Six Key Approaches in Open Society Foundations' Support for Global Palliative Care Development.

CONTEXT: Between 1998 and 2021, the Open Society Foundations (OSF) network invested around US$50 million in supporting the emerging field of palliative care worldwide, funding different approaches and interventions to advance its objective of putting palliative care on the global public health agenda. OBJECTIVE: To describe six approaches that were instrumental to the successes of Open Society Foundations' support in building the global field of palliative care. A robust discussion of lessons learnt is unfortunately not possible because Open Society Foundations did not commission a rigorous evaluation of the impacts of its investments. METHODS: This article describes these six approaches: Investing in versatile palliative care leaders at national and regional level; investing in palliative care champions within the OSF network; proactively engaging the World Health Organization (WHO) in efforts to promote palliative care; developing tools and skills to improve palliative care financing; using a human rights-based approach; and supporting self-advocacy by people with palliative care needs. RESULTS: Deep, long-term investments in national and regional champions from the palliative care community and OSF's own network built palliative care leaders with well-rounded skills, knowledge and opportunities to develop their own networks. The active engagement and involvement of the WHO in efforts to advance palliative care enhanced the credibility of palliative care as a discipline as well its champions, whereas the human rights approach resulted in more diverse strategies to overcome barriers to palliative care. The focus on palliative care financing and self-advocacy showed significant promise for impact. DISCUSSION: The approaches and strategies described helped a nascent palliative care field develop into a health service that is increasingly integrated into public health systems. Other funders and national governments can build on OSF's long term support for the palliative care field and support further integration of palliative care within public health to increase access.

End of life: Expert care and support, not physician-hastened death.

In legal physician-hastened death, a physician prescribes medication with the primary intent of causing the death of a willing terminally ill patient. This practice differs radically from palliative sedation, intended to relieve a patient's suffering rather than cause a patient's death. In this position paper, we argue that the practice of physician-hastened death is contrary to the interests of patients, their families, and the sound ethical practice of medicine. Therefore, the American Academy of Neurology should advise its members against this practice, as it had done until 2018.

World Health Organization Public Health Model: A Roadmap for Palliative Care Development.

The Open Society Foundation's International Palliative Care Initiative (IPCI) began to support palliative care development in Central and Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union in 1999. Twenty-five country representatives were invited to discuss the need for palliative care in their countries and to identify key areas that should be addressed to improve the care of adults and children with life-limiting illnesses. As a public health concern, progress in palliative care requires integration into health policy, education and training of health care professionals, availability of essential pain relieving medications, and health care services. IPCI created the Palliative Care Roadmap to serve as a model for government and/or nongovernment organizations to use to frame the necessary elements and steps for palliative care integration. The roadmap includes the creation of multiple Ministry of Health-approved working groups to address: palliative care inclusion in national health policy, legislation, and finance; availability of essential palliative care medications, especially oral opioids; education and training of health care professionals; and the implementation of palliative care services at home or in inpatient settings for adults and children. Each working group is tasked with developing a pathway with multiple signposts as indicators of progress made. The roadmap may be entered at different signposts depending upon the state of palliative care development in the country. The progress of the working groups often takes place simultaneously but at variable rates. Based on our experience, the IPCI Roadmap is one possible framework for palliative care development in resource constrained countries but requires both health care professional engagement and political will for progress to be made.

Leadership Development Initiative: Growing Global Leaders Advancing Palliative Care.

The International Palliative Care Leadership Development Initiative (LDI) was a model demonstration project that aimed to expand the global network of palliative care leaders in low- and moderate-resource countries who are well positioned to apply their new leadership skills. Thirty-nine palliative medicine physicians from 25 countries successfully completed the two-year curriculum that included three thematic residential courses, mentorship, and site visits by senior global palliative care leaders and personal projects to apply their new leadership skills. The focus on self-reflection, leadership behaviors and practices, strategic planning, high-level communication, and teaching skills led to significant personal and professional transformation among the participants, mentors, and the LDI team. The resulting residential course curriculum and the personal leadership stories and biosketches of the leaders are now available open access at IPCRC.net. Already, within their first-year postgraduation, the leaders are using their new leadership skills to grow palliative care capacity through significant changes in policy, improved opioid/other medication availability, new and enhanced educational curricula and continuing education activities, and development/expansion of palliative care programs in their organizations and regions. We are not aware of another palliative care initiative that achieves the global reach and ripple effect that LDI has produced.

The International Palliative Care Initiative.

This journal series describes the Open Society Foundation's International Palliative Care Initiative (IPCI) and the work of its national, regional, and international foundations and grantees to advance and develop palliative care globally. It provides examples of funding initiatives of IPCI honoring both grass roots and elite strategies of IPCI to integrate palliative care into national and international health policy based on a human rights approach.

NF-κB activation-induced anti-apoptosis renders HER2-positive cells drug resistant and accelerates tumor growth.

UNLABELLED: Breast cancers with HER2 overexpression are sensitive to drugs targeting the receptor or its kinase activity. HER2-targeting drugs are initially effective against HER2-positive breast cancer, but resistance inevitably occurs. We previously found that NF-κB is hyperactivated in a subset of HER2-positive breast cancer cells and tissue specimens. In this study, we report that constitutively active NF-κB rendered HER2-positive cancer cells resistant to anti-HER2 drugs and cells selected for lapatinib resistance upregulated NF-κB. In both circumstances, cells were antiapoptotic and grew rapidly as xenografts. Lapatinib-resistant cells were refractory to HER2 and NF-κB inhibitors alone but were sensitive to their combination, suggesting a novel therapeutic strategy. A subset of NF-κB-responsive genes was overexpressed in HER2-positive and triple-negative breast cancers, and patients with this NF-κB signature had poor clinical outcome. Anti-HER2 drug resistance may be a consequence of NF-κB activation, and selection for resistance results in NF-κB activation, suggesting that this transcription factor is central to oncogenesis and drug resistance. Clinically, the combined targeting of HER2 and NF-κB suggests a potential treatment paradigm for patients who relapse after anti-HER2 therapy. Patients with these cancers may be treated by simultaneously suppressing HER2 signaling and NF-κB activation. IMPLICATIONS: The combination of an inhibitor of IκB kinase (IKK) inhibitor and anti-HER2 drugs may be a novel treatment strategy for drug-resistant human breast cancers.

Palliative and end-of-life care in the global response to multidrug-resistant tuberculosis.

Multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis is costly, difficult to treat, and poses a global threat to tuberculosis control. The high burden of disease and treatment for patients, poor cure rates, and high mortality bring distress to patients, families, and caregivers. Despite guidance to improve treatment outcomes, little attention has been paid to palliative care of patients and families, such as for physical, psychosocial, social, and spiritual difficulties. An international expert symposium was convened to articulate an appropriate palliative care response for people with MDR tuberculosis. Several policies should be updated to ensure that palliative and end-of-life care is in place alongside treatment should cure be achieved, and to the end of life if not. Many services have been developed that exemplify integrated palliative care (ie, provided from within existing tuberculosis care). We recommend that existing expertise within palliative care can be used, which will improve management of problems such as dyspnoea, cachexia, and haemoptysis for patients across care settings, including at home, and enhance performance of control programmes.

How well is cancer pain treated?

There are currently two indicators, Morphine Consumption Data and the Pain Management Index, that have been widely used to assess the efficacy of cancer pain treatment. Both are based on the World Health Organization guidelines for cancer pain and both have limitations in their ability to assess the quality of pain care for cancer patients. The published studies that have used these methods all report that cancer pain is generally undertreated in a wide range of clinical settings and care models.

Opioid pharmacotherapy for chronic non-cancer pain in the United States: a research guideline for developing an evidence-base.

UNLABELLED: This document reports the consensus of an interdisciplinary panel of research and clinical experts charged with reviewing the use of opioids for chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) and formulating guidelines for future research. Prescribing opioids for chronic noncancer pain has recently escalated in the United States. Contrasting with increasing opioid use are: 1) The lack of evidence supporting long-term effectiveness; 2) Escalating misuse of prescription opioids including abuse and diversion; and 3) Uncertainty about the incidence and clinical salience of multiple, poorly characterized adverse drug events (ADEs) including endocrine dysfunction, immunosuppression and infectious disease, opioid-induced hyperalgesia and xerostomia, overdose, falls and fractures, and psychosocial complications. Chief among the limitations of current evidence are: 1) Sparse evidence on long-term opioid effectiveness in chronic pain patients due to the short-term time frame of clinical trials; 2) Insufficiently comprehensive outcome assessment; and 3) Incomplete identification and quantification of ADEs. The panel called for a strategic interdisciplinary approach to the problem domain in which basic scientists and clinicians cooperate to resolve urgent issues and generate a comprehensive evidence base. It offered 4 recommendations in 3 areas: 1) A research strategy for studying the effectiveness of long-term opioid pharmacotherapy; 2) Improvements in evidence-generation methodology; and 3) Potential research topics for generating new evidence. PERSPECTIVE: Prescribing opioids for CNCP has outpaced the growth of scientific evidence bearing on the benefits and harms of these interventions. The need for a strong evidence base is urgent. This guideline offers a strategic approach to creating a comprehensive evidence base to guide safe and effective management of CNCP.

Types and epidemiology of cancer-related neuropathic pain: the intersection of cancer pain and neuropathic pain.

