Neuroleptic strategies for terminal agitation in patients with cancer and delirium at an acute palliative care unit: a single-centre, double-blind, parallel-group, randomised trial

Practice of Palliative Sedation in Patients Followed by a Palliative Home Care Team

CONTEXT

Information about the use of palliative sedation (PS) at home is limited.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess the frequency, indications, and modalities of PS in patients with incurable disease, including cancer and non cancer patients, followed at home.

METHODS

A consecutive sample of patients who were admitted to home palliative care was prospectively assessed. From the entire sample, patients who underwent PS were selected. Data regarding indications for PS, drugs and their maximum doses, intent (proportional and deep PS), and duration of PS were collected. The level of satisfaction of doctors and caregivers, evaluated one week after death, was classified in four catagories: satisfied, satisfied, not very satisfied, unsatisfied.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven of patients of 176 patients (32%) received PS in the last days of life. The mean duration of PS was 34 h (SD 32). Indications for PS were in a rank order: agitated delirium (n.43, 75.4%), dyspnea (n.9, 15.8%), psychoexistential distress (n.4, 7%), pain (n.1, 1.8%). Proportional and deep sedation were used in 38 (66.6%) and 19 (33,4%) cases, respectively. The most frequent drug used for PS was chlorpromazine at mean doses of 128 mg/day. The mean interval between proposal of PS and effective start of PS was 31(SD 84) hours. In six cases there there was a delay in starting PS, due to resistance on behalf of caregivers. Patients with a cancer diagnosis and a lower Karnofsky status at home care admission were more likely to be sedated (P = 0.009 and P = 0.002, respectively). Physicians were highly satisfied, satisfied, and not very satisfied in 38 (66.7%), 16 (28.1%), and 3 (5.3%) cases, respectively. Similar figures were provided by caregivers, who were highly satisfied, satisfied, and not very satisfied in 36 (63.2%), 14 (24.6%) and 7 (12.3%) of cases, respectively.

CONCLUSION

PS was feasible at home by using an individual treatment. Timing may depend on various factors, including agreement with caregivers, logistics or drug supply. Further research is necessary to compare attitudes regarding PS in countries with different sociocultural profiles and organization models.

Circadian rhythm in end-of-life delirium: a secondary analysis of two randomized controlled trials

CONTEXT

The circadian pattern of restlessness in end-of-life delirium is understudied and poorly understood.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the timing of breakthrough restlessness in patients with advanced cancer and end-of-life delirium admitted to an acute palliative care unit.

METHODS

This is a secondary analysis of two randomized clinical trials that examined the effect of lorazepam (MAD trial) and neuroleptics (CHAD trial) in end-of-life delirium. In this study we examined the frequency of restlessness in 8-hour intervals (7 am-3 pm, 3-11 pm, 11 pm-7 am). Breakthrough restlessness was measured based on (1) rescue medications (neuroleptics or benzodiazepines) administered for breakthrough restlessness and (2) a Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) score ≥+1 (collected every 2-4 hours).

RESULTS

This study included 128 patients (58 from MAD trial, 70 from CHAD trial); the mean age (SD) was 64 (12.5), and 57 (44.5%) were women. We found that 3-11 pm was significantly associated with greater rescue medication use in univariate analysis for both trials (MAD: Estimate: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.23-0.48, p<0.001; CHAD: Estimate: 0.1, 95% CI: 0.07-0.12, p<0.001). This association remained significant in multivariate analysis for CHAD (Estimate: 0.1, 95% CI: 0.07-0.12, p<0.001). 3 -11 pm was also associated with greater episodes of RASS ≥+1 in MAD in univariate and multivariate analysis (Estimate:0.31, 95 % CI: 0.21 - 0.42, p <0.001).

CONCLUSION

Delirious patients were more restless between 3 pm and 11 pm. This observation of "sundowning" may help clinicians to better anticipate this symptom, schedule monitoring and treatments, and educate patients and caregivers.

Top Ten Tips Palliative Care Clinicians Should Know About Interpreting a Clinical Trial

Evidence-based practice is foundational to high-quality palliative care delivery. However, the clinical trials that compose the evidence base are often methodologically imperfect. Applying their conclusions without critical application to the clinical practice context can harm patients. The tips provided can help clinicians infer judiciously from clinical trial results and avoid credulously accepting findings without critique. We suggest that statistical and mathematical expertise is unnecessary, but rather a keen curiosity about investigators' rationale for certain design choices and how these choices can affect results is key. For a more comprehensive understanding of clinical trials, this article can be used with the authors' corresponding ten tips article that focuses on designing a clinical trial.

Barriers to healthcare professionals screening, recognizing, and managing delirium in the adult patients receiving specialist palliative care: a mixed-methods systematic review

BACKGROUND

Delirium frequently occurs in palliative care settings, yet its screening, identification, and management remain suboptimal in clinical practice. This review aims to elucidate the barriers preventing healthcare professionals from effectively screening, recognizing, and managing delirium in adult patients receiving specialist palliative care, with the goal of developing strategies to enhance clinical practice.

METHODS

A mixed-methods systematic review was conducted (PROSPERO: CRD42024563666). Literature was sourced from PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, and Clinical Trials databases from their inception to November 16, 2024, without language restrictions. Studies that were primary quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods research, and reported the barriers to healthcare professionals' screening, recognition, and management of delirium in adult patients receiving specialist palliative care (including inpatient hospice/hospital care, consultation teams, and outpatient/community services) were included. Studies were excluded if they did not permit barrier factor extraction, had duplicate or incomplete data, or were case reports or conference abstracts. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 was employed to evaluate the methodological quality of included studies. Data synthesis used the convergent-integrated JBI mixed-methods approach.

RESULTS

21 articles that meet the selection criteria have been identified, with 11 quantitative, 8 qualitative and 2 mixed-methods, collectively involving 857 patients and 649 healthcare professionals. Four themes were identified from the includes studies: (1) Individual level: knowledge and understanding gaps among healthcare professionals; (2) Operational level: implementation challenges in clinical practice; (3) Organizational level: structural and resource deficiencies; (4) Contextual level: specific impacts of situational factors.

CONCLUSION

The systematic review uncovered a complex interplay of barriers spanning individual, operational, organizational, and contextual levels in palliative settings. To address these challenges, recommended strategies include developing targeted training programs, implementing standardized delirium assessment tools, improving guideline accessibility, and promoting interdisciplinary collaboration to enhance delirium screening and management in palliative care.

