A Retrospective Analysis of Primary Diagnosis, Comorbidities, Anticholinergic Load, and Other Factors on Treatment for Noisy Respiratory Secretions at the End of Life

Quality of anticholinergic burden scales and their impact on clinical outcomes: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Older people are at risk of anticholinergic side effects due to changes affecting drug elimination and higher sensitivity to drug's side effects. Anticholinergic burden scales (ABS) were developed to quantify the anticholinergic drug burden (ADB). We aim to identify all published ABS, to compare them systematically and to evaluate their associations with clinical outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search in MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify all published ABS and a Web of Science citation (WoS) analysis to track validation studies implying clinical outcomes. Quality of the ABS was assessed using an adapted AGREE II tool. For the validation studies, we used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane tool Rob2.0. The validation studies were categorized into six evidence levels based on the propositions of the Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine with respect to their quality. At least two researchers independently performed screening and quality assessments.

RESULTS

Out of 1297 records, we identified 19 ABS and 104 validations studies. Despite differences in quality, all ABS were recommended for use. The anticholinergic cognitive burden (ACB) scale and the German anticholinergic burden scale (GABS) achieved the highest percentage in quality. Most ABS are validated, yet validation studies for newer scales are lacking. Only two studies compared eight ABS simultaneously. The four most investigated clinical outcomes delirium, cognition, mortality and falls showed contradicting results.

CONCLUSION

There is need for good quality validation studies comparing multiple scales to define the best scale and to conduct a meta-analysis for the assessment of their clinical impact.

Quality of anticholinergic burden scales and their impact on clinical outcomes: a systematic review

Purpose

Older people are at risk of anticholinergic side effects due to changes affecting drug elimination and higher sensitivity to drug’s side effects. Anticholinergic burden scales (ABS) were developed to quantify the anticholinergic drug burden (ADB). We aim to identify all published ABS, to compare them systematically and to evaluate their associations with clinical outcomes.

Methods

We conducted a literature search in MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify all published ABS and a Web of Science citation (WoS) analysis to track validation studies implying clinical outcomes. Quality of the ABS was assessed using an adapted AGREE II tool. For the validation studies, we used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane tool Rob2.0. The validation studies were categorized into six evidence levels based on the propositions of the Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine with respect to their quality. At least two researchers independently performed screening and quality assessments.

Results

Out of 1297 records, we identified 19 ABS and 104 validations studies. Despite differences in quality, all ABS were recommended for use. The anticholinergic cognitive burden (ACB) scale and the German anticholinergic burden scale (GABS) achieved the highest percentage in quality. Most ABS are validated, yet validation studies for newer scales are lacking. Only two studies compared eight ABS simultaneously. The four most investigated clinical outcomes delirium, cognition, mortality and falls showed contradicting results.

Conclusion

There is need for good quality validation studies comparing multiple scales to define the best scale and to conduct a meta-analysis for the assessment of their clinical impact.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00228-020-02994-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Palliative care assessment of dry mouth: what matters most to patients with advanced disease?

PURPOSE

Dry mouth is a highly prevalent and significant symptom in patients with advanced progressive diseases. It is a poorly understood area of research, and currently, there is no standardised outcome measure or assessment tool for dry mouth.

METHODS

To assess responses to self-reported dry mouth questions, the impact of dry mouth, methods used to reduce symptoms and relevance of the questionnaire. A cross-sectional multisite study of 135 patients with advanced progressive disease experiencing dry mouth. Participants were located in the inpatient, day care, outpatient or community setting.

RESULTS

The majority (84.4%) of patients rated their dry mouth as moderate or severe using the verbal rating scale (VRS). Seventy-five percent (74.7%) had a numeric rating scale (NRS) score of 6 or more for dry mouth severity. Patients reported that dry mouth interfered most with talking and was the most important function to assess (median score 6 out of 10) followed by eating (median 5) and taste (median 5). Taking sips of drink was the most common and most effective self-management strategy. Over half of patients (54.6%) also reported impact on swallow and sleep and associated dryness of lips, throat and nasal passages.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the severity of dry mouth in advanced disease. Important factors when assessing patients with dry mouth should include the functional impact on day-to-day activities including talking, dysphagia and sleep. Simple considerations for patients include provision of drinks and reviewing medications. This study could be used to develop a standardised assessment tool for dry mouth to use in clinical practice.

Prevalence, impact, and treatment of death rattle: a systematic review

CONTEXT

Death rattle, or respiratory tract secretion in the dying patient, is a common and potentially distressing symptom in dying patients. Health care professionals often struggle with this symptom because of the uncertainty about management.

OBJECTIVES

To give an overview of the current evidence on the prevalence of death rattle in dying patients, its impact on patients, relatives, and professional caregivers, and the effectiveness of interventions.

METHODS

We systematically searched the databases PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsychINFO, and Web of Science. English-language articles containing original data on the prevalence or impact of death rattle or on the effects of interventions were included.

RESULTS

We identified 39 articles, of which 29 reported on the prevalence of death rattle, eight on its impact, and 11 on the effectiveness of interventions. There is a wide variation in reported prevalence rates (12%-92%; weighted mean, 35%). Death rattle leads to distress in both relatives and professional caregivers, but its impact on patients is unclear. Different medication regimens have been studied, that is, scopolamine, glycopyrronium, hyoscine butylbromide, atropine, and/or octreotide. Only one study used a placebo group. There is no evidence that the use of any antimuscarinic drug is superior to no treatment.

CONCLUSION

Death rattle is a rather common symptom in dying patients, but it is doubtful if patients suffer from this symptom. Current literature does not support the standard use of antimuscarinic drugs in the treatment of death rattle.

Randomized double-blind trial of sublingual atropine vs. placebo for the management of death rattle

CONTEXT

Noisy breathing because of respiratory tract secretions (RTS), often referred to as "death rattle," occurs in up to half of all dying patients. Despite a lack of evidence showing benefit compared with placebo, antimuscarinic medications have been used in an attempt to decrease noise associated with RTS and to decrease family distress.

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to compare the efficacy of the antimuscarinic medication atropine with that of placebo in reducing noise associated with death rattle.

METHODS

Terminally ill adult hospice inpatients who developed noisy breathing as a result of RTS were randomized to double-blind treatment with atropine or placebo. Study drug was given as a single sublingual dose. Noise from breathing was monitored at baseline and at two and four hours.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-seven participants were randomized to atropine or placebo. Reduction in noise score from baseline to two hours after dose occurred in 37.8% and 41.3% of subjects treated with atropine and placebo, respectively (P=0.73). Noise score reduction at four hours occurred in 39.7% and 51.7% of subjects treated with atropine and placebo, respectively (P=0.21). Differences between groups were not significant at either time point. Atropine was well tolerated. Heart rate increased slightly in both groups (+1.1/minute for atropine and +3.1/minute for placebo) but not significantly.

CONCLUSION

Sublingual atropine given as a single dose was not more effective than placebo in reducing the noise associated with death rattle.