Search

Background: Severe and refractory chronic breathlessness is a common and burdensome symptom in patients with advanced life-limiting disease. Its clinical management is challenging because of the lack of effective interventions. Aim: To provide practice recommendations on the safe use of pharmacological therapies for severe chronic breathlessness. Design: Scoping review of (inter)national guidelines and systematic reviews. We additionally searched for primary studies where no systematic review could be identified. Consensus on the recommendations was reached by 75% approval within an international expert panel. Data sources: Searches in MEDLINE, Cochrane Library and Guideline International Network until March 2023. Inclusion of publications on the use of antidepressants, benzodiazepines, opioids or corticosteroids for chronic breathlessness in adults with cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, interstitial lung disease or chronic heart failure. Results: Overall, the evidence from eight guidelines, 14 systematic reviews and 3 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on antidepressants is limited. There is low quality evidence favouring opioids in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cancer and interstitial lung disease. For chronic heart failure, evidence is inconclusive. Benzodiazepines should only be considered for anxiety associated with severe breathlessness. Antidepressants and corticosteroids should not be used. Conclusion: Management of breathlessness remains challenging with only few pharmacological options with limited and partially conflicting evidence. Therefore, pharmacological treatment should be reserved for patients with advanced disease under monitoring of side effects, after optimisation of the underlying condition and use of evidence-based non-pharmacological interventions as first-line treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Understanding how socioeconomic position influences the symptoms and concerns of patients approaching the end of life is important for planning more equitable care. Data on this relationship is lacking, particularly for patients with non-cancer conditions. Aim: To analyse the association between socioeconomic position and the symptoms and concerns of older adult patients seen by specialist palliative care. Design: Secondary analysis of cross-sectional, routinely collected electronic patient data. We used multivariable linear regression with robust standard errors, to predict scores on the three subscales of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS; physical symptoms, emotional symptoms and communication and practical concerns) based on patient level of deprivation, measured using Index of Multiple Deprivation. Setting/participants: Consecutive inpatients aged 60 years and over, seen by specialist palliative care at two large teaching hospitals in London between 1st January 2016 and 31st December 2019. Results: Seven thousand eight hundred and sixty patients were included, 38.3% had cancer. After adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics, patients living in the most deprived areas had higher (worse) predicted mean scores on the communication and practical subscale than patients living in the least deprived areas, 5.38 (95% CI: 5.10, 5.65) compared to 4.82 (4.62, 5.02) respectively. This effect of deprivation diminished with increasing age. Deprivation was not associated with scores on the physical or emotional symptoms subscales. Conclusions: Targetting resources to address practical and communication concerns could be a strategy to reduce inequalities. Further research in different hospitals and across different settings using patient centred outcome measures is needed to examine inequalities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Palliative rehabilitation involves multi-professional processes and interventions aimed at optimising patients' symptom self-management, independence and social participation throughout advanced illness. Rehabilitation services were highly disrupted during the Covid-19 pandemic. Aim: To understand rehabilitation provision in palliative care services during the Covid-19 pandemic, identifying and reflecting on adaptative and innovative practice to inform ongoing provision. Design: Cross-sectional national online survey. Setting/participants: Rehabilitation leads for specialist palliative care services across hospice, hospital, or community settings, conducted from 30/07/20 to 21/09/2020. Findings: 61 completed responses (England, n = 55; Scotland, n = 4; Wales, n = 1; and Northern Ireland, n = 1) most frequently from services based in hospices (56/61, 92%) providing adult rehabilitation. Most services (55/61, 90%) reported rehabilitation provision becoming remote during Covid-19 and half reported reduced caseloads. Rehabilitation teams frequently had staff members on sick-leave with suspected/confirmed Covid-19 (27/61, 44%), redeployed to other services/organisations (25/61, 41%) or furloughed (15/61, 26%). Free text responses were constructed into four themes: (i) fluctuating shared spaces; (ii) remote and digitised rehabilitation offer; (iii) capacity to provide and participate in rehabilitation; (iv) Covid-19 as a springboard for positive change. These represent how rehabilitation services contracted, reconfigured, and were redirected to more remote modes of delivery, and how this affected the capacity of clinicians and patients to participate in rehabilitation. Conclusion: This study demonstrates how changes in provision of rehabilitation during the pandemic could act as a springboard for positive changes. Hybrid models of rehabilitation have the potential to expand the equity of access and reach of rehabilitation within specialist palliative care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Fatigue affects most patients living with advanced cancer and is a symptom that healthcare professionals can find difficult to manage. Aim: To provide healthcare professionals with a pragmatic overview of approaches to management of fatigue in patients with advanced cancer that are commonly recommended by guidelines and to evaluate evidence underpinning them. Design: Scoping review methodology was used to determine the strength of evidence supporting use of interventions recommended in management of fatigue in patients with advanced cancer. Data sources: National or international guidelines were examined if they described the management of fatigue in adult cancer patients and were written within the last 6 years (2015–2021) in English. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (January 2011–December 2021) was searched for 'cancer' AND 'fatigue' in title, abstract or keywords. A PubMed search was also made. Results: Evidence indicates physical exercise interventions are effective and patients may benefit from energy conservation tactics. Evidence does not support use of psychostimulants such as methylphenidate. Limited data were found on efficacy of corticosteroids, psychological interventions, nutritional intervention, sleep optimization or complementary therapies for management of fatigue in advanced cancer. Conclusion: We recommend regular assessment, review and acknowledgement of the impact of fatigue. Exercise and energy conservation should be considered. Pharmacological interventions are not endorsed as a routine approach. Many interventions currently recommended by guidelines are not supported by a robust evidence base and further research on their efficacy is required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Specialist palliative care services play an important role in conducting advance care planning during COVID-19. Little is known about the challenges to advance care planning in this context, or the changes services made to adapt. Aim: Describe the challenges that UK specialist palliative care services experienced regarding advance care planning during COVID-19 and changes made to support timely conversations. Design: Online survey of UK palliative/hospice services' response to COVID-19. Closed-ended responses are reported descriptively. Open-ended responses were analysed using a thematic Framework approach using the Social Ecological Model to understand challenges. Respondents: Two hundred and seventy-seven services. Results: More direct advance care planning was provided by 38% of services, and 59% provided more support to others. Some challenges to advance care planning pre-dated the pandemic, whilst others were specific to/exacerbated by COVID-19. Challenges are demonstrated through six themes: complex decision making in the face of a new infectious disease; maintaining a personalised approach; COVID-19-specific communication difficulties; workload and pressure; sharing information; and national context of fear and uncertainty. Two themes demonstrate changes made to support: adapting local processes and adapting local structures. Conclusions: Professionals and healthcare providers need to ensure advance care planning is individualised by tailoring it to the values, priorities, and ethnic/cultural/religious context of each person. Policymakers need to consider how high-quality advance care planning can be resourced as a part of standard healthcare ahead of future pandemic waves. In facilitating this, we provide questions to consider at each level of the Social Ecological Model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]