Treatment of agitation in terminally ill patients with intranasal midazolam versus subcutaneous midazolam: study protocol for a randomised controlled open-label monocentric trial (MinTU Study).

BACKGROUND: Intranasal (i.n.) drug application is a widely known and low-invasive route of administration that may be able to achieve rapid symptom control in terminally ill patients. According to the German S3 guideline "Palliative care for patients with incurable cancer", benzodiazepines, such as midazolam, are recommended for the treatment of terminal agitation. To the best of our knowledge there is no evidence for i.n. midazolam in terminally ill patients. We aim to assess the use of i.n. midazolam as an alternative to subcutaneous administration of the drug. METHODS: In this monocentric, randomised, controlled, open-label investigator initiated trial, n = 60 patients treated at the palliative care unit of a University Hospital will be treated with 5 mg midazolam i.n. versus 5 mg subcutaneous (s.c.) midazolam in the control arm when terminal agitation occurs (randomly assigned 1:1). The estimated recruitment period is 18 months. Treatment efficacy is defined as an improvement on the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (Palliative Version) (RASS-PAL) and a study specific numeric rating scale (NRS) before and after drug administration. Furthermore, plasma concentration determinations of midazolam will be conducted at t1 = 0 min, t2 = 5 min, and t3 = 20 min using liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry (LC-MS). The primary objective is to demonstrate non-inferiority of midazolam i.n. in comparison to midazolam s.c. for the treatment of agitation in terminally ill patients. DISCUSSION: Midazolam i.n. is expected to achieve at least equivalent reduction of terminal agitation compared to s.c. administration. In addition, plasma concentrations of midazolam i.n. are not expected to be lower than those of midazolam s.c. and the dynamics of the plasma concentration with an earlier increase could be beneficial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Registry DRKS00026775, registered 07.07.2022, Eudra CT No.: 2021-004789-36.

Analysis of Burnout Prevalence among German Physicians Working in a Palliative Care Setting: A Survey of the AIO Quality of Life Working Group.

INTRODUCTION: Palliative care physicians (Pcps) face special challenges caring for terminally ill patients. We conducted this study to evaluate the burnout (bo) prevalence among pcps and sought to identify risk as well as protective factors as a basis for the development of preventive measures. METHODS: Participants (Pcs) were invited via e-mail to complete an online survey between May and June 2022. Besides the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory assessing the bo dimensions of exhaustion (exh) and disengagement (dis), sociodemographic data were collected. RESULTS: The study found that 58% (cut-off mean value [M] ≥2.18) or more specifically, 38% (cut-off M ≥2.5) of the pcs showed increased scores in the exh subscale as a key dimension of bo. All dimensions were correlated with the level of medical and palliative care training, with higher scores for physicians in training. Furthermore, pcs without preventive measures like employee appraisals at work were more likely to be considered exhausted, disengaged, or burned out. The discrepancy between high exh and low dis scores shows that the polled pcps, despite feeling exh, nevertheless considered their work meaningful. CONCLUSION: Bo prevalence among pcps exceeds that of the general population and other specialties, whereas inexperienced pcps might be at high risk of shifting from exh to bo and could therefore benefit from tailored support. Further preventive measures including individual and organizational aspects are necessary to prevent bo and promote health among medical staff, thereby preserving quality of patient care. Elementary preventive measures such as employee appraisals can have a protective effect against bo.