An audit of end-of-life symptom control in patients with corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) dying in a hospital in the United Kingdom

Referrals to Palliative Care Services for Hospitalised COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Literature Review

BACKGROUND

The increase in the incidence of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) led to more hospital admissions and deaths, and coincided with an increased need for palliative care. The new circumstances required palliative care services to be flexible and to develop response strategies.

AIM

To synthesise studies including COVID-19 patients to gain insight into how many patients were referred to hospital-based palliative care services, the characteristics and palliative care needs of these patients and the reasons for referral.

DESIGN

A systematic literature search was conducted in January 2022 using the PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycInfo databases.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven studies were identified. The results show that in 16% of all COVID-19 inpatients and 55% of all deceased COVID-19 inpatients were referred to a palliative care service. The median time from hospital admission to referral was 4 days and from referral to death was 2 days. COVID-19 inpatients were frequently referred for end-of-life care management (52%), had ≥1 comorbidities (84%), and suffered from shortness of breath/dyspnea (45%).

CONCLUSIONS

The care provided was generally acute, with a high proportion of end-of-life care referrals and a short time period from hospital admission to referral and from referral to death. This highlights the importance of early integration of palliative care into emergency department (ED) care of critically ill patients.

Impact of palliative care at end-of-life Covid-19 patients - a small-scale pioneering experience

BACKGROUND

In March 2020, the outbreak caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus was declared a pandemic, resulting in numerous fatalities worldwide. To effectively combat the virus, it would be beneficial to involve professionals who specialize in symptom control for advanced illnesses, working closely with other specialties throughout the illness process. This approach can help manage a range of symptoms, from mild to severe and potentially life-threatening. No studies have been conducted in Portugal to analyse the intervention of Palliative Medicine at the end of life of Covid-19 patients and how it differs from other specialties. This knowledge could help determine the importance of including it in the care of people with advanced Covid-19.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study is to examine potential differences in the care provided to patients with Covid-19 during their Last Hours and Days of Life (LHDOL) between those who received care from Palliative Medicine doctors and those who did not.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study spanning three months (Dec 2020 to Feb 2021), the duration of the Support Unit especially created to deal with Covid-19 patients. The database included clinical files from 181 patients admitted to the Support Unit, 27 of which died from Covid-19.

RESULTS

Statistically significant differences were identified in the care provided. Specifically, fewer drugs were administered at the time of death, including drugs for dyspnoea, pain and agitation, suspension of futile devices and use of palliative sedation to control refractory symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

End-of-life care and symptomatic control differ when there's regular follow-up by Palliative Medicine, which may translate less symptomatic suffering and promote a dignified and humane end of life.

Comorbidities, symptoms and end-of-life medication use in hospitalised decedents before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: a retrospective regional cohort study in Ottawa, Canada

OBJECTIVE

To compare comorbidities, symptoms and end-of-life (EoL) palliative medication (antisecretories, opioids, antipsychotics and sedatives) use among decedents before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

DESIGN

In a retrospective cohort study, decedent records in three acute care hospitals were abstracted, generating a prepandemic (November 2019-February 2020) group (pre-COVID) and two intrapandemic (March-August 2020, wave 1) groups, one without (COVID-ve) and one with COVID-19 infection (COVID+ve). Control group decedents were matched 2:1 on age, sex and care service (medicine/intensive care unit (ICU)) with COVID+ve decedents.

SETTING

Three regional acute care teaching hospitals in Ottawa, Canada PARTICIPANTS: Decedents (N=425): COVID+ve (n=85), COVID-ve (n=170) and pre-COVID (n=170).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Data were abstracted regarding demographics, admission comorbidities and symptoms, and EoL medication use; opioid doses were standardised to parenteral morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD), and the predictors of upper quartile MEDD in the last 24 hours of life were examined in multivariable logistic regression with adjusted ORs (aORs) and 95% CIs.

RESULTS

The prevalence of dementia (41% vs 28% and 26%, p=0.03), breathlessness (63.5% vs 42% and 47%, p<0.01), cough (40% vs 27% and 19%, p<0.01) and fever (54% vs 9% and 13.5%) was higher in COVID+ve versus pre-COVID and COVID-ve groups, respectively. The median (IQR) of MEDD over the last 72 hours of life was 16.7 (9-36.5) vs 13.5 (5.7-21.8) and 10.5 (5.3-23.8) for COVID+ve versus pre-COVID and COVID-ve groups, respectively, (p=0.007). Male sex, COVID+ve grouping, ICU death and high-flow nasal cannula use predicted upper quartile MEDD dose, aORs (95% CIs): 1.84 (1.05 to 3.22), 2.62 (1.29 to 5.3), 5.14 (2.47 to 10.7) and 1.93 (1.05 to 3.52), respectively. COVID+ve group decedents used highest lorazepam and propofol doses.

