Investigating the benefits and harms of hypodermoclysis of patients in palliative care: A consecutive cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Palliative populations are at risk for dehydration which can cause discomfort, distress and cognitive symptoms. Subcutaneous hydration ('hypodermoclysis') has been used as an alternative administration route to the more invasive intravenous route, but research is lacking on its net clinical effects (harms and benefits) for palliative populations, particularly in real world settings. AIM: To quantify prospectively the net clinical effects of hypodermoclysis in palliative patients with advanced disease who required supplementary fluids. DESIGN: Multisite, multinational consecutive cohort study. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Patients receiving hypodermoclysis in an inpatient palliative care setting. RESULTS: Twenty sites contributed data for 99 patients, of which 88 had complete benefits and harms data. The most common primary target symptom for infusion was generalised weakness (18.2%), and the most common non-symptom indication was supplemental hydration (31.8%). Benefits were experienced in 33% of patients in their primary target symptom, and in any symptom in 56.8%. Harms were experienced in 38.7% of patients (42% at Grade 1). Benefits increased with higher performance status, while harms were more frequent in patients with lower performance status (Australia-modified Karnofsky performance status ⩽40). Patients in the terminal phase of their illness experienced the least benefit (15.4% in any indication only) and had more frequent harms (38%). CONCLUSIONS: Hypodermoclysis may improve certain symptoms in patients in palliative care but frequency of harms and benefits may differ at certain timepoints in the illness trajectory. Further research is needed to better delineate which patients will derive the most net clinical benefit from hypodermoclysis.

Perspectives on palliative oxygen for breathlessness: systematic review and meta-synthesis.

Oxygen therapy is frequently prescribed for the palliation of breathlessness, despite lack of evidence for its effectiveness in people who are not hypoxaemic. This study aimed to compare and contrast patients', caregivers' and clinicians' experiences of palliative oxygen use for the relief of chronic breathlessness in people with advanced life-limiting illnesses, and how this shapes prescribing.A systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative data was conducted. MEDLINE, CINAHL and PsycINFO were searched for peer-reviewed studies in English (2000-April 2019) reporting perspectives on palliative oxygen use for reducing breathlessness in people with advanced illnesses in any healthcare setting. After data extraction, thematic synthesis used line-by-line coding of raw data (quotes) to generate descriptive and analytical themes.Of 457 articles identified, 22 met the inclusion criteria by reporting perspectives of patients (n=337), caregivers (n=91) or clinicians (n=616). Themes common to these perspectives were: 1) benefits and burdens of palliative oxygen use, 2) knowledge and perceptions of palliative oxygen use beyond the guidelines, and 3) longitudinal trajectories of palliative oxygen use.There are differing perceptions regarding the benefits and burdens of using palliative oxygen. Clinicians should be aware that oxygen use may generate differing goals of therapy for patients and caregivers. These perceptions should be taken into consideration when prescribing oxygen for the symptomatic relief of chronic breathlessness in patients who do not quality for long-term oxygen therapy.

Components of palliative care interventions addressing the needs of people with dementia living in long-term care: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: People with dementia requiring palliative care have multiple needs, which are amplified in long-term care settings. The European Association for Palliative Care White Paper offers recommendations for optimal palliative care in dementia integral for this population, providing useful guidance to inform interventions addressing their specific needs. AIM: The aim of this study is to describe the components of palliative care interventions for people with dementia in long-term care focusing on shared decision-making and examine their alignment to the European Association for Palliative Care domains of care. DESIGN: Systematic review with narrative synthesis (PROSPERO ID: CRD42018095649). DATA SOURCES: Four databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and CENTRAL) were searched (earliest records - July 2019) for peer-reviewed articles and protocols in English, reporting on palliative care interventions for people with dementia in long-term care, addressing European Association for Palliative Care Domains 2 (person-centred) or 3 (setting care goals) and ⩾1 other domain. RESULTS: Fifty-one papers were included, reporting on 32 studies. For each domain (1-10), there were interventions found aiming to address its goal, although no single intervention addressed all domains. Domain 7 (symptom management; n = 19), 6 (avoiding overly aggressive treatment; n = 18) and 10 (education; n = 17) were the most commonly addressed; Domain 5 (prognostication; n = 7) and 4 (continuity of care; n = 2) were the least addressed. CONCLUSION: Almost all domains were addressed across all interventions currently offered for this population to various degrees, but not within a singular intervention. Future research optimally needs to be theory driven when developing dementia-specific interventions at the end of life, with the European Association for Palliative Care domains serving as a foundation to inform the best care for this population.

