Management of acute breathlessness in the person with chronic refractory breathlessness

Systematic Review of Common Refractory Symptoms in the End-Of-Life Situation and Its Relation With Euthanasia

AIM

To analyse the available evidence regarding refractory symptoms to treatment in patients receiving palliative/terminal healthcare.

DESIGN

A systematic review of various databases between September and December 2020; Pubmed; Cochrane; Scopus and ScienceDirect. Study eligibility criteria: Studies published between 1st January 2015 and 31st of March 2020, in Spanish, English or Catalan conducted in elderly people or terminal patients. The study included systematic reviews, clinical trials and interventions.

RESULTS

The search returned 782 articles, of which 22 articles were finally reviewed. Of the selected articles, 16 were systematic reviews and three were clinical trials. Three refractory symptoms are notable; breathlessness, delirium and existential suffering. There are various therapeutic approaches for the first two symptoms, but palliative sedation seems to be most effective for existential suffering.

CONCLUSIONS

Although palliative care enables controlling these symptoms effectively, and following a multidisciplinary approach, there remains a group of patients for whom euthanasia could save foreseeable suffering that is difficult to manage.

Holistic services for people with advanced disease and chronic or refractory breathlessness: a mixed-methods evidence synthesis

Background

Breathlessness is a common and distressing symptom of many advanced diseases, affecting around 2 million people in the UK. Breathlessness increases with disease progression and often becomes chronic or refractory. Breathlessness-triggered services that integrate holistic assessment and specialist palliative care input as part of a multiprofessional approach have been developed for this group, offering tailored interventions to support self-management and reduce distress.

Objectives

The aim was to synthesise evidence on holistic breathlessness services for people with advanced disease and chronic or refractory breathlessness. The objectives were to describe the structure, organisation and delivery of services, determine clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and acceptability, identify predictors of treatment response, and elicit stakeholders’ evidence-based priorities for clinical practice, policy and research.

Design

The mixed-methods evidence synthesis comprised three components: (1) a systematic review to determine the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of holistic breathlessness services; (2) a secondary analysis of pooled individual data from three trials to determine predictors of clinical response; and (3) a transparent expert consultation (TEC), comprising a stakeholder workshop and an online consensus survey, to identify stakeholders’ priorities.

Results

Thirty-seven papers reporting on 18 holistic breathlessness services were included in the systematic review. Most studies enrolled people with thoracic cancer, were delivered over 4–6 weeks, and included breathing training, relaxation techniques and psychological support. Meta-analysis demonstrated significant reductions in the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) distress due to breathlessness, significant reductions in the Hospital Anxiety and Depressions Scale (HADS) depression scores, and non-significant reductions in the Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire (CRQ) mastery and HADS anxiety, favouring the intervention. Recipients valued education, self-management interventions, and expertise of the staff in breathlessness and person-centred care. Evidence for cost-effectiveness was limited and inconclusive. The responder analysis (n = 259) revealed baseline CRQ mastery and NRS distress to be strong predictors of the response to breathlessness services assessed by these same measures, and no significant influence from baseline breathlessness intensity, patient diagnosis, lung function, health status, anxiety or depression. The TEC elicited 34 priorities from stakeholders. Seven priorities received high agreement and consensus, reflecting stakeholders’ (n = 74) views that services should be person-centred and multiprofessional, share their breathlessness management skills with others, and recognise the roles and support needs of informal carers.

Limitations

The evidence synthesis draws predominantly from UK services and may not be generalisable to other settings. Some meta-analyses were restricted by reporting biases and statistical heterogeneity.

Conclusions

Despite heterogeneity in composition and delivery, holistic breathlessness services are highly valued by recipients and can lead to significant improvements in the distress caused by breathlessness and depression. Outcomes of improved mastery and reduced distress caused by breathlessness are not influenced by patient diagnosis, lung function or health status. Stakeholders highlighted the need for improved access to person-centred, multiprofessional breathlessness services and support for informal carers.