Delirium in the ICU: how much do we know? A narrative review

Delirium in critical ill patients is a complex and common neurological syndrome in the intensive care unit (ICU) that is caused by a range of structural or functional abnormalities. ICU Delirium is associated with reduced compliance, prolonged hospital stays, greater use or delayed withdrawal of sedatives, higher rates and durations of mechanical ventilation, and higher rates of mortality. The aetiology and pathogenesis of ICU delirium are unclear, and the lack of better prediction, prevention, and treatment measures leads to a non-standardized control of delirium. By searching the relevant literature, we aim in this narrative review to describe progress in the pathogenesis, predictive biomarkers, diagnosis, and treatment of ICU delirium.

A Novel Objective Measure for Terminal Delirium: Activity Scores Measured by a Sheet-Type Sensor

CONTEXT

Delirium is a significant concern in end-of-life care. Continuous monitoring of agitation levels using objective methods may have advantages over existing measurement scales.

OBJECTIVES

To examine whether an objective measure of activity scores measured using a sheet-type non-wearable sensor (Nemuri SCAN [NSCAN]) was correlated with agitation levels measured using the modified Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) in terminally ill patients with cancer.

METHODS

We conducted a single-center, prospective, observational study in a palliative care unit using the NSCAN to measure activity scores and the RASS to assess agitation levels. RASS scores were prospectively measured by ward nurses blinded to the NSCAN variables. A database was created to pair the RASS scores and activity scores at night on the same day.

RESULTS

During the observation period, 1209 patients were hospitalized, and 3028 pairs of assessments of 971 patients were analyzed. The NSCAN activity scores significantly increased with increasing RASS scores (Jonckheere-Terpstra test, p < 0.001). The mean values of the activity scores for each RASS score were RASS -5, 28.9; RASS -4, 36.4; RASS -3, 41.7; RASS -2, 57.4; RASS -1, 58.8; RASS 0, 62.6; RASS 1, 79.6; RASS 2, 106.5; and RASS 3, 118.7.

CONCLUSION

The NSCAN activity significantly correlated with modified RASS agitation scores. Real-time NSCAN data on agitation may aid timely interventions for optimal symptom control. To improve outcomes for patients suffering from terminal delirium, more research on monitoring tools is warranted.

Successful Management of Terminal Delirium With Transdermal Blonanserin Patch in a Terminally Ill Cancer Patient

Delirium is a distressing condition in terminally ill cancer patients, often treated with antipsychotics. Administering them orally, subcutaneously, or intravenously can be challenging in severely agitated patients. Transdermal antipsychotic patches offer an alternative, but their use for terminal delirium remains underexplored. We present the case of a 73-year-old man with advanced diffuse large B cell lymphoma who developed severe mixed delirium during third-line chemotherapy. Nonpharmacological interventions and oral risperidone plus intravenous haloperidol failed to improve his condition. Subsequently, a transdermal blonanserin patch was applied, resulting in the resolution of hallucinations on day 1 and agitation on day 3, allowing improved communication. The patch was easily applied daily without notable adverse events. However, he deteriorated a week later with an estimated survival of days, ultimately requiring continuous midazolam for refractory agitation. This case underscores the potential of transdermal blonanserin patches for delirium in terminally ill cancer patients, emphasizing the need for future prospective studies.

Pharmacological and non-pharmacological prevention and management of delirium in critically ill and palliative patients in the inpatient setting: a review

Introduction

This review explores delirium in critically ill patients in the inpatient setting, focusing on its prevention and management. It evaluates the efficacy of both current pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, aiming to provide a comprehensive overview.

Methods

A systematic literature search was conducted to identify relevant studies investigating the prevention and management of delirium resulting in a final sample of 26 articles for analysis.

Results

Of the 26 articles analyzed for this review (N = 8,831 participants) of controlled trials, 16 studies examined the prevention of delirium, 9 explored the treatment of delirium, and 1 investigated both prevention and treatment of delirium.

Discussion

Among the reviewed studies, there is evidence that non-pharmacologic methods are effective in the prevention of delirium. Evidence regarding pharmacological interventions for delirium prevention is varied and inconclusive, with some indication that atypical antipsychotics like aripiprazole and quetiapine may reduce the incidence of delirium. Regarding the treatment of delirium, there is limited evidence supporting the use of pharmacological agents. Additional double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials are needed to investigate the efficacy of pharmacologic agents for diverse hospitalized populations.

Pharmacologic Management of End-of-Life Delirium: Translating Evidence into Practice

End-of-life delirium affects a vast majority of patients before death. It is highly distressing and often associated with restlessness or agitation. Unlike delirium in other settings, it is considered irreversible, and non-pharmacologic measures may be less feasible. The objective of this review is to provide an in-depth discussion of the clinical trials on delirium in the palliative care setting, with a particular focus on studies investigating pharmacologic interventions for end-of-life delirium. To date, only six randomized trials have examined pharmacologic options in palliative care populations, and only two have focused on end-of-life delirium. These studies suggest that neuroleptics and benzodiazepines may be beneficial for the control of the terminal restlessness or agitation associated with end-of-life delirium. However, existing studies have significant methodologic limitations. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings and examine novel therapeutic options to manage this distressing syndrome.

Enhancing hospice care with psychological support and a nomogram to predict delirium in patients with advanced solid tumors

To assesses the impact of integrating hospice care with psychological interventions on patient well-being and to introduce a predictive nomogram model for delirium that incorporates clinical and psychosocial variables, thereby improving the accuracy in hospice care environments. Data from 381 patients treated from September 2018 to February 2023 were analyzed. The patients were divided into a control group (n=177, receiving standard care) and an experimental group (n=204, receiving combined hospice care and psychological interventions) according to the treatment modality. The duration of care extended until the patient's discharge from the hospital or death. The experimental group demonstrated significant improvements in emotional well-being and a lower incidence of delirium compared to the control group. Specifically, emotional well-being assessments revealed marked improvements in the experimental group, as evidenced by lower scores on the Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS) and Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS) post-intervention. The nomogram model, developed using logistic regression based on clinical characteristics, effectively predicted the risk of delirium in patients with advanced cancer. Significant predictors in the model included ECOG score ≥3, Palliative Prognostic Index score ≥6, opioid usage, polypharmacy, infections, sleep disorders, organ failure, brain metastases, electrolyte imbalances, activity limitations, pre-care SAS score ≥60, pre-care SDS score ≥63, and pre-care KPS score ≥60. The model's predictive accuracy was validated, showing AUC values of 0.839 for the training cohort and 0.864 for the validation cohort, with calibration and Decision Curve Analysis (DCA) confirming its clinical utility. Integrating hospice care with psychological interventions not only significantly enhanced the emotional well-being of advanced cancer patients but also reduced the actual incidence of delirium. This approach, offering a valuable Nomogram model for precise care planning and risk management, underscores the importance of integrated, personalized care strategies in advanced cancer management.

