Opioid-sparing effects of ketorolac in palliative care patients receiving opioids for chronic cancer-related pain: A systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Standard of care in treatment of cancer-related pain involves opioids in combination with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID). Ketorolac, a NSAID, has demonstrated opioid-sparing effects in other clinical settings. AIM: This systematic literature review investigated ketorolac's opioid-sparing effects in patients receiving opioids for chronic, cancer-related pain. DESIGN: The primary outcome was total daily dose of opioids. Secondary outcomes included frequency of opioid use, use and frequency of 'rescue' medication and adverse events. Outcomes were described, and meta-analysed where possible. PROSPERO registration CRD42019130894. DATA SOURCES: Articles included original research, from any study phase or methodology, published in English in a peer-reviewed journal or conference between 1990 and 2020; included subjects >18 years; had chronic cancer-related pain and described the use of opioid-sparing effect of ketorolac. RESULTS: Nine articles were included. While there was significant heterogeneity, ketorolac may have an opioid-sparing effect, with significant reductions in total daily dose of morphine observed in a single randomised controlled trial (SMD -4.30 mg, 95% CI -5.36 to -3.25), but the changes in the before and after studies were not statistically significant -0.46 mg (95% CI -1.14 to 0.22). Ketorolac was associated with greater likelihood of complete pain relief, but the data were heterogeneous. Insufficient data were available to analyse frequency of opioid use, or rescue medication requirements. CONCLUSIONS: Given the heterogeneity of the data, adequately powered, randomised controlled trials are required to establish any opioid-sparing effect of ketorolac. For patients not responding to conventional pain management, ketorolac may have a role in treatment augmentation.

Effect of Regular, Low-Dose, Extended-release Morphine on Chronic Breathlessness in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: The BEAMS Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Chronic breathlessness is common in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Regular, low-dose, extended-release morphine may relieve breathlessness, but evidence about its efficacy and dosing is needed. Objective: To determine the effect of different doses of extended-release morphine on worst breathlessness in people with COPD after 1 week of treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial including people with COPD and chronic breathlessness (defined as a modified Medical Research Council score of 3 to 4) conducted at 20 centers in Australia. People were enrolled between September 1, 2016, and November 20, 2019, and followed up through December 26, 2019. Interventions: People were randomized 1:1:1 to 8 mg/d or 16 mg/d of oral extended-release morphine or placebo during week 1. At the start of weeks 2 and 3, people were randomized 1:1 to 8 mg/d of extended-release morphine, which was added to the prior week's dose, or placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was change in the intensity of worst breathlessness on a numerical rating scale (score range, 0 [none] to 10 [being worst or most intense]) using the mean score at baseline (from days -3 to -1) to the mean score after week 1 of treatment (from days 5 to 7) in the 8 mg/d and 16 mg/d of extended-release morphine groups vs the placebo group. Secondary outcomes included change in daily step count measured using an actigraphy device from baseline (day -1) to the mean step count from week 3 (from days 19 to 21). Results: Among the 160 people randomized, 156 were included in the primary analyses (median age, 72 years [IQR, 67 to 78 years]; 48% were women) and 138 (88%) completed treatment at week 1 (48 in the 8 mg/d of morphine group, 43 in the 16 mg/d of morphine group, and 47 in the placebo group). The change in the intensity of worst breathlessness at week 1 was not significantly different between the 8 mg/d of morphine group and the placebo group (mean difference, -0.3 [95% CI, -0.9 to 0.4]) or between the 16 mg/d of morphine group and the placebo group (mean difference, -0.3 [95%, CI, -1.0 to 0.4]). At week 3, the secondary outcome of change in mean daily step count was not significantly different between the 8 mg/d of morphine group and the placebo group (mean difference, -1453 [95% CI, -3310 to 405]), between the 16 mg/d of morphine group and the placebo group (mean difference, -1312 [95% CI, -3220 to 596]), between the 24 mg/d of morphine group and the placebo group (mean difference, -692 [95% CI, -2553 to 1170]), or between the 32 mg/d of morphine group and the placebo group (mean difference, -1924 [95% CI, -47 699 to 921]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among people with COPD and severe chronic breathlessness, daily low-dose, extended-release morphine did not significantly reduce the intensity of worst breathlessness after 1 week of treatment. These findings do not support the use of these doses of extended-release morphine to relieve breathlessness. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02720822.

