Search

PURPOSE To perform a mixed methods review to evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of models for integrating palliative care into ambulatory care for US adults with noncancer serious chronic illness. METHODS We searched 3 electronic databases from January 2000 to May 2020 and included qualitative, mixed methods studies and randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials. For each study, 2 reviewers abstracted data and independently assessed for quality. We conducted meta-analyses as appropriate and graded strength of evidence (SOE) for quantitative outcomes. RESULTS Quantitative analysis included 14 studies of 2,934 patients. Compared to usual care, models evaluated were not more effective for improving patient health-related quality of life (HRQOL) (standardized mean difference [SMD] of 4 of 8 studies, 0.19; 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.41) (SOE: moderate) or for patient depressive symptom scores (SMD of 3 of 9 studies, -0.09; 95% CI, -0.35 to 0.15) (SOE: moderate). Models might have little to no effect on patient satisfaction (SOE: low) but were more effective for increasing advance directive (AD) documentation (relative risk, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.35 to 1.94) (SOE: moderate). Qualitative analysis included 5 studies of 145 patients. Patient preferences for appropriate timing of palliative care varied; costs, additional visits, and travel were considered barriers to implementation. CONCLUSION Models might have little to no effect on decreasing overall symptom burden and were not more effective than usual care for improving HRQOL or depressive symptom scores but were more effective for increasing AD documentation. Additional research should focus on identifying and addressing characteristics and implementation factors critical to integrating models to improve ambulatory, patient-centered outcomes. Key words: palliative care; ambulatory care; mixed methods review; meta-analysis, INTRODUCTION In the United States, most care for adults with noncancer serious chronic illness occurs in ambulatory settings, particularly in clinicians' offices. Populations with serious chronic illness and conditions include, [...]

Objective: Opioid stewardship interventions promote appropriate use of opioids. We synthesized evidence from recent studies on the effectiveness of opioid stewardship interventions in United States healthcare settings on opioid prescribing and clinical outcomes. Methods: We followed the Evidence-based Practice Center Program's rapid review processes. We searched PubMed and Cochrane for original studies meeting specified inclusion criteria from January 2016 (correlating with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Pain Guidelines) to April 2023, supplemented by gray literature searches. Findings: Our search identified 13 randomized controlled trials and 6 nonrandomized studies. Randomized controlled trials addressed interventions involving multiple components (typically combining prescriber education, care management, and facilitated access to resources), clinical decision support (CDS) or electronic health records (EHR), and patient education and engagement, mainly in ambulatory chronic pain. Multicomponent interventions and opioid stewardship practices involving CDS or EHR were associated with decreased opioid prescribing or reduced doses and no increases in pain, emergency department visits, or hospitalizations (low strength of evidence for all outcomes). Patient engagement and education interventions had mixed results for opioid prescribing outcomes (insufficient strength of evidence) and no increases in pain, emergency department visits, or hospitalizations (low strength of evidence). Conclusions: Selected opioid stewardship interventions may be effective for reducing opioid prescribing without adversely affecting clinical outcomes. Interventions to reduce opioid prescribing should monitor unintended consequences and include access to nonpharmacological pain management resources with patient education and engagement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An editorial is presented on the peer review process for various types of articles, including case reports, systematic reviews, narrative reviews and opinion pieces. It emphasizes the importance of evaluating the uniqueness and relevance of the submitted articles, checking for comprehensive literature searches, assessing the quality of evidence and ensuring clarity and professionalism in opinion pieces.

