Palliative care interventions in advanced dementia

BACKGROUND: Dementia is a chronic, progressive and ultimately fatal neurodegenerative disease. Advanced dementia is characterised by profound cognitive impairment, inability to communicate verbally and complete functional dependence. Usual care of people with advanced dementia is not underpinned universally by a palliative approach. Palliative care has focused traditionally on care of people with cancer, but for more than a decade, there have been calls worldwide to extend palliative care services to include all people with life-limiting illnesses in need of specialist care, including people with dementia. This review is an updated version of a review first published in 2016. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of palliative care interventions in advanced dementia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialised Register on 7 October 2020. ALOIS contains records of clinical trials identified from monthly searches of several major healthcare databases, trial registries and grey literature sources. We ran additional searches across MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), four other databases and two trial registries on 7 October 2020 to ensure that the searches were as comprehensive and as up-to-date as possible. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomised (RCTs) and non-randomised controlled trials (nRCTs), controlled before-and-after studies and interrupted time series studies evaluating the impact of palliative care interventions for adults with advanced dementia of any type. Participants could be people with advanced dementia, their family members, clinicians or paid care staff. We included clinical interventions and non-clinical interventions. Comparators were usual care or another palliative care intervention. We did not exclude studies based on outcomes measured. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors (SW, EM, PC) independently assessed all potential studies identified in the search against the review inclusion criteria. Two authors independently extracted data from eligible studies. Where appropriate, we estimated pooled treatment effects in a fixed-effect meta-analysis. We assessed the risk of bias of included studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the overall certainty of the evidence for each outcome using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: Nine studies (2122 participants) met the review inclusion criteria. Two studies were individually-randomised RCTs, six were cluster-randomised RCTs and one was a controlled before-and-after study. We conducted two separate comparisons: organisation and delivery of care interventions versus usual care (six studies, 1162 participants) and advance care planning interventions versus usual care (three studies, 960 participants). Two studies were carried out in acute hospitals and seven in nursing homes or long-term care facilities. For both comparisons, we found the included studies to be sufficiently similar to conduct meta-analyses. Changes to the organisation and delivery of care for people with advanced dementia may increase comfort in dying (MD 1.49, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.64; 5 studies, 335 participants; very low certainty evidence). However, the evidence is very uncertain and unlikely to be clinically significant. These changes may also increase the likelihood of having a palliative care plan in place (RR 5.84, 95% CI 1.37 to 25.02; 1 study, 99 participants; I2 = 0%; very low certainty evidence), but again the evidence is very uncertain. Such interventions probably have little effect on the use of non-palliative interventions (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.72; 2 studies, 292 participants; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). They may also have little or no effect on documentation of advance directives (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.50 to 4.25; 2 studies, 112 participants; I2 = 52%; very low certainty evidence), or whether discussions take place about advance care planning (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.18; 1 study, 193 participants; I2 = 0%; very low certainty evidence) and goals of care (RR 2.36, 95% CI 1.00 to 5.54; 1 study, 13 participants; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence). No included studies assessed adverse effects. Advance care planning interventions for people with advanced dementia probably increase the documentation of advance directives (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.41; 2 studies, 384; moderate certainty evidence) and the number of discussions about goals of care (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.59; 2 studies, 384 participants; moderate certainty evidence). They may also slightly increase concordance with goals of care (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.79; 1 study, 63 participants; low certainty evidence). On the other hand, they may have little or no effect on perceived symptom management (MD -1.80, 95% CI -6.49 to 2.89; 1 study, 67 participants; very low certainty evidence) or whether advance care planning discussions occur (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.24; 1 study, 67 participants; low certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence on palliative care interventions in advanced dementia is limited in quantity and certainty. When compared to usual care, changes to the organisation and delivery of care for people with advanced dementia may lead to improvements in comfort in dying, but the evidence for this was of very low certainty. Advance care planning interventions, compared to usual care, probably increase the documentation of advance directives and the occurrence of discussions about goals of care, and may also increase concordance with goals of care. We did not detect other effects. The uncertainty in the evidence across all outcomes in both comparisons is mainly driven by imprecision of effect estimates and risk of bias in the included studies

