Opioids in patients with COPD and refractory dyspnea:literature review and design of a multicenter double blind study of low dosed morphine and fentanyl (MoreFoRCOPD)

BACKGROUND: Refractory dyspnea or breathlessness is a common symptom in patients with advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), with a high negative impact on quality of life (QoL). Low dosed opioids have been investigated for refractory dyspnea in COPD and other life-limiting conditions, and some positive effects were demonstrated. However, upon first assessment of the literature, the quality of evidence in COPD seemed low or inconclusive, and focused mainly on morphine which may have more side effects than other opioids such as fentanyl. For the current publication we performed a systematic literature search. We searched for placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials investigating opioids for refractory dyspnea caused by COPD. We included trials reporting on dyspnea, health status and/or QoL. Three of fifteen trials demonstrated a significant positive effect of opioids on dyspnea. Only one of four trials reporting on QoL or health status, demonstrated a significant positive effect. Two-thirds of included trials investigated morphine. We found no placebo-controlled RCT on transdermal fentanyl. Subsequently, we hypothesized that both fentanyl and morphine provide a greater reduction of dyspnea than placebo, and that fentanyl has less side effects than morphine.METHODS: We describe the design of a robust, multi-center, double blind, double-dummy, cross-over, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial with three study arms investigating transdermal fentanyl 12 mcg/h and morphine sustained-release 10 mg b.i.d. The primary endpoint is change in daily mean dyspnea sensation measured on a numeric rating scale. Secondary endpoints are change in daily worst dyspnea, QoL, anxiety, sleep quality, hypercapnia, side effects, patient preference, and continued opioid use. Sixty patients with severe stable COPD and refractory dyspnea (FEV1 &lt; 50%, mMRC ≥ 3, on optimal standard therapy) will be included.DISCUSSION: Evidence for opioids for refractory dyspnea in COPD is not as robust as usually appreciated. We designed a study comparing both the more commonly used opioid morphine, and transdermal fentanyl to placebo. The cross-over design will help to get a better impression of patient preferences. We believe our study design to investigate both sustained-release morphine and transdermal fentanyl for refractory dyspnea will provide valuable information for better treatment of refractory dyspnea in COPD. Trial registration NCT03834363 (ClinicalTrials.gov), registred at 7 Feb 2019, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03834363 .</p

Opioids in patients with COPD and refractory dyspnea:literature review and design of a multicenter double blind study of low dosed morphine and fentanyl (MoreFoRCOPD)

Abstract Background Refractory dyspnea or breathlessness is a common symptom in patients with advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), with a high negative impact on quality of life (QoL). Low dosed opioids have been investigated for refractory dyspnea in COPD and other life-limiting conditions, and some positive effects were demonstrated. However, upon first assessment of the literature, the quality of evidence in COPD seemed low or inconclusive, and focused mainly on morphine which may have more side effects than other opioids such as fentanyl. For the current publication we performed a systematic literature search. We searched for placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials investigating opioids for refractory dyspnea caused by COPD. We included trials reporting on dyspnea, health status and/or QoL. Three of fifteen trials demonstrated a significant positive effect of opioids on dyspnea. Only one of four trials reporting on QoL or health status, demonstrated a significant positive effect. Two-thirds of included trials investigated morphine. We found no placebo-controlled RCT on transdermal fentanyl. Subsequently, we hypothesized that both fentanyl and morphine provide a greater reduction of dyspnea than placebo, and that fentanyl has less side effects than morphine. Methods We describe the design of a robust, multi-center, double blind, double-dummy, cross-over, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial with three study arms investigating transdermal fentanyl 12 mcg/h and morphine sustained-release 10 mg b.i.d. The primary endpoint is change in daily mean dyspnea sensation measured on a numeric rating scale. Secondary endpoints are change in daily worst dyspnea, QoL, anxiety, sleep quality, hypercapnia, side effects, patient preference, and continued opioid use. Sixty patients with severe stable COPD and refractory dyspnea (FEV1 < 50%, mMRC ≥ 3, on optimal standard therapy) will be included. Discussion Evidence for opioids for refractory dyspnea in COPD is not as robust as usually appreciated. We designed a study comparing both the more commonly used opioid morphine, and transdermal fentanyl to placebo. The cross-over design will help to get a better impression of patient preferences. We believe our study design to investigate both sustained-release morphine and transdermal fentanyl for refractory dyspnea will provide valuable information for better treatment of refractory dyspnea in COPD. Trial registration NCT03834363 (ClinicalTrials.gov), registred at 7 Feb 2019, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03834363

Safety and Outcome of High-Flow Nasal Oxygen Therapy Outside ICU Setting in Hypoxemic Patients With COVID-19∗