Neuropathic pain--pain resulting from a lesion, damage, or dysfunction of the somatosensory nervous system--can arise through several distinct etiologies ranging from toxicity, surgery, radiation, and trauma to congenital disorders. Neuropathic pain is widely recognized as a common consequence of cancer and results from administration of several common oncology drugs. It not only impacts quality of life, but it also impacts patient outcomes because of resulting treatment delays, dose reductions, and discontinuations. We estimate that the cost of the problem in the U.S. alone is approximately $2.3 billion. Despite its widely recognized importance, there is a paucity of reliable information available regarding the incidence, prevalence of patient-and physician-reported severity, and time course of cancer-related neuropathic pain. To address this severe knowledge gap, we need new, high-quality, population-based studies of individual cancer pain syndromes and conditions. However, in order to gather this information, we also need substantial improvements in the specific classification of cancer-related neuropathic syndromes and better validated diagnostic tools that can help to elucidate the incidence, prevalence, severity, and potential economic impact of cancer-associated neuropathies.

Optimal approaches to the health economics of palliative care: report of an international think tank.

More people will need palliative care in aging societies with stretched health budgets and less ability to provide informal care. The future will bring new and tougher challenges to sustain, optimize, and expand the 8000 dedicated palliative care services that currently exist in the world. The full breakdown of the costs of palliative care is yet to be unveiled, and this has left huge unresolved questions for funding, costing, evaluating, and modeling palliative care. At an international meeting in London in November 2007, a group of 40 researchers, health economists, policy makers, and advocates exchanged their experiences, concerns, and recommendations in five main areas: shared definitions, strengths and weaknesses of different payment systems, international and country-specific research challenges, appropriate economic evaluation methods, and the varied perspectives to the costs of palliative care. This article reports the discussions that took place and the views of this international group of experts on the best research approaches to capture, analyze, and interpret data on both costs and outcomes for families and patients toward the end of life.

Research priorities in health economics and funding for palliative care: views of an international think tank.

At the conclusion of the November 2007 meeting, the assembled international expert group identified the research agenda. The adoption of this agenda would take forward health economic research in palliative care, and generate the necessary data for improved funding decision making, and resource allocation. Recommendations for study included international comparative research into the components of care and settings, evaluative studies, methodologic development and strategies to initiate studies, and make better use of data.

Managing an acute pain crisis in a patient with advanced cancer: "this is as much of a crisis as a code".

The assessment and management of an acute pain crisis in the setting of advanced illness is challenging. Using the case of Mr X, a 33-year-old man with advanced metastatic mucinous adenocarcinoma of the appendix and "15 out of 10" pain, we explore the issues of acute pain and its management. We define a pain crisis as an event in which the patient reports pain that is severe, uncontrolled, and causing distress for the patient, family members, or both. Our management strategy focuses on making a pain diagnosis, differentiating reversible from intractable causes of pain, and making decisions about further workup; selecting the opioid and monitoring and treating opioid adverse effects; titrating and rotating opioid and coanalgesics; consulting experts to treat a pain crisis as quickly as possible to prevent unnecessary suffering; and co-opting the available institutional resources. The timely intervention of a palliative care team and its expertise can provide the staff, patients, and their families the benefit of an interdisciplinary approach and help the patients address goals of care; understand the benefits and risks of treatment decisions; and meet the psychological, social, and existential needs of the patient and the family commonly seen in this setting.

The public health strategy for palliative care.

The quality of life of at least 100 million people would have improved--if today's knowledge of palliative care was accessible to everyone. A Public Health Strategy (PHS) offers the best approach for translating new knowledge and skills into evidence-based, cost-effective interventions that can reach everyone in the population. For PHSs to be effective, they must be incorporated by governments into all levels of their health care systems and owned by the community. This strategy will be most effective if it involves the society through collective and social action. The World Health Organization (WHO) pioneered a PHS for integrating palliative care into a country's health care system. It included advice and guidelines to governments on priorities and how to implement both national palliative care programs and national cancer control programs where palliative care will be one of the four key pillars of comprehensive cancer control. The WHO PHS addresses 1) appropriate policies; 2) adequate drug availability; 3) education of policy makers, health care workers, and the public; and 4) implementation of palliative care services at all levels throughout the society. This approach has demonstrated that it provides an effective strategy for integrating/establishing palliative care into a country.

Funding for palliative care programs in developing countries.

There are many palliative care developments in resource-poor regions of the world. Most of them are supported by third-party donors and grant makers. The funding necessary to cover essential palliative care services usually exceeds the financial means of many developing countries. Health care services may have to be complemented by nongovernmental organizations that are dependent on fund raising and voluntary donations from a variety of external sources. Coordinated action by international funding agencies is needed to ensure that the world's poorest people have access to essential medications and appropriate palliative care. To this end, international networking in the palliative care field is vital. There are now a number of collaborative networks that make a significant contribution to the development and sustainability of hospice and palliative care across many resource-poor regions of the world.