Impact of ambulatory palliative care on symptoms and service outcomes in cancer patients: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The integration of palliative care into routine cancer care has allowed for improved symptom control, relationship building and goal setting for patients and families. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of an ambulatory palliative care clinic on improving symptom burden and service outcomes for patients with cancer. METHODS: A retrospective review of data of cancer patients who attended an ambulatory care clinic and completed the Symptom Assessment Scale between January 2015 and December 2019. We classified moderate to severe symptoms as clinically significant. Clinically meaningful improvement in symptoms (excluding pain) was defined by a ≥ 1-point reduction from baseline and pain treatment response was defined as a ≥ 2-point or ≥ 30% reduction from baseline. RESULTS: A total of 249 patients met the inclusion criteria. The most common cancer diagnosis was gastrointestinal (32%) and the median time between the initial and follow-up clinic was 4 weeks. The prevalence of clinically significant symptoms at baseline varied from 28% for nausea to 88% for fatigue, with 23% of the cohort requiring acute admission due to unstable physical/psychosocial symptoms. There was significant improvement noted in sleep (p < 0.001), pain (p = 0.002), wellbeing (p < 0.001), and overall symptom composite scores (p = 0.028). Despite 18-28% of patients achieving clinically meaningful symptom improvement, 18-66.3% of those with moderate to severe symptoms at baseline continued to have clinically significant symptoms on follow-up. A third of patients had opioid and/or adjuvant analgesic initiated/titrated, with 39% educated on pain management. Goals of care (31%), insight (28%) and psychosocial/existential issues (27%) were commonly explored. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the burden of symptoms in a cohort of ambulatory palliative care patients and the opportunity such services can provide for education, psychosocial care and future planning. Additionally routine screening of cohorts of oncology patients using validated scales may identify patients who would benefit from early ambulatory palliative care.

The role of methadone in cancer-induced bone pain: a retrospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: Cancer-induced bone pain (CIBP) can be challenging to manage in advanced cancer. The unique properties of methadone may have a role in refractory CIBP. We aimed to evaluate the analgesic effects of methadone for CIBP when other opioids are ineffective or intolerable. METHODS: A retrospective study of palliative care inpatients rotated to methadone from another opioid for CIBP over a 4-year period. Primary outcome was ≥ 30% reduction in pain intensity (11-point numeric rating scale) from baseline to completion of methadone rotation (MR). Secondary outcomes were ≥ 50% reduction in pain intensity and changes in long-acting and breakthrough opioid requirements. RESULTS: Ninety-four eligible patients completed MR for the following reasons: poor pain control (72.3%), opioid toxicities (4.3%) or both (23.4%). On completion of MR, 70.2% and 53.2% achieved a ≥ 30% and ≥ 50% reduction in pain respectively, with mean pain intensity score reduced from 5.6 (SD = 2.1) at baseline to 2.6 (SD = 2.5) (p < 0.001). Mean calculated daily methadone dose pre-MR was 25.7 mg (SD = 10.9), with 72.3% of patients requiring a lower dose on completion of MR (mean 17.0 mg, SD = 8.5). The mean number of breakthrough opioid analgesia used a day reduced from 3.4 (SD = 2.3) to 1.8 (SD = 1.7) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: MR for CIBP may result in reduction in pain intensity, when other opioids are ineffective or intolerable, with patients requiring reduced overall dosing of their long-acting opioid and frequency of breakthrough opioid use.

Prediction of pre-eclampsia in nulliparous women using routinely collected maternal characteristics: a model development and validation study.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend identifying in early pregnancy women at elevated risk of pre-eclampsia. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a pre-eclampsia risk prediction model for nulliparous women attending routine antenatal care "the Western Sydney (WS) model"; and to compare its performance with the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) risk factor-list approach for classifying women as high-risk. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included all nulliparous women who gave birth in three public hospitals in the Western-Sydney-Local-Health-District, Australia 2011-2014. Using births from 2011 to 2012, multivariable logistic regression incorporated established maternal risk factors to develop and internally validate the WS model. The WS model was then externally validated using births from 2013 to 2014, assessing its discrimination and calibration. We fitted the final WS model for all births from 2011 to 2014, and compared its accuracy in predicting pre-eclampsia with the NICE approach. RESULTS: Among 12,395 births to nulliparous women in 2011-2014, there were 293 (2.4%) pre-eclampsia events. The WS model included: maternal age, body mass index, ethnicity, multiple pregnancy, family history of pre-eclampsia, autoimmune disease, chronic hypertension and chronic renal disease. In the validation sample (6201 births), the model c-statistic was 0.70 (95% confidence interval 0.65-0.75). The observed:expected ratio for pre-eclampsia was 0.91, with a Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test p-value of 0.20. In the entire study sample of 12,395 births, 374 (3.0%) women had a WS model-estimated pre-eclampsia risk ≥8%, the pre-specified risk-threshold for considering aspirin prophylaxis. Of these, 54 (14.4%) developed pre-eclampsia (sensitivity 18% (14-23), specificity 97% (97-98)). Using the NICE approach, 1173 (9.5%) women were classified as high-risk, of which 107 (9.1%) developed pre-eclampsia (sensitivity 37% (31-42), specificity 91% (91-92)). The final model showed similar accuracy to the NICE approach when using lower risk-threshold of ≥4% to classify women as high-risk for pre-eclampsia. CONCLUSION: The WS risk model that combines readily-available maternal characteristics achieved modest performance for prediction of pre-eclampsia in nulliparous women. The model did not outperform the NICE approach, but has the advantage of providing individualised absolute risk estimates, to assist with counselling, inform decisions for further testing, and consideration of aspirin prophylaxis.

