Considering community care in public health responses: A national study regarding palliative care during a prolonged coronavirus disease 2019 lockdown.

OBJECTIVE: To describe changes in palliative care characteristics, utilisation and outcomes in Victoria during a period of enhanced public health management and a prolonged lockdown due to coronavirus disease 2019. METHODS: A national retrospective cohort study with palliative care service setting comparisons in Victoria and other mainland states was conducted. RESULTS: Analysis of 48 non-Victorian services (n=53,428 patients) and 20 Victorian services (n=31,125 patients) showed that for community services, patient volume, average length of stay, functional dependency and the proportion of admissions in a deteriorating phase increased during the lockdown in Victoria, yet little changed in comparator states. Regarding inpatient services, the management of family/carer problems remained constant in comparator states, yet substantial fluctuations in outcomes in Victoria were observed. CONCLUSIONS: As health systems adapt to changing circumstances during the pandemic, the ability to upscale community services is critical. Addressing the implications of shifting inpatient care to the community needs attention. IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH: Our study highlights the need to ensure community care providers are adequately considered within public health management responses. 'Joined up' policy and implementation across care settings are essential, especially as major barriers to infection control and increased utilisation may be evident in the community during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

A pragmatic comparative study of palliative care clinician's reports of the degree of shadowing visible on plain abdominal radiographs.

The assessment of constipation symptoms is based on history and physical examination. However, the experience is highly subjective perhaps explaining why palliative medicine doctors continue to use plain abdominal radiographs as part of routine assessment of constipation. Previous studies have demonstrated poor agreement between clinicians with this work in palliative care, limited further by disparity of clinicians' experience and training. The aim of this work was to explore whether there was less variation in the assessments of faecal shadowing made by more experienced clinicians compared to their less experienced colleagues. This pragmatic study was conducted across six palliative care services in Sydney (NSW, Australia). Doctors of varying clinical experience were asked to independently report their opinions of the amount of shadowing seen on 10 plain abdominal radiographs all taken from cancer patients who self-identified themselves as constipated. There were 46 doctors of varying clinical experience who participated including qualified specialists, doctors in specialist training and lastly, doctors in their second- and third post-graduate years. Poor agreement was seen between the faecal shadowing scores allocated by doctors of similar experience and training (Fleiss's kappa (FK): RMO 0.05; registrar 0.06; specialist 0.11). Further, when the levels of agreement between groups were considered, no statistically significant differences were observed. Although the doctors did not agree on the appearance of the film, the majority felt they were able to extrapolate patients' experiences from the radiograph's appearance. As it remains challenging in palliative care to objectively assess and diagnose constipation by history and imaging, uniform and objective assessment and diagnostic criteria are required. It is likely that any agreed criteria will include a combination of imaging and history. The results suggest the use of radiographs alone to diagnose and assess constipation in palliative care represents low value care.

ROMANA 3: a phase 3 safety extension study of anamorelin in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with cachexia.

BACKGROUND: Cancer anorexia-cachexia is a debilitating condition frequently observed in NSCLC patients, characterized by decreased body weight, reduced food intake, and impaired quality of life. Anamorelin, a novel selective ghrelin receptor agonist, has anabolic and appetite-enhancing activities. PATIENTS AND METHODS: ROMANA 3 was a safety extension study of two phase 3, double-blind studies that assessed safety and efficacy of anamorelin in advanced NSCLC patients with cachexia. Patients with preserved Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ≤2 after completing 12 weeks (w) on the ROMANA 1 or ROMANA 2 trials (0-12 weeks) could enroll in ROMANA 3 and continue to receive anamorelin 100 mg or placebo once daily for an additional 12w (12-24 weeks). The primary endpoint of ROMANA 3 was anamorelin safety/tolerability (12-24 weeks). Secondary endpoints included changes in body weight, handgrip strength (HGS), and symptom burden (0-24 weeks). RESULTS: Of the 703 patients who completed ROMANA 1 and ROMANA 2, 513 patients entered ROMANA 3 (anamorelin, N = 345, mean age 62.0 years; placebo, N = 168; mean age 62.2 years). During ROMANA 3, anamorelin and placebo groups had similar incidences of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs; 52.2% versus 55.7%), grade ≥3 TEAEs (22.4% versus 21.6%), and serious TEAEs (12.8% versus 12.6%). There were 36 (10.5%) and 23 (13.8%) deaths in the anamorelin and placebo groups, respectively; none were drug-related. Improvements in body weight and anorexia-cachexia symptoms observed in the original trials were consistently maintained over 12-24 weeks. Anamorelin, versus placebo, significantly increased body weight from baseline of original trials at all time points (P < 0.0001) and improved anorexia-cachexia symptoms at weeks 3, 6, 9, 12, and 16 (P < 0.05). No significant improvement in HGS was seen in either group. CONCLUSION: During the 12-24 weeks ROMANA 3 trial, anamorelin continued to be well tolerated. Over the entire 0-24w treatment period, body weight and symptom burden were improved with anamorelin. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: ROMANA 1 (NCT01387269), ROMANA 2 (NCT01387282), and ROMANA 3 (NCT01395914).

