Treatment of giant cell arteritis with ultra-short glucocorticoids and tocilizumab: the role of imaging in a prospective observational study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of tocilizumab (TCZ) monotherapy after ultra-short-pulse glucocorticoids (GCs) on clinical manifestations, and vessel inflammation and damage in large vessel-GCA (LV-GCA). METHODS: In this prospective observational study, we enrolled patients with active LV-GCA. All patients received 500 mg per day i.v. methylprednisolone for three consecutive days and weekly s.c. TCZ injections from day 4 until week 52. PET/CT was performed on all patients at baseline and at weeks 24 and 52. The primary end points were the reduction in the PET vascular activity score (PETVAS) at weeks 24 and 52 compared with baseline, and the proportion of patients with relapse-free remission at weeks 24 and 52. The secondary end point was the proportion of patients with new aortic dilation at weeks 24 and 52. RESULTS: A total of 18 patients were included (72% female, mean age 68.5 years). Compared with the baseline value, a significant reduction in the PETVAS was observed at weeks 24 and 52, mean (95% CI) reductions -8.6 (-11.5 to -5.7) and -10.4 (-13.6 to -7.2), P = 0.001 and 0.002, respectively. The proportion of patients with relapse-free remission at weeks 24 and 52 was 10/18 (56%, 95% CI 31-78) and 8/17 (47%, 95% CI 23-72), respectively. At weeks 24 and 52, no patient had shown new aortic dilation. However, 4 patients who had shown aortic dilation at baseline showed a significant increase in aortic diameter (≥5 mm) at week 52. CONCLUSION: TCZ monotherapy after ultra-short-pulse GCs controlled the clinical symptoms of GCA and reduced vascular inflammation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, https://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT05394909.

Humoral and T-Cell Immune Response After 3 Doses of Messenger RNA Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Vaccines in Fragile Patients: The Italian VAX4FRAIL Study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with solid or hematological tumors or neurological and immune-inflammatory disorders are potentially fragile subjects at increased risk of experiencing severe coronavirus disease 2019 and an inadequate response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination. METHODS: We designed a prospective Italian multicenter study to assess humoral and T-cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients (n = 378) with solid tumors (ST), hematological malignancies (HM), neurological disorders (ND), and immunorheumatological diseases (ID). A group of healthy controls was also included. We analyzed the immunogenicity of the primary vaccination schedule and booster dose. RESULTS: The overall seroconversion rate in patients after 2 doses was 62.1%. Significantly lower rates were observed in HM (52.4%) and ID (51.9%) than in ST (95.6%) and ND (70.7%); a lower median antibody level was detected in HM and ID versus ST and ND (P < .0001). Similar rates of patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 T-cell response were found in all disease groups, with a higher level observed in ND. The booster dose improved the humoral response in all disease groups, although to a lesser extent in HM patients, whereas the T-cell response increased similarly in all groups. In the multivariable logistic model, independent predictors of seroconversion were disease subgroup, treatment type, and age. Ongoing treatment known to affect the immune system was associated with the worst humoral response to vaccination (P < .0001) but had no effect on T-cell responses. CONCLUSIONS: Immunosuppressive treatment more than disease type per se is a risk factor for a low humoral response after vaccination. The booster dose can improve both humoral and T-cell responses.

Intravenous methylprednisolone pulses in hospitalised patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia: a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

RATIONALE: Pulse glucocorticoid therapy is used in hyperinflammation related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We evaluated the efficacy and safety of pulse intravenous methylprednisolone in addition to standard treatment in COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 304 hospitalised patients with COVID-19 pneumonia were randomised to receive 1 g of methylprednisolone intravenously for three consecutive days or placebo in addition to standard dexamethasone. The primary outcome was the duration of patient hospitalisation, calculated as the time interval between randomisation and hospital discharge without the need for supplementary oxygen. The key secondary outcomes were survival free from invasive ventilation with orotracheal intubation and overall survival. RESULTS: Overall, 112 (75.4%) out of 151 patients in the pulse methylprednisolone arm and 111 (75.2%) of 150 in the placebo arm were discharged from hospital without oxygen within 30 days from randomisation. Median time to discharge was similar in both groups (15 days, 95% CI 13.0-17.0 days and 16 days, 95% CI 13.8-18.2 days, respectively; hazard ratio (HR) 0.92, 95% CI 0.71-1.20; p=0.528). No significant differences between pulse methylprednisolone and placebo arms were observed in terms of admission to intensive care unit with orotracheal intubation or death (20.0% versus 16.1%; HR 1.26, 95% CI 0.74-2.16; p=0.176) or overall mortality (10.0% versus 12.2%; HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.42-1.64; p=0.584). Serious adverse events occurred with similar frequency in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Methylprenisolone pulse therapy added to dexamethasone was not of benefit in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.

