WITHDRAWN: Opioids for the palliation of breathlessness in advanced disease and terminal illness

Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation Does Not Improve Working Memory in Schizophrenia: A Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

Poor working memory functioning is commonly found in schizophrenia. A number of studies have now tested whether non-invasive brain stimulation can improve this aspect of cognitive functioning. This report used meta-analysis to synthesise the results of these studies to examine whether transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) or repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) can improve working memory in schizophrenia. The studies included in this meta-analysis were sham-controlled, randomised controlled trials that utilised either tES or rTMS to treat working memory problems in schizophrenia. A total of 22 studies were included in the review. Nine studies administered rTMS and 13 administered tES. Meta-analysis revealed that compared to sham/placebo stimulation, neither TMS nor tES significantly improved working memory. This was found when working memory was measured with respect to the accuracy on working memory tasks (TMS studies: Hedges' g = 0.112, CI₉₅: -0.082, 0.305, p = .257; tES studies Hedges' g = 0.080, CI₉₅: -0.117, 0.277, p = .427) or the speed working memory tasks were completed (rTMS studies: Hedges' g = 0.233, CI₉₅: -0.212, 0.678, p = .305; tES studies Hedges' g = -0.016, CI₉₅: -0.204, 0.173, p = .871). For tES studies, meta-regression analysis found that studies with a larger number of stimulation sessions were associated with larger treatment effects. This association was not found for TMS studies. At present, rTMS and tES is not associated with a reliable improvement in working memory for individuals with schizophrenia.

Efficacy of Oxycodone for Dyspnea in End-stage Heart Failure with Renal Insufficiency

A 67-year-old man with dilated cardiomyopathy and renal insufficiency was admitted to our hospital with dyspnea secondary to end-stage heart failure. We introduced oxycodone for medically refractory dyspnea instead of morphine because of the patient's renal insufficiency. After the administration of oxycodone, his dyspnea was alleviated without any adverse opioid effects, such as respiratory depression. After treating his heart failure, he was able to leave the intensive care unit. Oxycodone may therefore be a reliable agent for the treatment of dyspnea in patients with end-stage heart failure and renal insufficiency.

Opioids for the palliation of refractory breathlessness in adults with advanced disease and terminal illness

BACKGROUND

Breathlessness is a common and disabling symptom which affects many people with advanced cardiorespiratory disease and cancer. The most effective treatments are aimed at treating the underlying disease. However, this may not always be possible, and symptomatic treatment is often required in addition to maximal disease-directed therapy. Opioids are increasingly being used to treat breathlessness, although their mechanism of action is still not completely known. A few good sized, high quality trials have been conducted in this area.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of opioid drugs in relieving the symptom of breathlessness in people with advanced disease due to malignancy, respiratory or cardiovascular disease, or receiving palliative care for any other disease.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed searches on CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science up to 19 October 2015. We handsearched review articles, clinical trial registries, and reference lists of retrieved articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised double-blind controlled trials that compared the use of any opioid drug against placebo or any other intervention for the relief of breathlessness. The intervention was any opioid, given by any route, in any dose.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We imported studies identified by the search into a reference manager database. We retrieved the full-text version of relevant studies, and two review authors independently extracted data. The primary outcome measure was breathlessness and secondary outcome measures included exercise tolerance, oxygen saturations, adverse events, and mortality. We analysed all studies together and also performed subgroup analyses, by route of administration, type of opioid administered, and cause of breathlessness. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis. We assessed the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach and created three 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 26 studies with 526 participants. We assessed the studies as being at high or unclear risk of bias overall. We only included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), although the description of randomisation was incomplete in some included studies. We aimed to include double blind RCTs, but two studies were only single blinded. There was inconsistency in the reporting of outcome measures. We analysed the data using a fixed-effect model, and for some outcomes heterogeneity was high. There was a risk of imprecise results due to the low numbers of participants in the included studies. For these reasons we downgraded the quality of the evidence from high to either low or very low.For the primary outcome of breathlessness, the mean change from baseline dyspnoea score was 0.09 points better in the opioids group compared to the placebo group (ranging from a 0.36 point reduction to a 0.19 point increase) (seven RCTs, 117 participants, very low quality evidence). A lower score indicates an improvement in breathlessness. The mean post-treatment dyspnoea score was 0.28 points better in the opioid group compared to the placebo group (ranging from a 0.5 point reduction to a 0.05 point increase) (11 RCTs, 159 participants, low quality evidence).The evidence for the six-minute walk test (6MWT) was conflicting. The total distance in 6MWT was 28 metres (m) better in the opioids group compared to placebo (ranging from 113 m to 58 m) (one RCT, 11 participants, very low quality evidence). However, the change in baseline was 48 m worse in the opioids group (ranging from 36 m to 60 m) (two RCTs, 26 participants, very low quality evidence).The adverse effects reported included drowsiness, nausea and vomiting, and constipation. In those studies, participants were 4.73 times more likely to experience nausea and vomiting compared to placebo, three times more likely to experience constipation, and 2.86 times more likely to experience drowsiness (nine studies, 162 participants, very low quality evidence).Only four studies assessed quality of life, and none demonstrated any significant change.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is some low quality evidence that shows benefit for the use of oral or parenteral opioids to palliate breathlessness, although the number of included participants was small. We found no evidence to support the use of nebulised opioids. Further research with larger numbers of participants, using standardised protocols and with quality of life measures included, is needed.

