Effectiveness of the Buccal Mucosa Route for Methadone Administration at the End of Life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Methadone is a useful analgesic for neuropathic and nociceptive pain. However, there is little information about the use of methadone in the final days of life when a patient cannot swallow, discouraging its use by many palliative care physicians. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of switching patients on oral methadone at the end of life to methadone by the buccal mucosa route. METHODS: This is a case series comprising 36 patients on the Toronto Grace Palliative Care Unit (PCU) who took methadone between 2010 and 2012. Their health records were retrospectively reviewed. When patients could no longer swallow at the end of life, oral methadone was replaced with methadone solution in a concentration of 10 mg/mL, placed in the space between the buccal mucosa and lower molars. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients met inclusion criteria for the series. Twenty-four (96%) of the patients tolerated methadone by the buccal route and were able to continue receiving it that way until they died. Methadone was discontinued by the buccal route in one case (4%) because of intolerance to having medication placed in the oral cavity. Of the patients who remained on buccal methadone, there was a need to increase the dose in two patients with the remaining patients taking the same dose of buccal methadone until they died. CONCLUSION: The cases reviewed suggest that methadone is well tolerated and effective when switched to the buccal route in patients at the end of life on a palliative care unit.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".