Quality of end-of-life care with non-malignant liver disease: Analysis of the VOICES National Survey of Bereaved People.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Patients with liver disease struggle to access palliative care. We aimed to compare carers' perceptions of end-of-life care for decedents with non-malignant liver disease, malignant liver disease and other non-malignant diseases, and to identify associated factors in non-malignant liver disease. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of individual-level data from the National Survey of Bereaved People 2011-2015. RESULTS: More decedents with non-malignant liver disease died in hospital than other diseases (76.9% vs. 40.9% vs. 50.2%, p < .001), despite 89% wishing to die at home. Fewer decedents received home/hospice specialist palliative care compared with those with malignant liver disease (10.0% vs. 54.6%, p < .001). Carers of decedents with non-malignant liver disease were less likely to rate overall end-of-life care quality as outstanding/excellent (29.3% vs. 43.9% vs. 42.3%, p < .001). For this group, poorer care was associated with younger (65-74 vs. 18-64 years, OR [odds ratio] 1.39, p = .01), more socially deprived decedents (OR .78, p = .02), and better care with greater social support (OR 1.82, p < .001) and community specialist palliative care involvement (OR 1.80, p < .001). There was no association between outstanding/excellent rating and underlying cause of non-malignant liver disease (alcohol-related vs. non-alcohol-related, p = .92) or place of death (hospital vs. non-hospital, p = .476). CONCLUSIONS: End-of-life care could be improved by integrating hepatology and community services, particularly specialist palliative care, and advance care planning to facilitate care and death (where desired) at home. However, death in hospital may be appropriate for those with non-malignant liver disease.

Duration of palliative care before death in international routine practice: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Early provision of palliative care, at least 3-4 months before death, can improve patient quality of life and reduce burdensome treatments and financial costs. However, there is wide variation in the duration of palliative care received before death reported across the research literature. This study aims to determine the duration of time from initiation of palliative care to death for adults receiving palliative care across the international literature. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis that was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018094718). Six databases were searched for articles published between Jan 1, 2013, and Dec 31, 2018: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Global Health, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library, as well undertaking citation list searches. Following PRISMA guidelines, articles were screened using inclusion (any study design reporting duration from initiation to death in adults palliative care services) and exclusion (paediatric/non-English language studies, trials influencing the timing of palliative care) criteria. Quality appraisal was completed using Hawker's criteria and the main outcome was the duration of palliative care (median/mean days from initiation to death). RESULTS: One hundred sixty-nine studies from 23 countries were included, involving 11,996,479 patients. Prior to death, the median duration from initiation of palliative care to death was 18.9 days (IQR 0.1), weighted by the number of participants. Significant differences between duration were found by disease type (15 days for cancer vs 6 days for non-cancer conditions), service type (19 days for specialist palliative care unit, 20 days for community/home care, and 6 days for general hospital ward) and development index of countries (18.91 days for very high development vs 34 days for all other levels of development). Forty-three per cent of studies were rated as 'good' quality. Limitations include a preponderance of data from high-income countries, with unclear implications for low- and middle-income countries. CONCLUSIONS: Duration of palliative care is much shorter than the 3-4 months of input by a multidisciplinary team necessary in order for the full benefits of palliative care to be realised. Furthermore, the findings highlight inequity in access across patient, service and country characteristics. We welcome more consistent terminology and methodology in the assessment of duration of palliative care from all countries, alongside increased reporting from less-developed settings, to inform benchmarking, service evaluation and quality improvement.

Emerging Role of Palliative Care in Patients with Advanced Liver Disease.

Advanced liver disease is increasing in mortality and morbidity worldwide, as a result of growing alcohol consumption, obesity, and viral hepatitis infection. Alongside efforts to reduce these factors, it is clear that we must identify the considerable palliative care needs of these patients in order to improve quality of life and reduce symptom burden. Our review focuses on the current state of palliative and end-of-life care for patients with advanced liver disease, the significant associated symptom burden in this disease group, identified level of involvement and potential benefits of specialist palliative care, as well as possible barriers to accessing this care. We demonstrate that although palliative care involvement varies considerably worldwide, there is much opportunity for improvement. Further research is needed to determine new interventions and models of care that may improve access for patients with liver disease, including an expansion of providers comfortable with generalist palliative care.

A critical appraisal of gabapentinoids for pain in cancer patients.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Gabapentinoids are frequently used in the management of cancer pain. In recent Cochrane systematic reviews, although there was an abundance of evidence relating to non-cancer pain, only a few studies related to cancer pain. This review summarizes recent randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the use of gabapentinoids for tumour-related (as monotherapy or part of combination therapy) and treatment-related pain. RECENT FINDINGS: For tumour-related pain, ten out of thirteen studies showed statistically significant benefits in favour of gabapentinoids. When used, as part of monotherapy or combination therapy, benefits were observed in five out of six studies evaluating gabapentin, and in six out of eight studies evaluating pregabalin. For treatment-related pain, none of the four studies (two gabapentin, two pregabalin) showed statistically significant benefits in favour of gabapentinoids. Unfortunately, many of the studies included were limited by small sample size, lack of blinding, and inadequate follow-up. SUMMARY: More and better quality studies are required, although it may be challenging to accomplish in this patient population. Gabapentinoids may offer benefits to cancer patients with pain, but careful titration and monitoring of adverse effects is necessary.