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 decedents, particularly those in ICU, required higher EoL opioid and sedating medication doses than matched prepandemic or intrapandemic controls. These findings should inform and guide clinical practice.

The clinical practice of palliative sedation in patients dying from COVID-19: a retrospective chart review

BACKGROUND

Clinical experts experienced challenges in the practice of palliative sedation (PS) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Rapid deterioration in patients' situation was observed while the indications for starting PS seemed to differ compared to other terminal patients. It is unclear to which extent clinical trajectories of PS differ for these COVID patients compared to regular clinical practice of PS.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the clinical practice of PS in patients with COVID versus non-COVID patients.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of data from a Dutch tertiary medical centre was performed. Charts of adult patients who died with PS during hospitalisation between March '20 and January '21 were included.

RESULTS

During the study period, 73 patients received PS and of those 25 (34%) had a COVID infection. Refractory dyspnoea was reported as primary indication for starting PS in 84% of patients with COVID compared to 33% in the other group (p < 0.001). Median duration of PS was significantly shorter in the COVID group (5.8 vs. 17.1 h, p < 0.01). No differences were found for starting dosages, but median hourly dose of midazolam was higher in the COVID group (4.2 mg/hr vs. 2.4 mg/hr, p < 0.001). Time interval between start PS and first medication adjustments seemed to be shorter in COVID patients (1.5 vs. 2.9 h, p = 0.08).

CONCLUSION

PS in COVID patients is characterized by rapid clinical deterioration in all phases of the trajectory. What is manifested by earlier dose adjustments and higher hourly doses of midazolam. Timely evaluation of efficacy is recommended in those patients.

Specialized palliative care for hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection: an analysis of the LEOSS registry

PURPOSE

Symptom control for patients who were severely ill or dying from COVID-19 was paramount while resources were strained and infection control measures were in place. We aimed to describe the characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients who received specialized palliative care (SPC) and the type of SPC provided in a larger cohort.

METHODS

From the multi-centre cohort study Lean European Open Survey on SARS-CoV-2 infected patients (LEOSS), data of patients hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection documented between July 2020 and October 2021 were analysed.

RESULTS

273/7292 patients (3.7%) received SPC. Those receiving SPC were older and suffered more often from comorbidities, but 59% presented with an estimated life expectancy > 1 year. Main symptoms were dyspnoea, delirium, and excessive tiredness. 224/273 patients (82%) died during the hospital stay compared to 789/7019 (11%) without SPC. Symptom control was provided most common (223/273; 95%), followed by family and psychological support (50% resp. 43%). Personal contact with friends or relatives before or during the dying phase was more often documented in patients receiving SPC compared to patients without SPC (52% vs. 30%).

CONCLUSION

In 3.7% of SARS-CoV-2 infected hospitalized patients, the burden of the acute infection triggered palliative care involvement. Besides complex symptom management, SPC professionals also focused on psychosocial and family issues and aimed to enable personal contacts of dying patients with their family. The data underpin the need for further involvement of SPC in SARS-CoV-2 infected patients but also in other severe chronic infectious diseases.

Symptom management in people dying with COVID-19: multinational observational study

OBJECTIVES

To describe multinational prescribing practices by palliative care services for symptom management in patients dying with COVID-19 and the perceived effectiveness of medicines.

METHODS

We surveyed specialist palliative care services, contacted via relevant organisations between April and July 2020. Descriptive statistics for categorical variables were expressed as counts and percentages. Content analysis explored free text responses about symptom management in COVID-19. Medicines were classified using British National Formulary categories. Perceptions on effectiveness of medicines were grouped into five categories; effective, some, limited or unclear effectiveness, no effect.

RESULTS

458 services responded; 277 UK, 85 rest of Europe, 95 rest of the world, 1 missing country. 358 services had managed patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19. 289 services had protocols for symptom management in COVID-19. Services tended to prescribe medicines for symptom control comparable to medicines used in people without COVID-19; mainly opioids and benzodiazepines for breathlessness, benzodiazepines and antipsychotics for agitation, opioids and cough linctus for cough, paracetamol and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for fever, and opioids and paracetamol for pain. Medicines were considered to be mostly effective but varied by patient's condition, route of administration and dose.

CONCLUSIONS

Services were largely consistent in prescribing for symptom management in people dying with COVID-19. Medicines used prior to COVID-19 were mostly considered effective in controlling common symptoms.