Research, education, ethics consultation: evaluating a Bioethics Unit in an Oncological Research Hospital.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to quantitatively and qualitatively evaluate the activities of a Bioethics Unit (BU) 5 years since its implementation (2016-2020). The BU is a research unit providing empirical research on ethical issues related to clinical practice, clinical ethics consultation, and ethical education for health care professionals (HPS). METHODS: We performed an explanatory, sequential, mixed-method, observational study, using the subsequent qualitative data to explain the initial quantitative findings. Quantitative data were collected from an internal database and analyzed by descriptive analysis. Qualitative evaluation was performed by semi-structured interviews with 18 HPs who were differently involved in the BU's activities and analyzed by framework analysis. RESULTS: Quantitative results showed an extensive increment of the number of BU research projects over the years and the number of work collaborations with other units and wards. Qualitative findings revealed four main themes, concerning: 1. the reasons for contacting the BU and the type of collaboration; 2. the role of the bioethicist; 3. the impact of BU activities on HPs, in terms of developing deeper and more mature thinking; 4. the need to extend ethics support to other settings. Overall, our results showed that performing both empirical bioethics research and more traditional clinical ethics activities at the same unit would produce an impetus to increase collaboration and spread an 'ethical culture' among local HPs. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings contribute to a growing body of literature on the models of clinical ethics support services and the role of empirical research in bioethics internationally. They also prepare the ground for the implementation of a multidisciplinary Clinical Ethics Committee (CEC) that aims to support the BU's ethics consultation service within the local context.

Parkinson's disease patients' needs during the COVID-19 pandemic in a red zone: A framework analysis of open-ended survey questions.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: During the first phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, a lockdown was imposed in Italy. The aim of this study was to investigate the perceptions, feelings and unmet needs of Parkinson's disease (PD) patients who experienced the 2-month lockdown in a "red zone" in the northern part of Italy during the COVID-19 outbreak. METHODS: The study had a descriptive design that used a cross-sectional online survey which included open-ended questions to elicit responses on the participant's feelings concerning their risk of contracting coronavirus, how their physical activity had changed, and their personal needs, dictated by their condition, which were not met in this pandemic period as compared to previous periods. Demographic data were analysed using descriptive frequencies, while the open-ended questions were analysed using thematic framework analysis. RESULTS: The study included 103 participants (63 men/40 women [61.17 vs. 38.83%]). Framework analysis led to the identification of four main themes: (i) fearing the risk of contracting coronavirus; (ii) reduction of physical activity; (iii) perception of the risk of not being able to access outpatient clinics or support services; and (iv) negative experiences of the important reduction in socialization. The perceptions of unmet needs appeared to be greater than the actual experience, particularly for the reduction in physical activity and the interruption of contacts with the neurologist and other specialists. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights how perceptions and actual experience shape the meaning of living with PD during the pandemic. Worth noting is the divergence between perceptions and real impact in some aspects of the COVID-19 outbreak.

High-dose glucocorticoids pulse-therapy for beta-coronaviridae pneumonia: a systematic literature review and case-series of Coronavirus disease-2019.

OBJECTIVES: The results of the RECOVERY trial identified dexamethasone as the first pharmacological therapy that reduces mortality in patients with COVID-19. The aim of this paper is to conduct a systematic literature review on safety and efficacy of pulse glucocorticoid therapy for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS)-CoronaVirus (CoV), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS)-CoV or SARS-CoV-2 infections and describe a case-series of COVID-19 patients treated with off-label pulse doses of methylprednisolone. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature review on safety and efficacy of pulse therapy for betacoronaviridae infections as described in the protocol registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020190183). All consecutive patients admitted to Arcispedale Santa Maria Nuova di Reggio Emilia or Guastalla Hospital with COVID-19 between March 1st and April 30th, 2020 and treated with methylprednisolone 1 gram/day for at least three days were included in the case series. A retrospective review of available computed tomography (CT) scan and chest x-ray was performed independently by two radiologists blinded to clinical data, and discordances were resolved by consensus. RESULTS: Twenty papers were included for SARS, but only two were comparative and were included in the primary endpoint analysis. Likewise, eleven papers were included for COVID-19, four of which were comparative and were considered for the primary outcome analysis. Included studies for both SARS and COVID-19 are mostly retrospective and highly heterogeneous, with lethality ranging from 0% to 100% and ICU admission rate ranging from 9% to 100%. Fourteen patients were included in our case series, 7 males and 7 females. CONCLUSIONS: No randomised controlled trial is available yet for corticosteroids pulse-therapy defined as at least ≥500mg/day methylprednisolone in patients with emerging coronavirus pneumonia. Lethality among our cohort is high (4/14), but this finding should be interpreted with caution due to the fact that in our setting pulse-steroids were used in patients not eligible for other treatments because of comorbidities or as rescue therapy. The incidence of steroid-related adverse events seems low in our cohort. The quality of the evidence on glucocorticoid pulse-therapy in SARS, MERS and COVID-19 is poor. Randomised controlled trials are greatly needed.