The association between ethnicity and pre-eclampsia in Australia: A multicentre retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Rates of pre-eclampsia vary between countries and certain ethnic groups. However, there is limited evidence about the impact of ethnicity on risk of pre-eclampsia, beyond established clinical risk factors. AIMS: To assess the association between ethnicity and pre-eclampsia in Australia's diverse multi-ethnic population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the ObstetriX database. We included all women with a birth between January 2011 and December 2014, at Auburn, Blacktown/Mount-Druitt and Westmead Hospitals in the Western Sydney Local Health District. We estimated the pre-eclampsia rate overall, and by maternal ethnic group, defined by country of birth and primary language. We developed multivariable logistic regression models to estimate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for pre-eclampsia, adjusting for maternal age, body mass index, autoimmune disease, chronic hypertension, chronic renal disease, diabetes mellitus (type 1 or 2), and multiple pregnancy. A secondary analysis was restricted to nulliparous women. RESULTS: There were 40 824 women evaluated, including 12 743 nulliparous women. Of these, 1448 (3.5%) developed pre-eclampsia (range: Australian/New Zealand-born English speakers 735/15 422 (4.8%); North-East Asian women 51/4470 (1.1%)). Relative to Australian/New Zealand-born English speakers, immigrants had a lower risk of pre-eclampsia overall (adjusted OR 0.67; 95% CI 0.60-0.75); as did the three largest immigrant groups examined: Southern Asian (0.73; 0.62-0.85), Middle-Eastern/African (0.55; 0.47-0.66) and North-East Asian (0.33; 0.25-0.45) women. Findings were similar for nulliparous women. CONCLUSIONS: Certain immigrant groups are at lower risk of pre-eclampsia than Australian/New Zealand-born English-speaking women. Understanding why this is so may lead to better screening and preventive strategies in higher-risk women.

Assessment of NICE and USPSTF guidelines for identifying women at high risk of pre-eclampsia for tailoring aspirin prophylaxis in pregnancy: An individual participant data meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines for predicting pre-eclampsia in pregnancy to guide aspirin prophylaxis. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis using the Perinatal Antiplatelet Review of International Studies (PARIS) dataset. This dataset includes randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of antiplatelet therapy for primary prevention of pre-eclampsia conducted in international antenatal care settings. RCTs were eligible if they enrolled pregnant women up to 28 weeks'gestation, reported risk factors, and assessed pre-eclampsia. Women assigned to the control arm (no antiplatelet agent) were included. Both guidelines recommend aspirin if ≥1 high-risk factors or ≥2 moderate-risk factors. Two moderate-risk factors (body mass index and pregnancy interval) were unavailable. Pre-eclampsia was the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes were pre-eclampsia defined by gestational age at delivery (<37 weeks versus ≥37 weeks; <34 weeks versus ≥34 weeks). We assessed the performance of the NICE and USPSTF approaches for parous and nulliparous women by estimating sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) for predicting pre-eclampsia, the number-needed-to-screen (NNS) and the number-needed-to-treat (NNT) to prevent one pre-eclampsia event. RESULTS: Three RCTs were eligible (4524 women, 221 pre-eclampsia cases). Using the NICE guidelines, 9.4% of 1020 parous women were classified as screen-positive with a sensitivity of 26.4% (95% confidence interval 16.4-39.6%), specificity 91.5% (89.6-93.1%), PPV 14.6% (8.9-23.0%) and NPV 95.8% (94.3-96.9%). The NNS was 729 and NNT 69. For 3504 nulliparous women, 3% were classified as screen-positive with a sensitivity of 8.9% (5.5-14.4%), specificity 97.2% (96.6-97.8%), PPV 14.2% (8.7-21.9%), NPV 95.5% (94.8-96.1%). The NNS was 2336 and NNT 71. The USPSTF approach demonstrated similar performance. CONCLUSION: The NICE and USPSTF guidelines offer a simple and specific approach for recommending aspirin prophylaxis for women at high-risk of pre-eclampsia where more advanced screening methods are not available. However, the low detection rate limits its value in clinical practice, in particular for nulliparous women, and raises the need for development of an improved simple risk prediction tool.