The safety and effectiveness of naldemedine for opioid-induced constipation in patients with advanced cancer in real-world palliative care settings: a multicenter prospective observational study.

PURPOSE: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of naldemedine for treating opioid-induced constipation (OIC) in patients with advanced cancer, who are receiving palliative care, and particularly explored its early effects. METHODS: Palliative care teams and inpatient palliative care units across 14 institutions in Japan were included in this multicenter, prospective, observational study. Patients who were newly prescribed a daily oral dose of 0.2 mg naldemedine were enrolled. The spontaneous bowel movement (SBM) within 24 h after the first dose of naldemedine was considered the primary outcome, whereas, the secondary outcomes included weekly changes in SBM frequency and adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 204 patients were enrolled and 184 completed the 7-day study. The average age of the participants (103 males, 101 females) was 63 ± 14 years. The primary cancer was detected in the lungs (23.5%), gastrointestinal tract (13.7%), and urological organs (9.3%). A considerable proportion of patients (34.8%) had ECOG performance status of 3-4. Most patients were undergoing active cancer treatment, however, 40.7% of the patients were receiving the best supportive care. Within 24 h of the first naldemedine dose, 146 patients (71.6%, 95% CI: 65.4-77.8%) experienced SBMs. The weekly SBM counts increased in 62.7% of the participants. The major adverse events included diarrhea and abdominal pain, detected in 17.6% and 5.4% of the patients, respectively. However, no serious adverse events were observed. CONCLUSION: Conclusively, naldemedine is effective and safe for OIC treatments in real-world palliative care settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: UMIN000031381, registered 20/02/2018.

Influence of dosing pattern of antipsychotics on treatment outcome of delirium in patients with advanced cancer.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines recommend antipsychotics for the treatment of delirium; however, there has been no confirmed recommendation regarding their administrating patterns. This study aims to investigate whether different dosing patterns of antipsychotics (single or multiple administrations) influence the outcomes of delirium treatment. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of a prospective observational study involving patients with advanced cancer and delirium receiving antipsychotics. The Delirium Rating Scale Revised-98 was administered at baseline and after 72 h of starting pharmacotherapy. Patients were classified into single administration group (received a single dosage within 24 h before the assessment) and multiple administration group (received more than one dosage). RESULTS: A total of 555 patients (single administration 492 (88.6%); multiple administration 63 (11.4%)) were subjected to analyses. The patients in the multiple administration group were more likely to be male, in psycho-oncology consulting settings, with lower performance status, with hyperactive delirium and with severer delirium symptoms. In the multivariate analysis, single administration was significantly associated with better improvement of delirium (p < 0.01, 95% confidence interval: 1.83-5.87) even after controlling covariates. There were no significant differences in the mean dosages of antipsychotics per day in chlorpromazine equivalent (single administration 116.8 mg/day, multiple administration 123.5 mg/day) and the incidence of adverse events between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this observational study sample, Delirium Rating Scale severity score improvement in single administration was higher than that seen in multiple administration. There was no difference in adverse events between the two groups.

Cross-cultural comparison of continuous deep sedation for advanced cancer patients in East Asian countries: prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Cultural, social, and legal factors have been known to affect physicians' practice of continuous deep sedation. There have been few quantitative studies to compare continuous deep sedation practice in Asian countries. We aimed to describe and compare clinical characteristics of continuous deep sedation in Japan, Korea and Taiwan. METHODS: Patients with advanced cancer admitted to participating palliative care units were enrolled from January 2017 to September 2018. We evaluated and compared (i) the prevalence of continuous deep sedation, (ii) the characteristics of sedated and non-sedated groups in each country, and (iii) continuous deep sedation administration patterns among the three countries. RESULTS: A total of 2158 participants were included in our analysis, and 264 received continuous deep sedation. The continuous deep sedation prevalence was 10, 16 and 22% in Japan, Korea and Taiwan, respectively. Delirium was the most frequent target symptom in all countries, along with dyspnoea (in Japan) and psychological symptoms (in Korea). Midazolam was most frequently used in Japan and Taiwan, but not in Korea (P < 0.001). Among the patients receiving continuous deep sedation, the hydration amount on the final day was significantly different, with median volumes of 200, 500 and 0 mL in Japan, Korea and Taiwan, respectively (P < 0.001). In Korea, 33% of the continuous deep sedation administration caused a high degree of physicians' discomfort, but 3% in Japan and 5% in Taiwan (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical practices of continuous deep sedation and physicians' discomfort related to continuous deep sedation initiation highly varied across countries. We need to develop optimal decision-making models of continuous deep sedation and hydration during continuous deep sedation in each country.

