A systematic review of the use of opioids in the management of dyspnoea

A-L Jennings, A N Davies, J P T Higgins, J S R Gibbs, K E Broadley, A-L Jennings, A N Davies, J P T Higgins, J S R Gibbs, K E Broadley

Abstract

Background: Opioids are commonly used to treat dyspnoea in palliative medicine but there has been no formal evaluation of the evidence for their effectiveness in the treatment of dyspnoea. A systematic review was therefore carried out to examine this.

Methods: The criteria for inclusion required that studies were double blind, randomised, placebo controlled trials of opioids for the treatment of dyspnoea secondary to any cause. The methods used to identify suitable studies included electronic searching of the literature, hand searching of the literature, and personal contact with relevant individuals and organisations. Random effects meta-analyses were performed on all included studies and on various subgroups (studies involving nebulised opioids or patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)). Subgroups were compared using meta-regression. Some studies included in the systematic review could not be included in the meta-analysis because insufficient data were presented.

Results: Eighteen studies fulfilled the criteria for the review. The meta-analysis showed a statistically significant positive effect of opioids on the sensation of breathlessness (p=0.0008). Meta-regression indicated a greater effect for studies using oral or parenteral opioids than for studies using nebulised opioids (p=0.02). The subgroup analysis failed to show a positive effect of nebulised opioids on the sensation of breathlessness. The results of the subgroup analysis of the COPD studies were essentially similar to the results of the main analysis.

Conclusion: This review supports the continued use of oral and parenteral opioids to treat dyspnoea in patients with advanced disease. There are insufficient data from the meta-analysis to conclude whether nebulised opioids are effective, but the results from included studies that did not contribute to the meta-analysis suggest that they are no better than nebulised normal saline.

References

    1. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1983 Feb 26;286(6366):675-7
    1. N Engl J Med. 1982 Jun 3;306(22):1363-4
    1. Thorax. 1988 Jan;43(1):57-60
    1. Thorax. 1989 May;44(5):387-90
    1. Eur Respir J. 1991 Sep;4(8):926-31
    1. Chest. 1993 Jul;104(1):175-8
    1. Ann Intern Med. 1993 Nov 1;119(9):906-7
    1. Stat Med. 1995 Feb 28;14(4):395-411
    1. BMJ. 1999 Apr 3;318(7188):901-4
    1. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1987 Jul;136(1):58-61
    1. N Engl J Med. 1981 Dec 31;305(27):1611-6
    1. J Appl Physiol Respir Environ Exerc Physiol. 1979 Jul;47(1):112-8
    1. Thorax. 1995 Jun;50(6):629-34
    1. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1995 Dec;152(6 Pt 1):1940-5
    1. Palliat Med. 1995 Oct;9(4):295-305
    1. Chest. 1996 Apr;109(4):975-81
    1. Thorax. 1996 Jun;51(6):596-600
    1. Control Clin Trials. 1996 Feb;17(1):1-12
    1. J R Coll Physicians Lond. 1996 Jul-Aug;30(4):325-8
    1. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1997 Jan;29(1):147-52
    1. Eur Respir J. 1997 May;10(5):1079-83
    1. Eur Respir J. 1997 Oct;10(10):2270-4
    1. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1998 Jun;157(6 Pt 1):1877-80

Source: PubMed

3
S'abonner