Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer 1/2015

01-01-2015 | Original Article

The development and evaluation of an oncological palliative care deprescribing guideline: the ‘OncPal deprescribing guideline’

Authors: Julian Lindsay, Michael Dooley, Jennifer Martin, Michael Fay, Alison Kearney, Mohsina Khatun, Michael Barras

Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Current data suggests that potentially inappropriate medicines (PIMs) are common in palliative cancer patients; however, there is a lack of criteria to assist clinicians in identifying PIMs in these patients. The aims of this study were to design and validate a deprescribing guideline for palliative cancer patients and to undertake a descriptive analysis of the identified PIMs.

Methods

This prospective, non-interventional cohort study consisted of four major stages: developing an ‘OncPal Deprescribing Guideline’ from current evidence, the prospective recruitment of consecutive palliative cancer inpatients with an estimated <6-month prognosis, the assessment of all medications to identify PIMs using both a panel of medical experts without access to the guideline as well as a Clinical Pharmacist independently using the OncPal Deprescribing Guideline and the evaluation of the guideline by testing concordance. Descriptive data on the incidence of PIMs identified were also assessed.

Results

A total of 61 patients were recruited. The OncPal Deprescribing Guideline matched 94 % of 617 medicines to the expert panel with a Kappa value of 0.83 [95 % CI (0.76, 0.89)] demonstrating an ‘outstanding’ concordance. Forty-three (70 %) patients were taking at least one PIM, with 21.4 % of the total medicines assessed identified as PIMs. The medication-associated cost per patient/month was AUD$26.71.

Conclusion

A guideline to assist in the de-escalation of inappropriate medications in palliative cancer patients was developed from current literature. The OncPal Deprescribing Guideline was successfully validated, demonstrating statistically significant concordance with an expert panel. We found that the incidence of PIMs was high in our patient group, demonstrating the potential benefits for the OncPal Deprescribing Guideline in clinical practice.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Fede A, Miranda M, Antonangelo D, Trevizan L, Schaffhausser H, Hamermesz B, Zimmermann C, Del Giglio A, Riechelmann RP (2011) Use of unnecessary medications by patients with advanced cancer: cross-sectional survey. Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer 19(9):1313–1318. doi:10.1007/s00520-010-0947-1 CrossRef Fede A, Miranda M, Antonangelo D, Trevizan L, Schaffhausser H, Hamermesz B, Zimmermann C, Del Giglio A, Riechelmann RP (2011) Use of unnecessary medications by patients with advanced cancer: cross-sectional survey. Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer 19(9):1313–1318. doi:10.​1007/​s00520-010-0947-1 CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Jecker NS, Schneiderman LJ (1992) Futility and rationing. The American journal of medicine 92(2):189–196PubMedCrossRef Jecker NS, Schneiderman LJ (1992) Futility and rationing. The American journal of medicine 92(2):189–196PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Lindsay J, Dooley M, Martin J, Fay M, Kearney A, Barras M (2013) Reducing potentially inappropriate medications in palliative cancer patients: evidence to support deprescribing approaches. Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer. doi:10.1007/s00520-013-2098-7 Lindsay J, Dooley M, Martin J, Fay M, Kearney A, Barras M (2013) Reducing potentially inappropriate medications in palliative cancer patients: evidence to support deprescribing approaches. Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer. doi:10.​1007/​s00520-013-2098-7
4.
go back to reference Tollier C, Fusier I, Husson MC (2005) ATC and EphMRA classifications: evolution from 1996 to 2003 and comparative analysis. Therapie 60(1):47–56PubMedCrossRef Tollier C, Fusier I, Husson MC (2005) ATC and EphMRA classifications: evolution from 1996 to 2003 and comparative analysis. Therapie 60(1):47–56PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Beers MH, Ouslander JG, Rollingher I, Reuben DB, Brooks J, Beck JC (1991) Explicit criteria for determining inappropriate medication use in nursing home residents. UCLA Division of Geriatric Medicine Archives of internal medicine 151(9):1825–1832CrossRef Beers MH, Ouslander JG, Rollingher I, Reuben DB, Brooks J, Beck JC (1991) Explicit criteria for determining inappropriate medication use in nursing home residents. UCLA Division of Geriatric Medicine Archives of internal medicine 151(9):1825–1832CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Hwang SS, Scott CB, Chang VT, Cogswell J, Srinivas S, Kasimis B (2004) Prediction of survival for advanced cancer patients by recursive partitioning analysis: role of Karnofsky performance status, quality of life, and symptom distress. Cancer Investig 22(5):678–687CrossRef Hwang SS, Scott CB, Chang VT, Cogswell J, Srinivas S, Kasimis B (2004) Prediction of survival for advanced cancer patients by recursive partitioning analysis: role of Karnofsky performance status, quality of life, and symptom distress. Cancer Investig 22(5):678–687CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Gwilliam B, Keeley V, Todd C, Gittins M, Roberts C, Kelly L, Barclay S, Stone PC (2011) Development of prognosis in palliative care study (PiPS) predictor models to improve prognostication in advanced cancer: prospective cohort study. Bmj 343:d4920. doi:10.1136/bmj.d4920 Gwilliam B, Keeley V, Todd C, Gittins M, Roberts C, Kelly L, Barclay S, Stone PC (2011) Development of prognosis in palliative care study (PiPS) predictor models to improve prognostication in advanced cancer: prospective cohort study. Bmj 343:d4920. doi:10.1136/bmj.d4920
9.
go back to reference Sim J, Wright C (2005) The Kappa statistic in reliability studies: use, interpretation, and sample size requirements. Phys Ther 85(3):257–268PubMed Sim J, Wright C (2005) The Kappa statistic in reliability studies: use, interpretation, and sample size requirements. Phys Ther 85(3):257–268PubMed
10.
go back to reference Riechelmann RP, Krzyzanowska MK, Zimmermann C (2009) Futile medication use in terminally ill cancer patients. Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer 17(6):745–748. doi:10.1007/s00520-008-0541-y CrossRef Riechelmann RP, Krzyzanowska MK, Zimmermann C (2009) Futile medication use in terminally ill cancer patients. Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer 17(6):745–748. doi:10.​1007/​s00520-008-0541-y CrossRef
11.
go back to reference De Muth JE (2009) Overview of biostatistics used in clinical research. American journal of health-system pharmacy : AJHP : official journal of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists 66(1):70–81. doi:10.2146/ajhp070006 CrossRef De Muth JE (2009) Overview of biostatistics used in clinical research. American journal of health-system pharmacy : AJHP : official journal of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists 66(1):70–81. doi:10.​2146/​ajhp070006 CrossRef
13.
go back to reference AIHW & AACR (2012) Cancer in Australia: an overview. Cancer series Canberra: AIHW 74 (70) AIHW & AACR (2012) Cancer in Australia: an overview. Cancer series Canberra: AIHW 74 (70)
14.
go back to reference Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33(1):159–174PubMedCrossRef Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33(1):159–174PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
The development and evaluation of an oncological palliative care deprescribing guideline: the ‘OncPal deprescribing guideline’
Authors
Julian Lindsay
Michael Dooley
Jennifer Martin
Michael Fay
Alison Kearney
Mohsina Khatun
Michael Barras
Publication date
01-01-2015
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Supportive Care in Cancer / Issue 1/2015
Print ISSN: 0941-4355
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7339
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-014-2322-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

Supportive Care in Cancer 1/2015 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine