Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Planned discontinuation or acute unplanned cessation of oral dopaminergic medications might result in a severe relapse of Parkinson's symptoms or, sporadically, in life-limiting withdrawal syndromes. Unplanned cessation may occur due to dysphagia or decreased alertness, amongst other reasons. Planned acute discontinuation occurs during surgery or a medical necessity for a ‘nil per os’ policy (such as hospitalizations for gastrointestinal diseases). Non-oral alternatives are available, such as transdermal rotigotine, subcutaneous apomorphine, and levodopa delivered subcutaneously or via an enteral tube. Selecting the best treatment can be difficult and should be based upon clinical considerations, patient preference and be tailored to the care setting. These considerations will differ during the course of disease. For example, more invasive treatment options can be considered in hospitalized persons with early to moderate-stage disease, whereas symptomatic palliative treatments are more appropriate towards the end of life. Here, we discuss several practical considerations for three, partially overlapping, but conceptually distinct moments at which acute discontinuation or cessation events occur: during hospitalization (including surgery), late-stage disease and end of life. We stress the need for prevention and early advance care planning and present a stepwise pharmacological approach to address unplanned acute cessation or planned discontinuation.

Plain-language summary

People with Parkinson's disease can encounter situations in which they suddenly have to stop taking their oral antiparkinson medication. These situations can be divided into two broad categories. One is unplanned cessation of medication, such as in swallowing problems or in decreased consciousness. The other is planned acute discontinuation of medication for medical reasons, such as surgery or certain bowel diseases. If not handled correctly, sudden withdrawal of antiparkinson medication can lead to an increase in Parkinson's complaints or even in life-threatening illness. This article describes several ways to handle and anticipate planned and unplanned withdrawal of oral antiparkinson medication, and provides a practical guideline for healthcare professionals.

Keywords

Parkinson disease non-oral treatments surgery late-stage disease terminal care

Introduction

Oral levodopa is the cornerstone of treatment for persons with Parkinson's disease (PwP).^1,2 It is the most effective and safest dopaminergic treatment, both in early and late stages of Parkinson's disease (PD).^2–4 As the disease progresses, higher and more frequent dosages of levodopa are required to combat response fluctuations.^1,2 In advanced stages, persons may require levodopa as frequently as every 2–3 h, and the daily dose can be escalated above 2000 mg.² Other oral dopaminergic medications, such as dopamine receptor agonists (DRAs), catechol-O-methyltransferase inhibitors, amantadine and monoamine oxidase B (MAO-B) inhibitors, may be introduced to alleviate response fluctuations.^1–3

Acute cessation of levodopa might result in a severe relapse of PD symptoms, especially for persons with higher daily doses.^5,6 This includes a worsening of motor symptoms, such as akinesia, rigidity or tremor, and also of non-motor symptoms, such as anxiety and pain. In rare cases, acute cessation causes parkinsonism-hyperpyrexia syndrome.^7,8 This potentially life-limiting syndrome is a specific form of neuroleptic malignant syndrome and consists of severe rigidity, autonomic dysfunction (e.g., hyperthermia, tachycardia), rhabdomyolysis and disturbances of consciousness. Therefore, preventing or treating acute levodopa cessation is an important aspect of good quality of care. It should be noted that acute dysfunction of deep brain stimulation can trigger parkinsonism-hyperpyrexia syndrome as well.⁹

Acute withdrawal of DRAs carries a risk as well in the form of the dopamine agonist withdrawal syndrome. This entails neuropsychiatric symptoms and autonomic dysregulation and is more likely to occur in PwP who have higher daily DRA doses as well as a history of impulse control disorders.¹⁰

Other dopaminergic medications generally carry a lower risk of complications from acute cessation. A notable exception is amantadine: while it can usually be safely stopped periprocedurally, acute withdrawal carries a risk of dystonia and is also associated with a greater chance of postprocedural dyskinesias and worse recovery. In rare cases, amantadine withdrawal can trigger parkinsonism-hyperpyrexia syndrome.¹¹ Caution is therefore advised.

In this review, we distinguish unintentional or unplanned cessation of levodopa on the one hand, and intentional acute discontinuation on the other hand. Unintentional gradual but also acute cessation may occur naturally during the disease course, for example as a result of dysphagia,¹² decreased alertness,¹³ drug shortages or pharmacy/care provider error. Intentional acute discontinuation can occur during surgery under general anesthesia¹⁴ or during medical necessity for a ‘nil per os’ policy (such as hospitalization for gastrointestinal diseases, see Box 1).^15,16

Box 1.

Reasons for discontinuation or acute unplanned cessation of oral dopaminergic medication.

Iatrogenic

General anesthesia

Nil per os regime

Sedative medication

Medication has run out / medication shortage

Pharmacy or prescriber error

Mental problems

Decreased alertness/ cognitive decline

Delirium

Behavioral problems

Motor problems

Dysphagia

Gastro-intestinal problems

Nausea / vomiting

Severe gastroparesis / constipation

Recent gastrointestinal surgery

Ileus

Other comorbid gastro-intestinal disease

Specific clinical considerations with respect to cessation and discontinuation differ during the course of disease. For example, more invasive treatment options can be considered in hospitalized persons with early or moderate-stage disease, compared to end-of-life disease, where comfort care is more appropriate.¹⁷ For the purpose of this review, we will discuss the typical clinical considerations for three, partially overlapping, but conceptually distinct moments when acute withdrawal events may occur: during hospitalization (including surgery), in late-stage disease and at end of life. For each of these moments, this review will give an up-to-date practice-oriented overview of clinical considerations for persons with acute unplanned cessation or discontinuation of oral dopaminergic medication. In addition, we propose a stepwise pharmacological strategy to address unplanned cessation or discontinuation of oral dopaminergic medications. Finally, we hope that this review helps raising further awareness for the risks associated with medication withdrawal in PwP, so that clinicians can deploy proactive strategies to avoid these from happening in the first place.

Intentional discontinuation of oral dopaminergic medication during hospitalization

Surgery

For patients undergoing surgery, physicians should ideally prevent discontinuation of dopaminergic medication. To achieve this, surgeons should ask four questions in the preoperative stage:

- Are there alternatives to surgery?

- Are there alternatives to general anesthesia?

- Is a nil per os regimen absolutely necessary?

- In the case of (very) long surgery: can non-enteral dopaminergic medication be used?

Are there alternatives to surgery?

As a general rule of thumb in all patients, it should be considered whether the benefit-to-harm ratio favors surgery over conservative treatment. This ratio can be skewed towards harm in PwP,^18–21 and more likely so in frail patients. Compared to matched controls, PwP undergoing general, visceral, thoracic, vascular, or trauma surgery have an increased duration of postoperative hospitalization, increased risk of perioperative morbidity (for example postoperative falls) and are less often discharged home.^18,19 Furthermore, hospitalization of PwP can worsen parkinsonian symptoms (related at least in part to the stress that accompanies the admission), cause delirium and reduce the ability for self-care.^19–21 If surgery is the best option, recommended preoperative screening for PwP includes consulting a specialized PD nurse or neurologist to advise on dopaminergic treatments. For specific individuals, a speech-language therapist can be asked to assess the risk of dysphagia. For those with suboptimal endurance and strength, rehabilitative therapy prior to surgery can be considered (‘prehabilitative’ therapy).²² Also, for frail patients, involvement of geriatricians reduces perioperative functional decline and mortality.^23,24 Involvement of an anesthesiologist who is aware of the particular needs of PwP is instrumental. For instance, certain drugs which are commonly used periprocedurally are contraindicated in PwP (examples include ketamine, metoclopramide and haloperidol). Other drugs should be used with caution. An example of this latter category is inhalation anesthetics, because of their risk of autonomic dysregulation. The decision to administer, and the selection of, opioids to PwP should be made after considering possible side effects and interactions. Opioids with serotonin reuptake properties (these include dextromethorphan, methadone, pethidine, propoxyphene and tramadol) have the potential to cause serotonin syndrome when combined with other serotonergic medications, which include MAO-B inhibitors used for PD such as selegiline, rasagiline and safinamide. Also, PwP who are administered opioids are at increased risk of postoperative delirium.^25,26 In addition, particular opioids (fentanyl and alfentanil) may worsen rigidity.^22,27

Are there alternatives to general anesthesia?

