Accelerated transcranial magnetic stimulation for psychological distress in advanced cancer: A phase 2a feasibility and preliminary efficacy clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Psychological and existential suffering affects many people with advanced illness, and current therapeutic options have limited effectiveness. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a safe and effective therapy for refractory depression, but no previous study has used rTMS to treat psychological or existential distress in the palliative setting. AIM: To determine whether a 5-day course of "accelerated" rTMS is feasible and can improve psychological and/or existential distress in a palliative care setting. DESIGN: Open-label, single arm, feasibility, and preliminary efficacy study of intermittent theta-burst stimulation to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, 600 pulses/session, 8 sessions/day (once per hour) for 5 days. The outcomes were the rates of recruitment, completion of intervention, and follow-up (Feasibility); and the proportion of participants achieving 50% improvement on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) or Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) 2 weeks post-treatment (Preliminary Efficacy). SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Adults admitted to our academic Palliative Care Unit with advanced illness, life expectancy >1 month and psychological distress. RESULTS: Due to COVID-19 pandemic-related interruptions, a total of nine participants were enrolled between August 2021 and April 2023. Two withdrew before starting rTMS, one stopped due to clinical deterioration unrelated to rTMS, and six completed the rTMS treatment. Five of six participants had a >50% improvement in HDRS, HADS-Anxiety, or both between baseline and the 2 week follow up; the sixth died prior to the 2-week follow-up. In this small sample, mean depression scores decreased from baseline to 2 weeks post-treatment (HDRS 18 vs 7, p = 0.03). Side effects of rTMS included transient mild scalp discomfort. CONCLUSIONS: Accelerated rTMS improved symptoms of depression, anxiety, or both in this small feasibility and preliminary efficacy study. A larger, sham-controlled study is warranted to determine whether rTMS could be an effective, acceptable, and scalable treatment in the palliative setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04257227.

Long-term bereavement outcomes in family members of those who died in acute care hospitals before and during the first wave of COVID-19: A cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Severe grief is highly distressing and prevalent up to 1 year post-death among people bereaved during the first wave of COVID-19, but no study has assessed changes in grief severity beyond this timeframe. AIM: Understand the trajectory of grief during the pandemic by reassessing grief symptoms in our original cohort 12-18 months post-death. DESIGN: Prospective matched cohort study. SETTINGS/PARTICIPANTS: Family members of decedents who died in an acute care hospital between November 1, 2019 and August 31, 2020 in Ottawa, Canada. Family members of patients who died of COVID (COVID +ve) were matched 2:1 with those who died of non-COVID illness (COVID -ve) during pandemic wave 1 or immediately prior to its onset (pre-COVID). Grief was assessed using the Inventory of Complicated Grief (ICG). RESULTS: Follow-up assessment was completed by 92% (111/121) of family members in the initial cohort. Mean ICG score on the 12-18-month assessment was 19.9 (SD = 11.8), and severe grief (ICG > 25) was present in 28.8% of participants. One-third (33.3%) had either a persistently high (>25) or worsening ICG score (⩾4-point increase between assessments). Using a modified Poisson regression analysis, persistently high or worsening ICG scores were associated with endotracheal intubation in the deceased, but not cause of death (COVID +ve, COVID -ve, pre-COVID) or physical presence of the family member in the final 48 h of life. CONCLUSIONS: Severe grief is a substantial source of psychological morbidity in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, persisting more than a year post-death. Our findings highlight an acute need for effective and scalable means of addressing severe grief.

Comorbidities, symptoms and end-of-life medication use in hospitalised decedents before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: a retrospective regional cohort study in Ottawa, Canada.