Regular, sustained-release morphine for chronic breathlessness: a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Morphine may decrease the intensity of chronic breathlessness but data from a large randomised controlled trial (RCT) are lacking. This first, large, parallel-group trial aimed to test the efficacy and safety of regular, low-dose, sustained-release (SR) morphine compared with placebo for chronic breathlessness. METHODS: Multisite (14 inpatient and outpatient cardiorespiratory and palliative care services in Australia), parallel-arm, double-blind RCT. Adults with chronic breathlessness (modified Medical Research Council≥2) were randomised to 20 mg daily oral SR morphine and laxative (intervention) or placebo and placebo laxative (control) for 7 days. Both groups could take ≤6 doses of 2.5 mg, 'as needed', immediate-release morphine (≤15 mg/24 hours) as required by the ethics review board. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in intensity of breathlessness now (0-100 mm visual analogue scale; two times per day diary) between groups. Secondary endpoints included: worst, best and average breathlessness; unpleasantness of breathlessness now, fatigue; quality of life; function; and harms. RESULTS: Analysed by intention-to-treat, 284 participants were randomised to morphine (n=145) or placebo (n=139). There was no difference between arms for the primary endpoint (mean difference -0.15 mm (95% CI -4.59 to 4.29; p=0.95)), nor secondary endpoints. The placebo group used more doses of oral morphine solution during the treatment period (mean 8.7 vs 5.8 doses; p=0.001). The morphine group had more constipation and nausea/vomiting. There were no cases of respiratory depression nor obtundation. CONCLUSION: No differences were observed between arms for breathlessness, but the intervention arm used less rescue immediate-release morphine. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12609000806268.

Health-related quality of life in patients with inoperable malignant bowel obstruction: secondary outcome from a double-blind, parallel, placebo-controlled randomised trial of octreotide.

BACKGROUND: This analysis aims to evaluate health-related quality of life (HrQoL) (primary outcome for this analysis), nausea and vomiting, and pain in patients with inoperable malignant bowel obstruction (IMBO) due to cancer or its treatments randomised to standardised therapies plus octreotide or placebo over a maximum of 72 h in a double-blind clinical trial. METHODS: Adults with IMBO and vomiting recruited through 12 services spanning inpatient, consultative and community settings in Australia were randomised to subcutaneous octreotide infusion or saline. HrQoL was measured at baseline and treatment cessation (EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL). Mean within-group paired differences between baseline and post-treatment scores were analysed using Wilcoxon Signed Rank test and between group differences estimated using linear mixed models, adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, time, and study arm. RESULTS: One hundred six of the 112 randomised participants were included in the analysis (n = 52 octreotide, n = 54 placebo); 6 participants were excluded due to major protocol violations. Mean baseline HrQoL scores were low (octreotide 22.1, 95% CI 14.3, 29.9; placebo 31.5, 95% CI 22.3, 40.7). There was no statistically significant within-group improvement in the mean HrQoL scores in the octreotide (p = 0.21) or placebo groups (p = 0.78), although both groups reported reductions in mean nausea and vomiting (octreotide p < 0.01; placebo p = 0.02) and pain scores (octreotide p < 0.01; placebo p = 0.03). Although no statistically significant difference in changes in HrQoL scores between octreotide and placebo were seen, an adequately powered study is required to fully assess any differences in HrQoL scores. CONCLUSION: The HrQoL of patients with IMBO and vomiting is poor. Further research to formally evaluate the effects of standard therapies for IMBO is therefore warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12608000211369 (date registered 18/04/2008).

Assessing quality of life in palliative care settings: head-to-head comparison of four patient-reported outcome measures (EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL, FACT-Pal, FACT-Pal-14, FACT-G7).

