Palliative Care Clinical Studies Collaborative (PaCCSC) - Collected Works
Permanent URI for this collection
Browsing Palliative Care Clinical Studies Collaborative (PaCCSC) - Collected Works by Author "Doogue, Matthew"
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
Results Per Page
ItemAn international initiative to create a collaborative for pharmacovigilance in hospice and palliative care clinical practice(Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., 2012-02-21) Currow, David Christopher ; Rowett, Debra Sharon ; Doogue, Matthew ; To, Timothy H M ; Abernethy, Amy PickarBackground: 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.
ItemOff-label prescribing in palliative care – a cross-sectional national survey of Palliative Medicine doctors(SAGE Publications, 2012-11-05) To, Timothy H M ; Agar, Meera Ruth ; Shelby-James, Tania Maree ; Abernethy, Amy Pickar ; Doogue, Matthew ; Rowett, Debra Sharon ; Ko, Danielle N ; Currow, David ChristopherBackground: 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.
ItemPharmacovigilance in hospice/palliative care: rapid report of net clinical effect of metoclopramide((C) Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., 2012-07-20) Currow, David Christopher ; Vella-Brincat, Jane ; Fazekas, Belinda Susan ; Clark, Katherine ; Doogue, Matthew ; Rowett, Debra SharonBackground: 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.