A focused ethnography in the context of a European cancer research hospital accreditation program.

BACKGROUND: A quality accreditation program (AP) is designed to guarantee predefined quality standards of healthcare organizations. Evidence of the impact of quality standards remains scarce and somewhat challenging to document. This study aimed to investigate the accreditation of a cancer research hospital (Italy), promoted by the Organization of European Cancer Institutes (OECI), by focusing on the individual, group, and organizational experiences resulting from the OECI AP. METHODS: A focused ethnography study was carried out to analyze the relevance of participation in the accreditation process. Twenty-nine key informants were involved in four focus group meetings, and twelve semistructured interviews were conducted with professionals and managers. Inductive qualitative content analysis was applied to examine all transcripts. RESULTS: Four main categories emerged: a) OECI AP as an opportunity to foster diversity within professional roles; b) OECI AP as a possibility for change; c) perceived barriers; and d) OECI AP-solicited expectations. CONCLUSIONS: The accreditation process is an opportunity for improving the quality and variety of care services for cancer patients through promoting an interdisciplinary approach to care provision. Perceiving accreditation as an opportunity is a prerequisite for overcoming the barriers that professionals involved in the process may report. Critical to a positive change is sharing the values and the framework, which are at the basis of accreditation programs. Improving the information-sharing process among managers and professionals may limit the risk of unmet expectations and prevent demotivation by future accreditation programs. Finally, we found that positive changes are more likely to happen when an accreditation process is considered an activity whose results depend on managers' and professionals' joint work.

Effectiveness of a nurse-delivered (FOCUS+) and a web-based (iFOCUS) psychoeducational intervention for people with advanced cancer and their family caregivers (DIAdIC): study protocol for an international randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, millions of people with advanced cancer and their family caregivers are experiencing physical and psychological distress. Psychosocial support and education can reduce distress and prevent avoidable healthcare resource use. To date, we lack knowledge from large-scale studies on which interventions generate positive outcomes for people with cancer and their informal caregivers' quality of life. This protocol describes the DIAdIC study that will evaluate the effectiveness of two psychosocial and educational interventions aimed at improving patient-family caregiver dyads' emotional functioning and self-efficacy. METHODS: We will conduct an international multicenter three-arm randomized controlled trial in Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, Italy, The Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. In each country, 156 dyads (936 in total) of people with advanced cancer and their family caregiver will be randomized to one of the study arms: 1) a nurse-led face-to-face intervention (FOCUS+), 2) a web-based intervention (iFOCUS) or 3) a control group (care as usual). The two interventions offer tailored psychoeducational support for patient-family caregiver dyads. The nurse-led face-to-face intervention consists of two home visits and one online video session and the web-based intervention is completed independently by the patient-family caregiver dyad in four online sessions. The interventions are based on the FOCUS intervention, developed in the USA, that addresses five core components: family involvement, optimistic outlook, coping effectiveness, uncertainty reduction, and symptom management. The FOCUS intervention will be adapted to the European context. The primary outcomes are emotional functioning and self-efficacy of the patient and the family caregiver, respectively. The secondary outcomes are quality of life, benefits of illness, coping, dyadic communication, and ways of giving support of the patient and family caregiver. DISCUSSION: DIAdIC aims to develop cost-effective interventions that integrate principles of early palliative care into standard care. The cross-country setup in six European countries allows for comparison of effectiveness of the interventions in different healthcare systems across Europe. By focusing on empowerment of the person with cancer and their family caregiver, the results of this RCT can contribute to the search for cost-effective novel interventions that can relieve constraints on professional healthcare. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registration on ClinicalTrials.gov on 12/11/2020, identifier NCT04626349 . DATE AND VERSION IDENTIFIER: 20211209_DIAdIC_Protocol_Article.