Feasibility of a fast-track randomized controlled trial of cell-free and concentrated ascites reinfusion therapy for patients with refractory malignant ascites.

BACKGROUND: Malignant ascites often causes discomfort in advanced cancer patients. Paracentesis is the most common treatment modality, but it requires frequently repeated treatment. Cell-free and concentrated ascites reinfusion therapy (CART) may prolong the paracentesis interval, but controlled trials are lacking. We assessed the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial of CART vs. paracentesis alone for patients with refractory malignant ascites. METHODS: This study was an open-label, fast-track, randomized controlled, feasibility trial. Patients admitted to four designated cancer hospitals who received no further anticancer treatments were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to a CART arm or control (simple paracentesis) arm. The feasibility endpoint was the percentage of patients who completed the study intervention. Secondary endpoints included paracentesis-free survival, patient's request on the questionnaire for paracentesis (PRO-paracentesis)-free survival (the period until the patients first reported that they would want paracentesis if indicated), and adverse events. RESULTS: We screened 953 patients for eligibility. Of 61 patients with refractory malignant ascites, 21 patients were determined as eligible. Finally, 20 patients consented and were allocated; 18 patients (90%, 95% CI: 68.3-98.8) completed the study intervention. All patients had an ECOG performance status of 3 or 4. The median drained ascites volume was 3,200 mL in the CART arm and 2,500 mL in the control arm. In the CART arm, the median reinfused albumin volume was 12.6 g. Median paracentesis-free survivals were 5 days (95% CI: 2-6) in the CART arm, and 6 days (3-9) in the control arm. Median PRO-paracentesis-free survivals were 4 days (2-5) and 5 days (1-9), respectively. A total of 73% of patients received paracentesis within 2 days from their first request for the next paracentesis. One patient in the CART arm developed Grade 1 fever. CONCLUSIONS: A fast-track randomized controlled trial of CART for patients with malignant ascites is feasible. The efficacy and safety of CART should be assessed in future trials. PRO-paracentesis-free survival may be a complementary outcome measure with paracentesis-free survival in future trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered at University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trial Registry as UMIN000031029 . Registered on 28/01/2018.

Family experience of palliative sedation therapy: proportional vs. continuous deep sedation.

PURPOSE: Some patients experience intense symptoms refractory to intensive palliative care, and palliative sedation is sometimes used. Palliative sedation may be classified into proportional and continuous deep sedation (CDS). The primary aim of this study was to compare family experience between families of patients who received proportional or CDS. METHODS: A multicenter questionnaire survey was conducted involving bereaved families of cancer patients who received proportional or CDS based on a sedation protocol. Overall evaluation of sedation (satisfaction, family-perceived distress, appropriateness of timing, and patient distress) and 13-item family concerns, good death, satisfaction with care, depression, quality of care, unfinished business, and balance between symptom relief and maintaining communication were measured. RESULTS: Among the 2120 patients who died, 222 patients received a continuous infusion of midazolam. A sedation protocol was used in 147 patients, and questionnaires were sent to 124 families. A total of 78 responses were finally returned (proportional, 58 vs. CDS, 20). There were no significant differences in the overall evaluation, family concerns, total score of good death, satisfaction, depression, or balance between symptom relief and maintaining communication. On the other hand, some quality of care items, i.e., relationship with medical staff (P < 0.01), physical care by nurses (P = 0.04), and coordination and consistency (P = 0.04), were significantly better in the CDS group than in the proportional sedation group. Family-reported unfinished business was also better in the CDS group, with marginal significance. CONCLUSIONS: Family experience of CDS was not less favorable than proportional sedation, and actually rated more favorably for some elements of quality of care and unfinished business.