Comparison of Pharmacological Treatments for Agitated Delirium in the Last Days of Life

CONTEXT

Antipsychotics are often used in managing symptoms of terminal delirium, but evidence is limited.

OBJECTIVES

To explore the comparative effectiveness of haloperidol with as-needed benzodiazepines (HPD) vs. chlorpromazine (CPZ) vs. levomepromazine (LPZ) for agitated delirium in the last days.

METHODS

A prospective observational study was conducted in two palliative care units in Japan. Adult cancer patients who developed agitated delirium with a modified Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS-PAL) of one or more were included; palliative care specialist physicians determined that the etiology was irreversible; and estimated survival was 3 weeks or less. Patients treated with HPD, CPZ, or LPZ were analyzed. We measured RASS, NuDESC, Agitation Distress Scale (ADS), and Communication Capacity Scale (CCS) on Days 1 and 3.

RESULTS

A total of 277 patients were enrolled, and 214 were analyzed (112 in HPD, 50 in CPZ, and 52 in LPZ). In all groups, the mean RASS-PAL score significantly decreased on Day 3 (1.37 to -1.01, 1.87 to -1.04, 1.79 to -0.62, respectively; P < 0.001); the NuDESC and ADS scores also significantly decreased. The percentages of patients with moderate to severe agitation and those with full communication capacity on Day 3 were not significantly different. The treatments were well-tolerated. While one-fourth of HPD group changed antipsychotics, 88% or more of CPZ and LPZ groups continued the initial antipsychotics.

CONCLUSION

Haloperidol with as-needed benzodiazepine, chlorpromazine, or levomepromazine may be effective and safe for terminal agitation. Chlorpromazine and levomepromazine may have an advantage of no need to change medications.

Effectiveness and Safety of Intravenous Medications for the Management of Acute Disturbance (Agitation and Other Escalating Behaviors): A Systematic Review of Prospective Interventional Studies

Acute disturbance is a broad term referring to escalating behaviors secondary to a change in mental state, such as agitation, aggression, and violence. Available management options include de-escalation techniques and rapid tranquilization, mostly via parenteral formulations of medication. While the intramuscular route has been extensively studied in a range of clinical settings, the same cannot be said for intravenous (IV); this is despite potential benefits, including rapid absorption and complete bioavailability. This systematic review analyzed existing evidence for effectiveness and safety of IV medication for management of acute disturbances. It followed a preregistered protocol (PROSPERO identification CRD42020216456) and is reported following the guidelines set by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. APA PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases were searched for eligible interventional studies up until May 30th, 2023. Data analysis was limited to narrative synthesis since primary outcome measures varied significantly. Results showed mixed but positive results for the effectiveness of IV dexmedetomidine, lorazepam, droperidol, and olanzapine. Evidence was more limited for IV haloperidol, ketamine, midazolam, chlorpromazine, and valproate. There was no eligible data on the use of IV clonazepam, clonidine, diazepam, diphenhydramine, propranolol, ziprasidone, fluphenazine, carbamazepine, or promethazine. Most studies reported favorable adverse event profiles, though they are unlikely to have been sufficiently powered to pick up rare serious events. In most cases, evidence was of low or mixed quality, accentuating the need for further standardized, large-scale, multi-arm randomized controlled trials with homogeneous outcome measures. Overall, this review suggests that IV medications may offer an effective alternative parenteral route of administration in acute disturbance, particularly in general hospital settings.

Pharmacological Treatment for Terminal Agitation, Delirium and Anxiety in Frail Older Patients

CONTEXT

Psychological distress symptoms in the last days of life often contribute to the overall symptom burden in frail older patients. Good symptom management practices are crucial to ensure high-quality end-of-life care in an aging population, though the best pharmacological approach to treat these psychological symptoms has yet to be established.

OBJECTIVES

To identify current evidence-based and practice-based knowledge of pharmacological interventions for the treatment of agitation, delirium, and anxiety during the last days of life in frail older patients.

METHODS

A systematic, mixed methods review was performed through MEDLINE via PubMed and EMBASE from inception until February 2022 and updated through March 2023. National and international guideline databases and grey literature were searched for additional studies and guidelines.

RESULTS

Four quantitative studies, two non-randomized and two descriptive, were identified. No randomized controlled trials met inclusion criteria. No qualitative studies were withheld. The three consensus-based protocols that were found through citation searching and screening of grey literature did not meet the standards for inclusion. Haloperidol is recommended in consensus-based guidelines for delirium and is widely used, but high-quality evidence about its efficacy is missing. Better control of agitation or refractory delirium might be achieved with the addition of a benzodiazepine. There is no evidence available about the treatment of anxiety in the last days of life in frail older patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This mixed methods review demonstrates the lack of good quality evidence that is needed to help clinicians with pharmacological treatment decisions when confronted with psychological symptoms in the last days of life in frail older patients. Population aging will only emphasize the need for further research in this specific population.

Effectiveness of antipsychotics for managing agitated delirium in patients with advanced cancer: a secondary analysis of a multicenter prospective observational study in Japan (Phase-R)

PURPOSE

Delirium is a common and serious comorbidity in patients with advanced cancer, necessitating effective management. Nonetheless, effective drugs for managing agitated delirium in patients with advanced cancer remain unclear in real-world settings. Thus, the present study aimed to explore an effective pharmacotherapy for this condition.

METHODS

We conducted a secondary analysis of a multicenter prospective observational study in Japan. The analysis included patients with advanced cancer who presented with agitated delirium and received pharmacotherapy. Agitation was defined as a score of the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale for palliative care (RASS-PAL) of ≥ 1. The outcome was defined as -2 ≤ RASS-PAL ≤ 0 at 72 h after the initiation of pharmacotherapy. Multiple propensity scores were quantified using a multinomial logistic regression model, and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for haloperidol, chlorpromazine, olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone.

RESULTS

The analysis included 271 patients with agitated delirium, and 87 (32%) showed -2 ≤ RASS-PAL ≤ 0 on day 3. The propensity score-adjusted OR of olanzapine was statistically significant (OR, 2.91; 95% confidence interval, 1.12 to 7.80; P = 0.030).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest that olanzapine may effectively improve delirium agitation in patients with advanced cancer.

Mortality rate and palliative sedation in an acute palliative care unit

AIM

To assess the mortality rate and the use of palliative sedation (PS) in an advanced long-standing acute palliative care unit (APCU) METHODS: The charts of patients who died and eventually received PS, consecutively admitted to the APCU for 4 years, were reviewed. Patients' characteristics and symptom intensity were recorded at admission, 3 days before death and the day before death (T0, T-3, T-end, respectively). For patients who were administered midazolam for PS, initial and final doses of drugs, as well as duration of PS until death, were recorded.

