Effect of dexamethasone on dyspnoea in patients with cancer (ABCD): a parallel-group, double-blind, randomised, controlled trial

Comparative effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for dyspnea management in advanced cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate and rank the effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for managing dyspnea severity, anxiety, exercise capacity, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with advanced cancer.

Methods

A comprehensive search of PUBMED, HINARI, CENTRAL, and ResearchGate was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to March 2024. Network meta-analysis was performed to compare interventions, calculating mean differences (MD) and standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). P-scores were used to rank the interventions. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool, and the quality of evidence (QOE) was evaluated using the GRADE framework.

Results

A total of 42 RCTs, encompassing 3,832 patients, were included in the analysis. Among the evaluated interventions, high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) demonstrated the most significant improvement in dyspnea relief (SMD = -1.91; 95% CI: -3.32 to -0.49; QOE: moderate), followed by acupressure/reflexology (SMD = -1.04; 95% CI: -2.02 to -0.06; QOE: very low). Activity rehabilitation was the only intervention that significantly reduced anxiety compared to the control group (SMD = -0.64; 95% CI: -0.97 to -0.32; QOE: very low). While all interventions showed trends of improving exercise capacity, none reached statistical significance. Notably, acupressure/reflexology significantly enhanced HRQoL (SMD = 1.55; 95% CI: 0.22 to 2.88; QOE: moderate).

Conclusions

Non-pharmacological interventions, particularly HFNC and acupressure/reflexology, were more effective than pharmacological approaches in improving dyspnea relief and HRQoL. However, the low quality of evidence underscores the need for high-quality, large-scale trials to confirm these findings and refine treatment strategies for dyspnea management in advanced cancer patients.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD42023479041.

Top Ten Tips Palliative Care Clinicians Should Know About Designing a Clinical Trial in Palliative Care

The palliative care field is experiencing substantive growth in clinical trial-based research. Randomized controlled trials provide the necessary rigor and conditions for assessing a treatment's efficacy in a controlled population. It is therefore important that a trial is meticulously designed from the outset to ensure the integrity of the ultimate results. In this article, our team discusses ten tips on clinical trial design drawn from collective experiences in the field. These ten tips cover a range of topics that can prove challenging in trial design, from developing initial methodologies to planning sample size and powering the trial, as well as collaboratively navigating the ethical issues of trial initiation and implementation as a cohesive team. We aim to help new researchers design sound trials and continue to grow the evidence base for our specialty. The guidance provided here can be used independently or in addition to the ten tips provided by this team in a separate article focused on what palliative care clinicians should know about interpreting a clinical trial.

Effects of Inpatient Hospice Care on Cost and Medication Use in Patients with Lung Cancer: A Population-Based Retrospective Study in South Korea

Background: Inpatient hospices (IHs) can alleviate distress and address economic burdens on patients with terminal cancer. However, there have been inconsistent findings regarding IHs in terms of cost savings and medication use. Objective: We aimed to examine cost savings associated with IHs, according to the timing of first hospitalization before death, and analyze their use of medication, among Korean patients with terminal lung cancer. Methods: Using the South Korean national health insurance claim database, we identified 31,139 patients with lung cancer who died between 2017 and 2020. Their daily hospitalization costs were analyzed using a generalized linear model stratified by time of first hospitalization before death. Medication use was examined using a negative binomial model. Results: IHs spent $134, and $21 less on patients during days 1-7, and 8-30 before death, but $18, $44, $36, and $54 more during days 31-60, 61-90, and 91-180, respectively, compared with non-IHs (all p < 0.05). However, total hospitalization costs in the year preceding death did not differ (relative risk: 0.990, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.972-1.007, p > 0.05). IHs used 2.103 times more opioid analgesics (95% CI: 1.980-2.233, p < 0.001). They also used more antiemetics, delirium medications, and antianxiety agents, as well as fewer antidepressive agents, systemic steroids, diuretics, total parenteral nutrition, and antibiotics (all p < 0.05). Conclusions: Patients with terminal lung cancer in IHs in Korea were more likely to receive symptom-oriented medications and experienced reduced hospitalization costs only during the 30 days preceding death.

Practice review: Pharmacological management of severe chronic breathlessness in adults with advanced life-limiting diseases

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.

Randomized Controlled Trial of a Nurse-Led Brief Behavioral Intervention for Dyspnea in Patients With Advanced Lung Cancer

PURPOSE

In patients with lung cancer, dyspnea is one of the most prevalent and disabling symptoms, for which effective treatments are lacking. We examined the efficacy of a nurse-led brief behavioral intervention to improve dyspnea in patients with advanced lung cancer.

METHODS

Patients with advanced lung cancer reporting at least moderate breathlessness (n = 247) were enrolled in a randomized trial of a nurse-led two-session intervention (focused on breathing techniques, postural positions, and fan therapy) versus usual care. At baseline and weeks 8 (primary end point), 16, and 24, participants completed measures of dyspnea (Modified Medical Research Council Dyspnea Scale [mMRCDS]; Cancer Dyspnoea Scale [CDS]), quality of life (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung [FACT-L]), psychological symptoms (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), and activity level (Godin-Shephard Leisure Time Physical Activity Questionnaire). To examine intervention effects, we conducted analysis of covariance and longitudinal mixed effects models.

