Mirtazapine for chronic breathlessness? A review of mechanistic insights and therapeutic potential

Treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and progressive pulmonary fibrosis: A position statement from the Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand 2023 revision

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a progressive disease leading to significant morbidity and mortality. In 2017 the Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand (TSANZ) and Lung Foundation Australia (LFA) published a position statement on the treatment of IPF. Since that time, subsidized anti-fibrotic therapy in the form of pirfenidone and nintedanib is now available in both Australia and New Zealand. More recently, evidence has been published in support of nintedanib for non-IPF progressive pulmonary fibrosis (PPF). Additionally, there have been numerous publications relating to the non-pharmacologic management of IPF and PPF. This 2023 update to the position statement for treatment of IPF summarizes developments since 2017 and reaffirms the importance of a multi-faceted approach to the management of IPF and progressive pulmonary fibrosis.

Dyspnea and Dyspnea-Associated Anxiety in the ICU Patient Population: A Narrative Review for CL Psychiatrists

BACKGROUND

Consultation-liaison psychiatrists frequently address dyspnea in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Dyspnea is common in this patient population, but is frequently misunderstood and underappreciated in noncommunicative ICU patients.

OBJECTIVE

This paper provides an updated review on dyspnea specifically in the ICU population, including its pathophysiology and management, pharmacological and nonpharmacological, aimed at consultation-liaison psychiatrists consulting in ICU.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted with PubMed, querying published articles for topics associated with dyspnea and dyspnea-associated anxiety in ICU patient populations. When literature in ICU populations was limited, information was deduced from dyspnea and anxiety management from non-ICU populations. Articles discussing the definition of dyspnea, mechanistic pathways, screening tools, and pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic management were included.

RESULTS

A reference guide was created to help consultation-liaison psychiatrists and intensivists in the screening and treatment of dyspnea and dyspnea-associated anxiety in critically ill patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Dyspnea is frequently associated with anxiety, prolonged days on mechanical ventilation, and worse quality of life after discharge. It can also increase the risk of posttraumatic stress disorder post-ICU discharge. However, it is not routinely screened for, identified, or addressed in the ICU. This manuscript provides an updated review on dyspnea and dyspnea-associated anxietyin the ICU population, including its pathophysiology and management, and offers a useful reference for consultation-liaison psychiatrists to provide treatment recommendations.

Caring for patients with advanced COPD: beyond the inhalers…

COPD affects millions of people worldwide. Patients with advanced COPD have a high symptom burden. Breathlessness, cough and fatigue are frequent daily symptoms. Guidelines often focus on pharmacological treatment, especially inhaler therapy, but other approaches in combination with medications offer symptomatic benefit. In this review, we take a multidisciplinary approach with contributions from pulmonary physicians, cardiothoracic surgeons and a physiotherapist. The following areas are addressed: oxygen therapy and noninvasive ventilation (NIV), dyspnoea management, surgical and bronchoscopic options, lung transplantation and palliative care. Oxygen therapy prescribed within guidelines improves mortality in patients with COPD. NIV guidelines offer only low-certainty instruction on the use of this therapy on the basis of the limited available evidence. Dyspnoea management can take place through pulmonary rehabilitation. Specific criteria aid decisions on referral for lung volume reduction treatments through surgical or bronchoscopic approaches. Lung transplantation requires precise disease severity assessment to determine which patients have the most urgent need for lung transplantation and are likely to have the longest survival. The palliative approach runs in parallel with these other treatments, focusing on symptoms and aiming to improve the quality of life of patients and their families facing the problems associated with life-threatening illness. In combination with appropriate medication and an individual approach to symptom management, patients' experiences can be optimised.

Educational aims

To understand the multidisciplinary approach to management of patients with advanced COPD.To recognise the parallel approaches to oxygen, NIV and dyspnoea management with consideration of more interventional options with lung volume reduction therapy or lung transplantation.To understand the high level of symptomatology present in advanced COPD and the relevance of palliative care alongside optimal medical management.

What is the effectiveness and safety of mirtazapine versus escitalopram in alleviating cancer-associated poly-symptomatology (the MIR-P study)? A mixed-method randomized controlled trial protocol

BACKGROUND

Advanced cancer patients often experience multiple symptoms at a same time. This might lead to polypharmacy and increase adverse events representing major threats to the quality of health care, especially in palliative care situations. Mirtazapine, an antidepressant agent, has been suggested as a potential relevant drug to alleviate multiple cancer-related symptoms at a same time. Therefore, the present study aims to assess the effectiveness of mirtazapine in alleviating multiple symptoms at a same time in advanced cancer patients suffering from a major depressive episode compared to a group receiving escitalopram, another antidepressant agent.