PURPOSE: Head-to-head comparison of reliability, validity and responsiveness of four patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS) suitable for assessing health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in palliative care settings: EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL, FACT-G7, FACIT-Pal and short-form FACIT-Pal-14. METHODS: Secondary analysis of two phase III randomised trials: ketamine for chronic cancer pain, octreotide for vomiting in inoperable malignant bowel obstruction. Sub-groups were defined by Australia-modified Karnofsky performance status (AKPS) and participants' global impression of change (GIC). Two aspects of reliability were assessed: internal consistency (Cronbach alpha, α); test-retest reliability (intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC)) of patients with stable AKPS and those who self-reported 'no change' on GIC. Construct validity was assessed via pre-determined hypotheses about sensitivity of PROM scores to AKPS groups and responsiveness of PROM change scores to GIC groups using analysis of variance. RESULTS: FACIT-Pal had better internal consistency (α ranged 0.59-0.80, 15/18 ≥ 0.70) than QLQ-C15-PAL (0.51-0.85, 4/8 ≥ 0.70) and FACT-G7 (0.54-0.64, 0/2 ≥ 0.70). FACIT scales had better test-retest reliability (FACIT-Pal 11/27 ICCs ≥ 0.70, FACT-G7 2/3 ICCs ≥ 0.70) than QLQ-C15-PAL (2/30 ICCs ≥ 0.70, 18/30 ≤ 0.5). Four scales demonstrated sensitivity to AKPS: QLQ-PAL-15 Physical Functioning and Global QOL, FACT-G Functional Wellbeing and FACIT-Pal Trial Outcome Index (TOI). Nine scales demonstrated responsiveness: three in the ketamine trial population (QLQ-C15-PAL Pain, FACIT-Pal-14, FACT-G7), six in the octreotide trial population (QLQ-C15-PAL Fatigue; FACIT-Pal PalCare, TOI, Total; FACT-G Physical Wellbeing and Total). CONCLUSIONS: No PROM was clearly superior, confirming that choosing the best PROM requires careful consideration of the research goals, patient population and the domains of HRQOL targeted by the intervention being investigated.

Sertraline in symptomatic chronic breathlessness: a double blind, randomised trial.

Does sertraline provide symptomatic relief for chronic breathlessness in people with advanced disease whose underlying cause(s) are optimally treated?223 participants with chronic breathlessness (modified Medical Research Council breathlessness scale ≥2) who had optimal treatment of underlying cause(s) were randomised 1:1 to sertraline 25-100 mg (titrated upwards over 9 days) or placebo for 4 weeks. The primary outcome was the proportion who had an improvement in intensity of current breathlessness >15% from baseline on a 100-mm visual analogue scale.The proportion of people responding to sertraline was similar to placebo for current breathlessness on days 26-28 (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.71-1.40) and for other measures of breathlessness. Quality of life in the sertraline arm had a higher likelihood of improving than in the placebo arm over the 4 weeks (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.01-0.41; p=0.044). No differences in performance status, anxiety and depression, or survival were observed. Adverse event rates were similar between arms.Sertraline does not appear to provide any benefit over placebo in the symptomatic relief of chronic breathlessness in this patient population.

Potential economic impact on hospitalisations of the Palliative Care Clinical Studies Collaborative (PaCCSC) ketamine randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to estimate the potential healthcare cost savings associated with reduced prescribing of subcutaneous ketamine for the treatment of chronic cancer pain after publication of the Palliative Care Clinical Studies Collaborative (PaCCSC) ketamine randomised controlled trial (RCT), to provide further reasons to modify ketamine prescribing practice in this setting. METHODS: Potential cost savings in this setting were estimated from a health system perspective using a 1-year impact model. The model was populated with estimates derived using an epidemiological approach informed by morbidity and prevalence data, the PaCCSC feasibility study, ketamine RCT and national ketamine utilisation survey results, as well as clinical opinion. RESULTS: The total estimated annual hospitalisation costs associated with subcutaneous ketamine prescribing were A$3 899 600 (2605 bed-days). A 17% reduction in ketamine prescribing lowered hospitalisation costs to A$3 236 668 (2162 bed-days), a reduction of A$662 932 (443 bed-days) because of reduced in-patient stays associated with ketamine toxicity and prescribing process. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from the modelled impact analysis suggest that dissemination of the PaCCSC ketamine RCT results may have saved the Australian healthcare system approximately A$663 000 in annual hospitalisation costs and freed up 443 in-patient bed-days, although there was high uncertainty within the study. Wider dissemination over time and targeted, local de-adoption strategies could result in further savings.

