Practical use of rectal medications in palliative care

Transmucosal drug administration as an alternative route in palliative and end-of-life care during the COVID-19 pandemic

The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a surge in need for alternative routes of administration of drugs for end of life and palliative care, particularly in community settings. Transmucosal routes include intranasal, buccal, sublingual and rectal. They are non-invasive routes for systemic drug delivery with the possibility of self-administration, or administration by family caregivers. In addition, their ability to offer rapid onset of action with reduced first-pass metabolism make them suitable for use in palliative and end-of-life care to provide fast relief of symptoms. This is particularly important in COVID-19, as patients can deteriorate rapidly. Despite the advantages, these routes of administration face challenges including a relatively small surface area for effective drug absorption, small volume of fluid for drug dissolution and the presence of a mucus barrier, thereby limiting the number of drugs that are suitable to be delivered through the transmucosal route. In this review, the merits, challenges and limitations of each of these transmucosal routes are discussed. The goals are to provide insights into using transmucosal drug delivery to bring about the best possible symptom management for patients at the end of life, and to inspire scientists to develop new delivery systems to provide effective symptom management for this group of patients.

A Cost and Quality Analysis of Utilizing a Rectal Catheter for Medication Administration in End-of-Life Symptom Management

Technology that can improve the ability to provide quick symptom control while decreasing the cost and burden of care could help hospice agencies deal with current hospice industry challenges. This paper describes how the use of a new rectal medication delivery technology at a large hospice in western New York has improved patient care and nursing efficiency while at the same time decreasing the cost of care.

Evaluation of the Macy Catheter®: a rectal catheter for rapid medication and fluid administration

INTRODUCTION

Health care providers are increasingly challenged to balance cost considerations for devices, drugs, and staffing all while continuing to provide excellent care. Patients in both the post-acute and acute care settings often require fluid and/or medication when their oral route is compromised and vascular access may not be warranted or immediately accessible. The rectum is an underutilized administration point that can be accessed with speed and relative ease. Areas Covered: Literature reviews of pharmaceutical, medical, and nursing references reveal current and historical science that validates the rectal route as a means of alternative administration for fluids and medications. Expert Commentary: Historically the rectum has been used for medication and fluid delivery but in more recent times, use has waned due to many factors. The physiology of the rectum allows for rapid and reliable administration of a variety of medications as well as hydration. This serves as an introduction to a novel, simple, cost effective device that allows for discreet and painless rectal administration of fluids and medications when the oral route is compromised and/or intravenous access is difficult or unnecessary. This device is used in a variety of patients in many care settings.

Hospice in heart failure: why, when, and what then?

Hospice is a model of care for patients nearing the end of their lives that emphasizes symptom management, quality of life (QOL), and support of the patient and caregiving family through the death of the patient and the family's bereavement. It is associated with high patient and caregiver satisfaction and appears to not shorten lifespan for appropriately referred patients. Patients with advanced heart failure are being referred to hospice care more often than in the past, but the majority of deaths occur without this benefit. Hospice care in the USA is defined by the Medicare Hospice Benefit and associated regulations. Hospice is appropriate for patients with an expected survival prognosis of 6 months or less, and multiple predictive factors and tools are available to assist in prognostication. Management of symptoms and specific drug therapy options are discussed. For many patients, deactivation of electronic cardiac devices is appropriate when the goals of care are comfort and QOL. Ongoing collaboration of the referring physician with the hospice agency and staff offers opportunities for seamless and quality care.