Implementation of the Needs Assessment Tool for patients with interstitial lung disease (NAT:ILD): facilitators and barriers.

A Needs Assessment Tool (NAT) was developed previously to help clinicians identify the supportive/palliative needs of people with interstitial lung disease (ILD) (NAT:ILD). This letter presents barriers and facilitators to clinical implementation. Data from (1) a focus group of respiratory clinicians and (2) an expert consensus group (respiratory and palliative clinicians, academics, patients, carers) were analysed using Framework Analysis. Barriers related to resources and service reconfiguration, and facilitators to clinical need, structure, objectiveness, flexibility and benefits of an 'aide-memoire'. Identified training needs included communication skills and local service knowledge. The NAT:ILD was seen as useful, necessary and practical in everyday practice.

Clinical trials of medicinal cannabis for appetite-related symptoms from advanced cancer: a survey of preferences, attitudes and beliefs among patients willing to consider participation.

BACKGROUND: Australian clinical trials are planned to evaluate medicinal cannabis in a range of clinical contexts. AIMS: To explore the preferences, attitudes and beliefs of patients eligible and willing to consider participation in a clinical trial of medicinal cannabis for poor appetite and appetite-related symptoms from advanced cancer. METHODS: A cross-sectional anonymous survey was administered from July to December 2015 online and in eight adult outpatient palliative care and/or cancer services. Respondents were eligible if they were ≥18 years, had advanced cancer and poor appetite/taste problems/weight loss and might consider participating in a medicinal cannabis trial. Survey items focused on medicinal rather than recreational cannabis use and did not specify botanical or pharmaceutical products. Items asked about previous medicinal cannabis use and preferences for delivery route and invited comments and concerns. RESULTS: There were 204 survey respondents, of whom 26 (13%) reported prior medicinal cannabis use. Tablets/capsules were the preferred delivery mode (n = 144, 71%), followed by mouth spray (n = 84, 42%) and vaporiser (n = 83, 41%). Explanations for preferences (n = 134) most commonly cited convenience (n = 66; 49%). A total of 82% (n = 168) of respondents indicated that they had no trial-related concerns, but a small number volunteered concerns about adverse effects (n = 14) or wanted more information/advice (n = 8). Six respondents volunteered a belief that cannabis might cure cancer, while two wanted assurance of efficacy before participating in a trial. CONCLUSION: Justification of modes other than tablets/capsules and variable understanding about cannabis and trials will need addressing in trial-related information to optimise recruitment and ensure that consent is properly informed.

Who experiences higher and increasing breathlessness in advanced cancer? The longitudinal EPCCS Study.

PURPOSE: Breathlessness is a major cause of suffering in advanced cancer. We aimed to determine the symptom trajectory in people with advanced cancer and to identify those at increased risk of experiencing higher or increasing breathlessness over time in advanced cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was an analysis of the multinational, prospective, longitudinal European Palliative Care Cancer Symptom (EPCCS) study. We included adults with confirmed incurable cancer enrolled in palliative care, with prospective monthly assessments for up to 6 months, withdrawal or death, whichever came first. Symptom severity (0-10 numerical rating scales) was analyzed using multivariate random coefficients regression. RESULTS: A total of 1689 patients (50 % women; mean age 65.7 ± [standard deviation; SD] 12.4 years) were included. Main diagnoses were digestive (31 %), lung (20 %), and breast (17 %) cancers. During a median follow-up of 62 (interquartile range, 0 to 133) days, 65 % were breathless at some point and 36 % of all patients reported moderate/severe breathlessness. The group mean (1.6 points; SD, 2.4) was unchanged over time, but the severity varied markedly between patients and over time. Independent predictors for worse breathlessness were COPD, lung cancer, living alone, lung metastases, anxiety, pain, depression, and lower performance status. Predictors of worsening breathlessness over time were low performance status (p = 0.039) and moderate to severe pain (p = 0.012). CONCLUSION: In the largest longitudinal clinical study to date in advanced cancer alone, breathlessness was frequent and associated with factors including respiratory disease, other concurrent unpleasant symptoms, and impaired performance status. Increase in severity over time was predicted by performance status and pain.