RESULTS

One hundred and forty-eight patients died in APCU (8.9%), and 45 of them (30.4%) received PS. Younger patients and those reporting high levels of dyspnoea at T-3 and T-end were more likely to be sedated (p=0.002, p=0.013 and 0.002, respectively). The mean duration of PS was 27.47 hours. Mean initial and final doses of midazolam were 35.45 mg/day (SD 19.7) and 45.57 mg/day (SD 20.6), respectively (p=0.001).

CONCLUSION

Mortality rate in APCU was very low. As a percentage of the number of deaths, PS rate was similar to that reported in other settings. PS does not seem to accelerate impending death.

Effects of Opioids, Steroids, Benzodiazepines, Anticholinergics, and Antihistamines on the Efficacy of Antipsychotics for Treating Delirium in End-of-Life Adult Patients Undergoing Palliative Care

The purpose of the study was to determine the effect of combination therapy involving opioids, steroids, benzodiazepines, anticholinergics, and antihistamines on antipsychotics efficacy for delirium. The study included adult inpatients receiving end-of-life palliative care and diagnosed with hyperactive delirium. Changes in delirium symptoms were assessed using the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC). A retrospective analysis was conducted on 97 patients with ICDSC scores of ≥4, comparing the scores before and after antipsychotic administration. A mean score <4 sustained for 3 days after antipsychotics administration was considered effective. The mean days with ICDSC <4 within a 3-day period were evaluated as well. The efficacy of antipsychotics was compared between cases with and without the use of opioids, steroids, benzodiazepines, anticholinergics, and antihistamines. The results revealed no significant differences in the efficacy of antipsychotics for delirium when used in conjunction with opioids (odds ratio 0.614, 95% CI [0.179-2.105]), benzodiazepines (0.387, [0.108-1.390]), steroids (1.258, [0.276-5.746]), or anticholinergics (2.085, [0. 148-29.458]). Additionally, no significant differences were observed in the mean days with ICDSC <4 within 3-day period. Although opioids, benzodiazepines, steroids, anticholinergics, and antihistamines are recognized as delirium risk factors, their use for symptom relief in patients with delirium may not affect antipsychotic efficacy.

Using Interdisciplinary Teams to Mitigate the Effects of Drug Shortages in Palliative Care: The Case of Lorazepam Injection

Given the rising frequency of drug shortages in hospitals, interdisciplinary collaboration is necessary to manage medications, modify electronic medical records, and evaluate safety outcomes. One such shortage impacted lorazepam injection, a medication commonly used in palliative care to treat anxiety, agitation, and seizures. In anticipation of the lorazepam shortage in the summer of 2022, pharmacy staff collaborated with palliative care physicians to identify alternative treatment recommendations when providers were prohibited from ordering lorazepam injection. Before the shortage, lorazepam was used an average of 95 times per month on the palliative care unit. The overall use of benzodiazepines decreased substantially following the recommendation for the therapeutic alternative, midazolam, during the shortage. Once the shortage ended, use roughly returned to pre-shortage baselines. During this time, there were no patient safety events documented on the palliative care unit. Moreover, no changes to the care experience were reported by patients, family/caregivers, providers, or staff. The collaborative effort between pharmacy and palliative care specialists resulted in alternative treatments for palliative care patients during the drug shortage. This preserved the hospital's supply of lorazepam injection for a patient population with no suitable alternatives while still allowing for management of palliative patients.

A revision of JPOS/JASCC clinical guidelines for delirium in adult cancer patients: a summary of recommendation statements

OBJECTIVE

The Japanese Psycho-Oncology Society and the Japanese Association of Supportive Care in Cancer have recently revised the clinical practice guidelines for delirium in adult cancer patients. This article reports the process of developing the revised guidelines and summarizes the recommendations made.

METHODS

The guidelines were developed in accordance with the Medical Information Network Distribution Service creation procedures. The guideline development group, consisting of multi-disciplinary members, created three new clinical questions: non-pharmacological intervention and antipsychotics for the prevention of delirium and trazodone for the management of delirium. In addition, systematic reviews of nine existing clinical questions have been updated. Two independent reviewers reviewed the proposed articles. The certainty of evidence and the strength of the recommendations were graded using the grading system developed by the Medical Information Network Distribution Service, following the concept of The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. The modified Delphi method was used to validate the recommended statements.

RESULTS

This article provides a compendium of the recommendations along with their rationales, as well as a short summary.

CONCLUSIONS

These revised guidelines will be useful for the prevention, assessment and management of delirium in adult cancer patients in Japan.

Visualizing How to Use Antipsychotics for Agitated Delirium in the Last Days of Life

CONTEXT

How physicians use antipsychotics for agitated delirium in the last days of life varies markedly, which could hamper the quality of care.

OBJECTIVES

To examine adherence to an algorithm-based treatment for terminal agitated delirium, and explore its effectiveness and safety.

METHODS

A single-center, prospective, observational study was conducted in a 27-bed palliative care unit in Japan. All adult cancer patients who developed agitated delirium with a modified Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) of +1 or more were included; the palliative care specialists determined that the etiology was irreversible, the estimated survival was three weeks or less, and the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status was three or four. Patients were treated with an algorithm to visualize how to use antipsychotics, with the treatment goal defined as no agitation (RASS≤0) or acceptable agitation for patients and families. We provided all patients nonpharmacological management to alleviate the symptoms of delirium and administered antipsychotic medications when the nonpharmacological approach was insufficient. We measured the adherence rate, RASS, Nursing Delirium Screening Scale items 2, 3, 4 (Nu-DESC), and Agitation Distress Scale item 2 (ADS) on days 0, 1, 3, 7, 14, 21, and 24 hours before death.

RESULTS

A total of 164 patients were enrolled. Adherence rates were 99, 94, and 89%, and treatment goals were achieved in 66, 83, and 93% on days one, three, and seven, respectively. The mean RASS decreased from +1.41 to -0.84 on day three; Nu-DESC decreased from 4.19 to 1.83, and ADS decreased from 1.54 to 0.38. There were seven severe adverse events (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) of 3), including aspiration (n = 3), apnea (n = 2), tremor (n = 1), and muscle rigidity (n = 1) on day three.

CONCLUSION

The algorithm-based treatment could be feasible, effective, and safe. Visualizing how palliative care specialists provide pharmacological management could be beneficial for nonspecialist clinicians, and clinical, educational, and research implications warrant further empirical testing.

Should Neuroleptics Be Used in Patients With Delirium Seen by Palliative Care?

