What influenced people with chronic or refractory breathlessness and advanced disease to take part and remain in a drug trial? A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Recruitment and retention in clinical trials remains an important challenge, particularly in the context of advanced disease. It is important to understand what affects retention to improve trial quality, minimise attrition and reduce missing data. We conducted a qualitative study embedded within a randomised feasibility trial and explored what influenced people to take part and remain in the trial. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study embedded within a double-blind randomised trial (BETTER-B[Feasibility]: BETter TreatmEnts for Refractory Breathlessness) designed using a person-centred approach. Participants with cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), interstitial lung disease (ILD), or chronic heart failure (CHF), with a modified Medical Research Council dyspnoea scale grade of 3/4 were recruited from three UK sites. A convenience subsample completed qualitative interviews after the trial. Interviews were analysed using thematic analysis. Results were considered in relation to the core elements of person-centred care and our model of the person-centred trial. RESULTS: In the feasibility trial 409 people were screened for eligibility, and 64 were randomised. No participant was lost to follow-up. Twenty-two participants took part in a qualitative interview. Eleven had a diagnosis of COPD, 8 ILD, 2 CHF and 1 lung cancer. The participants' median age was 71 years (range 56-84). Sixteen were male. Twenty had completed the trial, and two withdrew due to adverse effects. The relationship between patient and professional, potential for benefit, trial processes and the intervention all influenced the decision to participate in the trial. The relationship with the research team and continuity, perceived benefit, and aspects relating to trial processes and the intervention influenced the decision to remain in the trial. CONCLUSIONS: In this feasibility trial recruitment targets were met, attrition levels were low, and aspects of the person-centred approach were viewed positively by trial participants. Prioritisation of the relationship between the patient and professional; person-centred processes, including home visits, assistance with questionnaires, and involvement of the carer; and enabling people to participate by having processes in line with individual capabilities appear to support recruitment and retention in clinical trials in advanced disease. We recommend the integration of a person-centred approach in all clinical trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN32236160. Registered on 13 June 2016

Safety of benzodiazepines and opioids in interstitial lung disease: A national prospective study

Copyright ©ERS 2018 Safety concerns are a barrier to prescribing benzodiazepines (BDZs) and opioids in interstitial lung disease (ILD). We therefore examined the association of BDZs and opioids on risk of admission to hospital and death. We conducted a population-based longitudinal cohort study of fibrotic ILD patients starting long-term oxygen therapy in Sweden between October 2005 and December 2014. Effects of BDZs and opioids on rates of admission to hospital and mortality were analysed using Fine-Gray and Cox regression while adjusting for potential confounders. We included 1603 patients (61% females). BDZs were used by 196 (12%) patients and opioids were used by 254 (15%) patients. There was no association between BDZs and increased admission. Treatment with high- versus low-dose BDZs was associated with increased mortality (subdistribution hazard ratio (SHR) 1.46, 95% CI 1.08-1.98 versus 1.13, 95% CI 0.92-1.38). Opioids showed no association with increased admission. Neither low-dose opioids (30 mg·day −1 oral morphine equivalent) (SHR 1.18, 95% CI 0.96-1.45) nor high-dose opioids (>30 mg·day −1 oral morphine equivalent) (SHR 1.11, 95% CI 0.89-1.39) showed association with increased mortality. This first ever study to examine associations between BDZ and opioid use and harm in ILD supports the use of opioids and low-dose BDZs in severely ill patients with respiratory compromise

Implementation of the Needs Assessment Tool for Interstitial Lung Disease Patients (NAT:ILD): Facilitators and Barriers

A Needs Assessment Tool (NAT) was developed previously to help clinicians identify the supportive/palliative needs of people with interstitial lung disease (ILD) (NAT:ILD). This letter presents barriers and facilitators to clinical implementation. Data from (1) a focus group of respiratory clinicians and (2) an expert consensus group (respiratory and palliative clinicians, academics, patients, carers) were analysed using Framework Analysis. Barriers related to resources and service reconfiguration, and facilitators to clinical need, structure, objectiveness, flexibility and benefits of an ‘aide-memoire’. Identified training needs included communication skills and local service knowledge. The NAT:ILD was seen as useful, necessary and practical in everyday practice

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)

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. 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)

Palliative care in interstitial lung disease: living well

Progressive fibrotic interstitial lung diseases (ILDs) are characterised by major reductions in quality of life and survival and have similarities to certain malignancies. However, palliative care expertise is conspicuously inaccessible to many patients with ILD. Unmet patient and caregiver needs include effective pharmacological and psychosocial interventions to improve quality of life throughout the disease course, sensitive advanced care planning, and timely patient-centred end-of-life care. The incorrect perception that palliative care is synonymous with end-of-life care, with no role earlier in the course of ILD, has created a culture of neglect. Interventions that aim to improve life expectancy are often prioritised without rigorous assessment of the individual's health and psychosocial needs, thereby inadvertently reducing quality of life. As in malignant disorders, radical interventions to slow disease progression and palliative measures to improve quality of life should both be prioritised. Efficient patient-centred models of palliative care must be validated, taking into account religious and cultural differences, as well as variability of resources. Effective implementation of palliative care for ILD will require multidisciplinary participation from clinicians, specialist nurses, psychologists, social workers, and, in some countries, non-governmental faith and community-based organisations with access to palliative care expertise

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