A randomised controlled pilot and feasibility study of music therapy for improving the quality of life of hospice inpatients.

BACKGROUND: Evidence about the effectiveness of music therapy for improving the quality of life of palliative care patients is positive but weak in terms of risk of bias. METHODS: This study aimed to determine the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of music therapy for improving the quality of life of hospice inpatients, as measured by the McGill Quality of Life questionnaire. Objectives included recruitment of 52 participants over 12 months and provision of data to support the calculation of the required sample size for a definitive randomised trial, taking into account the retention rates of recruited participants; and evaluation of the viability of the intervention and the acceptability of the assessment tool. The design was a single-centre, researcher-blinded randomised pilot and feasibility study involving two parallel groups. Participants were recruited from one inpatient hospice unit in Northern Ireland. Eligibility criteria were an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of two or lower and an Abbreviated Mental Test score of seven or more. Consenting patients were randomly allocated to the intervention or control group using a 1:1 allocation ratio. The intervention group received up to six individual music therapy sessions over 3 weeks in addition to usual care. The control group received usual care only. RESULTS: Fifty one participants were recruited over 12 months. Twenty five were allocated to the intervention group and 26 to the control group. Seventy one percent of participants were lost to follow up by week 3, the proposed primary endpoint. The primary endpoint was moved from week 3, when 71% were lost to follow up to week 1, when 33% were lost. The McGill Quality of Life questionnaire was generally acceptable to participants. In order to detect a small to moderate effect size of 0.3, a fully powered study would require the recruitment of 698 participants. CONCLUSIONS: A Phase III randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of music therapy in improving the quality of life of hospice inpatients is feasible. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02791048 . Registered 6 June 2016.

Haloperidol for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in palliative care patients.

BACKGROUND: Nausea and vomiting are common symptoms in patients with terminal, incurable illnesses. Both nausea and vomiting can be distressing. Haloperidol is commonly prescribed to relieve these symptoms. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 2, 2009, of Haloperidol for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in palliative care patients. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and adverse events associated with the use of haloperidol for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in palliative care patients. SEARCH METHODS: For this updated review, we performed updated searches of CENTRAL, EMBASE and MEDLINE in November 2013 and in November 2014. We searched controlled trials registers in March 2015 to identify any ongoing or unpublished trials. We imposed no language restrictions. For the original review, we performed database searching in August 2007, including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and AMED, using relevant search terms and synonyms. Handsearching complemented the electronic searches (using reference lists of included studies, relevant chapters and review articles) for the original review. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of haloperidol for the treatment of nausea or vomiting, or both, in any setting, for inclusion. The studies had to be conducted with adults receiving palliative care or suffering from an incurable progressive medical condition. We excluded studies where nausea or vomiting, or both, were thought to be secondary to pregnancy or surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We imported records from each of the electronic databases into a bibliographic package and merged them into a core database where we inspected titles, keywords and abstracts for relevance. If it was not possible to accept or reject an abstract with certainty, we obtained the full text of the article for further evaluation. The two review authors independently assessed studies in accordance with the inclusion criteria. There were no differences in opinion between the authors with regard to the assessment of studies. MAIN RESULTS: We considered 27 studies from the 2007 search. In this update we considered a further 38 studies from the 2013 search, and two in the 2014 search. We identified one RCT of moderate quality with low risk of bias overall which met the inclusion criteria for this update, comparing ABH (Ativan®, Benadryl®, Haldol®) gel, applied to the wrist, with placebo for the relief of nausea in 22 participants. ABH gel includes haloperidol as well as diphenhydramine and lorazepam. The gel was not significantly better than placebo in this small study; however haloperidol is reported not to be absorbed significantly when applied topically, therefore the trial does not address the issue of whether haloperidol is effective or well-tolerated when administered by other routes (e.g. by mouth, subcutaneously or intravenously). We identified one ongoing trial of haloperidol for the management of nausea and vomiting in patients with cancer, with initial results published in a conference abstract suggesting that haloperidol is effective for 65% of patients. The trial had not been fully published at the time of our review. A further trial has opened, comparing oral haloperidol with oral methotrimeprazine (levomepromazine) for patients with cancer and nausea unrelated to their treatment, which we aim to include in the next review update. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Since the last version of this review, we found one new study for inclusion but the conclusion remains unchanged. There is incomplete evidence from published RCTs to determine the effectiveness of haloperidol for nausea and vomiting in palliative care. Other than the trial of ABH gel vs placebo, we did not identify any fully published RCTs exploring the effectiveness of haloperidol for nausea and vomiting in palliative care patients for this update, but two trials are underway.