OBJECTIVE: To compare comorbidities, symptoms and end-of-life (EoL) palliative medication (antisecretories, opioids, antipsychotics and sedatives) use among decedents before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: In a retrospective cohort study, decedent records in three acute care hospitals were abstracted, generating a prepandemic (November 2019-February 2020) group (pre-COVID) and two intrapandemic (March-August 2020, wave 1) groups, one without (COVID-ve) and one with COVID-19 infection (COVID+ve). Control group decedents were matched 2:1 on age, sex and care service (medicine/intensive care unit (ICU)) with COVID+ve decedents. SETTING: Three regional acute care teaching hospitals in Ottawa, Canada PARTICIPANTS: Decedents (N=425): COVID+ve (n=85), COVID-ve (n=170) and pre-COVID (n=170). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Data were abstracted regarding demographics, admission comorbidities and symptoms, and EoL medication use; opioid doses were standardised to parenteral morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD), and the predictors of upper quartile MEDD in the last 24 hours of life were examined in multivariable logistic regression with adjusted ORs (aORs) and 95% CIs. RESULTS: The prevalence of dementia (41% vs 28% and 26%, p=0.03), breathlessness (63.5% vs 42% and 47%, p<0.01), cough (40% vs 27% and 19%, p<0.01) and fever (54% vs 9% and 13.5%) was higher in COVID+ve versus pre-COVID and COVID-ve groups, respectively. The median (IQR) of MEDD over the last 72 hours of life was 16.7 (9-36.5) vs 13.5 (5.7-21.8) and 10.5 (5.3-23.8) for COVID+ve versus pre-COVID and COVID-ve groups, respectively, (p=0.007). Male sex, COVID+ve grouping, ICU death and high-flow nasal cannula use predicted upper quartile MEDD dose, aORs (95% CIs): 1.84 (1.05 to 3.22), 2.62 (1.29 to 5.3), 5.14 (2.47 to 10.7) and 1.93 (1.05 to 3.52), respectively. COVID+ve group decedents used highest lorazepam and propofol doses. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 decedents, particularly those in ICU, required higher EoL opioid and sedating medication doses than matched prepandemic or intrapandemic controls. These findings should inform and guide clinical practice.

Bereavement outcomes in family members of those who died in acute care hospitals before and during the first wave of COVID-19: A cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused millions of deaths worldwide, leading to symptoms of grief among the bereaved. Neither the burden of severe grief nor its predictors are fully known within the context of the pandemic. AIM: To determine the prevalence and predictors of severe grief in family members who were bereaved early in the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Prospective, matched cohort study. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Family members of people who died in an acute hospital in Ottawa, Canada between November 1, 2019 and August 31, 2020. We matched relatives of patients who died of COVID (COVID +ve) with those who died of non-COVID illness either during wave 1 of the pandemic (COVID -ve) or immediately prior to its onset (pre-COVID). We abstracted decedents' medical records, contacted family members >6 months post loss, and assessed grief symptoms using the Inventory of Complicated Grief-revised. RESULTS: We abstracted data for 425 decedents (85 COVID +ve, 170 COVID -ve, and 170 pre-COVID), and 110 of 165 contacted family members (67%) consented to participate. Pre-COVID family members were physically present more in the last 48 h of life; the COVID +ve cohort were more present virtually. Overall, 35 family members (28.9%) had severe grief symptoms, and the prevalence was similar among the cohorts (p = 0.91). Grief severity was not correlated with demographic factors, physical presence in the final 48 h of life, intubation, or relationship with the deceased. CONCLUSION: Severe grief is common among family members bereaved during the COVID-19 pandemic, regardless of the cause or circumstances of death, and even if their loss took place before the onset of the pandemic. This suggests that aspects of the pandemic itself contribute to severe grief, and factors that normally mitigate grief may not be as effective.

Do pain management apps use evidence-based psychological components? A systematic review of app content and quality.

Background: With hundreds of pain management apps on the Canadian marketplace, it can be challenging for patients and clinicians to select effective and evidence-based mobile health (mHealth) apps that address pain from a biopsychosocial perspective. Aims: The aim of this study is to identify pain management apps within the Canadian app marketplaces to aid clinicians in recommending apps. Methods: The iOS and Android marketplaces were systematically searched to identify pain management apps that included at least one core component of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) or mindfulness- and acceptance-based therapies. Selected apps were assessed using a researcher developed psychological components checklist, and the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS). These two measures provided a robust assessment of the apps' technical abilities and psychological principles being implemented. Results: Five hundred eight pain management apps were identified, yet only 12 included a psychological component and were available for evaluation. On average, apps contained 8.10 out of 18 psychological components (SD = 2.77) with a MARS quality rating of 4.02 out of 5 (SD = 0.32). The most common psychological components were grounded in CBT, including psychoeducation, sleep hygiene, behavioral activation, coping skills training, and social support. Among the least commonly included components were goal setting, values, and culture/diversity. Two-thirds of the apps involved health care practitioners in their development, but independent scientific review of apps was scarce. Conclusion: The highest scoring apps (Curable, Pathways, Vivify) are highlighted for health care practitioners who may wish to recommend mHealth technologies to their patients for pain management. Future directions for research and app development are discussed.