The use of local or regional anesthesia might prevent discontinuation of dopaminergic medication, compared to general anesthesia.^22,28,29 In addition to the risk for discontinuation of dopaminergic medication, relative contraindications for general anesthesia are frequently present in PwP. For example, PwP have more severe dysautonomia (creating risk of perioperative hypotension),³⁰ and higher risk of aspiration pneumonia.³¹ Airway management can be challenging because of factors such as cervical and laryngeal dystonia. Also, severe adverse events were reported following general anesthesia, such as a prolonged diminished consciousness and acute respiratory problems.^29,32–34 Postprocedural confusion and delirium are very common in PwP and they result in a longer recuperation period before discharge is possible. Furthermore, benefits of local and regional anesthesia include the ability to detect post-operative complications earlier, such as nausea or pain.^28,29 However, it should be noted that there are also other considerations which may favor general anesthesia. For example, for cataract surgery in PwP, the need for good positioning and the ability to lie still prompts most ophthalmologists to prefer general anesthesia.³⁵ Tremor could also interfere with monitoring devices during surgery.²⁹ Finally, many surgical procedures are simply not possible under local or regional anesthesia.

Is a nil per os regime absolutely necessary?

In the hours leading up to surgery, surgeons should consider if a strict nil per os regime is really necessary. In most cases, intake of dopaminergic medications with limited amounts of water (max 15 cc) is deemed safe.^21,36 If nil per os is necessary, surgeons can strive to minimize the number of missed medications.^21,37 For example, as most medication is administered during daytime, arrangements could be made to plan surgery at the earliest occasion in the morning, limiting the nil per os period mostly to the nighttime. Furthermore, the antiparkinson medication should be resumed as soon as possible after the surgery.

Can non-enteral dopaminergic medication be used?

In case of (very) long surgical procedures or otherwise protracted periods of discontinuation of oral medication, non-enteral dopaminergic medication can be considered. Plannable procedures such as elective surgery or scheduled hospitalization provide the PwP and their physician with the relative luxury of being able to plan ahead with regard to the antiparkinson medication. Non-enteral dopaminergic medication, such as subcutaneous levodopa or apomorphine, or transdermal rotigotine, can then be initiated and stabilized before the commencement of the nil per os period.

Unplanned hospitalizations

Most hospitalizations in PwP are acute and are caused by complications of PD, such as infections, psychiatric problems, falls and motor problems.^38,39 Those who are elderly or who have progressed to advanced disease stages have a higher risk of being hospitalized, and also an increased risk of unplanned cessation of dopaminergic treatment. Causes for discontinuation of dopaminergic medications are nausea or a nil per os regime (for example, in persons with intestinal obstructions).^15,16

Arrangements to prevent or cope with unplanned cessation of dopaminergic treatment should be in place prior to hospitalization. These include swallowing therapy to decrease dysphagia and early referral to the neurologist or Parkinson's disease nurse. In PwP who (e.g., because of motor fluctuations or therapy-resistant tremor) qualify for one of the various device-aided therapies, e.g., deep brain stimulation, levodopa/carbidopa with or without entacapone intestinal gel therapy, and subcutaneous apomorphine or levodopa pump therapy, should not suffer doctor's delay in their installment.^22,40 The risk for unplanned cessation of dopaminergic medications is by itself not enough to initiate such advanced treatments. However, for those in whom these treatments are already in place, the risk of unplanned cessation of dopaminergic medications is obviously diminished as a non-oral treatment route is available. Neurologists or specialized PD nurses should therefore strive to reduce unnecessary delays in the introduction of these therapies. In advanced disease stages, which are often complicated by levodopa-resistant axial symptoms and cognitive impairment, introduction of device-aided therapies may no longer be possible. In addition, even if advanced treatments are in place, unplanned cessation of dopaminergic treatments may occur. For example, major gastrointestinal surgeries could impair intrajejunal levodopa/carbidopa gel therapy, or a delirium could warrant a marked reduction of the DRA dose.

Unintentional cessation of oral dopaminergic medication in late-stage Parkinson's disease

Late-stage disease is characterized by dependency upon others, diminished physical/cognitive ability, and frailty.⁴¹ Several causes of unplanned cessation events are more prevalent in late-stage disease compared to earlier disease stages, such as dysphagia, delirium, hospitalization and comorbid diseases.^42,43 In late-stage PD, cessation events might appear to be acute, but frequently they are not. For example, a gradual disease progression with escalating motor problems culminates in what appears to be a sudden dysphagia,⁴⁴ or an underrecognized gradual cognitive decline predisposes PwP to the development of an acute delirium.⁴⁵ These examples illustrate the need for timely recognition and initiation of treatment for motor and non-motor symptoms.

Any physician treating a person with late-stage PD with unplanned cessation of dopaminergic medication should ask three questions:

- What non-oral treatments are safe and effective?

- What non-oral alternatives are feasible in the current care setting?

- What are the person's wishes with regard to non-oral alternatives?

What non-oral treatments are safe and effective?

Effective non-oral treatments are available, but persons with late-stage disease likely have more intolerance. Rotigotine is a DRA that is available as a transdermal patch, with a beneficial effect on motor and non-motor symptoms.⁴⁶ While it has a good safety profile, it can sometimes induce psychotic symptoms or worsen autonomic symptoms, such as hypotension.⁴⁷ It cannot fully replace high doses of oral levodopa. The equivalency factor from levodopa to transdermal rotigotine is 30:1 and the maximum dose of rotigotine is 16 mg/24 h, corresponding to 480 mg levodopa.⁴⁸ Caution must be exercised, however, as a DRA-naïve person cannot be suddenly started on the maximum dose of 16 mg/24 h, as this could potentially be accompanied by a high risk of autonomic dysregulation and/or neuropsychiatric adverse effects. Therefore, the dose should be titrated up gradually. Immediate relief of PD symptoms can thus not be achieved. Another aspect that should be considered is that (especially in a palliative setting), the cutaneous absorption of medication can be adversely affected by factors such as sweating, cachexia and reduced dermal blood circulation.⁴⁹ This may limit the efficacy of a rotigotine patch.

Apomorphine is a potent DRA that is administered subcutaneously. It is administered either through intermittent (pen) injections or through continuous infusion with a removable infusion pump.⁵⁰ Apomorphine has a short half-life of 30 min and the clinical use for intermittent (pen) injections is therefore mostly limited to ‘rescue’ treatment of OFF episodes. For a response with longer duration, continuous subcutaneous infusion is required.

Sublingual and rectal formulations of apomorphine were developed, but are generally not available for clinical use.^51,52 There is conflicting information on safety of apomorphine in late-stage disease. Apomorphine is generally safe, even for those with cognitive dysfunction,⁵³ but analysis of reasons for discontinuation of apomorphine treatment showed hallucinations, confusion and somnolence as most frequent.⁵⁴ The presence of neuropsychiatric symptoms predicts discontinuation of apomorphine treatment.⁵⁵ However, apomorphine can be continued if a patient is adequately treated for the neuropsychiatric symptoms.^56,57 Given its efficacy, apomorphine can be considered as an alternative for patients who acutely need to stop high doses of oral levodopa. To prevent intolerance, pretreatment with an anti-emetic such as domperidone is needed. The levodopa equivalency factor from levodopa to apomorphine is 10:1.⁴⁸ However, given the ‘all-or-nothing’ pharmacodynamics of apomorphine, a conversion factor is seldom used in practice to obtain the apomorphine dose. Instead, the dose is titrated up from 1 mg/h until a satisfactory response is achieved.⁵⁸

Oral levodopa is the cornerstone of antiparkinsonian treatment, but the most frequent administration route of non-oral levodopa—using an enteral tube—is invasive.⁵⁹ Administering continuous levodopa/carbidopa intestinal gel through a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy with a jejunal extension is rarely feasible in acute unplanned situations as this requires careful planning and titration.⁵⁹ Pulverized and dissolved levodopa tablets can be administered through a nasogastric tube.

