Opioid analgesic dose and route conversion ratio studies: a scoping review to inform an eDelphi guideline.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians regularly prescribe opioids to manage acute and chronic cancer pain, frequently to address acute postoperative pain, and occasionally to manage chronic non-cancer pain. Clinical efficacy may be suboptimal in some patients due to side effects and/or poor response, and opioid rotation/switching (conversions) is frequently necessary. Despite the widespread practice, opioid conversion ratios are inconsistent between clinicians, practices, and countries. Therefore, we performed a scoping systematic review of opioid conversion studies to inform an international eDelphi guideline. METHODS: To ensure a comprehensive review, we conducted a systematic search across multiple databases (OVID Medline, PsycINFO, Embase, EBM-Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Registered Trials, LILACS, IMEMR, AIM, WPRIM) using studies published up to June 2022. Additionally, we performed hand and Google Scholar searches to verify the completeness of our findings. Our inclusion criteria encompassed randomized and non-randomized studies with no age limit, with only a few pediatric studies identified. We included studies on cancer, non-cancer, acute, and chronic pain. The level and grade of evidence were determined based on the Multinational Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) criteria. RESULTS: Our search yielded 21,118 abstracts, including 140 randomized (RCT) and 68 non-randomized (NRCT) clinical trials. We compared these results with recently published conversion ratios. Modest correlations were noted between published reviews and the present scoping systematic review. CONCLUSION: The present scoping systematic review found low-quality evidence to support an opioid conversion guideline. We will use these data, including conversion ratios and type and route of administration, to inform an eDelphi guideline.

Self-reported knowledge of tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol concentration in cannabis products among cancer patients and survivors.

PURPOSE: Cannabis use may introduce risks and/or benefits among people living with cancer, depending on product type, composition, and nature of its use. Patient knowledge of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) or cannabidiol (CBD) concentration could provide information for providers about cannabis use during and after treatment that may aide in risk and benefit assessments. This study aimed to examine knowledge of THC or CBD concentration among patients living with cancer who consume cannabis, and factors associated with knowledge of cannabinoid concentrations. METHODS: People living with cancer who consumed cannabis since their diagnosis (n = 343) completed an anonymous, mixed-mode survey. Questions assessed usual mode of delivery (MOD), knowledge of THC/CBD concentration, and how source of acquisition, current cannabis use, and source of instruction are associated with knowledge of THC/CBD concentration. Chi-square and separate binary logistic regression analyses were examined and weighted to reflect the Roswell Park patient population. RESULTS: Less than 20% of people living with cancer had knowledge of THC and CBD concentration for the cannabis products they consumed across all MOD (smoking- combustible products, vaping- vaporized products (e-cigarettes), edibles-eating or drinking it, and oral- taking by mouth (pills)). Source of acquisition (smoking-AOR:4.6, p < 0.01, vaping-AOR:5.8, p < 0.00, edibles-AOR:2.6, p < 0.04), current cannabis use (edibles-AOR:5.4, p < 0.01, vaping-AOR: 11.2, p < 0.00, and oral-AOR:9.3, p < 0.00), and source of instruction (vaping only AOR:4.2, p < 0.05) were found to be variables associated with higher knowledge of THC concentration. CONCLUSION: Self-reported knowledge of THC and CBD concentration statistically differed according to MOD, source of acquisition, source of instruction, and current cannabis use.

Long-term inhaled treprostinil for pulmonary hypertension due to interstitial lung disease: INCREASE open-label extension study.

