-
BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care Sep 2021Pain is one of the most common and problematic symptoms encountered by patients with cancer. Due to the multifactorial aetiology, pain management of these patients... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pain is one of the most common and problematic symptoms encountered by patients with cancer. Due to the multifactorial aetiology, pain management of these patients frequently requires multidisciplinary interventions including conventional support and specialty palliative care. Acupuncture has been identified as a possible adjunctive therapy for symptom management in cancer pain, and there is currently no systematic review focused solely on the evidence of acupuncture on cancer pain in palliative care.
OBJECTIVE
To critically analyse currently available publications regarding the use of acupuncture for pain management among patients with cancer in palliative care settings.
METHODS
Multiple academic databases were searched from inception to 29 October 2020. Randomised controlled trials involving acupuncture in palliative care for treatment of cancer-related pain were synthesised. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers, and methodological quality of each included study was assessed using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) 2011 Levels of Evidence.
RESULTS
Five studies (n=189) were included in this systematic review. Results indicated a favourable effect of acupuncture on pain relief in palliative care for patients with cancer. According to OCEBM 2011 Levels of Evidence, they were level 2 in one case (20%), level 3 in two cases (40%) and level 4 in the remaining (40%). Low-level evidence adversely affects the reliability of findings.
CONCLUSIONS
Acupuncture may be an effective and safe treatment associated with pain reduction in the palliative care of patients with cancer. Further high-quality, adequately powered studies are needed in the future.
Topics: Acupuncture Therapy; Cancer Pain; Humans; Neoplasms; Pain Management; Palliative Care; Reproducibility of Results
PubMed: 33441387
DOI: 10.1136/bmjspcare-2020-002638 -
Thyroid : Official Journal of the... Mar 2021Anaplastic thyroid cancer (ATC) is a rare but highly lethal form of thyroid cancer. Since the guidelines for the management of ATC by the American Thyroid Association...
Anaplastic thyroid cancer (ATC) is a rare but highly lethal form of thyroid cancer. Since the guidelines for the management of ATC by the American Thyroid Association were first published in 2012, significant clinical and scientific advances have occurred in the field. The aim of these guidelines is to inform clinicians, patients, and researchers on published evidence relating to the diagnosis and management of ATC. The specific clinical questions and topics addressed in these guidelines were based on prior versions of the guidelines, stakeholder input, and input of the Task Force members (authors of the guideline). Relevant literature was reviewed, including serial PubMed searches supplemented with additional articles. The American College of Physicians Guideline Grading System was used for critical appraisal of evidence and grading strength of recommendations. The guidelines include the diagnosis, initial evaluation, establishment of treatment goals, approaches to locoregional disease (surgery, radiotherapy, targeted/systemic therapy, supportive care during active therapy), approaches to advanced/metastatic disease, palliative care options, surveillance and long-term monitoring, and ethical issues, including end of life. The guidelines include 31 recommendations and 16 good practice statements. We have developed evidence-based recommendations to inform clinical decision-making in the management of ATC. While all care must be individualized, such recommendations provide, in our opinion, optimal care paradigms for patients with ATC.
Topics: Consensus; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Medical Oncology; Prognosis; Thyroid Carcinoma, Anaplastic; Thyroid Neoplasms
PubMed: 33728999
DOI: 10.1089/thy.2020.0944 -
Journal of Pain and Symptom Management Apr 2021Near the end of life when patients experience refractory symptoms, palliative sedation may be considered as a last treatment. Clinical guidelines have been developed,... (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
Near the end of life when patients experience refractory symptoms, palliative sedation may be considered as a last treatment. Clinical guidelines have been developed, but they are mainly based on expert opinion or retrospective chart reviews. Therefore, evidence for the clinical aspects of palliative sedation is needed.
OBJECTIVES
To explore clinical aspects of palliative sedation in recent prospective studies.
METHODS
Systematic review was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and registered at PROSPERO. PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched (January 2014-December 2019), combining sedation, palliative care, and prospective. Article quality was assessed.