Delirium commonly occurs in the palliative care setting and impacts many aspects of patient care, such as symptom assessment, patient-clinician communication, and medical decision-making. One controversial topic regarding the management of delirium in the palliative care setting is whether neuroleptics should be used. In this "Controversies in Palliative Care" article, 3 expert clinicians independently answer this question. Specifically, each group provides a synopsis of the key studies that inform their thought processes, share practical advice on their clinical approach, and highlight the opportunities for future research. Interestingly, all 3 experts arrived at similar conclusions-they underscored the importance of identification and treatment of any reversible causes of delirium and endorsed a trial of non-pharmacologic measures. They also agreed that neuroleptics should be considered for patients with hyperactive or mixed delirium when the conservative measures fail to control delirium symptoms and for delirious patients with days of life expectancy and thus limited time to try other measures. Risk of adverse effects such as extrapyramidal symptoms and seizures should be considered as part of the treatment decision. There is also a need to conduct high quality research to examine both neuroleptics and neuroleptic-sparing strategies for the management of delirium.

Pharmacologic treatment of delirium symptoms: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

We conducted an updated, comprehensive, and contemporary systematic review to examine the efficacy of existing pharmacologic agents employed for management of delirium symptoms among hospitalized adults.

METHODS

Searches of PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to May 2021 were performed to identify studies investigating efficacy of pharmacologic agents for management of delirium.

RESULTS

Of 11,424 articles obtained from searches, a total of 33 articles (N = 3030 participants) of randomized or non-randomized trials, in which pharmacologic treatment was compared to active comparator, placebo, or no treatment, met all criteria and were included in this review. Medications used for management of delirium symptoms included antipsychotic medications (N = 27), alpha-2 agonists (N = 5), benzodiazepines (N = 2), antidepressants (n = 1), acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (N = 2), melatonin (N = 2), opioids (N = 1), and antiemetics (N = 2). Despite somewhat mixed findings and a relative lack of high-quality trials, it appears that antipsychotic medications (e.g., haloperidol, olanzapine, risperidone, or quetiapine) and dexmedetomidine have the potential to improve delirium outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacologic agents can reduce delirium symptoms (e.g., agitation) in some hospitalized patients. Additional double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials are critically needed to investigate the efficacy of pharmacologic agents for diverse hospitalized populations (e.g., post-surgical patients, patients at the end-of-life, or in intensive care units).

Malignant Peritoneal Mesothelioma: A Challenging Case for Palliative Care

Malignant peritoneal mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare and very aggressive malignancy of serosal membranes, which typically presents with abdominal pain, distension, and ascites. Due to its rarity and nonspecific symptoms, it is usually diagnosed late, when the disease burden is extensive and the therapy is inevitably palliative. It represents a complex challenge for clinicians because the treatment options are very poor and the illness has a great impact on patients’ life. We present a complex case of a young patient with MPM who was admitted to our palliative care unit.

Association of Antipsychotic Dose With Survival of Advanced Cancer Patients With Delirium

CONTEXT

Delirium is common in patients with advanced cancer, and antipsychotics are widely used for its management.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to explore the association of the antipsychotic dose with survival of terminally ill cancer patients with delirium.

METHODS

A secondary analysis of a multicenter prospective observational study was conducted. We enrolled adult advanced cancer patients who developed delirium and received antipsychotics at 14 palliative care units in Japan between September 2015 and May 2016. Hazard ratios of survival after starting antipsychotics between groups with different oral chlorpromazine equivalent doses: low: <100 mg, moderate: 100-200 mg, high: ≥200 mg, were calculated with adjustment for potential confounders using Cox regression. The antipsychotic dose-specific mortality risk was estimated with smooth splines.

RESULTS

Of 453 patients enrolled, 422 patients were analyzed. The median antipsychotic dose was 92.6 mg: low-dose (N = 231), moderate-dose (122), and high-dose (69). The median survival of all patients was 11 days. Compared with the low-dose group, the high-dose group showed a significantly shorter survival (HR: 1.46, 95%CI: 1.08-1.98). Smooth splines demonstrated that HR continuously increased as the antipsychotic dose increased. In patients treated with atypical antipsychotics, the high-dose group showed a significantly shorter survival than the low-dose group (HR: 2.86), while in patients treated with typical antipsychotics, survival was not significantly different (0.99).

CONCLUSIONS

Higher doses of antipsychotics were associated with increased mortality in terminally ill cancer patients with delirium. To minimize the potential mortality risk, antipsychotics should be started at low doses and titrated carefully.

Management of Physical Symptoms in Patients with Advanced Cancer During the Last Weeks and Days of Life

Patients with advanced cancer are faced with many devastating symptoms in the last weeks and days of life, such as pain, delirium, dyspnea, bronchial hypersecretions (death rattle), and intractable seizures. Symptom management in the last weeks of life can be particularly challenging because of the high prevalence of delirium complicating symptom assessment, high symptom expression secondary to psychosocial and spiritual factors, limited life-expectancy requiring special considerations for prognosis-based decision-making, and distressed caregivers. There is a paucity of research involving patients in the last weeks of life, contributing to substantial variations in clinical practice. In this narrative review, we shall review the existing literature and provide a practical approach to in-patient management of several of the most distressing physical symptoms in the last weeks to days of life.

A retrospective comparison of haloperidol and hydroxyzine combination therapy with haloperidol alone in the treatment of overactive delirium

BACKGROUND

For the treatment of delirium, antipsychotics such as haloperidol are used as standard treatments. However, haloperidol has a little sedative effect and may not be sufficiently effective in controlling overactive delirium. Hydroxyzine, an antihistamine, may be used in combination with haloperidol to supplement its sedative effect. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of haloperidol alone or in combination with hydroxyzine on the improvement of overactive delirium retrospectively.

METHOD

Delirium was assessed from medical records using the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC). The number of patients and days with an ICDSC score of < 4, indicating an absence of delirium after haloperidol alone or haloperidol and hydroxyzine was surveyed for 6 days.

RESULTS

A total of 157 patients were diagnosed with delirium from April 2019 to July 2021, of which 18 patients received haloperidol alone, and 21 patients received the combination of haloperidol and hydroxyzine for overactive delirium. The number of patients with a mean ICDSC score of < 4 on days 1-6 was two patients (11%) in the haloperidol groups and two patients (10%) in the combination of haloperidol and hydroxyzine group (P = 0.999). The days within < 4 of the ICDSC score on days 1-6 were 0.8 (1.3) and 0.8 (1.5), respectively (P = 0.848).

CONCLUSION

Haloperidol alone and haloperidol plus hydroxyzine are both effective in the treatment of overactive delirium. However, the concomitant use of hydroxyzine with haloperidol may not improve the efficacy of treatment of overactive delirium compared to haloperidol alone.

Current practice of pharmacological treatment for hyperactive delirium in terminally ill cancer patients: results of a nationwide survey of Japanese palliative care physicians and liaison psychiatrists

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this survey was to identify areas where doctors have divergent practices in pharmacological treatment for hyperactive delirium in terminally ill patients with cancer.

