Considerations in reporting palliative care clinical trials: standardizing information reported and authorship practices

Successful Strategies and Areas of Improvement-Lessons Learned from Design and Conduction of a Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial in Palliative Care, 'Palliative-D'

Clinical trials in palliative care are challenging to design and conduct. Burden on patients should be minimized, while gatekeeping by professionals and next-of kin needs to be avoided. Clinical deterioration due to disease progression affects attrition unrelated to intervention, and different care settings complicate comparisons and reduce the generalizability of the results. The aim of this review is to provide advice for colleagues planning to perform clinical trials in palliative care based on our own experiences from performing the Palliative-D study and by a thorough literature review on this topic. The Palliative-D study was a double-blind trial with 244 randomized patients comparing the effect of vitamin D₃ to placebo in patients with advanced or metastatic cancer in the palliative phase of their disease trajectory who were enrolled in specialized palliative home care teams. Endpoints were opioid and antibiotic use, fatigue, and QoL. Recruitment was successful, but attrition rates were higher than expected, and we did not reach targeted power. For the 150 patients who completed the study, the completeness of the data was exceptionally high. Rather than patient reported pain, we choose the difference in the mean change in opioid dose between groups after twelve weeks compared to baseline as the primary endpoint. In this paper we discuss challenges in palliative care research based on lessons learned from the "Palliative-D" trial regarding successful strategies as well as areas for improvement.

Better Together: The Making and Maturation of the Palliative Care Research Cooperative Group

OBJECTIVE

To describe the growth and outcomes of the Palliative Care Research Cooperative Group (PCRC).

BACKGROUND

Despite advances, significant gaps remain in the evidence base to inform care for people with serious illness. To generate this needed evidence and bolster research capacity, the Palliative Care Research Cooperative (PCRC) group was formed.

METHODS

The PCRC supports investigators in the conduct of multisite clinical studies. After developing a governance structure and completing a proof of concept demonstration study, the PCRC expanded its infrastructure to include additional resource cores (Clinical Studies; Measurement; Data Informatics and Statistics; and Caregiver Studies). The PCRC also supports an Investigator Development Center as many palliative care investigators valued opportunities to advance their skills. Additional key aspects of PCRC resources include a Scientific Review Committee, a Publications Committee, and initiatives to purposefully engage investigators in a community of palliative care science.

RESULTS

The PCRC has grown to over 300 members representing more than 130 distinct sites. To date, the PCRC has supported the submission of 51 research applications and has engaged in 27 studies. The PCRC supports investigator research development needs through webinars and clinical trials "intensives." To foster a sense of community, the PCRC has convened biannual meetings, developed special interest groups, and regularly communicates via a newsletter and its website.

CONCLUSION

With a particular focus on facilitating conduct of rigorous multisite clinical studies, the PCRC fosters an engaged multidisciplinary research community, filling an important void in generating and disseminating evidence that informs the provision of high-quality care to people with serious illness.

Somatostatin Analogues Compared With Placebo and Other Pharmacologic Agents in the Management of Symptoms of Inoperable Malignant Bowel Obstruction: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Somatostatin analogues are commonly used to relieve symptoms in malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) but are more expensive than other antisecretory agents.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the evidence of effectiveness of somatostatin analogues compared with placebo and/or other pharmacologic agents in relieving vomiting in patients with inoperable MBO.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register databases were systematically searched; reference lists of relevant articles were hand searched. Cochrane risk of bias tool was used.

RESULTS

The search identified 420 unique studies. Seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) met the inclusion criteria (six octreotide studies and one lanreotide); 220 people administered somatostatin analogues and 207 placebo or hyoscine butylbromide. Three RCTs compared a somatostatin analogue with placebo and four with hyoscine butylbromide. Two adequately powered multicenter RCTs with a low Cochrane risk of bias reported no significant difference between somatostatin analogues and placebo in their primary end points. Four RCTs with a high/unclear Cochrane risk of bias reported that somatostatin analogues were more effective than hyoscine butylbromide in reducing vomiting.

CONCLUSION

There is low-level evidence of benefit with somatostatin analogues in the symptomatic treatment of MBO. However, high-level evidence from trials with low risk of bias found no benefit of somatostatin analogues for their primary outcome. There is debate regarding the clinically relevant study end point for symptom control in MBO and when it should be measured. The role of somatostatin analogues in this clinical situation requires further adequately powered, well-designed trials with agreed clinically important end points and measures.

An Exploratory Analysis of Levels of Evidence for Articles Published in Indian Journal of Palliative Care in the years 2010-2011

CONTEXT

Indian Journal of Palliative Care (IJPC) provides a comprehensive multidisciplinary evidence base for an evidence-informed clinical decision making.

AIMS

To analyze the levels of evidence of articles published in IJPC in the years 2010-2011.

SETTINGS AND DESIGN

Systematic review of palliative care journals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Systematic review of articles was done and was scored according to Center for Evidence-Based Medicine levels of evidence into any of the five grades. The articles were categorized based upon article type, number of authors, study approach, age focus, population focus, disease focus, goals of care, domains of care, models of care, and year of publication.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED

All descriptive analysis was done using frequencies and percentiles, and association between all categorical variables was done using Chi-square test at 95% confidence interval (CI) using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 16 for Windows (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL).

RESULTS

There was a greater prevalence of low level evidence (level 4: n = 46, 51%; level 5: n = 35, 39%) among the 90 selected articles, and article type (original articles with higher level of evidence, P = 0.000), article approach (analytical studies with higher level of evidence, P = 0.000), domains of palliative care (practice-related studies with higher level of evidence, P = 0.000) and models of care (biological or psychosocial model with higher level of evidence, P = 0.044) had a significant association with the grade of levels of evidence. Association with other factors was not statistically significant (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The levels of research evidence for palliative care provided by articles published in IJPC were predominantly level 4 and level 5, and there is scope for more high quality evidence to inform palliative care decisions in the developing countries.