Holistic multimodal care for patients with cancer cachexia and their family caregivers

Patients with cancer cachexia frequently suffer from physical symptoms and psychological symptoms of illness, which can lead to emotional distress in patients and family caregivers. Although there is no standard care to manage cancer cachexia despite its high prevalence and negative impact on quality of life in patients and family caregivers, there is accumulating evidence showing the importance of holistic multimodal care for cancer cachexia. However, there is no agreement on the essential components of holistic multimodal care. Therefore, the aims of this review are to give an overview of what is known about the holistic multimodal care and to suggest the composition of a multidisciplinary team to achieve holistic interventions. Holistic multimodal care for cancer cachexia is defined as an approach that addresses physical health through medical, pharmacological, nutritional, and rehabilitative interventions as well as psychological, emotional, and social well-being issues according to the needs of patients and family caregivers. Moreover, an ideal multidisciplinary team is proposed to achieve holistic interventions based on patient- and family-centered care. However, the development of educational programs on cancer cachexia for both clinicians and patients and family caregivers is needed. Furthermore, measurements to assess the benefits of holistic multimodal care also need to be established

Development and validation of questionnaires for eating‐related distress among advanced cancer patients and families

Background: Eating‐related distress (ERD) is one type of psychosocial distress among advanced cancer patients and family caregivers. Its alleviation is a key issue in palliative care; however, there is no validated tool for measuring ERD. Methods: The purpose of this study was to validate tools for evaluating ERD among patients and family caregivers. The study consisted of a development and validation/retest phase. In the development phase, we made preliminary questionnaires for patients and family caregivers. After face validity and content validity, we performed an exploratory factor analysis and discussed the final adoption of items. In the validation/retest phase, we examined factor validity with an exploratory factor analysis. We calculated Pearson's correlation coefficients between the questionnaire for patients, the Functional Assessment of Anorexia/Cachexia Therapy Anorexia Cachexia Subscale (FAACT ACS) and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire‐Cachexia 24 (EORTC QLQ‐CAX24) and Pearson's correlation coefficients between the questionnaire for family caregivers and the Caregiver Quality of Life Index‐Cancer (CQOLC) for concurrent validity. We calculated Cronbach's alpha coefficients (Cronbach's alpha) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for internal consistency and test–retest reliability. We performed the Mann–Whitney U test between the questionnaires and cancer cachexia based on criteria from the international consensus for known‐group validity. Results: In the development phase, 162 pairs of patients and family caregivers were asked to participate, and 144 patients and 106 family caregivers responded. In the validation/retest phase, 333 pairs of patients and family caregivers were asked to participate, and 234 patients and 152 family caregivers responded. Overall, 183 patients and 112 family caregivers did the retest. Seven conceptual groups were extracted for the ERD among patients and family caregivers, respectively. Patient factors 1–7 correlated with FAACT ACS (r = −0.63, −0.43, −0.55, −0.40, −0.38, −0.54, −0.38, respectively) and EORTC QLQ‐CAX24 (r = 0.58, 0.40, 0.60, 0.49, 0.38, 0.59, 0.42, respectively). Family factors 1–7 correlated with CQOLC (r = −0.34, −0.30, −0.37, −0.37, −0.46, −0.42, −0.40, respectively). The values of Cronbach's alpha and ICC of each factor and all factors of patients ranged from 0.84 to 0.96 and 0.67 to 0.83, respectively. Those of each factor and all factors of family caregivers ranged from 0.84 to 0.96 and 0.63 to 0.84, respectively. The cachexia group of patients had significantly higher scores than the non‐cachexia group for each factor and all factors. Conclusions: Newly developed tools for measuring ERD experienced by advanced cancer patients and family caregivers have been validated

Malnutrition at Admission Predicts In-Hospital Falls in Hospitalized Older Adults

Malnutrition leads to poor prognoses, including a predisposition to falls. Few studies have investigated the relationship between malnutrition and falls during hospitalization. This study aimed to determine malnutrition’s association with falls during hospitalization. A retrospective observational study was conducted. Patients aged ≥65 years that were admitted to and discharged from a university hospital between April 2018 and March 2019 were examined. Patients with independent basic activities of daily living were included. Diagnosis of malnutrition was based on the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) criteria at admission. Disease information such as the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and reasons for hospitalization were reviewed. Kaplan–Meier curve and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed. Data from 6081 patients (mean age: 74.4 ± 6.1 years; males: 58.1%) were analyzed. The mean CCI was 2.3 ± 2.8 points. Malnutrition was detected in 668 (11.0%) and falls occurred in 55 (0.9%) patients. Malnourished patients experienced a higher fall rate than those without malnutrition (2.4% vs. 0.7%, log-rank test p < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, malnutrition had the highest hazard ratio for falls among covariates (hazard ratio 2.78, 95% confidence interval 1.51–5.00, p = 0.001). In conclusion, malnutrition at the time of admission to hospital predicts in-hospital falls

Factors associated with practice of multimodal care for cancer cachexia among physicians and nurses engaging in cancer care

PURPOSE Multimodal care for cancer cachexia is needed. This study examined factors associated with practicing multimodal cachexia care among physicians and nurses engaging in cancer care. METHODS This was a preplanned secondary analysis of a survey investigating clinicians' perspectives on cancer cachexia. Data of physicians and nurses were used. Data on knowledge, skills, and confidence in multimodal cachexia care were obtained. Nine items on practicing multimodal cachexia care were evaluated. Participants were divided into two groups as practicing multimodal cachexia care (above median value for the nine items) or not. Comparisons were made using the Mann-Whitney U test or chi-square test. Multiple regression analysis was performed to identify the factors of practicing the multimodal care. RESULTS Total of 233 physicians and 245 nurses were included. Significant differences were observed between the groups: female sex (P = .025), palliative care versus oncology specialization (P < .001), the number of clinical guidelines used (P < .001), the number of symptoms used (P = .005), training for cancer cachexia (P = .008), knowledge on cancer cachexia (P < .001), and confidence in cancer cachexia management (P < .001). Palliative care specialization (partial regression coefficient [B] = 0.85; P < .001), the number of clinical guidelines used (B = 0.44; P < .001), knowledge on cancer cachexia (B, 0.94; P < .001), and confidence in cancer cachexia management (B = 1.59; P < .001) were statistically significant in multiple regression analysis. CONCLUSION Specialization in palliative care, specific knowledge, and confidence were associated with the practice of multimodal care for cancer cachexia