METHODS

We conducted a survey of Japanese palliative care physicians and liaison psychiatrists. Inquiries were made regarding: (i) choice of drug class in the first-line treatment, (ii) administration methods of the first-line antipsychotic treatment, (iii) starting dose of antipsychotics in the first line treatment and maximum dose of antipsychotics in refractory delirium, and (iv) choice of treatment when the first-line haloperidol treatment failed. Respondents used a five-point Likert scale.

RESULTS

Regarding choice of drug class in the first-line treatment, more doctors reported that they 'frequently' or 'very frequently' use antipsychotics only than antipsychotics and benzodiazepine (oral: 73.4 vs. 12.2%; injection: 61.3 vs. 11.6%, respectively). Regarding administration methods of the first-line antipsychotic treatment, the percentage of doctors who reported that they used antipsychotics as needed and around the clock were 55.4 and 68.8% (oral), 49.2 and 45.4% (injection), respectively. There were different opinions on the maximum dose of antipsychotics in refractory delirium. Regarding the choice of treatment when the first-line haloperidol treatment failed, the percentage of doctors who reported that they increased the dose of haloperidol, used haloperidol and benzodiazepines, and switched to chlorpromazine were 47.0, 32.1 and 16.4%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Doctors have divergent practices in administration methods of the first-line antipsychotic treatment, maximum dose of antipsychotics, and choice of treatment when the first-line haloperidol treatment failed. Further studies are needed to determine the optimal treatment.

The Dilemma of Treating Delirium: the Conundrum of Drug Management

OPINION STATEMENT

Delirium is a common medical complication in people living with cancer, particularly with more advanced disease. Delirium is associated with significant symptom burden which causes distress and impacts quality of life. As recommended by international guidelines, a high degree of suspicion is needed to ensure delirium is detected early. Attention to collateral history can provide clues to changes in cognition and attention. Non-pharmacological approaches that can be considered essential elements of care are effective in reducing the risk of delirium. Delirium screening using a validated measure is recommended as even expert clinicians can underdiagnose or miss delirium. The diagnostic assessment requires consideration of the cancer diagnosis and comorbidities, in the context of potential reversibility, goals of care, and patient preferences. The gold standard approach based on expert consensus is to institute management for delirium precipitants supported by non-pharmacological essential care, with the support of an interdisciplinary team. Medication management should be used sparingly and for a limited period of time wherever possible for severe perceptual disturbance or agitation which has not improved with non-pharmacological approaches. Clinicians should be familiar with the registered indication for medications and seek informed consent for off-label use. All interventions put in place to manage delirium need to consider net clinical benefit, including harms such as sedation and loss of capacity for meaningful interaction. Clear communication and explanation are needed regularly, with the person with delirium as far as possible and with surrogate decision makers. Delirium can herald a poor prognosis and this needs to be considered and be discussed as appropriate in shared decision-making. Recall after delirium has resolved is common, and opportunity to talk about this experience and the related distress should be offered during the period after recovery.

Association of the RASS Score with Intensity of Symptoms, Discomfort, and Communication Capacity in Terminally Ill Cancer Patients Receiving Palliative Sedation: Is RASS an Appropriate Outcome Measure?

Background:

Palliative sedation is sometimes needed for refractory symptoms, and the Richmond Agitation–Sedation Scale (RASS) is one of the key measures. The primary aim of this study was to explore the association between RASS and degree of distress quantified by other measures: Item “symptom control” of Support Team Assessment Schedule (STAS, item 2), Discomfort Scale for Dementia of Alzheimer Type (Discomfort Scale), and Noncommunicative Patient's Pain Assessment Instrument (NOPPAIN), as well as a communication capacity measured by the Communication Capacity Scale (CCS), item 4.

Methods:

This was a prospective observational study on terminally ill cancer patients with palliative sedation in a palliative care unit of a designated cancer hospital. Primarily responsible palliative care physicians rated RASS, Discomfort Scale, NOPPAIN, and CCS just before sedation and 1, 4, 24, and 48 hours after, and ward nurses rated STAS at the same time. Since the ward nurses evaluated STAS during palliative sedation, we regarded STAS as a standard of distress measure.

Results:

A total of 249 assessments were performed for 55 patients. RASS was moderately to highly associated with symptom intensity measured by STAS, discomfort measured by the Discomfort Scale, and pain measured by NOPPAIN (r = 0.63 to 0.73). But communication capacity measured by CCS is not parallel with RASS and demonstrated a valley shape. In 82 assessments with an RASS score of −1 to −3, 11 patients (13%) had physical symptoms of STAS of 2 or more.

Conclusions:

RASS can roughly estimate physical distress in patients with palliative sedation, but a measure to more precisely quantify the symptom experience is needed.

Prognostication of the last days of life: Review article

Accurate prediction of impending death (i.e., last few days of life) is essential for terminally-ill cancer patients and their families. International guidelines state that clinicians should identify patients with impending death, communicate the prognosis with patients and families, help them with their end-of-life decision-making, and provide sufficient symptom palliation. Over the past decade, several national and international studies have been conducted that systematically investigated signs and symptoms of impending death as well as how to communicate such a prognosis effectively with patients and families. In this article, we summarize the current evidence on prognostication and communication regarding the last days of life of patients with cancer, and future directions of clinical research.

Easing the Journey-an Updated Review of Palliative Care for the Patient with High-Grade Glioma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

High-grade gliomas (HGG) are rare brain tumors that cause disproportionate suffering and mortality. Palliative care, whose aim is to relieve the symptoms and stressors of serious illness, may benefit patients with HGG and their families. In this review, we summarize the extant literature and provide recommendations for addressing the symptom management and communication needs of brain tumor patients and their caregivers at key points in the illness trajectory: initial diagnosis; during upfront treatment; disease recurrence; end-of-life period; and after death during bereavement.

RECENT FINDINGS

Patients with HGG experience highly intrusive symptoms, cognitive and functional decline, and emotional and existential distress throughout the disease course. The caregiver burden is also substantial during the patient's illness and after death. There is limited evidence to guide the palliative management of these issues. Palliative care is likely to benefit patients with HGG, yet further research is needed to optimize the delivery of palliative care in neuro-oncology.