The introduction of a nasogastric (NG) tube for levodopa administration should be carefully weighed against the expected duration of the inability to swallow, the state and prognosis of the PwP and whether or not there is also an intention of using the tube for nutrition. In persons with dementia, enteral tube feeding did not reduce morbidity or mortality and did not improve quality of life.⁶⁰ Enteral tube placement in this patient category therefore comes with complex ethical considerations regarding the acceptability of life-sustaining treatments.⁶¹ Starting tube feeding can extend life beyond what is potentially welcomed by some PwP.

In palliative-care settings, for example in advanced cancer, patients can experience gastroparesis.⁶² Levodopa administration via an NG tube might thus be less effective, and the effect less predictable, in this population. Conversely, in situations in which swallowing is expected to be transiently impaired (such as following an acute stroke), using an NG tube for levodopa administration may very well be a good temporary solution.

If enteral tube placement is not preferred and DRAs are not tolerated, a theoretical alternative would be the use of rectal levodopa formulations. Pharmacokinetic studies into rectal suppository administration of levodopa are scarce and contradictory. Whilst one study reported comparable levodopa blood concentrations following either oral or rectal administration, a later study did not find rectally-administered levodopa/carbidopa to reach the circulation in measurable quantities⁶³ and an even later case report found a negligible serum concentration of levodopa after rectal levodopa/carbidopa administration.⁶⁴ A further case report, following through on an earlier suggestion that the lack of rectal absorption may be linked to the rectum's alkaline milieu, described a positive clinical response to a strongly acidic rectal suspension of levodopa/carbidopa (prepared by adding citric acid to a suspension of pulverized levodopa in water/glycerol).⁶⁵ Pharmacokinetic analyses were not performed, however. The other case report, conversely, used the same acidic formulation and found negligible absorption.⁶⁴ The uncertainty surrounding rectal levodopa's pharmacological properties and the cumbersomeness of having to repeatedly manually prepare a suspension and administer it by enema makes this an improbable candidate for non-oral levodopa administration.

Recently, inhaled and subcutaneous levodopa have become available for several countries. Outside of specific countries (such as Japan),⁶⁶ intravenous administration of levodopa is generally not available for clinical use and remains reserved for scientific research. The marked acidity of levodopa solutions means that they need to be heavily diluted for infusion, which makes its use impractical and carries a risk of hypervolemia as well as phlebitis.⁶⁷ In a retrospective observational study of PwP undergoing gastric or colorectal surgery, perioperative administration of intravenous levodopa reduced the length of hospital stay, compared to perioperative withholding of antiparkinson medication, but it did not reduce the rate of complications or mortality rate.⁶⁶

What non-oral alternatives are feasible in the current care setting?

Treatment options are frequently limited by the care setting. A majority of persons in late-stage disease are less mobile and frequently unable to attend outpatient clinics for expert treatment.⁶⁸ Nearly half of PwP with late-stage disease live in care facilities.⁶⁹ The formal and informal carers in nursing home settings are less equipped to utilize more invasive strategies, such as subcutaneous apomorphine and non-oral levodopa treatments.^70,71 In our experience, knowledge and experience in handling these therapies is frequently absent. Physicians should take these limitations into consideration while choosing the treatment options and/or consider arranging training of healthcare providers.

Regardless of the care setting, initiation of advanced therapies generally requires planning. The pen or pump for the non-oral medication, as well as the medication cartridges, should be ordered; a specialist nurse should be available to perform the initiation (dose-finding and monitoring for adverse effects); and premedication for several days can be required (such as domperidone in case of initiation of apomorphine). This makes installment of these non-oral alternatives in a setting of acute oral medication cessation often impractical or impossible.

What are the PwP's wishes with regard to non-oral alternatives?

Although treatment optimization might benefit persons with late-stage disease, even with the best treatments, they typically experience a higher symptom burden and a lower quality of life compared to earlier stages.^72–74 As a result, the goals of care shift and are less focused on restoring maximum health and more aimed towards optimizing comfort. In this stage, ascertaining the right goals of care also includes a careful assessment of the person's wishes for intervention to cope with the consequences of an unplanned cessation event. Clinicians also have the responsibility to provide information on non-oral alternatives and their implications for daily life, side effects and the possible need for extra help in case of a subcutaneous/intrajejunal therapy. Providing information and organizing care based on a patient's preferences is embedded in advance care planning.⁷⁵ The process of advance care planning enables individuals to define goals and preferences for future medical treatment and care, to discuss these goals and preferences with family and healthcare providers, and to record and review these preferences if appropriate.⁷⁶ Studies in other fields have shown that advance care planning can improve quality of life of patients, improve patient satisfaction with end-of-life care, and lead to better quality of communication between patient, family caregivers and healthcare professionals.^77–81 In the process of advance care planning, specific attention should be paid to unplanned cessation of dopaminergic treatments. Physicians should discuss a person's treatment wishes for more invasive treatment options, such as enteral tube placement. Also, treatment options that require a different setting, such as hospitalization, should be discussed, as many persons wish to abstain from hospital admissions. These advance care planning discussions should preferably be held early in the disease course, as later on in the disease many PwP will experience cognitive decline or difficulty expressing themselves.

Unplanned cessation of oral dopaminergic medication at the end of life

At the end of life, acute cessation of oral medication is common. In this case, many drugs are often ceased permanently, with the remainder preferably being administered via subcutaneous infusion in most settings.⁸² This can even be achieved with the help of family carers.⁸³ When it comes to antiparkinson therapy, however, full substitution of oral dopaminergic medication is not always a self-evident treatment strategy. Several experts argue that diminishing and tapering off the dopaminergic medication is, at least in some PwP, possible with limited negative consequences.^64,84 Others suggest to continue the use of dopaminergic treatments for as long as until the moment of death, including more invasive treatments such as apomorphine.⁸⁵ Likely, at the end of life, care needs and wishes of PwP are not uniform.⁸⁶ In our opinion, at the end of life the treating physician should ask the following three questions:

- Which symptoms determine the level of comfort and quality of dying?

- What are the most effective and feasible treatment options in the person's preferred place of death?

- What are the person's wishes with regard to life-sustaining treatments and end-of-life care?

Which symptoms determine the level of comfort and quality of dying?

The major causes of death in PwP are infections (pneumonia, urinary tract infections with tissue invasion), falls or cardiac disease. As a result, symptomatic control includes the treatment of traumatic injuries or any respiratory and cardiac distress.⁸⁷ The most frequent end-of-life symptoms in PwP are pain, respiratory secretions and agitation.⁸⁸ In the 72 h before death, severe motor symptoms were present in only 6% of persons in one study.⁸⁸ Whilst opioids and benzodiazepines are best avoided in earlier disease stages, these treatments are the mainstay of treatment at the end of life.^82,89 If a person has sufficient symptom control with palliative treatments, including palliative sedation, one can opt to omit dopaminergic treatment altogether – although sudden cessation carries a risk of parkinsonism-hyperpyrexia syndrome.

What are the most effective and feasible treatment options in the person's preferred place of death?