Management of refractory breathlessness with morphine in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a progressive, incurable illness, which leads to significant morbidity over long periods of time and mortality. Treatment aims to reduce symptoms, improve exercise capacity and quality of life, reduce exacerbations, slow disease progression and reduce mortality. However, breathlessness is common in patients with advanced COPD and remains undertreated. As all reversible causes of breathlessness are being optimally managed, consideration should be given to specific non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatment strategies for breathlessness. Low dose morphine has been shown to reduce safely and effectively breathlessness in patients with severe COPD and refractory dyspnoea. However, despite numerous guidelines recommending opioids in this clinical setting, many barriers limit their uptake by clinicians. Integration of palliative care earlier in the disease course can help to improve symptom control for people with severe COPD and refractory breathlessness. A multidisciplinary approach involving both respiratory and palliative care teams offers a new model of care for these patients.

Best supportive care in clinical trials: review of the inconsistency in control arm design.

BACKGROUND: Best supportive care (BSC) as a control arm in clinical trials is poorly defined. We conducted a review to evaluate clinical trials' concordance with published, consensus-based framework for BSC delivery in trials. METHODS: A consensus-based Delphi panel previously identified four key domains of BSC delivery in trials: multidisciplinary care; supportive care documentation; symptom assessment; and symptom management. We reviewed trials including BSC control arms from 2002 to 2014 to assess concordance to BSC standards and to selected items from the CONSORT 2010 guidelines. RESULTS: Of 408 articles retrieved, we retained 18 after applying exclusion criteria. Overall, trials conformed to the CONSORT guidelines better than the BSC standards (28% vs 16%). One-third of articles offered a detailed description of BSC, 61% reported regular symptom assessment, and 44% reported using validated symptom assessment measures. One-third reported symptom assessment at identical intervals in both arms. None documented evidence-based symptom management. No studies reported educating patients about symptom management or goals of therapy. No studies reported offering access to palliative care specialists. CONCLUSIONS: Reporting of BSC in trials is incomplete, resulting in uncertain internal and external validity. Such studies risk systematically over-estimating the net clinical effect of the comparator arms.

Indicators of integration of oncology and palliative care programs: an international consensus.

BACKGROUND: Recently, the concept of integrating oncology and palliative care has gained wide professional and scientific support; however, a global consensus on what constitutes integration is unavailable. We conducted a Delphi Survey to develop a consensus list of indicators on integration of specialty palliative care and oncology programs for advanced cancer patients in hospitals with ≥100 beds. METHODS: International experts on integration rated a list of indicators on integration over three iterative rounds under five categories: clinical structure, processes, outcomes, education, and research. Consensus was defined a priori by an agreement of ≥70%. Major criteria (i.e. most relevant and important indicators) were subsequently identified. RESULTS: Among 47 experts surveyed, 46 (98%), 45 (96%), and 45 (96%) responded over the three rounds. Nineteen (40%) were female, 24 (51%) were from North America, and 14 (30%) were from Europe. Sixteen (34%), 7 (15%), and 25 (53%) practiced palliative care, oncology, and both specialties, respectively. After three rounds of deliberation, the panelists reached consensus on 13 major and 30 minor indicators. Major indicators included two related to structure (consensus 95%-98%), four on processes (88%-98%), three on outcomes (88%-91%), and four on education (93%-100%). The major indicators were considered to be clearly stated (9.8/10), objective (9.4/10), amenable to accurate coding (9.5/10), and applicable to their own countries (9.4/10). CONCLUSIONS: Our international experts reached broad consensus on a list of indicators of integration, which may be used to identify centers with a high level of integration, and facilitate benchmarking, quality improvement, and research.

Analysis of drug interactions at the end of life.

BACKGROUND: As death approaches, patients are at their most frail, but an increasing symptom burden often necessitates an increase in medications, putting them at higher risk for drug-drug interactions. OBJECTIVES: To assess the potential for drug-drug interactions in routine prescribing at the end of life. METHODS: An Australian retrospective multicentre case-note review of 266 consecutive adult patients who were referred to specialist palliative care, with data available on 166. Medications used in the last 2 weeks of life were screened for potential interactions using the 'Stockley's Drug Interactions' software. RESULTS: The mean number of medications prescribed was 10.8, median 9 (IQR 6-14); all patients received at least one medication. In this study, 72% of patients were at risk of 1 or more potential drug-drug interaction. The mean number of potential interactions was 4.4, with a median of 2.5 (IQR 0-7) per patient. There were only 4/166 (2.4%) prescribed medications with an associated clinical record of an adverse drug reaction. CONCLUSIONS: Potential drug-drug interactions are common for this group of patients. Some interactions may be recognised as an acceptable risk when the prescription is written. Further research is necessary to determine the best way to improve recognition of potential drug-drug interactions and the rates of morbidity or accelerated mortality associated with this. It is likely that palliative care services will need to implement multiple strategies including greater use of computerised prescribing software, and greater closer liaison with clinical pharmacists.

