Symptom Expression in Patients with Advanced Cancer Admitted to an Acute Supportive/Palliative Care Unit With and Without Delirium

Risk factors for delirium in advanced cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To systematically collect published research in order to identify and quantify risk factors for delirium in advanced cancer patients.

METHODS

The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Proquest, CINAHL, Web of Science, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Chinese Wanfang Data, Chinese Periodical Full-text Database (VIP), Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) were systematically searched for cohort or case-control studies reporting individual risk factors for delirium among advanced-stage cancer patients published prior to March 2022. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the methodological quality of included studies. The pooled adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and its 95% confidence interval were calculated using the RevMan 5.4 software package.

RESULTS

A total of 15 studies with data from 3106 advanced cancer patients were included in our analysis. Nine studies were high-quality and six were of moderate quality. Pooled analyses revealed that 11 risk factors were statistically significant. High-intensity risk factors included sleep disturbance, infection, cachexia and the Palliative Prognostic Index; medium-intensity risk factors included male sex, renal failure, dehydration and drowsiness; low-intensity risk factors included age, total bilirubin and opioid use. Antibiotic use was found to have been a protective factor.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified 12 independent risk factors that were significantly associated with delirium in advanced cancer patients and provide an evidence-based foundation to implement appropriate preventive strategies.

Maddalena Opioid Switching Score in patients with cancer pain

ABSTRACT

Evaluation of opioid switching (OS) for cancer pain has not been properly assessed. The aim of this study was to assess an integrated score (Maddalena Opioid Switching Score) as a simple and repeatable tool to evaluate the outcomes of OS, facilitating the interpretation and comparison of studies, and information exchange among researchers. The integrated score took into account pain intensity, intensity of opioid-related symptoms, and cognitive function by using an author's formula. Physical and psychological symptoms were evaluated by the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale and Patient Global Impression (PGI) by the minimal clinically important difference. One hundred six patients were analyzed. Ninety-five patients were switched successfully, and 11 patients underwent a further OS and/or an alternative procedure. The Maddalena Opioid Switching Score significantly decreased after OS and was highly correlated to PGI of improvement ( P < 0.0005). In patients with unsuccessful OS, no significant changes in the Maddalena Opioid Switching Score and PGI were observed. A significant reduction in Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale items intensity was observed after OS. The Maddalena Opioid Switching Score resulted to be a sensitive instrument for measuring the clinical improvement produced by OS.

The Dilemma of Treating Delirium: the Conundrum of Drug Management

OPINION STATEMENT

Delirium is a common medical complication in people living with cancer, particularly with more advanced disease. Delirium is associated with significant symptom burden which causes distress and impacts quality of life. As recommended by international guidelines, a high degree of suspicion is needed to ensure delirium is detected early. Attention to collateral history can provide clues to changes in cognition and attention. Non-pharmacological approaches that can be considered essential elements of care are effective in reducing the risk of delirium. Delirium screening using a validated measure is recommended as even expert clinicians can underdiagnose or miss delirium. The diagnostic assessment requires consideration of the cancer diagnosis and comorbidities, in the context of potential reversibility, goals of care, and patient preferences. The gold standard approach based on expert consensus is to institute management for delirium precipitants supported by non-pharmacological essential care, with the support of an interdisciplinary team. Medication management should be used sparingly and for a limited period of time wherever possible for severe perceptual disturbance or agitation which has not improved with non-pharmacological approaches. Clinicians should be familiar with the registered indication for medications and seek informed consent for off-label use. All interventions put in place to manage delirium need to consider net clinical benefit, including harms such as sedation and loss of capacity for meaningful interaction. Clear communication and explanation are needed regularly, with the person with delirium as far as possible and with surrogate decision makers. Delirium can herald a poor prognosis and this needs to be considered and be discussed as appropriate in shared decision-making. Recall after delirium has resolved is common, and opportunity to talk about this experience and the related distress should be offered during the period after recovery.

Risk factors for delirium in adult patients receiving specialist palliative care: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Delirium is common and distressing for patients receiving palliative care. Interventions targetting modifiable risk factors in other settings have been shown to prevent delirium. Research on delirium risk factors in palliative care can inform context-specific risk-reduction interventions.

