Immune checkpoint inhibitor-mediated polymyalgia rheumatica versus primary polymyalgia rheumatica: comparison of disease characteristics and treatment requirement.

OBJECTIVES: To compare clinical characteristics, imaging findings and treatment requirements of patients with immune checkpoint inhibitor-mediated polymyalgia rheumatica (ICI-PMR) and primary PMR. METHODS: This single centre, retrospective cohort study compared ICI-PMR in patients with cancer (n = 15) to patients with primary PMR (n = 37). A comparison was made between clinical symptoms, laboratory markers, ultrasonography,18F-FDG-PET/CT findings and treatment requirements related to PMR. RESULTS: Patients with ICI-PMR less frequently fulfilled the EULAR/ACR classification criteria for PMR (66.7%) than patients with primary PMR (97.3%). Morning stiffness, weight loss and elevation of the ESR were less frequently seen in patients with ICI-PMR. No differences were observed regarding the presence of inflammatory lesions on ultrasound of the shoulders and hips between the two groups. The Leuven and the Leuven/Groningen 18F-FDG-PET/CT scores were significantly lower in the ICI-PMR group. Finally, the ICI-PMR group could be managed with less glucocorticoids than the primary PMR group. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that ICI-PMR may have a milder course with less inflammation than primary PMR on 18F-FDG-PET/CT. ICI-mediated PMR patients can be managed with a relatively low glucocorticoid dose. Our study underscores that ICI-PMR should be regarded as PMR-like syndrome.

Barriers and facilitators to multidimensional symptom management in palliative care: A focus group study among patient representatives and clinicians.

OBJECTIVES: It is widely acknowledged that co-occurring symptoms in patients with a psychosocial and spiritual aspects should also be considered. However, this multidimensional approach is difficult to integrate into daily practice, especially for generalist clinicians not specialized in palliative care. We aimed to identify the barriers and facilitators to multidimensional symptom management. METHODS: Focus group meetings were conducted with the following stakeholders: (1) patient representatives, (2) generalist community nurses, (3) generalist hospital nurses, (4) general practitioners, (5) generalist hospital physicians, and (6) palliative care specialists. Audiotapes were transcribed verbatim and thematically analyzed. RESULTS: Fifty-one participants (6-12 per group) reported barriers and facilitators with 3 main themes: multidimensional symptom assessment, initiating management of nonphysical problems, and multidisciplinary collaboration. As barriers, generalist clinicians and palliative care specialists reported that generalist clinicians often lack the communication skills to address nonphysical problems and are unaware of available resources for multidimensional symptom management. Palliative care specialists felt that generalist clinicians may be unaware that assessing nonphysical problems is important and focus on pharmacological interventions. Generalist nurses and palliative care specialists indicated that hierarchical difficulties between them and generalist physicians are barriers to multidisciplinary collaboration. Reported facilitators included using symptom assessment scales and standardized questions on nonphysical problems. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Generalist clinicians can be supported by improving their communication skills, increasing their awareness of available resources for multidimensional symptom management, and by using a standardized approach to assess all 4 dimensions of palliative care.

Effectiveness and implementation of palliative care interventions for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Although guidelines recommend palliative care for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, there is little evidence for the effectiveness of palliative care interventions for this patient group specifically. AIM: To describe the characteristics of palliative care interventions for patients with COPD and their informal caregivers and review the available evidence on effectiveness and implementation outcomes. DESIGN: Systematic review and narrative synthesis (PROSPERO CRD42017079962). DATA SOURCES: Seven databases were searched for articles reporting on multi-component palliative care interventions for study populations containing ⩾30% patients with COPD. Quantitative as well as qualitative and mixed-method studies were included. Intervention characteristics, effect outcomes, implementation outcomes and barriers and facilitators for successful implementation were extracted and synthesized qualitatively. RESULTS: Thirty-one articles reporting on twenty unique interventions were included. Only four interventions (20%) were evaluated in an adequately powered controlled trial. Most interventions comprised of longitudinal palliative care, including care coordination and comprehensive needs assessments. Results on effectiveness were mixed and inconclusive. The feasibility level varied and was context-dependent. Acceptability of the interventions was high; having someone to call for support and education about breathlessness were most valued characteristics. Most frequently named barriers were uncertainty about the timing of referral due to the unpredictable disease trajectory (referrers), time availability (providers) and accessibility (patients). CONCLUSION: Little high-quality evidence is yet available on the effectiveness and implementation of palliative care interventions for patients with COPD. There is a need for well-conducted effectiveness studies and adequate process evaluations using standardized methodologies to create higher-level evidence and inform successful implementation.

Clinical decision support system to optimise symptom management in palliative medicine: focus group study.