Pilot Study of Lemborexant for Insomnia in Cancer Patients with Delirium

Delirium occurs very frequently in cancer patients. Insomnia is a symptom of delirium. Lemborexant is a drug that regulates sleep–wake rhythms without causing extrapyramidal symptoms. Based on its ability to improve sleep, lemborexant is expected to have efficacy for insomnia with delirium. The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of lemborexant for insomnia in cancer patients with delirium. A retrospective observational study was conducted between July 2020 and February 2021. Fourteen patients (six females; mean age,69 years) were included. Lemborexant was effective in 11 of 14 (78.6%) patients. Of 14 patients, 10 had hyperactive delirium. Lemborexant might have similar efficacy for insomnia with and without delirium when compared with previous studies. The efficacy rate of lemborexant was 70% for patients with insomnia and hyperactive delirium. This study might lead to dose reductions of antipsychotic medications and fewer extrapyramidal symptoms in cancer patients with delirium.

Personalized sedation goal for agitated delirium in patients with cancer: Balancing comfort and communication

BACKGROUND

Agitated delirium is common and highly distressing. Medications are often needed to reduce agitation, but it is unclear what the desired level of sedation is. This study assessed personalized sedation goals (PSGs) and their predictors for patients in a delirium clinical trial and in clinical vignettes.

METHODS

This was a preplanned secondary analysis of a double-blind randomized clinical trial examining the sedative effect of chlorpromazine and/or haloperidol in patients with agitated delirium. At the baseline, caregivers and nurses were independently asked to select the PSG for the trial patient from 5 choices corresponding to Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) scores of 0 or higher (no sedation), -1 to -2, -3, -4, and -5 (deep sedation). Respondents also selected a PSG for 6 vignettes that differed by the level of agitation, ability to communicate, and survival.

RESULTS

Forty-two caregivers and 39 nurses answered questions regarding PSGs. For the trial patient, caregivers preferred RASS scores of -1 to -2 most often (36%), whereas nurses preferred an RASS score of -3 most often (51 %). Caregivers were significantly more likely than nurses to choose lighter sedation (odds ratio [OR], 4.8; P = .01) despite reporting greater delirium-related distress (P = .0006). Patients were undersedated 33% to 53% of the time and oversedated 0% to 15% of the time according to the PSG response criteria. In the case vignettes, deeper sedation was preferred by nurses (P < .0001) and for patients who were unable to communicate (OR, 3.1-4.4; P < .0001) and had a shorter life expectancy (OR, 1.7; P = .002).

CONCLUSIONS

Caregivers often preferred lighter sedation than nurses. Many patients were undersedated in comparison with caregivers' PSGs, and this highlights room for improvement.

LAY SUMMARY

In the last days of life, many patients with cancer develop delirium and become restless/agitated; this can be highly distressing. Caregivers and physicians alike are often concerned about the use of sedatives for agitated delirium and try to find a balance between maximizing comfort and maintaining communication. This study examined the concept of a personalized sedation goal for setting an individualized target for the level of sedation. Caregivers often preferred lighter sedation than nurses. Many patients were undersedated in comparison with caregivers' stated goals, and this highlights room for improvement.

Delirium in Palliative Care

Simple Summary

Delirium is a generalized cerebral dysfunction that occurs frequently near the end of life. In palliative care, delirium is frequently a sign of impending death; it is distressing for patients, families, and caregivers; and the goals of management, assessment, and treatment are controversial. We provide an update on these topics mainly focusing on patients with cancer.

Abstract

Delirium, a widespread neuropsychiatric disorder in patients with terminal diseases, is associated with increased morbidity and mortality, profoundly impacting patients, their families, and caregivers. Although frequently missed, the effective recognition of delirium demands attention and commitment. Reversibility is frequently not achievable. Non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions are commonly used but largely unproven. Palliative sedation, although controversial, should be considered for refractory delirium. Psychological assistance should be available to patients and their families at all times.

Interventions for palliative symptom control in COVID-19 patients

BACKGROUND

Individuals dying of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may experience distressing symptoms such as breathlessness or delirium. Palliative symptom management can alleviate symptoms and improve the quality of life of patients. Various treatment options such as opioids or breathing techniques have been discussed for use in COVID-19 patients. However, guidance on symptom management of COVID-19 patients in palliative care has often been derived from clinical experiences and guidelines for the treatment of patients with other illnesses. An understanding of the effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological palliative interventions to manage specific symptoms of COVID-19 patients is required.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control in individuals with COVID-19.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (including Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), medRxiv); Web of Science Core Collection (Science Citation Index Expanded, Emerging Sources); CINAHL; WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease; and COAP Living Evidence on COVID-19 to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions until 23 March 2021. We screened the reference lists of relevant review articles and current treatment guidelines for further literature.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We followed standard Cochrane methodology as outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We included studies evaluating palliative symptom management for individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 receiving interventions for palliative symptom control, with no restrictions regarding comorbidities, age, gender, or ethnicity. Interventions comprised pharmacological as well as non-pharmacological treatment (e.g. acupressure, physical therapy, relaxation, or breathing techniques). We searched for the following types of studies: randomized controlled trials (RCT), quasi-RCTs, controlled clinical trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series (with comparison group), prospective cohort studies, retrospective cohort studies, (nested) case-control studies, and cross-sectional studies. We searched for studies comparing pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control with standard care. We excluded studies evaluating palliative interventions for symptoms caused by other terminal illnesses. If studies enrolled populations with or exposed to multiple diseases, we would only include these if the authors provided subgroup data for individuals with COVID-19. We excluded studies investigating interventions for symptom control in a curative setting, for example patients receiving life-prolonging therapies such as invasive ventilation.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used a modified version of the Newcastle Ottawa Scale for non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) to assess bias in the included studies. We included the following outcomes: symptom relief (primary outcome); quality of life; symptom burden; satisfaction of patients, caregivers, and relatives; serious adverse events; and grade 3 to 4 adverse events. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.  As meta-analysis was not possible, we used tabulation to synthesize the studies and histograms to display the outcomes.  MAIN RESULTS: Overall, we identified four uncontrolled retrospective cohort studies investigating pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control in hospitalized patients and patients in nursing homes. None of the studies included a comparator. We rated the risk of bias high across all studies. We rated the certainty of the evidence as very low for the primary outcome symptom relief, downgrading mainly for high risk of bias due to confounding and unblinded outcome assessors. Pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control We identified four uncontrolled retrospective cohort studies (five references) investigating pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control. Two references used the same register to form their cohorts, and study investigators confirmed a partial overlap of participants. We therefore do not know the exact number of participants, but individual reports included 61 to 2105 participants. Participants received multimodal pharmacological interventions: opioids, neuroleptics, anticholinergics, and benzodiazepines for relieving dyspnea (breathlessness), delirium, anxiety, pain, audible upper airway secretions, respiratory secretions, nausea, cough, and unspecified symptoms.  Primary outcome: symptom relief All identified studies reported this outcome. For all symptoms (dyspnea, delirium, anxiety, pain, audible upper airway secretions, respiratory secretions, nausea, cough, and unspecified symptoms), a majority of interventions were rated as completely or partially effective by outcome assessors (treating clinicians or nursing staff). Interventions used in the studies were opioids, neuroleptics, anticholinergics, and benzodiazepines.  We are very uncertain about the effect of pharmacological interventions on symptom relief (very low-certainty evidence). The initial rating of the certainty of evidence was low since we only identified uncontrolled NRSIs. Our main reason for downgrading the certainty of evidence was high risk of bias due to confounding and unblinded outcome assessors. We therefore did not find evidence to confidently support or refute whether pharmacological interventions may be effective for palliative symptom relief in COVID-19 patients. Secondary outcomes We planned to include the following outcomes: quality of life; symptom burden; satisfaction of patients, caregivers, and relatives; serious adverse events; and grade 3 to 4 adverse events. We did not find any data for these outcomes, or any other information on the efficacy and safety of used interventions. Non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control None of the identified studies used non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found very low certainty evidence for the efficacy of pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom relief in COVID-19 patients. We found no evidence on the safety of pharmacological interventions or efficacy and safety of non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control in COVID-19 patients. The evidence presented here has no specific implications for palliative symptom control in COVID-19 patients because we cannot draw any conclusions about the effectiveness or safety based on the identified evidence. More evidence is needed to guide clinicians, nursing staff, and caregivers when treating symptoms of COVID-19 patients at the end of life. Specifically, future studies ought to investigate palliative symptom control in prospectively registered studies, using an active-controlled setting, assess patient-reported outcomes, and clearly define interventions. The publication of the results of ongoing studies will necessitate an update of this review. The conclusions of an updated review could differ from those of the present review and may allow for a better judgement regarding pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control in COVID-19 patients.