Few available studies report on the effectiveness and feasibility of treatments at the end of life. Based on these studies, transdermal rotigotine is the most widely used non-oral strategy at the end of life.⁹⁰ In a UK-based cohort of 51 PwP at the end-of-life, 55% had dopaminergic medication substituted with transdermal rotigotine at death.⁸⁸ However, evidence regarding its effectiveness is scarce, with case studies showing conflicting results of rotigotine, two reporting improvement and two others reporting insufficient effect.^91–94 In addition, great caution is advised in prescribing DRAs to patients who are at high risk of hallucinations, confusion or autonomic dysregulation. In a study in which people with advanced PD were started on a rotigotine patch to replace their oral dopaminergic agents, as many as 24% of subjects developed a delirium.⁹⁵

End-of-life use of subcutaneous apomorphine and subcutaneous scopolamine (for tremor) were successful treatments in the persons in whom rotigotine was insufficient. However, improvement with apomorphine and scopolamine came with adverse events, such as nausea, vomiting and dry mouth. All these cases were in a hospital or hospice setting, which is not the preferred place of death for most persons, as most wish to die at home.⁹⁶ At home, the general practitioner is the first physician to treat troublesome symptoms.⁹⁷ In our experience, general practitioners have sufficient experience with palliative symptomatic treatments, but struggle with the non-oral dopaminergic options in the period shortly before the end-of-life phase. Therefore, collaboration between general practitioner, (specialized) pharmacist and movement disorders expert is necessary.

What are the person's wishes with regard to life-sustaining treatments and end-of-life care?

With the current lack of evidence, we think it even more important to orient treatment choice towards the wishes of the PwP. It is an interesting finding that utilization of palliative care services, including a discussion on the goals of care, decreases the number of invasive therapies.⁷⁰ At the end of life, persons may prioritize comfort over survival, and the best treatment is the one that is most successful at achieving this goal, with the lowest treatment burden. In settings with limited availability of non-oral dopaminergic treatments, symptomatic palliative treatments—such as analgesics and benzodiazepines—are more feasible. However, for those PwP with a need and wish for more invasive non-oral dopaminergic strategies, options should be in place.

Stepwise pharmacological strategies for unplanned cessation or medically-indicated discontinuation of dopaminergic medication

If a PwP cannot take oral dopaminergic medication, oral levodopa and oral dopamine agonists should be substituted with alternatives. It is generally considered safe to temporarily omit rasagiline, selegiline, entacapone and tolcapone,²⁷ and amantadine with caution. Many non-oral dopaminergic treatments were developed, but not all are widely available. See Table 1 for considerations on all alternatives on safety, efficacy, complexity, requirements and dosing. Table 2 contains alternatives that are also mentioned in the literature but that are, for various reasons, not readily applicable. For the assignment of the qualification ‘readily applicable’ or ‘not readily applicable’ to the various options, several aspects were considered, including commercial availability, efficacy, safety and available evidence. It should be noted that ‘readily applicable’ does not necessarily imply a lack of preconditions or complexity: e.g., for device-aided therapies, specialist nursing care may be necessary in addition to specific equipment, as well as premedication and (in some jurisdictions) prior approval by healthcare insurance. Table 2 is provided to give an overview of various described treatment suggestions which the authors cannot currently recommend. Rather than an endorsement of these treatment options, this table is intended as a practical reference for the reader to make an informed decision on the use or non-use of the alternatives provided, for cases in which the alternatives in Table 1 are not available, contraindicated or have already been tried unsuccessfully.

Table 1.

Readily applicable methods for treating acute discontinuation or unplanned cessation of oral dopaminergic medication (in alphabetical order).

Active compound	Formulation	Suitable for NPO?	Safety	Efficacy	Complexity	Requirements	Dose calculation	Availability
Apomorphine	Subcutaneous injection⁹⁸	Yes	Generally safe; cutaneous adverse events have been reported	Effective. Only feasible for short bridging of temporary (hours) situations.	Requires specialist nursing care and specific equipment	Premedication (3 days) with antiemetic is required	Start with 1 mg and increase stepwise to max 10 mg. Various dose-escalation protocols exist.	Good
Apomorphine	Subcutaneous infusion⁴⁰	Yes	Generally safe; cutaneous adverse events have been reported. Subcutaneous nodules can cause discomfort.	Effective. In practice seldom possible to achieve monotherapy, but can substitute up to 1000 mg levodopa/day.	Requires specialist nursing care and specific equipment	Premedication (3 days) with antiemetic is required. Active participation of PwP is required in dose titration. PwP should either not be in a confusional state or proper fixational measures should be taken (to avoid inadvertent removal of s.c. cannula). Should preferably be initiated prior to acute cessation of oral medication	Various dose-escalation protocols exist. Levodopa equivalence: 1:10.	Good
Foslevodopa/foscarbidopa	Subcutaneous infusion⁹⁹	Yes	Generally safe; cutaneous adverse events have been reported	Total LEDD can be substituted	Requires specialist nursing care and specific equipment	PwP should either not be in a confusional state or proper fixational measures should be taken (to avoid inadvertent removal of s.c. cannula). Presence of specialist nurse and specific equipment. Should preferably be initiated prior to acute cessation of oral medication.	1.41 : 1⁹⁹	Good
Levodopa/carbidopa (/entacapone) intestinal gel	Jejunal infusion through naso-jejunal tube⁴⁰	No	Generally safe	Total LEDD can be substituted	Requires specialist nursing care and specific equipment	PwP should either not be in a confusional state or proper fixational measures should be taken (to avoid inadvertent removal of n.j. tube). Presence of specialist nurse and specific equipment Requires nasojejunal tube placement. Requires intact GI uptake. Should preferably be initiated prior to acute cessation of oral medication.	Levodopa/ carbidopa intestinal gel: 1 : 1.11 Levodopa/ carbidopa /entacapone intestinal gel 1 : 1.54	Good
Rotigotine	Transdermal (patch)^47,100–102	Yes	Generally safe. Studies show increased risk of confusion, hallucination and measures of comfort at end of life.	Unlikely that total LEDD is substituted (max dose of 16 mg is equivalent to 480 mg levodopa)	Low	No active participation of PwP is required	Start at lowest dose and titrate up. Levodopa equivalence: 1:30.	Good

GI: gastrointestinal; LEDD: levodopa-equivalent daily dose; n.j.: nasojejunal; NPO: nil per os; PwP: person with Parkinson's disease; s.c.: subcutaneous.

Table 2.

Other reported, but not readily applicable, methods (in alphabetical order).