Factors that impact on recruitment to randomised trials in health care: a qualitative evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND: Randomised trials (also referred to as 'randomised controlled trials' or 'trials') are the optimal way to minimise bias in evaluating the effects of competing treatments, therapies and innovations in health care. It is important to achieve the required sample size for a trial, otherwise trialists may not be able to draw conclusive results leading to research waste and raising ethical questions about trial participation. The reasons why potential participants may accept or decline participation are multifaceted. Yet, the evidence of effectiveness of interventions to improve recruitment to trials is not substantial and fails to recognise these individual decision-making processes. It is important to synthesise the experiences and perceptions of those invited to participate in randomised trials to better inform recruitment strategies. OBJECTIVES: To explore potential trial participants' views and experiences of the recruitment process for participation. The specific objectives are to describe potential participants' perceptions and experiences of accepting or declining to participate in trials, to explore barriers and facilitators to trial participation, and to explore to what extent barriers and facilitators identified are addressed by strategies to improve recruitment evaluated in previous reviews of the effects of interventions including a Cochrane Methodology Review. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Epistemonikos, LILACS, PsycINFO, ORRCA, and grey literature sources. We ran the most recent set of searches for which the results were incorporated into the review in July 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included qualitative and mixed-methods studies (with an identifiable qualitative component) that explored potential trial participants' experiences and perceptions of being invited to participate in a trial. We excluded studies that focused only on recruiters' perspectives, and trials solely involving children under 18 years, or adults who were assessed as having impaired mental capacity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Five review authors independently assessed the titles, abstracts and full texts identified by the search. We used the CART (completeness, accuracy, relevance, timeliness) criteria to exclude studies that had limited focus on the phenomenon of interest. We used QSR NVivo to extract and manage the data. We assessed methodological limitations using the Critical Skills Appraisal Programme (CASP) tool. We used thematic synthesis to analyse and synthesise the evidence. This provided analytical themes and a conceptual model. We used the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach to assess our confidence in each finding. Our findings were integrated with two previous intervention effectiveness reviews by juxtaposing the quantitative and qualitative findings in a matrix. MAIN RESULTS: We included 29 studies (published in 30 papers) in our synthesis. Twenty-two key findings were produced under three broad themes (with six subthemes) to capture the experience of being invited to participate in a trial and making the decision whether to participate. Most of these findings had moderate to high confidence. We identified factors from the trial itself that influenced participation. These included how trial information was communicated, and elements of the trial such as the time commitment that might be considered burdensome. The second theme related to personal factors such as how other people can influence the individual's decision; and how a personal understanding of potential harms and benefits could impact on the decision. Finally, the potential benefits of participation were found to be key to the decision to participate, namely personal benefits such as access to new treatments, but also the chance to make a difference and help others. The conceptual model we developed presents the decision-making process as a gauge and the factors that influence whether the person will, or will not, take part. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This qualitative evidence synthesis has provided comprehensive insight into the complexity of factors that influence a person's decision whether to participate in a trial. We developed key questions that trialists can ask when developing their recruitment strategy. In addition, our conceptual model emphasises the need for participant-centred approaches to recruitment. We demonstrated moderate to high level confidence in our findings, which in some way can be attributed to the large volume of highly relevant studies in this field. We recommend that these insights be used to direct or influence or underpin future recruitment strategies that are developed in a participant-driven way that ultimately improves trial conduct and reduces research waste

What are the most important unanswered research questions in trial retention? A James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership: the PRioRiTy II (Prioritising Retention in Randomised Trials) study

Background One of the top three research priorities for the UK clinical trial community is to address the gap in evidence-based approaches to improving participant retention in randomised trials. Despite this, there is little evidence supporting methods to improve retention. This paper reports the PRioRiTy II project, a Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) that identified and prioritised unanswered questions and uncertainties around trial retention in collaboration with key stakeholders. Methods This PSP was conducted in collaboration with the James Lind Alliance, a non-profit making initiative, to support key stakeholders (researchers, patients, and the public) in jointly identifying and agreeing on priority research questions. There were three stages. (1) First an initial online survey was conducted consisting of six open-ended questions about retention in randomised trials. Responses were coded into thematic groups to create a longlist of questions. The longlist of questions was checked against existing evidence to ensure that they had not been answered by existing research. (2) An interim stage involved a further online survey where stakeholders were asked to select questions of key importance from the longlist. (3) A face-to-face consensus meeting was held, where key stakeholder representatives agreed on an ordered list of 21 unanswered research questions for methods of improving retention in randomised trials. Results A total of 456 respondents yielded 2431 answers to six open-ended questions, from which 372 questions specifically about retention were identified. Further analysis included thematically grouping all data items within answers and merging questions in consultation with the Steering Group. This produced 27 questions for further rating during the interim survey. The top 21 questions from the interim online survey were brought to a face-to-face consensus meeting in which key stakeholder representatives prioritised the order. The ‘Top 10’ of these are reported in this paper. The number one ranked question was ’What motivates a participant’s decision to complete a clinical trial?’ The entire list will be available at www.priorityresearch.ie. Conclusion The Top 10 list can inform the direction of future research on trial methods and be used by funders to guide projects aiming to address and improve retention in randomised trials

Staff training to improve participant recruitment into surgical randomised controlled trials : A feasibility study within a trial (SWAT) across four host trials simultaneously

