2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Pharmacologic Interventions for Breathlessness in Patients With Advanced Cancer : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

      research-article
      , MD 1 , , PharmD, BCGP, CPE 2 , , BSc 3 , , BS 3 , , MD 1 , , MD 1 , , MD, MA 4 , , MD, MPH 3 , 5 , , MD, MS 3 ,
      JAMA Network Open
      American Medical Association

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Key Points

          Question

          What are the benefits and harms associated with pharmacologic interventions for managing breathlessness in adults with advanced cancer?

          Findings

          This systematic review and meta-analysis of 19 studies (17 randomized clinical trials and 2 retrospective studies) found that opioids and anxiolytics were not associated with improved breathlessness in patients with advanced cancer within the limits of the identified studies, which mainly focused on exertional breathlessness for opioids. Data on harms were too limited to draw conclusions.

          Meaning

          Although the existing data on opioids and pharmacologic interventions do not show an association with improved breathlessness in advanced cancer, they may be considered in selected patients in the context of potential harms and the evidence of an association of nonpharmacologic interventions with improved breathlessness.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Improved survival in patients with advanced cancer has increased the need for better understanding of how to manage common symptoms that they may experience, such as breathlessness.

          Objective

          To assess the benefits and harms associated with pharmacologic interventions for breathlessness in adults with advanced cancer.

          Data Sources

          PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for studies published from database inception through May 31, 2020, using predefined eligibility criteria within a PICOTS (population, intervention, comparator, outcome, timing, setting) format.

          Study Selection

          Randomized clinical trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, and observational studies with a comparison group that evaluated benefits and/or harms and cohort studies that reported harms were selected.

          Data Extraction and Synthesis

          Two reviewers independently screened studies for eligibility, serially abstracted data, independently assessed risk of bias, and graded strength of evidence (SOE).

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          Benefits and harms of pharmacologic interventions were compared, focusing on breathlessness, anxiety, exercise capacity, and health-related quality of life. When possible, meta-analyses were conducted and standardized mean differences (SMDs) calculated.

          Results

          In this systematic review and meta-analysis, a total of 7729 unique citations were identified, of which 19 studies (17 RCTs and 2 retrospective studies) that included a total of 1424 patients assessed the benefits of medications for management of breathlessness in advanced cancer or reported harms. The most commonly reported type of cancer was lung cancer. Opioids were not associated with more effectiveness than placebo for improving breathlessness (SMD, −0.14; 95% CI, −0.47 to 0.18) or exercise capacity ( SMD, 0.06; 95% CI, −0.43 to 0.55) (SOE, moderate); most studies examined exertional breathlessness. Specific dose and/or route of administration of opioids did not differ in effectiveness for breathlessness (SMD, 0.15; 95% CI, −0.22 to 0.52) (SOE, low). Anxiolytics were not associated with more effectiveness than placebo for breathlessness or anxiety (reported mean between-group difference, −0.52; 95% CI, −1.045 to 0.005) (SOE, low). Evidence for other pharmacologic interventions was limited. Pharmacologic interventions demonstrated some harms compared with usual care, but dropout attributable to adverse events was minimal in these short-term studies (range 3.2%-16%).

          Conclusions and Relevance

          Evidence did not support the association of opioids or other pharmacologic interventions with improved breathlessness. Given that studies had many limitations, pharmacologic interventions should be considered in selected patients but need to be considered in the context of potential harms and evidence of an association of nonpharmacologic interventions with improved breathlessness.

          Abstract

          This systematic review assesses the benefits and harms of pharmacologic interventions for breathlessness in adults with advanced cancer.

          Related collections

          Most cited references31

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Cancer statistics, 2020

          Each year, the American Cancer Society estimates the numbers of new cancer cases and deaths that will occur in the United States and compiles the most recent data on population-based cancer occurrence. Incidence data (through 2016) were collected by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program; the National Program of Cancer Registries; and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries. Mortality data (through 2017) were collected by the National Center for Health Statistics. In 2020, 1,806,590 new cancer cases and 606,520 cancer deaths are projected to occur in the United States. The cancer death rate rose until 1991, then fell continuously through 2017, resulting in an overall decline of 29% that translates into an estimated 2.9 million fewer cancer deaths than would have occurred if peak rates had persisted. This progress is driven by long-term declines in death rates for the 4 leading cancers (lung, colorectal, breast, prostate); however, over the past decade (2008-2017), reductions slowed for female breast and colorectal cancers, and halted for prostate cancer. In contrast, declines accelerated for lung cancer, from 3% annually during 2008 through 2013 to 5% during 2013 through 2017 in men and from 2% to almost 4% in women, spurring the largest ever single-year drop in overall cancer mortality of 2.2% from 2016 to 2017. Yet lung cancer still caused more deaths in 2017 than breast, prostate, colorectal, and brain cancers combined. Recent mortality declines were also dramatic for melanoma of the skin in the wake of US Food and Drug Administration approval of new therapies for metastatic disease, escalating to 7% annually during 2013 through 2017 from 1% during 2006 through 2010 in men and women aged 50 to 64 years and from 2% to 3% in those aged 20 to 49 years; annual declines of 5% to 6% in individuals aged 65 years and older are particularly striking because rates in this age group were increasing prior to 2013. It is also notable that long-term rapid increases in liver cancer mortality have attenuated in women and stabilized in men. In summary, slowing momentum for some cancers amenable to early detection is juxtaposed with notable gains for other common cancers.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration.

            Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement-a reporting guideline published in 1999-there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (www.prisma-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Minimally clinically important difference for the UCSD Shortness of Breath Questionnaire, Borg Scale, and Visual Analog Scale.

              L Ries (2005)
              Dyspnea is a primary symptom of chronic lung disease and an important outcome measure for clinical trials. Several standardized measures have been developed to evaluate this important symptom and are being used increasingly in clinical trials. The minimally clinically important difference (MCID) is not well defined for these measures but is important in interpreting the clinical meaning of results of studies in this area. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the MCID for three commonly used measures to assess dyspnea in chronic lung disease: UCSD Shortness of Breath Questionnaire (SOBQ), Borg Scale (Borg), and Visual Analog Scale (VAS). The analysis is based on a retrospective review of published trials evaluating the response to a pulmonary rehabilitation or exercise intervention that is known to produce modest, but clinically meaningful changes for such patients. Using a distribution-based approach based primarily on effect size, the recommended MCID for these measures are: 5-units for the SOBQ, 1-unit for the Borg scale, and approximately 10 to 20 units for the VAS.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                25 February 2021
                February 2021
                25 February 2021
                : 4
                : 2
                : e2037632
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
                [2 ]Department of Pharmacy, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland
                [3 ]Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
                [4 ]Department of Art as Applied to Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
                [5 ]Division of General Internal Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: December 28, 2020.
                Published: February 25, 2021. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.37632
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2021 Feliciano JL et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: Sydney M. Dy, MD, MS, Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 600 N Wolfe St, Baltimore, MD 21287 ( dy1@ 123456jhmi.edu ).
                Author Contributions: Drs Feliciano and Waldfogel had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Drs Feliciano and Waldfogel contributed equally to this work.
                Concept and design: Feliciano, Sharma, Zhang, Gupta, Bass, Dy.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Feliciano, Waldfogel, Sharma, Zhang, Gupta, Day, Dy.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Feliciano, Waldfogel, Gupta, Sedhom, Bass.
                Statistical analysis: Zhang, Gupta, Sedhom, Day.
                Obtained funding: Bass, Dy.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Feliciano, Sharma, Zhang, Gupta.
                Supervision: Sharma, Bass, Dy.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Feliciano reported receiving grants from Bristol Myers Squibb and AstraZeneca; serving on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Genentech, and Eli Lilly; serving as a consultant for Merck; and participating in research collaboration for Genentech and Merck outside the submitted work. Dr Waldfogel reported receiving grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute during the conduct of the study and personal fees from TRC Healthcare outside the submitted work. Mr Zhang reported receiving grants from the AHRQ during the conduct of the study. Dr Bass reported receiving grants from the AHRQ during the conduct of the study. Dr Dy reported receiving grants from the AHRQ during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.
                Funding/Support: This project was conducted under contract HHSA290201500006I Task Order 75Q80119F32014 from the AHRQ, US Department of Health and Human Services, and funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr Gupta is supported by an American Society of Clinical Oncology Young Investigator Award.
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funding sources had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Disclaimer: The authors of this manuscript are responsible for its content. Statements in the manuscript do not necessarily represent the official views of or imply endorsement by the AHRQ or US Department of Health and Human Services.
                Additional Contributions: Suchitra Iyer, PhD, AHRQ task order officer, Ellen K. Kimmel, MLIS, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and Kari Bohlke, ScD, American Society of Clinical Oncology, provided feedback and insights on this review. The following technical experts provided input on the plans for the systematic review: Stephanie Abel, PharmD, BCPS, University of Kentucky, Margaret Campbell, PhD, RN, Wayne State University, College of Nursing, Pamela K. Ginex, EdD, MPH, BSN, OCN, Oncology Nursing Society, David Hui, MD, MSc, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Richard A. Mularski, MD, MSHS, MCR, ATSF, Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Eric Roeland, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Cardinale B. Smith, MD, PhD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. The technical expert panel members were offered a small honorarium in appreciation of their time.
                Article
                zoi201129
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.37632
                7907959
                33630086
                9dddb845-ed48-4202-977a-55e72fa9b366
                Copyright 2021 Feliciano JL et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 10 August 2020
                : 28 December 2020
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Oncology

                Comments

                Comment on this article