Preparedness and Capacity of Indian Palliative Care Services to Respond to the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Online Rapid Assessment Survey.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has been causing a high burden of suffering for patients and families. There is limited evidence on the preparedness of Indian palliative care services for the pandemic. AIM: This study aimed to assess the preparedness and capacity of Indian palliative care services in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey was developed based on prior evidence and international health regulations. It was emailed to the Indian Palliative Care Association members and investigators' professional networks in India. One participant per palliative care service was requested. Descriptive analysis was used. RESULTS: Representatives of 78 palliative care services completed the survey. Three in four services had COVID-19 case definition and adapted their protocols for infection control (75%). About half of the services (55%) reported concerns about achieving appropriate hand hygiene in the community. More than half of the services (59%) had capacity to train nonspecialists for symptom control and psychological support. About half of the services reported that they had plans to redeploy staff (56%) and resources (53%) in the case of outbreaks. Two-fifths of the services used paper records to store an updated contact list of staff (40%) and did not have designated focal contacts for information update (40%). Staff anxiety related to personal infection risk and family care was relatively high (median score = 7 on a 1-10 scale). CONCLUSION: We recommend the following resource allocation to enable palliative care services to support the Indian health system in delivering essential care in this and future pandemics: (1) infection control, especially in the community; (2) training using existing clinical protocols to strengthen palliative care across the health system; and (3) redeployment plans.

Tocilizumab for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. The single-arm TOCIVID-19 prospective trial.

BACKGROUND: Tocilizumab blocks pro-inflammatory activity of interleukin-6 (IL-6), involved in pathogenesis of pneumonia the most frequent cause of death in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: A multicenter, single-arm, hypothesis-driven trial was planned, according to a phase 2 design, to study the effect of tocilizumab on lethality rates at 14 and 30 days (co-primary endpoints, a priori expected rates being 20 and 35%, respectively). A further prospective cohort of patients, consecutively enrolled after the first cohort was accomplished, was used as a secondary validation dataset. The two cohorts were evaluated jointly in an exploratory multivariable logistic regression model to assess prognostic variables on survival. RESULTS: In the primary intention-to-treat (ITT) phase 2 population, 180/301 (59.8%) subjects received tocilizumab, and 67 deaths were observed overall. Lethality rates were equal to 18.4% (97.5% CI: 13.6-24.0, P = 0.52) and 22.4% (97.5% CI: 17.2-28.3, P < 0.001) at 14 and 30 days, respectively. Lethality rates were lower in the validation dataset, that included 920 patients. No signal of specific drug toxicity was reported. In the exploratory multivariable logistic regression analysis, older age and lower PaO2/FiO2 ratio negatively affected survival, while the concurrent use of steroids was associated with greater survival. A statistically significant interaction was found between tocilizumab and respiratory support, suggesting that tocilizumab might be more effective in patients not requiring mechanical respiratory support at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Tocilizumab reduced lethality rate at 30 days compared with null hypothesis, without significant toxicity. Possibly, this effect could be limited to patients not requiring mechanical respiratory support at baseline. Registration EudraCT (2020-001110-38); clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04317092).

Acute-phase reactants during tocilizumab therapy for severe COVID-19 pneumonia.

OBJECTIVES: To identify predictors of clinical improvement and intubation/death in tocilizumab-treated severe COVID19, focusing on IL6 and CRP longitudinal monitoring. METHODS: 173 consecutive patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia receiving tocilizumab in Reggio Emilia province Hospitals between 11 March and 3 June 2020 were enrolled in a prospective cohort study. Clinical improvement was defined as status improvement on a six-category ordinal scale or discharge from the hospital, whichever came first. A composite outcome of intubation/death was also evaluated. CRP and IL-6 levels were determined before TCZ administration (T0) and after 3 (T3), and 7 (T7) days. RESULTS: At multivariate analysis T0 and T3 CRP levels were negatively associated with clinical improvement (OR 0.13, CI 0.03-0.55 and OR 0.11, CI 0.0-0.46) (p=0.006 and p=0.003) and positively associated with intubation/death (OR 17.66, CI 2.47-126.14 and OR 5.34, CI: 1.49-19.12) (p=0.01 and p=0.004). No significant associations with IL-6 values were observed. General linear model analyses for repeated measures showed significantly different trends for CRP from day 3 to day 7 between patients who improved and those who did not, and between patients who were intubated or died and those who were not (p<0.0001 for both). ROC analysis identified a baseline CRP level of 15.8 mg/dl as the best cut-off to predict intubation/death (AUC = 0.711, sensitivity = 0.67, specificity = 0.71). CONCLUSIONS: CRP serial measurements in the first week of TCZ therapy are useful in identifying patients developing poor outcomes.

