Palliative psychiatry: research, clinical, and educational priorities.

BACKGROUND: Palliative psychiatry has been proposed as a new clinical construct within mental health care and aims to improve quality of life (QoL) for individuals experiencing severe and persistent mental illness (SPMI). To date, explorations of palliative psychiatry have been largely theoretical, and more work is needed to develop its approaches into tangible clinical practice. METHODS: In this paper, we synthesize existing literature with discussions held at a one-day knowledge user meeting titled "A Community of Practice for Palliative Psychiatry" to generate priorities for research, clinical practice, and education that will help advance the development of palliative psychiatry. RESULTS: Palliative psychiatry will benefit from research that is co-produced by people with lived experience (PWLE) of mental illness, that clarifies contested concepts within mental health care and wider medicine, and that adapts existing interventions that have the potential to improve the QoL of individuals experiencing SPMI into the mental health care context. Specific methods and tools might be developed for use in clinical spaces taking a palliative psychiatry approach. More work must be done to understand the populations that might benefit from palliative psychiatry, and to mitigate mental health care providers' (MHCPs') anxieties about using these approaches in their work. As palliative psychiatry is developed, current MHCPs, trainees, individuals experiencing SPMI, and their loved ones will all require education about and orientation to this novel approach within mental health care. CONCLUSIONS: There are several priorities in research, clinical practice, and education that can help advance the development of palliative psychiatry. All future work must be considered through a human rights-based, anti-oppressive lens. Research projects, clinical models, and educational initiatives should all be developed in co-production with PWLE to mitigate the epistemic injustices common in mental health care.

Efficacy of COVID-19 treatments among geriatric patients: a systematic review.

Introduction: A majority of the fatalities due to COVID-19 have been observed in those over the age of 60. There is no approved and universally accepted treatment for geriatric patients. The aim of this review is to assess the current literature on efficacy of COVID-19 treatments in geriatric populations. Methods: A systematic review search was conducted in PubMed, MedRxiv, and JAMA databases with the keywords COVID-19, geriatric, hydroxychloroquine, dexamethasone, budesonide, remdesivir, favipiravir, ritonavir, molnupiravir, tocilizumab, bamlanivimab, baricitinib, sotrovimab, fluvoxamine, convalescent plasma, prone position, or anticoagulation. Articles published from January 2019 to January 2022 with a population greater than or equal to 60 years of age were included. Interventions examined included hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir, favipiravir, dexamethasone, budesonide, tocilizumab, bamlanivimab, baricitinib, sotrovimab, convalescent plasma, prone position, and anticoagulation therapy. Outcome measures included viral load, viral markers, ventilator-free days, or clinical improvement. Results: The search revealed 302 articles, 52 met inclusion criteria. Hydroxychloroquine, dexamethasone, and remdesivir revealed greater side effects or inefficiency in geriatric patients with COVID-19. Favipiravir, bamlanivimab, baricitinib, and supportive therapy showed a decrease in viral load and improvement of clinical symptoms. There is conflicting evidence with tocilizumab, convalescent plasma, and anticoagulant therapy in reducing mortality, ventilator-free days, and clinical improvements. In addition, there was limited evidence and lack of data due to ongoing trials for treatments with sotrovimab and budesonide. Conclusion: No agent is known to be effective for preventing COVID-19 after exposure to the virus. Further research is needed to ensure safety and efficacy of each of the reviewed interventions for older adults.

The Effectiveness of Cannabis and Cannabis Derivatives in Treating Lower Back Pain in the Aged Population: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Cannabis is increasingly used in the management of pain, though minimal research exists to support its use since approval. Reduction in stigma has led to a growing interest in pharmaceutical cannabinoids as a possible treatment for lower back pain (LBP). The objective of this review was to assess the role and efficacy of cannabis and its derivatives in the management of LBP and compile global data related to the role of cannabis in the management of LBP in an aging population. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted using predetermined keywords by 3 independent researchers. Predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, and 23 articles were selected for further analysis. RESULTS: Studies identified both significant and insignificant impacts of cannabis on LBP. Contradicting evidence was noted on the role of cannabis in the management of anxiety and insomnia, 2 common comorbidities with LBP. The existing literature suggests that cannabis may be used in the management of LBP and comorbid symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Further research is needed to consider cannabis as an independent management option. There is a lack of evidence pertaining to the benefits of cannabis in an aged population, and thus, additional research is warranted to support its use in the aged population.

Benzodiazepine Use and Morbidity-Mortality Outcomes in a Geriatric Palliative Care Unit: A Retrospective Review.

INTRODUCTION: Patients often experience delirium at the end of life. Benzodiazepine use may be associated with an increased risk of developing delirium. Alternate medications used in conjunction with benzodiazepines may serve as an independent precipitant of delirium. The aim is to understand the role of benzodiazepines in precipitating delirium and advanced mortality in palliative care population at the end of life. METHODS: A retrospective medical chart review was conducted at a hospice and palliative care inpatient unit between the periods of June 2017-December 2017 and October 2017-November 2018. It included patients in hospice and palliative care inpatient units who received a benzodiazepine and those who did not. Patient characteristics, as well as Palliative Performance Scale score, diagnosis, and occurrence of admission, terminal, and/or recurrent delirium, were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: Use of a benzodiazepine was not significantly associated with overall mortality nor cause-specific death without terminal delirium rate. However, it was significantly associated with higher cause-specific death with terminal delirium rate and a higher recurrent delirium rate. DISCUSSION: This retrospective chart review suggests an association between benzodiazepine use and specific states of delirium and cause-specific death. However, it does not provide strong evidence on the use of this drug, especially at the end of life, as it pertains to the overall mortality rate. Suggested is a contextual approach to the use of benzodiazepines and the need to consider Palliative Performance Scale score and goals of care in the administration of this drug at varying periods during patient length of stay.