In vitro evaluation of enteral tube administration of lansoprazole orally disintegrating tablets

Lansoprazole orally disintegrating tablets (ODTs) can be administered orally or through a nasogastric (NG) tube for patients who are unable to swallow. In addition, off-label administration through gastrostomy (G) or jejunal (J) tubes has been reported. The purpose of this study was to develop in vitro methods to assess the risk of clogging during administration of two lansoprazole ODTs through enteral feeding tubes. Feeding tubes of various compositions and geometries were selected for testing. Disintegration, sedimentation, percent recovery, acid phase dissolution testing, and particle size distribution measurements were performed. The results indicated that G tubes had the greatest risk of clogging compared to NG and J tubes. In addition, larger particles and an increased amount of insoluble excipients observed in Product B resulted in more irreversible enteral tube clogging than compared to Product A. The geometry and design of the tube also had an impact on the amount of lansoprazole recovered after enteral tube administration. Lansoprazole ODTs demonstrated acid resistance stability regardless of the water used for suspension. The in vitro methods discussed in this work could be used to evaluate in vitro equivalence and to assess the risk of delivering a drug product through an enteral feeding tube.

The Hidden Burden of Community Enteral Feeding on the Emergency Department

BACKGROUND

Enteral feeding tubes are associated with their most serious complications in the days and weeks after insertion, but there are limited published data in the literature on late complications and the implications for the healthcare service.

METHODS

This is a retrospective observational study of attendances to a UK hospital emergency department (ED), with enteral tube complications as the primary reason for attendance.

RESULTS

Over 24 months, 139 attendances were recorded. Dislodged tubes and blocked tubes accounted for the majority of complications and subsequent admissions, with a mixture of enteral tube types being associated with both. Thirty-five percent of patients were admitted, and the average healthcare cost per attendance was $1071.

CONCLUSION

Enteral tube complications can place a hidden burden on the patient, the ED, and healthcare costs. More work on education and supporting caregivers to resolve problems themselves could reduce the burden on busy EDs.

Enteral tube administration of oral chemotherapy drugs

Objective

Patients receiving oral chemotherapies face treatment interruptions if they require placement of an enteral tube for nutrition, potentially leading to adverse outcomes in cancer treatment. Enteral tube medication administration can provide a suitable alternative. The purpose of this review is to compile available data that describe enteral tube administration of oral chemotherapy agents. Data sources: A systematic evaluation of all Food and Drug Administration-approved oral chemotherapy agents through 31 July 2019 was conducted. Information on crushing or opening of the tablet or capsule, enteral tube administration, and extemporaneous formulations was compiled from the prescribing information, tertiary resources, and primary literature. Drug manufacturers were contacted for additional information. Data summary: A total of 87 oral chemotherapy agents were evaluated. Of the 87 drugs, 33 agents (37.9%) had information regarding enteral tube administration with only four drugs with nasogastric or gastric tube administration instructions in their prescribing information. The strength of evidence varied from non-peer reviewed data to complete evaluations of efficacy and safety. The majority of chemotherapies (62%) had no available data on enteral tube administration.

Conclusions

The results of this review suggest that there is limited data surrounding enteral tube administration of most oral chemotherapies, demonstrating the need for more studies to be conducted to provide more guidance to healthcare providers when administration via an enteral tube is needed in their patients.

Development of a medication review service for patients with enteral tubes in a community teaching hospital

PURPOSE

The results of a study to develop a hospital-wide medication review service for patients with enteral tubes to improve patient safety are presented.

SUMMARY

Inappropriate enteral administration of medications can result in occluded tubes, altered clinical response, and an increase in adverse effects. At Saint Barnabas Medical Center, a 600-bed community teaching hospital located in Livingston, New Jersey, a medication review service for patients with an enteral tube was developed. A phased approach was used. In phase 1, a retrospective chart review revealed that 43% of our patients with enteral tubes received at least one medication that should not be crushed. In phase 2, we identified formulary medications that should not be crushed based on guidance from the Institute for Safe Medication Practices. We added a "do not crush" warning to the identified medications in our electronic medication administration record and automated medication dispensing system. In phase 3, we created an automatic substitution list of medications. Phase 4 involved the development of the program in our health information technology platform. An electronic task list alerted pharmacists about patients with enteral tubes who required medication review and potential medication substitutions, as well as patients with newly removed enteral tubes who can be placed back on their original medications. In phase 5, we provided education to prescribers, nurses, and pharmacists.

CONCLUSION

A hospital-wide medication review service for patients with enteral tubes at our community teaching medical center was developed.

A HAART-Breaking Review of Alternative Antiretroviral Administration: Practical Considerations with Crushing and Enteral Tube Scenarios

Selection of an appropriate antiretroviral regimen for the patient infected with human immunodeficiency virus can be challenging, as various considerations must be taken into account including viral resistance mutations, patient comorbidities, drug interactions, and the potential for drug-related adverse effects and toxicities. Treatment is further complicated when a clinical scenario arises requiring an alteration in the dosage form. Factors ranging from dysphagia to administration through an enteral feeding tube can affect decisions regarding antiretroviral dosage forms. Limited pharmacokinetic data exist regarding the alteration of antiretroviral medications from their original form. Bioavailability may vary substantially between dosage forms, which can lead to unpredictable drug concentrations. Supratherapeutic or subtherapeutic antiretroviral drug concentrations can result in increased toxicity, virologic failure, or the emergence of drug resistance. We performed a systematic literature search to review the available antiretroviral literature on the modification of solid dosage forms as well as alternative routes of administration of oral antiretroviral agents and their application to clinical practice.

Oral Feeding Reduces Hospitalizations Compared with Gastrostomy Feeding in Infants and Children Who Aspirate

OBJECTIVE

To compare the frequency of hospitalization rates between patients with aspiration treated with gastrostomy vs those fed oral thickened liquids.

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective review was performed of patients with an abnormal videofluoroscopic swallow study between February 2006 and August 2013; 114 patients at Boston Children's Hospital were included. Frequency, length, and type of hospitalizations within 1 year of abnormal swallow study or gastrostomy tube (g-tube) placement were analyzed using a negative binomial regression model.

RESULTS

Patients fed by g-tube had a median of 2 (IQR 1, 3) admissions per year compared with patients fed orally who had a 1 (IQR 0, 1) admissions per year, P < .0001. Patients fed by gastrostomy were hospitalized for more days (median 24 [IQR 6, 53] days) vs patients fed orally (median 2 [IQR 1, 4] days, [P < .001]). Despite the potential risk of feeding patients orally, no differences in total pulmonary admissions (incidence rate ratio 1.65; 95% CI [0.70, 3.84]) between the 2 groups were found, except patients fed by g-tube had 2.58 times (95% CI [1.02, 6.49]) more urgent pulmonary admissions.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who underwent g-tube placement for the treatment of aspiration had 2 times as many admissions compared with patients with aspiration who were fed orally. We recommend a trial of oral feeding in all children cleared to take nectar or honey thickened liquids prior to g-tube placement.

To PEG or not to PEG

Patients with adequate intestinal function who are unable to eat may benefit from enteral tube feeding. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is preferred when prolonged treatment is envisaged. PEG feeding will reduce morbidity and mortality in many such patients by reversing malnutrition. The increasing numbers of elderly patients with chronic diseases have resulted in an increased demand for PEG placement that has stretched resources. Many patients who are referred for PEGs are frail and the procedure is associated with complications. Careful management and support for the carers in the community are essential. Not all patients benefit from PEG feeding. The aim must be an improvement in the quality of life, not a prolongation of terminal disease.