Search

Objective: To describe the harms in all arms of six consecutive multi-site, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised clinical trials. Background: Controversies surround conduct of phase III clinical trials in palliative care. Concerns include risks to participants' safety, use of placebo arms, participants' burden, and justification when therapies are already widely used. Methods: This study collates safety data of the first six studies of the Australian national Palliative Care Clinical Studies Collaborative. On an intention-to-treat basis, all harms are described using standard international definitions, their severity, outcomes, and level of attribution. Results: Studies recruited 1,232 participants: 65/1,232 (5.3%) participants had serious adverse events of which none had a definite (blinded) attribution, all of which settled with ceasing the intervention; 49/1,232 (4.0%) participants had adverse events. No participants on placebo arms had adverse or serious adverse events with definite (blinded) attribution. Discussion: These studies are safe for participants and generate knowledge to support informed patient decision making.

TPS12146 Background: Management of neuropathic cancer pain (NCP) refractory to regular opioids remains an important challenge. The efficacy of pregabalin for NCP except chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy has already been confirmed in two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) compared with placebo. Duloxetine offers the potential of analgesia in opioid refractory NCP. However, there are no RCT of duloxetine for the management of opioid-refractory NCP as a first line treatment. Both classes of drugs have the potential to reduce NCP, but there has been no head-to-head comparison for the efficacy and safety, especially given differing side effect profiles. Methods: An international, multicentre, double-blind, dose increment, parallel-arm, RCT. Eligibility criteria include: adult cancer patients experiencing NCP refractory to opioids; Brief Pain Inventory (BPI)-item 3 (worst pain) ≥4; Neuropathic Pain on the Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs Pain Scale ≥12 despite of an adequate trial of regular opioid medication (≥60mg/day oral morphine equivalent dose). The study will recruit inpatients and outpatients in Japan and Australia. Participants will be randomised (1:1 allocation ratio) to duloxetine or pregabalin. Dose escalation is to day 14 and from day 14 to 21 is a dose de-escalation period to avoid withdrawal effects. Dose escalation schedule in each-arm is shown in Table 1. The primary endpoint is the mean difference in BPI item 3 over the previous 24 hours on day 14 between groups. Null hypothesis is there is no difference in BPI item 3 in the previous 24 hours on day 14 between both groups for patients with opioid refractory NCP. Comparison of the BPI item 3 on day 14 between duloxetine groups and pregabalin groups will be conducted using a two-sided Student’s t-test at a significance level of 5% according to the intention-to-treat principle. Point estimates and 95% CIs for the difference between two groups will be ca

Background: The intermediate- and long-term effects of regular low-dose sustained-release (SR) morphine on the testosterone levels of people with persistent breathlessness are unknown. Methods: Exploratory analysis of a randomized controlled trial of the effects of regular SR morphine (0/8/16/24 mg every 24 hours) for persistent breathlessness associated with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Total testosterone was measured at baseline and at cessation (greater than or equal to three months on stable medication). Results: Among 20 participants (9 males; median treatment duration between measurements 169 days [IQR 162-175]), only 3 had substantial declines in testosterone levels during the study (morphine 8, 16, 24 mg groups). All three had worsening illness at the time of the second assessment. There was no apparent relationship between change in testosterone, morphine dose, and change in breathlessness. Conclusions: Substantial declines in testosterone were uncommon and were not apparently related to changes in morphine dose or breathlessness, but they were possibly related with worsening illness.

