Search

Author(s): J. Randall Curtis [sup.1] [sup.2], Irene J. Higginson [sup.3], Douglas B. White [sup.4] Author Affiliations: (1) grid.34477.33, 0000000122986657, Cambia Palliative Care Center of Excellence at UW Medicine, A. Bruce [...]

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: 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]

Objectives: Congruence between the preferred and actual place of death is recognised as an important quality indicator in end-of-life care. However, there may be complexities about preferences that are ignored in summary congruence measures. This article examined factors associated with preferred place of death, actual place of death, and congruence for a sample of patients who had received specialist palliative care in the last three months of life in Ireland. Methods: This article analysed merged data from two previously published mortality follow-back surveys: Economic Evaluation of Palliative Care in Ireland (EEPCI); Irish component of International Access, Rights and Empowerment (IARE I). Logistic regression models examined factors associated with (a) preferences for home death versus institutional setting, (b) home death versus hospital death, and (c) congruent versus non-congruent death. Setting: Four regions with differing levels of specialist palliative care development in Ireland. Participants: Mean age 77, 50% female/male, 19% living alone, 64% main diagnosis cancer. Data collected 2011-2015, regression model sample sizes: n = 342-351. Results: Congruence between preferred and actual place of death in the raw merged dataset was 51%. Patients living alone were significantly less likely to prefer home versus institution death (OR 0.389, 95%CI 0.157-0.961), less likely to die at home (OR 0.383, 95%CI 0.274-0.536), but had no significant association with congruence. Conclusions: The findings highlight the value in examining place of death preferences as well as congruence, because preferences may be influenced by what is feasible rather than what patients would like. The analyses also underline the importance of well-resourced community-based supports, including homecare, facilitating hospital discharge, and management of complex (eg, non-cancer) conditions, to facilitate patients to die in their preferred place. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: People with palliative care needs and their carers often rely on out-of-hours services to remain at home. Policymakers have recommended implementing telephone advice lines to ensure 24/7 access to support. However, the impact of these services on patient and carer outcomes, as well as the health care system, remains poorly understood. Aim: To evaluate the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of out-of-hours palliative care telephone advice lines, and to identify service characteristics associated with effectiveness. Design: Rapid systematic review (PROSPERO ID: CRD42023400370) with narrative synthesis. Data sources: Three databases (Medline, EMBASE and CINAHL) were searched in February 2023 for studies of any design reporting on telephone advice lines with at least partial out-of-hours availability. Study quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, and quantitative and qualitative data were synthesised narratively. Results: Twenty-one studies, published 2000–2022, were included. Most studies were observational, none were experimental. While some evidence suggested that telephone advice lines offer guidance and reassurance, supporting care at home and potentially reducing avoidable emergency care use in the last months of life, variability in reporting and poor methodological quality across studies limit our understanding of patient/carer and health care system outcomes. Conclusion: Despite their increasing use, evidence for the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of palliative care telephone advice lines remains limited, primarily due to the lack of robust comparative studies. There is a need for more rigorous evaluations incorporating experimental or quasi-experimental methods and longer follow-up, and standardised reporting of telephone advice line models and outcomes, to guide policy and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]