Monday, January 18, 2021

Social Media Stats for Palliative Care Journals 2020

by Christian Sinclair (@ctsinclair)

Over the past two years I have been working to increase the profile of the Journal of Pain and Symptom Management as the associate editor of social media. In that time, I have come to make a few observations on the current state of social media use by palliative care journals and researchers that I would like to share with you dear readers along with some statistics. Could I make all of this into a paper, published in one of said journals? Possibly. But curiously enough I am looking to effect positive change quickly, so for now we will go with a blog, some Tweet threads and data visualizations. The article can come later!

Over time I will be looking at the social media ecosystem including research organizations, researchers and academic programs, but today the focus will be on the journals.

First off, do you follow any of the main palliative care journals on Twitter, Facebook or Instagram? How many are there even to follow?

I will tell you it is not necessarily easy to find them. No unified place to find them all, no organizing hashtag that is in all of the bios. I have been following 14 Twitter accounts, 10 Facebook Pages, and 3 Instagram accounts for palliative care journals. And so far to my knowledge, there are none on Snapchat nor TikTok. I have not been collecting data on podcasts nor YouTube either, but those areas are good for exploration. If I am missing any or my stats are off, please let me know.

If you want to start following any of them, here are links to make it simple:

A Twitter List maintained by the JPSM Twitter account.

I have been taking some publicly available stats over the past few months. My hope is to check in every once in a while here and likely on Twitter to see what the different accounts are doing that is helping to promote palliative care research online. Let’s take those good social media practices and replicate!

While follower numbers do not equal engagement or influence they are a fair proxy for measuring who is getting people’s attention. The clear leader on each platform is the journal Palliative Medicine. The editorial team has consistently published good content on each of the platforms, has an easy to find journal title, and appears to get good engagement from researchers. While Supportive Care in Cancer has been around for a while, it is new to Twitter, and has already been gaining followers at a rapid pace since debuting in Fall 2020. A new journal Palliative Medicine Reports also recently joined Twitter in May 2020 and has been making ground on some of the more established accounts, now ranking 10th out of 14.

As I am creating social media posts for the Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, it can be surprisingly difficult to find researchers on Twitter to tag them and help promote their work. In a later post focusing on researchers and research organizations, I will share why we need to remedy this absence from the digital public square. (but here is a quick summary to show you why it matters!)

What is interesting to me is that not all the journals follow each other on Twitter. Above is a table showing which journals follow other journals. Start on the left hand side and ask “Does _____…” then move to the top and complete the question “Follow _____?” It is important for the journals to follow each other and possibly help promote a healthy environment for more researchers to participate online. Of course there is natural competition in terms of authors and publications, but I feel there is benefit to demonstrating relationships of mutual respect and support online.

As I am creating social media posts for the Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, it is VERY difficult to find the authors on Twitter to tag them and help promote their work. In a later post focusing on researchers and research organizations, I will share why we need to remedy this absence from the digital public square.

Of the 14 Twitter accounts, 5 have posted less than 30 tweets over the past 90 days. So if they are not that active, will you get that much from following them? Probably not. But it does not cost anything to follow them and maybe this post getting them a lot of new followers may reinvigorate their work.

For all 3 platforms I would propose that the journals consider using a unifying hashtag. #hapc (hospice and palliative care) is a natural one as it already has a built in audience that would be interested in the content and is short on characters. I have flirted with #hapcResearch but I am not confident that it needs a separate hashtag on Twitter. Yet, #hapc may not be enough, since on on Facebook and Instagram #hapc is not well defined, often cross-populated with lots of irrelevant content. So maybe #hapcResearch is a good one to bridge across all three platforms. The journal social media editors need to hash this one out.

I’m not quite sure what qualifies as a palliative care journal. I included JAGS mostly because they have some very relevant research to the field of hospice and palliative care, and their social media editor is Eric Widera of GeriPal, so a natural overlap there. It also serves as a good benchmark. Additionally I have included the Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Review Group. Is Cochrane a journal? Kind of. Should they be classified as a research group instead? Maybe. I need to probably ask them how they see they fit best.

There are two journals that have palliative care in the title but I have chosen not to list them, because they may be associated with predatory publishers. I keep track of them to see how they operate, and use them as a benchmark since I am not actively promoting them by including them in the rankings above.

Well I hope you enjoy this glimpse into the social media stats of palliative care journals. I have some more thoughts, some calculations and stats, I am waiting to gather some more data on before I share them widely. If you do have a moment, please go follow @JPSMjournal on Twitter and Facebook! If you are interested in helping with these stats, writing a paper or learning how to do social media for a journal, I would be happy to hear from you.

For more Pallimed posts about social media.
For more Pallimed posts by Dr. Sinclair click here.

Christian Sinclair, MD, FAAHPM, is a associate professor of palliative medicine at the Univeristy of Kansas Health System. He is editor-in-chief of Pallimed, and cannot wait to play board games in person again.

Monday, January 18, 2021 by Christian Sinclair ·

Friday, January 1, 2021

Olanzapine FTW for Nausea Outside of CINV

by Drew Rosielle (@drosielle)

A few months ago an interesting olanzapine study was published which I have been meaning to write a post about. It's important because while olanzapine has really established itself in the last decade as a highly effective antiemetic for chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting, and is now in multiple CINV guidelines (eg Antiemetics: ASCO Guideline), etc, we don't have a lot of data for its efficacy for nausea outside of CINV, and so a well-done RCT is welcome.