Future work

Our research suggests that key therapeutic components of holistic breathlessness services be considered in clinical practice and models of delivery and educational strategies to address stakeholders’ priorities tested.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017057508.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery programme. Matthew Maddocks, Wei Gao and Irene J Higginson are supported by the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) South London; Matthew Maddocks is supported by a NIHR Career Development Fellowship (CDF-2017-009), William D-C Man is supported by the NIHR CLAHRC Northwest London and Irene J Higginson holds a NIHR Emeritus Senior Investigator Award.

Definition of Episodic Dyspnea in Cancer Patients: A Delphi-Based Consensus among Spanish Experts: The INSPIRA Study

BACKGROUND

Episodic dyspnea is an increasingly recognized phenomenon that occurs frequently in patients with cancer. Although numerous definitions have been proposed to describe episodic dyspnea, to date, no common widely accepted definition in Spanish has yet emerged. Without a clear well-accepted definition, it is difficult to design rigorous clinical trials to evaluate candidate treatments for this emerging entity and to compare outcomes among studies.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to reach a consensus definition of episodic dyspnea in the Spanish language based on professional criteria in cancer patients.

DESIGN

A two-round Delphi study.

SETTING/SUBJECTS

Sixty-one Spanish specialists in medical oncology, radiation oncology, pneumology, palliative care, and pain management participated in the study.

MEASUREMENTS

Sixteen different questions on dyspnea-related terminology, including the definition of episodic dyspnea, were assessed.

RESULTS

The panel of experts reached a consensus on 75% of the 16 assessments proposed: 56.25% in agreement and 18.75% in disagreement. The term that most panelists considered most appropriate to define dyspnea exacerbation was dyspnea crisis. The panelists disagreed that dyspnea exacerbation is equivalent to dyspnea at effort and that the presence of dyspnea at rest is required for exacerbation to occur. However, there was wide agreement that exacerbation may or may not be predictable and can be triggered by comorbidities as well as emotional, environmental, or effort factors.

CONCLUSIONS

The broad consensus reached in this study is a necessary first step to design high-quality methodological studies to better understand episodic dyspnea and improve treatment.

Managing chronic breathlessness in the community

Breathlessness or dyspnoea is a subjective experience that can be described as an unpleasant or uncomfortable awareness of breathing. It is a subjective experience for patients and often they learn to adapt to the limitations caused by their condition, which makes their breathlessness less apparent to others. Breathlessness can be subdivided in the context of chronic refractory breathlessness, such as acute breathlessness, which is either an episodic breathlessness or breathlessness crisis. Chronic refractory breathlessness is defined as breathlessness at rest or on minimal exertion that will persist chronically despite optimal treatment of the underlying causative factors. The role of the community nurse in managing the breathless patient should involve differentiating between different types of breathlessness and knowing how to effectively manage it in a holistic manner.

Opioids for management of episodic breathlessness or dyspnea in patients with advanced disease

BACKGROUND

Episodic breathlessness (EB) or dyspnea is a common symptom with a very negative impact on the quality of life of patients with cancer and with non-oncological advanced diseases, mainly cardiorespiratory and neurological.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this non-systematic review is to ascertain the role played by opioids in the management of episodic breathlessness.

METHODS

A non-systematic literature review was done in the databases MEDLINE, COCHRANE, and DATABASE, and articles of greater scientific rigor, mainly reviews or prospective studies/randomized clinical trials published to date (August 2015), were selected. Terms used in the search included episodic breathlessness, acute breathlessness, episodic dyspnea, opioids, morphine, fentanyl, oxycodone, and breakthrough dyspnea.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the pathophysiology and mechanism of action of opioids for management of breathlessness, and specifically EB, are not fully known, there is scientific evidence, and particularly great clinical evidence, of the benefit of this drug class for dyspnea management. It is important to differentiate hospitalized patients from outpatients because venous or subcutaneous access is easier in hospitalized patients, but use of transmucosal fentanyl, especially in faster formulations like intranasal application, opens up new possibilities to manage outpatients due to its fast onset of action. The main problem is the lack of data available and the multitude of unanswered questions about opioid type, administration route, safety, and dose titration.