Response and role of palliative care during the COVID-19 pandemic: A national telephone survey of hospices in Italy.

BACKGROUND: Palliative care is an important component of health care in pandemics, contributing to symptom control, psychological support, and supporting triage and complex decision making. AIM: To examine preparedness for, and impact of, the COVID-19 pandemic on hospices in Italy to inform the response in other countries. DESIGN: Cross-sectional telephone survey, in March 2020. SETTING: Italian hospices, purposively sampled according to COVID-19 regional prevalence categorised as high (>25), medium (15-25) and low prevalence (<15) COVID-19 cases per 100,000 inhabitants. A brief questionnaire was developed to guide the interviews. Analysis was descriptive. RESULTS: Seven high, five medium and four low prevalence hospices provided data. Two high prevalence hospices had experienced COVID-19 cases among both patients and staff. All hospices had implemented policy changes, and several had rapidly implemented changes in practice including transfer of staff from inpatient to community settings, change in admission criteria and daily telephone support for families. Concerns included scarcity of personal protective equipment, a lack of hospice-specific guidance on COVID-19, anxiety about needing to care for children and other relatives, and poor integration of palliative care in the acute planning response. CONCLUSION: The hospice sector is capable of responding flexibly and rapidly to the COVID-19 pandemic. Governments must urgently recognise the essential contribution of hospice and palliative care to the COVID-19 pandemic and ensure these services are integrated into the health care system response. Availability of personal protective equipment and setting-specific guidance is essential. Hospices may also need to be proactive in connecting with the acute pandemic response.

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of hospital-based specialist palliative care for adults with advanced illness and their caregivers.

BACKGROUND: Serious illness is often characterised by physical/psychological problems, family support needs, and high healthcare resource use. Hospital-based specialist palliative care (HSPC) has developed to assist in better meeting the needs of patients and their families and potentially reducing hospital care expenditure. There is a need for clarity on the effectiveness and optimal models of HSPC, given that most people still die in hospital and also to allocate scarce resources judiciously. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HSPC compared to usual care for adults with advanced illness (hereafter patients) and their unpaid caregivers/families. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, CDSR, DARE and HTA database via the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; Embase; CINAHL; PsycINFO; CareSearch; National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) and two trial registers to August 2019, together with checking of reference lists and relevant systematic reviews, citation searching and contact with experts to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the impact of HSPC on outcomes for patients or their unpaid caregivers/families, or both. HSPC was defined as specialist palliative care delivered by a palliative care team that is based in a hospital providing holistic care, co-ordination by a multidisciplinary team, and collaboration between HSPC providers and generalists. HSPC was provided to patients while they were admitted as inpatients to acute care hospitals, outpatients or patients receiving care from hospital outreach teams at home. The comparator was usual care, defined as inpatient or outpatient hospital care without specialist palliative care input at the point of entry into the study, community care or hospice care provided outside of the hospital setting. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We assessed risk of bias and extracted data. To account for use of different scales across studies, we calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous data. We used an inverse variance random-effects model. For binary data, we calculated odds ratio (ORs) with 95% CIs. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table. Our primary outcomes were patient health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and symptom burden (a collection of two or more symptoms). Key secondary outcomes were pain, depression, satisfaction with care, achieving preferred place of death, mortality/survival, unpaid caregiver burden, and cost-effectiveness. Qualitative data was analysed where available. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 42 RCTs involving 7779 participants (6678 patients and 1101 caregivers/family members). Twenty-one studies were with cancer populations, 14 were with non-cancer populations (of which six were with heart failure patients), and seven with mixed cancer and non-cancer populations (mixed diagnoses). HSPC was offered in different ways and included the following models: ward-based, inpatient consult, outpatient, hospital-at-home or hospital outreach, and service provision across multiple settings which included hospital. For our main analyses, we pooled data from studies reporting adjusted endpoint values. Forty studies had a high risk of bias in at least one domain. Compared with usual care, HSPC improved patient HRQoL with a small effect size of 0.26 SMD over usual care (95% CI 0.15 to 0.37; I2 = 3%, 10 studies, 1344 participants, low-quality evidence, higher scores indicate better patient HRQoL). HSPC also improved other person-centred outcomes. It reduced patient symptom burden with a small effect size of -0.26 SMD over usual care (95% CI -0.41 to -0.12; I2 = 0%, 6 studies, 761 participants, very low-quality evidence, lower scores indicate lower symptom burden). HSPC improved patient satisfaction with care with a small effect size of 0.36 SMD over usual care (95% CI 0.41 to 0.57; I2 = 0%, 2 studies, 337 participants, low-quality evidence, higher scores indicate better patient satisfaction with care). Using home death as a proxy measure for achieving patient's preferred place of death, patients were more likely to die at home with HSPC compared to usual care (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.16; I2 = 0%, 7 studies, 861 participants, low-quality evidence). Data on pain (4 studies, 525 participants) showed no evidence of a difference between HSPC and usual care (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.01; I2 = 0%, very low-quality evidence). Eight studies (N = 1252 participants) reported on adverse events and very low-quality evidence did not demonstrate an effect of HSPC on serious harms. Two studies (170 participants) presented data on caregiver burden and both found no evidence of effect of HSPC (very low-quality evidence). We included 13 economic studies (2103 participants). Overall, the evidence on cost-effectiveness of HSPC compared to usual care was inconsistent among the four full economic studies. Other studies that used only partial economic analysis and those that presented more limited resource use and cost information also had inconsistent results (very low-quality evidence). Quality of the evidence The quality of the evidence assessed using GRADE was very low to low, downgraded due to a high risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Very low- to low-quality evidence suggests that when compared to usual care, HSPC may offer small benefits for several person-centred outcomes including patient HRQoL, symptom burden and patient satisfaction with care, while also increasing the chances of patients dying in their preferred place (measured by home death). While we found no evidence that HSPC causes serious harms, the evidence was insufficient to draw strong conclusions. Although these are only small effect sizes, they may be clinically relevant at an advanced stage of disease with limited prognosis, and are person-centred outcomes important to many patients and families. More well conducted studies are needed to study populations with non-malignant diseases and mixed diagnoses, ward-based models of HSPC, 24 hours access (out-of-hours care) as part of HSPC, pain, achieving patient preferred place of care, patient satisfaction with care, caregiver outcomes (satisfaction with care, burden, depression, anxiety, grief, quality of life), and cost-effectiveness of HSPC. In addition, research is needed to provide validated person-centred outcomes to be used across studies and populations.