INTRODUCTION: The 16-week randomised, placebo-controlled INCREASE trial (RCT) met its primary end-point by improving 6-min walk distance (6MWD) in patients receiving inhaled treprostinil for pulmonary hypertension due to interstitial lung disease (PH-ILD). The open-label extension (OLE) evaluated long-term effects of inhaled treprostinil in PH-ILD. METHODS: Of 258 eligible patients, 242 enrolled in the INCREASE OLE and received inhaled treprostinil. Assessments included 6MWD, pulmonary function testing, N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), quality of life and adverse events. Hospitalisations, exacerbations of underlying lung disease and death were recorded. RESULTS: At INCREASE OLE baseline, patients had a median age of 70 years and a mean 6MWD of 274.2 m; 52.1% were male. For the overall population, the mean 6MWD at week 52 was 279.1 m and the mean change from INCREASE RCT baseline was 3.5 m (22.1 m for the prior inhaled treprostinil arm and -19.5 m for the prior placebo arm); the median NT-proBNP decreased from 389 pg·mL-1 at RCT baseline to 359 pg·mL-1 at week 64; and the absolute (% predicted) mean forced vital capacity change from RCT baseline to week 64 was 51 mL (2.8%). Patients who received inhaled treprostinil versus placebo in the RCT had a 31% lower relative risk of exacerbation of underlying lung disease in the OLE (hazard ratio 0.69 (95% CI 0.49-0.97); p=0.03). Adverse events leading to drug discontinuation occurred in 54 (22.3%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the long-term safety and efficacy of inhaled treprostinil in patients with PH-ILD, and are consistent with the results observed in the INCREASE RCT.

MASCC guideline: cannabis for cancer-related pain and risk of harms and adverse events.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 18% of patients with cancer use cannabis at one time as palliation or treatment for their cancer. We performed a systematic review of randomized cannabis cancer trials to establish a guideline for its use in pain and to summarize the risk of harm and adverse events when used for any indication in cancer patients. METHODS: A systematic review of randomized trials with or without meta-analysis was carried out from MEDLINE, CCTR, Embase, and PsychINFO. The search involved randomized trials of cannabis in cancer patients. The search ended on November 12, 2021. The Jadad grading system was used for grading quality. Inclusion criteria for articles were randomized trials or systematic reviews of randomized trials of cannabinoids versus either placebo or active comparator explicitly in adult patients with cancer. RESULTS: Thirty-four systematic reviews and randomized trials met the eligibility criteria for cancer pain. Seven were randomized trials involving patients with cancer pain. Two trials had positive primary endpoints, which could not be reproduced in similarly designed trials. High-quality systematic reviews with meta-analyses found little evidence that cannabinoids are an effective adjuvant or analgesic to cancer pain. Seven systematic reviews and randomized trials related to harms and adverse events were included. There was inconsistent evidence about the types and levels of harm patients may experience when using cannabinoids. CONCLUSION: The MASCC panel recommends against the use of cannabinoids as an adjuvant analgesic for cancer pain and suggests that the potential risk of harm and adverse events be carefully considered for all cancer patients, particularly with treatment with a checkpoint inhibitor.

Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) guidelines: cannabis for psychological symptoms including insomnia, anxiety, and depression.

PURPOSE: During the treatment of cancer, 18% of patients use cannabis for symptom management. Anxiety, depression, and sleep disturbances are common symptoms in cancer. A systematic review of the evidence for cannabis use for psychological symptoms in cancer patients was undertaken to develop a guideline. METHODS: A literature search of randomized trials and systematic reviews was undertaken up to November 12, 2021. Studies were independently assessed for evidence by two authors and then evaluated by all authors for approval. The literature search involved MEDLINE, CCTR, EMBASE, and PsychINFO databases. Inclusion criteria included randomized control trials and systematic reviews on cannabis versus placebo or active comparator in patients with cancer and psychological symptom management (anxiety, depression, and insomnia). RESULTS: The search yielded 829 articles; 145 from Medline, 419 from Embase, 62 from PsychINFO, and 203 from CCTR. Two systematic reviews and 15 randomized trials (4 on sleep, 5 on mood, 6 on both) met eligibility criteria. However, no studies specifically assessed the efficacy of cannabis on psychological symptoms as primary outcomes in cancer patients. The studies varied widely in terms of interventions, control, duration, and outcome measures. Six of 15 RCTs suggested benefits (five for sleep, one for mood). CONCLUSION: There is no high-quality evidence to recommend the use of cannabis as an intervention for psychological symptoms in patients with cancer until more high-quality research demonstrates benefit.

