Search

Purpose of review: Breathlessness remains a common and distressing symptom among people with serious illness, particularly in advanced disease. This review synthesises recent advances in the development, characteristics, and outcomes of breathlessness support services. Recent findings: The expanding body of evidence regarding breathlessness support services has broadened and strengthened our understanding of clinical and cost-effectiveness. The expansion of these services, into diverse settings and including digital delivery, has augmented their reach and accessibility to a wider population. Additionally, there is increasing attention to the psychological aspects of breathlessness and its management, including the challenges of optimising breathlessness support services for long-term benefit. Summary: Recent studies have made substantial progress in enhancing our knowledge of breathlessness support services and their impact on people with serious illness. Innovations extending services into new countries and settings, including use of digital platforms for intervention delivery, plus increased recognition of psychological mechanisms, have the potential to support more people with serious illness to live as best as possible with breathlessness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Severe and refractory chronic breathlessness is a common and burdensome symptom in patients with advanced life-limiting disease. Its clinical management is challenging because of the lack of effective interventions. Aim: To provide practice recommendations on the safe use of pharmacological therapies for severe chronic breathlessness. Design: Scoping review of (inter)national guidelines and systematic reviews. We additionally searched for primary studies where no systematic review could be identified. Consensus on the recommendations was reached by 75% approval within an international expert panel. Data sources: Searches in MEDLINE, Cochrane Library and Guideline International Network until March 2023. Inclusion of publications on the use of antidepressants, benzodiazepines, opioids or corticosteroids for chronic breathlessness in adults with cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, interstitial lung disease or chronic heart failure. Results: Overall, the evidence from eight guidelines, 14 systematic reviews and 3 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on antidepressants is limited. There is low quality evidence favouring opioids in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cancer and interstitial lung disease. For chronic heart failure, evidence is inconclusive. Benzodiazepines should only be considered for anxiety associated with severe breathlessness. Antidepressants and corticosteroids should not be used. Conclusion: Management of breathlessness remains challenging with only few pharmacological options with limited and partially conflicting evidence. Therefore, pharmacological treatment should be reserved for patients with advanced disease under monitoring of side effects, after optimisation of the underlying condition and use of evidence-based non-pharmacological interventions as first-line treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Breathlessness frequently becomes severe among people with respiratory disease. Mirtazapine, a widely used antidepressant, has shown promise in the modulation of respiratory sensation and the response to it, as well as reducing feelings of panic, which often accompanies breathlessness. We aimed to determine the effectiveness of mirtazapine to alleviate severe persisting breathlessness. This international, multicentre, phase 3, parallel-group, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial across 16 centres in seven countries (Australia, Germany, Ireland, Italy, New Zealand, Poland, and the UK), recruited adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), interstitial lung diseases, or both, and grade 3 or 4 of the modified Medical Research Council breathlessness scale. Consenting participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral mirtazapine or matching placebo for 56 days. Randomisation was by minimisation. The initial mirtazapine dose was 15 mg, escalating to a maximum of 45 mg per day, tapered at treatment end. Participants, caregivers, assessors, and investigators were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was worst breathlessness in the preceding 24 h measured on a 0–10 numerical rating scale (NRS), at 56 days post-treatment start, with follow-up to 180 days. The primary analysis was performed in the modified intention-to-treat population using multivariable multi-level repeated measures model. This trial was registered with ISRCTN (ISRCTN10487976 and ISRCTN15751764 [Australia and New Zealand]) and EudraCT (2019–002001–21) and is complete. Between Feb 4, 2021 and March 28, 2023, we enrolled 225 eligible participants (148 men and 77 women, 113 to the mirtazapine group and 112 to the placebo group). The median age was 74 years (IQR 67–78). No evidence of a difference was found in worst breathlessness at day 56 between mirtazapine and placebo (difference in adjusted mean NRS score was 0·105 [95% CI –0·407 to 0·618]; p=0·69). Although the study was underpowered, the primary endpoint effect did not reach the pre-specified treatment effect of 0·55 for worst breathlessness score reduction that the study was powered to detect for the primary analysis. There were 215 adverse reactions in 72 (64%) of 113 participants in the mirtazapine group versus 116 in 44 (40%) of 110 participants in the placebo group; 11 serious adverse events in six (5%) participants in the mirtazapine group versus eight in seven (6%) participants in the placebo group; and one (1%) suspected unexpected serious adverse reaction in the mirtazapine group. At day 56, there were three deaths in the mirtazapine group and two deaths in the placebo group. At day 180, there were seven deaths in the mirtazapine group and 11 deaths in the placebo group. Our findings suggested that mirtazapine of doses 15 to 45 mg daily over 56 days does not improve severe breathlessness among patients with COPD or interstitial lung diseases and might cause adverse reactions. Based on these findings, we do not recommend mirtazapine as a treatment to alleviate severe breathlessness. EU Horizon 2020 (grant agreement No. 825319); Cicely Saunders International Breathlessness Programme; National Institute for Health and Care Research Applied Research Collaboration South London; Australian National Health and Medical Research Council—EU (application ID: APP1170731). