Pharmacovigilance in hospice/palliative care: net effect of gabapentin for neuropathic pain

Use of Dexamethasone for Severe Fatigue in the Advanced Cancer Population: A Brief Report

Background

Fatigue is a common and distressing symptom for palliative care patients. Although the current literature emphasizes nonpharmacological management, dexamethasone is reportedly used in clinical practice. This study helps to characterize its use, efficacy, and adverse effects in a real-world setting.

Objective

To improve the evidence base by exploring the use, efficacy, and side effect profile of dexamethasone for fatigue management.

Methods

This international multisite prospective observational case series assessed the benefit and adverse effects of dexamethasone at baseline (T0) and at five to seven days postbaseline (T1). Fatigue scores were assessed using the symptom assessment scale (SAS) and visual analogue fatigue scale (VAFS). Adverse events were graded using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI-CTCAE). The related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare before and after scores.

Results

All 18 patients (male-female, 11:7) had advanced metastatic cancer with most in the deteriorating palliative care phase (56%). The most common dose of dexamethasone was 4 mg daily orally. At T1 (n = 12), improvement was seen in all measures of fatigue; the median SAS scores decreased from 7 to 5.5 (p = 0.007), the median VAFS scores increased from 3 to 5 (p = 0.126), and the median NCI-CTCAE fatigue scores were reduced from 3 to 2.5 (p = 0.18). Dexamethasone was well tolerated; one participant experienced grade 3 delirium.

Conclusion

The small number of participants recruited for this study suggests that dexamethasone is not widely used specifically for fatigue. Our results suggest an improvement in fatigue scores from T0 to T1.

Gabapentin for Pain in Pediatric Palliative Care

OBJECTIVE

Gabapentin is commonly used to treat pain in children receiving pediatric palliative care. This study describes the real-world use of gabapentin and the associated benefits and adverse effects/events (AEs).

METHODS

A prospective, multicenter cohort of standardized data collection after a clinical decision was made to use gabapentin for managing neuropathic or nociplastic pain in children attended on by a pediatric palliative care service. It was conducted across 11 sites in seven countries including hospital, inpatient, and outpatient services. Clinical outcomes were graded using pain scales validated for age and cognitive ability and the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCICTCAE) at baseline, 14 days, 28 days, six weeks and 12 weeks after initiation of gabapentin. Ad-hoc safety reporting continued throughout the study.

RESULTS

Data were collected from 127 children with a median age of 4.7 years (IQR 0.1-17.9); 61% had a neurological disorder, 21% advanced cancer and the cohort had a high level of disability (Lansky/Karnofsky performance score 37.1). Gabapentin was prescribed at standard pediatric doses. On average, 76% of children had a reduction in pain and 42% experienced a potential AE. The mean pain score decreased from 6.0 (SD 2.6) at baseline to 3.3 (SD 2.4) at 14 days and 1.8 (SD 1.8) after 12-weeks of gabapentin therapy. Ten percent had increased pain at each time point. AEs did not increase when individual changes over time were accounted for except for somnolence (7%). Serious AEs attributable to gabapentin were possible or probable in 3% of children.

CONCLUSIONS

Gabapentin prescribed at standard doses for advanced cancer and severe neurological injury in children under a pediatric palliative care service was associated with generally improved pain intensity at previously described levels of adverse effects.

Lidocaine for Neuropathic Cancer Pain (LiCPain): study protocol for a mixed-methods pilot study

INTRODUCTION

Many patients experience unrelieved neuropathic cancer-related pain. Most current analgesic therapies have psychoactive side effects, lack efficacy data for this indication and have potential medication-related harms. The local anaesthetic lidocaine (lignocaine) has the potential to help manage neuropathic cancer-related pain when administered as an extended, continuous subcutaneous infusion. Data support lidocaine as a promising, safe agent in this setting, warranting further evaluation in robust, randomised controlled trials. This protocol describes the design of a pilot study to evaluate this intervention and explains the pharmacokinetic, efficacy and adverse effects evidence informing the design.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A mixed-methods pilot study will determine the feasibility of an international first, definitive phase III trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of an extended continuous subcutaneous infusion of lidocaine for neuropathic cancer-related pain. This study will comprise: a phase II double-blind randomised controlled parallel-group pilot of subcutaneous infusion of lidocaine hydrochloride 10% w/v (3000 mg/30 mL) or placebo (sodium chloride 0.9%) over 72 hours for neuropathic cancer-related pain, a pharmacokinetic substudy and a qualitative substudy of patients' and carers' experiences. The pilot study will provide important safety data and help inform the methodology of a definitive trial, including testing proposed recruitment strategy, randomisation, outcome measures and patients' acceptability of the methodology, as well as providing a signal of whether this area should be further investigated.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Participant safety is paramount and standardised assessments for adverse effects are built into the trial protocol. Findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences. This study will be considered suitable to progress to a phase III study if there is a completion rate where the CI includes 80% and excludes 60%. The protocol and Patient Information and Consent Form have been approved by Sydney Local Health District (Concord) Human Research Ethics Committee 2019/ETH07984 and University of Technology Sydney ETH17-1820.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ANZCTR ACTRN12617000747325.

Paracentesis for cancer-related ascites in palliative care: An international, prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Paracentesis is commonly undertaken in patients with cancer-related ascites.

AIM

To systematically investigate the symptomatic benefits and harms experienced by patients with cancer undergoing paracentesis using real-world data in the palliative care setting.

