Search

Purpose: After radiation therapy for painful bone metastases, up to 44% of patients report a pain flare (PF). Our study compared 2 dose schedules of dexamethasone versus placebo to prevent PF.Methods and Materials: This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial allocated patients with painful bone metastases from solid tumors randomly to receive 8 mg dexamethasone before radiation therapy followed by 3 daily doses (group A), 8 mg dexamethasone followed by 3 doses of placebo (group B), or 4 doses of placebo (group C). Patients reported worst pain scores, study medication side effects, and opioid intake before treatment and thereafter daily for 14 days and on day 28. PF was defined as at least a 2-point increase on a 0 to 10 pain scale with no decrease in opioid intake or a 25% or greater increase in opioid intake with no decrease in pain score, followed by a return to baseline or lower. The primary analysis was by intention to treat with patients who had missing data classified as having a PF.Results: From January 2012 to April 2016, 295 patients were randomized. PF incidence was 38% for group A, 27% for group B, and 39% for group C (P = .07). Although patients in group B had the lowest PF incidence, a relatively high percentage did not return to baseline pain levels, indicating pain progression. The mean duration of PF was 2.1 days for group A, 4.5 days for group B, and 3.3 days for group C (P = .0567). Dexamethasone postponed PF occurrence; in group A 52% occurred on days 2 to 5 versus 73% in group B and 99% in group C (P = .02). Patients in group A reported lower mean pain scores on days 2 to 5 than those in group B or C (P < .001). Side effects were similar.Conclusions: There was insufficient evidence that dexamethasone reduced the incidence of radiation-induced PF. However, dexamethasone postponed the occurrence of PF and led to lower mean pain scores on days 2 to 5. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Suboptimal symptom control in patients with life-limiting illnesses is a major issue. A clinical decision support system (CDSS) that combines a patient-reported symptom assessment scale (SAS) and guideline-based individualised recommendations has the potential to improve symptom management. However, lacking end-user acceptance often prevents CDSS use in daily practice.We aimed to evaluate the acceptability and feasibility of a palliative care CDSS according to its targeted end-users., Methods: Six focus groups with different groups of stakeholders were conducted: (1) patient representatives; (2) community nurses; (3) hospital nurses; (4) general practitioners; (5) hospital physicians and (6) palliative care specialists. Audiotapes were transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed., Results: Fifty-one stakeholders (6-12 per focus group) participated. Six themes were discussed: effect, validity, continuity, practical usability, implementation and additional features. All participants expected a CDSS to improve symptom management, for example, by reminding clinicians of blind spots and prompting patient participation. They feared interference with professional autonomy of physicians, doubted the validity of using a patient-reported SAS as CDSS input and thought lacking care continuity would complicate CDSS use. Clinicians needed clear criteria for when to use the CDSS (eg, life-limiting illness, timing in illness trajectory). Participants preferred a patient-coordinated system but were simultaneously concerned patients may be unwilling or unable to fill out an SAS., Conclusions: A palliative care CDSS was considered useful for improving symptom management. To develop a feasible system, barriers for successful implementation must be addressed including concerns about using a patient-reported SAS, lacking care continuity and unclear indications for use., Competing Interests: Competing interests: LvdS, AHdH, AvdH, AKLR and YMvdL report grants from ZonMw (The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development), during the conduct of the study., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)