Why the Philosopher Kings will believe the Noble Lie

One puzzle about the so-called “Noble Lie” is how, if at all, the rulers in the ideal state (so-called “philosopher kings and queens”) could be brought to believe it. In this paper I show that the story that they are to endorse is hard to believe not because it is false but because it conveys a message that is challenging to both aristocratic and democratic ideologies. It is also couched in imagery that will make sense to the philosopher first and above all, particularly once she or he has emerged from the Cave and discovered the truth

Use of a patient-centred educational exchange (PCEE) to improve patient's self-management of medicines after a stroke: a randomised controlled trial study protocol

Introduction: National and international guidelines make recommendations for secondary prevention of stroke including the use of medications. A strategy which engages patients in a conversation to personalise evidence-based educational material (patient-centred educational exchange; PCEE) may empower patients to better manage their medications. Methods and analysis: This protocol outlines a non-blinded randomised controlled trial. Consenting patients admitted with a diagnosis of stroke or transient ischaemic attack will be randomised 1:1 to receive either a PCEE composed of two sessions, one at the bedside before discharge and one by telephone at least 10 days after discharge from hospital in addition to usual care (intervention) or usual care alone (control). The primary aim of this study is to determine whether a PCEE improves adherence to antithrombotic, antihypertensive and lipid-lowering medications prescribed for secondary prevention of stroke over the 3 months after discharge, measured using prescription-refill data. Secondary aims include investigation of the impact of the PCEE on adherence over 12 months using prescription-refill data, self-reported medication taking behaviour, self-reported clinical outcomes (blood pressure, cholesterol, adverse medication events and readmission), quality of life, the cost utility of the intervention and changes in beliefs towards medicines and illness. Ethics and dissemination: Communication of the trial results will provide evidence to aid clinicians in conversations with patients about medication taking behaviour related to stroke prevention. The targeted audiences will be health practitioners and consumers interested in medication taking behaviour in chronic diseases and in particular those interested in secondary prevention of stroke. The trial has ethics approval from Metro South Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/15/QPAH/531) and The University of Queensland Institutional Human Research Ethics (2015001612). Trial registration number: ACTRN12615000888561; Pre-results

An international initiative to create a collaborative for pharmacovigilance in hospice and palliative care clinical practice

Background: Medication registration currently requires evidence of safety and efficacy from adequately powered phase 3 studies. Pharmacovigilance (phase 4 studies, postmarketing data, adverse drug reaction reporting) provide data on more widespread and longer term use. Historically, voluntary reporting systems for pharmacovigilance have had low reporting rates, relying on ad hoc reporting and retrospective chart reviews, or prospective registries have often been limited to specific drugs or clinical conditions. Furthermore, these data are often irrelevant in hospice and palliative care due to the timeliness of which such data become available and the unique characteristics of our population and prescribing: compounding comorbidities, progressive organ failure, accumulation of symptom-specific medications, tendency to attribute toxicity to disease progression, use of old, off-patent medications, and incorporation of evolving evidence. There is a need for prospective, systematic pharmacovigilance in hospice and palliative care. Method: Here we describe an international, Web-based, 128-bit secure initiative to collect pharmacovigilance data documenting net clinical benefit and safety of common medications. The intention is for a diverse and large group of clinical units to record data prospectively on a small deidentified consecutive cohort of patients started on the medication of interest. A new medication would be studied every 3 months. Three key time points (different for each medication) will be assessed for each patient, collecting easily codefiable data at baseline, a point at which clinical benefit should be experienced, and a point at which short- to medium-term toxicities may occur. Toxicities can additionally be recorded at any time they occur. Data collection will take a maximum of 10 minutes per patient. Conclusion: The intention is to create an efficient, relevant system to improve hospice and palliative care with maximally generalizable results

Pharmacovigilance in hospice/palliative care: rapid report of net clinical effect of metoclopramide

Background: Understanding the performance of prescribed medications in day-to-day practice is important to minimize harm, maximize clinical benefits, and, eventually, better target the people who are most likely to benefit, especially in hospice/palliative care where there may be limited time to optimize prescribing. Metoclopramide, a benzamide prokinetic antiemetic, is widely used for a number of indications including nausea, vomiting, hiccups, and reflux. It has recently had a new ‘‘black box’’ warning issued by the Food and Drug Administration in relation to tardive dyskinesia to limit use to 12 weeks. Methods: A consecutive cohort of patients from 12 participating centers in two countries who were having metoclopramide initiated had data collected at three time points—baseline, 2 days (clinical benefit), and day 7 (clinical harm). Additionally, harms could be recorded at any time. Results: Of the 53 people included in the cohort, 23 (43%) reported benefit at 48 hours, but only 18 (34%) of these people were still using it one week after commencing it. For the other 5, the medication was ceased due to harms. The most frequent harms were akathisia (n = 4), headache (n = 4), and abdominal pain (n = 4). Nine people (17%) had no clinical benefit and experienced harms. Conclusion: Overall, one in three people gained net clinical benefit at one week. Limiting effects include sideeffects that need to be sought actively in clinical care

Developing a Proof-of-Concept Selection Test for Entry into Primary Teacher Education Programs