Anorexia is experienced by most people with lung cancer during the course of their disease and treatment. Anorexia reduces response to chemotherapy and the ability of patients to cope with, and complete their treatment leading to greater morbidity, poorer prognosis and outcomes. Despite the significant importance of cancer-related anorexia, current therapies are limited, have marginal benefits and unwarranted side effects. In this multi-site, randomised, double blind, placebo controlled, phase II trial, participants will be randomly assigned (1:1) to receive once-daily oral dosing of 100mg of anamorelin HCl or matched placebo for 12 weeks. Participants can then opt into an extension phase to receive blinded intervention for another 12 weeks (weeks 13-24) at the same dose and frequency. Adults (≥18 years) with small cell lung cancer (SCLC); newly diagnosed with planned systemic therapy OR with first recurrence of disease following a documented disease-free interval ≥6 months, AND with anorexia (i.e., ≤ 37 points on the 12-item Functional Assessment of Anorexia Cachexia Treatment (FAACT A/CS) scale) will be invited to participate. Primary outcomes are safety, desirability and feasibility outcomes related to participant recruitment, adherence to interventions, and completion of study tools to inform the design of a robust Phase III effectiveness trial. Secondary outcomes are the effects of study interventions on body weight and composition, functional status, nutritional intake, biochemistry, fatigue, harms, survival and quality of life. Primary and secondary efficacy analysis will be conducted at 12 weeks. Additional exploratory efficacy and safety analyses will also be conducted at 24 weeks to collect data over longer treatment duration. The feasibility of economic evaluations in Phase III trial will be assessed, including the indicative costs and benefits of anamorelin for SCLC to the healthcare system and society, the choice of methods for data collection and the f

INTRODUCTION: Many patients experience unrelieved neuropathic cancer-related pain. Most current analgesic therapies have psychoactive side effects, lack efficacy data for this indication and have potential medication-related harms. The local anaesthetic lidocaine (lignocaine) has the potential to help manage neuropathic cancer-related pain when administered as an extended, continuous subcutaneous infusion. Data support lidocaine as a promising, safe agent in this setting, warranting further evaluation in robust, randomised controlled trials. This protocol describes the design of a pilot study to evaluate this intervention and explains the pharmacokinetic, efficacy and adverse effects evidence informing the design. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A mixed-methods pilot study will determine the feasibility of an international first, definitive phase III trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of an extended continuous subcutaneous infusion of lidocaine for neuropathic cancer-related pain. This study will comprise: a phase II double-blind randomised controlled parallel-group pilot of subcutaneous infusion of lidocaine hydrochloride 10% w/v (3000 mg/30 mL) or placebo (sodium chloride 0.9%) over 72 hours for neuropathic cancer-related pain, a pharmacokinetic substudy and a qualitative substudy of patients' and carers' experiences. The pilot study will provide important safety data and help inform the methodology of a definitive trial, including testing proposed recruitment strategy, randomisation, outcome measures and patients' acceptability of the methodology, as well as providing a signal of whether this area should be further investigated. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Participant safety is paramount and standardised assessments for adverse effects are built into the trial protocol. Findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences. This study will be considered suitable to progress to a phase III study if there is a completion rate where the CI in

INTRODUCTION: Management of neuropathic cancer pain (NCP) refractory to regular opioids remains an important challenge. The efficacy of pregabalin for NCP except chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) has already been confirmed in two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) compared with placebo. Duloxetine offers the potential of analgesia in opioid refractory NCP. However, there are no RCT of duloxetine for the management of opioid-refractory NCP as a first line treatment. Both classes of drugs have the potential to reduce NCP, but there has been no head-to-head comparison for the efficacy and safety, especially given differing side effect profiles. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: An international, multicentre, double-blind, dose increment, parallel-arm, RCT is planned. Inclusion criteria include: adults with cancer experiencing NCP refractory to opioids; Brief Pain Inventory (BPI)-item 3 (worst pain) of ≥4; Neuropathic Pain on the Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs Pain Scale of ≥12 despite of an adequate trial of regular opioid medication (≥60 mg/day oral morphine equivalent dose). Patients with CIPN are excluded.The study will recruit from palliative care teams (both inpatients and outpatients) in Japan and Australia. Participants will be randomised (1:1 allocation ratio) to duloxetine or pregabalin arm. Dose escalation is until day 14 and from day 14 to 21 is a dose de-escalation period to avoid withdrawal effects. The primary endpoint is defined as the mean difference in BPI item 3 for worst pain intensity over the previous 24 hours at day 14 between groups. A sample size of 160 patients will be enrolled between February 2020 and March 2023. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was obtained at Osaka City University Hospital Certified Review Board and South Western Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee. The results of this study will be submitted for publication in international journals and the key findings presented a