Active compound	Formulation	Suitable for NPO?	Safety	Efficacy	Complexity	Requirements	Dose calculation	Availability	Main reason for not deemed (readily) applicable
Amantadine	Intravenous^{101,103–106}	Yes	Generally safe; may increase confusion	Limited and short-lived antiparkinson effect. Unlikely to substitute total LEDD except in early disease.	Low	No active participation of PwP is required. Requires i.v. access.	200 mg once or twice daily, infused slowly (over 3–4 h)	Not available commercially	Not available commercially
Apomorphine	Nasal^51,107	Yes	Allergic reactions reported. Risk of side effects (hypotension, confusion, nausea).	Probably effective. Only feasible for short bridging of temporary (hours) situations.	Low	No active participation of PwP is required. Premedication (3 days) with antiemetic is required.	Start 1 mg, titrate up to max 10mg	Not available commercially	Not available commercially
Apomorphine	Rectal^51,108,109	Depends on specific GI pathology	Risk of side effects (hypotension, confusion, nausea)	Has not been extensively researched	Requires administration by enema. Requires expertise in local pharmacy to manufacture rectal preparation.	No active participation of PwP is required. Requires intact rectal uptake. Premedication (3 days) with antiemetic is required.	10–100 mg depending on preparation	Base (solution for injection) available in several markets, but rectal preparation to be prepared locally	Requires expertise in local pharmacy to manufacture rectal preparation
Apomorphine	Sublingual film¹¹⁰	Yes	Risk of side effects (hypotension, confusion, nausea)	Only feasible for short bridging of temporary (hours) situations	Low	Requires active participation of PwP. Requires intact sublingual uptake. Premedication (3 days) with antiemetic is required.	Start 10 mg, titrate up to max 35mg	In some markets only	Poor availability, only suitable for bridging of short situations
Levodopa/ carbidopa	Inhaled¹¹¹	Yes	Generally safe	Only feasible for short bridging of temporary (hours) situations	Low	Requires active participation of PwP	66 mg, up to 5 times per day	In some markets only	Not (yet) widely available, only suitable for bridging of short situations
Levodopa/PDI	Intravenous infusion⁶⁶	Yes	Risks of hypervolemia and phlebitis	Reduces length of hospital stay, but not morbidity and mortality	Low	Requires i.v. access	0.5–1 : 1	In some markets only	Poor availability, safety
Levodopa/PDI	Rectal^63–65	Depends on specific pathology	Has not been assessed	Uncertain if it reaches the circulation when administered rectally	Requires administration by enema. Requires expertise in local pharmacy to manufacture rectal preparation.	No active participation of PwP is required. Requires intact rectal uptake.	Unknown	Base widely available (regular tablets) but rectal solution to be prepared locally	Probably not absorbed rectally
Levodopa/PDI	Sublingual administration of crushed regular tablets¹¹²	No (may be inadvertently swallowed)	Not investigated; possible risk of aspiration	Case report mentions efficacy in n = 2. Unlikely to substitute total LEDD.	Low	Requires active participation of PwP. Requires intact sublingual uptake.	Unknown	Wide	Absorption and efficacy have not been investigated
Selegiline	Sublingual administration of crushed regular tablets¹¹³	No (may be inadvertently swallowed)	Not investigated; likely increased risk of confusion; possible risk of aspiration. Safe use of sublingual preparation at doses above 2.5 mg daily without dietary tyramine restrictions has not been established.	Can only substitute up to 200 mg LEDD.	Low	Requires active participation of PwP. Requires intact sublingual uptake.	1 : 80	Wide	Absorption and efficacy have not been investigated

LEDD: levodopa-equivalent daily dose; i.v.: intravenous; NPO: nil per os; PDI: peripheral decarboxylaxe inhibitor; PwP: person with Parkinson's disease.

Below, we will discuss a stepwise protocol consisting of the widely available treatment options (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Stepwise pharmacological strategy for discontinuation/cessation of dopaminergic medication.

In PwP who have mild dysphagia (i.e., swallowing is still safe and possible, but the person experiences difficulty swallowing certain types of food or tablets/capsules), it should be ascertained whether, as step 2, the PwP can swallow the medication when taken with carbonated water, as this has been shown to be easier to swallow in people with swallowing dysfunction due to diffuse Lewy-body disease.¹¹⁴ If not, it should be assessed whether they can swallow thickened fluids.²⁵ Levodopa and immediate-release dopamine agonists can be dispersed or pulverized and dissolved in (carbonated or thickened) fluids or in soft foods such as applesauce or pudding. To enhance the stability of the suspension¹¹⁵ and to improve gastrointestinal absorption of levodopa,^116,117 the solution can be made slightly acidic, for example by adding ascorbid acid or lemon juice. This might not be necessary in case of carbonated water, which is acidic in itself. Controlled-release dopamine agonists can be switched to immediate-release preparations (taking into account the different bioavailabilities) although this may come with an increase in adverse events. It is worthwhile to proactively consult a PD nurse, speech-language therapist or pharmacist for individualized advice.

If medication truly cannot be taken by mouth, the following steps can be taken:

As step 1, it should be ascertained whether the medication withdrawal is planned or unplanned. In planned situations, it should be evaluated beforehand whether initiation of non-oral dopaminergic therapy (subcutaneous/intrajejunal levodopa, subcutaneous apomorphine, transdermal rotigotine, deep brain stimulation) before the planned event is possible.

As step 2, the physician should evaluate whether enteral drug administration is safe and there is no suspicion of major gastrointestinal malabsorption. If unsafe or marred by malabsorption, the enteral route should be bypassed (step 3). If the PwP cannot swallow a carbonated or thickened levodopa suspension, the physician should ascertain whether placement of a nasogastric tube is possible and consistent with the PwP's wishes.^22,25 If so, similar to the dissolution of dispersed or pulverized medication in thickened fluid, levodopa and immediate-release dopamine agonists can be dissolved in water for administration through the tube. As many PwP have gastroparesis, the tip of the tube should ideally be placed in the jejunum.⁴⁰ However, a gastroenterologist or radiologist is needed for such tube placement. In most cases, regular tube placing can be tried first and jejunal placing considered if the effect is dissatisfactory.

As step 3, if no gastrointestinal route is available, several other treatments are possible.^22,25 First, a rotigotine transdermal patch can (partially) substitute dopaminergic treatment.^14,47,100 This has several caveats, as described above. The equivalency factor from levodopa is 30:1⁴⁸ and rotigotine substitutes dopaminergic medications up to a maximum daily dose of 480 mg, although gradual dose titration is necessary. Often, this is not high enough, but it does allow for the prevention of a total cessation of dopaminergic medication.

Alternatively, subcutaneous apomorphine can be considered.^40,118 Apomorphine allows for a levodopa-equivalent daily dose higher than 480 mg. It can be used either with short-acting single injections or via continuous pump therapy, depending on the duration of the cessation of oral therapy. However, for the best result, prior information on the effective and safe individual dose of apomorphine is needed, as the response to apomorphine can best be described as ‘all or nothing’ and does not simply correspond to response to the converted levodopa dose. This is only available for those that underwent a prior apomorphine challenge. Furthermore, the PwP should be pretreated with an anti-emetic such as domperidone for several days before apomorphine can be initiated, as apomorphine is a powerful emetic. This limits the use of apomorphine in the acute setting without pretreatment. Also, apomorphine is not available in all countries.

A third option is the use of subcutaneous levodopa.^99,118,119 The choice between these three strategies depend on the person's wishes, individual daily dose needed, expected tolerance to side effects and availability of products.

If no dopaminergic alternative is feasible or wanted, palliative symptomatic treatment is the final step. Palliative symptomatic treatments aim to improve quality of life by treating the symptoms irrespective of the underlying causes of the symptoms.¹²⁰ For persons experiencing an unplanned cessation of oral dopaminergic medication, symptoms that may occur are severe rigidity, tremor, pain, anxiety, confusion and, in rare cases, parkinsonism-hyperpyrexia syndrome. The palliative symptomatic treatment of severe rigidity, tremor, and pain in PwP does not differ from symptomatic treatment in other persons. Non-oral analgesics include paracetamol suppositories and opioids administered transdermally, subcutaneously or intravenously. For anxiety and confusion, lorazepam or midazolam can be administered subcutaneously. If symptoms are refractory, palliative sedation can be employed. Depending on the symptom severity and the wishes of PwP and their near ones, this can be administered either intermittently or continuously, and with the intent of either superficial or deep sedation.

Conclusions

This review summarized the challenges and considerations with respect to non-oral treatment following (acute) planned discontinuation and unplanned cessation of oral dopaminergic treatment. We hope that the practical sequential steps outlined in the flowchart can assist clinicians in making an optimal, person-centered decision, tailored to the specific medical context at hand.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the peer reviewers for their thorough review of the paper and well-grounded comments, which have strongly contributed to the improvement of this paper.

The Radboudumc Centre of Expertise for Parkinson & Movement Disorders was supported by a center of excellence grant by the Parkinson's Foundation. MB and BB are supported by research grants from ParkinsonNL (project P2021-18), the Dutch Digestive Foundation (project WOO 21-05), Stichting Woelse Waard and Stichting Alkemade-Keuls. MB is a recipient of the Edmond J. Safra Fellowship in Movement Disorders.

