compare the efficacy of sertraline with placebo in relieving the intensity of worst breathlessness as assessed by a 0-100 mm Visual Analogue Scale. A number of other outcome measures and descriptors of breathlessness as well as caregiver assessments will also be recorded to ensure adequate analysis of participant breathlessness and to allow an economic analysis to be performed. Participants will also be given the option of continuing blinded treatment until either study data collection is complete or net benefit ceases. Appropriate statistical analysis of primary and secondary outcomes will be used to describe the wealth of data obtained. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was obtained at all participating sites. Results of the study will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and the key findings presented at national and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12610000464066.

What Aspects of Quality of Life Are Important From Palliative Care Patients' Perspectives? A Systematic Review of Qualitative Research.

CONTEXT: Despite the availability of numerous tools professing to measure quality of life (QOL) in the palliative care setting, no single instrument includes all patient-valued domains. OBJECTIVES: To identify which aspects of QOL are important from palliative care patients' perspectives, aiding coverage, and content validity evaluation of available tools. METHODS: A systematic review and synthesis of qualitative research was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. ASSIA, CINAHL, Cochrane library, Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, and PubMed were searched from database inception to December 31, 2015. Published, peer-reviewed, English-language articles reporting primary qualitative data investigating QOL domains in adults with a progressive, life-limiting illness were included. Studies a priori exploring a chosen aspect of QOL were not included. Articles scoring ≤2 on reporting quality were excluded. Framework synthesis was used to identify key themes across the studies. RESULTS: Overall, 3589 articles were screened and 24 studies were included. Eight important aspects of QOL were identified: physical; personal autonomy; emotional; social; spiritual; cognitive; healthcare; and preparatory. All but one study discussed spiritual aspects, whereas only six studies mentioned cognitive aspects. CONCLUSION: A broad range of domains are important to the QOL of people with life-limiting illnesses receiving palliation. Refinement of measures is needed to help ensure services address issues valued by patients such as preparation for death and aspects of health care provision, elements which are seldom included in currently available preference-based measures used to inform value for money decisions in palliative care.

An empirical comparison of the OPQoL-Brief, EQ-5D-3 L and ASCOT in a community dwelling population of older people.

BACKGROUND: This study examined the relationships between a newly developed older person-specific non-preference-based quality of life (QoL) instrument (Older People's Quality of Life brief questionnaire (OPQoL-brief)) and two generic preference-based instruments (the EQ-5D-3L Level (EQ-5D-3 L) and the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) in a community-dwelling population of Australian older people receiving aged care services. METHODS: We formulated hypotheses about the convergent validity between the instruments (examined by Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney, Kruskal Wallis and Spearman's correlation tests) and levels of agreement (assessed using intra class correlation (ICC) and modified Bland-Altman plots based on normalized Z EQ-5D-3 L and ASCOT utilities and OPQoL-Brief summary scores). RESULTS: The utilities/summary scores for 87 participants (aged 65-93 years) were moderately but positively correlated. Moderate convergent validity was evident for a number of instrument dimensions with the strongest relationship (r = 0.57) between 'enjoy life' (OPQoL-Brief) and 'social contact' (ASCOT). The overall ICC was 0.54 and Bland-Altman scatter plots showed 3-6% of normalized Z-scores were outside the 95% limits of agreement suggesting moderate agreement between all three instruments (agreement highest between the OPQoL-Brief and the ASCOT). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the OPQoL-Brief, the ASCOT and the EQ-5D_3L are suitable for measuring quality of life outcomes in community-dwelling populations of older people. Given the different constructs underpinning these instruments, we recommend that choice of instrument should be guided by the context in which the instruments are being applied. Currently, the OPQoL-Brief is not suitable for use in cost-utility analyses as it is not preference-based. Given their different perspectives, we recommend that both the ASCOT and the EQ-5D are applied simultaneously to capture broader aspects of quality of life and health status within cost-utility analyses within the aged care sector. Future research directed towards the development of a new single preference-based instrument that incorporates both health status and broader aspects of quality of life within quality adjusted life year calculations for older people would be beneficial.

Investigating consumers' and informal carers' views and preferences for consumer directed care: A discrete choice experiment.

Consumer directed care (CDC) is currently being embraced internationally as a means to promote autonomy and choice for consumers (people aged 65 and over) receiving community aged care services (CACSs). CDC involves giving CACS clients (consumers and informal carers of consumers) control over how CACSs are administered. However, CDC models have largely developed in the absence of evidence on clients' views and preferences. We explored CACS clients' preferences for a variety of CDC attributes and identified factors that may influence these preferences and potentially inform improved design of future CDC models. Study participants were clients of CACSs delivered by five Australian providers. Using a discrete choice experiment (DCE) approach undertaken in a group setting between June and December 2013, we investigated the relative importance to CACS consumers and informal (family) carers of gradations relating to six salient features of CDC (choice of service provider(s), budget management, saving unused/unspent funds, choice of support/care worker(s), support-worker flexibility and level of contact with service coordinator). The DCE data were analysed using conditional, mixed and generalised logit regression models, accounting for preference and scale heterogeneity. Mean ages for 117 study participants were 80 years (87 consumers) and 74 years (30 informal carers). All participants preferred a CDC approach that allowed them to: save unused funds from a CACS package for future use; have support workers that were flexible in terms of changing activities within their CACS care plan and; choose the support workers that provide their day-to-day CACSs. The CDC attributes found to be important to both consumers and informal carers receiving CACSs will inform the design of future CDC models of service delivery. The DCE approach used in this study has the potential for wide applicability and facilitates the assessment of preferences for elements of potential future aged care service delivery not yet available in policy.

A comparison of urinary mercury between children with autism spectrum disorders and control children.

BACKGROUND: Urinary mercury concentrations are used in research exploring mercury exposure. Some theorists have proposed that autism is caused by mercury toxicity. We set out to test whether mercury concentrations in the urine of children with autism were significantly increased or decreased compared to controls or siblings. METHODS: Blinded cohort analyses were carried out on the urine of 56 children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) compared to their siblings (n = 42) and a control sample of children without ASD in mainstream (n = 121) and special schools (n = 34). RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in creatinine levels, in uncorrected urinary mercury levels or in levels of mercury corrected for creatinine, whether or not the analysis is controlled for age, gender and amalgam fillings. CONCLUSIONS: This study lends no support for the hypothesis of differences in urinary mercury excretion in children with autism compared to other groups. Some of the results, however, do suggest further research in the area may be warranted to replicate this in a larger group and with clear measurement of potential confounding factors.

Melatonin versus placebo in children with autism spectrum conditions and severe sleep problems not amenable to behaviour management strategies: a randomised controlled crossover trial.

Twenty-two children with autism spectrum disorders who had not responded to supported behaviour management strategies for severe dysomnias entered a double blind, randomised, controlled crossover trial involving 3 months of placebo versus 3 months of melatonin to a maximum dose of 10 mg. 17 children completed the study. There were no significant differences between sleep variables at baseline. Melatonin significantly improved sleep latency (by an average of 47 min) and total sleep (by an average of 52 min) compared to placebo, but not number of night wakenings. The side effect profile was low and not significantly different between the two arms.