A Multi-Centre COVID-19 Study Examining Symptoms and Medication Use in the Final Week of Life

CONTEXT

Guidelines exist to direct end-of-life symptom management in COVID-19 patients. However, the real-world symptom patterns, and degree of concordance with guidelines on medication use, and palliative care involvement has received limited attention.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the evolution of COVID-19 symptoms, medication used to alleviate these, and degree of palliative care involvement in the final week of life.

METHODS

This retrospective study reviewed all COVID-19 inpatient deaths across five metropolitan hospitals in Australia from January 1 to December 31, 2020. Outcome measures were collected at day of death, and days one, two, five and seven before death. These were COVID-19 symptom severity (measured by the Palliative Care Outcome Scale), and use of supportive pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies. Palliative care referral timepoint was also collected.

RESULTS

Within the sample of 230 patients, commonest symptoms were breathlessness, agitation, pain, and respiratory secretions. On day of death, 79% (n = 181) experienced at least one symptom, and 30% (n = 68) experienced severe/extreme symptoms. The use of midazolam, glycopyrrolate, and infusions for symptom management occurred late, less frequently, and at lower doses than suggested in guidelines and other studies. Palliative care referrals were made late, at median three days before death (IQR 1-6 days), and for only half of people dying from COVID-19 (51%; n = 118).

CONCLUSION

Symptoms peaked in final three days of life. Earlier use of in fusional and breakthrough medications should be considered in anticipation of symptoms given high likelihood of dying in discomfort. Earlier palliative care referral for high-risk patients should be considered at hospital admission.

Palliative Care Landscape in the COVID-19 Era: Bibliometric Analysis of Global Research

Despite the increasing number of publications globally, the COVID-19 pandemic has underscored significant research gaps that should be resolved, including within PC-related research. This study aimed to map and understand the global trends in palliative care (PC)-related COVID-19 research and provide quantitative evidence to guide future studies. We systematically searched four databases between 1st January 2020 and 25th April 2022. The VOSviewer, Gephi, and R software were utilized for data analysis and results visualization. A total of 673 articles were identified from the databases between 1st January 2020 and 25th April 2022. Canada (6.2%), Australia (5.4%), and the United Kingdom (3.8%) were the most productive countries regarding articles published per million confirmed COVID-19 cases. A lack of international collaborations and an uneven research focus on PC across countries with different pandemic trajectories was observed. The PC research in question focused on cancer, telehealth, death and dying, and bereavement. This study’s conclusions support the recommendation for international collaboration to facilitate knowledge and practice transformation to support countries with unmet PC needs during the pandemic. Further studies are required on the grief and bereavement support of families, healthcare professionals and patients with other life-threatening illnesses.

Morphine May Contribute to Improving Respiratory Failure in Severe COVID-19: A Case Report

At present, the world is undergoing successive waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. When COVID-19 becomes severe, it causes respiratory failure and symptoms of dyspnoea. The patient’s dyspnoea worsens to the IPOS of 3. One COVID-19 patient admitted to our medical institution developed severe illness characterised by hypoxaemia and dyspnoea. In addition to disease-modifying treatments such as remdesivir and dexamethasone, we administered morphine to relieve his dyspnoea. Surprisingly, we observed an improvement in both hypoxaemia and dyspnoea.

[Perceptions on the use of opioids: focus on COVID-19 : Free-text analysis of a survey in anesthesiology/intensive care, internal medicine, and palliative care]

BACKGROUND

Opioids efficiently manage pain and dyspnea. However, guidelines on symptom management with opioids differ, which may lead to uncertainty among medical staff concerning opioid indication and ethical implication, especially when caring for COVID-19 patients.

AIMS

We aimed to examine the perception of morphine/opioid (M/O) administration for symptom control within and outside palliative care, including care for COVID-19 patients, among members of the German associations for palliative medicine, internal medicine, anesthesiology and intensive care.

METHODS

Participants received an anonymized online questionnaire via Survey Monkey® (Momentive Inc., San Mateo, CA, USA) regarding their general perception of symptom management with M/O. These results have been published elsewhere. For systematic and structural analysis of comments in the free-text field, we chose Phillip Mayring's method of summarizing qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

Of the n = 2202 persons who participated, 339 wrote comments in the free-text field which were categorized as follows: main categories 1) personal perceptions of COVID-19 patients, 2) administration and effect of M/O, 3) observations within the palliative care field, 4) imparting knowledge concerning M/O usage and palliative care, and 5) others.

CONCLUSIONS

Some participants reported very personal perceptions and deficits of the healthcare system, especially when caring for COVID-19 patients. Uniform interdisciplinary guidelines for symptom control, more education, and support by trained staff confident in symptom control should be increasingly considered in the future.