RESULTS
Ten prospective articles were included, involving predominantly patients with cancer. Most frequently reported refractory symptoms were delirium (41%-83%), pain (25%-65%), and dyspnea (16%-59%). In some articles, psychological and existential distress were mentioned (16%-59%). Only a few articles specified the tools used to assess symptoms. Level of sedation assessment tools were the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale, Ramsay Sedation Scale, Glasgow Coma Scale, and Bispectral Index monitoring. The palliative sedation practice shows an underlying need for proportionality in relation to symptom intensity. Midazolam was the main sedative used. Other reported medications were phenobarbital, promethazine, and anesthetic medication-propofol. The only study that reported level of patient's discomfort as a palliative sedation outcome showed a decrease in patient discomfort.
CONCLUSION
Assessment of refractory symptoms should include physical evaluation with standardized tools applied and interviews for psychological and existential evaluation by expert clinicians working in teams. Future research needs to evaluate the effectiveness of palliative sedation for refractory symptom relief.
Topics: Hospice and Palliative Care Nursing; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Palliative Care; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Terminal Care
PubMed: 32961218
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2020.09.022 -
Children (Basel, Switzerland) Nov 2021Pediatric palliative care (PPC) is a set of actions aimed at children who suffer from a severe or life-threatening disease to alleviate the symptoms of the disease and... (Review)
Review
Pediatric palliative care (PPC) is a set of actions aimed at children who suffer from a severe or life-threatening disease to alleviate the symptoms of the disease and improve the quality of life of both the child and his/her family. One of the tools used to control symptoms is physiotherapy; however, its application in the child population has not been thoroughly studied. The main objective of this study was to gather, analyze, and critically evaluate the available scientific evidence on physiotherapy in children who require palliative care through a systematic review of the studies published in the last 10 years in the following databases: PubMed, Cochrane Library, PEDro, CINAHL, and Scopus. Of a total of 622 studies, the inclusion criteria were only met by seven articles, which were focused on the relationship between physiotherapy and PPC. This study analyzed: (1) the main pathologies treated, with a predominance of cerebral palsy and cancer; (2) the interventions applied, such as respiratory physiotherapy, neurological physiotherapy, therapeutic massage, and virtual reality; (3) the effects achieved in the child and his/her family, highlighting the control of symptoms and the improvement of the quality of life; and (4) the knowledge of the physiotherapists on PPC, observing that most of the professionals had not received training in this scope. The findings of this review indicate a lack of an adequate evidence foundation for physiotherapy in PPC.
PubMed: 34828756
DOI: 10.3390/children8111043 -
Palliative Medicine Feb 2020Aromatherapy, massage and reflexology are widely used in palliative care. Despite this, there are questions about their suitability for inclusion in clinical guidelines....
BACKGROUND
Aromatherapy, massage and reflexology are widely used in palliative care. Despite this, there are questions about their suitability for inclusion in clinical guidelines. The need to understand their benefits is a public priority, especially in light of funding pressures.
AIM
To synthesise current evidence on the effectiveness of aromatherapy, massage and reflexology in people with palliative care needs.
DESIGN
A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (PROSPERO CRD42017081409) was undertaken following international standards including Cochrane guidelines. The quality of trials and their pooled evidence were appraised. Primary outcomes on effect were anxiety, pain and quality-of-life.
DATA SOURCES
Eight citation databases and three trial registries were searched to June 2018.
RESULTS
Twenty-two trials, involving 1956 participants were identified. Compared with a control, four evaluated aromatherapy, eight massage and six reflexology. A further four evaluated massage compared with aromatherapy. Trials were at an unclear risk of bias. Many had small samples. Heterogeneity prevented meta-analysis. In comparison with usual care, another therapy or an active control, evidence on the effectiveness of massage and aromatherapy in reducing anxiety, pain and improving quality-of-life was inconclusive. There was some evidence (low quality) that compared to an active control, reflexology reduced pain.
