The Bereaved Families' Preferences for Individualized Goals of Care for Terminal Dyspnea: What Is an Acceptable Balance between Dyspnea Intensity and Communication Capacity?

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.

Should Benzodiazepines be Used for Reducing Dyspnea in Patients with Advanced Illnesses?

Dyspnea is a common and highly distressing symptom in patients with advanced illnesses. Many patients continue to experience chronic dyspnea despite optimal management of underlying disease(s) and various non-pharmacologic interventions, necessitating the consideration of pharmacologic therapies for palliation of dyspnea. One commonly asked question by clinicians is whether benzodiazepines have a role in the palliation of dyspnea. In this "Controversies in Palliative Care" article, three groups of thought leaders independently answer this question. Specifically, each group provides a synopsis of the key studies that inform their thought processes, share practical advice on their clinical approach, and highlight the opportunities for future research. All three groups suggest that benzodiazepines alone do not confer a benefit for dyspnea in advanced illnesses based on existing data. They also expressed concerns about the potential adverse effects such as delirium and drowsiness and recommended against benzodiazepines as first line pharmacologic therapy. Some groups suggest that benzodiazepines may be used in highly selected patients with severe anxiety associated with dyspnea. Some investigators may also consider the adjunctive use of benzodiazepines in patients with severe dyspnea despite opioids, particularly if life expectancy is limited. Benzodiazepines also have a role in palliative sedation for refractory dyspnea in the last days of life. More research is needed to confirm the benefit of benzodiazepines in these populations.

The feasibility and effects of a pharmacological treatment algorithm for cancer patients with terminal dyspnea: A multicenter cohort study

BACKGROUND

How clinicians treat patients with terminal dyspnea widely varies, which could hamper quality care. We visualized comprehensive pharmacological treatment delivered by palliative care physicians.

AIM

To examine adherence to a comprehensive pharmacological treatment algorithm for patients with terminal dyspnea, and to explore its outcomes during 48 h.

DESIGN

A multicenter cohort study at five sites (February 2020 to June 2021).

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

We prospectively enrolled consecutive patients with advanced cancer, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 3-4, and moderate/severe dyspnea. Participating palliative care physicians initiated algorithm-based treatment. The primary outcome was the proportion of adherence to the treatment algorithm over 24 h (predefined goal, 70%). We evaluated the adherence, goal achievement, and dyspnea level with a numerical rating scale (NRS), as well as adverse events over 48 h.

RESULTS

All 108 patients received algorithm-based pharmacological treatment. Among 96 and 87 patients who were alive at 24 and 48 h, respectively, 96 (100%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 96%-100%) and 82 (94%; 95%CI = 87%-98%) continued to receive the algorithm treatment, respectively, and 66 (69%; 95%CI = 59%-77%) and 64 (74%; 95%CI = 63%-82%) achieved the treatment goals, respectively. Using a complete case analysis with paired t-tests, mean dyspnea NRS scores significantly reduced from 7.3 (standard error, 0.2) at the baseline to 4.9 (0.3) at 24 h (n = 72; p < 0.001), and 7.2 (0.3) at the baseline to 4.6 (0.4) at 48 h (n = 55; p < 0.001). Most adverse events were mild to moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

The comprehensive pharmacological treatment algorithm was feasible, and the study data supports its preliminary efficacy and safety. The use of this algorithm may help clinicians improve care for patients with terminal dyspnea.

Prognostication of the last days of life: Review article

Accurate prediction of impending death (i.e., last few days of life) is essential for terminally-ill cancer patients and their families. International guidelines state that clinicians should identify patients with impending death, communicate the prognosis with patients and families, help them with their end-of-life decision-making, and provide sufficient symptom palliation. Over the past decade, several national and international studies have been conducted that systematically investigated signs and symptoms of impending death as well as how to communicate such a prognosis effectively with patients and families. In this article, we summarize the current evidence on prognostication and communication regarding the last days of life of patients with cancer, and future directions of clinical research.

Family experience of palliative sedation therapy: proportional vs. continuous deep sedation

PURPOSE

Some patients experience intense symptoms refractory to intensive palliative care, and palliative sedation is sometimes used. Palliative sedation may be classified into proportional and continuous deep sedation (CDS). The primary aim of this study was to compare family experience between families of patients who received proportional or CDS.

METHODS

A multicenter questionnaire survey was conducted involving bereaved families of cancer patients who received proportional or CDS based on a sedation protocol. Overall evaluation of sedation (satisfaction, family-perceived distress, appropriateness of timing, and patient distress) and 13-item family concerns, good death, satisfaction with care, depression, quality of care, unfinished business, and balance between symptom relief and maintaining communication were measured.