Early palliative care versus standard care in haematologic cancer patients at their last active treatment: study protocol of a feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced haematological malignancies suffer from a very high symptom burden and psychological, spiritual, social and physical symptoms comparable with patients with metastatic non-haematological malignancy. Referral to palliative care services for these patients remains limited or often confined to the last days of life. We developed a palliative care intervention (PCI) integrated with standard haematological care. The aim of the study was focussed on exploring the feasibility of the intervention by patients, professionals and caregivers and on assessing its preliminary efficacy. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a mixed-methods phase 2 trial. The Specialist Palliative Care Team (SPCT) will follow each patient on a monthly basis in the outpatient clinic or will provide consultations during any hospital admission. SPCT and haematologists will discuss active patient issues to assure a team approach to the patient's care. This quantitative study is a monocentric parallel-group superiority trial with balanced randomisation comparing the experimental PCI plus haematological standard care versus haematological standard care alone. The primary endpoint will calculate on adherence to the planned PCI, measured as the percentage of patients randomised to the experimental arm who attend all the planned palliative care visits in the 24 weeks after randomisation. The qualitative study follows the methodological indications of concurrent nested design and was aimed at exploring the acceptability of the PCI from the point of view of patients, caregivers and physicians. DISCUSSION: In this trial, we will test the feasibility of an integrated palliative care approach starting when the haematologist decides to propose the last active treatment to the patient, according to his/her clinical judgement. We decided to test this criterion because it is able to intercept a wide range of patients'needs. The feasibility of this approach requires that we enrol at least 60 patients and that more than 50% of them be followed by the palliative care team for at least 24 weeks. The trial will include integrated qualitative data analysis; to give essential information on feasibility and acceptability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03743480 (November 16, 2018).

The assessment of spiritual well-being in cancer patients with advanced disease: which are its meaningful dimensions?