Effect of continuous deep sedation on survival in the last days of life of cancer patients: A multicenter prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Continuous deep sedation is ethically controversial with respect to whether it shortens a patient's life. AIM: To examine whether continuous deep sedation shortens patient survival from the day of Palliative Performance Scale decline to 20 (PPS20). DESIGN: A part of a multicenter prospective cohort study (EASED study). SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: We recruited consecutive adult patients with advanced cancer admitted to 23 participating palliative care units in 2017 in Japan. We compared survival from PPS20 between those who did and did not receive continuous deep sedation. Continuous deep sedation was defined as the continuous administration of sedative medication with the intention to keep a patient continuously unconscious to alleviate otherwise uncontrollable symptoms, but the dose of sedatives was adjusted to achieve adequate symptom relief for each patient. The propensity score-weighting method was used to control for potential confounders, and five sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 1926 patients were enrolled. Patients discharged alive were excluded, and we analyzed 1625 patients of whom 156 (9.6%) received continuous deep sedation. Median survival from PPS20 of 1625 patients was 81 h (95% CI: 77-88). The RASS scores decreased to ⩽-4 was 66% at 24 h. Continuous deep sedation was not associated with a significant survival risk (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.85-1.33). All sensitivity analyses, including continuous deep sedation defined as the RASS score was ⩽-4 achieved the essentially the same results. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous deep sedation with careful dose adjustment was not associated with shorter survival in the last days of life in patients with advanced cancer.

A decision tree prediction model for a short-term outcome of delirium in patients with advanced cancer receiving pharmacological interventions: A secondary analysis of a multicenter and prospective observational study (Phase-R).

OBJECTIVE: There is no widely used prognostic model for delirium in patients with advanced cancer. The present study aimed to develop a decision tree prediction model for a short-term outcome. METHOD: This is a secondary analysis of a multicenter and prospective observational study conducted at 9 psycho-oncology consultation services and 14 inpatient palliative care units in Japan. We used records of patients with advanced cancer receiving pharmacological interventions with a baseline Delirium Rating Scale Revised-98 (DRS-R98) severity score of ≥10. A DRS-R98 severity score of <10 on day 3 was defined as the study outcome. The dataset was randomly split into the training and test dataset. A decision tree model was developed using the training dataset and potential predictors. The area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic curve was measured both in 5-fold cross-validation and in the independent test dataset. Finally, the model was visualized using the whole dataset. RESULTS: Altogether, 668 records were included, of which 141 had a DRS-R98 severity score of <10 on day 3. The model achieved an average AUC of 0.698 in 5-fold cross-validation and 0.718 (95% confidence interval, 0.627-0.810) in the test dataset. The baseline DRS-R98 severity score (cutoff of 15), hypoxia, and dehydration were the important predictors, in this order. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: We developed an easy-to-use prediction model for the short-term outcome of delirium in patients with advanced cancer receiving pharmacological interventions. The baseline severity of delirium and precipitating factors of delirium were important for prediction.

Comparison between patient-reported and clinician-reported outcomes: Validation of the Japanese version of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale for staff.

