Currow, David C.

Introduction Many patients experience unrelieved neuropathic cancer-related pain. Most current analgesic therapies have psychoactive side effects, lack efficacy data for this indication and have potential medication-related harms. The local anaesthetic lidocaine (lignocaine) has the potential to help manage neuropathic cancer-related pain when administered as an extended, continuous subcutaneous infusion. Data support lidocaine as a promising, safe agent in this setting, warranting further evaluation in robust, randomised controlled trials. This protocol describes the design of a pilot study to evaluate this intervention and explains the pharmacokinetic, efficacy and adverse effects evidence informing the design. Methods and analysis A mixed-methods pilot study will determine the feasibility of an international first, definitive phase III trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of an extended continuous subcutaneous infusion of lidocaine for neuropathic cancer-related pain. This study will comprise: a phase II double-blind randomised controlled parallel-group pilot of subcutaneous infusion of lidocaine hydrochloride 10% w/v (3000 mg/30 mL) or placebo (sodium chloride 0.9%) over 72 hours for neuropathic cancer-related pain, a pharmacokinetic substudy and a qualitative substudy of patients’ and carers’ experiences. The pilot study will provide important safety data and help inform the methodology of a definitive trial, including testing proposed recruitment strategy, randomisation, outcome measures and patients’ acceptability of the methodology, as well as providing a signal of whether this area should be further investigated. Ethics and dissemination Participant safety is paramount and standardised assessments for adverse effects are built into the trial protocol. Findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences. This study will be considered suitable to progress to a phase III study if there is a completion rate where the CI includes 80% and excludes 60%. The protocol and Patient Information and Consent Form have been approved by Sydney Local Health District (Concord) Human Research Ethics Committee 2019/ETH07984 and University of Technology Sydney ETH17-1820. Trial registration number ANZCTR ACTRN12617000747325.

AbstractContrary to common perception, modern palliative care (PC) is applicable to all people with an incurable disease, not only cancer. PC is appropriate at every stage of disease progression, when PC needs emerge. These needs can be of physical, emotional, social, or spiritual nature. This document encourages the use of validated assessment tools to recognize such needs and ascertain efficacy of management. PC interventions should be provided alongside cardiologic management. Treating breathlessness is more effective, when cardiologic management is supported by PC interventions. Treating other symptoms like pain or depression requires predominantly PC interventions. Advance Care Planning aims to ensure that the future treatment and care the person receives is concordant with their personal values and goals, even after losing decision-making capacity. It should include also disease specific aspects, such as modification of implantable device activity at the end of life. The Whole Person Care concept describes the inseparability of the physical, emotional, and spiritual dimensions of the human being. Addressing psychological and spiritual needs, together with medical treatment, maintains personal integrity and promotes emotional healing. Most PC concerns can be addressed by the usual care team, supported by a PC specialist if needed. During dying, the persons’ needs may change dynamically and intensive PC is often required. Following the death of a person, bereavement services benefit loved ones. The authors conclude that the inclusion of PC within the regular clinical framework for people with heart failure results in a substantial improvement in quality of life as well as comfort and dignity whilst dying.

Abstract Background: Palliative care guidelines recommend plain radiographs to assess constipation based on the presumption that visible fecal shadowing represents stool retention. Despite this, using plain radiographs in this way is not well validated. Objectives: This work's main aim was to compare clinicians' reports of fecal loading on radiographs. This study also compares clinicians' assessments with radio-opaque marker transit studies and patients' self-reported constipation symptoms. Methods: This study was conducted in a sample of 30 constipated palliative care patients taking laxatives who had all undergone colon transit studies and contemporaneous assessment of constipation symptoms with the Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptom (PAC-SYM) questionnaire. Four separate clinicians independently reported their opinions of fecal loading using a previously developed fecal loading scale. Participant details were summarized and pair-wise inter-rater agreement among all four raters were examined using the Bland-Altman approach. For the comparisons of the clinician-assigned fecal loading score between the radiographic assessment of the normal and slow colon transit time, the nonparametric approach of Mann-Whitney U tests were applied. Spearman's correlation analyses were employed to investigate the association between the clinician-assigned fecal loading score and the patient self-reported PAC-SYM score. Results: The results of this study are very similar to other studies conducted in functional constipation, highlighting systematic disagreement between observers. Further poor correlations were noted between fecal loading scores and colon transit times and with patient self-reported symptoms. Conclusion: These results, when considered with other work in chronic constipation, question the ongoing use of radiographs in the diagnosis of constipation.