Incident opioid use is associated with risk of respiratory harm in non-palliative COPD

Survival implications of prescription opioid and benzodiazepine use in lung transplant recipients: Analysis of linked transplant registry and pharmacy fill records

BACKGROUND

Prescription opioid and benzodiazepine use have been associated with morbidity and mortality among some groups of solid organ transplant recipients, but implications for outcomes among lung transplant patients are not well described.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using linked national transplant registry and pharmaceutical records to characterize the associations between benzodiazepine and opioid prescription fills in the years before and after lung transplant (2006-2017), with risk-adjusted posttransplant survival (adjusted hazard ratio, _LCLaHR_UCL).

RESULTS

Among 11,568 recipients, 33.7% filled an opioid prescription, and 25.8% filled a benzodiazepine prescription before transplant. Compared to patients without prescriptions, those who filled both short- and long-acting benzodiazepine prescriptions before transplant had 2-fold higher mortality in the first year posttransplant (aHR, _1.392.12_3.21), after adjustment for baseline factors and opioid fills, while pretransplant opioid fills were not associated with posttransplant mortality after adjustment for benzodiazepine fills. Pretransplant opioid and benzodiazepine use strongly predicted more use after transplant. Fills of both short- and long-acting benzodiazepines in the first year posttransplant were associated with 77% increased mortality >1-to-2 years posttransplant (aHR, _1.061.77_2.96). Compared with no posttransplant opioid fills, there was a dose-dependent association between first-year opioid fills and subsequent adjusted mortality risk (level 2: aHR, _1.171.50_1.92 to level 4: aHR, _1.562.01_2.59). These effects were independent, and interactions were not detected.

CONCLUSIONS

Benzodiazepine prescription fills before and after lung transplant, and opioid fills after transplant, are independently associated with posttransplant mortality. Review of benzodiazepine and opioid use history is relevant to risk-stratifying patients before and after lung transplant.

Pretransplant Opioid Use and Survival After Lung Transplantation

BACKGROUND

The impact of opioid use in lung transplant candidates on posttransplant outcomes is unknown. Studies on opioid therapy in kidney and liver transplant candidates have suggested increased risk of graft failure or death. We sought to analyze the relationship between pretransplant opioid use in lung transplant candidates and retransplant-free survival.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed adult patients transplanted consecutively between November 2004 and August 2015. The exposure was any opioid use at time of transplant listing and primary outcome was retransplant-free survival, analyzed via Cox regression model adjusted for recipient age, gender, ethnicity, diagnosis, and bridging status. Secondary outcomes included duration of ventilation, intensive care unit and hospital length of stay, 3-month and 1-year survival, continuing opioid use at 1 year, and time to onset of chronic lung allograft dysfunction.

RESULTS

The prevalence of opioid use at time of listing was 14% (61/425). Median daily oral morphine equivalent dose was 31 mg (18-54). Recipient ethnicity was associated with pretransplant opioid use. Opioid use at time of listing did not increase risk of death or retransplantation in an adjusted model (hazard ratio 1.12 [95% confidence interval 0.65-1.83], P = 0.6570). Secondary outcomes were similar between groups except hospital length of stay (opioid users 35 versus nonusers 27 d, P = 0.014). Continued opioid use at 1-year posttransplant was common (27/56, 48%).

CONCLUSIONS

Pretransplant opioid use was not associated with retransplant-free survival in our cohort and should not necessarily preclude listing. Further work stratifying opioid use by indication and the association with opioid use disorder would be worthwhile.

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.

Challenges and concerns of persistent opioid use in cancer patients

INTRODUCTION

As a result of advancements in the diagnosis and treatment of cancer, two-thirds of individuals suffering with cancer survive more than 5 years after diagnosis, resulting in a large proportion of patients with chronic cancer pain alone or associated with chronic noncancer pain. There is a paucity of literature in reference to diagnosis and management of chronic cancer pain, specifically in relation to persistent opioid use, its effectiveness, and adverse consequences. Areas covered: This review covers the prevalence of chronic cancer pain and its association with multiple comorbidities, persistent opioid use and related consequences, and challenges in managing persistent chronic cancer pain patients. In addition, discussion includes therapeutic opioid use, effectiveness of opioid therapy, assessment of risk of persistent opioid use, and guidance for responsible, persistent opioid prescribing for chronic cancer pain patients. Expert commentary: Despite extensive availability of opioids and related common adverse consequences, including the potential for escalating use, abuse, and deaths, greater awareness is needed to counteract the present atmosphere and appropriately manage patients with chronic cancer pain. Chronic cancer pain is a complex biopsychosocial phenomenon with multiple comorbidities. Opioid therapy has become extremely complex with negative connotations related to escalating abuse and related deaths.