Opioids for the management of dyspnea in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Treatment Recommendation for Dyspnea in Patients with Advanced Disease: Revised Clinical Guidelines from the Japanese Society for Palliative Medicine

Dyspnea is one of the most common and distressing symptoms in patients with cancer and noncancer advanced diseases. The Japanese Society for Palliative Medicine revised previous guidelines for the management of respiratory symptoms in patients with cancer and newly developed clinical guidelines for managing dyspnea in patients with advanced disease, based on the result of systematic reviews for each clinical question and consensus among experts. We describe the recommendations of the guidelines as well as provide insights into the reasoning behind the recommendations and their development process. There has been a paucity of evidence regarding the interventions for dyspnea in patients with advanced disease. Thus, more clinical research that includes not only randomized controlled trials but also real-world observational studies is warranted.

Effectiveness of opioid switching for dyspnea and its predictors in cancer patients: a single-center retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Morphine is the most used opioid for dyspnea, but other opioids such as oxycodone and fentanyl are increasingly used, and opioid switching to these is sometimes undertaken. No studies have verified the effectiveness of opioid switching for relief of dyspnea. We retrospectively investigated the effectiveness of opioid switching for dyspnea and its predictors.

METHODS

All patients with opioid switching for dyspnea during hospitalization at Komaki City Hospital from January 2019 to August 2022 were included. Opioid switching was defined as a change to another opioid, and the assessment period for evaluating the effectiveness and adverse events of opioid switching was set as 1 week. Patients with Numeric Rating Scale or Japanese version of the Support Team Assessment Schedule reduction for dyspnea of at least 1, or with clear improvement based on medical records, were considered valid. Mitigating factors for dyspnea were identified using logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 976 patients with opioid switching, 57 patients had opioid switching for relief of dyspnea. Of these, opioid switching was effective in 21 patients (36.8%). In a multivariate analysis, older patients (odds ratio: 5.52, 95% CI: 1.50-20.20, P < 0.01), short prognosis for post-opioid switching (odds ratio: 0.20, 95% CI: 0.04-0.87, P = 0.03) and cachexia (odds ratio: 0.12, 95% CI: 0.02-0.64, P < 0.01) were significantly associated with opioid switching effects for dyspnea. There were no serious adverse events after opioid switching.

CONCLUSION

This study indicates that opioid switching for dyspnea may have some effect. Furthermore, opioid switching for dyspnea may be more effective in older patients and less effective in terminally ill patients or in those with cachexia.

Common and distinct risk factors that influence more severe and distressing shortness of breath profiles in oncology outpatients

BACKGROUND

Shortness of breath occurs in 10%-70% of oncology patients. Very little is known about interindividual variability in its severity and distress and associated risk factors. Using latent profile analyses (LPAs), purpose was to identify subgroups of patients with distinct severity and distress profiles for shortness of breath as single symptom dimensions. In addition, a joint LPA was done using patients' severity AND distress ratings. For each of the three LPAs, differences among the shortness of breath classes in demographic, clinical, symptom, stress, and resilience characteristics were evaluated.

METHODS

Patients completed ratings of severity and distress from shortness of breath a total of six times over two cycles of chemotherapy. All of the other measures were completed at enrollment (i.e., prior to the second or third cycle of chemotherapy). Separate LPAs were done using ratings of severity and distress, as well as a joint analysis using severity AND distress ratings. Differences among the latent classes were evaluated using parametric and nonparametric tests.

RESULTS

For severity, two classes were identified (Slight to Moderate [91.6%] and Moderate to Severe [8.4%]). For distress, two classes were identified (A Little Bit to Somewhat [83.9%] and Somewhat to Quite a Bit [16.1%]). For the joint LPA, two classes were identified (Lower Severity and Distress [79.9%] and Higher Severity and Distress [20.1%]). While distinct risk factors were associated with each of the LPAs, across the three LPAs, the common risk factors associated with membership in the worse class included: a past or current history of smoking, poorer functional status, and higher comorbidity burden. In addition, these patients had a higher symptom burden and higher levels of cancer-specific stress.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians can use the information provided in this study to identify high-risk patients and develop individualized interventions.