Openness Personality Trait Associated With Benefit From a Nonpharmacological Breathlessness Intervention in People With Intrathoracic Cancer: An Exploratory Analysis.

CONTEXT: Breathlessness is common in people with lung cancer. Nonpharmacological breathlessness interventions reduce distress because of and increase mastery over breathlessness. OBJECTIVES: Identify patient characteristics associated with response to breathlessness interventions. METHODS: Exploratory secondary trial data analysis. Response defined as a one-point improvement in 0-10 Numerical Rating Scale of worst breathlessness/last 24 hours (response-worst) or a 0.5-point improvement in the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ) mastery (response-mastery) at four weeks. Univariable regression explored relationships with plausible demographic, clinical, and psychological variables followed by multivariable regression for associated (P < 0.05) variables. RESULTS: About 158 participants with intrathoracic cancer (mean age 69.4 [SD 9.35] years; 40% women) were randomized to one or three breathlessness training sessions. About 91 participants had evaluable data for response-worst and 107 for response-mastery. In the univariable analyses, the personality trait openness was associated with response-worst (odds ratio [OR] 1.99 [95% CI 1.08-3.67]; P = 0.028) and response-mastery (OR 1.84 [95% CI 1.04-3.23]; P = 0.035). Higher CRQ-fatigue (OR 0.61 [95% CI 0.41-0.91]; P = 0.015), CRQ-emotion (OR 0.68 [95% CI 0.47-0.96]; P = 0.030), and worse CRQ-mastery (OR 0.61 [95% CI 0.42-0.88]; P = 0.008), and the presence of metastases and fatigue were associated with reduced odds of response-mastery. In the adjusted response-mastery model, only openness remained (OR 1.73 [95% CI 0.95-3.15]; P = 0.072). CONCLUSION: Worse baseline health, worse breathlessness mastery, but not severity, and openness were associated with a better odds of response. Breathlessness services must be easy to access, and patients should be encouraged and supported to attend.

Does home oxygen therapy (HOT) in addition to standard care reduce disease severity and improve symptoms in people with chronic heart failure? A randomised trial of home oxygen therapy for patients with chronic heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Home oxygen therapy (HOT) is commonly used for patients with severe chronic heart failure (CHF) who have intractable breathlessness. There is no trial evidence to support its use. OBJECTIVES: To detect whether or not there was a quality-of-life benefit from HOT given as long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT) for at least 15 hours per day in the home, including overnight hours, compared with best medical therapy (BMT) in patients with severely symptomatic CHF. DESIGN: A pragmatic, two-arm, randomised controlled trial recruiting patients with severe CHF. It included a linked qualitative substudy to assess the views of patients using home oxygen, and a free-standing substudy to assess the haemodynamic effects of acute oxygen administration. SETTING: Heart failure outpatient clinics in hospital or the community, in a range of urban and rural settings. PARTICIPANTS: Patients had to have heart failure from any aetiology, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III/IV symptoms, at least moderate left ventricular systolic dysfunction, and be receiving maximally tolerated medical management. Patients were excluded if they had had a cardiac resynchronisation therapy device implanted within the past 3 months, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease fulfilling the criteria for LTOT or malignant disease that would impair survival or were using a device or medication that would impede their ability to use LTOT. INTERVENTIONS: Patients received BMT and were randomised (unblinded) to open-label LTOT, prescribed for 15 hours per day including overnight hours, or no oxygen therapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end point was quality of life as measured by the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure (MLwHF) questionnaire score at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included assessing the effect of LTOT on patient symptoms and disease severity, and assessing its acceptability to patients and carers. RESULTS: Between April 2012 and February 2014, 114 patients were randomised to receive either LTOT or BMT. The mean age was 72.3 years [standard deviation (SD) 11.3 years] and 70% were male. Ischaemic heart disease was the cause of heart failure in 84%; 95% were in NYHA class III; the mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 27.8%; and the median N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic hormone was 2203 ng/l. The primary analysis used a covariance pattern mixed model which included patients only if they provided data for all baseline covariates adjusted for in the model and outcome data for at least one post-randomisation time point (n = 102: intervention, n = 51; control, n = 51). There was no difference in the MLwHF questionnaire score at 6 months between the two arms [at baseline the mean score was 54.0 (SD 18.4) for LTOT and 54.0 (SD 17.9) for BMT; at 6 months the mean score was 48.1 (SD 18.5) for LTOT and 49.0 (SD 20.2) for BMT; adjusted mean difference -0.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) -6.88 to 6.69; p = 0.98]. At 3 months, the adjusted mean MLwHF questionnaire score was lower in the LTOT group (-5.47, 95% CI -10.54 to -0.41; p = 0.03) and breathlessness scores improved, although the effect did not persist to 6 months. There was no effect of LTOT on any secondary measure. There was a greater number of deaths in the BMT arm (n = 12 vs. n = 6). Adherence was poor, with only 11% of patients reporting using the oxygen as prescribed. CONCLUSIONS: Although the study was significantly underpowered, HOT prescribed for 15 hours per day and subsequently used for a mean of 5.4 hours per day has no impact on quality of life as measured by the MLwHF questionnaire score at 6 months. Suggestions for future research include (1) a trial of patients with severe heart failure randomised to have emergency oxygen supply in the house, supplied by cylinders rather than an oxygen concentrator, powered to detect a reduction in admissions to hospital, and (2) a study of bed-bound patients with heart failure who are in the last few weeks of life, powered to detect changes in symptom severity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN60260702. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 75. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

A randomised controlled trial of three or one breathing technique training sessions for breathlessness in people with malignant lung disease.

BACKGROUND: About 90 % of patients with intra-thoracic malignancy experience breathlessness. Breathing training is helpful, but it is unknown whether repeated sessions are needed. The present study aims to test whether three sessions are better than one for breathlessness in this population. METHODS: This is a multi-centre randomised controlled non-blinded parallel arm trial. Participants were allocated to three sessions or single (1:2 ratio) using central computer-generated block randomisation by an independent Trials Unit and stratified for centre. The setting was respiratory, oncology or palliative care clinics at eight UK centres. Inclusion criteria were people with intrathoracic cancer and refractory breathlessness, expected prognosis ≥3 months, and no prior experience of breathing training. The trial intervention was a complex breathlessness intervention (breathing training, anxiety management, relaxation, pacing, and prioritisation) delivered over three hour-long sessions at weekly intervals, or during a single hour-long session. The main primary outcome was worst breathlessness over the previous 24 hours ('worst'), by numerical rating scale (0 = none; 10 = worst imaginable). Our primary analysis was area under the curve (AUC) 'worst' from baseline to 4 weeks. All analyses were by intention to treat. RESULTS: Between April 2011 and October 2013, 156 consenting participants were randomised (52 three; 104 single). Overall, the 'worst' score reduced from 6.81 (SD, 1.89) to 5.84 (2.39). Primary analysis [n = 124 (79 %)], showed no between-arm difference in the AUC: three sessions 22.86 (7.12) vs single session 22.58 (7.10); P value = 0.83); mean difference 0.2, 95 % CIs (-2.31 to 2.97). Complete case analysis showed a non-significant reduction in QALYs with three sessions (mean difference -0.006, 95 % CIs -0.018 to 0.006). Sensitivity analyses found similar results. The probability of the single session being cost-effective (threshold value of £20,000 per QALY) was over 80 %. CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence that three sessions conferred additional benefits, including cost-effectiveness, over one. A single session of breathing training seems appropriate and minimises patient burden. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registry: ISRCTN; TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN49387307; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN49387307 ; registration date: 25/01/2011.