Care of the adult cancer patient at the end of life: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines

•This ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline provides key recommendations for end-of-life care for patients with advanced cancer. •It details care that is focused on comfort, quality of life and approaching death of patients with advanced cancer. •All recommendations were compiled by a multidisciplinary group of experts. •Recommendations are based on available scientific data and the authors’ collective expert opinion.

Association among rescue neuroleptic use, agitation, and perceived comfort: secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial on agitated delirium

BACKGROUND

Few studies have examined how the use of rescue medications could be used to inform on the efficacy of interventions in delirium clinical trials. The objective of this study was to determine the association among rescue medication use, Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS), and perceived comfort by the nurses and caregivers.

METHODS

This was a pre-planned secondary analysis of a double-blind, randomized clinical trial comparing the use of a single dose of lorazepam plus haloperidol versus placebo plus haloperidol in patients with agitated delirium. Rescue medications were considered the gold standard for this analysis. The optimal cutoff for RASS analysis was calculated by using general linear regression models and determining the area of the curve and using the top left approach. We used 2 × 2 tables to examine the association between rescue medication use and perceived comfort.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight patients received the study medications and 52 (89%) completed the 8-h observation period. There were 26 (50%) patients in each arm. The lorazepam/haloperidol arm required fewer rescue doses (4/26 (15%)) vs. 16/26 (62%), p = 0.004). Patients with a greater initial RASS reduction required fewer rescue doses. The cutoff value for RASS improvement was 4 points, area under the curve (AUC) 0.64 (95% CI 0.49-0.79) for those who required no rescue doses, and 3 points, AUC 0.74 (95% CI 0.52-0.96) for those who required more than one rescue dose.

CONCLUSIONS

Rescue medication use was responsive to change and associated with both RASS scores and perceived patient comfort by the nurse and caregiver.

A Comparison of Caregiver Burden of Patients with Advanced Cancer in Different Palliative Cancer Care Settings

Background: Informal caregivers may experience a significant burden while caring for cancer patients. Little is known about how caregiver burden varies across different palliative cancer care settings and the factors influencing it. Objectives: We compared the severity of caregiver subjective stress burden (emotional impact) among caregivers of patients seen in the outpatient supportive care center (SCC) with those being cared for in the acute palliative care unit (PCU). Secondary aims were to compare other caregiver burden dimensions, quality of life, and any association of caregiver subjective stress burden to various patient and caregiver factors. Setting and Design: Eligible patients and their informal caregivers in the SCC or PCU at a comprehensive cancer center in the USA were approached and enrolled. The Montgomery-Borgatta Caregiver Burden Scale and the Short-form 36 were used to measure burden and quality of life. Multivariate general linear regression was employed to evaluate the effect of covariates on subjective stress burden. Results: Ninety-eight dyads in the SCC and 74 dyads in the PCU were enrolled. PCU caregivers reported worse subjective stress burden (p = 0.0029) and mental health (p = 0.0299). Multivariate analysis showed correlations between subjective stress burden and caregivers' objective burden (p = 0.0136), subjective demand burden (p ≤ 0.0001), mental health (p = 0.0074), duration of caregiving (p = 0.0680), education (p = 0.0192) and with patients' anxiety (p = 0.0003) and current/recent cancer treatment (p = 0.0579). Conclusion: PCU caregivers demonstrated worse emotional burden and mental health than those in the SCC. More research is needed to tailor interventions for various caregiver burden dimensions. NCI Clinical Trial Registration Number ID: NCI-2019-01197.

Are common delirium assessment tools appropriate for evaluating delirium at the end of life in cancer patients?

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study are to investigate how many advanced cancer patients became unconscious or non-communicative after pharmacological treatment for delirium, and to explore whether existing delirium assessment tools can successfully evaluate its severity at the end of life.

METHODS

This was a secondary analysis of a registry study that examined the efficacy and safety of antipsychotics for advanced cancer patients with delirium. A total of 818 patients were recruited from 39 specialized palliative care services in Japan. The severity of delirium was measured using the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale-Palliative care version, the Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 (DRS-R-98), and the Nursing Delirium Screening Scale (Nu-DESC) on Day 3. Data from 302 patients with motor anxiety with an Agitation Distress Scale score ≥2 on Day 0 were analyzed for this study. The patients were categorized into four treatment response groups: complete response (CR: no agitation and fully communicative), partial response (PR: no/mild agitation and partially communicative), unconscious/non-communicative (UC), and no change (NC).

RESULTS

On Day 3, 29 (10%; 95% confidence intervals [CI], 7-13) and 2 (1%; 95% CI, 0-2) patients became unconscious and non-communicative, respectively. Forty-four patients were categorized as CR, 97 as PR, 31 as UC, and 96 as NC. The scores of the DRS-R-98 and Nu-DESC in the UC group were rated higher than patients in the NC group were.

CONCLUSIONS

A considerable number of cancer patients with delirium became unconscious or non-communicative. Existing delirium assessment tools may be inappropriate for measuring the severity of delirium in end-of-life.