METHODS

Multicentre, prospective, randomized, controlled trial in 12 palliative care services in France. The study will be based on a mixed-method methodology using parallel groups, of oral mirtazapine compared with oral escitalopram, with a 56 day follow-up. The primary outcome will be an improvement of the Global health Status (issued from the EORTC-QLQ-C30) on day 56. 418 participants will be clinically followed-up on day 7 and 56 and will have a telephonic assessment on days 14 and 28. A sub-sample of participants will be invited to take part in semi-structured qualitative interviews at baseline and day 56. For the qualitative part, purposeful sampling will be used.

DISCUSSION

This study will provide evidence for the pharmaceutics management of poly-symptomatology in advanced cancer patients. This could lead to important changes in the management of those patients by using a single molecule to alleviate multiple symptoms at a same time, potentially improving medication adherence, symptoms' control, and reducing the risk of medications adverse events.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Trial registration: NCT04763135 . Registered 18 March 2021.

Do guidelines influence breathlessness management in advanced lung diseases? A multinational survey of respiratory medicine and palliative care physicians

BACKGROUND

Respiratory medicine (RM) and palliative care (PC) physicians' management of chronic breathlessness in advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), fibrotic interstitial lung disease (fILD) and lung cancer (LC), and the influence of practice guidelines was explored via an online survey.

METHODS

A voluntary, online survey was distributed to RM and PC physicians via society newsletter mailing lists.

RESULTS

450 evaluable questionnaires (348 (77%) RM and 102 (23%) PC) were analysed. Significantly more PC physicians indicated routine use (often/always) of opioids across conditions (COPD: 92% vs. 39%, fILD: 83% vs. 36%, LC: 95% vs. 76%; all p < 0.001) and significantly more PC physicians indicated routine use of benzodiazepines for COPD (33% vs. 10%) and fILD (25% vs. 12%) (both p < 0.001). Significantly more RM physicians reported routine use of a breathlessness score (62% vs. 13%, p < 0.001) and prioritised exercise training/rehabilitation for COPD (49% vs. 7%) and fILD (30% vs. 18%) (both p < 0.001). Overall, 40% of all respondents reported reading non-cancer palliative care guidelines (either carefully or looked at them briefly). Respondents who reported reading these guidelines were more likely to: routinely use a breathlessness score (χ2 = 13.8; p < 0.001), use opioids (χ2 = 12.58, p < 0.001) and refer to pulmonary rehabilitation (χ2 = 6.41, p = 0.011) in COPD; use antidepressants (χ2 = 6.25; p = 0.044) and refer to PC (χ2 = 5.83; p = 0.016) in fILD; and use a handheld fan in COPD (χ2 = 8.75, p = 0.003), fILD (χ2 = 4.85, p = 0.028) and LC (χ2 = 5.63; p = 0.018).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest a need for improved dissemination and uptake of jointly developed breathlessness management guidelines in order to encourage appropriate use of existing, evidence-based therapies. The lack of opioid use by RM, and continued benzodiazepine use in PC, suggest that a wider range of acceptable therapies need to be developed and trialled.

Psychotropics and COVID-19: An analysis of safety and prophylaxis

The use of psychotropics during the COVID-19 pandemic has raised two questions, in order of importance: first, what changes should be made to pharmacological treatments prescribed to mental health patients? Secondly, are there any positive side effects of these substances against SARS-CoV-2? Our aim was to analyze usage safety of psychotropics during COVID-19; therefore, herein, we have studied: (i) the risk of symptomatic complications of COVID-19 associated with the use of these drugs, notably central nervous system activity depression, QTc interval enlargement and infectious and thromboembolic complications; (ii) the risk of mistaking the iatrogenic impact of psychotropics with COVID-19 symptoms, causing diagnostic error. Moreover, we provided a summary of the different information available today for these risks, categorized by mental health disorder, for the following: schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, anxiety disorder, ADHD, sleep disorders and suicidal risk. The matter of psychoactive substance use during the pandemic is also analyzed in this paper, and guideline websites and publications for psychotropic treatments in the context of COVID-19 are referenced during the text, so that changes on those guidelines and eventual interaction between psychotropics and COVID-19 treatment medication can be reported and studied. Finally, we also provide a literature review of the latest known antiviral properties of psychotropics against SARS-CoV-2 as complementary information.

