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

Treatment and Care for Nursing Home Residents with COVID-19: A Qualitative Study

Purpose

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) placed a significant strain on nursing homes, leading to numerous outbreaks and high mortality rates. This situation created considerable stress and challenges for residents, their physicians and nurses, as well as family caregivers. By understanding these challenges, we can gain new insights and learn valuable lessons. Thus, the purpose of this study is to examine the treatment and care provided to nursing home residents with COVID-19, as experienced by physicians, nurses, and family caregivers.

Participants and Methods

This study is a secondary analysis of 35 interviews with physicians, nurses, and family caregivers, each with personal experience caring for nursing home residents diagnosed with COVID-19. The interviews took place from December 2020 to April 2021. We analyzed the transcriptions based on Braun and Clarke's reflexive thematic analysis model and followed a qualitative descriptive design as outlined by Sandelowski.

Findings

The analysis produced three themes: 1) Balancing medical treatment, 2) The need for increased systematic monitoring of vital functions, and 3) Determining the treatment level for nursing home residents. These themes were explored through the unique perspectives of the three participant groups: physicians, nurses, and family caregivers. The findings revealed several challenges related to treatment and care for nursing home residents diagnosed with COVID-19. This applied both to relief of symptoms, monitoring of vital functions, assessment of treatment level and use of advance care planning.

Conclusion

Drawing from the experiences of physicians, nurses, and family caregivers, there should be a unified plan at the municipal or national level for competency development in nursing homes to prepare for future crises like pandemics or epidemics. Additionally, the safe engagement of family caregivers and relatives should be given priority.

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.

Clinical Findings and Outcomes From Subjects With COVID-19 Pneumonia in an Intermediate Respiratory Care Unit

BACKGROUND

Many patients with COVID-19 require respiratory support and close monitoring. Intermediate respiratory care units (IRCU) may be valuable to optimally and adequately implement noninvasive respiratory support (NRS) to decrease clinical failure. We aimed at describing intubation and mortality in a novel facility entirely dedicated to COVID-19 and to establish their outcomes.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, observational study performed at one hospital in Spain. We included consecutive subjects age > 18 y, admitted to IRCU with COVID-19 pneumonia, and requiring NRS between December 2020-September 2021. Data collected included mode and usage of NRS, laboratory findings, endotracheal intubation, and mortality at day 30. A multivariable Cox model was used to assess risk factors associated with clinical failure and mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 1,306 subjects were included; 64.6% were male with mean age of 54.7 y. During the IRCU stay, 345 subjects clinically failed NRS (85.5% intubated; 14.5% died). Cox model showed a higher clinical failure in IRCU upon onset of symptoms and hospitalization was < 10 d (hazard ratio [HR] 1.59 [95% CI 1.24-2.03], P < .001) and PaO2 /FIO2 < 100 mm Hg (HR 1.59 [95% CI 1.27-1.98], P < .001). These variables were not associated with increased 30-d mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

The IRCU was a valuable option to manage subjects with COVID-19 requiring NRS, thus reducing ICU overload. Male sex, gas exchange, and blood chemistry at admission were associated with worse prognosis, whereas older age, gas exchange, and blood chemistry were associated with 30-d mortality. These findings may provide a basis for better understanding outcomes and to improve management of noninvasively ventilated patients with COVID-19.

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.

Use of Phenobarbitone for Palliative Sedation in Dyspneic Crises Due to COVID-19 Pneumonia - A Case Series

Patients who suffer from dyspnea while dying from COVID-19 are treated with opioids and benzodiazepines. In some instances, patients may experience refractory dyspnea at the end of life. Palliative sedation can be prescribed to alleviate such patients' suffering. We describe two patients being treated for severe COVID-19 pneumonia in a tertiary hospital. Both developed intractable dyspneic crises despite high-dose opioids and benzodiazepines. This led to their requirement of palliative sedation in the general ward using subcutaneous phenobarbitone (phenobarbital). We outline clinical considerations for the use of palliative sedation in COVID-19 related dyspnea. In particular, we discuss the evidence for, benefits and limitations of using phenobarbitone for palliative sedation in COVID-19 patients.

[Perceptions on handling of opioids: focus COVID-19 : A survey among anesthesiologists via the specialist societies DGAI/BDA]

BACKGROUND

Opioids are part of the daily routine in anesthesiology and palliative care; however, treatment of dyspnea with opioids is presented heterogeneously in guidelines. This may result in an uncertainty concerning opioid indications and ethical concerns, especially when caring for COVID-19 patients.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to examine the perception of anesthesiologists concerning the handling of morphine as the reference opioid (subsequently termed M/O) for symptom control within and outside of a palliative care setting, including care for COVID-19 patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Members of the German Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (DGAI) and the Professional Association of German Anesthesiologists (BDA) received an anonymized online questionnaire (Survey Monkey®; Momentive Inc., San Mateo, CA, USA) in October 2020, 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 a palliative care setting.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A total of 1365 anesthesiologists participated; 46% women. Most anesthesiologists were 41-60 years old (58%), worked in a hospital setting (78%), in the operating theatre (63%) and in intensive care units (49%). The majority (57%) reported > 20 years of professional experience (52%) and partial involvement in palliative care (57%). Perception of M/O handling was mostly "certain and confident" (88%) and "clearly regulated" (85%) within a palliative care setting but rated substantially lower for outside palliative care (77%/63%). When caring for COVID-19 patients, handling of M/O was even less often rated "certain and confident" (40%) or "clearly regulated" (29%) outside palliative care. Dyspnea (95%/75%), relief of the dying process (84%/51%), agitation (59%/27%) and anxiety/panic (61%/33%) were more frequently rated as general indications for morphine within versus outside palliative care. The majority of anesthesiologists disputed that M/O is given with the intention to hasten death within (87%) and outside (93%) palliative care. Highest difference in route of administration was reported for the subcutaneous administration of M/O within (76%) versus outside (33%) palliative care, followed by the intravenous route (57%/79%), while oral (66/62%) and transdermal (48%/39%) administration were reported to be used comparatively frequently. Most participants (85%) wanted more frequent involvement of palliative care consultation teams but also more team conferences (75%), supervision (72%), and training on opioid management (69%).

CONCLUSION

Anesthesiologists perceived considerable uncertainty in using M/O for nonpalliative care medical settings. Highest uncertainty was seen for the care of patients with COVID-19. The prevalent use of the subcutaneous route for M/O application in palliative care can serve as inspiration for areas outside palliative care as well. Uniform interdisciplinary guidelines for symptom control including dyspnea, education and involvement of a palliative care consultation team should be more 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.

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.