The purpose of this article is to report on the development of a proof-of-concept situational judgment test (SJT) to assist in the selection of candidates for primary teacher education (ITE) programs. Nine development steps involving practising teachers, teacher educators, and applicants to ITE programs were carried out to establish target attributes and to develop content for the test. The results from administering the test to 124 primary ITE candidates showed a near-normal distribution, high levels of reliability, and significant positive correlations with a range of concurrently administered interview scores. We conclude with a description of the necessary next steps needed to implement evidence-supported teacher education selection processes in a range of international settings

Pharmacovigilance in hospice/palliative care: Net effect of haloperidol for delirium

Introduction: Prescribing practice in hospice/palliative care is largely extrapolated from other areas of clinical practice, with few studies of net medication effects (benefits and harms) in hospice/palliative care to guide prescribing decisions. Hospice/palliative care patients differ in multiple ways from better studied participant groups, hence the applicability of studies in other participant groups is uncertain. Haloperidol, a butyrophenone derivative and dopamine antagonist, is commonly prescribed for nausea, vomiting, and delirium in hospice/palliative care. Its frequent use in delirium occurs despite little evidence of the effect of antipsychotics on the untreated course of delirium. The aim of this study was to examine the immediate and short-term clinical benefits and harms of haloperidol for delirium in hospice/palliative care patients. Method: A consecutive cohort of participants from 14 centers across four countries who had haloperidol commenced for delirium were recruited. Data were collected at three time points: baseline, 48 hours (clinical benefits), and day 10 (clinical harms). Investigators were also able to report clinical harms at any time up to 14 days after it was commenced. Results: Of the 119 participants included, the average dose was 2.1 mg per 24 hours; 42 of 106 (35.2%) reported benefit at 48 hours. Harm was reported in 14 of 119 (12%) at 10 days, the most frequent being somnolence (n=11) and urinary retention (n=6). Seven participants had their medication ceased due to harms (2 for somnolence and 2 for rigidity). Approximately half (55/119) were still being treated with haloperidol after 10 days. Conclusion: Overall, 1 in 3 participants gained net clinical benefit at 10 days. © Copyright 2013, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. 2013

Pharmacovigilance in hospice/palliative care: Net effect of haloperidol for delirium

Introduction: Prescribing practice in hospice/palliative care is largely extrapolated from other areas of clinical practice, with few studies of net medication effects (benefits and harms) in hospice/palliative care to guide prescribing decisions. Hospice/palliative care patients differ in multiple ways from better studied participant groups, hence the applicability of studies in other participant groups is uncertain. Haloperidol, a butyrophenone derivative and dopamine antagonist, is commonly prescribed for nausea, vomiting, and delirium in hospice/palliative care. Its frequent use in delirium occurs despite little evidence of the effect of antipsychotics on the untreated course of delirium. The aim of this study was to examine the immediate and short-term clinical benefits and harms of haloperidol for delirium in hospice/palliative care patients. Method: A consecutive cohort of participants from 14 centers across four countries who had haloperidol commenced for delirium were recruited. Data were collected at three time points: baseline, 48 hours (clinical benefits), and day 10 (clinical harms). Investigators were also able to report clinical harms at any time up to 14 days after it was commenced. Results: Of the 119 participants included, the average dose was 2.1 mg per 24 hours; 42 of 106 (35.2%) reported benefit at 48 hours. Harm was reported in 14 of 119 (12%) at 10 days, the most frequent being somnolence (n=11) and urinary retention (n=6). Seven participants had their medication ceased due to harms (2 for somnolence and 2 for rigidity). Approximately half (55/119) were still being treated with haloperidol after 10 days. Conclusion: Overall, 1 in 3 participants gained net clinical benefit at 10 days. © Copyright 2013, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. 2013

Off-label prescribing in palliative care – a cross-sectional national survey of Palliative Medicine doctors

Background: Regulatory bodies including the European Medicines Agency register medications (formulation, route of administration) for specific clinical indications. Once registered, prescription is at clinicians’ discretion. Off-label use is beyond the registered use. While off-label prescribing may, at times, be appropriate, efficacy and toxicity data are often lacking. Aim: The aim of this study was to document off-label use policies (including disclosure and consent) in Australian palliative care units and current practices by palliative care clinicians. Design: A national, cross-sectional survey was conducted online following an invitation letter. The survey asked clinicians their most frequent off-label medication/indication dyads and unit policies. Dyads were classified into unregistered, off-label and on-label, and for the latter, whether medications were nationally subsidised. Setting/participants: All Australian palliative medicine Fellows and advanced trainees. Results: Overall, 105 clinicians responded (53% response rate). The majority did not have policies on off-label medications, and documented consent rarely. In all, 236 medication/indication dyads for 36 medications were noted: 45 dyads (19%) were for two unregistered medications, 118 dyads (50%) were for 26 off-label medications and 73 dyads (31%) were for 12 on-label medications. Conclusions: Off-label prescribing with its clinical, legal and ethical implications is common yet poorly recognised by clinicians. A distinction needs to be made between where quality evidence exists but registration has not been updated by the pharmaceutical sponsor and the evidence has not been generated. Further research is required to quantify any iatrogenic harm from off-label prescribing in palliative care