Anti-Granulocyte-Macrophage Colony-Stimulating Factor Monoclonal Antibody Gimsilumab for COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-controlled Trial.

Rationale: GM-CSF (granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor) has emerged as a promising target against the hyperactive host immune response associated with coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Objectives: We sought to investigate the efficacy and safety of gimsilumab, an anti-GM-CSF monoclonal antibody, for the treatment of hospitalized patients with elevated inflammatory markers and hypoxemia secondary to COVID-19. Methods: We conducted a 24-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, BREATHE (Better Respiratory Education and Treatment Help Empower), at 21 locations in the United States. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive two doses of intravenous gimsilumab or placebo 1 week apart. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality rate at Day 43. Key secondary outcomes were ventilator-free survival rate, ventilator-free days, and time to hospital discharge. Enrollment was halted early for futility based on an interim analysis. Measurements and Main Results: Of the planned 270 patients, 225 were randomized and dosed; 44.9% of patients were Hispanic or Latino. The gimsilumab and placebo groups experienced an all-cause mortality rate at Day 43 of 28.3% and 23.2%, respectively (adjusted difference = 5% vs. placebo; 95% confidence interval [-6 to 17]; P = 0.377). Overall mortality rates at 24 weeks were similar across the treatment arms. The key secondary endpoints demonstrated no significant differences between groups. Despite the high background use of corticosteroids and anticoagulants, adverse events were generally balanced between treatment groups. Conclusions: Gimsilumab did not improve mortality or other key clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and evidence of systemic inflammation. The utility of anti-GM-CSF therapy for COVID-19 remains unclear. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04351243).

Associations between resources and practices of ILD centers and outcomes in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: data from the IPF-PRO Registry.

BACKGROUND: Performance benchmarks for the management of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) have not been established. We used data from the IPF-PRO Registry, an observational registry of patients with IPF managed at sites across the US, to examine associations between the characteristics of the enrolling sites and patient outcomes. METHODS: An online survey was used to collect information on the resources, operations, and self-assessment practices of IPF-PRO Registry sites that enrolled ≥ 10 patients. Site variability in 1-year event rates of clinically relevant outcomes, including death, death or lung transplant, and hospitalization, was assessed. Models were adjusted for differences in patient case mix by adjusting for known predictors of each outcome. We assessed whether site-level heterogeneity existed for each patient-level outcome, and if so, we investigated potential drivers of the heterogeneity. RESULTS: All 27 sites that enrolled ≥ 10 patients returned the questionnaire. Most sites were actively following > 100 patients with IPF (70.4%), had a lung transplant program (66.7%), and had a dedicated ILD nurse leader (77.8%). Substantial heterogeneity was observed in the event rates of clinically relevant outcomes across the sites. After controlling for patient case mix, there were no outcomes for which the site variance component was significantly different from 0, but the p-value for hospitalization was 0.052. Starting/completing an ILD-related quality improvement project in the previous 2 years was associated with a lower risk of hospitalization (HR 0.60 [95% CI 0.44, 0.82]; p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Analyses of data from patients with IPF managed at sites across the US found no site-specific characteristics or practices that were significantly associated with clinically relevant outcomes after adjusting for patient case mix. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01915511. Registered 5 August 2013, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01915511.

Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) expert opinion/consensus guidance on the use of cannabinoids for gastrointestinal symptoms in patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal symptoms are common in patients with cancer, whether related to treatment or a direct effect of the disease itself. Patients may choose to access cannabinoids outside of their formal medical prescriptions to palliate such symptoms. However, clinical guidelines are lacking in relation to the use of such medicines for gastrointestinal symptoms in patients with cancer. METHODS: A systematic review of the evidence for the use of cannabinoids for symptom control in patients with cancer was undertaken. Search strategies were developed for Medline, Embase, PsychINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, including all publications from 1975 up to 12 November 2021. Studies were included if they were randomized controlled trials of cannabinoids compared with placebo or active comparator in adult patients with cancer, regardless of type, stage, or treatment status. Articles for inclusion were agreed by all authors, and data extracted and summarized by two authors. Each study was scored according to the Jadad scale. This review was specifically for the purpose of developing guidelines for the use of cannabis for gastrointestinal symptoms, including chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), chronic nausea, anorexia-cachexia syndrome, and taste disturbance. RESULTS: Thirty-six randomized controlled trials were identified that met the inclusion criteria for this review of gastrointestinal symptoms: 31 relating to CINV, one to radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and the remaining four to anorexia-cachexia and altered chemosensory disturbance. The populations for the randomized controlled trials were heterogeneous, and many studies were of poor quality, lacking clarity regarding method of randomization, blinding, and allocation concealment. For CINV, eleven RCTs showed improvement with cannabis compared to placebo, but out of 21 trials where cannabis was compared to other antiemetics for CINV, only 11 favoured cannabis. CONCLUSION: Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and nabilone were more effective in preventing CINV when compared to placebo but are not more effective than other antiemetics. For refractory CINV, one study of THC:CBD demonstrated reduced nausea as an add-on treatment to guideline-consistent antiemetic therapy without olanzapine. The MASCC Guideline Committee found insufficient evidence to recommend cannabinoids for the management of CINV, nausea from advanced cancer, cancer-associated anorexia-cachexia, and taste disturbance. High-quality studies are needed to inform practice.

Utility of a Molecular Classifier as a Complement to High-Resolution Computed Tomography to Identify Usual Interstitial Pneumonia.

Rationale: Usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) is the defining morphology of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). Guidelines for IPF diagnosis conditionally recommend surgical lung biopsy for histopathology diagnosis of UIP when radiology and clinical context are not definitive. A "molecular diagnosis of UIP" in transbronchial lung biopsy, the Envisia Genomic Classifier, accurately predicted histopathologic UIP.Objectives: We evaluated the combined accuracy of the Envisia Genomic Classifier and local radiology in the detection of UIP pattern.Methods: Ninety-six patients who had diagnostic lung pathology as well as a transbronchial lung biopsy for molecular testing with Envisia Genomic Classifier were included in this analysis. The classifier results were scored against reference pathology. UIP identified on high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) as documented by features in local radiologists' reports was compared with histopathology.Measurements and Main Results: In 96 patients, the Envisia Classifier achieved a specificity of 92.1% (confidence interval [CI],78.6-98.3%) and a sensitivity of 60.3% (CI, 46.6-73.0%) for histology-proven UIP pattern. Local radiologists identified UIP in 18 of 53 patients with UIP histopathology, with a sensitivity of 34.0% (CI, 21.5-48.3%) and a specificity of 96.9% (CI, 83.8-100%). In conjunction with HRCT patterns of UIP, the Envisia Classifier results identified 24 additional patients with UIP (sensitivity 79.2%; specificity 90.6%).Conclusions: In 96 patients with suspected interstitial lung disease, the Envisia Genomic Classifier identified UIP regardless of HRCT pattern. These results suggest that recognition of a UIP pattern by the Envisia Genomic Classifier combined with HRCT and clinical factors in a multidisciplinary discussion may assist clinicians in making an interstitial lung disease (especially IPF) diagnosis without the need for a surgical lung biopsy.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Palliative Care, Version 2.2021.

Palliative care has evolved to be an integral part of comprehensive cancer care with the goal of early intervention to improve quality of life and patient outcomes. The NCCN Guidelines for Palliative Care provide recommendations to help the primary oncology team promote the best quality of life possible throughout the illness trajectory for each patient with cancer. The NCCN Palliative Care Panel meets annually to evaluate and update recommendations based on panel members' clinical expertise and emerging scientific data. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel's recent discussions and highlights updates on the importance of fostering adaptive coping strategies for patients and families, and on the role of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions to optimize symptom management.

Treating Chronic Pain with Buprenorphine-The Practical Guide.