BACKGROUND: Standard of care in treatment of cancer-related pain involves opioids in combination with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID). Ketorolac, a NSAID, has demonstrated opioid-sparing effects in other clinical settings. AIM: This systematic literature review investigated ketorolac's opioid-sparing effects in patients receiving opioids for chronic, cancer-related pain. DESIGN: The primary outcome was total daily dose of opioids. Secondary outcomes included frequency of opioid use, use and frequency of 'rescue' medication and adverse events. Outcomes were described, and meta-analysed where possible. PROSPERO registration CRD42019130894. DATA SOURCES: Articles included original research, from any study phase or methodology, published in English in a peer-reviewed journal or conference between 1990 and 2020; included subjects >18 years; had chronic cancer-related pain and described the use of opioid-sparing effect of ketorolac. RESULTS: Nine articles were included. While there was significant heterogeneity, ketorolac may have an opioid-sparing effect, with significant reductions in total daily dose of morphine observed in a single randomised controlled trial (SMD -4.30 mg, 95% CI -5.36 to -3.25), but the changes in the before and after studies were not statistically significant -0.46 mg (95% CI -1.14 to 0.22). Ketorolac was associated with greater likelihood of complete pain relief, but the data were heterogeneous. Insufficient data were available to analyse frequency of opioid use, or rescue medication requirements. CONCLUSIONS: Given the heterogeneity of the data, adequately powered, randomised controlled trials are required to establish any opioid-sparing effect of ketorolac. For patients not responding to conventional pain management, ketorolac may have a role in treatment augmentation.

This multi-site, double blind, parallel arm, fixed dose, randomised placebo controlled phase III study compared megestrol acetate 480 mg/day with dexamethasone 4 mg/day for their net effects on appetite in people with cancer anorexia. Patients with advanced cancer and anorexia for ≥ 2 weeks with a score ≤ 4 (0-10 numeric rating scale (NRS) 0 = no appetite, 10 = best possible appetite) were recruited. Participants received megestrol 480 mg or dexamethasone 4 mg or placebo daily for up to 4 weeks. Primary outcomes were at day 7. Responders were defined as having a ≥ 25% improvement in NRS over baseline. There were 190 people randomised (megestrol acetate n = 61; dexamethasone n = 67, placebo n = 62). At week 1 (primary endpoint), 79·3% in the megestrol group, 65·5% in the dexamethasone group and 58·5% in the placebo group (p = 0.067) were responders. No differences in performance status or quality of life were reported. Treatment emergent adverse events were frequent (90·4% of participants), and included altered mood and insomnia. Hyperglycemia and deep vein thromboses were more frequent when on dexamethasone than the other two arms. There was no difference in groups between the three arms, with no benefit seen over placebo with anorexia improving in all arms.Trail registration: The trial was registered on 19/08/2008 with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12608000405314).