OBJECTIVES: The goal of palliative and supportive care is to improve patients' quality of life (QoL). Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are the gold standard for the assessment of QoL and symptoms; however, when self-reporting is complicated, PROMs are often substituted with proxy-reported outcome measures, such as clinician-reported outcome measures. The objective of this study was to assess the validity and reliability of the Japanese version of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS) for staff (IPOS-Staff). METHODS: This multicenter, cross-sectional observational study was conducted concurrently with the validation of the IPOS for patients (IPOS-Patient). Japanese adult patients with cancer and their staff were recruited. We assessed the characteristics of the patients and staff members, missing values, prevalence, and total IPOS scores. For the analysis of criterion validity, intra-rater, and inter-rater reliability, we calculated intraclass correlations (ICCs). RESULTS: One hundred and forty-three patients completed the IPOS-Patient, and 79 medical staff members completed the IPOS-Staff. The most common missing values from IPOS-Staff were Family Anxiety (3.5%) and Sharing Feelings (3.5%). Over half of the patients scored themselves moderate or worse for Poor Mobility, Anxiety, and Family Anxiety, while staff members scored patients moderate or worse for Weakness, Anxiety, and Family Anxiety. For criterion validity (patient-staff agreement) as well as intra-rater and inter-rater reliability, ICCs ranged from 0.114 (Sharing Feelings) to 0.826 (Nausea), 0.720 (Anxiety) to 0.933 (Nausea), and -0.038 (Practical Problems) to 0.830 (Nausea), respectively. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: The IPOS-Staff is easy to respond to; it has fair validity and reliability for physical items but poor for psycho-social items. By defining the context and objectives of its use and interpretation, the IPOS-Staff can be a useful tool for measuring outcomes in adult patients with cancer who cannot complete self-evaluations.

Validation of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS) - Japanese Version.

BACKGROUND: To improve palliative care practice, the need for patients-reported outcome measures is increasing globally. The Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS) is a streamlined outcome scale developed to comprehensively evaluate patients' distress. The goal of this study is to assess the reliability and validity of IPOS-Japanese version in cancer patients. METHODS: This is a multicenter, cross-sectional observational study. We assessed the missing values, prevalence, test-retest reliability, criterion validity and known-group validity in Japanese adult cancer patients. Patients provided responses to IPOS, European Organization for Research and Treatment for Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy- Spiritual 12 (FACIT-Sp12). Our medical staff provided responses to Support Team Assessment Schedule (STAS). RESULTS: One hundred forty-two patients were enrolled at six palliative care facilities. Missing values accounted for less than 1% of most items, with a maximum of 2.8%. The prevalence of symptoms was 17.7-88.7%. The intra-class correlation coefficient ranged from 0.522 to 0.951. The range of correlation coefficients with EORTC-QLQ-C30, FACIT-Sp12 and STAS as gold standards was 0.013 to 0.864 (absolute values). Total IPOS scores were positively correlated with Eastern Corporative Oncology Group Performance Status (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: IPOS-Japanese version is a valid and reliable tool. The scale is useful in assessing physical, psychological, social and spiritual symptoms and in measuring outcomes of adult cancer patients in Japan.

Efficacy of immediate-release oxycodone for dyspnoea in cancer patient: cancer dyspnoea relief (CDR) trial.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend morphine as the first-line pharmacological treatment for cancer dyspnoea. However, trials with other opioids have not been performed. Our aim was to demonstrate the non-inferiority of oxycodone to morphine for relieving dyspnoea in cancer patients. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, randomized control trial. We randomly and equally assigned cancer patients on regular oxycodone who developed dyspnoea to get a single dose of oral immediate-release oxycodone or morphine. We evaluated the change in dyspnoea intensity (numeric rating scale: 0-10) and adverse events after the medication administration. RESULTS: This study was preconfidence interval -maturely terminated. All 17 enroled patients (8 using oxycodone, 9 using morphine) completed evaluations. In the oxycodone group, dyspnoea intensity decreased 1.75 points [95% confidence interval, 0.72-2.78] at 60 min and 1.50 points (95% confidence interval, -0.11 to 3.11) at 120 min. In the morphine group, dyspnoea decreased 1.33 points (95% confidence interval, 0.41-2.25) at 60 min and 1.00 point (95% confidence interval, -0.08 to 2.08) at 120 min. The differences did not fulfil the non-inferiority requirement. Although two and four patients in morphine group developed drowsiness at 60 and 120 min, no patient in oxycodone group developed significant adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Although we did not show the non-inferiority of oxycodone, oxycodone may have some effectiveness for cancer dyspnoea without significant safety concern. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMIN-CTR: UMIN 000005760.

