A mixed-methods systematic review and meta-analysis of barriers and facilitators to paediatric symptom management at end of life.

BACKGROUND: Symptom management for infants, children and young people at end of life is complex and challenging due to the range of conditions and differing care needs of individuals of different ages. A greater understanding of these challenges could inform the development of effective interventions. AIM: To investigate the barriers and facilitators experienced by patients, carers and healthcare professionals managing symptoms in infants, children and young people at end of life. DESIGN: A mixed-methods systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken (PROSPERO ID: CRD42019124797). DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane Library, PROSPERO, CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Database, Evidence Search and OpenGrey were electronically searched from the inception of each database for qualitative, quantitative or mixed-methods studies that included data from patients, carers or healthcare professionals referring to barriers or facilitators to paediatric end-of-life symptom management. Studies underwent data extraction, quality appraisal, narrative thematic synthesis and meta-analysis. RESULTS: A total of 64 studies were included (32 quantitative, 18 qualitative and 14 mixed-methods) of medium-low quality. Themes were generated encompassing barriers/facilitators experienced by carers (treatment efficacy, treatment side effects, healthcare professionals' attitudes, hospice care, home care, families' symptom management strategies) and healthcare professionals (medicine access, treatment efficacy, healthcare professionals' demographics, treatment side effects, specialist support, healthcare professionals' training, health services delivery, home care). Only one study included patients' views. CONCLUSION: There is a need for effective communication between healthcare professionals and families, more training for healthcare professionals, improved symptom management planning including anticipatory prescribing, and urgent attention paid to the patients' perspective.

Diamorphine pharmacokinetics and conversion factor estimates for intranasal diamorphine in paediatric breakthrough pain:systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Intranasal diamorphine is a potential treatment for breakthrough pain but few paediatric data are available to assist dose estimation. AIM: To determine an intranasal diamorphine dose in children through an understanding of pharmacokinetics. DESIGN: A systematic review of the literature was undertaken to seek diamorphine pharmacokinetic parameters in neonates, children and adults. Parenteral and enteral diamorphine bioavailability were reviewed with respect to formation of the major metabolite, morphine. Clinical data quantifying equianalgesic effects of diamorphine and morphine were reviewed. REVIEW SOURCES: PubMed (1960-2020); EMBASE (1980-2020); IPA (1973-2020) and original human research studies that reported diacetylmorphine and metabolite after any dose or route of administration. RESULTS: The systematic review identified 19 studies: 16 in adults and 1 in children and 2 neonatal reports. Details of study participants were extracted. Age ranged from premature neonates to 67 years and weight 1.4-88 kg. Intranasal diamorphine bioavailability was predicted as 50%. The equianalgesic intravenous conversion ratio of morphine:diamorphine was 2:1. There was heterogeneity between pharmacokinetic parameter estimates attributed to routes of administration, lack of size standardisation, methodology and pharmacokinetic analysis. Estimates of the pharmacokinetic parameters clearance and volume of distribution were reduced in neonates. There were insufficient paediatric data to characterise clearance or volume maturation of either diamorphine or its metabolites. CONCLUSIONS: We estimate equianalgesic ratios of intravenous morphine:diamorphine 2:1, intravenous morphine:intranasal diamorphine 1:1 and oral morphine:intranasal diamorphine of 1:3. These ratios are based on adult literature, but are reasonable for deciding on an initial dose of 0.1 mg/kg in children 4-13 years.

A Systematic Review of Measures of Breakthrough Pain and Their Psychometric Properties.

CONTEXT: Breakthrough pain (BTP) is common in cancer and other conditions yet there is a lack of validated BTP measurement tools. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to identify all tools assessing or characterising BTP in patients of any age with any condition, and to critically appraise their psychometric properties. METHODS: The Cochrane Library, PROSPERO, Embase, CINAHL, Medline, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Google Scholar, ProQuest, Evidence Search and OpenGrey were searched to identify all available tools used to assess BTP. A second search identified studies that had evaluated psychometric properties of tools identified in Search 1. Databases were searched from inception to November 2020. Studies were assessed using COSMIN criteria and GRADE guidelines. RESULTS: Search 1 found 51 tools used to assess BTP. Search 2 found six tools that had a development study and/or a study evaluating a tool psychometric property. No tool had more than one study evaluating psychometric properties so a meta-analysis could not be conducted. Studies were of inadequate to very good quality. Only the Breakthrough Pain Assessment Tool (BAT) had sufficient content validity and at least low-quality evidence for sufficient internal consistency. CONCLUSION: The BAT is recommended to characterise BTP in adults with cancer; its applicability to other conditions is unknown. The remaining tools need further evaluation. Only the Breakthrough Pain Questionnaire for Children was designed for children with cancer, but no psychometric properties were evaluated. There is a need for a tool to assess and characterise BTP in children with non-cancer diagnoses and those who cannot self-report.

