Interventions for supporting informal caregivers of patients in the terminal phase of a disease.
Background Constipation is common in palliative care; it can generate considerable suffering due to the unpleasant physical symptoms. In the first Cochrane Review on effectiveness of laxatives for the management of constipation in palliative care patients, published in 2006, no conclusions could be drawn because of the limited number of evaluations. This article describes the first update of this review. Objectives To determine the effectiveness of laxatives or methylnaltrexone for the management of constipation in palliative care patients. Search methods We searched databases including MEDLINE and CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library) in 2005 and in the update to August 2010. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating laxatives for constipation in palliative care patients. In the update we also included RCTs on subcutaneous methylnaltrexone; an opioid-receptor antagonist that is now licensed for the treatment of opioid-induced constipation in palliative care when response to usual laxative therapy is insufficient. Data collection and analysis Two authors assessed trial quality and extracted data. The appropriateness of combining data from the studies depended upon clinical and outcome measure homogeneity. Main results We included seven studies involving 616 participants; all under-reported methodological features. In four studies the laxatives lactulose, senna, co-danthramer, misrakasneham, and magnesium hydroxide with liquid paraffin were evaluated. In three methylnaltrexone. 1 Laxatives or methylnaltrexone for the management of constipation in palliative care patients (Review)
A randomized trial of advance care planning is possible. This study provides new evidence on its acceptability and effectiveness for patients with advanced cancer.
These associations suggest that it may be possible to reduce psychological morbidity and improve physical mobility by increasing patients' acceptance using an ACT-based intervention. Future work is now needed to develop an ACT-based intervention in palliative care rehabilitation and test its acceptability and feasibility.
BackgroundNucleos(t)ide analogs (NUCs) are the standard of care for chronic hepatitis B (CHB). The present analysis aimed to determine the cost effectiveness of NUCs in Chinese healthcare settings.MethodsA Markov model was used to simulate two therapeutic strategies for a hypothetical patient cohort diagnosed with hepatitis B e antigen-positive CHB, unwilling or unable to receive interferon therapy, and about to start treatment with any NUC. The first strategy included NUC monotherapy without sequencing (telbivudine [LDT], entecavir [ETV], tenofovir [TDF], lamivudine [LAM], adefovir dipivoxil [ADV], and combination therapies of either LDT and ADV or LDT and TDF, followed by best supportive care [BSC]). The second strategy included sequential therapies of individual NUCs: LAM → ADV, ADV → LAM, LDT → ADV, and ETV → ADV, followed by BSC. The analysis included two scenarios: with and without costs due to nephrotoxicity. Renal impact was quantified as costs alone, without consideration for quality of life decrements.ResultsWhen renal impact was not considered, without treatment sequencing, LDT was cost effective compared with other NUCs. Amongst the strategies with sequencing, LDT → ADV was cost effective. The results were similar when renal impact was considered. However, LDT strategy demonstrated better cost effectiveness. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, in both scenarios, LDT → ADV sequence was cost effective with 51 % probability even at willingness to pay of $20,000.ConclusionUse of LDT, as compared with other NUCs, is cost effective in CHB treatment in Chinese healthcare settings. Considering the detrimental renal impact, overall costs for all treatment options were increased. However, the increase for LDT was comparatively small.
ObjectivesWe report the use of difference in differences (DiD) methodology to evaluate a complex, system-wide healthcare intervention. We use the worked example of evaluating the Marie Curie Delivering Choice Programme (DCP) for advanced illness in a large urban healthcare economy.MethodsDiD was selected because a randomised controlled trial was not feasible. The method allows for before and after comparison of changes that occur in an intervention site with a matched control site. This enables analysts to control for the effect of the intervention in the absence of a local control. Any policy, seasonal or other confounding effects over the test period are assumed to have occurred in a balanced way at both sites. Data were obtained from primary care trusts. Outcomes were place of death, inpatient admissions, length of stay and costs.ResultsSmall changes were identified between pre- and post-DCP outputs in the intervention site. The proportion of home deaths and median cost increased slightly, while the number of admissions per patient and the average length of stay per admission decreased slightly. None of these changes was statistically significant.ConclusionsEffects estimates were limited by small numbers accessing new services and selection bias in sample population and comparator site. In evaluating the effect of a complex healthcare intervention, the choice of analysis method and output measures is crucial. Alternatives to randomised controlled trials may be required for evaluating large scale complex interventions and the DiD approach is suitable, subject to careful selection of measured outputs and control population.
BACKGROUND: Constipation is common in palliative care; it can generate considerable suffering due to the unpleasant physical symptoms. In the first Cochrane Review on effectiveness of laxatives for the management of constipation in palliative care patients, published in 2006, no conclusions could be drawn because of the limited number of evaluations. This article describes the first update of this review. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of laxatives or methylnaltrexone for the management of constipation in palliative care patients. CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERING STUDIES FOR THIS REVIEW: We searched databases including MEDLINE and CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library) in 2005 and in the update to August 2010. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating laxatives for constipation in palliative care patients. In the update we also included RCTs on subcutaneous methylnaltrexone; an opioidreceptor antagonist that is now licensed for the treatment of opioidinduced constipation in palliative care when response to usual laxative therapy is insufficient. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors assessed trial quality and extracted data. The appropriateness of combining data from the studies depended upon clinical and outcome measure homogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven studies involving 616 participants; all under-reported methodological features. In four studies the laxatives lactulose, senna, co-danthramer, misrakasneham, and magnesium hydroxide with liquid paraffin were evaluated. In three methylnaltrexone. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The 2010 update found evidence on laxatives for management of constipation remains limited due to insufficient RCTs. However, the conclusions of this update have changed since the original review publication in that it now includes evidence on methylnaltrexone. Here it found that subcutaneous methylnaltrexone is effective in inducing laxation in palliative care patients with opioidinduced constipation and where conventional laxatives have failed. However, the safety of this product is not fully evaluated. Large, rigorous, independent trials are needed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.