The study is a multi-center, US, adult, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial of olanzapine for nausea in advanced cancer patients who are not receiving chemo. (Small note: the abstract says 'double-line' instead of 'double-blind,' and as someone who does my best to edit typos from my and others' work all the time, it is just interesting and kind of quaint to see such a typo in a JAMA journal. I actually tried to figure out if 'double-line' is some novel trial design I had missed but I'm pretty sure it is not.) While well-done, it is a small study and is described as a pilot study by the investigators.

Patients (n=30, ~45% Black American and the rest mostly white, mean age ~60 years, broad spectrum of solid tumors represented, most were on either/both metoclopramide/ondansetron at baseline) had to have chronic nausea for at least a week rated >3 on a 0-10 scale, not be on chemo for at least 2 weeks (for the most part CINV is defined as chemo on days 0-5 of chemotherapy), and not be on 'antipsychotics' otherwise (to be clear, they allowed use of common neuroleptic antiemetics like prochlorperazine and metoclopramide but presumably these folks weren't on quetiapine, risperidone, etc & if you were wondering none of them were on haloperidol at baseline).

Patients were randomized to placebo or 5mg olanzapine orally, daily, for 7 days. Patients filled out simple, daily, self-reported 0-10 symptom scales looking at nausea, but also appetite, fatigue, sedation, and pain; as well as vomiting episodes and global well-being.

Primary outcome was change in nausea scores from baseline to day 7.

The results were ridiculous, as you can see by the Figures. The authors couldn't say that in print of course, so instead they noted, 'No other drug studied in this situation has been reported to decrease nausea/vomiting more than what was observed in this study.'

Nausea went from a baseline of 9/10 to 1/10 in the olanzapine arm and was unchanged in placebo arm. Emesis episodes went from 2 a day to zero in the active group, 3 to 2 a day in the placebo arm. Self-reported appetite improved from 1/10 to 7/10 for olanzapine, 1/10 to 2/10 for placebo. Given all this it won't be surprising to hear that global well-being improved in the olanzapine group as well, more than placebo.

My biggest challenge with olanzapine is its sedating/fatiguing effects and at least in this group on this relatively low dose of olanzapine, those toxicities weren't evident in their findings, and in fact self-reported fatigue improved in the olanzapine group vs placebo.

They noted that after the 7 days the patients could enter open label observation and all the olanzapine patients chose to stick with it.

So, wow. My guess is most who prescirbe olanzapine regularly aren't surprised that it is effective outside of CINV. Like many other antiemetics, it seems to have broad antiemetic efficacy. The magnitude of the effects though are what's really impressive and while I have zero doubt olanzapine is more effective than placebo for nausea in these patients, I think we'll need larger studies before we can make firmer conclusions about the 'actual' magnitude of benefit. That is, it may see get attenuated with larger trials, but I'd be surprised if it's more than a modest attenuation.

This is not the final word on olanzapine of course, like with everything else in medicine we would greatly benefit from comparative efficacy studies. Given how my clinical practice works, in that I don't prescribe more than one dopamine blocker at a time (eg both olanzapine + prochlorperazine or metoclopramide), comparative studies between those agents would be particularly welcomed (with metoclopramide we have comparative data for CINV with olanzapine, but not elsewhere). Especially given the relative expense, it would be helpful to know whether we should even be using prochlorperazine as a first-line agent anymore.

Basically what I'm saying is olanzapine is arguably in the running to become of our first-line dopamine antagonist antiemetic in palliative care, I think that's a reasonable possibility, and one that could be answered with additional investigation which I hope trickles out in the coming years. Please don't send me angry @'s on Twitter, I'm not saying olanzapine *is* currently first-line, more that at this point I wouldn't be surprised if we landed there in the coming decade.

A global aside about olanzapine. Why is it so good? My theory around olanzapine's efficacy, which I don't think is a profound one, but one I'll state publicly anyway, is that besides stopping a lot of patients from puking, it has significant, welcome, 'additional' effects which make many of our patients globally feel better, effects that many of our other common antiemetics eg ondansetron/prochlorperazine don't really have. By additional effects I'm talking about mood effects, anxiolysis, maybe a little mood elevation, etc. Olanzapine's impacts on those in addition its chemoreceptor trigger zone action is why it helps our patients so profoundly in a way many other of its peers just don't.

A final digression about appetite. This is not proof that olanzapine is an effective treatment for cancer related weight loss/cachexia syndrome. Nothing that I know of has been clearly demonstrated to be effective for that (apart from effectively controlling the underlying cancer). However I've long wondered whether we've missed the boat on drug investigation for cancer cachexia (which is super-complicated, with multiple interacting causes in any patient, and just not something that's amenable to being 'fixed' with a pill, or any other monotherapy like vaporizing high THC cannabis, etc), by ignoring the opportunity to study orexigens as essentially palliative therapies for the 'distress of low appetite'. Eg, I have a lot of patients who take orexigens and 'like them,' say they feel better on them, appreciate the fact that they feel hungrier, participate more in the social aspects of eating, etc, but who's actual weight loss/cachexia is not improved by them. Ie, I think there is a relatively understudied potential for some of these drugs as palliative agents for anorexia, as opposed to disease-modifying agents for cachexia.
For more Pallimed posts about nausea.
For more Pallimed posts by Dr. Rosielle click here.

Drew Rosielle, MD is a palliative care physician at the University of Minnesota Health in Minnesota. He founded Pallimed in 2005. You can occasionally find him on Twitter at @drosielle.

Friday, January 1, 2021 by Drew Rosielle MD ·

Pallimed | Blogger Template adapted from Mash2 by Bloggermint