OBJECTIVES: Suboptimal symptom control in patients with life-limiting illnesses is a major issue. A clinical decision support system (CDSS) that combines a patient-reported symptom assessment scale (SAS) and guideline-based individualised recommendations has the potential to improve symptom management. However, lacking end-user acceptance often prevents CDSS use in daily practice.We aimed to evaluate the acceptability and feasibility of a palliative care CDSS according to its targeted end-users. METHODS: Six focus groups with different groups of stakeholders were conducted: (1) patient representatives; (2) community nurses; (3) hospital nurses; (4) general practitioners; (5) hospital physicians and (6) palliative care specialists. Audiotapes were transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed. RESULTS: Fifty-one stakeholders (6-12 per focus group) participated. Six themes were discussed: effect, validity, continuity, practical usability, implementation and additional features. All participants expected a CDSS to improve symptom management, for example, by reminding clinicians of blind spots and prompting patient participation. They feared interference with professional autonomy of physicians, doubted the validity of using a patient-reported SAS as CDSS input and thought lacking care continuity would complicate CDSS use. Clinicians needed clear criteria for when to use the CDSS (eg, life-limiting illness, timing in illness trajectory). Participants preferred a patient-coordinated system but were simultaneously concerned patients may be unwilling or unable to fill out an SAS. CONCLUSIONS: A palliative care CDSS was considered useful for improving symptom management. To develop a feasible system, barriers for successful implementation must be addressed including concerns about using a patient-reported SAS, lacking care continuity and unclear indications for use.

The feasibility of a Bayesian network model to assess the probability of simultaneous symptoms in patients with advanced cancer.

Although patients with advanced cancer often experience multiple symptoms simultaneously, clinicians usually focus on symptoms that are volunteered by patients during regular history-taking. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility of a Bayesian network (BN) model to predict the presence of simultaneous symptoms, based on the presence of other symptoms. Our goal is to help clinicians prioritize which symptoms to assess. Patient-reported severity of 11 symptoms (scale 0-10) was measured using an adapted Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) in a national cross-sectional survey among advanced cancer patients. Scores were dichotomized (< 4 and ≥ 4). Using fourfold cross validation, the prediction error of 9 BN algorithms was estimated (Akaike information criterion (AIC). The model with the highest AIC was evaluated. Model predictive performance was assessed per symptom; an area under curve (AUC) of ≥ 0.65 was considered satisfactory. Model calibration compared predicted and observed probabilities; > 10% difference was considered inaccurate. Symptom scores of 532 patients were collected. A symptom score ≥ 4 was most prevalent for fatigue (64.7%). AUCs varied between 0.60 and 0.78, with satisfactory AUCs for 8/11 symptoms. Calibration was accurate for 101/110 predicted conditional probabilities. Whether a patient experienced fatigue was directly associated with experiencing 7 other symptoms. For example, in the absence or presence of fatigue, the model predicted a 8.6% and 33.1% probability of experiencing anxiety, respectively. It is feasible to use BN development for prioritizing symptom assessment. Fatigue seems most eligble to serve as a starting symptom for predicting the probability of experiencing simultaneous symptoms.

Patent Foramen Ovale With Atrial Septal Aneurysm Is Strongly Associated With Migraine With Aura: A Large Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: A patent foramen ovale (PFO) with atrial septal aneurysm (ASA) has been identified as a risk factor for cryptogenic stroke. Patients with migraine with aura (MA) appear to be at risk for silent brain infarction, which might be related to the presence of a PFO. However, the association between MA and PFO with ASA has never been reported. We examined this association in a large observational study. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients (>18 years) who underwent an agitated saline transesophageal echocardiography (cTEE) at our outpatient clinics within a timeframe of 4 years were eligible to be included. Before cTEE they received a validated headache questionnaire. Two neurologists diagnosed migraine with or without aura according to the International Headache Criteria. A total of 889 patients (mean age 56.4±14.3 years, 41.7% women) were included. A PFO was present in 23.2%, an isolated ASA in 2.7%, and a PFO with ASA in 6.9%. The occurrence of migraine was 18.9%; the occurrence of MA was 8.1%. The prevalence of PFO with ASA was significantly higher in patients with MA compared to patients without migraine (18.1% vs 6.1%; OR 3.72, 95% CI 1.86-7.44, P<0.001). However, a PFO without ASA was not significantly associated with MA (OR 1.50, 95% CI 0.79-2.82, P=0.21). Interestingly, a PFO with ASA was strongly associated with MA (OR 2.71, 95% CI 1.23-5.95, P=0.01). CONCLUSION: In this large observational study, PFO with ASA was significantly associated with MA only. PFO closure studies should focus on this specific intra-atrial anomaly.

No evidence for diagnostic value of Mallampati score in patients suspected of having obstructive sleep apnea syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze whether the Mallampati score is reliable as a simple diagnostic test for predicting obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS). DATA SOURCES: A literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, and CINAHL databases. REVIEW METHODS: Studies were ranked by their relevance and validity in a critical appraisal table. Positive and negative predictive values were obtained or recalculated from the selected articles. RESULTS: Eight relevant articles met the inclusion criteria. Three studies reported predictive values for a Mallampati score of 3 to 4. The prevalence (or prior probability) of OSAS in these 3 studies was 58% (95% confidence interval [CI], 50-67), 76% (95% CI, 72-79), and 82% (95% CI, 80-84), respectively. With a Mallampati score of 1 to 2, the risk of OSAS decreases to 45% (95% CI, 33-58), 74% (95% CI, 70-78), and 81% (95% CI, 77-86), respectively. With a Mallampati score of 3 to 4, the risk of OSAS is 69% (95% CI, 59-80), 82% (95% CI, 74-89), and 82% (95% CI, 79-85), respectively. The differences between the prior and the posterior probabilities are rather small and do not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: There is no evidence to maintain that the Mallampati score is of added value for ruling in or ruling out a diagnosis of OSAS in patients suspected for OSAS.