[Perceptions on the use of opioids in COVID-19 : A survey of members of the German Association for Palliative Medicine]

BACKGROUND

Opioids efficiently alleviate pain and dyspnea. However, guidelines on symptom management with opioids differ, which may lead to an uncertainty concerning opioid indication and ethical implication among medical staff, especially when caring for COVID-19 patients.

AIMS

We aimed to examine the perception of members of the German Association for Palliative Medicine (DGP) concerning the administration of morphine as the gold standard opioid (subsequently termed M/O) for symptom control within and outside of a palliative care (PC) setting, including care for COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

DGP members received an anonymized online questionnaire (Survey Monkey®) containing questions regarding their perception of symptom management with M/O in general and in particular concerning COVID-19 patients. Participants were asked to rate their perception within and outside of a PC setting.

RESULTS

Of the 6129 DGP members, N = 506 participated. DGP physicians and nurses perceived handling of M/O as "certain and confident" (98%) and "clearly regulated" within PC (95%) but rated it significantly lower for outside PC (48%/38%). When caring for COVID-19 patients, handling of M/O was even less often rated "certain and confident" (26%) or "clearly regulated" (23%) for outside PC. Dyspnea (99%/52%), relief from the dying process (62%/37%), restlessness (30%/15%) and fear or panic (27%/13%) were more frequently rated as general indications for morphine within versus outside PC. Most participants (89%) wished to involve palliative care consultation teams.

CONCLUSIONS

DGP members perceived substantial uncertainty in the handling of M/O for medical fields outside PC. Uniform interdisciplinary guidelines for symptom control, more education, and involvement of a PC consultation team should be increasingly considered in the future.

End-of-Life Experiences for Cancer Patients Dying in Hospital with COVID-19

Despite a wealth of research regarding COVID-19, little evidence exists about cancer patients' specific needs and experiences at end-of-life. This study retrospectively describes the care of 34 hospitalised cancer patients dying with COVID-19. The palliative care needs of patients were described. The main domains of end-of-life care service provision were evaluated including treatment of pain and other symptoms, communication and decision making at end-of-life and level of involvement of the palliative care team. Physical symptoms were managed with relatively low doses of end-of-life medications. High levels of patient and family anxiety, however, highlight the complexity of death from a stigmatised disease. Prompt acknowledgement of the vulnerability of advanced cancer patients with COVID-19 can facilitate proactive symptom management, anticipatory communication and enhance family support.

Delirium and other neuropsychiatric manifestations of COVID-19 infection in people with preexisting psychiatric disorders: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Psychiatric disorders increase risk of neuropsychiatric disease and poor outcomes, yet little is known about the neuropsychiatric manifestations of COVID-19 in the psychiatric population. The primary objective is to synthesize neuropsychiatric outcomes of COVID-19 in people with preexisting psychiatric disorders.

METHODS

Data were collected during an ongoing review of the impact of pandemics on people with existing psychiatric disorders. All study designs and gray literature were included. Medline, PsychInfo, CINAHL, EMBASE, and MedRx were searched from inception to September 1 2020. Risk of bias was assessed using a published tool that can accommodate all study types. Two independent authors screened the studies and extracted data. Data were narratively synthesized, as there were insufficient data to meta-analyze. Evidence was appraised according to GRADE.

RESULTS

Four case reports were included, comprising 13 participants from three countries. Many large-sample, relevant papers were omitted for not reporting psychiatric history, despite reporting other comorbidities. Included participants (n = 13) were hospitalized with COVID-19 and appeared to meet criteria for delirium. Myoclonus, rigidity, and alogia were also reported. The most commonly reported preexisting psychiatric diagnoses were mood disorders, schizophrenia, and alcohol use disorder.

CONCLUSIONS

People with preexisting psychiatric disorders may experience delirium, rigidity, myoclonus, and alogia during COVID-19 infection; although higher quality and longitudinal data are needed to better understand these phenomena. Relevant COVID-19 literature does not always report psychiatric history, despite heightened neuropsychiatric vulnerability within this population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

 PROSPERO (CRD42020179611).