RESULTS

Among the 2120 patients who died, 222 patients received a continuous infusion of midazolam. A sedation protocol was used in 147 patients, and questionnaires were sent to 124 families. A total of 78 responses were finally returned (proportional, 58 vs. CDS, 20). There were no significant differences in the overall evaluation, family concerns, total score of good death, satisfaction, depression, or balance between symptom relief and maintaining communication. On the other hand, some quality of care items, i.e., relationship with medical staff (P < 0.01), physical care by nurses (P = 0.04), and coordination and consistency (P = 0.04), were significantly better in the CDS group than in the proportional sedation group. Family-reported unfinished business was also better in the CDS group, with marginal significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Family experience of CDS was not less favorable than proportional sedation, and actually rated more favorably for some elements of quality of care and unfinished business.

Visualizing How to Use Parenteral Opioids for Terminal Cancer Dyspnea: A Pilot, Multicenter, Prospective, Observational Study

CONTEXT

How physicians use opioids for dyspnea in imminently dying cancer patients (terminal dyspnea) varies markedly, which could hamper quality care.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the adherence to an algorithm-based treatment for terminal dyspnea, and explore its outcomes over 24 hours.

METHODS

This was a pre-planned subgroup analysis of a multicenter prospective observational study. Inclusion criteria were: advanced cancer patients admitted to palliative care units, ECOG performance status = 3-4, and a dyspnea intensity ≥2 on the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS). We developed an algorithm to visualize how palliative care physicians would use parenteral opioids. Participating physicians (palliative care specialists) initiated parenteral opioids, choosing whether to use the algorithm based on their preference. We measured the adherence rate to the algorithm over 24 hours (predefined goal = 70%), and compared dyspnea IPOS scores and adverse events between patients with and without algorithm-based treatment.

RESULTS

Of 164 patients (median survival = 5 days), 71 (43%) received algorithm-based treatment, and 70 (99%; 95% confidence interval = 92%-100%) adhered to it over 24 hours. In a complete case analysis, mean dyspnea IPOS scores significantly decreased from 2.9 (standard error = 0.1) to 1.5 (0.1) in the algorithm group (n = 54; P < 0.001), and 2.9 (0.1) to 1.6 (0.1) in the non-algorithm group (n = 72; P < 0.001). There was no significant between-group difference in changes in dyspnea IPOS scores (P = 0.65). Adverse events were rare (n = 5).

CONCLUSION

The algorithm-based treatment was feasible, and might be as effective and safe as the usual care by palliative care specialists. Its implementation may help physicians provide quality care for terminal dyspnea.

How Successful Is Parenteral Oxycodone for Relieving Terminal Cancer Dyspnea Compared With Morphine? A Multicenter Prospective Observational Study

CONTEXT

Parenteral morphine is widely used for dyspnea of imminently dying cancer patients (terminal dyspnea). However, the efficacy of other opioids such as oxycodone remains largely unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To explore the efficacy of parenteral oxycodone vs. morphine by continuous infusion over 24 hours in cancer patients with terminal dyspnea.

METHODS

This was a pre-planned subgroup analysis of a multicenter prospective observational study. Inclusion criteria were advanced cancer patients admitted to palliative care units, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status = 3-4, and a dyspnea intensity ≥2 on the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS) for which oxycodone or morphine was initiated by continuous infusion. We measured dyspnea IPOS scores over 24 hours.

RESULTS

We analyzed 164 patients who received oxycodone (n = 26) and morphine (n = 138) for dyspnea (median survival = 5 days). The mean age was 70 years, 58 patients (35%) had lung cancer, and 97 (59%) had lung metastases. Complete case analysis revealed that mean dyspnea IPOS scores decreased from 3.0 (standard deviation = 0.7) to 1.5 (0.7) in the oxycodone group (difference in means = 1.5; P < 0.001), and from 2.9 (0.7) to 1.6 (1.0) in the morphine group (difference in means = 1.3; P < 0.001). No significant between-group differences existed in the IPOS scores at 24 hours (P = 0.753). Adverse events were seen in no and 5 patients in the oxycodone and morphine groups, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Parenteral oxycodone may be equally effective and safe as morphine in the treatment of terminal dyspnea in cancer patients. Future randomized controlled trials should confirm the efficacy and safety of opioids other than morphine for terminal dyspnea.