Promoting Excellence in Symptom Management Case Series: Case Study: A New Intervention for Rapid End-of-Life Symptom Control in the Home Setting

The oral route is compromised for nearly all patients at the end of life (EOL). This article reviews the benefits and burdens of the usual alternative routes of medication delivery when the oral route fails and presents a case study on the use of a new innovation for the rectal delivery of medication to control EOL symptoms. A 62-year-old male hospice patient with end-stage metastatic prostate cancer presented with severe symptoms (Face, Legs, Activity, Cry and Consolability scale score, 9/10) that were uncontrollable with medications given via oral or sublingual routes. The patient goals were to remain at home with optimal symptom management. Rapid relief of symptoms was accomplished by the administration of medications already present in the home delivered with a new rectal catheter that provides discreet access for ongoing medication administration. Significant relief was noted within 20 minutes of dosing. The patient died peacefully 18 hours later, meeting his EOL goals, and the family was empowered to provide effective care for the patient at home. The family found the intervention easy to use. This case demonstrates how this new innovation can be used to ensure rapid symptom management and decreased burden of care by facilitating immediate and easy use of medications already present in the home.

Pharmacokinetics of Phenobarbital in Microenema Via Macy Catheter Versus Suppository

CONTEXT

The oral route is compromised for nearly all patients approaching death. When agitation, seizures, or other intractable symptoms occur, a quick, discreet, comfortable, and effective alternate route for medication delivery that is easy to administer in the home setting is highly desirable.

OBJECTIVES

To characterize the early absorption profile, variability, and comfort of phenobarbital given in microenema suspensions delivered via the Macy Catheter(®) (MC) vs. the same dose given via suppository.

METHODS

This was a randomized, open-label, crossover study comparing the early absorption profile of equal doses of phenobarbital administered rectally in three treatment phases: phenobarbital suppository and two different microenemas with phenobarbital tablets crushed and suspended in 6 mL (MC-6) or 20 mL (MC-20) of tap water.

RESULTS

Mean plasma phenobarbital concentrations at 10 minutes were 12× higher for MC-20 and 8× higher for MC-6 compared to suppository. Concentrations achieved in 30 minutes via MC-20 took almost three hours to achieve with suppository. Mean AUC values were higher for MC-20 and MC-6 (82% and 46%, respectively) vs. suppository (P < 0.05). There was less variability in absorption for MC-20 and MC-6 (1.4- to 1.9-fold difference) compared to a 4.4-fold difference via suppository. MC administrations were reported as "not uncomfortable" compared to suppositories, which were reported as "mildly uncomfortable" (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

These results suggest phenobarbital oral tablets crushed and suspended in water and administered via the MC is superior to suppository in delivering the medication reliably and rapidly.

Improving Care in Pediatric Neuro-oncology Patients: An Overview of the Unique Needs of Children With Brain Tumors

Brain tumors represent the most common solid tumors in childhood, accounting for almost 25% of all childhood cancer, second only to leukemia. Pediatric central nervous system tumors encompass a wide variety of diagnoses, from benign to malignant. Any brain tumor can be associated with significant morbidity, even when low grade, and mortality from pediatric central nervous system tumors is disproportionately high compared to other childhood malignancies. Management of children with central nervous system tumors requires knowledge of the unique aspects of care associated with this particular patient population, beyond general oncology care. Pediatric brain tumor patients have unique needs during treatment, as cancer survivors, and at end of life. A multidisciplinary team approach, including advanced practice nurses with a specialty in neuro-oncology, allows for better supportive care. Knowledge of the unique aspects of care for children with brain tumors, and the appropriate interventions required, allows for improved quality of life.

Epilepsy in the end of life phase of brain tumor patients: a systematic review

Epileptic seizures are common in patients with primary or secondary malignant brain tumor. However, current knowledge on the occurrence of seizures during the end of life (EOL) phase of brain tumor patients is limited. Because symptom management with preservation of quality of life is of major importance for patients with a malignant brain tumor, particularly in the EOL, it is necessary to gain a deeper understanding of seizures and their management during this phase. We performed a systematic review of literature related to epilepsy in the EOL phase of brain tumor patients, based on the electronic resources PubMed, Embase, and Cinahl. The search yielded 442 unique records, of which 11 articles were eligible for further analysis after applying predefined inclusion criteria. Seizures occur relatively frequently in the EOL phase, particularly in patients with high-grade glioma. However, seizure management is often hampered by swallowing difficulties and impaired consciousness. Treatment decisions are largely dependent on expert opinion because a standardized approach for treating seizures in the terminal stage of brain tumor patients is still lacking.

