BackgroundDue to a rising number of deaths from cancer and other chronic diseases a growing number of people experience complex symptoms and require palliative care towards the end of life. However, population-based data on the number of people receiving palliative care in Europe are scarce. The objective of this study is to examine, in four European countries, the number of people receiving palliative care in the last three months of life and the factors associated with receiving palliative care.MethodsCross-national retrospective study. Over two years (2009–2010), GPs belonging to representative epidemiological surveillance networks in Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, and Spain registered weekly all deaths of patients (≥18 years) in their practices and the care they received in the last three months of life using a standardized form. Sudden deaths were excluded.ResultsWe studied 4,466 deaths. GPs perceived to have delivered palliative care to 50% of patients in Belgium, 55% in Italy, 62% in the Netherlands, and 65% in Spain (p<.001). Palliative care specialists attended to 29% of patients in the Netherlands, 39% in Italy, 45% in Spain, and 47% in Belgium (p<.001). Specialist palliative care lasted a median (inter-quartile range) of 15 (23) days in Belgium to 30 (70) days in Italy (p<.001). Cancer patients were more likely than non-cancer patients to receive palliative care in all countries as were younger patients in Italy and Spain with regard to specialist palliative care.ConclusionsAlthough palliative care is established in the countries studied, there are considerable differences in its provision. Two potentially underserved groups emerge non-cancer patients in all countries and older people in Italy and Spain. Future research should examine how differences in palliative care use relate to both patient characteristics and existing national health care policies.

Unfortunately, NSAID-related AEs are mainly due to their mechanism of action, therefore the absence of risk associated with their use is a utopian target in daily practice. 14 This review aims at providing a summary of current literature relevant to the safety profile of available NSAIDs, mainly focusing on NSAID-related CV and cerebrovascular risk. The purpose is to support the clinician in NSAID prescription to minimize the risk, selecting the right drug according to each Cardiovascular and cerebrovascular risk with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitors: latest evidence and clinical implications Andrea Fanelli, Daniela Ghisi, Pierangelo Lora Aprile and Francesco LapiAbstract: Observational studies and meta-analyses have shown that the administration of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), especially when prescribed at high doses for long periods of time, can potentially increase the risk of cardiovascular diseases. The increased thrombotic risk related to the use of NSAIDs is mainly due to their cyclooxygenase 2 selectivity. The dosage use, the formulation selected and the duration of the therapy are other factors that can significantly impact on the cardiovascular risk. In order to minimize the risk, prescription of the right drug based on the patient's features and the different safety profiles of several NSAIDs that are available on the market is key for their appropriate administration. Despite the baseline cardiovascular and gastrointestinal risk of each patient, monitoring of patients is suggested for increases in blood pressure, development of edema, deterioration of renal function, or gastrointestinal bleeding during long-term treatment with NSAIDs.

This survey reveals the uncertainty of GPs regarding many theoretical issues but a strong willingness to integrate with the multiprofessional palliative care team. To further enhance the skills of GPs and facilitate the collaboration with palliative care services, it might be useful to realize ad hoc training schemes tailored to the different organizational procedures of in-home palliative care services.

No abstract

Background Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) has been in use for the last three decades. However, some doubts remain regarding its clinical use. Therefore, we aimed to capture the breadth of outcomes reported and assess the strength of evidence of the use of comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) for health outcomes in older persons. Methods Umbrella review of systematic reviews of the use of CGA in older adults searching in Pubmed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane library and CINHAL until 05 November 2021. All possible health outcomes were eligible. Two independent reviewers extracted key data. The grading of evidence was carried out using the GRADE for intervention studies, whilst data regarding systematic reviews were reported as narrative findings. Results Among 1,683 papers, 31 systematic reviews (19 with meta-analysis) were considered, including 279,744 subjects. Overall, 13/53 outcomes were statistically significant (P &lt; 0.05). There was high certainty of evidence that CGA reduces nursing home admission (risk ratio [RR] = 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.75–0.89), risk of falls (RR = 0.51; 95%CI: 0.29–0.89), and pressure sores (RR = 0.46; 95%CI: 0.24–0.89) in hospital medical setting; decreases the risk of delirium (OR = 0.71; 95%CI: 0.54–0.92) in hip fracture; decreases the risk of physical frailty in community-dwelling older adults (RR = 0.77; 95%CI: 0.64–0.93). Systematic reviews without meta-analysis indicate that CGA improves clinical outcomes in oncology, haematology, and in emergency department. Conclusions CGA seems to be beneficial in the hospital medical setting for multiple health outcomes, with a high certainty of evidence. The evidence of benefits is less strong for the use of CGA in other settings.