Hospital-Based Palliative and End-of-Life Care in the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Scoping Review

Aim: To identify the nature of the evidence reporting hospital-based palliative and end-of-life care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has seen an increase in the numbers of seriously ill people being cared for across all health services worldwide. Due to the rapid progression of severe symptoms, the majority of staff working in hospitals and other healthcare centres were providing end-of-life care. Little is known about the level of hospital-based palliative care service provided during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly during surges in admission rates with an increased number of deaths accruing. Methods: A scoping review was conducted to search and select potential studies. The scoping review was guided by the framework of Arskey and O’Malley and advanced by the use of the methodology of the Joanna Briggs Institute. Results: Eighteen studies published between March 2020 and July 2021 were identified. Three broad categories included overall management strategy and logistics, symptom prevalence and management of patients with COVID-19 and end-of-life care needs within the current pandemic. Conclusions: This review highlights increased awareness and knowledge of palliative and end-of-life care provided in hospitals. The review also highlights the response of hospital-based palliative care teams to an evolving crisis, within the context of developed health systems under sustained and overwhelming pressure. Implications: Newly established clinical links and referral pathways developed during the initial COVID-19 surge between hospital-based palliative care and other healthcare teams, be continued and further enhanced. Understanding of the role of specialist palliative care providers in supporting palliative and end-of-life care within the hospital setting needs further investigation.

Specialist palliative and end-of-life care for patients with cancer and SARS-CoV-2 infection: a European perspective

BACKGROUND

Specialist palliative care team (SPCT) involvement has been shown to improve symptom control and end-of-life care for patients with cancer, but little is known as to how these have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Here, we report SPCT involvement during the first wave of the pandemic and compare outcomes for patients with cancer who received and did not receive SPCT input from multiple European cancer centres.

METHODS

From the OnCovid repository (N = 1318), we analysed cancer patients aged ⩾18 diagnosed with COVID-19 between 26 February and 22 June 2020 who had complete specialist palliative care team data (SPCT+ referred; SPCT- not referred).

RESULTS

Of 555 eligible patients, 317 were male (57.1%), with a median age of 70 years (IQR 20). At COVID-19 diagnosis, 44.7% were on anti-cancer therapy and 53.3% had ⩾1 co-morbidity. Two hundred and six patients received SPCT input for symptom control (80.1%), psychological support (54.4%) and/or advance care planning (51%). SPCT+ patients had more 'Do not attempt cardio-pulmonary resuscitation' orders completed prior to (12.6% versus 3.7%) and during admission (50% versus 22.1%, p < 0.001), with more SPCT+ patients deemed suitable for treatment escalation (50% versus 22.1%, p < 0.001). SPCT involvement was associated with higher discharge rates from hospital for end-of-life care (9.7% versus 0%, p < 0.001). End-of-life anticipatory prescribing was higher in SPCT+ patients, with opioids (96.3% versus 47.1%) and benzodiazepines (82.9% versus 41.2%) being used frequently for symptom control.

CONCLUSION

SPCT referral facilitated symptom control, emergency care and discharge planning, as well as high rates of referral for psychological support than previously reported. Our study highlighted the critical need of SPCTs for patients with cancer during the pandemic and should inform service planning for this population.

Palliative care and COVID-19 in the Australian context: a review of patients with COVID-19 referred to palliative care

ObjectivePalliative care has played a key role in the response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in Australia. This review of consecutive patients with COVID-19 referred to the palliative care consultancy service of a tertiary health service in Melbourne describes the palliative care experience with COVID-19 in Australia.MethodsThe experiences of 55 patients (median age 86 years; interquartile range (IQR) 81-90 years; 55% male; median Charlson comorbidity score 6 (IQR 5-8); 85% with Australia-modified Karnofsky Performance Status ≤50; 67% from residential aged care facilities) were reviewed to collect relevant data points.ResultsMost patients were referred for end-of-life care with symptoms including dyspnoea (80%) and agitation/delirium (60%). Continuous subcutaneous infusions were commenced in 71% of patients, with the most frequent medications being opioids and benzodiazepines in relatively small doses; 81% required ≤20mg subcutaneous morphine equivalent and 64% required ≤10mg subcutaneous midazolam over 24h. Fifty patients (91%) died in hospital and the median time from palliative care referral to death was 3 days (IQR 1-5 days). Five patients were discharged back to residential aged care facilities. Overall, 80% of referrals were from the aged care team.ConclusionOur patients had similar demographics, symptoms, medication needs and outcomes to patients in similar settings overseas. We found the symptom management of patients with COVID-19 to be generally straightforward. However, the psychosocial needs of patients were predominant and contributed to complexity. This study highlights the need for well-integrated relationships between the palliative care consultancy service and the diverse range of key treating teams involved in the delivery of pandemic health care.What is known about the topic?Palliative care has played a key role in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia. There is limited research describing the Australian palliative care experience with the COVID-19 pandemic.What does this paper add?Patients with COVID-19 referred to a hospital-based palliative care consultancy service in Australia had similar demographic characteristics, symptoms, medication needs and outcomes to patients with COVID-19 referred to other palliative care services in the UK and the US. There were significant psychosocial issues affecting patients, families and staff in the context of the pandemic.What are the implications for practitioners?This study highlights the need for well-functioning working relationships between the palliative care consultancy service and other hospital teams that can be leveraged at a time of crisis, such as a pandemic, to provide optimal palliative care to patients.