CONCLUSIONS
This review identified a relatively large number of trials, but with poor and heterogeneous evidence. New clinical recommendations cannot be made based on current evidence. To help provide more definitive trial findings, it may be useful first to understand more about the best way to measure the effectiveness of these therapies in palliative care.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Aromatherapy; Female; Hospice and Palliative Care Nursing; Humans; Male; Massage; Middle Aged; Mind-Body Therapies; Musculoskeletal Manipulations; Palliative Care; Quality of Life
PubMed: 31659939
DOI: 10.1177/0269216319884198 -
Journal of Medical Internet Research Mar 2023Owing to the increasing number of people with palliative care needs and the current shortage of health care professionals (HCPs), providing quality palliative care has... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Owing to the increasing number of people with palliative care needs and the current shortage of health care professionals (HCPs), providing quality palliative care has become challenging. Telehealth could enable patients to spend as much time as possible at home. However, no previous systematic mixed studies reviews have synthesized evidence on patients' experiences of the advantages and challenges of telehealth in home-based palliative care.
OBJECTIVE
In this systematic mixed studies review, we aimed to critically appraise and synthesize the findings from studies that investigated patients' use of telehealth in home-based palliative care, focusing on the advantages and challenges experienced by patients.
METHODS
This is a systematic mixed studies review with a convergent design. The review is reported according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement. A systematic search was performed in the following databases: Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, and Web of Science. The inclusion criteria were as follows: studies using quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods; studies that investigated the experience of using telehealth with follow-up from HCPs of home-based patients aged ≥18; studies published between January 2010 and June 2022; and studies published in Norwegian, Danish, Swedish, English, Portuguese, or Spanish in peer-reviewed journals. Five pairs of authors independently assessed eligibility of the studies, appraised methodological quality, and extracted data. The data were synthesized using thematic synthesis.
RESULTS
This systematic mixed studies review included 41 reports from 40 studies. The following 4 analytical themes were synthesized: potential for a support system and self-governance at home; visibility supports interpersonal relationships and a joint understanding of care needs; optimized information flow facilitates tailoring of remote caring practices; and technology, relationships, and complexity as perpetual obstacles in telehealth.
CONCLUSIONS
The advantages of telehealth were that patients experience a potential support system that could enable them to remain at home, and the visual features of telehealth enable them to build interpersonal relationships with HCPs over time. Self-reporting provides HCPs with information about symptoms and circumstances that facilitates tailoring care to specific patients. Challenges with the use of telehealth were related to barriers to technology use and inflexible reporting of complex and fluctuating symptoms and circumstances using electronic questionnaires. Few studies have included the self-reporting of existential or spiritual concerns, emotions, and well-being. Some patients perceived telehealth as intrusive and a threat to their privacy at home. To optimize the advantages and minimize the challenges with the use of telehealth in home-based palliative care, future research should include users in the design and development process.
Topics: Humans; Palliative Care; Telemedicine; Health Personnel; Home Care Services; Ethnicity
PubMed: 36912876
DOI: 10.2196/43684 -
Supportive Care in Cancer : Official... Jun 2022To provide evidence-based recommendations on the management of malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) for patients with advanced cancer.
PURPOSE
To provide evidence-based recommendations on the management of malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) for patients with advanced cancer.
METHODS
The Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) MBO study group conducted a systematic review of databases (inception to March 2021) to identify studies about patients with advanced cancer and MBO that reported on the following outcomes: symptom management, bowel obstruction resolution, prognosis, overall survival, and quality of life. The review was restricted to studies published in English, but no restrictions were placed on publication year, country, and study type. As per the MASCC Guidelines Policy, the findings were synthesized to determine the levels of evidence to support each MBO intervention and, ultimately, the graded recommendations and suggestions.
RESULTS
The systematic review identified 17,656 published studies and 397 selected for the guidelines. The MASCC study group developed a total of 25 evidence-based suggestions and recommendations about the management of MBO-related nausea and vomiting, bowel movements, pain, inflammation, bowel decompression, and nutrition. Expert consensus-based guidance about advanced care planning and psychosocial support is also provided.
CONCLUSION
This MASCC Guideline provides comprehensive, evidence-based recommendations about MBO management for patients with advanced cancer.