Levomepromazine for nausea and vomiting in palliative care.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 4, 2013, on Levomepromazine for nausea and vomiting in palliative care.Nausea and vomiting are common, distressing symptoms for patients receiving palliative care. There are several drugs which can be used to treat these symptoms, known as antiemetics. Levomepromazine is an antipsychotic drug is commonly used as an antiemetic to alleviate nausea and vomiting in palliative care settings. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of, and adverse events associated with, levomepromazine for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in palliative care patients. SEARCH METHODS: For this update we searched electronic databases, including those of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE, up to February 2015. We searched clinical trial registers on 7 October 2015 for ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of levomepromazine for the treatment of nausea or vomiting, or both, in adults receiving palliative care. We excluded studies in which symptoms were thought to be due to pregnancy or surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed the potential relevance of studies based on titles and abstracts. We obtained copies of any study reports that appeared to meet the inclusion criteria for further assessment. At least two review authors read each paper to determine suitability for inclusion and discussed discrepancies in order to achieve a consensus. MAIN RESULTS: In the original review, we identified 421 abstracts using the search strategy. We considered eight studies for inclusion but ultimately excluded them all from the review. We updated the search in February 2015 and identified 35 abstracts, but again none met the inclusion criteria. We identified two trials from clinical trial registers, one of which is ongoing and one of which was closed due to poor recruitment. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: As in the initial review, we identified no published randomised controlled trials examining the use of levomepromazine for the management of nausea and vomiting in adults receiving palliative care, and our conclusion (that further studies of levomepromazine and other antiemetic agents are needed to provide better evidence for their use in this setting) remains unchanged. We did, however, identify one ongoing study that we hope will contribute to the evidence base for this intervention in future updates of this review.

Droperidol for treatment of nausea and vomiting in palliative care patients.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 10, 2010, on droperidol for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in palliative care patients. Nausea and vomiting are common symptoms in patients with terminal illness and can be very unpleasant and distressing. There are several different types of antiemetic treatments that can be used to control these symptoms. Droperidol is an antipsychotic drug and has been used and studied as an antiemetic in the management of postoperative and chemotherapy nausea and vomiting. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and adverse events (both minor and serious) associated with the use of droperidol for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in palliative care patients. SEARCH METHODS: We searched electronic databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE (1950-), EMBASE (1980-), CINAHL (1981-) and AMED (1985-), using relevant search terms and synonyms. The basic search strategy was ("droperidol" OR "butyrophenone") AND ("nausea" OR "vomiting"), modified for each database. We updated the search on 2 December 2009. We performed updated searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and AMED 2009 to 2013 on 19 November 2013 and of CINAHL on 20 November 2013. We also searched trial registers (metaRegister of controlled trials (www.controlled-trials.com/mrct), clinicaltrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/)) on 22 November 2013, using the keyword "droperidol". SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of droperidol for the treatment of nausea or vomiting, or both, in adults receiving palliative care or suffering from an incurable progressive medical condition. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We judged the potential relevance of studies based on their titles and abstracts, and obtained studies that we anticipated might meet the inclusion criteria. Two review authors independently reviewed the abstracts for the initial review and four review authors reviewed the abstracts for the update to assess suitability for inclusion. We discussed discrepancies to achieve consensus. MAIN RESULTS: The 2010 search strategy identified 1664 abstracts (and 827 duplicates) of which we obtained 23 studies in full as potentially meeting the inclusion criteria. On review of the full papers, we identified no studies that met the inclusion criteria.The updated searches carried out in November 2013 identified 304 abstracts (261 excluding duplicates) of which we obtained 18 references in full as potentially meeting the inclusion criteria. On review of the full papers, we identified no studies that met the inclusion criteria, therefore there were no included studies in this review.We found no registered trials of droperidol for the management of nausea or vomiting in palliative care. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Since first publication of this review, no new studies were found. There is insufficient evidence to advise on the use of droperidol for the management of nausea and vomiting in palliative care. Studies of antiemetics in palliative care settings are needed to identify which agents are most effective, with minimum side effects.