Efficacy of two types of palliative sedation therapy defined using intervention protocols: proportional vs. deep sedation.

PURPOSE: This study investigated the effect of two types of palliative sedation defined using intervention protocols: proportional and deep sedation. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed prospectively recorded data of consecutive cancer patients who received the continuous infusion of midazolam in a palliative care unit. Attending physicians chose the sedation protocol based on each patient's wish, symptom severity, prognosis, and refractoriness of suffering. The primary endpoint was a treatment goal achievement at 4 h: in proportional sedation, the achievement of symptom relief (Support Team Assessment Schedule (STAS) ≤ 1) and absence of agitation (modified Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) ≤ 0) and in deep sedation, the achievement of deep sedation (RASS ≤ - 4). Secondary endpoints included mean scores of STAS and RASS, deep sedation as a result, and adverse events. RESULTS: Among 398 patients who died during the period, 32 received proportional and 18 received deep sedation. The treatment goal achievement rate was 68.8% (22/32, 95% confidence interval 52.7-84.9) in the proportional sedation group vs. 83.3% (15/18, 66.1-100) in the deep sedation group. STAS decreased from 3.8 to 0.8 with proportional sedation at 4 h vs. 3.7 to 0.3 with deep sedation; RASS decreased from + 1.2 to - 1.7 vs. + 1.4 to - 3.7, respectively. Deep sedation was needed as a result in 31.3% (10/32) of the proportional sedation group. No fatal events that were considered as probably or definitely related to the intervention occurred. CONCLUSION: The two types of intervention protocol well reflected the treatment intention and expected outcomes. Further, large-scale cohort studies are promising.

Use of olanzapine for the relief of nausea and vomiting in patients with advanced cancer: a multicenter survey in Japan.

Nausea and vomiting are among the most common and distressing symptoms in patients with advanced cancer. Olanzapine, an antipsychotic agent, is known to have an affinity for multiple neurotransmitter receptors. Previous studies have reported olanzapine to be efficacious in the treatment of nausea and vomiting. Although it has been administered at a number of facilities, its applicability to treat nausea and vomiting in patients with advanced cancer is poorly understood. We investigated the use of olanzapine for nausea and vomiting in patients with advanced cancer at multiple centers. This retrospective study was carried out at seven palliative care units and three facilities with palliative care teams in Japan from 2013 to 2015. The dosage of olanzapine, treatment duration, and duration from initial use until death were collected from the medical records. One hundred and eight patients met our inclusion criteria. The average dose of olanzapine was 3.6 mg (2.5 mg, n = 61; 5 mg, n = 46; 10 mg, n = 1) and average treatment duration was 18.7 days. The average duration from initial use until death was 39.0 days. There were no differences in the duration of administration until death between olanzapine doses (2.5 and 5 mg). Our results suggest that olanzapine have been used in patients with poor prognoses for nausea and vomiting in patients with advanced cancer. Conducting a prospective trial would further yield promising results.

A Novel Objective Measure for Terminal Delirium: Activity Scores Measured by a Sheet-Type Sensor.

CONTEXT: Delirium is a significant concern in end-of-life care. Continuous monitoring of agitation levels using objective methods may have advantages over existing measurement scales. OBJECTIVES: To examine whether an objective measure of activity scores measured using a sheet-type non-wearable sensor (Nemuri SCAN [NSCAN]) was correlated with agitation levels measured using the modified Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) in terminally ill patients with cancer. METHODS: We conducted a single-center, prospective, observational study in a palliative care unit using the NSCAN to measure activity scores and the RASS to assess agitation levels. RASS scores were prospectively measured by ward nurses blinded to the NSCAN variables. A database was created to pair the RASS scores and activity scores at night on the same day. RESULTS: During the observation period, 1209 patients were hospitalized, and 3028 pairs of assessments of 971 patients were analyzed. The NSCAN activity scores significantly increased with increasing RASS scores (Jonckheere-Terpstra test, p < 0.001). The mean values of the activity scores for each RASS score were RASS -5, 28.9; RASS -4, 36.4; RASS -3, 41.7; RASS -2, 57.4; RASS -1, 58.8; RASS 0, 62.6; RASS 1, 79.6; RASS 2, 106.5; and RASS 3, 118.7. CONCLUSION: The NSCAN activity significantly correlated with modified RASS agitation scores. Real-time NSCAN data on agitation may aid timely interventions for optimal symptom control. To improve outcomes for patients suffering from terminal delirium, more research on monitoring tools is warranted.

