Palliative care for patients with advanced fibrotic lung disease: a randomised controlled phase II and feasibility trial of a community case conference intervention.

BACKGROUND: Those affected by advanced fibrotic interstitial lung diseases (ILDs) have considerable unmet symptom and psychological needs. Case conferencing has been proposed to address these issues, but requires evaluation. AIM: To obtain preliminary information on the impact of a case conference intervention delivered in the home (Hospital2Home) on palliative care concerns of patients and their carers, and to evaluate feasibility and acceptability. METHODS: Hospital2Home was trialled at a specialist centre using a Phase II fast-track randomised controlled trial with qualitative interviews. The primary outcome for effect was mean change from baseline of Palliative Care Outcome Scale (POS) (a measure of symptoms and concerns) at 4 weeks. Secondary outcomes included symptom control, quality of life, consent and recruitment rates and percentage of patients in the fast-track group receiving case conferences within 14 days. RESULTS: 53 patients were recruited (26 fast-track, 27 controls). Mean (SD) POS scores at 4 weeks were -5.7 (7.5) fast-track vs -0.4 (8.0) control, (mean change difference between the two arms was -5.3 (95% CI -9.8 to -0.7) independent t test p=0.02); effect size (95% CI) -0.7 (-1.2 to -0.1). The secondary outcomes of quality of life, anxiety and depression were superior in the fast-track arm, and none were worse. Qualitative findings corroborate these data. Recruitment was successful and 53/67 (79%) of eligible patients consented. 6/25 (24%) had case conferences within 14 days. CONCLUSIONS: Community case conferences improve palliative symptoms and quality of life after 4 weeks. Hospital2Home for the most part is both feasible and acceptable. It now requires further testing in multicentre trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01450644.

Morphine or oxycodone for cancer-related pain? A randomized, open-label, controlled trial.

CONTEXT: There is wide interindividual variation in response to morphine for cancer-related pain; 30% of patients do not have a good therapeutic outcome. Alternative opioids such as oxycodone are increasingly being used, and opioid switching has become common clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: To compare clinical response to oral morphine vs. oral oxycodone when used as first-line or second-line (after switching) treatment in patients with cancer-related pain. METHODS: In this prospective, open-label, randomized, controlled trial (ISRCTN65155201) with a selected crossover phase, patients with cancer-related pain were randomized to receive either oral morphine or oxycodone as first-line treatment. Dose was individually titrated until the patient reported adequate pain control. Patients who did not respond to the first-line opioid (either because of inadequate analgesia or unacceptable adverse effects) were switched to the alternative opioid. RESULTS: Two hundred patients were recruited. On intention-to-treat analysis (n = 198, morphine 98, oxycodone 100), there was no significant difference between the numbers of patients responding to morphine (61/98 = 62%) or oxycodone (67/100 = 67%) when used as a first-line opioid. Similarly, there was no significant difference in subsequent response when patients were switched to either morphine (8/12 = 67%) or oxycodone (11/21 = 52%). Per-protocol analysis demonstrated a 95% response rate when both opioids were available. There was no difference in adverse reaction scores between morphine and oxycodone either in first-line responders or nonresponders. CONCLUSION: In this population, there was no difference between analgesic response or adverse reactions to oral morphine and oxycodone when used as a first- or second-line opioid. These data provide evidence to support opioid switching to improve outcomes.