Resuscitation decisions for patients dying in the community: a qualitative interview study of general practitioner perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Most patients dying at home do not have a Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation decision and may have inappropriate attempts at resuscitation made when they die. AIM: To investigate how general practitioners think and feel about making and communicating Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation decisions for patients dying in the community. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with general practitioners. The interviews were recorded and analysed using interpretative phenomenological analysis. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Purposive sampling was used to recruit 10 general practitioners from urban and rural practices in Southern England and of various ages and experience. Interviews were carried out either in their home or in their practice. RESULTS: General practitioners often wait until the patient has clearly deteriorated to communicate and document the Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation decision. They consider the chance of success of a resuscitation attempt, quality of life, dignity and the patient's and family's wishes. General practitioners feel they should discuss the decision with the patient but have anxieties about this. They vary widely in how much they guide patients and families in decision-making. Timing and the avoidance of conflict are important. Teamwork provides support in decision-making. CONCLUSION: Resuscitation decisions are important in facilitating a peaceful death, but can be difficult for general practitioners to discuss. General practitioners might benefit from clearer guidance on when an attempt at resuscitation is unlikely to be successful, especially in non-malignant disease. Team discussions including Gold Standards Framework meetings can give confidence and support in making difficult end-of-life decisions.

Levomepromazine for nausea and vomiting in palliative care.

BACKGROUND: Nausea and vomiting are common, distressing symptoms for patients receiving palliative care. There are several agents which can be used to treat these symptoms. Levomepromazine is an antipsychotic drug which is commonly used to alleviate nausea and vomiting in palliative care settings. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of and adverse events (both minor and serious) associated with the use of levomepromazine for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in palliative care patients. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the electronic databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE using relevant search terms and synonyms in March 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of levomepromazine for the treatment of nausea or vomiting, or both, for adults receiving palliative care. Studies where symptoms were thought to be due to pregnancy or surgery were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The potential relevance of studies was assessed based on titles and abstracts. Any study reports which appeared to meet the inclusion criteria were obtained for further assessment. All three authors read these papers to determine their suitability for inclusion and discussed discrepancies to achieve a consensus. MAIN RESULTS: The search strategy identified 421 abstracts from which eight studies were considered but all were excluded from the review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No randomised controlled trials were identified examining the use of levomepromazine for nausea and vomiting in palliative care. Further studies of levomepromazine and other antiemetic agents are needed to provide better evidence for their use in this setting.

Droperidol for treatment of nausea and vomiting in palliative care patients.

BACKGROUND: Nausea and vomiting are common symptoms in patients with terminal illness and can be very unpleasant and distressing. There are several different types of antiemetic treatments which can be used to control these symptoms. Droperidol is an antipsychotic drug and has been used and studied as an antiemetic in the management of post-operative and chemotherapy nausea and vomiting. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and adverse events (both minor and serious) associated with the use of droperidol for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in palliative care patients. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched electronic databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and AMED, using relevant search terms and synonyms. The basic search strategy was ("droperidol" OR "butyrophenone") AND ("nausea" OR "vomiting"), modified for each database. The search was updated on 2 December 2009. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of droperidol for the treatment of nausea or vomiting, or both, for adults receiving palliative care or suffering from an incurable progressive medical condition. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We judged the potential relevance of studies based on their titles and abstracts, and obtained studies which we anticipated might meet the inclusion criteria. We both read these to assess suitability for inclusion. Discrepancies were discussed to achieve consensus. MAIN RESULTS: The search strategy identified 1664 abstracts (and 827 duplicates) of which 23 studies were obtained in full as potentially meeting the inclusion criteria. On review of the full papers, no studies were identified which met the inclusion criteria, therefore, there were no included studies in this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to advise on the use of droperidol for the management of nausea and vomiting in palliative care. Studies of antiemetics in palliative care settings are needed to identify which agents are most effective with a minimum of side effects.