Palliative Sedation in COVID-19 End-of-Life Care. Retrospective Cohort Study

Background and Objectives: Descriptions of end-of-life in COVID-19 are limited to small cross-sectional studies. We aimed to assess end-of-life care in inpatients with COVID-19 at Alicante General University Hospital (ALC) and compare differences according to palliative and non-palliative sedation. Material and Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study in inpatients included in the ALC COVID-19 Registry (PCR-RT or antigen-confirmed cases) who died during conventional admission from 1 March to 15 December 2020. We evaluated differences among deceased cases according to administration of palliative sedation. Results: Of 747 patients evaluated, 101 died (13.5%). Sixty-eight (67.3%) died in acute medical wards, and 30 (44.1%) received palliative sedation. The median age of patients with palliative sedation was 85 years; 44% were women, and 30% of cases were nosocomial. Patients with nosocomial acquisition received more palliative sedation than those infected in the community (81.8% [9/11] vs 36.8% [21/57], p = 0.006), and patients admitted with an altered mental state received it less (20% [6/23] vs. 53.3% [24/45], p = 0.032). The median time from admission to starting palliative sedation was 8.5 days (interquartile range [IQR] 3.0–14.5). The main symptoms leading to palliative sedation were dyspnea at rest (90%), pain (60%), and delirium/agitation (36.7%). The median time from palliative sedation to death was 21.8 h (IQR 10.4–41.1). Morphine was used in all palliative sedation perfusions: the main regimen was morphine + hyoscine butyl bromide + midazolam (43.3%). Conclusions: End-of-life palliative sedation in patients with COVID-19 was initiated quite late. Clinicians should anticipate the need for palliative sedation in these patients and recognize the breathlessness, pain, and agitation/delirium that foreshadow death.

Interventions for palliative symptom control in COVID-19 patients

BACKGROUND

Individuals dying of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may experience distressing symptoms such as breathlessness or delirium. Palliative symptom management can alleviate symptoms and improve the quality of life of patients. Various treatment options such as opioids or breathing techniques have been discussed for use in COVID-19 patients. However, guidance on symptom management of COVID-19 patients in palliative care has often been derived from clinical experiences and guidelines for the treatment of patients with other illnesses. An understanding of the effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological palliative interventions to manage specific symptoms of COVID-19 patients is required.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control in individuals with COVID-19.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (including Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), medRxiv); Web of Science Core Collection (Science Citation Index Expanded, Emerging Sources); CINAHL; WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease; and COAP Living Evidence on COVID-19 to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions until 23 March 2021. We screened the reference lists of relevant review articles and current treatment guidelines for further literature.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We followed standard Cochrane methodology as outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We included studies evaluating palliative symptom management for individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 receiving interventions for palliative symptom control, with no restrictions regarding comorbidities, age, gender, or ethnicity. Interventions comprised pharmacological as well as non-pharmacological treatment (e.g. acupressure, physical therapy, relaxation, or breathing techniques). We searched for the following types of studies: randomized controlled trials (RCT), quasi-RCTs, controlled clinical trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series (with comparison group), prospective cohort studies, retrospective cohort studies, (nested) case-control studies, and cross-sectional studies. We searched for studies comparing pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control with standard care. We excluded studies evaluating palliative interventions for symptoms caused by other terminal illnesses. If studies enrolled populations with or exposed to multiple diseases, we would only include these if the authors provided subgroup data for individuals with COVID-19. We excluded studies investigating interventions for symptom control in a curative setting, for example patients receiving life-prolonging therapies such as invasive ventilation.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used a modified version of the Newcastle Ottawa Scale for non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) to assess bias in the included studies. We included the following outcomes: symptom relief (primary outcome); quality of life; symptom burden; satisfaction of patients, caregivers, and relatives; serious adverse events; and grade 3 to 4 adverse events. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.  As meta-analysis was not possible, we used tabulation to synthesize the studies and histograms to display the outcomes.  MAIN RESULTS: Overall, we identified four uncontrolled retrospective cohort studies investigating pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control in hospitalized patients and patients in nursing homes. None of the studies included a comparator. We rated the risk of bias high across all studies. We rated the certainty of the evidence as very low for the primary outcome symptom relief, downgrading mainly for high risk of bias due to confounding and unblinded outcome assessors. Pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control We identified four uncontrolled retrospective cohort studies (five references) investigating pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control. Two references used the same register to form their cohorts, and study investigators confirmed a partial overlap of participants. We therefore do not know the exact number of participants, but individual reports included 61 to 2105 participants. Participants received multimodal pharmacological interventions: opioids, neuroleptics, anticholinergics, and benzodiazepines for relieving dyspnea (breathlessness), delirium, anxiety, pain, audible upper airway secretions, respiratory secretions, nausea, cough, and unspecified symptoms.  Primary outcome: symptom relief All identified studies reported this outcome. For all symptoms (dyspnea, delirium, anxiety, pain, audible upper airway secretions, respiratory secretions, nausea, cough, and unspecified symptoms), a majority of interventions were rated as completely or partially effective by outcome assessors (treating clinicians or nursing staff). Interventions used in the studies were opioids, neuroleptics, anticholinergics, and benzodiazepines.  We are very uncertain about the effect of pharmacological interventions on symptom relief (very low-certainty evidence). The initial rating of the certainty of evidence was low since we only identified uncontrolled NRSIs. Our main reason for downgrading the certainty of evidence was high risk of bias due to confounding and unblinded outcome assessors. We therefore did not find evidence to confidently support or refute whether pharmacological interventions may be effective for palliative symptom relief in COVID-19 patients. Secondary outcomes We planned to include the following outcomes: quality of life; symptom burden; satisfaction of patients, caregivers, and relatives; serious adverse events; and grade 3 to 4 adverse events. We did not find any data for these outcomes, or any other information on the efficacy and safety of used interventions. Non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control None of the identified studies used non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found very low certainty evidence for the efficacy of pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom relief in COVID-19 patients. We found no evidence on the safety of pharmacological interventions or efficacy and safety of non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control in COVID-19 patients. The evidence presented here has no specific implications for palliative symptom control in COVID-19 patients because we cannot draw any conclusions about the effectiveness or safety based on the identified evidence. More evidence is needed to guide clinicians, nursing staff, and caregivers when treating symptoms of COVID-19 patients at the end of life. Specifically, future studies ought to investigate palliative symptom control in prospectively registered studies, using an active-controlled setting, assess patient-reported outcomes, and clearly define interventions. The publication of the results of ongoing studies will necessitate an update of this review. The conclusions of an updated review could differ from those of the present review and may allow for a better judgement regarding pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control in COVID-19 patients.