Two statements from national organizations outline recommended minimum effective doses of gabapentin and pregabalin for the treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN). However, studies of real-world gabapentinoid dosing demonstrate that the recommended dose targets are frequently not met and do not consider renal insufficiency. This study aimed to characterize gabapentinoid prescribing patterns in patients receiving primary care at two internal medicine clinics within an academic medical center. This retrospective chart review included adult outpatients who were newly initiated on gabapentin or pregabalin between October 1, 2017 and October 1, 2020 and reviewed for 12 months. A total of 1,221 patients were included in the study with 1,079 (88.4%) prescribed gabapentin and 142 (11.6%) prescribed pregabalin. Only 22.4% of patients prescribed gabapentin and 33.3% of patients prescribed pregabalin with adequate renal function met the minimum effective dosing of gabapentin 1800 mg per day and pregabalin 300 mg per day provided by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and American Academy of Neurology (AAN). This study supports the need for optimization of gabapentinoid dosing to ensure an adequate trial at the minimum effective dose is completed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Despite increasing use of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) for adults with sickle cell disease (SCD), little is known about pain management experiences throughout this process. The objective of this study was to explore patients' experiences with pain and pain management during and after HSCT for SCD. Methods We conducted a qualitative interview study with 10 patients who underwent HSCT for SCD. We transcribed interviews verbatim and inductively identified codes. We used thematic analysis alongside a constant comparative method to develop and refine a codebook that aided in the identification of themes. Results Four key themes emerged. (1) The pain trajectory : patients described a fluctuating course of pain during HSCT, which often extended long afterwards and impacted all aspects of life, particularly affected by pre-HSCT experiences; (2) The role of opioids—a double-edged sword : patients described opioids as reducing pain but insufficiently to balance significant adverse effects and burden; (3) Patient-centered decision making in pain management : patients described insufficient agency in decisions about opioid use and weaning; and (4) Consequences of health-related stigma : patients described experiences with stigma, mainly related to opioid use and weaning, as similar to pre-HSCT. Conclusions From the perspective of patients who have undergone HSCT for SCD, clinicians should use a patient-centered approach, integrating non-opioid approaches into pain management, particularly psychosocial support. As transplant for SCD becomes increasingly available, incorporating patient perspectives may improve health care delivery and overall patient experiences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose Patients with head and neck cancer are at risk for disease- and treatment-related toxicities that may be severe enough to require hospitalization. The risk factors associated with hospitalization in these patients are not well defined. Methods We conducted a single-center, retrospective observational study of patients with head and neck cancer receiving chemotherapy at an academic medical center infusion clinic in a one-year period. The primary objective was to characterize the head and neck cancer population at an academic medical center. Secondary objectives included describing the clinical and social factors associated with hospitalization. Results There were 109 patients with head and neck cancer included in the analysis. Of these patients, 38 (35%) were hospitalized. The factors that were significantly associated with hospitalization on univariable logistic regression were former alcohol abuse, being on a nonstandard of care chemotherapy regimen, and having a chemotherapy agent discontinued. On multivariable logistic regression, the factor that was significantly associated with hospitalization was having a chemotherapy agent discontinued. The most common reasons for hospitalization included shortness of breath/respiratory failure, fever/neutropenic fever, and infection. The most common new supportive care medications prescribed at discharge were stool softeners or laxatives and opioids. Conclusion This study identified several factors which may be useful to identify patients as high risk for hospitalization and the next steps will be to determine and study the role of the pharmacist in preventing hospitalization of these patients. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of adding a pharmacist to the head and neck cancer multidisciplinary team. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To systematically assess benefits and harm of non-pharmacologic interventions for diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) symptoms.Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from 1966 to May 24, 2016 for randomized controlled trials. Two reviewers evaluated studies for eligibility, serially abstracted data, evaluated risk of bias, and graded strength of evidence (SOE) for critical outcomes (pain and quality-of-life).Results: Twenty-three trials were included. For pain, alpha-lipoic acid was more effective than placebo (moderate SOE) and frequency-modulated electromagnetic stimulation was more effective than sham (low SOE) in the short-term but not the long-term. Electrical stimulation (including transcutaneous) was not effective for pain (low SOE). Spinal cord stimulation was more effective than usual care for pain (low SOE), but had serious complications, and studies had no sham arm. Evidence for cognitive behavioral therapy and acupuncture was insufficient; no exercise or physical therapy trials met inclusion criteria. No interventions reported sufficient evidence on quality-of-life. Most studies were short-term with unclear risk of bias.Conclusions: Alpha-lipoic acid and spinal cord stimulation were effective for pain; studies were short-term with quality deficits. Spinal cord stimulation had serious adverse events. Further research should address long-term outcomes and other non-pharmacologic treatments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]