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.

Long-Term Daily Administration of Aprepitant for the Management of Intractable Nausea and Vomiting in Children With Life-Limiting Conditions: A Case Series.

BACKGROUND: Nausea and vomiting is a common symptom in children through their end of life journey. Aprepitant, a NK-1 antagonist, has become a potent weapon in the fight against chemo-induced nausea and vomiting. However, its use in palliative care for refractory nausea and vomiting has been limited due to limited experience or evidence of continuous use. Emerging evidence suggests that continuous use is not only safe, but also effective in patients with nausea and vomiting refractory to multiple lines of antiemetic therapy. METHODS: We conducted a single centre retrospective chart review of children receiving care from a specialist palliative care team who were given continuous daily aprepitant for nausea and vomiting and were unresponsive to at least two prior lines of antiemetic therapy. Parental reports of the impact of nausea on mobility and feeding were used as proxy efficacy markers. Duration of effect and toxicity was also evaluated. RESULTS: Ten children (eight with cancer as a primary diagnosis and two with noncancer diagnoses) received continuous aprepitant and all showed resolution of nausea and vomiting and an increased ability to mobilize and tolerate feeds. No adverse events noted. CONCLUSION: Our review suggests a role for aprepitant in management of refractory nausea and vomiting, demonstrating safety and efficacy. This case series is the first report of aprepitant use in this manner in the paediatric palliative care setting.

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.

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.

Establishing nursing research priorities on a paediatric haematology, oncology, immunology and infectious diseases unit: involving doctors and parents.

Following a Delphi survey undertaken with nurses on a specialist children's unit to identify priorities for nursing research, this paper outlines the results of a survey to ascertain the views of doctors and parents regarding the results of the Delphi. This approach was in keeping with national guidance on multi-professional working in paediatric oncology and the importance of service-user involvement in planning and evaluating care. Convenience samples of doctors (n=16) and parents (n=10) were asked to rank the priorities previously identified by nurses. Results highlighted that in the main, nurses, doctors and parents agreed on the key areas that should take priority for research. Nurse's knowledge of day-to-day symptom management, children's quality of life, negotiation and communication in relation to care provision were identified by all three groups as high priorities. There were some areas where the views varied: this was generally in relation to the different primary focus of the individual groups-parents being very concerned with the effect of daily ward routines and procedures and their child's overall hospital experience, nurses with issues such as staff retention and morale, whereas doctors were more concerned with issues around information giving and consent to treatment. Limitations of the study, including sample selection and the transient nature of the population involved are discussed within the paper. The paper concludes that all three groups shared similar views, being focused on issues directly related to patient care. Consensus between the groups should result in future research initiatives reflecting a shared focus and responding to an identified need.