Evaluating quality of care at the end of life and setting best practice performance standards: a population-based observational study using linked routinely collected administrative databases.

BACKGROUND: A high percentage of people dying at home, and a low percentage of people being admitted to hospital and dying there are regarded as indicators of appropriate care at the end of life. However, performance standards for these quality indicators are often lacking, which makes it difficult to state whether an indicator score falls between the ranges of good or poor quality care. The aim of this study was to assess quality indicators concerning place of death and hospital care utilization in people with diseases relevant for palliative care, and to establish best practice performance standards based on indicator scores in 31 regions in the Netherlands. METHODS: A retrospective nationwide population-based observational study was conducted, using routinely collected administrative data concerning persons who died in 2017 in the Netherlands with underlying causes relevant for palliative care (N = 109,707). Data from four registries were linked for analysis. Scores on eight quality indicators concerning place of death and hospital care utilization were calculated, and compared across 31 healthcare insurance regions to establish relative benchmarks. RESULTS: On average, 36.4% of the study population died at home (range between regions 30.5%-42.6%) and 20.4% in hospital (range 16.6%-25.5%). Roughly half of the population who received hospital care at any time in the last year of life were found to (also) receive hospital care in the last month of life. In the last month, 32.0% of the study population were admitted to hospital (range 29.4-36.4%), 5.3% to an Intensive Care Unit (range 3.2-6.9%) and 23.9% visited an Emergency Department (range 21.0-27.4%). In the same time period, less than 1% of the study population was resuscitated in hospital or received tube or intravenous feeding in hospital. CONCLUSIONS: The variation between regions points towards opportunities for practice improvement. The best practice performance standards as set in this study serve as ambitious but attainable targets for those regions that currently do not meet the standards. Policymakers, healthcare providers and researchers can use the suggested performance standards to further analyze causes of variance between regions and develop and test interventions that can improve practice.

Olanzapine Versus Haloperidol for Treatment of Delirium in Patients with Advanced Cancer: A Phase III Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of delirium often includes haloperidol. Second-generation antipsychotics like olanzapine have emerged as an alternative with possibly fewer side effects. The aim of this multicenter, phase III, randomized clinical trial was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of olanzapine with haloperidol for the treatment of delirium in hospitalized patients with advanced cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eligible adult patients (≥18 years) with advanced cancer and delirium (Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 [DRS-R-98] total score ≥17.75) were randomized 1:1 to receive either haloperidol or olanzapine (age-adjusted, titratable doses). Primary endpoint was delirium response rate (DRR), defined as number of patients with DRS-R-98 severity score <15.25 and ≥4.5 points reduction. Secondary endpoints included time to response (TTR), tolerability, and delirium-related distress. RESULTS: Between January 2011 and June 2016, 98 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. DRR was 45% (95% confidence interval [CI], 31-59) for olanzapine and 57% (95% CI, 43-71) for haloperidol (Δ DRR -12%; odds ratio [OR], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.2-1.4; p = .23). Mean TTR was 4.5 days (95% CI, 3.2-5.9 days) for olanzapine and 2.8 days (95% CI, 1.9-3.7 days; p = .18) for haloperidol. Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 5 patients (10.2%) and 10 patients (20.4%) in the olanzapine and haloperidol arm, respectively. Distress rates were similar in both groups. The study was terminated early because of futility. CONCLUSION: Delirium treatment with olanzapine in hospitalized patients with advanced cancer did not result in improvement of DRR or TTR compared with haloperidol. Clinical trial identification number. NCT01539733. Dutch Trial Register. NTR2559. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Guidelines recommend that pharmacological interventions for delirium treatment in adults with cancer should be limited to patients who have distressing delirium symptoms. It was suggested that atypical antipsychotics, such as olanzapine, outperform haloperidol in efficacy and safety. However, collective data comparing the efficacy and safety of typical versus atypical antipsychotics in patients with cancer are limited. If targeted and judicious use of antipsychotics is considered for the treatment of delirium in patients with advanced cancer, this study demonstrated that there was no statistically significant difference in response to haloperidol or olanzapine. Olanzapine showed an overall better safety profile compared with haloperidol, although this difference was not statistically significant.

Accuracy of the Delirium Observational Screening Scale (DOS) as a screening tool for delirium in patients with advanced cancer.

BACKGROUND: The Delirium Observation Screening Scale (DOS) was developed to facilitate early recognition of delirium by nurses during routine clinical care. It has shown good validity in a variety of patient populations, but has not yet been validated in hospitalized patients with advanced cancer, although the DOS is commonly used in this setting in daily practice. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of the DOS in hospitalized patients with advanced cancer using the revised version of the Delirium Rating Scale (DRS-R- 98) as the gold standard. METHODS: Patients with advanced cancer admitted to the medical oncology ward were screened for delirium with the DOS and DRS-R-98. Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV) and positive predictive value (PPV) of the DOS were calculated, using a DOS score ≥ 3 as a cut-off for delirium. RESULTS: Ninety-five DOS negative and 98 DOS positive patients were identified. Sensitivity of the DOS, was > 99.9% (95%-CI, 95.8-100.0%), specificity was 99.5% (95%-CI 95.5-99.96%), PPV was 94.6% (95% CI 88.0-97.7), and NPV was > 99.9% (95% CI 96.1-100.0). CONCLUSIONS: The DOS is an accurate screening tool for delirium in patients with advanced cancer. Since it has the benefit of being easily implicated in daily practice, we recommend to educate caregivers to screen patients with advanced cancer by DOS analysis. By early recognition and adequate treatment of this distressing delirium syndrome the quality of life of patients with advanced cancer can be improved. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01539733 (Feb 27, 2012 - retrospectively registered), Netherlands Trial Register NTR2559 (Oct 7, 2010).

[Gliomas: fighting until the end against epilepsy; administration of antiepileptic drugs in the end-of-life phase]. / Gliomen: tot het einde in de aanval tegen epilepsie; toediening anti-epileptica in de laatste levensfase.

In patients with high-grade glioma seizures occur relatively frequently during the end-of-life phase. At some point, the use of oral anti-epileptic drugs is no longer possible due to swallowing difficulties caused by advanced tumour progression. We have established a draft guideline and propose that anti-epileptic drugs be prescribed by alternative routes of administration in the end-of-life phase in glioma patients with known epilepsy who develop swallowing difficulties. Buccal clonazepam would be our drug of first choice as a maintenance treatment in addition to intranasal midazolam for the acute management of seizures. Adequate treatment of epileptic seizures, particularly during the end-of-life phase, can help to maintain quality of life as long as possible in patients with high-grade glioma.

On our way to targeted therapy for cachexia in cancer?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Cachexia, the occurrence of involuntary weight loss due to loss of adipose tissue and skeletal muscle mass, is among the most common and devastating symptoms in patients with advanced cancer. It is a significant factor contributing to the poor performance status and high mortality rate of these patients, and is a distressing problem for both patients and their families. Despite extensive research in an attempt to better understand the mechanisms involved, progress in the management of cancer cachexia has been slow. RECENT FINDINGS: The pathogenic mechanisms of cachexia and anorexia are multifactorial, but cytokines and tumour-derived factors are known to play a significant role, thereby representing suitable therapeutic targets. Moreover, recent advances in the field of molecular biology have shed light on other mediators involved in the mechanisms leading to muscle wasting, thus increasing potential targets for new therapies. SUMMARY: This review will focus on recent findings in relation to the molecular pathways leading to muscle wasting that have improved our current understanding of cachexia and will direct the future management of cachexia in cancer towards targeted therapies.