ORCID iDs

Milan Beckers

Danny Hommel

Herma Lennaerts

Clementine Stuijt

Bastiaan R Bloem

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Professor Bas Bloem is an Editorial Board Member of this journal but was not involved in the peer-review process of this article nor had access to any information regarding its peer-review.

The remaining authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Bloem

Okun

Klein

. Parkinson's disease. Lancet 2021; 397: 2284–2303.

Armstrong

Okun

. Diagnosis and treatment of Parkinson disease: a review. JAMA 2020; 323: 548–560.

Horstink

Tolosa

Bonuccelli

, et al. Review of the therapeutic management of Parkinson's disease. Report of a joint task force of the European federation of neurological societies (EFNS) and the movement disorder society-European section (MDS-ES). part II: late (complicated) Parkinson's disease. Eur J Neurol 2006; 13: 1186–1202.

Pringsheim

Day

Smith

, et al. Dopaminergic therapy for motor symptoms in early Parkinson disease practice guideline summary: a report of the AAN guideline subcommittee. Neurology 2021; 97: 942–957.

Rodriguez-Blazquez

Schrag

Rizos

, et al. Prevalence of non-motor symptoms and non-motor fluctuations in Parkinson's disease using the MDS-NMS. Mov Disord Clin Pract 2021; 8: 231–239.

Weiner

. Motor fluctuations in Parkinson's disease. Rev Neurol Dis 2006; 3: 101–108.

Rainer

Scheinost

Lefeber

. Neuroleptic malignant syndrome. When levodopa withdrawal is the cause. Postgrad Med 1991; 89: 175–178, 180.

Serrano-Dueñas

. Neuroleptic malignant syndrome-like, or–dopaminergic malignant syndrome–due to levodopa therapy withdrawal. Clinical features in 11 patients. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2003; 9: 175–178.

Azar

Jaber

Ayyad

, et al. Parkinsonism-hyperpyrexia syndrome: a case series and literature review. Cureus 2022; 14: e29646.

10.

Fernandez

. Dopamine agonist withdrawal syndrome: a comprehensive review. J Neurol Sci 2017; 374: 53–55.

11.

Dos Santos

Imthon

Strelow

, et al. Parkinsonism-hyperpyrexia syndrome after amantadine withdrawal: case report and review of the literature. Neurologist 2021; 26: 149–152.

12.

Suttrup

Warnecke

. Dysphagia in Parkinson's disease. Dysphagia 2016; 31: 24–32.

13.

Vardy

Teodorczuk

Yarnall

. Review of delirium in patients with Parkinson's disease. J Neurol 2015; 262: 2401–2410.

14.

van Laar

Borgemeester

. The need for non-oral therapy in Parkinson's disease; a potential role for apomorphine. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2016; 33: S22–s27.

15.

Salamone

Raspanti

Licari

, et al. Non-occlusive mesenteric ischemia (NOMI) in Parkinson's disease: case report. G Chir 2017; 38: 71–76.

16.

Hindmarsh

Lee

, et al. The combination of levomepromazine (methotrimeprazine) and rotigotine enables the safe and effective management of refractory nausea and vomiting in a patient with idiopathic Parkinson's disease. Palliat Med 2019; 33: 109–113.

17.

Corcoran

Huang

Miyasaki

, et al. Palliative care in Parkinson disease and related disorders. Handb Clin Neurol 2023; 191: 107–128.

18.

Mueller

Jüptner

Wuellner

, et al. Parkinson's disease influences the perioperative risk profile in surgery. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2009; 394: 511–515.

19.

Oichi

Chikuda

Ohya

, et al. Mortality and morbidity after spinal surgery in patients with Parkinson's disease: a retrospective matched-pair cohort study. Spine J 2017; 17: 531–537.

20.

Gerlach

Broen

van Domburg

, et al. Deterioration of Parkinson's disease during hospitalization: survey of 684 patients. BMC Neurol 2012; 12: 13.

21.

Derry

Shah

Caie

, et al. Medication management in people with Parkinson's disease during surgical admissions. Postgrad Med J 2010; 86: 334–337.

22.

Yim

RLH

Leung

KMM

Poon

CCM

, et al. Peri-operative management of patients with Parkinson's disease. Anaesthesia 2022; 77: 123–133.

23.

Radder

DLM

de Vries

Riksen

, et al. Multidisciplinary care for people with Parkinson's disease: the new kids on the block!. Expert Rev Neurother 2019; 19: 145–157.

24.

Checa-López

Costa-Grille

Álvarez-Bustos

, et al. Effectiveness of a randomized intervention by a geriatric team in frail hospital inpatients in non-geriatric settings: FRAILCLINIC project. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 2024; 15: 361369.

25.

Lenka

Mittal

Lamotte

, et al. A pragmatic approach to the perioperative management of Parkinson's disease. Can J Neurol Sci 2021; 48: 299–307.

26.

Oprea

Keshock

O’Glasser

, et al. Preoperative management of medications for neurologic diseases: society for perioperative assessment and quality improvement consensus statement. Mayo Clin Proc 2022; 97: 375–396.

27.

Katus

Shtilbans

. Perioperative management of patients with Parkinson's disease. Am J Med 2014; 127: 275–280.

28.

Nicholson

Pereira

Hall

. Parkinson's disease and anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth 2002; 89: 904–916.

29.

Shaikh

Verma

. Parkinson's disease and anaesthesia. Indian J Anaesth 2011; 55: 228–234.

30.

Chen

Liu

. Autonomic dysfunction in Parkinson's disease: implications for pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment. Neurobiol Dis 2020; 134: 104700.

31.

Wilkinson

Codipilly

Wilfahrt

. Dysphagia: evaluation and collaborative management. Am Fam Physician 2021; 103: 97–106.

32.

Baek

Heo

Kim

, et al. Catatonia associated with prolonged stupor after general anesthesia in a patient with multiple neuropsychiatric disorders -a case report. Korean J Anesthesiol 2023; 76: 383–388.

33.

Sun

Dai

Pan

, et al. Upper airway obstruction during extubation after general anesthesia, in a patient with Parkinson disease: a case report. Medicine (Baltimore) 2020; 99: e20363.

34.

Hasegawa

Niimi

Mitaka

, et al. Negative pressure pulmonary edema due to upper airway obstruction after general anesthesia in a patient with Parkinson's disease: a case report. Clin Case Rep 2023; 11: e7444.

35.

Chiew

Mathew

Kumar

, et al. Anesthetic considerations for cataract surgery in patients with Parkinson's disease: a narrative review. Anesth Pain Med 2023; 13: e136093.

36.

Reed

Han

. Intraoperative exacerbation of Parkinson's disease. Anesth Analg 1992; 75: 850–853.

37.

Fagerlund

Anderson

Gurvich

. Perioperative medication withholding in patients with Parkinson's disease: a retrospective electronic health records review. Am J Nurs 2013; 113: 26–35. quiz 36.

38.

Guttman

Slaughter

Theriault

, et al. Parkinsonism in Ontario: comorbidity associated with hospitalization in a large cohort. Mov Disord 2004; 19: 49–53.

39.

Shahgholi

De Jesus

, et al. Hospitalization and rehospitalization in Parkinson disease patients: data from the national Parkinson foundation centers of excellence. PLoS One 2017; 12: e0180425.

40.

van Laar

Chaudhuri

Antonini

, et al. Infusion therapies in the treatment of Parkinson's disease. J Parkinsons Dis 2023; 13: 641–657.

41.

Coelho

Ferreira

. Late-stage Parkinson disease. Nat Rev Neurol 2012; 8: 435–442.

42.

Aamodt

Dahodwala

Bilker

, et al. Unique characteristics of end-of-life hospitalizations in Parkinson disease. Front Aging Neurosci 2023; 15: 1254969.