Alternative routes to oral opioid administration in palliative care: a review and clinical summary

OBJECTIVE

A major goal of palliative care is to provide comfort, and pain is one of the most common causes of treatable suffering in patients with advanced disease. Opioids are indispensable for pain management in palliative care and can usually be provided by the oral route, which is safe, effective, and of lowest cost in most cases. As patients near the end of life, however, the need for alternate routes of medication increases with up to 70% of patients requiring a nonoral route for opioid administration. In order to optimize patient care, it is imperative that clinicians understand existing available options of opioid administration and their respective advantages and disadvantages.

METHODS

We performed a literature review to describe the most commonly used and available routes that can substitute for oral opioid therapy and to provide a summary of factors affecting choice of opioid for use in palliative care in terms of benefits, indications, cautions, and general considerations.

RESULTS

Clinical circumstances will largely dictate appropriateness of the route selected. When the oral route is unavailable, subcutaneous, intravenous, and enteral routes are preferred in the palliative care population. The evidence supporting sublingual, buccal, rectal, and transdermal gel routes is mixed.

CONCLUSIONS

This review is not designed to be a critical appraisal of the quality of current evidence; rather, it is a summation of that evidence and of current clinical practices regarding alternate routes of opioid administration. In doing so, the overarching goal of this review is to support more informed clinical decision making.

Anaesthesia and palliative care

Palliative medicine provides end-of-life care to terminally ill patients with a focus on pain and symptom management, psychosocial and spiritual support and bereavement follow-up. This article reviews some of the more recent literature on the subject of palliative care focusing on educational barriers to quality palliative care, advances in quality assessment, and advances in pain and symptom management.

Randomized double-blind, double-dummy crossover clinical trial of oral tramadol versus rectal tramadol administration in opioid-naive cancer patients with pain

Tramadol is commonly used as second step drug of the analgesic ladder. In circumstances where the oral route is unavailable, rectal administration of opioids might be a simple alternative. The aim of this study was to compare the analgesic activity and tolerability of tramadol by oral and rectal administration in a double-blind, double-dummy crossover trial. The study included 60 cancer patients with cancer pain no longer responsive to non-opioid drugs. Each patient initially received oral tramadol 50 mg (drops), followed by tramadol sustained release 100 mg orally, and placebo rectally, or tramadol 100 mg rectally and placebo orally, twice a day, in a randomized sequence, on each of 3 days. Patients were allowed to take 50 mg of oral tramadol by drops as needed (four doses per day, to a maximum of 400 mg/day, including the basal dose given by the oral or rectal route). Pain intensity and relief and symptom scores were recorded every day and at the end of each phase of the crossover. The mean age of the patients was 66.1 years (SD 13.5 years); 36 were female, and 44 completed both periods. Patients dropped out due to adverse effects (15 patients) and refusal (1 patient). No differences in the use of rescue dose of oral tramadol were observed between the groups. No differences in pain intensity and relief scores, or in other symptoms between the two treatments were observed. No differences in treatment efficacy as judged by the clinician (P=0.73), in patient compliance (P=0.35), or in patient satisfaction regarding treatment (P<0.35) were found. No differences in adverse effects were found between the two treatments (25.5%, 13 patients, and 20.4%, 11 patients, with oral and rectal treatment, respectively). The proportion of preferences favored oral administration for both physicians (P=0.0002) and patients (P=0.002). Rectal administration of tramadol appears a reliable, noninvasive alternative method of pain control for patients no longer responsive to non-opioid analgesics, unable to take oral tramadol.