DESIGN

Prospective, multisite, observational, consecutive cohort study. Benefits and harms of paracentesis were assessed between 01/07/2018 and 31/02/2021 as part of routine clinical assessments by treating clinicians at four timepoints: (T0) before paracentesis; (T1) once drainage ceased; (T2) 24 h after T1 and (T3) 28 days after T1 or next paracentesis, if sooner.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Data were collected from 11 participating sites across five countries (Australia, England, Hong Kong, Malaysia and New Zealand) on 111 patients undergoing paracentesis via a temporary (73%) or indwelling (21%) catheter: 51% male, median age 69 years, Australia-modified Karnofsky Performance Score 50.

RESULTS

At T1 (n = 100), symptoms had improved for most patients (81%), specifically abdominal distension (61%), abdominal pain (49%) and nausea (27%), with two-thirds experiencing improvement in ⩾2 symptoms. In the remaining patients, symptoms were unchanged (7%) or worse (12%). At least one harm occurred in 32% of patients, the most common being an ascitic leak (n = 14). By T3, 89% of patients had experienced some benefit and 36% some harm, including four patients who experienced serious harm, one of which was a fatal bowel perforation.

CONCLUSION

Most patients obtained rapid benefits from paracentesis. Harms were less frequent and generally mild, but occasionally serious and fatal. Our findings help inform clinician-patient discussions about the potential outcomes of paracentesis in this frail population.

Pharmacovigilance in Hospice/Palliative Care: De-Prescribing Combination Controlled Release Oxycodone-Naloxone

Background: Pharmacovigilance studies in hospice/palliative care provide extra information to improve medication safety. Combination controlled release oxycodone-naloxone offers an alternative opioid with less risk of opioid-induced constipation. Objective: To examine why palliative care clinicians chose to cease oxycodone-naloxone and to explore immediate and short-term benefits and harms of this medication change. Design: A consecutive cohort study. Setting: 112 adults from 13 palliative care centers. Measurements: Reasons for ceasing medication and the harms and benefits that followed this 24 and 72 hours later. Symptom burdens were summarised by the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events Toxicity Gradings. Results: Combination medication was most commonly ceased because of poor pain control or impaired hepatic function. The last median oral morphine equivalent oxycodone dose before the switch was 45 mg (range 7.5-240 mg) with 76 switched to an alternative long-acting opioid (initial median oral morphine equivalent dose being 45 mg [range 5-210 mg]). Subgroup analysis of those switched because of clinicians' concerns about hepatic dysfunction demonstrated this group were receiving significantly lower opioid doses pre-cessation compared to those switched because of other reasons( p = 0.007). Regardless of why the medication was changed, improvements in pain and constipation scores were seen, the latter associated with an attendant increase in laxatives. Conclusions: This preliminary work suggests that despite theoretical concerns regarding the effect of the naloxone on opioid doses, most people were switched safely to very similar opioid doses with attendant improvements in pain control.

Pharmacovigilance in Hospice/Palliative Care: Net Effect of Haloperidol for Nausea or Vomiting

BACKGROUND

Haloperidol is widely prescribed as an antiemetic in patients receiving palliative care, but there is limited evidence to support and refine its use.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the immediate and short-term net clinical effects of haloperidol when treating nausea and/or vomiting in palliative care patients.

DESIGN

A prospective, multicenter, consecutive case series.

SETTING/SUBJECTS

Twenty-two sites, five countries: consultative, ambulatory, and inpatient services.

MEASUREMENTS

When haloperidol was started in routine care as an antiemetic, data were collected at three time points: baseline; 48 hours (benefits); day seven (harms). Clinical effects were assessed using the National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI CTCAE).

RESULTS

Data were collected (May 2014-March 2016) from 150 patients: 61% male; 86% with cancer; mean age 72 (standard deviation 11) years and median Australian-modified Karnofsky Performance Scale 50 (range 10-90). At baseline, nausea was moderate (88; 62%) or severe (11; 8%); 145 patients reported vomiting, with a baseline NCI CTCAE vomiting score of 1.0. The median (range) dose of haloperidol was 1.5 mg/24 hours (0.5-5 mg/24 hours) given orally or parenterally. Five patients (3%) died before further data collection. At 48 hours, 114 patients (79%) had complete resolution of their nausea and vomiting, with greater benefit seen in the resolution of nausea than vomiting. At day seven, 37 (26%) patients had a total of 62 mild/moderate harms including constipation 25 (40%); dry mouth 13 (21%); and somnolence 12 (19%).

CONCLUSIONS

Haloperidol as an antiemetic provided rapid net clinical benefit with low-grade, short-term harms.

Prevalence of Different Combinations of Antiepileptic Drugs and CNS Drugs in Elderly Home Care Service and Nursing Home Patients in Norway

Introduction. Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are used to treat different conditions in elderly patients and are among the drug classes most susceptible to be involved in drug-drug interactions (DDI). The aim of the study was to describe and compare use of AEDs between home care service and nursing home patients, as these patients are not included in nationwide databases of drug utilization. In the combined population, we investigate DDI of AEDs with other central nervous system- (CNS-) active drugs and DDIs involving AEDs in general. Materials and Methods. Point-prevalence study of Norwegian patients in home care services and nursing homes in 2009. At the patient level, we screened for different DDIs involving AEDs. Results. In total, 882 patients (7.8%) of 11,254 patients used AEDs and number of users did not differ between home care services and nursing homes (8.2% versus 7.7%). In the combined population, we identified 436 potential DDIs in 45% of the patients. Conclusions. In a large population of elderly, home care service and nursing home patients do not differ with respect to exposure of AEDs but use more AEDs as compared to the general population of similar age. The risk of DDIs with AEDs and other CNS-active drugs should be taken into consideration and individual clinical evaluations are assessed in this population.