The PROMoting THE Use of SWATs (PROMETHEUS) programme was funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC) [grant number MR/R013748/1]. The DISC host trial is funded by the Health Technology Assessment Programme (Grant Ref: 15/102/04). IntAct is funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) Programme, an MRC and NIHR partnership (Grant Ref: 14/150/62). The EME Programme is funded by the MRC and NIHR, with contributions from the CSO in Scotland and Health and Care Research Wales and the HSC R&D Division, Public Health Agency in Northern Ireland. PROFHER-2 is funded by the Health Technology Assessment Programme (Grant Ref: 16/73/03). START: REACTS is funded by the NIHR Evaluation, Trials and Studies Co-ordinating Centre (NETSCC); Grant Codes: 16/61/18. The development of the training intervention was funded by the MRC Network of Hubs for Trials Methodology Research (MR/L004933/1- R53) and supported by the MRC ConDuCT-II Hub (Collaboration and innovation for Difficult and Complex randomized controlled Trials In Invasive procedures - MR/K025643/1). The online version of the training intervention was funded by the NIHR and is hosted on the NIHR Learn platform (https://learn.nihr.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=385). It is based on the face-to face GRANULE training course funded by the Bowel Disease Research Foundation in collaboration with the University of Birmingham, University of Bristol and former MRC ConDuCT-II Hub. This work was part-funded by the Wellcome Trust [ref: 204829] through the Centre for Future Health (CFH) at the University of York. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, the MRC or the Department of Health and Social Care. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the article.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Genotypic characterisation and cluster analysis of Campylobacter jejuni isolates from domestic pets, human clinical cases and retail food

The genetic similarity of Campylobacter jejuni isolates from pets, compared to human clinical cases and retail food isolates collected in Ireland over 2001-2006 was investigated by cluster analysis of pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) fingerprinting profiles. Comparison of the PFGE profiles of 60 pet isolates and 109 human isolates revealed that seven (4.1%) profiles were grouped in clusters including at least one human and one pet C. jejuni isolate. In total six (1.6%) of 60 pet and 310 food profiles were in clusters with at least one food and one pet C. jejuni isolate. The detection of only a small number of genetically indistinguishable isolates by PFGE profile cluster analysis from pets and from humans with enteritis in this study suggests that pets are unlikely to be an important reservoir for human campylobacteriosis in Ireland. However, genetically indistinguishable isolates were detected and C. jejuni from pets may circulate and may contribute to clinical infections in humans. In addition, contaminated food fed to pets may be a potential source of Campylobacter infection in pets, which may subsequently pose a risk to humans

PROMoting the use of studies within a trial (PROMETHEUS): results and experiences from a large programme to evaluate the routine embedding of recruitment and retention strategies within randomised controlled trials routinely

Aim PROMoting THE USE of Studies Within A Trial (PROMETHEUS) aimed to improve the evidence base for recruiting and retaining participants in Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) by pump-priming and facilitating the start of at least 25 Studies Within A Trial (SWATs) testing recruitment or retention interventions. Methods Ten Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) and one Primary Care Research Centre formed a network to conduct randomised SWATs of recruitment and/or retention strategies. We identified promising recruitment and retention interventions from various sources, which were reviewed by patient and public (PPI) partners to generate an initial priority list of seven recruitment and eight retention interventions. Host trial teams could apply for funding of up to £5000 and receive support from the PROMETHEUS team to design, implement, and report SWATs. We additionally tested the feasibility of undertaking coordinated SWATs across multiple host trials simultaneously. Results PROMETHEUS funded 42 SWATs, embedded within 31 host trials, across 12 CTUs. The SWAT cost per SWAT was £3535. Of the 42 SWATs, 12 tested the same SWAT in multiple trials (simultaneous SWAT design) and eight tested a factorial SWAT design. PROMETHEUS will add 18% and 79% more SWATs to the Cochrane systematic review of recruitment strategies and the Cochrane review of retention strategies respectively. Conclusion The PROMETHEUS programme substantially increased the evidence base for both recruitment and retention strategies within RCTs. Future research should adopt a systematic approach to identifying and targeting gaps in the evidence base and focus on translating SWAT evidence into recruitment and retention practice

Oligonucleotide Microarray Analysis of Age-Related Gene Expression Profiles in Miniature Pigs

Miniature pigs are useful model animals for humans because they have similar anatomy and digestive physiology to humans and are easy to breed and handle. In this study, whole blood microarray analyses were conducted to evaluate variations of correlation among individuals and ages using specific pathogen-free (SPF) Clawn miniature pigs. Whole blood RNA is easy to handle compared to isolated white blood cell RNA and can be used for health and disease monitoring and animal control. In addition, whole blood is a heterogeneous mixture of subpopulation cells. Once a great change occurs in composition and expressing condition of subpopulations, their associated change will be reflected on whole blood RNA. From 12 to 30 weeks of age, fractions of lymphocytes, monocytes, neutrophils, eosinophils, and basophils in white blood cells showed insignificant differences with age as a result of ANOVA analysis. This study attempted to identify characteristics of age-related gene expression by taking into account the change in the number of expressed genes by age and similarities of gene expression intensity between individuals. As a result, the number of expressed genes was less in fetal stage and infancy period but increased with age, reaching a steady state of gene expression after 20 weeks of age. Variation in gene expression intensity within the same age was great in fetal stage and infancy period, but converged with age. The variation between 20 and 30 weeks of age was comparable to that among 30 weeks individuals. These results indicate that uniformity of laboratory animals is expected for miniature pigs after 20 weeks of age. Furthermore, a possibility was shown that whole blood RNA analysis is applicable to evaluation of physiological state