Topics: Humans; Intestinal Obstruction; Nausea; Neoplasms; Palliative Care; Quality of Life
PubMed: 35274188
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-022-06889-8 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2020Serious illness is often characterised by physical/psychological problems, family support needs, and high healthcare resource use. Hospital-based specialist palliative... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Serious illness is often characterised by physical/psychological problems, family support needs, and high healthcare resource use. Hospital-based specialist palliative care (HSPC) has developed to assist in better meeting the needs of patients and their families and potentially reducing hospital care expenditure. There is a need for clarity on the effectiveness and optimal models of HSPC, given that most people still die in hospital and also to allocate scarce resources judiciously.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HSPC compared to usual care for adults with advanced illness (hereafter patients) and their unpaid caregivers/families.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, CDSR, DARE and HTA database via the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; Embase; CINAHL; PsycINFO; CareSearch; National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) and two trial registers to August 2019, together with checking of reference lists and relevant systematic reviews, citation searching and contact with experts to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the impact of HSPC on outcomes for patients or their unpaid caregivers/families, or both. HSPC was defined as specialist palliative care delivered by a palliative care team that is based in a hospital providing holistic care, co-ordination by a multidisciplinary team, and collaboration between HSPC providers and generalists. HSPC was provided to patients while they were admitted as inpatients to acute care hospitals, outpatients or patients receiving care from hospital outreach teams at home. The comparator was usual care, defined as inpatient or outpatient hospital care without specialist palliative care input at the point of entry into the study, community care or hospice care provided outside of the hospital setting.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We assessed risk of bias and extracted data. To account for use of different scales across studies, we calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous data. We used an inverse variance random-effects model. For binary data, we calculated odds ratio (ORs) with 95% CIs. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table. Our primary outcomes were patient health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and symptom burden (a collection of two or more symptoms). Key secondary outcomes were pain, depression, satisfaction with care, achieving preferred place of death, mortality/survival, unpaid caregiver burden, and cost-effectiveness. Qualitative data was analysed where available.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 42 RCTs involving 7779 participants (6678 patients and 1101 caregivers/family members). Twenty-one studies were with cancer populations, 14 were with non-cancer populations (of which six were with heart failure patients), and seven with mixed cancer and non-cancer populations (mixed diagnoses). HSPC was offered in different ways and included the following models: ward-based, inpatient consult, outpatient, hospital-at-home or hospital outreach, and service provision across multiple settings which included hospital. For our main analyses, we pooled data from studies reporting adjusted endpoint values. Forty studies had a high risk of bias in at least one domain. Compared with usual care, HSPC improved patient HRQoL with a small effect size of 0.26 SMD over usual care (95% CI 0.15 to 0.37; I = 3%, 10 studies, 1344 participants, low-quality evidence, higher scores indicate better patient HRQoL). HSPC also improved other person-centred outcomes. It reduced patient symptom burden with a small effect size of -0.26 SMD over usual care (95% CI -0.41 to -0.12; I = 0%, 6 studies, 761 participants, very low-quality evidence, lower scores indicate lower symptom burden). HSPC improved patient satisfaction with care with a small effect size of 0.36 SMD over usual care (95% CI 0.41 to 0.57; I = 0%, 2 studies, 337 participants, low-quality evidence, higher scores indicate better patient satisfaction with care). Using home death as a proxy measure for achieving patient's preferred place of death, patients were more likely to die at home with HSPC compared to usual care (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.16; I = 0%, 7 studies, 861 participants, low-quality evidence). Data on pain (4 studies, 525 participants) showed no evidence of a difference between HSPC and usual care (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.01; I = 0%, very low-quality evidence). Eight studies (N = 1252 participants) reported on adverse events and very low-quality evidence did not demonstrate an effect of HSPC on serious harms. Two studies (170 participants) presented data on caregiver burden and both found no evidence of effect of HSPC (very low-quality evidence). We included 13 economic studies (2103 participants). Overall, the evidence on cost-effectiveness of HSPC compared to usual care was inconsistent among the four full economic studies. Other studies that used only partial economic analysis and those that presented more limited resource use and cost information also had inconsistent results (very low-quality evidence). Quality of the evidence The quality of the evidence assessed using GRADE was very low to low, downgraded due to a high risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Very low- to low-quality evidence suggests that when compared to usual care, HSPC may offer small benefits for several person-centred outcomes including patient HRQoL, symptom burden and patient satisfaction with care, while also increasing the chances of patients dying in their preferred place (measured by home death). While we found no evidence that HSPC causes serious harms, the evidence was insufficient to draw strong conclusions. Although these are only small effect sizes, they may be clinically relevant at an advanced stage of disease with limited prognosis, and are person-centred outcomes important to many patients and families. More well conducted studies are needed to study populations with non-malignant diseases and mixed diagnoses, ward-based models of HSPC, 24 hours access (out-of-hours care) as part of HSPC, pain, achieving patient preferred place of care, patient satisfaction with care, caregiver outcomes (satisfaction with care, burden, depression, anxiety, grief, quality of life), and cost-effectiveness of HSPC. In addition, research is needed to provide validated person-centred outcomes to be used across studies and populations.