Contexte: Le fait qu'il existe des centaines d'applications de prise en charge de la douleur sur le marché canadien peut faire en sorte qu'il soit difficile pour les patients et les cliniciens de choisir une application de santé mobile (mHealth) efficace et fondée sur des données probantes, qui aborde la douleur d'un point de vue biopsychosocial.But: Le but de cette étude est de répertorier les applications de prise en charge de la douleur disponibles sur les marchés des applications canadiens afin d'aider les cliniciens à en recommander certaines.Méthodes: Les marchés iOS et Android ont été systématiquement consultés pour répertorier les applications de prise en charge de la douleur qui comprennent au moins une composante de base de la thérapie cognitivo-comportementale (TCC) ou des thérapies fondées sur la pleine conscience et l'acceptation. Les applications sélectionnées ont été évaluées à l'aide d'une liste de vérification des composantes psychologiques élaborée par un chercheur et le Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS). Ces deux mesures ont fourni une évaluation robuste des capacités techniques et des principes psychologiques mis en œuvre.Résultats: Cinq cent huit applications de prise en charge de la douleur ont été répertoriées, mais seulement 12 d'entre elles comprenaient une composante psychologique et étaient disponibles pour l'évaluation. En moyenne, les applications contenaient 8,10 des 18 composantes psychologiques (ÉT = 2,77) et obtenaient un score de qualité MARS de 4,02 sur 5 (ÉT = 0,32. Les composantes psychologiques les plus courantes étaient ancrées dans la TCC, y compris la psychoéducation, l'hygiéne du sommeil, l'activation comportementale, la formation aux compétences d'adaptation et le soutien social. Les composantes les moins souvent incluses étaient l'établissement d'objectifs, les valeurs et la culture/diversité. Deux-tiers des applications avaient impliqué des praticiens de la santé dans leur développement, mais peu d'entre elles avaient été soumises à un examen scientifique indépendant.Conclusion: Les applications ayant obtenu les scores les plus élevés (Curable, Pathways, Vivify) sont mises en évidence à l'intention des praticiens des soins de santé qui peuvent souhaiter recommander des technologies de santé mobile à leurs patients pour la prise en charge de la douleur. Les orientations futures pour la recherche et le développement d'applications sont abordées.

Comparative end-of-life communication and support in hospitalised decedents before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: a retrospective regional cohort study in Ottawa, Canada.

OBJECTIVE: To compare end-of-life in-person family presence, patient-family communication and healthcare team-family communication encounters in hospitalised decedents before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: In a regional multicentre retrospective cohort study, electronic health record data were abstracted for a prepandemic group (pre-COVID) and two intrapandemic (March-August 2020, wave 1) groups, one COVID-19 free (COVID-ve) and one with COVID-19 infection (COVID+ve). Pre-COVID and COVID-ve groups were matched 2:1 (age, sex and care service) with the COVID+ve group. SETTING: One quaternary and two tertiary adult, acute care hospitals in Ottawa, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Decedents (n=425): COVID+ve (n=85), COVID-ve (n=170) and pre-COVID (n=170). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: End-of-life (last 48 hours) in-person family presence and virtual (video) patient-family communication, and end-of-life (last 5 days) virtual team-family communication encounter occurrences were examined using logistic regression with ORs and 95% CIs. End-of-life (last 5 days) rates of in-person and telephone team-family communication encounters were examined using mixed-effects negative binomial models with incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and 95% CIs. RESULTS: End-of-life in-person family presence decreased progressively across pre-COVID (90.6%), COVID-ve (79.4%) and COVID+ve (47.1%) groups: adjusted ORs=0.38 (0.2-0.73) and 0.09 (0.04-0.17) for COVID-ve and COVID+ve groups, respectively. COVID-ve and COVID+ve groups had reduced in-person but increased telephone team-family communication encounters: IRRs=0.76 (0.64-0.9) and 0.61 (0.47-0.79) for in-person, and IRRs=2.6 (2.1-3.3) and 4.8 (3.7-6.1) for telephone communications, respectively. Virtual team-family communication encounters occurred in 17/85 (20%) and 10/170 (5.9%) of the COVID+ve and COVID-ve groups, respectively: adjusted OR=3.68 (1.51-8.95). CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalised COVID-19 pandemic wave 1 decedents, in-person family presence and in-person team-family communication encounters decreased at end of life, particularly in the COVID+ve group; virtual modalities were adopted for communication, and telephone use increased in team-family communication encounters. The implications of these communication changes for the patient, family and healthcare team warrant further study.