How should we manage information needs, family anxiety, depression, and breathlessness for those affected by advanced disease: development of a Clinical Decision Support Tool using a Delphi design

BACKGROUND

Clinicians request guidance to aid the routine use and interpretation of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs), but tools are lacking. We aimed to develop a Clinical Decision Support Tool (CDST) focused on information needs, family anxiety, depression, and breathlessness (measured using the Palliative care Outcome Scale (POS)) and related PROM implementation guidance.

METHODS

We drafted recommendations based on findings from systematic literature searches. In a modified online Delphi study, 38 experts from 12 countries with different professional backgrounds, including four patient/carer representatives, were invited to rate the appropriateness of these recommendations for problems of varying severity in the CDST. The quality of evidence was added for each recommendation, and the final draft CDST reappraised by the experts. The accompanying implementation guidance was built on data from literature scoping with expert revision (n = 11 invited experts).

RESULTS

The systematic literature searches identified over 560 potential references, of which 43 met the inclusion criteria. Two Delphi rounds (response rate 66% and 62%; n = 25 and 23) found that good patient care, psychosocial support and empathy, and open communication were central to supporting patients and families affected by all POS concerns as a core requirement. Assessment was recommended for increasing problems (i.e. scores), followed by non-pharmacological interventions and for breathlessness and depression, pharmacological interventions. Accompanying PROM implementation guidance was built based on the 8-step International Society for Quality of Life Research framework, as revised by nine (response rate 82%) experts.

CONCLUSIONS

This CDST provides a straightforward guide to help support clinical care and improve evidence-based outcomes for patients with progressive illness and their families, addressing four areas of clinical uncertainty. Recommendations should be used flexibly, alongside skilled individual clinical assessment and knowledge, taking into account patients' and families' individual preferences, circumstances, and resources. The CDST is provided with accompanying implementation guidance to facilitate PROM use and is ready for further development and evaluation.

Palliative pharmacological sedation for terminally ill adults

BACKGROUND

Terminally ill people experience a variety of symptoms in the last hours and days of life, including delirium, agitation, anxiety, terminal restlessness, dyspnoea, pain, vomiting, and psychological and physical distress. In the terminal phase of life, these symptoms may become refractory, and unable to be controlled by supportive and palliative therapies specifically targeted to these symptoms. Palliative sedation therapy is one potential solution to providing relief from these refractory symptoms. Sedation in terminally ill people is intended to provide relief from refractory symptoms that are not controlled by other methods. Sedative drugs such as benzodiazepines are titrated to achieve the desired level of sedation; the level of sedation can be easily maintained and the effect is reversible.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the evidence for the benefit of palliative pharmacological sedation on quality of life, survival, and specific refractory symptoms in terminally ill adults during their last few days of life.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 11), MEDLINE (1946 to November 2014), and EMBASE (1974 to December 2014), using search terms representing the sedative drug names and classes, disease stage, and study designs.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, non-RCTs, and observational studies (e.g. before-and-after, interrupted-time-series) with quantitative outcomes. We excluded studies with only qualitative outcomes or that had no comparison (i.e. no control group or no within-group comparison) (e.g. single arm case series).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts of citations, and full text of potentially eligible studies. Two review authors independently carried out data extraction using standard data extraction forms. A third review author acted as arbiter for both stages. We carried out no meta-analyses due to insufficient data for pooling on any outcome; therefore, we reported outcomes narratively.