Topics: Ambulatory Care; Bias; Caregivers; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Family; Heart Failure; Home Care Services, Hospital-Based; Hospitalization; Humans; Neoplasms; Pain Management; Palliative Care; Patient Satisfaction; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Symptom Assessment; Terminal Care
PubMed: 32996586
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012780.pub2 -
Journal of Pain and Symptom Management May 2021Children with cancer and their families have complex needs related to symptoms, decision-making, care planning, and psychosocial impact extending across the illness...
CONTEXT
Children with cancer and their families have complex needs related to symptoms, decision-making, care planning, and psychosocial impact extending across the illness trajectory, which for some includes end of life. Whether specialty pediatric palliative care (SPPC) is associated with improved outcomes for children with cancer and their families is unknown.
OBJECTIVE
We conducted a systematic review following PRISMA guidelines to investigate outcomes associated with SPPC in pediatric oncology with a focus on intervention delivery, collaboration, and alignment with National Quality Forum domains.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases from inception until April 2020 and reviewed references manually. Eligible articles were published in English, involved pediatric patients aged 0-18 years with cancer, and contained original data regarding patient and family illness and end-of-life experiences, including symptom management, communication, decision-making, quality of life, satisfaction, and healthcare utilization.
RESULTS
We screened 6682 article abstracts and 82 full-text articles; 32 studies met inclusion criteria, representing 15,635 unique children with cancer and 342 parents. Generally, children with cancer who received SPPC had improved symptom burden, pain control, and quality of life with decreased intensive procedures, increased completion of advance care planning and resuscitation status documentation, and fewer end-of-life intensive care stays with higher likelihood of dying at home. Family impact included satisfaction with SPPC and perception of improved communication.
CONCLUSION
SPPC may improve illness experiences for children with cancer and their families. Multisite studies utilizing comparative effectiveness approaches and validated metrics may support further advancement of the field.
Topics: Child; Hospice and Palliative Care Nursing; Humans; Neoplasms; Palliative Care; Quality of Life; Terminal Care
PubMed: 33348034
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2020.12.003 -
Cancers Jan 2023Experiencing pain and insufficient relief can be devastating and negatively affect a patient's quality of life. Developments in oncology such as new treatments and... (Review)
Review
Experiencing pain and insufficient relief can be devastating and negatively affect a patient's quality of life. Developments in oncology such as new treatments and adjusted pain management guidelines may have influenced the prevalence of cancer pain and severity in patients. This review aims to provide an overview of the prevalence and severity of pain in cancer patients in the 2014-2021 literature period. A systematic literature search was performed using the databases PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane. Titles and abstracts were screened, and full texts were evaluated and assessed on methodological quality. A meta-analysis was performed on the pooled prevalence and severity rates. A meta-regression analysis was used to explore differences between treatment groups. We identified 10,637 studies, of which 444 studies were included. The overall prevalence of pain was 44.5%. Moderate to severe pain was experienced by 30.6% of the patients, a lower proportion compared to previous research. Pain experienced by cancer survivors was significantly lower compared to most treatment groups. Our results imply that both the prevalence of pain and pain severity declined in the past decade. Increased attention to the assessment and management of pain might have fostered the decline in the prevalence and severity of pain.
PubMed: 36765547
DOI: 10.3390/cancers15030591