Opioids in the United Kingdom: safety and surveillance during COVID-19

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Opioid use is prevalent in the United Kingdom and prior to the COVID-19 pandemic it had been recognized that the safety of opioids was an important issue to be monitored by the UK medicines regulatory agency. With the emergence of COVID-19, this requirement has been even greater. This review was undertaken to determine the impact of the pandemic on safety and surveillance of opioids in the United Kingdom.

RECENT FINDINGS

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the surveillance of opioids in the United Kingdom continued, although primary research was often conducted with data prior to the pandemic. Of those studies that were conducted while the pandemic was ongoing, access to opioids (or opioid substitution therapy) and the subsequent effect on patient safety was the main theme.

SUMMARY

In the United Kingdom, changes in accessibility to the healthcare system and how healthcare providers operated during the COVID-19 pandemic may have had unintended consequences on use and safety of opioids, due to the shift in focus to preventing COVID-19 from overwhelming the healthcare system. The findings from this review support the need to continue surveillance in the United Kingdom, including the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on opioid utilization and safety.

Pharmacological strategies used to manage symptoms of patients dying of COVID-19: A rapid systematic review

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 has tragically resulted in over 2.5 million deaths globally. Despite this, there is a lack of research on how to care for patients dying of COVID-19, specifically pharmacological management of symptoms.

AIM

The aim was to determine the dose ranges of pharmacological interventions commonly used to manage symptoms in adult patients dying of COVID-19, establish how effectiveness of these interventions was measured, and whether the pharmacological interventions were effective.

DESIGN

This was a rapid systematic review with narrative synthesis of evidence, prospectively registered on PROSPERO (ID: CRD42020210892).

DATA SOURCES

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL via the NICE Evidence Health Databases Advanced Search interface; medRxiv; the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register; and Google Scholar with no date limits. We included primary studies which documented care of patients dying of COVID-19 under the care of a specialist palliative care team.

RESULTS

Seven studies, documenting the care of 493 patients met the inclusion criteria. Approximately two thirds of patients required a continuous subcutaneous infusion with median doses of 15 mg morphine and 10 mg midazolam in the last 24 h of life. Four studies described effectiveness by retrospective review of documentation. One study detailed the effectiveness of individual medications.