[Challenges for psychotropics in the context of the SARS-Cov-2 pandemic]

French recommendations have been proposed for psychotropics use and possible adaptations during the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic. Between uncertainties linked to the lack of data and speculations about possible benefits of psychotropics against the coronavirus, we propose here elements allowing to base the pharmacotherapeutic decisions potentially useful in Covid+ patients with psychiatric disorders.

What is the evidence for mirtazapine in treating cancer-related symptomatology? A systematic review

PURPOSE

Cancer patients often experience multiple distressing symptoms which are challenging to manage. It would therefore be helpful to find a treatment that alleviates more than one symptom, to avoid polypharmacy: mirtazapine has been used in several studies for this purpose. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness and safety of mirtazapine in alleviating one or more frequently encountered cancer-related symptoms.

METHODS

Systematic review of clinical trials in English or French. Eight databases were searched. Included studies assessed the effectiveness of mirtazapine in alleviating one or more frequently encountered cancer-related symptoms. Comparator and validated assessment tools were required. Studies were independently appraised by two investigators before data synthesis.

RESULTS

The search yielded 1898 references, from which we identified 12 relevant articles evaluating highly heterogeneous outcomes. These were two randomised-controlled (RCTs), three non-randomised controlled, and seven non-randomised non-controlled trials. In total, 392 participants were included and 185 were in RCTs. No study assessed the effectiveness of mirtazapine in alleviating symptoms at the same time, but some considered more than one symptom. Overall, the data was of poor quality, limited by small sample size and bias. However, mirtazapine showed effectiveness in treating depression, anxiety, sleep disorders, emesis and neuropathic pain. Across all studies, mirtazapine is safe to use, with drowsiness and dizziness the most common side-effects.

CONCLUSION

Study design and small sample sizes limit the ability to interpret results. Trials to assess the impact of mirtazapine or other medicines in alleviating multiple symptoms would be valuable.

Randomised, double-blind, multicentre, mixed-methods, dose-escalation feasibility trial of mirtazapine for better treatment of severe breathlessness in advanced lung disease (BETTER-B feasibility)

New treatments are required for severe breathlessness in advanced disease. We conducted a randomised feasibility trial of mirtazapine over 28 days in adults with a modified medical research council breathlessness scale score ≥3. Sixty-four patients were randomised (409 screened), achieving our primary feasibility endpoint of recruitment. Most patients had COPD or interstitial lung disease; 52 (81%) completed the trial. There were no differences between placebo and mirtazapine in tolerability or safety, and blinding was maintained. Worst breathlessness ratings at day 28 (primary clinical activity endpoint) were, 7.1 (SD 2.3, placebo) and 6.3 (SD 1.8, mirtazapine). A phase III trial of mirtazapine is indicated. Trial registration: ISRCTN 32236160; European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT no: 2015-004064-11).

To What Extent Do the NRS and CRQ Capture Change in Patients' Experience of Breathlessness in Advanced Disease? Findings From a Mixed-Methods Double-Blind Randomized Feasibility Trial

CONTEXT

Chronic or refractory breathlessness is common and distressing. To evaluate new treatments, outcome measures that capture change in patients' experience are needed.

OBJECTIVES

To explore the extent to which the numerical rating scale (NRS) worst and average, and the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire capture change in patients' experience during a trial of mirtazapine for refractory breathlessness.

METHODS

Convergent mixed-methods design embedded within a randomized trial comprising 1) semi-structured qualitative interviews (considered to be the gold standard) and 2) outcome measure data collected pre- and post-intervention. Data were integrated, exploring examples where findings agreed and disagreed. Adults with advanced cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, interstitial lung disease, or chronic heart failure, with a modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale grade 3 or 4 were recruited from three U.K. sites.

RESULTS

Data were collected for 22 participants. Eleven had a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, eight interstitial lung disease, two chronic heart failure, and one cancer. Median age was 71 (56-84) years. Sixteen participants were men. Changes in the qualitative data were commonly captured in the NRS (worst and average) and the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire. The NRS worst captured change most frequently. Improvement in the emotional domain was associated with physical changes, improved confidence, and control.

CONCLUSION

This study found that the NRS using the question "How bad has your breathlessness felt at its worst over the past 24 hours?" captured change across multiple domains, and therefore may be an appropriate primary outcome measure in trials in this population. Future work should confirm the construct validity of this question.