Bioavailabilities of rectal and oral methadone in healthy subjects

AIMS

Rectal administration of methadone may be an alternative to intravenous and oral dosing in cancer pain, but the bioavailability of the rectal route is not known. The aim of this study was to compare the absolute rectal bioavailability of methadone with its oral bioavailability in healthy humans.

METHODS

Seven healthy subjects (six males, one female, aged 20-39 years) received 10 mg d(5)-methadone-HCl rectally (5 ml in 20% glycofurol) together with either d(0)-methadone intravenously (5 mg) or orally (10 mg) on two separate occasions. Blood samples for the LC-MS analyses of methadone and it's metabolite EDDP were drawn for up to 96 h. Noninvasive infrared pupillometry was performed at the same time as blood sampling.

RESULTS

The mean absolute rectal bioavailability of methadone was 0.76 (0.7, 0.81), compared to 0.86 (0.75, 0.97) for oral administration (mean (95% CI)). Rectal absorption of methadone was more rapid than after oral dosing with Tmax values of 1.4 (0.9, 1.8) vs. 2.8 (1.6, 4.0) h. The extent of formation of the metabolite EDDP did not differ between routes of administration. Single doses of methadone had a duration of action of at least 10 h and were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Rectal administration of methadone results in rapid absorption, a high bioavailability and long duration of action. No evidence of presystemic elimination was seen. Rectal methadone has characteristics that make it a potential alternative to intravenous and oral administration, particularly in cancer pain and palliative care.

Management of opioid-induced gastrointestinal effects in patients receiving palliative care

Opioid-induced gastrointestinal side effects, namely, nausea and constipation, are bothersome yet often easy to manage. Due to their widespread frequency, it is imperative that prophylactic and treatment modalities be understood. Although many pharmacotherapeutic agents are available with which to prevent or treat these side effects, few randomized, placebo-controlled studies have been conducted in terminally ill patients, thus limiting most treatment decisions to empiric therapies based on extrapolated data. A strong understanding of the pathophysiology of the sequelae is therefore paramount. Common agents administered for nausea are butyrophenones, phenothiazines, metoclopramide, and serotonin-receptor antagonists. Those given to manage constipation are stimulant laxatives and stool softeners, individually or in combination.

The dying patient

Most terminally ill patients experience symptoms that require treatment as death approaches. The most common symptoms are pain (5% to 51%), dyspnea (28%), oral and respiratory secretions (25%), nausea and vomiting (10% to 14%), confusion (10%), myoclonus (12%), and bowel and bladder problems (over 20%). These symptoms can be well controlled in up to 90% of individuals with appropriate communication; emotional, spiritual, and social support; noninvasive clinical evaluation; and therapy focused on symptom palliation. Types of drugs that are important in symptom control include opioids, co-analgesics, anxiolytics, and anticholinergics. To be effective, these medications must be readily available for use and often need to be given by a non-oral route.

Management of cancer pain. Safe, adequate analgesia to improve quality of life

Pain is one of the most common problems for cancer patients, and its management is often hindered by barriers created by patients and physicians alike. By avoiding potential barriers and understanding the principles of pain management and drug selection and titration provided here by Dr Hartmann and colleagues, physicians can safely administer adequate pain relief to their patients in need.

Opioid rotation for cancer pain: rationale and clinical aspects

BACKGROUND

Some patients with cancer pain may develop uncontrolled adverse effects, including generalized myoclonus, delirium, nausea and emesis, or severe sedation before achieving adequate analgesia during opioid dose titration. Sequential therapeutic trials should be considered to determine the most favorable drug.

METHODS

Recent literature was taken into account when reviewing the rationale and potential of opioid rotation.

RESULTS

When aggressive attempts to prevent adverse effects fail, drug rotation should be considered, because sequential therapeutic trials can be useful in identifying the most favorable drug. Different mechanisms, including receptor activity, the asymmetry in cross-tolerance among different opioids, different opioid efficacies, and accumulation of toxic metabolites can explain the differences in analgesic or adverse effect responses among opioids in a clinical setting.

