Research to date in the palliative care setting has suggested that patients are interested in participating in research and may actually benefit from doing so.

The survey revealed an unwillingness on the part of many HCPs to refer patients for RCTs in PC. It identifies trial-related factors that may encourage or discourage referral. Gatekeeping has the potential block recruitment and introduce a selection bias.

No abstract

SummaryBackgroundThe prevalence of deep venous thrombosis in patients with advanced cancer is unconfirmed and it is unknown whether current international thromboprophylaxis guidance is applicable to this population. We aimed to determine prevalence and predictors of femoral deep vein thrombosis in patients admitted to specialist palliative care units (SPCUs).MethodsWe did this prospective longitudinal observational study in five SPCUs in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland (four hospices and one palliative care unit). Consecutive adults with cancer underwent bilateral femoral vein ultrasonography on admission and weekly until death or discharge for a maximum of 3 weeks. Data were collected on performance status, attributable symptoms, and variables known to be associated with venous thromboembolism. Patients with a short estimated prognosis (<5 days) were ineligible. The primary endpoint of the study was the prevalence of femoral deep vein thrombosis within 48 h of SPCU admission, analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN97567719.FindingsBetween June 20, 2016, and Oct 16, 2017, 343 participants were enrolled (mean age 68·2 years [SD 12·8; range 25–102]; 179 [52%] male; mean Australian-modified Karnofsky performance status 49 [SD 16·6; range 20–90]). Of 273 patients with evaluable scans, 92 (34%, 95% CI 28–40) had femoral deep vein thrombosis. Four participants with a scan showing no deep vein thrombosis on admission developed a deep vein thrombosis on repeat scanning over 21 days. Previous venous thromboembolism (p=0·014), being bedbound in the past 12 weeks for any reason (p=0·003), and lower limb oedema (p=0·009) independently predicted deep vein thrombosis. Serum albumin concentration (p=0·43), thromboprophylaxis (p=0·17), and survival (p=0·45) were unrelated to deep vein thrombosis.InterpretationAbout a third of patients with advanced cancer admitted to SPCUs had a femoral deep vein thrombosis. Deep vein thrombosis was not associated with thromboprophylaxis, survival, or symptoms other than leg oedema. These findings are consistent with venous thromboembolism being a manifestation of advanced disease rather than a cause of premature death. Thromboprophylaxis for SPCU inpatients with poor performance status seems to be of little benefit.FundingNational Institute for Health Research (Research for Patient Benefit programme).

Haloperidol has some efficacy in the treatment of N/V in this patient group. The results from this uncontrolled study provide pilot data from which to plan future controlled trials of antiemetics in the palliative care population.

Patients have many symptoms that are not SR on admission. SQ plays a vital role in the detection of symptoms that may require further assessment or treatment.

Summary Background Additional treatment with catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) has recently been shown to reduce post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS). Objectives To estimate the cost effectiveness of additional CDT compared with standard treatment alone. Methods Using a Markov decision model, we compared the two treatment strategies in patients with a high proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and a low risk of bleeding. The model captured the development of PTS, recurrent venous thromboembolism and treatment-related adverse events within a lifetime horizon and the perspective of a third-party payer. Uncertainty was assessed with one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyzes. Model inputs from the CaVenT study included PTS development, major bleeding from CDT and utilities for post DVT states including PTS. The remaining clinical inputs were obtained from the literature. Costs obtained from the CaVenT study, hospital accounts and the literature are expressed in US dollars ($); effects in quality adjusted life years (QALY). Results In base case analyzes, additional CDT accumulated 32.31 QALYs compared with 31.68 QALYs after standard treatment alone. Direct medical costs were $64 709 for additional CDT and $51 866 for standard treatment. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $20 429/QALY gained. One-way sensitivity analysis showed model sensitivity to the clinical efficacy of both strategies, but the ICER remained < $55 000/QALY over the full range of all parameters. The probability that CDT is cost effective was 82% at a willingness to pay threshold of $50 000/QALY gained. Conclusions Additional CDT is likely to be a cost-effective alternative to the standard treatment for patients with a high proximal DVT and a low risk of bleeding.

Polypharmacy is prevalent among hospice inpatients. Drugs omitted amounted to 8.8%, with the frequency of DO increasing in those who were dying. Documentation justifying DO was lacking. Daily focused drug chart review, pharmacy support, and electronic prescribing may all help to reduce and rationalize medication burden and aid prompt and effective management of DO.