43.

Rukavina

Batzu

Boogers

, et al. Non-motor complications in late stage Parkinson's disease: recognition, management and unmet needs. Expert Rev Neurother 2021; 21: 335–352.

44.

Sato

Yamamoto

Sato

, et al. Dysphagia causes symptom fluctuations after oral L-DOPA treatment in a patient with Parkinson disease. Case Rep Neurol 2018; 10: 101–107.

45.

Zhou

Fan

, et al. Association between baseline cognitive score and postoperative delirium in Parkinson's disease patients following deep brain stimulation surgery. Parkinsons Dis 2022; 2022: 9755129.

46.

Trenkwalder

Kies

Rudzinska

, et al. Rotigotine effects on early morning motor function and sleep in Parkinson's disease: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study (RECOVER). Mov Disord 2011; 26: 90–99.

47.

Hewer

Richfield

Halton

, et al. Transdermal rotigotine at end-of-life for Parkinson's disease: association with measures of distress. J Pain Symptom Manage 2024; 67: e121–e128.

48.

Jost

Kaldenbach

Antonini

, et al. Levodopa dose equivalency in Parkinson's disease: updated systematic review and proposals. Mov Disord 2023; 38: 1236–1252.

49.

Clemens

Klaschik

. Clinical experience with transdermal and orally administered opioids in palliative care patients–a retrospective study. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2007; 37: 302–309.

50.

Trenkwalder

Chaudhuri

García Ruiz

, et al. Expert consensus group report on the use of apomorphine in the treatment of Parkinson's disease–clinical practice recommendations. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2015; 21: 1023–1030.

51.

Neef

van Laar

. Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relationships of apomorphine in patients with Parkinson's disease. Clin Pharmacokinet 1999; 37: 257–271.

52.

van Laar

Neef

Danhof

, et al. A new sublingual formulation of apomorphine in the treatment of patients with Parkinson's disease. Mov Disord 1996; 11: 633–638.

53.

Borgemeester

RWK

van Laar

. Continuous subcutaneous apomorphine infusion in Parkinson's disease patients with cognitive dysfunction: a retrospective long-term follow-up study. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2017; 45: 33–38.

54.

Camgrand

Christine

Harroch

, et al. Discontinuation rate and long-term adverse events path of apomorphine infusion in advanced Parkinson's disease patients. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2023; 116: 105859.

55.

Meira

Degos

Corsetti

, et al. Long-term effect of apomorphine infusion in advanced Parkinson's disease: a real-life study. NPJ Parkinsons Dis 2021; 7: 50.

56.

Hommel

Meinders

Lorenzl

, et al. The prevalence and determinants of neuropsychiatric symptoms in late-stage parkinsonism. Mov Disord Clin Pract 2020; 7: 531–542.

57.

Borgemeester

Lees

van Laar

. Parkinson's disease, visual hallucinations and apomorphine: a review of the available evidence. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2016; 27: 35–40.

58.

Timpka

Odin

Hagell

. Apomorphine in Parkinson's disease. 4th ed. Bremen: UNI-MED Verlag AG, 2020.

59.

Nyholm

. Duodopa® treatment for advanced Parkinson's disease: a review of efficacy and safety. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2012; 18: 916–929.

60.

Davies

Barrado-Martín

Vickerstaff

, et al. Enteral tube feeding for people with severe dementia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 8: Cd013503.

61.

Jackowiak

Szpara

Kotagal

. Age and life-sustaining treatment preferences in Parkinson disease. Neurol Clin Pract 2021; 11: e245–e250.

62.

Leach

. Nausea and vomiting in palliative care. Clin Med (Lond) 2019; 19: 299–301.

63.

de Boer

Moolenaar

de Leede

, et al. Rectal drug administration: clinical pharmacokinetic considerations. Clin Pharmacokinet 1982; 7: 285–311.

64.

Vogelzang

Luinstra

Rutgers

. Effect of rectal levodopa administration: a case report. Case Rep Neurol 2015; 7: 209–212.

65.

Cooper

Ismail

Frank

. Case report: successful use of rectally administered levodopa-carbidopa. Can Fam Physician 2001; 47: 112–113.

66.

Kodama

Yasunaga

, et al. Perioperative use of intravenous levodopa as an anti-parkinsonian drug: a propensity score analysis. Mov Disord Clin Pract 2023; 10: 1650–1658.

67.

Juncos

Mouradian

Fabbrini

, et al. Levodopa methyl ester treatment of Parkinson's disease. Neurology 1987; 37: 1242–1245.

68.

Fabbri

Coelho

Garon

, et al. Personalized care in late-stage Parkinson's disease: challenges and opportunities. J Pers Med 2022; 12: 813.

69.

Hely

Reid

Adena

, et al. The Sydney multicenter study of Parkinson's disease: the inevitability of dementia at 20 years. Mov Disord 2008; 23: 837–844.

70.

Bhansali

Assaedi

JRT

, et al. End of life care of hospitalized patients with Parkinson disease: a retrospective analysis and brief review. Front Aging Neurosci 2023; 15: 1265156.

71.

van Rumund

Weerkamp

Tissingh

, et al. Perspectives on Parkinson disease care in Dutch nursing homes. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2014; 15: 732–737.

72.

Rosqvist

Schrag

Odin

, et al. Caregiver burden and quality of life in late stage Parkinson's disease. Brain Sci 2022; 12: 111.

73.

Rosqvist

Odin

Lorenzl

, et al. Factors associated with health-related quality of life in late-stage Parkinson's sisease. Mov Disord Clin Pract 2021; 8: 563–570.

74.

Schrag

Hommel

Lorenzl

, et al. The late stage of Parkinson's -results of a large multinational study on motor and non-motor complications. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2020; 75: 91–96.

75.

Clarke

Fistein

Holland

, et al. Planning for an uncertain future in progressive neurological disease: a qualitative study of patient and family decision-making with a focus on eating and drinking. BMC Neurol 2018; 18: 115.

76.

Rietjens

JAC

Sudore

Connolly

, et al. Definition and recommendations for advance care planning: an international consensus supported by the European association for palliative care. Lancet Oncol 2017; 18: e543–e551.

77.

Robinson

Dickinson

Rousseau

, et al. A systematic review of the effectiveness of advance care planning interventions for people with cognitive impairment and dementia. Age Ageing 2012; 41: 263–269.

78.

Brinkman-Stoppelenburg

Rietjens

van der Heide

. The effects of advance care planning on end-of-life care: a systematic review. Palliat Med 2014; 28: 1000–1025.

79.

Brazil

Carter

Cardwell

, et al. Effectiveness of advance care planning with family carers in dementia nursing homes: a paired cluster randomized controlled trial. Palliat Med 2018; 32: 603–612.

80.

Dening

Jones

Sampson

. Advance care planning for people with dementia: a review. Int Psychogeriatr 2011; 23: 1535–1551.

81.

Jabbarian

Zwakman

van der Heide

, et al. Advance care planning for patients with chronic respiratory diseases: a systematic review of preferences and practices. Thorax 2018; 73: 222–230.

82.

Peralta

Castel-Branco

Reis-Pina

, et al. Prescription trends at the end of life in a palliative care unit: observational study. BMC Palliat Care 2022; 21: 65.

83.

O'Hara

Evans

Bowers

. Family carers’ administration of injectable medications at the end of life: a service evaluation of a novel intervention. Br J Community Nurs 2023; 28: 284–292.

84.

Hvisdak

Huang

Kluger

. Palliative care of end stage parkinsonism: an overview including the five pillars framework. Mov Disord Clin Pract 2023; 10: S63–s67.

85.

Azoia

Borges

Velon

, et al. Apomorphine at the end-of-life-a role to play. Mov Disord Clin Pract 2023; 10: 1827–1829.

86.

