Palliative care

Abstract: Background Patients with metastatic non–small-cell lung cancer have a substantial symptom burden and may receive aggressive care at the end of life. We examined the effect of introducing palliative care early after diagnosis on patient-reported outcomes and end-of-life care among ambulatory patients with newly diagnosed disease. Methods We randomly assigned patients with newly diagnosed metastatic non–small-cell lung cancer to receive either early palliative care integrated with standard oncologic care or standard oncologic care alone. Quality of life and mood were assessed at baseline and at 12 weeks with the use of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Lung (FACT-L) scale and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, respectively. The primary outcome was the change in the quality of life at 12 weeks. Data on end-of-life care were collected from electronic medical records. Results Of the 151 patients who underwent randomization, 27 died by 12 weeks and 107 (86% of the remaining patients) completed assessments. Patients assigned to early palliative care had a better quality of life than did patients assigned to standard care (mean score on the FACT-L scale [in which scores range from 0 to 136, with higher scores indicating better quality of life], 98.0 vs. 91.5; P = 0.03). In addition, fewer patients in the palliative care group than in the standard care group had depressive symptoms (16% vs. 38%, P = 0.01). Despite the fact that fewer patients in the early palliative care group than in the standard care group received aggressive end-of-life care (33% vs. 54%, P = 0.05), median survival was longer among patients receiving early palliative care (11.6 months vs. 8.9 months, P = 0.02). Conclusions Among patients with metastatic non–small-cell lung cancer, early palliative care led to significant improvements in both quality of life and mood. As compared with patients receiving standard care, patients receiving early palliative care had less aggressive care at the end of life but longer survival. (Funded by an American Society of Clinical Oncology Career Development Award and philanthropic gifts; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01038271.)

Abstract: This guideline provides recommendations for primary care clinicians who are prescribing opioids for chronic pain outside of active cancer treatment, palliative care, and end-of-life care. The guideline addresses 1) when to initiate or continue opioids for chronic pain; 2) opioid selection, dosage, duration, follow-up, and discontinuation; and 3) assessing risk and addressing harms of opioid use. CDC developed the guideline using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework, and recommendations are made on the basis of a systematic review of the scientific evidence while considering benefits and harms, values and preferences, and resource allocation. CDC obtained input from experts, stakeholders, the public, peer reviewers, and a federally chartered advisory committee. It is important that patients receive appropriate pain treatment with careful consideration of the benefits and risks of treatment options. This guideline is intended to improve communication between clinicians and patients about the risks and benefits of opioid therapy for chronic pain, improve the safety and effectiveness of pain treatment, and reduce the risks associated with long-term opioid therapy, including opioid use disorder, overdose, and death. CDC has provided a checklist for prescribing opioids for chronic pain (http://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/38025) as well as a website (http://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/prescribingresources.html) with additional tools to guide clinicians in implementing the recommendations.

Abstract: Importance Primary care clinicians find managing chronic pain challenging. Evidence of long-term efficacy of opioids for chronic pain is limited. Opioid use is associated with serious risks, including opioid use disorder and overdose. Objective To provide recommendations about opioid prescribing for primary care clinicians treating adult patients with chronic pain outside of active cancer treatment, palliative care, and end-of-life care. Process The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) updated a 2014 systematic review on effectiveness and risks of opioids and conducted a supplemental review on benefits and harms, values and preferences, and costs. CDC used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to assess evidence type and determine the recommendation category. Evidence Synthesis Evidence consisted of observational studies or randomized clinical trials with notable limitations, characterized as low quality using GRADE methodology. Meta-analysis was not attempted due to the limited number of studies, variability in study designs and clinical heterogeneity, and methodological shortcomings of studies. No study evaluated long-term (≥1 year) benefit of opioids for chronic pain. Opioids were associated with increased risks, including opioid use disorder, overdose, and death, with dose-dependent effects. Recommendations There are 12 recommendations. Of primary importance, nonopioid therapy is preferred for treatment of chronic pain. Opioids should be used only when benefits for pain and function are expected to outweigh risks. Before starting opioids, clinicians should establish treatment goals with patients and consider how opioids will be discontinued if benefits do not outweigh risks. When opioids are used, clinicians should prescribe the lowest effective dosage, carefully reassess benefits and risks when considering increasing dosage to 50 morphine milligram equivalents or more per day, and avoid concurrent opioids and benzodiazepines whenever possible. Clinicians should evaluate benefits and harms of continued opioid therapy with patients every 3 months or more frequently and review prescription drug monitoring program data, when available, for high-risk combinations or dosages. For patients with opioid use disorder, clinicians should offer or arrange evidence-based treatment, such as medication-assisted treatment with buprenorphine or methadone. Conclusions and Relevance The guideline is intended to improve communication about benefits and risks of opioids for chronic pain, improve safety and effectiveness of pain treatment, and reduce risks associated with long-term opioid therapy.

Abstract: background Mitoxantrone-based chemotherapy palliates pain without extending survival in men with progressive androgen-independent prostate cancer. We compared docetaxel plus estramustine with mitoxantrone plus prednisone in men with metastatic, hormoneindependent prostate cancer. methods We randomly assigned 770 men to one of two treatments, each given in 21-day cycles: 280 mg of estramustine three times daily on days 1 through 5, 60 mg of docetaxel per square meter of body-surface area on day 2, and 60 mg of dexamethasone in three divided doses before docetaxel, or 12 mg of mitoxantrone per square meter on day 1 plus 5 mg of prednisone twice daily. The primary end point was overall survival; secondary end points were progression-free survival, objective response rates, and post-treatment declines of at least 50 percent in serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels. results Of 674 eligible patients, 338 were assigned to receive docetaxel and estramustine and 336 to receive mitoxantrone and prednisone. In an intention-to-treat analysis, the median overall survival was longer in the group given docetaxel and estramustine than in the group given mitoxantrone and prednisone (17.5 months vs. 15.6 months, P=0.02 by the log-rank test), and the corresponding hazard ratio for death was 0.80 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.67 to 0.97). The median time to progression was 6.3 months in the group given docetaxel and estramustine and 3.2 months in the group given mitoxantrone and prednisone (P<0.001 by the log-rank test). PSA declines of at least 50 percent occurred in 50 percent and 27 percent of patients, respectively (P<0.001), and objective tumor responses were observed in 17 percent and 11 percent of patients with bidimensionally measurable disease, respectively (P=0.30). Grade 3 or 4 neutropenic fevers (P=0.01), nausea and vomiting (P<0.001), and cardiovascular events (P=0.001) were more common among patients receiving docetaxel and estramustine than among those receiving mitoxantrone and prednisone. Pain relief was similar in both groups. conclusions The improvement in median survival of nearly two months with docetaxel and estramustine, as compared with mitoxantrone and prednisone, provides support for this approach in men with metastatic, androgen-independent prostate cancer.