Dataset Information

Neuroleptic strategies for terminal agitation in patients with cancer and delirium at an acute palliative care unit: a single-centre, double-blind, parallel-group, randomised trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The role of neuroleptics for terminal agitated delirium is controversial. We assessed the effect of three neuroleptic strategies on refractory agitation in patients with cancer with terminal delirium.

Methods

In this single-centre, double-blind, parallel-group, randomised trial, patients with advanced cancer, aged at least 18 years, admitted to the palliative and supportive care unit at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (Houston, TX, USA), with refractory agitation, despite low-dose haloperidol, were randomly assigned to receive intravenous haloperidol dose escalation at 2 mg every 4 h, neuroleptic rotation with chlorpromazine at 25 mg every 4 h, or combined haloperidol at 1 mg and chlorpromazine at 12·5 mg every 4 h, until death or discharge. Rescue doses identical to the scheduled doses were administered at inception, and then hourly as needed. Permuted block randomisation (block size six; 1:1:1) was done, stratified by baseline Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) scores. Research staff, clinicians, patients, and caregivers were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was change in RASS score from time 0 to 24 h. Comparisons among group were done by modified intention-to-treat analysis. This completed study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03021486.

Findings

Between July 5, 2017, and July 1, 2019, 998 patients were screened for eligibility, with 68 being enrolled and randomly assigned to treatment; 45 received the masked study interventions (escalation n=15, rotation n=16, combination n=14). RASS score decreased significantly within 30 min and remained low at 24 h in the escalation group (n=10, mean RASS score change between 0 h and 24 h -3·6 [95% CI -5·0 to -2·2]), rotation group (n=11, -3·3 [-4·4 to -2·2]), and combination group (n=10, -3·0 [-4·6 to -1·4]), with no difference among groups (p=0·71). The most common serious toxicity was hypotension (escalation n=6 [40%], rotation n=5 [31%], combination n=3 [21%]); there were no treatment-related deaths.

Interpretation

Our data provide preliminary evidence that the three strategies of neuroleptics might reduce agitation in patients with terminal agitation. These findings are in the context of the single-centre design, small sample size, and lack of a placebo-only group.

Funding

National Institute of Nursing Research.

