Nonpharmacological interventions for managing respiratory symptoms in lung cancer

Nonpharmacological Interventions for the Fatigue-Pain-Sleep Disturbance Symptom Cluster in Lung Cancer Patients: Best Evidence Summary

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to summarize the most effective evidence on nonpharmacological interventions for the fatigue-pain-sleep disturbance symptom cluster in lung cancer patients and to provide evidence-based management methods for clinical team and lung cancer patients.

METHODS

Guided by the "6S" pyramid model, we retrieved evidence on fatigue, pain, and sleep disturbance management from relevant websites and databases, and unpublished gray literature was also searched. The time frame of the search ranged from database establishment to September 30, 2023. Two researchers independently evaluated the literature quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) for guidelines, and the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews II (AMSTAR II) for systematic reviews. Two people independently extracted and summarized the evidence according to the first principle of high-quality evidence and newly published evidence. The included evidence was graded by the JBI Evidence Pre-Grading System.

RESULTS

A total of 52,238 articles were retrieved, of which 60 articles, including 18 guidelines, 18 JBI best practice recommendations, one Up To Date clinical practice, and 23 systematic reviews, were included. Overall, 49 pieces of evidence from six dimensions-screening, assessment, management, education, referral, and follow-up-were summarized. Forty-three pieces of evidence were level 1, three pieces of evidence were level 4, and three pieces of evidence were level 5.

CONCLUSIONS

The best 49 pieces of evidence on nonpharmacological interventions for the fatigue-pain-sleep disturbance symptom cluster in lung cancer patients were summarized in this study, and these nonpharmacological interventions are scientific and comprehensive.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

This study can provide guidance for clinical team to improve the fatigue-pain-sleep disturbance symptom cluster management. These evidence items can be implemented by clinical team to reduce the symptom burden and improve the self-management ability of symptoms in lung cancer patients.

Respiratory distress symptom intervention for non-pharmacological management of the lung cancer breathlessness-cough-fatigue symptom cluster: randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

In lung cancer, three prominent symptoms, such as breathlessness, cough and fatigue, are closely related with each other forming a 'respiratory distress symptom cluster'. The aim of this study was to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the respiratory distress symptom intervention (RDSI) for the management of this symptom cluster in people with lung cancer.

METHODS

A single blind, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial conducted in eight centres in England, UK. A total of 263 patients with lung cancer were randomised, including 132 who received RDSI and 131 who received standard care. To be eligible, participants self-reported adverse impact in daily life from at least two of the three symptoms, in any combination. Outcomes were change at 12 weeks for each symptom within the cluster, including Dyspnoea-12 (D-12), Manchester Cough in Lung Cancer (MCLC) and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness-Fatigue.

RESULTS

At baseline, nearly 60% of participants reported all three symptoms. At trial completion the total trial attrition was 109 (41.4%). Compared with the control group, the RDSI group demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in D-12 (p=0.007) and MCLC (p<0.001). The minimal clinically important difference MCID) was achieved for each outcome: D-12 -4.13 (MCID >3), MCLC -5.49 (MCID >3) and FACIT-F 4.91 (MCID >4).

CONCLUSION

RDSI is a clinically effective, low-risk intervention to support the management of the respiratory distress symptom cluster in lung cancer. However, the study did experience high attrition, which needs to be taken onto consideration when interpreting these results.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03223805.

Symptom clusters and their impact on quality of life among Chinese patients with lung cancer: A cross-sectional study

PURPOSE

To investigate the symptom clusters of Chinese patients with lung cancer, and explore their impact on quality of life (QoL) and each of its functioning.

METHOD

A cross-sectional study was conducted between October 2022 and April 2023 among 219 lung cancer patients at a general hospital in Sichuan Province. Data were collected using a general information questionnaire, the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory, and the EORTC QLQ-C30. R within the RStudio platform was used to conduct descriptive statistics, exploratory factor analysis and multiple regression analysis.

RESULTS

Psychoneurological, respiratory, gastrointestinal and fatigue-related symptom clusters were identified, each of which was significantly negatively correlated with overall QoL, global health status/QoL and each functioning. The respiratory (β = -0.60, P = 0.02) and fatigue-related symptom cluster (β = -0.86, P = 0.02) were predictors of global health status/QoL; the fatigue-related symptom cluster predicted physical (β = -1.68, P < 0.01), role (β = -1.63, P < 0.01) and cognitive functioning (β = -1.45, P < 0.01); the psychoneurological symptom cluster was a predictor of patients' emotional functioning (β = -1.26, P < 0.01); and the psychoneurological (β = -0.81, P < 0.01) and gastrointestinal symptom cluster (β = -0.60, P = 0.05) predicted social functioning.