The effect of comprehensive geriatric assessment on care received, treatment completion, toxicity, cancer-related and geriatric assessment outcomes, and quality of life for older adults receiving systemic anti-cancer treatment: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: This systematic review aims to summarise the available literature on the effect of geriatric assessment (multidimensional health assessment across medical, social, and functional domains; "GA") or comprehensive geriatric assessment (geriatric assessment with intervention or management recommendations; "CGA") compared to usual care for older adults with cancer on care received, treatment completion, adverse treatment effects, survival and health-related quality of life. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PubMed was conducted to identify randomised controlled trials or prospective cohort comparison studies on the effect of GA/CGA on care received, treatment, and cancer outcomes for older adults with cancer. RESULTS: Ten studies were included: seven randomised controlled trials (RCTs), two phase II randomised pilot studies, and one prospective cohort comparison study. All studies included older adults receiving systemic therapy, mostly chemotherapy, for mixed cancer types (eight studies), colorectal cancer (one study), and non-small cell lung cancer (one study). Integrating GA/CGA into oncological care increased treatment completion (three of nine studies), reduced grade 3+ chemotherapy toxicity (two of five studies), and improved quality of life scores (four of five studies). No studies found significant differences in survival between GA/CGA and usual care. GA/CGA incorporated into care decisions prompted less intensive treatment and greater non-oncological interventions, including supportive care strategies. DISCUSSION: GA/CGA integrated into the care of an older adult with cancer has the potential to optimise care decisions, which may lead to reduced treatment toxicity, increased treatment completion, and improved health-related quality of life scores.

Screening Tools for Identifying Older Adults With Cancer Who May Benefit From a Geriatric Assessment: A Systematic Review.

IMPORTANCE: Older adults with cancer are at risk of overtreatment or undertreatment when decision-making is based solely on chronological age. Although a geriatric assessment is recommended to inform care, the time and expertise required limit its feasibility for all patients. Screening tools offer the potential to identify those who will benefit most from a geriatric assessment. Consensus about the optimal tool to use is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To appraise the evidence on screening tools used for older adults with cancer and identify an optimal screening tool for older adults with cancer who may benefit from geriatric assessment. EVIDENCE REVIEW: Systematic review of 4 databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL [Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature], and PubMed) with narrative synthesis from January 1, 2000, to March 14, 2019. Studies reporting on the diagnostic accuracy and use of validated screening tools to identify older adults with cancer who need a geriatric assessment were eligible for inclusion. Data were analyzed from March 14, 2019, to March 23, 2020. FINDINGS: Seventeen unique studies were included, reporting on the use of 12 screening tools. Most studies were prospective cohort studies (n = 11) with only 1 randomized clinical trial. Not all studies reported time taken to administer the screening tools. The Geriatric-8 (G8) (n = 12) and the Vulnerable Elders Survey-13 (VES-13) (n = 9) were the most frequently evaluated screening tools. The G8 scored better in sensitivity and the VES-13 in specificity. Other screening tools evaluated include the Groningen Frailty Index, abbreviated comprehensive geriatric assessment, and Physical Performance Test in 2 studies each. All other screening tools were evaluated in 1 study each. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: To date, the G8 and VES-13 have the most evidence to recommend their use to inform the need for geriatric assessment. When choosing a screening tool, clinicians will need to weigh the tradeoffs between sensitivity and specificity. Future research needs to further validate or improve current screening tools and explore other factors that can influence their use, such as ease of use and resourcing.