OPINION STATEMENT: Buprenorphine has unique and favorable pharmacological properties that make it useful in a variety of clinical scenarios. It has been recommended to consider buprenorphine first-line opioid for chronic pain, especially in the elderly as it may be associated with less cognitive impairment, falls, sexual dysfunction, and sarcopenia when compared with schedule II opioids. It may be useful in patients with comorbid substance use disorder or non-medical opioid use, as there is less risk of misuse, euphoria and it may improve mood. When used to treat opioid use disorder, the training and waiver was recently waived for licensed practitioners with a DEA and any provider may prescribe buprenorphine. For many reasons outlined in this article, the popularity of using buprenorphine for analgesia continues to grow and a practitioner should consider this as an excellent and safe option for chronic pain.

How Effective Is Palliative Care in Improving Patient Outcomes?

OPINION STATEMENT: As palliative care (PC) continues its rapid growth, an emerging body of evidence is demonstrating that its approach of interdisciplinary supportive care benefits many patient populations, including in the oncology setting. As studies and data proliferate, however, questions persist about who, what, why, when, and how PC as well as the ideal time for a PC consult and length of involvement. When comparing outcomes from chemotherapy trials, it is important to consider the dosing regimens used in the various studies. In the same way, it is important to account for the "dose" of the PC interventions utilized across studies, and apples to apples comparisons are needed in order to draw accurate conclusions about PC's benefits. Studies which include a true interdisciplinary PC intervention consistently show improvements in patient quality of life, as well as cost savings, with further study needed for other outcomes. These benefits cannot be extrapolated to care which may be labeled "palliative care," but which does not meet the standard of true interdisciplinary PC. The ultimate question is: Does PC indeed improve outcomes?

Improving Lung Function in Severe Heterogenous Emphysema with the Spiration Valve System (EMPROVE). A Multicenter, Open-Label Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

Rationale: Less invasive, nonsurgical approaches are needed to treat severe emphysema.Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the Spiration Valve System (SVS) versus optimal medical management.Methods: In this multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled trial, subjects aged 40 years or older with severe, heterogeneous emphysema were randomized 2:1 to SVS with medical management (treatment) or medical management alone (control).Measurements and Main Results: The primary efficacy outcome was the difference in mean FEV1 from baseline to 6 months. Secondary effectiveness outcomes included: difference in FEV1 responder rates, target lobe volume reduction, hyperinflation, health status, dyspnea, and exercise capacity. The primary safety outcome was the incidence of composite thoracic serious adverse events. All analyses were conducted by determining the 95% Bayesian credible intervals (BCIs) for the difference between treatment and control arms. Between October 2013 and May 2017, 172 participants (53.5% male; mean age, 67.4 yr) were randomized to treatment (n = 113) or control (n = 59). Mean FEV1 showed statistically significant improvements between the treatment and control groups-between-group difference at 6 and 12 months, respectively, of 0.101 L (95% BCI, 0.060-0.141) and 0.099 L (95% BCI, 0.048-0.151). At 6 months, the treatment group had statistically significant improvements in all secondary endpoints except 6-minute-walk distance. Composite thoracic serious adverse event incidence through 6 months was greater in the treatment group (31.0% vs. 11.9%), primarily due to a 12.4% incidence of serious pneumothorax.Conclusions: In patients with severe heterogeneous emphysema, the SVS shows significant improvement in multiple efficacy outcomes, with an acceptable safety profile.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01812447).