OBJECTIVE: High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) therapy is frequently applied outside ICU setting in hypoxemic patients with COVID-19. However, safety concerns limit more widespread use. We aimed to assess the safety and clinical outcomes of initiation of HFNO therapy in COVID-19 on non-ICU wards. DESIGN: Prospective observational multicenter pragmatic study. SETTING: Respiratory wards and ICUs of 10 hospitals in The Netherlands. PATIENTS: Adult patients treated with HFNO for COVID-19-associated hypoxemia between December 2020 and July 2021 were included. Patients with treatment limitations were excluded from this analysis. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Outcomes included intubation and mortality rate, duration of hospital and ICU stay, severity of respiratory failure, and complications. Using propensity-matched analysis, we compared patients who initiated HFNO on the wards versus those in ICU. Six hundred eight patients were included, of whom 379 started HFNO on the ward and 229 in the ICU. The intubation rate in the matched cohort (n = 214 patients) was 53% and 60% in ward and ICU starters, respectively (p = 0.41). Mortality rates were comparable between groups (28-d [8% vs 13%], p = 0.28). ICU-free days were significantly higher in ward starters (21 vs 17 d, p &lt; 0.001). No patient died before endotracheal intubation, and the severity of respiratory failure surrounding invasive ventilation and clinical outcomes did not differ between intubated ward and ICU starters (respiratory rate-oxygenation index 3.20 vs 3.38; Pao2:Fio2ratio 65 vs 64 mm Hg; prone positioning after intubation 81 vs 78%; mortality rate 17 vs 25% and ventilator-free days at 28 d 15 vs 13 d, all p values &gt; 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In this large cohort of hypoxemic patients with COVID-19, initiation of HFNO outside the ICU was safe, and clinical outcomes were similar to initiation in the ICU. Furthermore, the initiation of HFNO on wards saved time in ICU without excess mortality or complicated course. Our results indicate that HFNO initiation outside ICU should be further explored in other hypoxemic diseases and clinical settings aiming to preserve ICU capacity and healthcare costs.</p

The development of the ADO-SQ model to predict 1-year mortality in patients with COPD

Background: Goals of end-of-life care must be adapted to the needs of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who are in the last phase of life. However, identification of those patients is limited by moderate performances of existing prognostic models and by limited validation of the often-recommended surprise question. Aim: To develop a clinical prediction model to predict 1-year mortality in patients with COPD. Design: Prospective study using logistic regression to develop a model in two steps: (1) external validation of the ADO, BODEX, or CODEX models (A = age; B = body mass index; C = comorbidity; D = dyspnea; EX = exacerbations; O = airflow obstruction); (2) updating of best performing model and extending it with the surprise question. Discriminative performance of the new model was assessed using internal-external validation and measured with area under the curve (AUC). A nomogram and web application were developed. Settings/participants: Patients with COPD from five hospitals (September–November 2017). Results: Of the 358 included patients (median age 69.5 years, 50% male), 63 (17%) died within a year. The ADO index (AUC 0.73) had the best discriminative ability compared to the BODEX (AUC 0.71) or CODEX (AUC 0.68), and was extended with the surprise question. The resulting ADO-surprise question (SQ) model had an AUC of 0.79. Conclusion: The ADO-SQ model offers improved discriminative performance for predicting 1-year mortality compared to the surprise question, ADO, BODEX, or CODEX. A user-friendly nomogram and web application (https://dnieboer.shinyapps.io/copd) were developed. Further external validation of the ADO-SQ in patient groups is needed

Prospective cohort study of patients with advanced cancer and their relatives on the experienced quality of care and life (eQuiPe study): A study protocol

Background: Palliative care is becoming increasingly important because the number of patients with an incurable disease is growing and their survival is improving. Previous research tells us that early palliative care has the potential to improve quality of life (QoL) in patients with advanced cancer and their relatives. According to limited research on palliative care in the Netherlands, patients with advanced cancer and their relatives find current palliative care suboptimal. The aim of the eQuiPe study is to understand the experienced quality of care (QoC) and QoL of patients with advanced cancer and their relatives to further improve palliative care. Methods: A prospective longitudinal observational cohort study is conducted among patients with advanced cancer and their relatives. Patients and relatives receive a questionnaire every 3 months regarding experienced QoC and QoL during the palliative trajectory. Bereaved relatives receive a final questionnaire 3 to 6 months after the patients' death. Data from questionnaires are linked with detailed clinical data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR). By means of descriptive statistics we will examine the experienced QoC and QoL in our study population. Differences between subgroups and changes over time will be assessed while adjusting for confounding factors. Discussion: This study will be the first to prospectively and longitudinally explore experienced QoC and QoL in patients with advanced cancer and their relatives simultaneously. This study will provide us with population-based information in patients with advanced cancer and their relatives including changes over time. Results from the study will inform us on how to further improve palliative care. Trial registration: Trial NL6408 (NTR6584). Registered in Netherlands Trial Register on June 30, 2017