Delirium at the end of life Agar, Meera R
Age and ageing,
2020-Apr-27, Letnik:
49, Številka:
3
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
Abstract
Delirium is highly prevalent in people with advanced life limiting illness(es), and current evidence can inform how we provide best delirium care in this setting. Whilst strategies to ...prevent and reverse delirium are the cornerstones of optimal care, the care for delirious patients who are approaching the end of life and their families pose specific challenges particularly if delirium is refractory flagging a grave prognosis. These include addressing additional supportive care needs, clinical decision-making about the degree of investigation and intervention, minimising distress from the symptoms of delirium itself and considering other concurrent problems contributing to agitation. A fine balance is needed to address other symptoms such as pain whilst minimizing psychoactive medication load. There is need for regular and clear information and communication about prognosis and goals of care. Witnessing a delirium episode in a loved one in close proximity to death requires consideration of the needs of the family into bereavement care.
Palliative care is person and family-centred care provided for a person with an active, progressive, advanced disease; who has little or no prospect of cure and who is expected to die, and for whom the primary treatment goal is to optimise quality of life. It is an approach which can be provided regardless of setting and diagnosis, and by both specialist palliative care teams and other health professionals.
Patient-defined factors that are important at the end of life include being physically independent for as long as possible, good symptom control, and spending quality time with friends and family. ...Hospice care adds to the quality of care and these patient-centered priorities for people with cancer and their families in the last weeks and days of life. Evidence from large observational studies demonstrate that hospice care can improve outcomes directly and support better and more appropriate health care use for people in the last stages of cancer.Team-based community hospice care has measurable benefits for patients, their family caregivers, and health services. In addition to improved symptom control for patients and a greater likelihood of time spent at home, caregiver outcomes are better when hospice care is accessed: informational needs are better met, and caregivers have an improved ability to move on with life after the patient's death compared with people who did not have access to these services.Hospice care continues to evolve as its reach expands and the needs of patients continue to broaden. This is reflected in the transition from hospice being based on excellence in nursing to teams with a broad range of health professionals to meet the complex and changing needs of patients and their families. Additional integration of cancer services with hospice care will help to provide more seamless care for patients and supporting family caregivers during their caregiving and after the death of the patient.
Prescribing of antipsychotic medications for patients with delirium remains controversial. Concerns exist that these vulnerable and frail patients may be prescribed antipsychotics inappropriately as ...a substitute for non‐pharmacological approaches when identifiable causes are not found or they challenge ward processes. Moreover, recent evidence suggests that antipsychotics may cause more harm than good in the palliative care patient group with delirium. On the other hand, guidelines in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands support prescribing of antipsychotics in certain circumstances, and a large European survey has revealed that antipsychotics tend to be prescribed first line for hyperactive delirium. Never before, therefore, is there a greater need to examine whether indeed these medications are clinically useful for the treatment of delirium. With this in mind, evidence‐based arguments for and against prescribing antipsychotics for the treatment of delirium are presented in this debate article. The paper concludes with a moderation piece to help guide clinical practice.
IMPORTANCE: Antipsychotics are widely used for distressing symptoms of delirium, but efficacy has not been established in placebo-controlled trials in palliative care. OBJECTIVE: To determine ...efficacy of risperidone or haloperidol relative to placebo in relieving target symptoms of delirium associated with distress among patients receiving palliative care. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A double-blind, parallel-arm, dose-titrated randomized clinical trial was conducted at 11 Australian inpatient hospice or hospital palliative care services between August 13, 2008, and April 2, 2014, among participants with life-limiting illness, delirium, and a delirium symptoms score (sum of Nursing Delirium Screening Scale behavioral, communication, and perceptual items) of 1 or more. INTERVENTIONS: Age-adjusted titrated doses of oral risperidone, haloperidol, or placebo solution were administered every 12 hours for 72 hours, based on symptoms of delirium. Patients also received supportive care, individualized treatment of delirium precipitants, and subcutaneous midazolam hydrochloride as required for severe distress or safety. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: Improvement in mean group difference of delirium symptom score (severity range, 0-6) between baseline and day 3. Five a priori secondary outcomes: delirium severity, midazolam use, extrapyramidal effects, sedation, and survival. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-seven participants (mean SD age, 74.9 9.8 years; 85 women 34.4%; 218 with cancer 88.3%) were included in intention-to-treat analysis (82 receiving risperidone, 81 receiving haloperidol, and 84 receiving placebo). In the primary intention-to-treat analysis, participants in the risperidone arm had delirium symptom scores that were significantly higher than those among participants in the placebo arm (on average 0.48 Units higher; 95% CI, 0.09-0.86; P = .02) at study end. Similarly, for those in the haloperidol arm, delirium symptom scores were on average 0.24 Units higher (95% CI, 0.06-0.42; P = .009) than in the placebo arm. Compared with placebo, patients in both active arms had more extrapyramidal effects (risperidone, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.09-1.37; P = .03; and haloperidol, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.17-1.41; P = .01). Participants in the placebo group had better overall survival than those receiving haloperidol (hazard ratio, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.20-2.50; P = .003), but this was not significant for placebo vs risperidone (hazard ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.91-1.84; P = .14). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In patients receiving palliative care, individualized management of delirium precipitants and supportive strategies result in lower scores and shorter duration of target distressing delirium symptoms than when risperidone or haloperidol are added. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12607000562471.