Fish consumption prior to pregnancy and pregnancy outcomes in the National Birth Defects Prevention Study, 1997-2011.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relationships between maternal fish consumption and pregnancy outcomes in a large, population-based sample of women in the USA. DESIGN: We collected average fish consumption prior to pregnancy using a modified version of the semi-quantitative Willett FFQ. We estimated adjusted OR (aOR) and 95 % CI for associations between different levels of fish consumption and preterm birth (<37 weeks), early preterm birth (<32 and <35 weeks) and small-for-gestational-age infants (SGA; <10th percentile). SETTING: The National Birth Defects Prevention Study (NBDPS). SUBJECTS: Control mother-infant pairs with estimated delivery dates between 1997 and 2011 (n 10 919). RESULTS: No significant associations were observed between fish consumption and preterm birth or early preterm birth (aOR = 0·7-1·0 and 0·7-0·9, respectively). The odds of having an SGA infant were elevated (aOR = 2·1; 95 % CI 1·2, 3·4) among women with daily fish consumption compared with women consuming fish less than once per month. No associations were observed between other levels of fish consumption and SGA (aOR = 0·8-1·0). CONCLUSIONS: High intake of fish was associated with twofold higher odds of having an SGA infant, while moderate fish consumption prior to pregnancy was not associated with preterm or SGA. Our study, like many other studies in this area, lacked information regarding preparation methods and the specific types of fish consumed. Future studies should incorporate information on nutrient and contaminant contents, preparation methods and biomarkers to assess these relationships.

Effective Palliative Care: What Is Involved?

It is important for oncologists who provide comprehensive cancer care to be familiar with the principles of primary palliative care and interdisciplinary team-based approaches to palliative care. Palliative care is a medical subspecialty that provides specialized care to individuals with serious illnesses, with a primary focus on providing symptom relief, pain management, and relief from psychosocial distress, regardless of diagnosis or prognosis. Ideally, palliative care is provided by a team of physicians, nurses, social workers, psychologists, and chaplains. The core of palliative care is addressing, in depth, the physical, emotional, and spiritual suffering that a patient can experience. Palliative care is a key component of oncologic care, and we highly recommend that it be integrated into the plan of care for patients with advanced cancer. Early integration of palliative care has been shown to provide improved outcomes in patients with advanced cancer. This article reviews the ways in which palliative care and oncology teams can collaborate to provide high-quality care to patients and their families; it also provides practical tips for oncologists who wish to initiate primary palliative care for their patients. Prior to referral to a specialized interdisciplinary palliative care team, oncologists may start advance-care planning discussions, provide basic pain and non-pain symptom relief, and utilize assessment tools. If a specialized palliative care team is not available, the oncologist will often address additional aspects of palliative care, with assistance from social work departments and other resources in the community.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Palliative Care, Version 2.2017.

The NCCN Guidelines for Palliative Care provide interdisciplinary recommendations on palliative care for patients with cancer. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize and provide context for the updated guidelines recommendations regarding hospice and end-of-life (EOL) care. Updates for 2017 include revisions to and restructuring of the algorithms that address important EOL concerns. These recommendations were revised to provide clearer guidance for oncologists as they care for patients with cancer who are approaching the transition to EOL care. Recommendations for interventions and reassessment based on estimated life expectancy were streamlined and reprioritized to promote hospice referrals and improved EOL care.

Hospitalization charges for children with birth defects in Texas, 2001 to 2010.

BACKGROUND: State-specific information about hospitalizations of children with birth defects can improve understanding of changes in occurrence, treatment practices, and health care financing policies. This study analyzed aggregated data on hospital charges and length of stay for a large, diverse population. METHODS: We extracted hospitalization data for children diagnosed with birth defects from the Texas Hospital Inpatient Discharge Public Use Data File (2001-2010). Analyses compared total charges and length of stay for children with and without a diagnosis code of any birth defect among 45 standard categories. We also examined trends for total charges by expected payer type. RESULTS: In Texas, 431,296 hospital stays were reported for children with birth defects, with total charges of $24.8 billion. Mean hospital stay for children with birth defects was more than twice that of those without, whereas mean of hospital total charges was approximately six times greater. Pyloric stenosis accounted for the largest number of hospitalizations, followed by certain cardiac defects. Pediatric hospitalizations for birth defects increased 273.7%, compared with a 214.7% increase overall. The percentage of charges with Medicaid as expected payer (2004-2010) ranged from 56.5 to 62.0%. CONCLUSION: Charges associated with these conditions are far greater than those associated with pediatric hospitalizations for other causes, whether in the newborn period or beyond. However, these charges vary depending on specific diagnoses, expected payer source, and year of treatment.