AIM

To investigate risk factors for the development of delirium in adult patients receiving specialist palliative care.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42019157168).

DATA SOURCES

CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, MEDLINE and PsycINFO (1980-2021) were searched for studies reporting the association of risk factors with delirium incidence/prevalence for patients receiving specialist palliative care. Study risk of bias and certainty of evidence for each risk factor were assessed.

RESULTS

Of 28 included studies, 16 conducted only univariate analysis, 12 conducted multivariate analysis. The evidence for delirium risk factors was limited with low to very low certainty.

POTENTIALLY MODIFIABLE RISK FACTORS

Opioids and lower performance status were positively associated with delirium, with some evidence also for dehydration, hypoxaemia, sleep disturbance, liver dysfunction and infection. Mixed, or very limited, evidence was found for some factors targetted in multicomponent prevention interventions: sensory impairments, mobility, catheter use, polypharmacy (single study), pain, constipation, nutrition (mixed evidence).

NON-MODIFIABLE RISK FACTORS

Older age, male sex, primary brain cancer or brain metastases and lung cancer were positively associated with delirium.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings may usefully inform interventions to reduce delirium risk but more high quality prospective cohort studies are required to enable greater certainty about associations of different risk factors with delirium during specialist palliative care.

Factors Influencing Pain Expression in Patients with Cancer: An Expert Opinion

Pain is a multidimensional experience that requires an appropriate assessment, and simple numbering may not be enough for the different components that are involved in the clinical expression. In consideration of the subjectivity of the symptom, each assessment should start from the way in which the patients perceive the pain and from how they deal with it. Some factors related to individual patient characteristics may make pain management difficult because of interference with the clinical pain expression. These factors may amplify the reporting of pain. Cognitive disorders and psychological distress seem to strongly influence pain expression and may render the analgesic treatment more difficult. Aberrant behaviors, such as alcoholism, smoking, and opioid misuse, may play a role, although geographic differences were found in terms of prevalence of the phenomenon, especially in some countries. Finally, the assessment of patients' expectation and the meaning of the personal feeling of changes in pain intensity provide new concepts in pain assessment, which may allow better personalization of the analgesic therapy. A modern pain assessment should include a multitude of factors influencing the phenotype of pain.

Association between alcoholism and symptom expression, patient symptom goals, and clinical response in advanced cancer patients

AIM

The aim of this study was to determine the influence of alcoholism on symptom expression, personalized symptom goal (PSG) and patient goal response (PGR), and patient global impression (PGI) in advanced cancer patients.

METHODS

This was a secondary analysis of an international multicenter study. Advanced cancer patients who had a history of alcohol dependence positive, according to CAGE (cut down, annoy, guilt, eye-opener), were selected. Thirty patients (3.45%) were CAGE-positive. This sample was matched with 30 patients with similar characteristics who were CAGE-negative. Patients rated symptom intensity by using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Score (ESAS) at admission (T0) and then after 1 week. For each symptom, patients reported their PSG. After a week of comprehensive palliative care, PSG was measured again (T7), as well as the achievement of PGR, and PGI. Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was calculated by PGI of improvement or deterioration at T7 (bit better or a little worse, respectively).

RESULTS

A significant decrease in intensity was found for most symptoms in both groups. In CAGE-negative and CAGE-positive patients, most patients had a PSG of ≤ 3 for all ESAS items as a target at T0. All PSG targets did not changed significantly after 1 week of palliative care in both groups. Although CAGE-positive basically had unfavorable PGI and PGR, a statistical significance was achieved only for appetite (P = 0.037; ANOVA test). In CAGE-negative patients, Karnofsky was the only factor independently associated with PGI for pain and dyspnea. Factors independently associated with PGI for nausea were symptom intensity at T0 and home situation. In CAGE-positive patients, Karnofsky was independently associated with PGI for pain, nausea, and well-being. Symptom intensity at T0 was independently associated with PGI for weakness.

CONCLUSION

CAGE-positive advanced cancer patients favorably responded to a palliative care intervention. No greater differences have been found in comparison with CAGE-negative patients for PSG, PGR, and PGI, except for appetite. Further studies with large number of patients could confirm some trends observed in this study.