David Hui1, Kelly Kilgore2, Minjeong Park3, Janet Williams2, Diane Liu3, Eduardo Bruera2. 1. Department of Palliative Care and Rehabilitation Medicine, M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA. Electronic address: dhui@mdanderson.org. 2. Department of Palliative Care and Rehabilitation Medicine, M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA. 3. Department of Biostatistics, M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Episodic breathlessness is common and debilitating in cancer patients. OBJECTIVES: In this pilot study, we examined the effect of prophylactic fentanyl pectin nasal spray (FPNS) on exercise-induced dyspnea, physiologic function, and adverse events. METHODS: In this parallel, double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial, opioid-tolerant patients performed three six-minute walk tests (6MWTs) to induce dyspnea. They were randomized to receive either FPNS (15%-25% of total daily opioid dose each time) or placebo 20 minutes before the second and third 6MWTs. We compared dyspnea Numeric Rating Scale (NRS, 0-10, primary outcome), walk distance, vital signs, neurocognitive function, and adverse events between the first and second 6MWTs (T2-T1) and between the first and third 6MWTs (T3-T1). RESULTS:Twenty-four patients enrolled, with 96% completion. FPNS was associated with significant within-arm reduction in dyspnea NRS at rest (T2-T1: -0.9 [95% CI -1.7, -0.1]; T3-T1: -1.3 [95% CI -2.0, -0.5]) and at the end of a 6MWT (T2-T1: -2.0 [95% CI -3.5, -0.6]; T3-T1: -2.3 [95% CI -4.0, -0.7]), and longer walk distance (T2-T1 +23.8 m [95% CI +1.3, +46.2 m]; T3-T1: +23.3 m [95% CI -1.7, +48.2]). In the placebo arm, we observed no significant change in walk distance nor dyspnea NRS at rest, but significant reduction in dyspnea NRS at six minutes (T2-T1: -1.7 [95% CI -3.3, -0.1]; T3-T1: -2.5 [95% CI -4.2, -0.9]). Vital signs, neurocognitive function, and adverse effects did not differ significantly. CONCLUSION:FPNS was safe, reduced dyspnea at rest, and increased walk distance in before-after comparison. The placebo effect was substantial, which needs to be factored in future study designs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.govNCT01832402.
RCT Entities:
CONTEXT: Episodic breathlessness is common and debilitating in cancerpatients. OBJECTIVES: In this pilot study, we examined the effect of prophylactic fentanyl pectin nasal spray (FPNS) on exercise-induced dyspnea, physiologic function, and adverse events. METHODS: In this parallel, double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial, opioid-tolerant patients performed three six-minute walk tests (6MWTs) to induce dyspnea. They were randomized to receive either FPNS (15%-25% of total daily opioid dose each time) or placebo 20 minutes before the second and third 6MWTs. We compared dyspnea Numeric Rating Scale (NRS, 0-10, primary outcome), walk distance, vital signs, neurocognitive function, and adverse events between the first and second 6MWTs (T2-T1) and between the first and third 6MWTs (T3-T1). RESULTS: Twenty-four patients enrolled, with 96% completion. FPNS was associated with significant within-arm reduction in dyspnea NRS at rest (T2-T1: -0.9 [95% CI -1.7, -0.1]; T3-T1: -1.3 [95% CI -2.0, -0.5]) and at the end of a 6MWT (T2-T1: -2.0 [95% CI -3.5, -0.6]; T3-T1: -2.3 [95% CI -4.0, -0.7]), and longer walk distance (T2-T1 +23.8 m [95% CI +1.3, +46.2 m]; T3-T1: +23.3 m [95% CI -1.7, +48.2]). In the placebo arm, we observed no significant change in walk distance nor dyspnea NRS at rest, but significant reduction in dyspnea NRS at six minutes (T2-T1: -1.7 [95% CI -3.3, -0.1]; T3-T1: -2.5 [95% CI -4.2, -0.9]). Vital signs, neurocognitive function, and adverse effects did not differ significantly. CONCLUSION: FPNS was safe, reduced dyspnea at rest, and increased walk distance in before-after comparison. The placebo effect was substantial, which needs to be factored in future study designs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.govNCT01832402.
Authors: P H Coluzzi; L Schwartzberg; J D Conroy; S Charapata; M Gay; M A Busch; J Chavez; J Ashley; D Lebo; M McCracken; R K Portenoy Journal: Pain Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: Marie Fallon; Carlo Reale; Andrew Davies; A Eberhard Lux; Kirushna Kumar; Andrzej Stachowiak; Rafael Galvez Journal: J Support Oncol Date: 2011 Nov-Dec
Authors: David Hui; Omar Shamieh; Carlos Eduardo Paiva; Pedro Emilio Perez-Cruz; Jung Hye Kwon; Mary Ann Muckaden; Minjeong Park; Sriram Yennu; Jung Hun Kang; Eduardo Bruera Journal: Cancer Date: 2015-06-08 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Miguel Angel Benítez-Rosario; Inmaculada Rosa-González; Enrique González-Dávila; Emilio Sanz Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-06-18 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Kathleen M Akgün; Supriya Krishnan; Shelli L Feder; Janet Tate; Jean S Kutner; Kristina Crothers Journal: Am J Hosp Palliat Care Date: 2019-09-24 Impact factor: 2.500
Authors: Daisy J A Janssen; Marieke H J van den Beuken-van Everdingen; Cornelia A Verberkt; Jacques P H M Creemers; Emiel F M Wouters Journal: Breathe (Sheff) Date: 2019-09
Authors: Josephine L Feliciano; Julie M Waldfogel; Ritu Sharma; Allen Zhang; Arjun Gupta; Ramy Sedhom; Jeff Day; Eric B Bass; Sydney M Dy Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-02-01