Geriatric Research Policy: Japan Clinical Oncology Group (JCOG) policy

Due to the rapid aging of Japan’s population, clinical research focusing on older patients with cancer is urgently needed. The Japan Clinical Oncology Group (JCOG) has conducted several such clinical trials, but there has been no formal policy for geriatric research. We have therefore established a JCOG policy for geriatric cancer research.

We defined the patient selection policy based on treatment tolerance and chronological age. Older patients are categorized into three conceptual groups: ‘fit patients’ who can undergo the same standard treatment given to younger patients, ‘frail patients’ for whom best supportive or palliative care is indicated and ‘vulnerable patients’ who fall between the fit and frail categories. Unmet needs often exist for vulnerable patients.

The policy recommends that study endpoints include not only survival but also other endpoints such as physical and cognitive function because the objective of therapy in older patients is not only extended life expectancy but also maintenance of the patient’s general condition. In this viewpoint, co-primary or composite endpoints that incorporate geriatric assessment in the study design are often applicable.

Study design will differ depending on the study population, clinical question, and treatment. Even for older patients, a randomized clinical trial is still the gold standard when the clinical question asks which treatment is better. An observational study of a broader population is applicable for investigating actual conditions of older patients.

This JCOG Geriatric Research Policy includes several practical solutions for various issues in geriatric research. We plan to revise this policy periodically to guide future geriatric research.

Interventions to improve the appropriate use of polypharmacy for older people

BACKGROUND

Inappropriate polypharmacy is a particular concern in older people and is associated with negative health outcomes. Choosing the best interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy is a priority, hence interest in appropriate polypharmacy, where many medicines may be used to achieve better clinical outcomes for patients, is growing. This is the second update of this Cochrane Review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine which interventions, alone or in combination, are effective in improving the appropriate use of polypharmacy and reducing medication-related problems in older people.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and two trials registers up until 7 February 2018, together with handsearching of reference lists to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series. Eligible studies described interventions affecting prescribing aimed at improving appropriate polypharmacy in people aged 65 years and older, prescribed polypharmacy (four or more medicines), which used a validated tool to assess prescribing appropriateness. These tools can be classified as either implicit tools (judgement-based/based on expert professional judgement) or explicit tools (criterion-based, comprising lists of drugs to be avoided in older people).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently reviewed abstracts of eligible studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. We pooled study-specific estimates, and used a random-effects model to yield summary estimates of effect and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the overall certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 32 studies, 20 from this update. Included studies consisted of 18 randomised trials, 10 cluster randomised trials (one of which was a stepped-wedge design), two non-randomised trials and two controlled before-after studies. One intervention consisted of computerised decision support (CDS); and 31 were complex, multi-faceted pharmaceutical-care based approaches (i.e. the responsible provision of medicines to improve patient's outcomes), one of which incorporated a CDS component as part of their multi-faceted intervention. Interventions were provided in a variety of settings. Interventions were delivered by healthcare professionals such as general physicians, pharmacists and geriatricians, and all were conducted in high-income countries. Assessments using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, found that there was a high and/or unclear risk of bias across a number of domains. Based on the GRADE approach, the overall certainty of evidence for each pooled outcome ranged from low to very low.It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care improves medication appropriateness (as measured by an implicit tool), mean difference (MD) -4.76, 95% CI -9.20 to -0.33; 5 studies, N = 517; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the number of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.22, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.05; 7 studies; N = 1832; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the proportion of patients with one or more PIMs, (risk ratio (RR) 0.79, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.02; 11 studies; N = 3079; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may slightly reduce the number of potential prescribing omissions (PPOs) (SMD -0.81, 95% CI -0.98 to -0.64; 2 studies; N = 569; low-certainty evidence), however it must be noted that this effect estimate is based on only two studies, which had serious limitations in terms of risk bias. Likewise, it is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the proportion of patients with one or more PPOs (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.85; 5 studies; N = 1310; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may make little or no difference in hospital admissions (data not pooled; 12 studies; N = 4052; low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may make little or no difference in quality of life (data not pooled; 12 studies; N = 3211; low-certainty evidence). Medication-related problems were reported in eight studies (N = 10,087) using different terms (e.g. adverse drug reactions, drug-drug interactions). No consistent intervention effect on medication-related problems was noted across studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is unclear whether interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy, such as reviews of patients' prescriptions, resulted in clinically significant improvement; however, they may be slightly beneficial in terms of reducing potential prescribing omissions (PPOs); but this effect estimate is based on only two studies, which had serious limitations in terms of risk bias.

Treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer in the elderly

INTRODUCTION

Lung cancer is predominantly a disease that affects the elderly; about 30-40% of lung cancers are diagnosed in patients aged 70 or more. The increasing number of elderly patients over the next decades is generating a new social and health problem; despite that, these patients are underrepresented in clinical trials and undertreated in clinical practice. Areas covered: The main difficulty in treating elderly patients is to maximize the therapy benefits while minimizing the treatment risk. Elderly patients show a vulnerable clinical profile due to the higher prevalence of comorbid disease, higher polypharmacy interactions and aged organ dysfunction that increase the risk of mortality and toxicity with cancer treatments compared to younger patients. Expert commentary: The choice to treat or not to treat elderly patients cannot be taken only on the basis of the chronological age. Thus, the clinical approach should be to select patients who are effectively suitable for treatment having a better individual functional reserve and a better life expectancy. Elderly patients are a heterogeneous population and those who are fit to receive cancer treatment can be treated similarly to younger patients.

A Comprehensive Look at Polypharmacy and Medication Screening Tools for the Older Cancer Patient

: Inappropriate medication use and polypharmacy are extremely common among older adults. Numerous studies have discussed the importance of a comprehensive medication assessment in the general geriatric population. However, only a handful of studies have evaluated inappropriate medication use in the geriatric oncology patient. Almost a dozen medication screening tools exist for the older adult. Each available tool has the potential to improve aspects of the care of older cancer patients, but no single tool has been developed for this population. We extensively reviewed the literature (MEDLINE, PubMed) to evaluate and summarize the most relevant medication screening tools for older patients with cancer. Findings of this review support the use of several screening tools concurrently for the elderly patient with cancer. A deprescribing tool should be developed and included in a comprehensive geriatric oncology assessment. Finally, prospective studies are needed to evaluate such a tool to determine its feasibility and impact in older patients with cancer.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The prevalence of polypharmacy increases with advancing age. Older adults are more susceptible to adverse effects of medications. "Prescribing cascades" are common, whereas "deprescribing" remains uncommon; thus, older patients tend to accumulate medications over time. Older patients with cancer are at high risk for adverse drug events, in part because of the complexity and intensity of cancer treatment. Additionally, a cancer diagnosis often alters assessments of life expectancy, clinical status, and competing risk. Screening for polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medications could reduce the risk for adverse drug events, enhance quality of life, and reduce health care spending for older cancer patients.

Geriatric Oncology Program Development and Gero-Oncology Nursing

OBJECTIVES

To provide a critical analysis of current approaches to the care of older adults with cancer, outline priority areas for geriatric oncology program development, and recommend strategies for improvement.

DATA SOURCES

Published articles and reports between 1999 and 2015.

CONCLUSION

Providing an interdisciplinary model that incorporates a holistic geriatric assessment will ensure the delivery of patient-centered care that is responsive to the comprehensive needs of older patients.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

Nursing administrators and leaders have both an opportunity and responsibility to shape the future of geriatric oncology. Preparations include workforce development and the creation of programs that are designed to meet the complex needs of this population.