Search

Abstract Background Advanced cancer patients often experience multiple symptoms at a same time. This might lead to polypharmacy and increase adverse events representing major threats to the quality of health care, especially in palliative care situations. Mirtazapine, an antidepressant agent, has been suggested as a potential relevant drug to alleviate multiple cancer-related symptoms at a same time. Therefore, the present study aims to assess the effectiveness of mirtazapine in alleviating multiple symptoms at a same time in advanced cancer patients suffering from a major depressive episode compared to a group receiving escitalopram, another antidepressant agent. Methods Multicentre, prospective, randomized, controlled trial in 12 palliative care services in France. The study will be based on a mixed-method methodology using parallel groups, of oral mirtazapine compared with oral escitalopram, with a 56 day follow-up. The primary outcome will be an improvement of the Global health Status (issued from the EORTC-QLQ-C30) on day 56. 418 participants will be clinically followed-up on day 7 and 56 and will have a telephonic assessment on days 14 and 28. A sub-sample of participants will be invited to take part in semi-structured qualitative interviews at baseline and day 56. For the qualitative part, purposeful sampling will be used. Discussion This study will provide evidence for the pharmaceutics management of poly-symptomatology in advanced cancer patients. This could lead to important changes in the management of those patients by using a single molecule to alleviate multiple symptoms at a same time, potentially improving medication adherence, symptoms’ control, and reducing the risk of medications adverse events. Trial registration Trial registration: NCT04763135 . Registered 18 March 2021.

Abstract Background Prognostic scales exist to estimate patient survival in advanced cancer. However, there are no studies evaluating their use and practice. The objective of this study was to evaluate in a nationwide study the proportion of oncologists and palliative care physicians who had knowledge of these scales. Methods A descriptive, national, cross‐sectional study was conducted via an online questionnaire to oncologists and palliative care physicians across France. Results Palliative care physicians had better knowledge of the scales than oncologists (42.3% (n = 74) vs. 27.8% (n = 33), p = 0.015). The Palliative Performance Status (PPS) and Pronopall Scale were the best‐known (51.4% (n = 55) and 65.4% (n = 70), respectively) and the most widely used (35% (n = 28) and 60% (n = 48), respectively). Improved training in the use of these scales was requested by 85.4% (n = 251) of participants, while 72.8% (n = 214) reported that they did not use them at all. Limited training and lack of consensus on which scale to use were cited as the main obstacles to use. Conclusion This is the first national study on the use of prognostic scales in advanced cancer. Our findings highlight a need to improve training in these scales and to reach a consensus on scale selection.

Objective: To assess appropriateness of end-of-life treatments provided to actively dying patients attending the emergency department of a primary care hospital. Methods: Retrospective cohort study of patients who died in the emergency department of a French primary care hospital between January 2014 and January 2017. The deceased were identified through the admissions register. Then, electronic medical records were screened for bio-demographic data, data relative to decisions to withhold or withdraw treatments, to diagnosis and to the care provided. Patients were clustered into two categories, actively dying or non-actively dying, using clinical opinion based on their medical records. Appropriateness of care was appraised following French guidelines. Results: One hundred and forty-six deaths were recorded. Actively dying patients mostly suffered from vascular conditions (29.4%). When compared to the overall sample, they were more likely to have decisions to withhold or withdraw treatments (OR = 5.3 [1.56; 20.7], p-value = 0.003), to have strong opioids (OR = 5.32 [2.1; 13.9], p-value