Implementing practice change in chronic cancer pain management: clinician response to a phase III study of ketamine.

BACKGROUND: An adequately powered, double-blind, multisite, randomised controlled trial has shown no net clinical benefit for subcutaneous ketamine over placebo in the management of cancer pain refractory to combination opioid and co-analgesic therapy. The results of the trial were disseminated widely both nationally and internationally. AIM: To determine whether the trial had impacted on clinical practice in Australasia. METHODS: Members of the Australia and New Zealand Society of Palliative Medicine were sent an online ketamine utilisation survey. RESULTS: A total of 123/392 clinicians responded (31% response rate). The majority of respondents had practised for more than 10 years in a metropolitan hospital setting. Ketamine had been prescribed by 91% of respondents, and 92% were aware of the trial. As a result, 65% of respondents had changed practice (17% no longer prescribed ketamine, 46% used less and 2% more). Thirty-five per cent had not changed practice. Reasons for change included belief in the results of the study, concerns over the toxicity reported or because there were alternatives for pain control. Of those who prescribed less, over 80% were more selective and would now only use the drug in certain clinical situations or pain types, or when all other medications had failed. CONCLUSIONS: Although two-thirds of respondents reported practice change as a result of the randomised controlled trial, a minority remained convinced of the benefit of the drug from their own observations and would require additional evidence.

Staying just one step ahead: providing care for patients with motor neurone disease.

INTRODUCTION: There is limited information about the experiences and educational needs of health professionals who may be required to provide care for people with Motor Neurone Disease (MND) especially in the later stages of the disease. The aim of this study was to determine the experiences of, and need for, education of these health professionals. METHODS: Interviews and focus groups were conducted with 31 health professionals with some experience in providing palliative care for people with MND. Thematic content analysis was used to identify common themes. RESULTS: A key theme, Just One Step Ahead, emerged, that describes the central capability health professionals identified as necessary to help individuals plan and prepare for disease and lifestyle changes just before they arise. Two subthemes also emerged: Expertise in MND and Bespoke Communication. Expertise in MND described the required understanding of the disease and the particular individual's version of the disease to allow the health professional to plan, advise, support and anticipate the needs of the person living with MND. Bespoke Communication was the facility to tailor care messages sensitively and effectively to the range of people involved in care (patients, family, healthcare team members). CONCLUSIONS: Care of people with MND requires up-to-date expertise about the disease and skilled communication abilities to manage complexity and change. Timely and focused education and specialist MND support for care providers are essential to tailored and responsive care and a widely available education programme has been developed to address these needs.

Prescribing for comorbid disease in a palliative population: focus on the use of lipid-lowering medications.

BACKGROUND: The balance of benefit versus burden of ongoing treatments for comorbid disease in palliative populations as death approaches needs careful consideration given their particular susceptibility to adverse drug effects. AIM: To provide descriptive data regarding the medications being prescribed to patients who have a life-limiting illness at the time of referral to a palliative care service in regional Australia, with particular focus on lipid-lowering medications. METHODS: A prospective case note review of 203 patients reporting the number of medications prescribed and, for lipid-lowering medications, the indication and level of prevention sought (primary, secondary, tertiary). Rates were compared by performance status, disease phase and comorbidity burden. RESULTS: Mean number of regular medications prescribed was 7.2, with higher rates observed in those patients with a non-malignant primary diagnosis (rate ratio 1.28, confidence interval (CI) 1.11-1.50) or poorer performance status (rate ratio 1.37, CI 1.11-1.69) and lower rates for those in the terminal phase of disease (rate ratio 0.48, CI 0.30-0.76). Over one fifth of patients were prescribed a lipid-lowering medication, and two fifths of these prescriptions were for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Patients in the highest quartile of Charlson Comorbidity Index score were 4.6 (CI 2.06-10.09) times more likely to be prescribed a lipid-lowering medication than those in the lowest quartile. CONCLUSIONS: Polypharmacy is prevalent for this group of patients, placing them at high risk of drug-drug and drug-host interactions. Prescribing may be driven by risk factors and disease guidelines rather than a rational, patient-centred approach.