MAIN RESULTS

The searches resulted in 14 included studies, involving 4167 adults, of whom 1137 received palliative sedation. More than 95% of people had cancer. No studies were randomised or quasi-randomised. All were consecutive case series, with only three having prospective data collection. Risk of bias was high, due to lack of randomisation. No studies measured quality of life or participant well-being, which was the primary outcome of the review. Five studies measured symptom control, using four different methods, so pooling was not possible. The results demonstrated that despite sedation, delirium and dyspnoea were still troublesome symptoms in these people in the last few days of life. Control of other symptoms appeared to be similar in sedated and non-sedated people. Only one study measured unintended adverse effects of sedative drugs and found no major events; however, four of 70 participants appeared to have drug-induced delirium. The study noticed no respiratory suppression. Thirteen of the 14 studies measured survival time from admission or referral to death, and all demonstrated no statistically significant difference between sedated and non-sedated groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was insufficient evidence about the efficacy of palliative sedation in terms of a person's quality of life or symptom control. There was evidence that palliative sedation did not hasten death, which has been a concern of physicians and families in prescribing this treatment. However, this evidence comes from low quality studies, so should be interpreted with caution. Further studies that specifically measure the efficacy and quality of life in sedated people, compared with non-sedated people, and quantify adverse effects are required.

Outpatient palliative care for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a case series

BACKGROUND

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have well-documented symptoms that affect quality of life. Professional societies recommend palliative care for such patients, but the optimal way of delivering this care is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To describe an outpatient palliative medicine program for patients with COPD.

DESIGN

Retrospective case series.

SETTING/SUBJECTS

Thirty-six patients with COPD followed in a United States academic outpatient palliative medicine clinic.

MEASUREMENTS

Descriptive analysis of sociodemographic data, disease severity and comorbidities, treatments, hospitalizations, mortality, topic discussion, and symptom assessment.

RESULTS

Thirty-six patients (representing 5% of the total number of patients with COPD seen in a specialty pulmonary clinic) were seen over 11 months and followed for 2 years. Seventy-seven percent of patients were Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) stage 3-4 and 72% were on oxygen at home. No patients had documented advanced directives at the initial visit but documentation increased to 61% for those who had follow-up appointments. The most commonly documented topics included symptoms (100%), social issues (94%), psychological issues (78%), and advance care planning (75%). Of symptoms assessed, pain was the least prevalent (51.6%), and breathlessness and fatigue were the most prevalent (100%). Symptoms were often undertreated prior to the palliative care appointment. During the 3-year study period, there were 120 hospital admissions (median, 2) and 12 deaths (33%).

CONCLUSIONS

The patients with COPD seen in the outpatient palliative medicine clinic had many comorbid conditions, severe illness, and significant symptom burden. Many physical and psychological symptoms were untreated prior to the palliative medicine appointment. Whether addressing these symptoms through a palliative medicine intervention affects outcomes in COPD is unknown but represents an important topic for future research.

Development, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a new out-patient Breathlessness Support Service: study protocol of a phase III fast-track randomised controlled trial

Background

Breathlessness is a common and distressing symptom affecting many patients with advanced disease both from malignant and non-malignant origin. A combination of pharmacological and non-pharmacological measures is necessary to treat this symptom successfully. Breathlessness services in various compositions aim to provide comprehensive care for patients and their carers by a multiprofessional team but their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness have not yet been proven. The Breathlessness Support Service (BSS) is a newly created multiprofessional and interdisciplinary outpatient service at a large university hospital in South East London. The aim of this study is to develop and evaluate the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of this multidisciplinary out–patient BSS for the palliation of breathlessness, in advanced malignant and non-malignant disease.

Methods

The BSS was modelled based on the results of qualitative and quantitative studies, and systematic literature reviews. A randomised controlled fast track trial (RCT) comprising two groups: 1) intervention (immediate access to BSS in addition to standard care); 2) control group (standard best practice and access to BSS after a waiting time of six weeks). Patients are included if suffering from breathlessness on exertion or at rest due to advanced disease such as cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), chronic heart failure (CHF), interstitial lung disease (ILD) or motor neurone disease (MND) that is refractory to maximal optimised medical management. Both quantitative and qualitative outcomes are assessed in face to-face interviews at baseline, after 6 and 12 weeks. The primary outcome is patients' improvement of mastery of breathlessness after six weeks assessed on the Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire (CRQ). Secondary outcomes for patients include breathlessness severity, symptom burden, palliative care needs, service use, and respiratory measures (spirometry). For analyses, the primary outcome, mastery of breathlessness after six weeks, will be analysed using ANCOVA. Selection of covariates will depend on baseline differences between the groups. Analyses of secondary outcomes will include patients’ symptom burden other than breathlessness, physiological measures (lung function, six minute walk distance), and caregiver burden.

Discussion

Breathlessness services aim to meet the needs of patients suffering from this complex and burdensome symptom and their carers. The newly created BSS is different to other current services as it is run in close collaboration of palliative medicine and respiratory medicine to optimise medical care of patients. It also involves professionals from various medical, nursing, physiotherapy, occupational therapy and social work background.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01165034)