Oral morphine versus transmucosal diamorphine for breakthrough pain in children: methods and outcomes: UK (DIPPER study) consensus.

OBJECTIVES: No randomised controlled trials have been conducted for breakthrough pain in paediatric palliative care and there are currently no standardised outcome measures. The DIPPER study aims to establish the feasibility of conducting a prospective randomised controlled trial comparing oral and transmucosal administration of opioids for breakthrough pain. The aim of the current study was to achieve consensus on design aspects for a small-scale prospective study to inform a future randomised controlled trial of oral morphine, the current first-line treatment, versus transmucosal diamorphine. METHODS: The nominal group technique was used to achieve consensus on best practice for mode of administration, dose regimen and a range of suitable pain intensity outcome measures for transmucosal diamorphine in children and young people with breakthrough pain. An expert panel of ten clinicians in paediatric palliative care and three parent representatives participated. Consensus was achieved when agreement was reached and no further comments from participants were forthcoming. RESULTS: The panel favoured the buccal route of administration, with dosing according to the recommendations in the Association for Paediatric Palliative Medicine formulary (fifth Edition, 2020). The verbal Numerical Rating Scale was selected to measure pain in children 8 years old and older, the Faces Pain Scale-Revised for children between 4 and 8 years old, and Face, Legs, Activity, Cry and Consolability (FLACC)/FLACC-Revised as the observational tools. CONCLUSIONS: The nominal group technique allowed consensus to be reached for a small-scale, prospective, cohort study and provided information to inform the design of a randomised controlled trial.

A protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify measures of breakthrough pain and evaluate their psychometric properties.

INTRODUCTION: Breakthrough pain is common in children and adults with cancer and other conditions, including those approaching end-of-life, although it is often poorly managed, possibly partly due to a lack of validated assessment tools. This review aims to (1) identify all available instruments measuring breakthrough pain in infants, children, adolescents or adults and (2) critically appraise, compare and summarise the quality of the psychometric properties of the identified instruments using COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) criteria. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Two searches will be carried out between October 2019 and January 2020, one for each aim of the review. The Cochrane Library, International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection, Google Scholar, the ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Database, Evidence Search and OpenGrey databases will be searched from database inception until the date the search is conducted. Reference lists of eligible articles will be screened and authors in the field contacted. For search 1, articles will be screened by two reviewers by abstract, and full-text where necessary, to identify if a breakthrough pain assessment was used. Search 2 will then be conducted to identify studies evaluating measurement properties of these assessments. Two reviewers will screen articles from search 2 by title and abstract. All potentially relevant studies will be screened by full text by both reviewers. For search 2, data will be extracted in parallel with the quality assessment process, as recommended by COSMIN. Two reviewers will assess methodological quality using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist and the COSMIN updated criteria for good measurement properties. Findings will be summarised and, if possible, data will be pooled using meta-analysis. The quality of the evidence will be graded and summarised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) guidelines. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Results of this review will be submitted for publication in a peer review journal and presented at conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019155583.

Barriers and facilitators experienced by patients, carers and healthcare professionals when managing symptoms in infants, children and young people at end-of-life: a mixed methods systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: This protocol describes the objective and methods of a systematic review of barriers and facilitators experienced by patients, carers and healthcare professionals when managing symptoms in infants, children and young people (ICYP) at end-of-life. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Cochrane Library, PROSPERO, CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Database, Evidence Search and OpenGrey will be electronically searched. Reference screening of relevant articles and inquiries to researchers in the field will be undertaken. Studies will be selected if they apply qualitative, quantitative or mixed-methods designs to explore barriers and facilitators experienced by patients, carers and healthcare professionals when managing symptoms in ICYP at end-of-life.Articles will be screened by title and abstract by one reviewer with a second reviewer assessing 10% of the articles. Both reviewers will read and screen all remaining potentially relevant articles. For included articles, one reviewer will extract study characteristics and one will check this.Both reviewers will undertake independent quality assessments of included studies using established and appropriate checklists including The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Qualitative Checklist; The evaluative criteria of credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability; The Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies, and The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Data synthesis methods will be decided after data extraction and assessment. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review will inform our understanding of symptom management in ICYP at end-of-life. The findings will be reported in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences. The study raises no ethical issues. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019124797.

Pediatric pain management in palliative care.

The management of pain in pediatric palliative care (PPC) is essential. Whilst the field of pain management has developed over the years, much of what is done in PPC is based on anecdotal evidence or adult studies. This review explores recent developments in pain management in PPC, in particular the WHO guidelines on the pharmacological treatment of persisting pain in children with medical illnesses. Key issues discussed include the definition, assessment, pharmacological and integrative management of pain, availability of medications, education and research. Whilst advances have been made, including publication of the guidelines, significant gaps exist in terms of the evidence base, education and access to essential medications and both interdisciplinary and international collaboration are required to meet these gaps.