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Disability in activities of daily living (ADL) is a common unmet need among people with advanced respiratory disease. Rehabilitation could help prolong independence, but indicators for timely intervention in this population are lacking. This study aimed to identify trajectories of disability in ADLs over time, and predicting factors, in advanced respiratory disease. Method: Multi-site prospective cohort study in people with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or interstitial lung disease (ILD), recruited from hospital or community services, throughout England. Disability in basic (Barthel Index) and instrumental (Lawton–Brody IADL Scale) ADLs were assessed monthly over six months. Visual graphical analysis determined individual trajectories. Multivariate logistic regression examined predictors of increasing disability in basic and instrumental ADLs. Findings: Between March 2020 and January 2021, we recruited participants with a diagnosis of NSCLC (n = 110), COPD (n = 72), and ILD (n = 19). 151 participants completed ≥3 timepoints and were included in the longitudinal analysis. Mobility limitation was an independent predictor of increasing disability in instrumental ADLs (odds ratio, 1⋅41 [CI: 1⋅14–1⋅74], p = 0⋅002). Conclusion: Mobility limitation could be used as a simple referral criterion across people with advanced respiratory disease to ensure timely rehabilitation that targets independence in ADLs. IMPLICATION FOR REHABILITATION: To our knowledge this is the first prospective cohort study of trajectories of disability in activities of daily living (ADL) in advanced respiratory disease, including recruitment during the Covid-19 pandemic. It adds to existing evidence by identifying individual variability in trajectories of ADL disability which are undetected at group level. The identification of mobility limitation as a predictor of increasing ADL disability, while controlling for malignant or non-malignant respiratory disease, is novel and has practical utility. Our findings have implications for clinical care, as early identification of functional decline through use of mobility limitation tools could flag early referral to rehabilitation services, potentially preventing or delaying forthcoming functional decline and avoiding reactive crisis management. Mobility limitation is a predictor of increasing disability in activities of daily living in advanced disease, which could be used to flag early referral to rehabilitation services, to help prevent or delay forthcoming functional decline and avoid reactive crisis management [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: of review To explore the contributions of recent qualitative literature in progressing understanding of the experiences of cancer cachexia, and its management, from the perspectives of patients and unpaid/family carers. Recent findings: Challenges with conducting everyday activities, maintaining independence, and continuing usual roles within the family are sources of distress. Patients and carers value individualization, flexibility, and carer involvement in physical activity/exercise interventions. In psychosocial/educational interventions that were positively perceived, the opportunity to talk about cachexia was appreciated, leading to improved health literacy, awareness about nutrition, and relationships with food. However, the general patient and carer experience around clinical acknowledgement and management of cachexia remains poor. Summary: Eating-related distress and conflicts, lack of understanding about cachexia, and the visibility of weight loss remain recurring themes amongst literature on experiences of cancer cachexia. Studies exploring preferences for, and experiences of, interventions have primarily focused on physical activity or exercise. Psychosocial/educational and physical activity/exercise interventions are valued and perceived to alleviate some of the key quality of life issues amongst patients with cancer cachexia and their unpaid/family carers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To synthesise evidence evaluating non-pharmacological interventions targeting mobility among people with advanced cancer, considering the type, efficacy and contextual factors that may influence outcome. Methods: Systematic review of studies of non-pharmacological interventions in adults (≥ 18 years) with advanced (stage III-IV) cancer, and assessing mobility using clinical or patient-reported outcome measures. Searches were conducted across three electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL) up to June 2024. Methodological quality was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute tools and contextual factors were evaluated through the Context and Implementation of Complex Interventions framework. A narrative synthesis was conducted due to clinical heterogeneity of included studies. Results: 38 studies encompassing 2,464 participants were included. The most frequent mobility outcome measure was the 6-min walk test (26/38 studies). Exercise was the most common intervention, (33 studies: 27 aerobic and resistance, 5 aerobic, 1 resistance versus aerobic training) and improvements in mobility were found in 21/33 outcomes. Electrotherapy interventions led to significant improvements in mobility in 3/5 studies. Geographical factors (e.g. distance, transport, parking requirements) potentially limited participation in 18/38 studies. A lack of ethnic diversity among populations was evident and language proficiency was an inclusion criterion in 12 studies. Conclusion: Exercise and neuromuscular electrical stimulation appear to improve mobility outcomes in advanced cancer. The evaluation of other non-pharmacological interventions targeting mobility should consider access and inclusivity, and be adaptable to the needs of this population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To evaluate the implementation of frailty screening in people living with HIV (PLWH) in a large urban cohort of patients in Brighton, UK. Methods: Focus group discussions with HIV professionals and PLWH interviews helped inform the design and implementation of the frailty screening pathway in the