Participant Safety in Multisite, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trials in Hospice/Palliative Care: Data from the Contracted Studies of the Australian National Palliative Care Clinical Studies Collaborative.

Objective: To describe the harms in all arms of six consecutive multi-site, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised clinical trials. Background: Controversies surround conduct of phase III clinical trials in palliative care. Concerns include risks to participants' safety, use of placebo arms, participants' burden, and justification when therapies are already widely used. Methods: This study collates safety data of the first six studies of the Australian national Palliative Care Clinical Studies Collaborative. On an intention-to-treat basis, all harms are described using standard international definitions, their severity, outcomes, and level of attribution. Results: Studies recruited 1,232 participants: 65/1,232 (5.3%) participants had serious adverse events of which none had a definite (blinded) attribution, all of which settled with ceasing the intervention; 49/1,232 (4.0%) participants had adverse events. No participants on placebo arms had adverse or serious adverse events with definite (blinded) attribution. Discussion: These studies are safe for participants and generate knowledge to support informed patient decision making.

Can the LANSS scale be used to classify pain in chronic cancer pain trials?

PURPOSE: The Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (LANSS) scale was developed to differentiate pain of predominantly neuropathic or nociceptive origin. The aim of this study was to determine whether the LANSS scale was an appropriate tool to classify pain in a trial of patients with advanced cancer and chronic refractory pain. METHODS: Clinician assessment of pain type (neuropathic or nociceptive) was used to determine the sensitivity and specificity of LANSS scores in 112 trial participants. Those classified as "mixed" or of uncertain aetiology were excluded. We undertook several analyses in an attempt to improve the LANSS scale and better diagnose pain type for our specific dataset. RESULTS: There was strong association between the LANSS score and a diagnosis of neuropathic versus nociceptive pain, p < 0.001. When the clinical assessment was compared with the LANSS scale, the overall accuracy was 94 % (79/84). The 5 false negatives and no false positives resulted in a sensitivity of 0.86 (0.70, 0.95), specificity of 1 (0.93, 1), positive predictive value of 1 (0.88, 1) and negative predictive value of 0.91 (0.80, 0.97). The negative likelihood ratio was 0.14 (0, 0.32). The scale had good discriminant and construct validity. Reliability was assessed via internal consistency with Cronbach's α = 0.76, similar to that of the original validation study (α = 0.74). None of the new scales developed was better at differentiating pain type. CONCLUSIONS: The LANSS scale predicted well for pain type in a cancer population and is a useful tool for classifying pain in cancer pain trials.

Testosterone Levels in People Taking Regular Low-Dose Sustained-Release Morphine for Persisting Breathlessness: An Exploratory Study.

Background: The intermediate- and long-term effects of regular low-dose sustained-release (SR) morphine on the testosterone levels of people with persistent breathlessness are unknown. Methods: Exploratory analysis of a randomized controlled trial of the effects of regular SR morphine (0/8/16/24 mg every 24 hours) for persistent breathlessness associated with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Total testosterone was measured at baseline and at cessation (greater than or equal to three months on stable medication). Results: Among 20 participants (9 males; median treatment duration between measurements 169 days [IQR 162-175]), only 3 had substantial declines in testosterone levels during the study (morphine 8, 16, 24 mg groups). All three had worsening illness at the time of the second assessment. There was no apparent relationship between change in testosterone, morphine dose, and change in breathlessness. Conclusions: Substantial declines in testosterone were uncommon and were not apparently related to changes in morphine dose or breathlessness, but they were possibly related with worsening illness.