CONCLUSIONS

Respiratory and fatigue-related symptom clusters were strong predictors of global health status/QoL; fatigue-related, psychoneurological and gastrointestinal symptom clusters had a negative impact on patients' functioning. Nurse practitioners should pay more attention to monitoring respiratory and fatigue-related symptom clusters to identify high-risk populations in time, and tailored interventions based on symptom clusters are needed to synergistically reduce the symptom burden, thereby improving patients' QoL.

Efficacy of aerobic training and resistance training combined with external diaphragm pacing in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A randomized controlled study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of aerobic training, resistance training combined with external diaphragm pacing in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

The Fourth Rehabilitation Hospital of Shanghai, China.

PARTICIPANTS

82 (67.0  ±  6.5 years, 59.8% male) patients with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were randomized to intervention group 1 (n  =  27), intervention group 2 (n  =  28), and control group (n  =  27).

INTERVENTION

Intervention group 1 received aerobic and resistance training, while intervention group 2 received additional external diaphragm pacing. Control group received aerobic training only.

MAIN MEASURES

1-year follow-up of physical activity, body composition, respiratory function and diaphragm function.

RESULTS

Intervention groups 1 and 2 showed statistically improvements in the difference value compared with control group in terms of 6-min walk distance (-95.28  ±  20.09 and -101.92  ±  34.91 vs -63.58  ±  23.38), forced expiratory volume in 1 s (-0.042  ±  0.027 and -0.130  ±  0.050 vs -0.005  ±  0.068), fat-free mass (-2.11  ±  3.74 and -3.82  ±  3.74vs 0.28  ±  1.49) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease assessment test value (2.16  ±  0.85 and 2.38  ±  1.02 vs 1.50  ±  0.93). Intervention group 2 showed significant difference in arterial oxygen pressure (-4.46  ±  3.22 vs -1.92  ±  3.45), diaphragm excursion during deep breaths (-0.82  ±  0.74 vs -0.38  ±  0.29), and diaphragm thickness fraction (-8.77  ±  3.22 vs -4.88  ±  2.69) compared with control group.

CONCLUSION

The combination of aerobic training, resistance training, and external diaphragm pacing obtained significant improvements in physical activity, respiratory function, body composition, arterial oxygen pressure, and diaphragm function in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ChiCTR1800020257, www.chictr.org.cn/index.aspx.

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.

Symptom burden in lung cancer: management updates

Lung cancer is recognized to carry a high symptom burden with associated lowered quality of life as compared with other cancers. Research has shown that symptom severity can be a prognostic indicator of poorer clinical outcomes and survival post treatment. The purpose of this paper is to review current literature relative to symptom burden associated with diagnosis, medical and/or surgical intervention, assessment and management updates, and emerging initiatives that promote positive outcomes based on updated evidence. Discussion relative to interdisciplinary coordination of supportive services and palliative care initiation is provided.

Management of the respiratory distress symptom cluster in lung cancer: a randomised controlled feasibility trial

Background

Breathlessness, cough and fatigue are distressing symptoms for patients with lung cancer. There is evidence that these three symptoms form a discreet symptom cluster. This study aimed to feasibly test a new non-pharmacological intervention for the management of the Respiratory Distress Symptom Cluster (breathlessness-cough-fatigue) in lung cancer.

Method

This was a multi-centre, randomised controlled non-blinded parallel group feasibility trial. Eligible patients (patients with primary lung cancer and ‘bothered’ by at least two of the three cluster symptoms) received usual care plus a multicomponent intervention delivered over two intervention training sessions and a follow-up telephone call or usual care only. Follow-up was for 12 weeks, and end-points included six numerical rating scales for breathlessness severity, Dyspnoea-12, Manchester Cough in Lung Cancer scale, FACIT-Fatigue scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale, Lung Cancer Symptom Scale and the EQ-5D-3L, collected at baseline, week 4 and week 12.

Results

One hundred seven patients were randomised over 8 months; however, six were removed from further analysis due to protocol violations (intervention group n = 50 and control group n = 51). Of the ineligible patients (n = 608), 29 % reported either not experiencing two or more symptoms or not being ‘bothered’ by at least two symptoms. There was 29 % drop-out by week 4, and by week 12, a further two patients in the control group were lost to follow-up. A sample size calculation indicated that 122 patients per arm would be needed to detect a clinically important difference in the main outcome for breathlessness, cough and fatigue.

Conclusions

The study has provided evidence of the feasibility and acceptability of a new intervention in the lung cancer population and warrants a fully powered trial before we reach any conclusions. The follow-on trial will test the hypothesis that the intervention improves symptom cluster of breathlessness, cough and fatigue better than usual care alone. Full economic evaluation will be conducted in the main trial.