clinic. Data were collected from PLWH aged over 60 years attending their HIV annual health check from July 2021 to January 2023 (n = 590), who were screened for frailty by nurses using the FRAIL scale. We assessed the proportions of PLWH who screened as frail, prefrail or robust and compared patient characteristics across groups. All PLWH identified as frail were offered a comprehensive geriatric assessment delivered by a combined HIV geriatric clinic, and uptake was recorded. Results: A total of 456/590 (77.3%) PLWH aged over 60 years were screened for frailty. Median age and time since HIV diagnosis (range) for those screened were 66 (60–99) years and 21 (0–32) years, respectively. In total, 56 (12.1%) of those screened were identified as frail, 118 (25.9%) as prefrail and 282 (61.8%) as robust. A total of 10/56 (18%) people identified as frail declined an appointment in the geriatric clinic. Compared with non‐frail individuals, frail PLWH had been living with HIV for longer and had a greater number of comorbidities and comedications but were not chronologically older. Conclusions: Implementing frailty screening in PLWH over 60 years old is feasible in a large cohort of PLWH, as recommended by the European AIDS Clinical Society. More research is needed to determine if frailty screening can improve clinical outcomes of older PLWH and the use of the comprehensive geriatric assessment within HIV services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Completion of pulmonary rehabilitation is recognised in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) guidelines as a key opportunity to consider systematically whether a respiratory review to assess potential suitability for a lung volume reduction (LVR) procedure might be appropriate. We describe the development of a simple decision-support tool (the LVR-PR tool) to aid clinicians working in pulmonary rehabilitation, to operationalise this process. Methods: We took an iterative mixed methods approach, which was partnership-based and involved an initial consensus survey, focus groups and an observational study cohort at multiple pulmonary rehabilitation centres. Results: Diagnosis (97%), exercise capacity (84%), breathlessness (78%) and co-morbidities (76%) were acknowledged to be essential items for assessing basic LVR eligibility. Collating prior investigations and assessing patient understanding were considered useful but not essential. Clinician concerns included; streamlining the tool; access to clinical information and investigations; and care needed around introducing LVR therapies to patients in a PR setting. Access to clearer information about LVR procedures, the clinician's role in considering eligibility and how educational resources should be delivered were identified as important themes from patient group discussions. The LVR-PR tool was considered to be feasible and valid for implementation in a variety of PR services across the UK subject to the provision of appropriate health professional training. Clinicians working in specialist LVR centres across the UK who were not otherwise involved in the development process confirmed the tool's validity using the content validity index (CVI). Interpretation: The LVR-PR tool appears to be an acceptable tool that can be feasibly implemented in PR services subject to good quality educational resources for both patients and healthcare professionals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cachexia is a multifactorial syndrome that is common in cancer and chronic disease. It is often underdiagnosed and therefore goes untreated or undertreated. Cachexia causes suffering across biopsychosocial domains and affects patients and their loved ones. In this article, a group of clinicians and researchers across cancer care, nutrition, and exercise offers tips about assessment, classification, and management of cachexia, with attention to its stage. The required multimodal management of cachexia mirrors well the interprofessional collaboration that is the mainstay of interdisciplinary palliative care and attention to screening, diagnosis, and management of cachexia is critical to maximize patients' quality of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objective: Gait speed is associated with survival in individuals with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). The extent to which four‐metre gait speed (4MGS) decline predicts adverse outcome in IPF remains unclear. We aimed to examine longitudinal 4MGS change and identify a cut‐point associated with adverse outcome. Methods: In a prospective cohort study, we recruited 132 individuals newly diagnosed with IPF and measured 4MGS change over 6 months. Death/first hospitalization at 6 months were composite outcome events. Complete data (paired 4MGS plus index event) were available in 85 participants; missing 4MGS data were addressed using multiple imputation. Receiver‐Operating Curve plots identified a 4MGS change cut‐point. Cox proportional‐hazard regression assessed the relationship between 4MGS change and time to event. Results: 4MGS declined over 6 months (mean [95% CI] change: −0.05 [−0.09 to −0.01] m/s; p = 0.02). A decline of 0.07 m/s or more in 4MGS over 6 months had better discrimination for the index event than change in 6‐minute walk distance, forced vital capacity, Composite Physiologic Index or Gender Age Physiology index. Kaplan–Meier curves demonstrated a significant difference in time to event between 4MGS groups (substantial decline: >−0.07 m/s versus minor decline/improvers: ≤−0.07 m/s; p = 0.007). Those with substantial decline had an increased risk of hospitalization/death (adjusted hazard ratio [95% CI] 4.61 [1.23–15.83]). Similar results were observed in multiple imputation analysis. Conclusion: In newly diagnosed IPF, a substantial 4MGS decline over 6 months is associated with shorter time to hospitalization/death at 6 months. 4MGS change has potential as a surrogate endpoint for interventions aimed at modifying hospitalization/death. In people newly diagnosed with IPF, four‐metre gait speed (4MGS) declined significantly over 6 months. A decline of more than 0.07 m/s was associated with shorter time to hospitalization/death over the subsequent 6 months. 4MGS change has potential as a surrogate endpoint for interventions aimed at modifying hospitalization/death in IPF. See relatededitorial [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]