Comparison of Pharmacological Treatments for Agitated Delirium in the Last Days of Life.

CONTEXT: Antipsychotics are often used in managing symptoms of terminal delirium, but evidence is limited. OBJECTIVES: To explore the comparative effectiveness of haloperidol with as-needed benzodiazepines (HPD) vs. chlorpromazine (CPZ) vs. levomepromazine (LPZ) for agitated delirium in the last days. METHODS: A prospective observational study was conducted in two palliative care units in Japan. Adult cancer patients who developed agitated delirium with a modified Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS-PAL) of one or more were included; palliative care specialist physicians determined that the etiology was irreversible; and estimated survival was 3 weeks or less. Patients treated with HPD, CPZ, or LPZ were analyzed. We measured RASS, NuDESC, Agitation Distress Scale (ADS), and Communication Capacity Scale (CCS) on Days 1 and 3. RESULTS: A total of 277 patients were enrolled, and 214 were analyzed (112 in HPD, 50 in CPZ, and 52 in LPZ). In all groups, the mean RASS-PAL score significantly decreased on Day 3 (1.37 to -1.01, 1.87 to -1.04, 1.79 to -0.62, respectively; P < 0.001); the NuDESC and ADS scores also significantly decreased. The percentages of patients with moderate to severe agitation and those with full communication capacity on Day 3 were not significantly different. The treatments were well-tolerated. While one-fourth of HPD group changed antipsychotics, 88% or more of CPZ and LPZ groups continued the initial antipsychotics. CONCLUSION: Haloperidol with as-needed benzodiazepine, chlorpromazine, or levomepromazine may be effective and safe for terminal agitation. Chlorpromazine and levomepromazine may have an advantage of no need to change medications.

Successful Management of Terminal Delirium With Transdermal Blonanserin Patch in a Terminally Ill Cancer Patient.

Delirium is a distressing condition in terminally ill cancer patients, often treated with antipsychotics. Administering them orally, subcutaneously, or intravenously can be challenging in severely agitated patients. Transdermal antipsychotic patches offer an alternative, but their use for terminal delirium remains underexplored. We present the case of a 73-year-old man with advanced diffuse large B cell lymphoma who developed severe mixed delirium during third-line chemotherapy. Nonpharmacological interventions and oral risperidone plus intravenous haloperidol failed to improve his condition. Subsequently, a transdermal blonanserin patch was applied, resulting in the resolution of hallucinations on day 1 and agitation on day 3, allowing improved communication. The patch was easily applied daily without notable adverse events. However, he deteriorated a week later with an estimated survival of days, ultimately requiring continuous midazolam for refractory agitation. This case underscores the potential of transdermal blonanserin patches for delirium in terminally ill cancer patients, emphasizing the need for future prospective studies.

Sublingually administered scopolamine for nausea in terminally ill cancer patients.

PURPOSE: The primary aim of this study was to clarify the effect of sublingual scopolamine on the intensity of nausea. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was an open uncontrolled study, and the study participants were cancer patients consecutively admitted to a palliative care unit in Japan. When the patients had nausea, they were administered a solution of scopolamine at 0.15 mg sublingually. The intensities of nausea were assessed using the 6-point Numerical Rating Scale (NRS 0 = no nausea to 5 = worst nausea) before and 15, 30, and 60 min after administration. Primary endpoints were (1) changes in the NRS of nausea and (2) percentage of patients who achieved a decrease in NRS of 1 or more points 15 min after treatment. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients were recruited for this study. The median NRS significantly decreased from 3.0 (range, 1-5) to 1.5 (0-5) after 15 min, and 84 % (n = 21) of the patients achieved a decrease in NRS of 1 or more points after 15 min. In addition, the median NRS significantly decreased from 3.0 (before) to 0 (30 min) and 0 (60 min). The percentage of patients who achieved a decrease in NRS over 1 point was 96 % (n = 25) in 30 min and 100 % (n = 26) in 60 min. Fifteen percent (n = 4) showed drowsiness. No other adverse effects were reported. CONCLUSION: Sublingually administered scopolamine may be effective for managing nausea in terminally ill cancer patients. Randomized controlled trials are promising.