ObjectivesTo estimate the economic impact of delirium in the Australian population in 2016–2017, including financial costs, and its burden on health.Design, setting and participantsA cost of illness ...study was conducted for the Australian population in the 2016–2017 financial year. The prevalence of delirium in 2016–2017 was calculated to inform cost estimations. The costs estimated in this study also include dementia attributable to delirium.Main outcome measuresThe total and per capita costs were analysed for three categories: health systems costs, other financial costs including productivity losses and informal care and cost associated with loss of well-being (burden of disease). Costs were expressed in 2016–2017 pound sterling (£) and Australian dollars ($A).ResultsThere were an estimated 132 595 occurrences of delirium in 2016–2017, and more than 900 deaths were attributed to delirium in 2016–2017. Delirium causes an estimated 10.6% of dementia in Australia. The total costs of delirium in Australia were estimated to be £4.3 billion ($A8.8 billion) in 2016–2017, ranging between £2.6 billion ($A5.3 billion) and £5.9 billion ($A12.1 billion). The total estimated costs comprised financial costs of £1.7 billion and the value of healthy life lost of £2.5 billion. Dementia attributable to delirium accounted for £2.2 billion of the total cost of delirium.ConclusionsThese findings highlight the substantial burden that delirium imposes on Australian society—both in terms of financial costs associated with health system expenditure and the increased need for residential aged care due to the functional and cognitive decline associated with delirium and dementia. To reduce the substantial well-being costs of delirium, further research should seek to better understand the potential pathways from an episode of delirium to subsequent mortality and reduced cognitive functioning outcomes.
This multi-site, double blind, parallel arm, fixed dose, randomised placebo controlled phase III study compared megestrol acetate 480 mg/day with dexamethasone 4 mg/day for their net effects on ...appetite in people with cancer anorexia. Patients with advanced cancer and anorexia for ≥ 2 weeks with a score ≤ 4 (0-10 numeric rating scale (NRS) 0 = no appetite, 10 = best possible appetite) were recruited. Participants received megestrol 480 mg or dexamethasone 4 mg or placebo daily for up to 4 weeks. Primary outcomes were at day 7. Responders were defined as having a ≥ 25% improvement in NRS over baseline. There were 190 people randomised (megestrol acetate n = 61; dexamethasone n = 67, placebo n = 62). At week 1 (primary endpoint), 79·3% in the megestrol group, 65·5% in the dexamethasone group and 58·5% in the placebo group (p = 0.067) were responders. No differences in performance status or quality of life were reported. Treatment emergent adverse events were frequent (90·4% of participants), and included altered mood and insomnia. Hyperglycemia and deep vein thromboses were more frequent when on dexamethasone than the other two arms. There was no difference in groups between the three arms, with no benefit seen over placebo with anorexia improving in all arms.Trail registration: The trial was registered on 19/08/2008 with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12608000405314).
The routine measurement of patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical care using electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) is gaining momentum worldwide. However, a deep understanding ...of the mechanisms underpinning ePROM interventions that could inform their optimal design to improve health outcomes is needed.
This study aims to identify the implicit mechanisms that underpin the effectiveness of ePROM interventions and develop program theories about how and when ePROM interventions improve health outcomes.