Phase II, double blind, placebo controlled, multi-site study to evaluate the safety, feasibility and desirability of conducting a phase III study of anamorelin for anorexia in people with small cell lung cancer: A study protocol (LUANA trial).

Anorexia is experienced by most people with lung cancer during the course of their disease and treatment. Anorexia reduces response to chemotherapy and the ability of patients to cope with, and complete their treatment leading to greater morbidity, poorer prognosis and outcomes. Despite the significant importance of cancer-related anorexia, current therapies are limited, have marginal benefits and unwarranted side effects. In this multi-site, randomised, double blind, placebo controlled, phase II trial, participants will be randomly assigned (1:1) to receive once-daily oral dosing of 100mg of anamorelin HCl or matched placebo for 12 weeks. Participants can then opt into an extension phase to receive blinded intervention for another 12 weeks (weeks 13-24) at the same dose and frequency. Adults (≥18 years) with small cell lung cancer (SCLC); newly diagnosed with planned systemic therapy OR with first recurrence of disease following a documented disease-free interval ≥6 months, AND with anorexia (i.e., ≤ 37 points on the 12-item Functional Assessment of Anorexia Cachexia Treatment (FAACT A/CS) scale) will be invited to participate. Primary outcomes are safety, desirability and feasibility outcomes related to participant recruitment, adherence to interventions, and completion of study tools to inform the design of a robust Phase III effectiveness trial. Secondary outcomes are the effects of study interventions on body weight and composition, functional status, nutritional intake, biochemistry, fatigue, harms, survival and quality of life. Primary and secondary efficacy analysis will be conducted at 12 weeks. Additional exploratory efficacy and safety analyses will also be conducted at 24 weeks to collect data over longer treatment duration. The feasibility of economic evaluations in Phase III trial will be assessed, including the indicative costs and benefits of anamorelin for SCLC to the healthcare system and society, the choice of methods for data collection and the future evaluation design. Trial registration. The trial has been registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry [ACTRN12622000129785] and approved by the South Western Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee [2021/ETH11339]. https://clin.larvol.com/trial-detail/ACTRN12622000129785.

Lidocaine for Neuropathic Cancer Pain (LiCPain): study protocol for a mixed-methods pilot study.

INTRODUCTION: Many patients experience unrelieved neuropathic cancer-related pain. Most current analgesic therapies have psychoactive side effects, lack efficacy data for this indication and have potential medication-related harms. The local anaesthetic lidocaine (lignocaine) has the potential to help manage neuropathic cancer-related pain when administered as an extended, continuous subcutaneous infusion. Data support lidocaine as a promising, safe agent in this setting, warranting further evaluation in robust, randomised controlled trials. This protocol describes the design of a pilot study to evaluate this intervention and explains the pharmacokinetic, efficacy and adverse effects evidence informing the design. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A mixed-methods pilot study will determine the feasibility of an international first, definitive phase III trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of an extended continuous subcutaneous infusion of lidocaine for neuropathic cancer-related pain. This study will comprise: a phase II double-blind randomised controlled parallel-group pilot of subcutaneous infusion of lidocaine hydrochloride 10% w/v (3000 mg/30 mL) or placebo (sodium chloride 0.9%) over 72 hours for neuropathic cancer-related pain, a pharmacokinetic substudy and a qualitative substudy of patients' and carers' experiences. The pilot study will provide important safety data and help inform the methodology of a definitive trial, including testing proposed recruitment strategy, randomisation, outcome measures and patients' acceptability of the methodology, as well as providing a signal of whether this area should be further investigated. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Participant safety is paramount and standardised assessments for adverse effects are built into the trial protocol. Findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences. This study will be considered suitable to progress to a phase III study if there is a completion rate where the CI includes 80% and excludes 60%. The protocol and Patient Information and Consent Form have been approved by Sydney Local Health District (Concord) Human Research Ethics Committee 2019/ETH07984 and University of Technology Sydney ETH17-1820. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ANZCTR ACTRN12617000747325.