Continuous Deep Sedation for Psycho-Existential Suffering: A Multicenter Nationwide Study.

Background: There is ongoing debate on whether continuous deep sedation (CDS) for psycho-existential suffering is appropriate. Objective: We aimed to (1) clarify clinical practice of CDS for psycho-existential suffering and (2) assess its impact on patients' survival. Methods: Advanced cancer patients admitted to 23 palliative care units in 2017 were consecutively enrolled. We compared patients' characteristics, CDS practices, and survival between those receiving CDS for psycho-existential suffering ± physical symptoms and only for physical symptoms. Results: Of 164 patients analyzed, 14 (8.5%) received CDS for psycho-existential suffering ± physical symptoms and only one of them (0.6%) solely for psycho-existential suffering. Patients receiving CDS for psycho-existential suffering, compared with those only for physical symptoms, were likely to have no specific religion (p = 0.025), and desired (78.6% vs. 22.0%, respectively; p < 0.001) and requested a hastened death more frequently (57.1% vs. 10.0%, respectively; p < 0.001). All of them had a poor physical condition with limited estimated survival, and mostly (71%) received intermittent sedation before CDS. CDS for psycho-existential suffering caused greater physicians' discomfort (p = 0.037), and lasted for longer (p = 0.029). Dependency, loss of autonomy, and hopelessness were common reasons for psycho-existential suffering that required CDS. The survival time after CDS initiation was longer in patients receiving it for psycho-existential suffering (log-rank, p = 0.021). Conclusion: CDS was applied to patients who suffered from psycho-existential suffering, which often associated with desire or request for a hastened death. Further studies and debate are warranted to develop feasible treatment strategies for psycho-existential suffering.

Visualizing How to Use Antipsychotics for Agitated Delirium in the Last Days of Life.

CONTEXT: How physicians use antipsychotics for agitated delirium in the last days of life varies markedly, which could hamper the quality of care. OBJECTIVES: To examine adherence to an algorithm-based treatment for terminal agitated delirium, and explore its effectiveness and safety. METHODS: A single-center, prospective, observational study was conducted in a 27-bed palliative care unit in Japan. All adult cancer patients who developed agitated delirium with a modified Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) of +1 or more were included; the palliative care specialists determined that the etiology was irreversible, the estimated survival was three weeks or less, and the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status was three or four. Patients were treated with an algorithm to visualize how to use antipsychotics, with the treatment goal defined as no agitation (RASS≤0) or acceptable agitation for patients and families. We provided all patients nonpharmacological management to alleviate the symptoms of delirium and administered antipsychotic medications when the nonpharmacological approach was insufficient. We measured the adherence rate, RASS, Nursing Delirium Screening Scale items 2, 3, 4 (Nu-DESC), and Agitation Distress Scale item 2 (ADS) on days 0, 1, 3, 7, 14, 21, and 24 hours before death. RESULTS: A total of 164 patients were enrolled. Adherence rates were 99, 94, and 89%, and treatment goals were achieved in 66, 83, and 93% on days one, three, and seven, respectively. The mean RASS decreased from +1.41 to -0.84 on day three; Nu-DESC decreased from 4.19 to 1.83, and ADS decreased from 1.54 to 0.38. There were seven severe adverse events (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) of 3), including aspiration (n = 3), apnea (n = 2), tremor (n = 1), and muscle rigidity (n = 1) on day three. CONCLUSION: The algorithm-based treatment could be feasible, effective, and safe. Visualizing how palliative care specialists provide pharmacological management could be beneficial for nonspecialist clinicians, and clinical, educational, and research implications warrant further empirical testing.