BACKGROUND: Spirituality is particularly important for patients suffering from life-threatening illness. Despite research showing the benefits of spiritual assessment and care for terminally ill patients, their spiritual needs are rarely addressed in clinical practice. This study examined the factor structure and reliability of the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Spiritual (FACIT-Sp) in patients with advanced cancer. It also examined the clinical meaning and reference intervals of FACIT-Sp scores in cancer patients subgroups through a literature review. METHODS: A forward-backward translation procedure was adopted to develop the Italian version of the FACIT-Sp, which was administered to 150 terminally ill cancer patients. Exploratory factor analysis was used for construct validity, while Cronbach's α was used to assess the reliability of the scale. RESULTS: This study replicates previous findings indicating that the FACIT-Sp distinguish well between features of meaning, peace, and faith. In addition, the internal consistency of the FACIT-Sp was acceptable. The literature review also showed that terminal cancer patients have the lowest scores on the Faith and Meaning subscales, whereas cancer survivors have the highest scores on Faith. CONCLUSIONS: The Italian version of the FACIT-Sp has good construct validity and acceptable reliability. Therefore, it can be used as a tool to assess spiritual well-being in Italian terminally ill cancer patients. This study provides reference intervals of FACIT-Sp scores in newly diagnosed cancer patients, cancer survivors, and terminally ill cancer patients and further highlights the clinical meaning of such detailed assessment.

Safe tracheotomy for patients with COVID-19.

Patients affected by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 disease (COVID-19) with respiratory distress may need invasive mechanical ventilation for a long period of time. Head and neck surgeons are becoming increasingly involved in the care of COVID-19 patients because of the rapidly increasing number of tracheotomies required. This procedure, when performed without protection, may lead to the infection of the medical and nursing staff caring for the patient. The aim of this report is to share our protocol for performing a safe surgical tracheotomy in COVID-19 patients. Infection of the nursing/medical staff involved in the first 30 tracheotomies performed in patients affected by COVID-19 in the Intensive Care Unit of a tertiary referral center were evaluated. Mistakes that occurred during surgery were analyzed and discussed. None of the nursing/medical staff presented signs or symptoms of COVID-19 within 15 days after the procedure. Conclusion: The authors have prepared a protocol for performing a safe surgical tracheotomy in patients affected by COVID-19. Surgeons who might be involved in performing the tracheotomies should become familiar with these guidelines.

Pilot testing of the first version of the European Association for Palliative Care basic dataset: A mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Inadequate description of palliative care cancer patients in research studies often leads to results having limited generalizability. To standardize the description of the sample, the European Association for Palliative Care basic data set was developed, with 31 core demographic and disease-related variables. AIM: To pilot test the data set to check acceptability, comprehensibility and feasibility. DESIGN: International, multi-centre pilot study at nine study sites in five European countries, using mixed methods. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Adult cancer patients and staff in palliative care units, hospices and home care. RESULTS: In all, 191 patients (544 screened) and 190 health care personnel were included. Median time to fill in the patient form was 5 min and the health care personnel form was 7 min. Ethnicity was the most challenging item for patients and requires decisions at a national level about whether or how to include. Health care personnel found weight loss, principal diagnosis, additional diagnoses and stage of non-cancer diseases most difficult to respond to. Registration of diagnoses will be changed from International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th version code to a predefined list, while weight loss and stage of non-cancer diseases will be removed. The pilot study has led to rewording of items, improvement in response options and shortening of the data set to 29 items. CONCLUSION: Pilot testing of the first version of the European Association for Palliative Care basic data set confirmed that patients and health care personnel understand the questions in a consistent manner and can answer within an acceptable timeframe. The pilot testing has led to improvement, and the new version is now subject to further testing.

Palliative care training addressed to hospital healthcare professionals by palliative care specialists: a mixed-method evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Despite the great advances in the concept of palliative care (PC) and its benefits, its application seems to be delayed, leaving unfulfilled the many needs of patients and family members. One way to overcome this difficulty could be to develop a new training programme by palliative care specialists to improve PC primary skills in healthcare professionals. The aim of this study was to evaluate the training's impact on trainees within a hospital setting using Kirkpatrick's and Moore's models. METHODS: We adopted a mixed-method evaluation with concurrent triangulation. The evaluation followed the first three steps of Kirkpatrick's and Moore's models and included a pre- and post-training evaluation through self-administered questionnaires and focus groups. We used the McNemar statistical test. RESULTS: The results highlighted the significant amount of knowledge acquired by the hospital professionals after training, in terms of increasing their knowledge of palliative care and in terms of the change in meaning that they attributed to phenomena related to chronicity and incurability, which they encounter daily in their professional practice. In both quantitative and qualitative research, the results, in synthesis, highlight: (i) the development of a new concept of palliative care, centred on the response to the holistic needs of people; (ii) that palliative care can also be extended to non-oncological patients in advanced illness stages (our training was directed to Geriatrics and Nephrology/Dialysis professionals); (iii) the empowerment and the increase in self-esteem that healthcare professionals gained, from learning about the logistical and structural organization of palliative care, to activate and implement PC; (iv) the need to share personal aspects of their professional life (this result emerges only in qualitative research); (v) the appreciation of cooperation and the joining of multiple competences towards a synergistic approach and enhanced outcomes. CONCLUSION: It is necessary to further develop rigorous research on training evaluation, at the most complex orders of the Kirkpatrick and Moore models, to measure primary PC skills in health care professionals. This will develop the effectiveness of the integration of I- and II-level palliative care competencies in hospitals and improve outcomes of patients' and families' quality of life.