A realist synthesis of the literature about ePROM interventions in cancer clinical care was performed. A conceptual framework of ePROM interventions was constructed to define the scope of the review and frame the initial program theories. Literature searches of Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Scopus, and CINAHL, supplemented by citation tracking, were performed to identify relevant literature to develop, refine, and test program theories. Quality appraisal of relevant studies was performed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.
Overall, 61 studies were included in the realist synthesis: 15 (25%) mixed methods studies, 9 (15%) qualitative studies, 13 (21%) descriptive studies, 21 (34%) randomized controlled trials, and 3 (5%) quasi-experimental studies. In total, 3 initial program theories were developed regarding the salient components of ePROM interventions-remote self-reporting, real-time feedback to clinicians, and clinician-patient telecommunication. The refined theories posit that remote self-reporting enables patients to recognize and report symptoms accurately and empowers them to communicate these to clinicians, real-time feedback prompts clinicians to manage symptoms proactively, and clinician-patient telephone interactions and e-interactions between clinic encounters improve symptom management by reshaping how clinicians and patients communicate. However, the intervention may not achieve the intended benefit if ePROMs become a reminder to patients of their illness and are not meaningful to them and when real-time feedback to clinicians lacks relevance and increases the workload.
The key to improving health outcomes through ePROM interventions is enabling better symptom reporting and communication through remote symptom self-reporting, promoting proactive management of symptoms through real-time clinician feedback, and facilitating clinician-patient interactions. Patient engagement with self-reporting and clinician engagement in responding to feedback are vital and may reinforce each other in improving outcomes. Effective ePROM interventions might fundamentally alter how clinicians and patients interact between clinic encounters.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Examining and addressing unmet care needs is integral to improving the provision and quality of cancer services. This review explored the prevalence of unmet supportive care needs, and factors ...associated with unmet need, in adults with advanced cancers (solid and hematological malignancies) and their caregivers. Electronic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE) were searched, producing 85 papers representing 81 included studies. People with advanced cancer reported the highest unmet needs in financial, health system and information, psychological, and physical and daily living domains, whereas caregivers reported the highest unmet needs in psychological, and patient care and support domains. Distress, depression, and anxiety were associated with higher unmet needs across all unmet need domains for people with advanced cancer and their caregivers. Substantial heterogeneity in study populations and methods was observed. Findings from this review can inform targeted strategies and interventions to address these unmet needs in people with advanced cancer.
Display omitted
•Distress, depression, and anxiety are associated with unmet needs across domains.•Patients and carers share high unmet psychological needs as most prevalent.•Patients report unmet informational, financial, physical needs as most prevalent.•Carers report high unmet care and support needs of patients as most prevalent.•There was substantial heterogeneity, warranting further research with validated tools.
Older adults with cancer are at risk of overtreatment or undertreatment when decision-making is based solely on chronological age. Although a geriatric assessment is recommended to inform care, the ...time and expertise required limit its feasibility for all patients. Screening tools offer the potential to identify those who will benefit most from a geriatric assessment. Consensus about the optimal tool to use is lacking.
To appraise the evidence on screening tools used for older adults with cancer and identify an optimal screening tool for older adults with cancer who may benefit from geriatric assessment.
Systematic review of 4 databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and PubMed) with narrative synthesis from January 1, 2000, to March 14, 2019. Studies reporting on the diagnostic accuracy and use of validated screening tools to identify older adults with cancer who need a geriatric assessment were eligible for inclusion. Data were analyzed from March 14, 2019, to March 23, 2020.
Seventeen unique studies were included, reporting on the use of 12 screening tools. Most studies were prospective cohort studies (n = 11) with only 1 randomized clinical trial. Not all studies reported time taken to administer the screening tools. The Geriatric-8 (G8) (n = 12) and the Vulnerable Elders Survey-13 (VES-13) (n = 9) were the most frequently evaluated screening tools. The G8 scored better in sensitivity and the VES-13 in specificity. Other screening tools evaluated include the Groningen Frailty Index, abbreviated comprehensive geriatric assessment, and Physical Performance Test in 2 studies each. All other screening tools were evaluated in 1 study each.
To date, the G8 and VES-13 have the most evidence to recommend their use to inform the need for geriatric assessment. When choosing a screening tool, clinicians will need to weigh the tradeoffs between sensitivity and specificity. Future research needs to further validate or improve current screening tools and explore other factors that can influence their use, such as ease of use and resourcing.
PDF