Lennaerts-Kats

Ebenau

Steppe

, et al. “How long can i carry on?” the need for palliative care in Parkinson's disease: a qualitative study from the perspective of bereaved family caregivers. J Parkinsons Dis 2020; 10: 1631–1642.

87.

Hobson

Meara

. Mortality and quality of death certification in a cohort of patients with Parkinson's disease and matched controls in north Wales, UK at 18 years: a community-based cohort study. BMJ Open 2018; 8: e018969.

88.

Wilson

King-Oakley

Richfield

. Parkinson's disease: symptoms and medications at the end of life. BMJ Support Palliat Care 2024; 13: e912–e915.

89.

van Nordennen

Lavrijsen

Heesterbeek

, et al. Changes in prescribed drugs between admission and the end of life in patients admitted to palliative care facilities. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2016; 17: 514–518.

90.

Kim

Watt

Enright

, et al. Management of motor symptoms for patients with advanced Parkinson's disease without safe oral access: a scoping review. J Palliat Med 2023; 26: 131–141.

91.

Christie

. The use of transdermal rotigotine in a patient with advanced Parkinson's disease and dysphagia. Palliat Med 2007; 21: 163–164.

92.

Dewhurst

Lee

Wood

. The pragmatic use of apomorphine at the end of life. Palliat Med 2009; 23: 777–779.

93.

Pérez

Farriols

Puente

, et al. The use of subcutaneous scopolamine as a palliative treatment in Parkinson's disease. Palliat Med 2011; 25: 92–93.

94.

Gonzalez

. Diphenhydramine may be useful as a palliative treatment for patients dying with Parkinson's disease and tremors: a case report and discussion. Am J Hosp Palliat Care 2009; 26: 474–475.

95.

Ibrahim

Woodward

Pooley

, et al. Rotigotine patch prescription in inpatients with Parkinson's disease: evaluating prescription accuracy, delirium and end-of-life use. Age Ageing 2021; 50: 1397–1401.

96.

Gomes

Calanzani

Gysels

, et al. Heterogeneity and changes in preferences for dying at home: a systematic review. BMC Palliat Care 2013; 12: 7.

97.

Reymond

Parker

Gilles

, et al. Home-based palliative care. Aust J Gen Pract 2018; 47: 747–752.

98.

Alty

Robson

Duggan-Carter

, et al. What to do when people with Parkinson's disease cannot take their usual oral medications. Pract Neurol 2016; 16: 122–128.

99.

Aldred

Freire-Alvarez

Amelin

, et al. Continuous subcutaneous foslevodopa/foscarbidopa in Parkinson's disease: safety and efficacy results from a 12-month, single-arm, open-label, phase 3 study. Neurol Ther 2023; 12: 1937–1958.

100.

Dafotakis

Sparing

Juzek

, et al. Transdermal dopaminergic stimulation with rotigotine in parkinsonian akinetic crisis. J Clin Neurosci 2009; 16: 335–337.

101.

Reichmann

. [Perioperative management of PD patients]. Fortschr Neurol Psychiatr 2016; 84: S14–S17.

102.

Fiore

Persichino

Anticoli

, et al. A neuroleptic malignant-like syndrome (NMLS) in a patient with Parkinson's disease resolved with rotigotine: a case report. Acta Biomed 2014; 85: 281–284.

103.

Marxreiter

Winkler

Uhl

, et al. A case report of severe delirium after amantadine withdrawal. Case Rep Neurol 2017; 9: 44–48.

104.

Kestenbaum

Abu Snineh

Nussbaum

, et al. Repeated intravenous amantadine infusions in advanced parkinsonism: experience of a large movement disorder center. Isr Med Assoc J 2019; 21: 812–816.

105.

Khlebtovsky

Steiner

Treves

, et al. Effect of repeated intravenous amantadine infusions in patients with Parkinson's disease: an open-label pilot study. Clin Transl Sci 2019; 12: 586–590.

106.

Brenner

Haass

Jacobi

, et al. Amantadine sulphate in treating Parkinson's disease: clinical effects, psychometric tests and serum concentrations. J Neurol 1989; 236: 153–156.

107.

van Laar

Kruyswijk

Jansen

. [Nasolabial allergic reaction to intranasal administration of apomorphine in Parkinson disease]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 1992; 136: 702–704.

108.

van Laar

Jansen

Neef

, et al. Pharmacokinetics and clinical efficacy of rectal apomorphine in patients with Parkinson's disease: a study of five different suppositories. Mov Disord 1995; 10: 433–439.

109.

Van Laar

Jansen

Essink

, et al. Rectal apomorphine: a new treatment modality in Parkinson's disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1992; 55: 737–738.

110.

Olanow

Factor

Espay

, et al. Apomorphine sublingual film for off episodes in Parkinson's disease: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study. Lancet Neurol 2020; 19: 135–144.

111.

Farbman

Waters

LeWitt

, et al. A 12-month, dose-level blinded safety and efficacy study of levodopa inhalation powder (CVT-301, inbrija) in patients with Parkinson's disease. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2020; 81: 144–150.

112.

Bhirud

Kate

. Perioperative sublingual levodopa in Parkinson’s disease: a useful alternative!. Indian J Anaesth 2017; 61: 432–434.

113.

Lew

. Selegiline orally disintegrating tablets for the treatment of Parkinson's disease. Expert Rev Neurother 2005; 5: 705–712.

114.

Larsson

Torisson

Bülow

, et al. Effects of carbonated liquid on swallowing dysfunction in dementia with Lewy bodies and Parkinson's disease dementia. Clin Interv Aging 2017; 12: 1215–1222.

115.

Pappert

Buhrfiend

Lipton

, et al. Levodopa stability in solution: time course, environmental effects, and practical recommendations for clinical use. Mov Disord 1996; 11: 24–26.

116.

Yazawa

Terao

Sai

, et al. [Gastric acid secretion and absorption of levodopa in patients with Parkinson's disease–the effect of supplement therapy to gastric acid]. Rinsho Shinkeigaku 1994; 34: 264–266.

117.

Nagayama

Hamamoto

Ueda

, et al. The effect of ascorbic acid on the pharmacokinetics of levodopa in elderly patients with Parkinson disease. Clin Neuropharmacol 2004; 27: 270–273.

118.

Martinez-Nunez

LeWitt

. Drugs to the rescue: comparison of on-demand therapies for OFF symptoms in Parkinson's disease. J Parkinsons Dis 2023; 13: 441–451.

119.

Siddiqi

Abraham

Geiger

, et al. The human experience with intravenous levodopa. Front Pharmacol 2015; 6: 307.

120.

Bloem

Darweesh

SKL

Meinders

. Palliative programs for persons with parkinsonism-the next frontier. JAMA Neurol 2020; 77: 548–550.

Discontinuation or acute unplanned cessation of oral dopaminergic medications in persons with Parkinson's disease: A practice review

Abstract

Plain-language summary

Keywords

Introduction

Intentional discontinuation of oral dopaminergic medication during hospitalization

Surgery

Are there alternatives to surgery?

Are there alternatives to general anesthesia?

Is a nil per os regime absolutely necessary?

Can non-enteral dopaminergic medication be used?

Unplanned hospitalizations

Unintentional cessation of oral dopaminergic medication in late-stage Parkinson's disease

What non-oral treatments are safe and effective?

What non-oral alternatives are feasible in the current care setting?

What are the PwP's wishes with regard to non-oral alternatives?

Unplanned cessation of oral dopaminergic medication at the end of life

Which symptoms determine the level of comfort and quality of dying?

What are the most effective and feasible treatment options in the person's preferred place of death?

What are the person's wishes with regard to life-sustaining treatments and end-of-life care?

Stepwise pharmacological strategies for unplanned cessation or medically-indicated discontinuation of dopaminergic medication

Conclusions

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

ORCID iDs

Funding

Declaration of conflicting interests

References