Improving comfort around dying in elderly people: a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Over 50% of elderly people die in acute hospital settings, where the quality of end-of-life care is often suboptimum. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of the Care Programme for the Last Days of Life (CAREFuL) at improving comfort and quality of care in the dying phase in elderly people. METHODS: We did a cluster randomised controlled trial in acute geriatric wards in ten hospitals in Flemish Region, Belgium, between Oct 1, 2012, and March 31, 2015. Hospitals were randomly assigned to implementation of CAREFuL (CAREFuL group) or to standard care (control group) using a random number generator. Patients and families were masked to interventaion allocation; hospital staff were unmasked. CAREFuL comprised a care guide for the last days of life, training, supportive documentation, and an implementation guide. Primary outcomes were comfort around dying, measured with the End-of-Life in Dementia-Comfort Assessment in Dying (CAD-EOLD), and symptom management, measured with the End-of-Life in Dementia-Symptom Management (SM-EOLD), by nurses and family carers. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01890239. FINDINGS: 451 (11%) of 4241 beds in ten hospitals were included in the analyses. Five hospitals were randomly assigned to standard health care practice and five to the CAREFuL programme; 118 patients in the control group and 164 in the CAREFuL group were eligible for assessment. Assessments were done for 132 (80%) of 164 patients in the CAREFuL group and 109 (92%) of 118 in the control group by nurses, and 48 (29%) in the CAREFuL group and 23 (19%) in the control group by family carers. Implementation of CAREFuL compared with control significantly improved nurse-assessed comfort (CAD-EOLD baseline-adjusted mean difference 4·30, 95% CI 2·07-6·53; p<0·0001). No significant differences were noted for the CAD-EOLD assessed by family carers (baseline-adjusted mean difference -0·62, 95% CI -6·07 to 4·82; p=0·82) or the SM-EOLD assessed by nurses (-0·41, -1·86 to 1·05; p=0·58) or by family carers (-0·59, -3·75 to 2·57; p=0·71). INTERPRETATION: Although a continuous monitoring of the programme is warranted, these results suggest that implementation of CAREFuL might improve care during the last days of life for patients in acute geriatric hospital wards. FUNDING: The Flemish Government Agency for Innovation by Science and Technology and the Belgian Cancer Society "Kom Op Tegen Kanker".

Is early integration of palliative care feasible and acceptable for advanced respiratory and gastrointestinal cancer patients? A phase 2 mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: There is evidence that early integration of palliative care improves quality of life, lowers spending and helps clarify preferences and goals for advanced cancer patients. Little is known about the feasibility and acceptability of early integration. AIM: Assessing feasibility of early integration of palliative care, and exploring concerns perceived and problems encountered by patients, relatives and oncologists. DESIGN: A phase 2 mixed-methods study ( ClinicalTrials.Gov :NCT02078700). METHODS: Oncologists of two outpatient clinics offered a specialised palliative care intervention integrated with standard oncological care to all consecutive newly diagnosed metastatic respiratory/gastrointestinal cancer patients. We interviewed samples of patients, relatives and oncologists to explore strengths and weaknesses of the intervention. RESULTS: The intervention was proposed to 44/54 eligible patients (81.5%), 40 (90.1%) accepted, 38 (95.0%) attended the first palliative care visit. The intervention was completed for 32 patients (80.0%). It did not start for three (7.5%) and was interrupted for three patients who refused (7.5%). The Palliative Care Unit performed 274 visits in 38 patients (median per patient 4.5), and 24 family meetings with relatives of 16 patients. All patients and most relatives referred to the usefulness of the intervention, specifically for symptoms management, information and support to strategies for coping. Oncologists highlighted their difficulties in informing patients on palliative intervention, sharing information and coordinating patient's care with the palliative care team. CONCLUSION: Early integration of palliative care in oncological setting seems feasible and well accepted by patients, relatives and, to a lesser extent, oncologists. Some difficulties emerged concerning patient information and inter-professional communication.