The feasibility and effects of a pharmacological treatment algorithm for cancer patients with terminal dyspnea: A multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: How clinicians treat patients with terminal dyspnea widely varies, which could hamper quality care. We visualized comprehensive pharmacological treatment delivered by palliative care physicians. AIM: To examine adherence to a comprehensive pharmacological treatment algorithm for patients with terminal dyspnea, and to explore its outcomes during 48 h. DESIGN: A multicenter cohort study at five sites (February 2020 to June 2021). SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: We prospectively enrolled consecutive patients with advanced cancer, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 3-4, and moderate/severe dyspnea. Participating palliative care physicians initiated algorithm-based treatment. The primary outcome was the proportion of adherence to the treatment algorithm over 24 h (predefined goal, 70%). We evaluated the adherence, goal achievement, and dyspnea level with a numerical rating scale (NRS), as well as adverse events over 48 h. RESULTS: All 108 patients received algorithm-based pharmacological treatment. Among 96 and 87 patients who were alive at 24 and 48 h, respectively, 96 (100%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 96%-100%) and 82 (94%; 95%CI = 87%-98%) continued to receive the algorithm treatment, respectively, and 66 (69%; 95%CI = 59%-77%) and 64 (74%; 95%CI = 63%-82%) achieved the treatment goals, respectively. Using a complete case analysis with paired t-tests, mean dyspnea NRS scores significantly reduced from 7.3 (standard error, 0.2) at the baseline to 4.9 (0.3) at 24 h (n = 72; p < 0.001), and 7.2 (0.3) at the baseline to 4.6 (0.4) at 48 h (n = 55; p < 0.001). Most adverse events were mild to moderate. CONCLUSIONS: The comprehensive pharmacological treatment algorithm was feasible, and the study data supports its preliminary efficacy and safety. The use of this algorithm may help clinicians improve care for patients with terminal dyspnea.

Do Types of Opioids Matter for Terminal Cancer Dyspnea? A Preliminary Multicenter Cohort Study.

CONTEXT: Dyspnea is among the most distressing symptoms in the last weeks to days of life (terminal dyspnea). While physicians frequently use parenteral opioids other than morphine for terminal dyspnea, little is known about their effects in cancer patients. OBJECTIVES: To explore the effectiveness and safety of parenteral morphine, oxycodone, and hydromorphone for cancer patients with terminal dyspnea. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a multicenter cohort study that consecutively enrolled advanced cancer patients with moderate/severe terminal dyspnea. Participating palliative care physicians initiated parenteral opioids (morphine/oxycodone/hydromorphone), utilizing a standardized treatment algorithm. We examined the dyspnea intensity (Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale [IPOS]) at 24 and 48 hours. RESULTS: Of 108 patients (mean age = 72), 66 (61%), 34 (32%), and 8 (7.4%) received morphine, oxycodone, and hydromorphone, respectively. At 24 hours, mean dyspnea IPOS scores significantly decreased from 3.0 (standard error (SE) = 0.1) at the baseline to 1.6 (0.1), 2.9 (0.1) to 2.0 (0.2), and 3.5 (0.2) to 1.2 (0.4) in the morphine (P < 0.001), oxycodone (P < 0.001), and hydromorphone (P = 0.011) groups, respectively. At 48 hours, the IPOS scores significantly reduced from 2.9 (0.1) at the baseline to 1.4 (0.1), 2.9 (0.1) to 1.6 (0.2), and 3.5 (0.2) to 1.2 (0.2) in the morphine (P < 0.001), oxycodone (P < 0.001), and hydromorphone (P = 0.004) groups, respectively. No significant differences in mean scores were found among the three groups at 24 (P = 0.080) and 48 hours (P = 0.322). Adverse events were rare. CONCLUSION: Parenteral morphine, oxycodone, and hydromorphone may be similarly effective and safe for cancer patients with terminal dyspnea.