CONCLUSIONS

When pain is relieved inadequately by opioid analgesics given in a dose that causes intolerable side effects despite routine measures to control them, treatment with the same opioid by an alternative route or with an alternative opioid administered by the same route should be considered. Opioid rotation may be useful in opening the therapeutic window and for establishing a more advantageous analgesia/toxicity relationship. By substituting opioids and using lower doses than expected according to the equivalency conversion tables, it is possible in the majority of cases to reduce or relieve the symptoms of opioid toxicity in those patients who were highly tolerant to previous opioids while improving analgesia and, as a consequence, the opioid responsiveness.

Absorption of rectally administered phenytoin: a pilot study

OBJECTIVE

To test the hypothesis that rectally administered phenytoin is absorbed in healthy volunteers.

DESIGN

This single-center, open-label crossover pilot study compared rectal absorption with intravenous administration of phenytoin injectable solution (7 mg/kg) in healthy volunteers. Twelve serial blood samples were taken from each volunteer beginning at time zero until 36 hours following administration. These were analyzed for presence of phenytoin by immunoassay.

SETTING

The study took place at St. Paul's Hospital, a tertiary care center.

PARTICIPANTS

Funding permitted for a sample size of five healthy participants, two men and three women, aged 21-45 years. Selection was by volunteer sample. Inclusion criteria were as follows: no known medical conditions, not receiving medication, no history of adverse drug reactions or allergies, not known to be pregnant, and normal liver function as determined per study protocol.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Signs of absorption as indicated by presence of phenytoin in blood samples, maximum concentrations (Cmax), time to Cmax (tmax), AUC, and apparent bioavailability.

RESULTS

Maximum mean concentrations of 2.4+/-1.1 mg/L (mean +/- SD) following rectal administration and 11.2+/-1.6 mg/L following intravenous administration were achieved during the first one to two hours (tmax in both treatment arms). Mean apparent bioavailability of the rectally administered phenytoin was 24.4+/-13.4% (15.8-44.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Results from this pilot study demonstrate that rectal absorption of phenytoin begins within 30 minutes following single-dose administration and was reported by four out of five volunteers to be the preferred route. Further studies are required before extrapolation can be made to the patient population.

A Guide to Enteral Drug Administration in Palliative Care

Enternal feeding is indicated in patients unable to ingest sufficient nutrients but whose gastrointestinal function is adequate for digestion and absorption. Indications in palliative care include patients with radical esophageal surgery, upper gastrointestinal tract obstruction, anorexia, and dysphagia. As the oral route is the preferred method of palliative drug delivery, the enternal feeding tube can become an important tool for drug administration. A number of questions must be asked before a drug is considered for enteral administration. Firstly, is the drug in a suitable dosage form for administration? If not, can a different dosage form (or drug) be substituted or can the physical form of the original product be altered? Secondly, is the drug compatible with the enteral feed? Finally, are there any complicating factors that may affect drug absorption or clearance? This review attempts to answer these questions, provide easily understood guidelines for the successful enteral administration of medications, and discuss clinical implications for palliative care.

The role of morphine glucuronides in cancer pain

Morphine metabolites are involved in various ways in determining the complex effects of morphine, both favourable and adverse, and may complicate the clinical use of morphine in the treatment of cancer pain. The production and effects of the principal morphine metabolites, morphine-3-glucuronide and morphine-6-glucuronide, in both normal and pathological states have been reviewed in the current literature. Therapeutic implications are also reviewed on the basis of experimental and clinical reports. The presence of these metabolites should be recognized in the chronic treatment of cancer pain with morphine, especially in the presence of renal impairment, and should be considered to have an important influence on opioid responsiveness, defined as a balance between the achievement of an optimal analgesia and the occurrence of adverse effects.