Can assessing caregiver needs and activating community networks improve caregiver-defined outcomes? A single-blind, quasi-experimental pilot study: community facilitator pilot.

BACKGROUND: Although the unit of care in palliative care is defined as the patient and their family, there are few rigorous studies on how to improve support for family and friends as they take on the role of caregiver for someone at the end of life. AIM: Separate to patient evaluation and care, this pilot study aimed to define the feasibility and possible outcome measures to evaluate routine assessments and supports specifically for caregivers. DESIGN: In a quasi-experimental design, two communities were included: one received standard specialist palliative care support and one additionally was allocated to a community network facilitator who assessed caregivers' needs and helped mobilize the caregiver's own support network or initiated contact with other community supports in three planned visits. Data were collected at baseline, 4 and 8 weeks using three caregiver assessment tools. Within group comparisons were made using Wilcoxon signed rank test and between group using the Mann-Whitney U-test. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-six caregivers participated. RESULTS: At 8 weeks, participants in the intervention arm showed significant within-group improvement in caregiver fatigue, sufficient support from others, decreased resentment in the role, greater confidence in asking for assistance and were better able to find resources and support. No between-group changes were seen in this pilot study. CONCLUSIONS: There were objective measures of improved support within the intervention group over time for caregivers through the active engagement of the community network facilitator. This pilot supports the case for an adequately powered study.

Phase III, international, multicentre, double-blind, dose increment, parallel-arm, randomised controlled trial of duloxetine versus pregabalin for opioid-unresponsive neuropathic cancer pain: a JORTC-PAL16 trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Management of neuropathic cancer pain (NCP) refractory to regular opioids remains an important challenge. The efficacy of pregabalin for NCP except chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) has already been confirmed in two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) compared with placebo. Duloxetine offers the potential of analgesia in opioid refractory NCP. However, there are no RCT of duloxetine for the management of opioid-refractory NCP as a first line treatment. Both classes of drugs have the potential to reduce NCP, but there has been no head-to-head comparison for the efficacy and safety, especially given differing side effect profiles. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: An international, multicentre, double-blind, dose increment, parallel-arm, RCT is planned. Inclusion criteria include: adults with cancer experiencing NCP refractory to opioids; Brief Pain Inventory (BPI)-item 3 (worst pain) of ≥4; Neuropathic Pain on the Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs Pain Scale of ≥12 despite of an adequate trial of regular opioid medication (≥60 mg/day oral morphine equivalent dose). Patients with CIPN are excluded.The study will recruit from palliative care teams (both inpatients and outpatients) in Japan and Australia. Participants will be randomised (1:1 allocation ratio) to duloxetine or pregabalin arm. Dose escalation is until day 14 and from day 14 to 21 is a dose de-escalation period to avoid withdrawal effects. The primary endpoint is defined as the mean difference in BPI item 3 for worst pain intensity over the previous 24 hours at day 14 between groups. A sample size of 160 patients will be enrolled between February 2020 and March 2023. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was obtained at Osaka City University Hospital Certified Review Board and South Western Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee. The results of this study will be submitted for publication in international journals and the key findings presented at international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: jRCTs051190097, ACTRN12620000656932.

Palliative care clinical trials: how nurses are contributing to integrated, evidence-based care.

The aim of this paper is to describe the emerging role of the palliative care clinical trials nurse in an era of evidence-based practice and increasing clinical trial activity in palliative care settings across Australia. An overview of the current clinical trials work is provided, with a focus on three aspects of clinical trials nursing practice that have significant implications for patients: managing the consent process, integrating clinical trials into multidisciplinary care, and establishing and building the evidence base to inform practice in palliative care settings. Clinical trials roles provide palliative care nurses with an opportunity to contribute to clinical research, help expand palliative care's evidence base, and develop their own research capabilities.