The effectiveness of aromatherapy, massage and reflexology in people with palliative care needs: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Aromatherapy, massage and reflexology are widely used in palliative care. Despite this, there are questions about their suitability for inclusion in clinical guidelines. The need to understand their benefits is a public priority, especially in light of funding pressures. AIM: To synthesise current evidence on the effectiveness of aromatherapy, massage and reflexology in people with palliative care needs. DESIGN: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (PROSPERO CRD42017081409) was undertaken following international standards including Cochrane guidelines. The quality of trials and their pooled evidence were appraised. Primary outcomes on effect were anxiety, pain and quality-of-life. DATA SOURCES: Eight citation databases and three trial registries were searched to June 2018. RESULTS: Twenty-two trials, involving 1956 participants were identified. Compared with a control, four evaluated aromatherapy, eight massage and six reflexology. A further four evaluated massage compared with aromatherapy. Trials were at an unclear risk of bias. Many had small samples. Heterogeneity prevented meta-analysis. In comparison with usual care, another therapy or an active control, evidence on the effectiveness of massage and aromatherapy in reducing anxiety, pain and improving quality-of-life was inconclusive. There was some evidence (low quality) that compared to an active control, reflexology reduced pain. CONCLUSIONS: This review identified a relatively large number of trials, but with poor and heterogeneous evidence. New clinical recommendations cannot be made based on current evidence. To help provide more definitive trial findings, it may be useful first to understand more about the best way to measure the effectiveness of these therapies in palliative care.

Selective laser trabeculoplasty versus eye drops for first-line treatment of ocular hypertension and glaucoma (LiGHT): a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Primary open angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension are habitually treated with eye drops that lower intraocular pressure. Selective laser trabeculoplasty is a safe alternative but is rarely used as first-line treatment. We compared the two. METHODS: In this observer-masked, randomised controlled trial treatment-naive patients with open angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension and no ocular comorbidities were recruited between 2012 and 2014 at six UK hospitals. They were randomly allocated (web-based randomisation) to initial selective laser trabeculoplasty or to eye drops. An objective target intraocular pressure was set according to glaucoma severity. The primary outcome was health-related quality of life (HRQoL) at 3 years (assessed by EQ-5D). Secondary outcomes were cost and cost-effectiveness, disease-specific HRQoL, clinical effectiveness, and safety. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered at controlled-trials.com (ISRCTN32038223). FINDINGS: Of 718 patients enrolled, 356 were randomised to the selective laser trabeculoplasty and 362 to the eye drops group. 652 (91%) returned the primary outcome questionnaire at 36 months. Average EQ-5D score was 0·89 (SD 0·18) in the selective laser trabeculoplasty group versus 0·90 (SD 0·16) in the eye drops group, with no significant difference (difference 0·01, 95% CI -0·01 to 0·03; p=0·23). At 36 months, 74·2% (95% CI 69·3-78·6) of patients in the selective laser trabeculoplasty group required no drops to maintain intraocular pressure at target. Eyes of patients in the selective laser trabeculoplasty group were within target intracoluar pressure at more visits (93·0%) than in the eye drops group (91·3%), with glaucoma surgery to lower intraocular pressure required in none versus 11 patients. Over 36 months, from an ophthalmology cost perspective, there was a 97% probability of selective laser trabeculoplasty as first treatment being more cost-effective than eye drops first at a willingness to pay of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. INTERPRETATION: Selective laser trabeculoplasty should be offered as a first-line treatment for open angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension, supporting a change in clinical practice. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research, Health and Technology Assessment Programme.

Development of a model for integrated care at the end of life in advanced dementia: A whole systems UK-wide approach.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of dementia is rising worldwide and many people will die with the disease. Symptoms towards the end of life may be inadequately managed and informal and professional carers poorly supported. There are few evidence-based interventions to improve end-of-life care in advanced dementia. AIM: To develop an integrated, whole systems, evidence-based intervention that is pragmatic and feasible to improve end-of-life care for people with advanced dementia and support those close to them. DESIGN: A realist-based approach in which qualitative and quantitative data assisted the development of statements. These were incorporated into the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method to achieve consensus on intervention components. Components were mapped to underlying theory of whole systems change and the intervention described in a detailed manual. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Data were collected from people with dementia, carers and health and social care professionals in England, from expert opinion and existing literature. Professional stakeholders in all four countries of the United Kingdom contributed to the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method process. RESULTS: A total of 29 statements were agreed and mapped to individual, group, organisational and economic/political levels of healthcare systems. The resulting main intervention components are as follows: (1) influencing local service organisation through facilitation of integrated multi-disciplinary care, (2) providing training and support for formal and informal carers and (3) influencing local healthcare commissioning and priorities of service providers. CONCLUSION: Use of in-depth data, consensus methods and theoretical understanding of the intervention components produced an evidence-based intervention for further testing in end-of-life care in advanced dementia.

Laxatives for the management of constipation in people receiving palliative care.

BACKGROUND: This article describes the second update of a Cochrane review on the effectiveness of laxatives for the management of constipation in people receiving palliative care. Previous versions were published in 2006 and 2010 where we also evaluated trials of methylnaltrexone; these trials have been removed as they are included in another review in press. In these earlier versions, we drew no conclusions on individual effectiveness of different laxatives because of the limited number of evaluations. This is despite constipation being common in palliative care, generating considerable suffering due to the unpleasant physical symptoms and the availability of a wide range of laxatives with known differences in effect in other populations. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and differential efficacy of laxatives used to manage constipation in people receiving palliative care. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science (SCI & CPCI-S) for trials to September 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating laxatives for constipation in people receiving palliative care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors assessed trial quality and extracted data. The appropriateness of combining data from the studies depended upon clinical and outcome measure homogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: We identified five studies involving the laxatives lactulose, senna, co-danthramer, misrakasneham, docusate and magnesium hydroxide with liquid paraffin. Overall, the study findings were at an unclear risk of bias. As all five studies compared different laxatives or combinations of laxatives, it was not possible to perform a meta-analysis. There was no evidence on whether individual laxatives were more effective than others or caused fewer adverse effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This second update found that laxatives were of similar effectiveness but the evidence remains limited due to insufficient data from a few small RCTs. None of the studies evaluated polyethylene glycol or any intervention given rectally. There is a need for more trials to evaluate the effectiveness of laxatives in palliative care populations. Extrapolating findings on the effectiveness of laxatives evaluated in other populations should proceed with caution. This is because of the differences inherent in people receiving palliative care that may impact, in a likely negative way, on the effect of a laxative.

Pharmacological interventions for pain in children and adolescents with life-limiting conditions.

BACKGROUND: Pain is one of the most common symptoms in children and young people (CYP) with life-limiting conditions (LLCs) which include a wide range of diagnoses including cancer. The current literature indicates that pain is not well managed, however the evidence base to guide clinicians is limited. There is a clear need for evidence from a systematic review to inform prescribing. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the evidence on the effectiveness of different pharmacological interventions used for pain in CYP with LLCs. SEARCH METHODS: The following electronic databases were searched up to December 2014: CENTRAL (in the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL. In addition, we searched conference proceedings and reference lists of included studies. For completeness, we also contacted experts in the field. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomised studies and other studies that included a clearly defined comparator group were included. The studies investigated pharmacological treatments for pain associated with LLCs in CYP. The treatment included those specifically developed to treat pain and those that acted as an adjuvant, where the treatment was not primarily developed to treat pain but has pain relieving properties. The LLC was identified by its inclusion in the Richard Hain Directory of LLCs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Citations were screened by five review authors. Data were extracted by one review author and checked by a second. Two review authors assessed the risk of bias of included studies. A sufficient number of studies using homogeneous outcomes was not identified so a meta-analysis was not possible. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 24,704 citations from our database search. Nine trials with 379 participants fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Participants had cerebral palsy (CP) in five of the studies and osteogenesis imperfecta (OI) in the other four. Participants across the trials ranged in age from 2 to 19 years. All studies, apart from one cross-over trial, were parallel designed RCTs. Three of the trials on CP evaluated intrathecal baclofen (ITB) and two botulinum toxin A (BoNT-A). All of the OI trials evaluated the use of bisphosphonates (two alendronate and one pamidronate). No trials were identified that evaluated a commonly used analgesic in this patient group. Pain was a secondary outcome in five of the eight identified studies. Overall the quality of the trials was mixed. Only one study involved over 100 participants.For the two ITB studies for pain in CP, in the same study population but assessed at different time points in their disease, both found an effect on pain favouring the intervention compared to the control group (standard care or placebo) (mean difference (MD) 4.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.15 to 6.25; MD 26.60, 95% CI 2.61 to 50.59, respectively). In these studies most of the adverse events related to the procedure or device for administration rather than the drug, such as swelling at the pump site. In one trial there were also eight serious adverse effects; these included difficulty swallowing and an epileptic seizure. The trial did not state if these occurred in the intervention group. At follow-up in both BoNT-A trials there was no evidence of a difference in pain between the trial arms among CP participants. The adverse events in the BoNT-A trials mostly involved those who received the intervention drug and involved seizures. Gastrointestinal problems were the most frequent adverse event in those who received alendronate. The trial investigating pamidronate found no evidence of a difference in pain compared to the control group. No adverse events were reported in this trial. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Published, controlled evidence on the pharmacological interventions for pain in CYP with LLCs is limited. The evidence that is currently available evaluated pain largely as a secondary outcome and the drugs used were all adjuvants and not always commonly used in general paediatric palliative care for pain. Based on current data this systematic review is unable to determine the effects of pharmacological interventions for pain for CYP with LLCs. Future trials with larger populations should examine the effects of the drugs commonly used as analgesics; with the rising prevalence of many LLCs this becomes more necessary.