RESULTS

The sample (Agemean = 66.15 years; 55.9% female) primarily included patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (85.4%). Compared with usual care, the intervention improved the primary outcome of patient-reported dyspnea on the mMRCDS (difference = -0.33 [95% CI, -0.61 to -0.05]) but not the CDS total score at 8 weeks. Intervention patients also reported less dyspnea on the CDS sense of discomfort subscale (difference = -0.59 [95% CI, -1.16 to -0.01]) and better functional well-being per the FACT-L (difference = 1.39 [95% CI, 0.18 to 2.59]) versus the control group. Study groups did not differ in overall quality of life, psychological symptoms, or activity level at 8 weeks or longitudinally over 24 weeks.

CONCLUSION

For patients with advanced lung cancer, a scalable behavioral intervention alleviated the intractable symptom of dyspnea. Further research is needed on ways to enhance intervention effects over the long-term and across additional outcomes.

Mirtazapine to alleviate severe breathlessness in patients with COPD or interstitial lung diseases (BETTER-B): an international, multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 mixed-method trial

BACKGROUND

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.

METHODS

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.

FINDINGS

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.

INTERPRETATION

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.

FUNDING

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).

Focus on the Role of Non-Invasive Respiratory Support (NRS) during Palliative Care in Patients with Life-Limiting Respiratory Disease

The management of patients with life-threatening respiratory disease in the ICU and at home has become increasingly of interest over the past decades. Growing knowledge supports the use of NRS, aimed at improving patient comfort and improving quality of life. However, its role during palliative care is not well defined, and evidence of support remains limited. The aim of this narrative review is to examine the recent evidence relating to the use of non-invasive respiratory support at the end of life, in order to clarify who benefits and when. The literature research was conducted on PubMed, using MeSH words. A review of the relevant literature showed that non-invasive respiratory support techniques for patients with life-limiting respiratory disease vary (from high-flow oxygen therapy to conventional oxygen therapy, from CPAP to NPPV) and each has precise indications. To date, from the hospital to the home setting, the monitoring and application of these respiratory support techniques have varied widely. In conclusion, the choice of respiratory support in this category of patients should be based on the technique that will optimize the comfort of the patient and improve the quality of their life. On the other hand, regarding monitoring, both telemedicine and ultrasound diagnostics help to satisfy the patient's wish to spend the last period of his life in the home environment, to avoid inappropriately aggressive diagnostic interventions, and to reduce the high costs of hospitalized procedures in this category of patients.

Optimal management of radiation pneumonitis: Findings of an international Delphi consensus study

PURPOSE

Radiation pneumonitis (RP) is a dose-limiting toxicity for patients undergoing radiotherapy (RT) for lung cancer, however, the optimal practice for diagnosis, management, and follow-up for RP remains unclear. We thus sought to establish expert consensus recommendations through a Delphi Consensus study.

METHODS

In Round 1, open questions were distributed to 31 expert clinicians treating thoracic malignancies. In Round 2, participants rated agreement/disagreement with statements derived from Round 1 answers using a 5-point Likert scale. Consensus was defined as ≥ 75 % agreement. Statements that did not achieve consensus were modified and re-tested in Round 3.

RESULTS

Response rate was 74 % in Round 1 (n = 23/31; 17 oncologists, 6 pulmonologists); 82 % in Round 2 (n = 19/23; 15 oncologists, 4 pulmonologists); and 100 % in Round 3 (n = 19/19). Thirty-nine of 65 Round 2 statements achieved consensus; a further 10 of 26 statements achieved consensus in Round 3. In Round 2, there was agreement that risk stratification/mitigation includes patient factors; optimal treatment planning; the basis for diagnosis of RP; and that oncologists and pulmonologists should be involved in treatment. For uncomplicated radiation pneumonitis, an equivalent to 60 mg oral prednisone per day, with consideration of gastroprotection, is a typical initial regimen. However, in this study, no consensus was achieved for dosing recommendation. Initial steroid dose should be administered for a duration of 2 weeks, followed by a gradual, weekly taper (equivalent to 10 mg prednisone decrease per week). For severe pneumonitis, IV methylprednisolone is recommended for 3 days prior to initiating oral corticosteroids. Final consensus statements included that the treatment of RP should be multidisciplinary, the uncertainty of whether pneumonitis is drug versus radiation-induced, and the importance risk stratification, especially in the scenario of interstitial lung disease.

CONCLUSIONS

This Delphi study achieved consensus recommendations and provides practical guidance on diagnosis and management of RP.

Impact of Dosing and Duration of Dexamethasone on Serious Corticosteroid-Related Adverse Events

CONTEXT

Corticosteroids are commonly prescribed in oncology, but few studies have examined its adverse events (AEs) compared to placebo control.