A clinical evaluation of transdermal therapeutic system fentanyl for the treatment of cancer pain

Fentanyl has been incorporated into a transdermal therapeutic system (TTS) containing a rate-limiting membrane that provides constant release of the opioid. TTS fentanyl provides continuous opioid delivery for up to 72 hr without the need for special equipment. After Institutional Review Board approval, 53 patients with cancer pain requiring 45 mg or more of oral morphine daily were admitted into an open-label, prospective, multicenter evaluation of TTS fentanyl for the relief of pain. After a 1-week stabilization on oral morphine, patients were transferred from morphine to an appropriate dose of TTS-fentanyl (25, 50, 75, or 100 micrograms/hr) administered as a transdermal patch every 3 days. TTS fentanyl was titrated to pain relief, and patients were followed up for as long as 3 months. Pain relief and the side effects of the medications were assessed daily. Twenty-six men and 27 women with a mean (+/- SD) age of 61 (+/- 12) years entered the study; 23 patients completed the full 84-day study. The mean duration of TTS fentanyl use was 58 +/- 32 days. The mean (+/- SEM) daily morphine dose during the last 2 days of stabilization was 189 (+/- 20) mg, and the mean initial fentanyl patch dose was 58 (+/- 6) micrograms/hr. The mean daily morphine dose taken "as needed" for breakthrough pain at study completion was 35 mg. The mean final fentanyl dosage at study completion was 169 (+/- 29) micrograms/hr. Pain relief was rated as good or excellent by 82% of patients during the treatment period. When asked to compare pain relief during the first month of TTS-fentanyl use to that provided by their last analgesic before study entry, 63% preferred TTS fentanyl. Side effects considered related to the fentanyl patch were nausea (13%), vomiting (8%), skin rash (8%), and drowsiness (4%). Thirty percent of patients reported adverse experiences related to the fentanyl patch, and 17% had to be discontinued from the study. We conclude that TTS fentanyl administered every 3 days for the treatment of cancer pain is effective, safe, and well tolerated by most patients.

Promoting symptom control in palliative care

OBJECTIVES

To describe management of common physical problems that occur in patients with advanced cancer.

DATA SOURCES

Research and review articles, book chapters, and published guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

Effective symptom control for patients with advanced cancer requires the coordinated efforts of a multidisciplinary team. Excellent palliation can be achieved in patients suffering from pain, as well as from gastrointestinal, respiratory, or dermatologic disorders.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

Nursing is the cornerstone of effective palliative care. Through accurate assessments and expertise in delivering pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments, nurses ensure optimal palliation of physical symptoms.

Comparative efficacy and safety of controlled-release morphine suppositories and tablets in cancer pain

Although the oral route is the preferred method of opioid therapy in patients with cancer pain, many patients will require an alternate route of analgesic administration at some point during the trajectory of their illness. This study compared the efficacy and safety of a novel, controlled-release suppository of morphine (MSC-R) and controlled-release morphine tablets (MSC-T) in patients with cancer pain. In a double-blind crossover study, 27 patients with cancer pain were randomized to receive MSC-R or MSC-T every 12 hours for 7 days each, using a 1:1 analgesic equivalence ratio. Pain intensity was assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS) and the Present Pain Intensity Index of the McGill Pain Questionnaire. Nausea and sedation were also assessed with a VAS. Pharmacodynamic assessments were made by the patient at 8:00 AM, 12:00 PM, 4:00 PM, and 8:00 PM and rescue morphine use recorded in a daily diary. There were no significant differences between MSC-R and MSC-T in overall scores for pain intensity VAS, ordinal pain intensity, and sedation. There was a small but significant difference in overall nausea VAS score in favor of MSC-R. Mean daily rescue analgesic use did not differ significantly during between treatment with MSC-R and MSC-T. MSC-R provides pain control comparable to that provided by MSC-T when given every 12 hours at a 1:1 dose ratio, and represents a reliable alternative method of pain control for patients unable to take oral opioid agents.