CONCLUSIONS

A higher proportion of patients required continuous subcutaneous infusion than is typically encountered in palliative care. Doses of medications required to manage symptoms were generally modest. There was no evidence of a standardised yet holistic approach to measure effectiveness of these medications and this needs to be urgently addressed.

Dying in times of the coronavirus: An online survey among healthcare professionals about end-of-life care for patients dying with and without COVID-19 (the CO-LIVE study)

BACKGROUND

During the COVID-19 outbreak restricting measures may have affected the provision of good end-of-life care for patients with and without COVID-19.

AIM

To describe characteristics of patients who died and the care they received, and to examine how patient characteristics, setting and visiting restrictions are related to provided care and evaluation of the dying process.

DESIGN

An open observational online survey among healthcare professionals about their experience of end-of-life care that was provided to a patient with or without COVID-19 who died between March and July 2020.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Healthcare professionals (nurses, physicians and others) in the Netherlands from all settings: home (n = 163), hospital (n = 249), nursing home (n = 192), hospice (n = 89) or elsewhere (n = 68).

RESULTS

Of patients reported on, 56% had COVID-19. Among these patients, 358 (84.4%) also had a serious chronic illness. Having COVID-19 was negatively, and having a serious chronic illness was positively associated with healthcare staff's favourable appreciation of end-of-life care. Often there had been visiting restrictions in the last 2 days of life (75.8%). This was negatively associated with appreciation of care at the end of life and the dying process. Finally, care at the end of life was less favourably appreciated in hospitals and especially nursing homes, and more favourably in home settings and especially hospices.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that end-of-life care during the COVID-19 pandemic may be further optimised, especially in nursing homes and hospitals. Allowing at least some level of visits of relatives seems a key component.

COVID-19 End-of-life Care: Symptoms and Supportive Therapy Use in an Australian Hospital

Background

Descriptions of symptoms and medication use at end of life in COVID‐19 are limited to small cross‐sectional studies, with no Australian longitudinal data.

Aims

To describe end‐of‐life symptoms and care needs of people dying of COVID‐19.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study included consecutive admitted patients who died at a Victorian tertiary referral hospital from 1 January to 30 September directly due to COVID‐19. Clinical characteristics, symptoms and use of supportive therapies, including medications and non‐pharmacological interventions in the last 3 days of life were extracted.

Results

The cohort comprised 58 patients (median age 87 years, interquartile range (IQR) 81–90) predominantly admitted from home (n = 30), who died after a median of 11 days (IQR 6–28) in the acute medical (n = 31) or aged care (n = 27) wards of the hospital. The median Charlson Comorbidity Score was 7 (IQR 5–8). Breathlessness (n = 42), agitation (n = 36) and pain (n = 33) were the most frequent clinician‐reported symptoms in the final 3 days of life, with most requiring opioids (n = 52), midazolam (n = 40), with dose escalation commonly being required. While oxygen therapy was commonly used (n = 47), few (n = 13) required an anti‐secretory agent.

Conclusions

This study presents one of the first and largest Australian report of the end of life and symptom experience of people dying of COVID‐19. This information should help clinicians to anticipate palliative care needs of these patients, for example, recognising that higher starting doses of opioids and sedatives may help reduce prevalence and severity of breathlessness and agitation near death.

A rapid review of the pathoetiology, presentation, and management of delirium in adults with COVID-19

Background COVID-19 causes significant morbidity and mortality. Despite the high prevalence of delirium and delirium-related symptoms in COVID-19 patients, data and evidence-based recommendations on the pathophysiology and management of delirium are limited. Objective We conducted a rapid review of COVID-19-related delirium literature to provide a synthesis of literature on the prevalence, pathoetiology, and management of delirium in these patients. Methods Systematic searches of Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, LitCovid, WHO-COVID-19, and Web of Science electronic databases were conducted. Grey literature was also reviewed, including preprint servers, archives, and websites of relevant organizations. Search results were limited to the English language. We included literature focused on adults with COVID-19 and delirium. Papers were excluded if they did not mention signs or symptoms of delirium. Results 229 studies described prevalence, pathoetiology, and/or management of delirium in adults with COVID-19. Delirium was rarely assessed with validated tools. Delirium affected >50% of all patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU. The etiology of COVID-19 delirium is likely multifactorial, with some evidence of direct brain effect. Prevention remains the cornerstone of management in these patients. To date, there is no evidence to suggest specific pharmacological strategies. Discussion Delirium is common in COVID-19 and may manifest from both indirect and direct effects on the central nervous system. Further research is required to investigate contributing mechanisms. As there is limited empirical literature on delirium management in COVID-19, management with non-pharmacological measures and judicious use of pharmacotherapy is suggested.