Haloperidol for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in palliative care patients.

BACKGROUND: Nausea and vomiting are common symptoms of patients with terminal, incurable illnesses and can be distressing. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of the review was to evaluate the efficacy and adverse events associated with the use of haloperidol for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in palliative care patients. SEARCH STRATEGY: Several electronic databases were searched including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and AMED, using relevant search terms and synonyms. Handsearching complemented electronic searches (using reference lists of included studies, relevant chapters and review articles). There were no language restrictions imposed. Database searching was performed between 2nd and 16th September 2007. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies considered for inclusion were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of haloperidol for the treatment of nausea or vomiting, or both, in any setting. The studies had to be conducted with adults receiving palliative care or suffering from an incurable progressive medical condition. Studies where nausea or vomiting, or both, thought to be secondary to pregnancy or surgery were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Records from each of the electronic databases were imported into a bibliographic package and merged into a core database where titles, keywords and abstracts were inspected for relevance. If it was not possible to accept or reject an abstract with certainty, the full text of the article was obtained for further evaluation. The two review authors independently assessed studies in accordance with the inclusion criteria. There were no differences in opinion between authors with regard to assessment of studies. MAIN RESULTS: No RCTs were identified meeting the inclusion criteria. Twenty-six studies were considered but all were excluded from the review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We did not identify any RCTs exploring the effectiveness of haloperidol for nausea and vomiting in palliative care patients.

Which measurement scales should we use to measure breathlessness in palliative care? A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: There is no universally accepted measurement scale to assess breathlessness in adult palliative care patients. This significantly hampers clinical practice and research into effective interventions. The aim is to systematically identify and appraise breathlessness measurement scales, which are validated for use in palliative care or which show potential for use. METHODS: We undertook systematic searches of electronic databases (Cochrane databases 2005, MEDLINE 1966-2005, OLDMEDLINE 1950-1965, EMBASE 1980-2005, PsycINFO 1872-2005, AMED 1985-2005, CINAHL 1982-2005, SIGLE 1980-2005) with follow-up searches (reference lists of included papers, hand-searches of relevant journals). The basic search strategy was 'breathlessness (etc.) AND measurement (scales, validation etc.) AND palliative care/cardiac failure/respiratory disease/ neoplasm etc.', modified for each database, without language restriction. Patient-based scales with evaluations of at least two psychometric characteristics were included. Exercise-based tests were excluded. Scales were appraised with particular emphasis on construct validity and responsiveness. RESULTS: We identified 29 scales: six to measure breathlessness severity, four to assess breathlessness descriptions, and 19 to measure functional impact of breathlessness. SEVERITY: The Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) and modified Borg Scale have been evaluated in COPD (the NRS has also been evaluated in cancer). Both require further assessment of responsiveness and test-retest reliability over time intervals relevant to palliative care. Visual Analogue Scales have also been evaluated, but require larger sample sizes than NRS for evidence of intervention effectiveness. DESCRIPTIONS: The Japanese Cancer Dyspnoea Scale (CDS) has been evaluated in patients with cancer, but requires further assessment of construct validity and responsiveness. FUNCTIONAL IMPACT: The Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire dyspnoea subscale (CRQ-D) has been evaluated in chronic lung diseases and heart failure; the MND Respiratory Scale is similar. CRQ-D has face and construct validity, test-retest reliability and responsiveness, and shows promise for palliative care. CONCLUSION: The NRS, modified Borg, CRQ-D and CDS appear most suitable for use in palliative care, but further evaluation is required before adopting any scale as standard. This review has been registered with the Cochrane collaboration and will be published and updated as a Cochrane review.