SUBMITTER: Hui D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7433183 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The implementation of standardised, valid and reliable measurements in palliative care is subject to practical and methodological challenges. One aspect of ongoing discussion is the value of systematic proxy-based assessment of symptom burden in palliative care. In 2011, an expert-developed proxy-based instrument for the assessment of symptom burden in palliative patients, the Palliative Symptom Burden Score (PSBS), was implemented at the Specialised Palliative Care Unit of the University Medical Centre in Dusseldorf, Germany. The present study investigated its feasibility, acceptance and psychometric properties. METHODS:The PSBS was rated by nursing staff three times a day over 5 years (N?=?820 patients). Feasibility and nurses' acceptance of PSBS were analysed. Structural validity was investigated by principal component analysis. Construct validity was examined via cross-validation with the Hospice and Palliative Care Evaluation checklist. Discriminative validity of the PSBS was analysed by means of Kruskal-Wallis test of patients' performance score. Reliability of the PSBS was evaluated by internal consistency analysis, test-retest and split-half-reliability. Inter-rater reliability was investigated by observer agreement of nurses' ratings of symptom burden within a day. Sensitivity to change was analysed by Wilcoxon test with repeated measures of the PSBS before and after palliative complex treatment. RESULTS:A high degree of acceptance and the feasibility of a high-frequency proxy-based symptom burden assessment approach were demonstrated. There were low rates of missing values and no indications of the adoption of prior ratings. PSBS in its present form demonstrates good structural and construct validity (rs?=?.27-.79, p's?<?.001) and high sensitivity to changes in symptom burden (p's?<?.01, except sweating), but unsatisfactory reliability (??=?.41-.67; test-retest: rs = .30-.88; p's?<?.001; split-half: rs?=?.69; p?<?.001; inter-rater: n.s.). CONCLUSIONS:The study presents a framework for the post hoc validation of an already existing documentation tool in palliative care. This study supports the notion that PSBS might not be reflective of an overall construct and will therefore require further development and critical comparison to other already established symptom burden instruments in palliative care.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Delirium is highly problematic in palliative care (PC). Preliminary data indicate a potential role for melatonin to prevent delirium, but no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are reported in PC. METHODS:Patients aged ?18?years, with advanced cancer, admitted to an inpatient Palliative Care Unit (PCU), having a Palliative Performance Scale rating???30%, and for whom consent was obtained, were included in the study. Patients with delirium on admission were excluded. The main study objectives were to assess the feasibility issues of conducting a double-blind RCT of exogenous melatonin to prevent delirium in PC: recruitment, retention, procedural acceptability, appropriateness of outcome measures, and preliminary efficacy and safety data. Study participants were randomized in a double-blind, parallel designed study to receive daily melatonin 3?mg or placebo orally at 21:00 over 28?days or less if incident delirium, death, discharge or withdrawal occurred earlier. Delirium was diagnosed using the Confusion Assessment Method. Efficacy endpoints in the melatonin and placebo groups were compared using time-to-event analysis: days from study entry to onset of incident delirium. RESULTS:Over 16?months, 60/616 (9.7%; 95% CI: 7.5-12.4%) screened subjects were enrolled. The respective melatonin (n =?30) vs placebo (n =?30) outcomes were: incident delirium in 11/30 (36.7%; 95%CI: 19.9-56.1%) vs 10/30 (33%; 95% CI: 17.3-52.8%); early discharge (6 vs 5); withdrawal (6 vs 3); death (0 vs 1); and 7 (23%) vs 11 (37%) reached the 28-day end point. The 25th percentile time-to-event were 9 and 18?days (log rank, ?2 =?0.62, p =?0.43) in melatonin and placebo groups, respectively. No serious trial medication-related adverse effects occurred and the core study procedures were acceptable. Compared to those who remained delirium-free during their study participation, those who developed delirium (n =?21) had poorer functional (p =?0.036) and cognitive performance (p =?0.013), and in particular, poorer attentional capacity (p =?0.003) at study entry. CONCLUSIONS:A larger double-blind RCT is feasible, but both subject accrual and withdrawal rates signal a need for multisite collaboration. The apparent trend for shorter time to incident delirium in the melatonin group bodes for careful monitoring in a larger trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Registered on July 21st 2014 with ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT02200172 .

Project description:BACKGROUND:Accurate prediction of delirium in the intensive care unit (ICU) may facilitate efficient use of early preventive strategies and stratification of ICU patients by delirium risk in clinical research, but the optimal delirium prediction model to use is unclear. We compared the predictive performance and user convenience of the prediction model for delirium (PRE-DELIRIC) and early prediction model for delirium (E-PRE-DELIRIC) in ICU patients and determined the value of a two-stage calculation. METHODS:This 7-country, 11-hospital, prospective cohort study evaluated consecutive adults admitted to the ICU who could be reliably assessed for delirium using the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU or the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist. The predictive performance of the models was measured using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Calibration was assessed graphically. A physician questionnaire evaluated user convenience. For the two-stage calculation we used E-PRE-DELIRIC immediately after ICU admission and updated the prediction using PRE-DELIRIC after 24 h. RESULTS:In total 2178 patients were included. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was significantly greater for PRE-DELIRIC (0.74 (95% confidence interval 0.71-0.76)) compared to E-PRE-DELIRIC (0.68 (95% confidence interval 0.66-0.71)) (z score of -?2.73 (p?<?0.01)). Both models were well-calibrated. The sensitivity improved when using the two-stage calculation in low-risk patients. Compared to PRE-DELIRIC, ICU physicians (n?=?68) rated the E-PRE-DELIRIC model more feasible. CONCLUSIONS:While both ICU delirium prediction models have moderate-to-good performance, the PRE-DELIRIC model predicts delirium better. However, ICU physicians rated the user convenience of E-PRE-DELIRIC superior to PRE-DELIRIC. In low-risk patients the delirium prediction further improves after an update with the PRE-DELIRIC model after 24 h. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02518646 . Registered on 21 July 2015.