OBJECTIVES

Using data from a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial, we evaluated the association between the dose and duration of dexamethasone and serious AEs.

METHODS

This is a pre-planned secondary analysis of the Alleviating Breathlessness in Cancer Patients with Dexamethasone (ABCD) trial in which patients were randomized to dexamethasone 8 mg BID x1 week, then 4 mg BID x1 week or placebo, followed by an optional open-label phase with 4 mg BID x1 week, then 2 mg BID x1 week. The primary outcome was Grade 3+ AEs (CTCAE v4.03). We evaluated the association between AEs and dexamethasone exposure using multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

Among 119 cancer patients, 32 received intervention followed by open label (mean exposure 243 mg over 27 days), 47 received intervention with no open label, 20 received placebo followed by open label, and 20 received no dexamethasone. The most common AEs included insomnia (31%), dyspepsia (21%), neuropsychiatric symptoms (18%), and infections (17%). Overall, 38 (32%) had Grade 3+ AEs and 27 (23%) were hospitalized. Patients with the greatest exposure to dexamethasone experienced more Grade 3+ AEs compared to those with no exposure (65% vs. 15%); odds ratio of 15.1 (95% CI 1.4-160.8, P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Greater dexamethasone exposure, even at moderate doses, was associated with more serious AEs. Prescribers should cautiously weigh the risks and benefits of dexamethasone use, especially when considering for palliation of symptoms.

The role of corticosteroids in the palliation of dyspnea in cancer patients: an evidence-based review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To provide an evidence-based review on the use of corticosteroids for dyspnea in cancer patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Corticosteroids are commonly used for palliation of dyspnea; however, there is wide variation in how they are prescribed due to the paucity of high-quality evidence. Some clinicians would offer corticosteroids routinely regardless of the causes of dyspnea, while others would only prescribe corticosteroids selectively for specific indications, such as lymphangitic carcinomatosis, upper airway obstruction, superior vena cava obstruction, and cancer treatment-induced pneumonitis. Few mechanistic studies have been conducted to support the use of corticosteroids in cancer patients. Two double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trials have examined the routine use of high-dose dexamethasone for dyspnea in cancer patients. A pilot study suggested some benefits, but the larger confirmatory trial revealed no improvement compared to the placebo and significantly more adverse events. The selective use of corticosteroids use is only based on observational studies such as case series.

SUMMARY

The unfavorable risk:benefit ratio of high-dose dexamethasone suggests that it should not be routinely prescribed for dyspnea in cancer patients. More research is needed to assess the selective use of corticosteroids and identify patients most likely be benefit from corticosteroid use.

Efficacy of supplemental oxygen for dyspnea relief in patients with advanced progressive illness: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Supplemental oxygen is widely used for dyspnea relief; however, its efficacy is yet to be verified. This study aimed to determine the efficacy of supplemental oxygen for dyspnea relief in patients with advanced progressive illness.

METHODS

In this systematic review, several databases, including MEDLINE and EMBASE, were searched to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the topic published up to September 23, 2019. The search criteria included RCTs investigating patients with advanced progressive illness (advanced cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and chronic heart failure). The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (No. CRD42020161838). Separate analyses were pre-planned regarding the presence or absence of resting hypoxemia.

RESULTS

RCTs investigating supplemental oxygen for dyspnea relief in participants with and without resting hypoxemia (39 and five, respectively) were included in the study. Heterogeneity of supplemental oxygen for dyspnea in RCTs, including participants without resting hypoxemia was evident; hence, post-hoc analyses in four subgroups (supplemental oxygen during exercise or daily activities, short-burst oxygen, continuous supplemental oxygen, and supplemental oxygen during rehabilitation intervention) were conducted. In the meta-analysis, supplemental oxygen during exercise was found to improve dyspnea in patients without resting hypoxemia compared with that in the control (standardized mean difference = -0.57, 95% confidence interval = -0.77 to -0.38). However, supplemental oxygen for the other subgroups failed to improve patients' dyspnea.

CONCLUSION

The results of this systematic review do not support supplemental oxygen therapy for dyspnea relief in patients with advanced progressive illness, except during exercise.

Current Management Options for Dyspnea in Cancer Patients

OPINION STATEMENT

Dyspnea is one of the most frequent and distressing symptoms in patients with advanced cancer. As dyspnea deteriorates patients' quality of life markedly and tends to worsen as the disease progresses, comprehensive assessment and timely treatment of the underlying etiologies are essential. International guidelines recommend various non-pharmacological and pharmacological management options. However, there is a scarcity of confirmatory clinical trials on cancer dyspnea, and the overall level of evidence is weak. Recently, observational and survey studies indicated a wide range of practice patterns of palliative care specialists, providing important insight into the real-world management of dyspnea. In this paper, we summarize current management options for dyspnea in cancer patients, highlight major controversies in the literature, and propose future research directions toward quality care for patients with dyspnea and their families.