Background: This analysis aims to evaluate health-related quality of life (HrQoL) (primary outcome for this analysis), nausea and vomiting, and pain in patients with inoperable malignant bowel obstruction (IMBO) due to cancer or its treatments randomised to standardised therapies plus octreotide or placebo over a maximum of 72 h in a double-blind clinical trial. Methods: Adults with IMBO and vomiting recruited through 12 services spanning inpatient, consultative and community settings in Australia were randomised to subcutaneous octreotide infusion or saline. HrQoL was measured at baseline and treatment cessation (EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL). Mean within-group paired differences between baseline and post-treatment scores were analysed using Wilcoxon Signed Rank test and between group differences estimated using linear mixed models, adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, time, and study arm. Results: One hundred six of the 112 randomised participants were included in the analysis (n = 52 octreotide, n = 54 placebo); 6 participants were excluded due to major protocol violations. Mean baseline HrQoL scores were low (octreotide 22.1, 95% CI 14.3, 29.9; placebo 31.5, 95% CI 22.3, 40.7). There was no statistically significant within-group improvement in the mean HrQoL scores in the octreotide (p = 0.21) or placebo groups (p = 0.78), although both groups reported reductions in mean nausea and vomiting (octreotide p < 0.01; placebo p = 0.02) and pain scores (octreotide p < 0.01; placebo p = 0.03). Although no statistically significant difference in changes in HrQoL scores between octreotide and placebo were seen, an adequately powered study is required to fully assess any differences in HrQoL scores. Conclusion: The HrQoL of patients with IMBO and vomiting is poor. Further research to formally evaluate the effects of standard therapies for IMBO is therefore warranted.

Background: Delirium is a common debilitating complication of advanced cancer. Objective: To determine if a multicomponent nonpharmacological delirium prevention intervention was feasible for adult patients with advanced cancer, before a phase III (efficacy) trial. Design: Phase II (feasibility) cluster randomized controlled trial. All sites implemented delirium screening and diagnostic assessment. Strategies within sleep, vision and hearing, hydration, orientation, mobility, and family domains were delivered to enrolled patients at intervention site admission days 1-7. Control sites then implemented the intervention ("waitlist sites"). Setting: Four Australian palliative care units. Measurements: The primary outcome was adherence, with an a priori endpoint of at least 60% patients achieving full adherence. Secondary outcomes were interdisciplinary care delivery, delirium measures, and adverse events, analyzed descriptively and inferentially. Results: Sixty-five enrolled patients (25 control, 20 intervention, and 20 waitlist) had 98% delirium screens and 75% diagnostic assessments completed. Nurses (67%), physicians (16%), allied health (8.4%), family (7%), patients (1%), and volunteers (0.5%) delivered the intervention. There was full adherence for 5% patients at intervention sites, partial for 25%. Both full and partial adherence were higher at waitlist sites: 25% and 45%, respectively. One-third of control site patients (32%) became delirious within seven days of admission compared to one-fifth (20%) at both intervention and waitlist sites (p = 0.5). Mean (standard deviation) Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-1998 scores were 16.8 + 12.0 control sites versus 18.4 + 8.2 (p = 0.6) intervention and 18.7 + 7.8 (p = 0.5) waitlist sites. The intervention caused no adverse events. Conclusion: The intervention requires modification for optimal adherence in a phase III trial.

© 2019 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine Context: Chronic breathlessness is a clinical syndrome that results in significant distress and disability. Morphine can reduce chronic breathlessness when the contributing etiologies are optimally treated. Objectives: Does oxycodone reduce chronic breathlessness compared with placebo? Methods: A multisite, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-arm, fixed-dose trial of oral controlled-release oxycodone 15 mg (5 mg, eight hourly) or placebo (ACTRN12609000806268 at www.anzctr.org.au). As-needed immediate-release morphine (2.5 mg per dose; six and less doses/day) was available for both arms as required by one ethics committee overseeing the trial. Recruitment occurred from 2010 to 2014 in 14 inpatient and outpatient respiratory, cardiology, and palliative care services across Australia. Participants were adults, with chronic breathlessness (modified Medical Research Council Scale 3 or 4), who were opioid naive. The primary end point was the proportion of people with greater than 15% reduction from baseline in the intensity of breathlessness now (0–100 mm visual analogue scale) comparing arms Days 5–7. Secondary end points were average and worst breathlessness, quality of life, function, and harms. Results: Of 157 participants randomized, 155 were included (74 oxycodone and 81 placebo), but the study did not reach target recruitment. There was difference in neither between groups for the primary outcome (P = 0.489) nor any of the prespecified secondary outcomes. Placebo participants used more as-needed morphine (mean 7.0 vs. 4.2 doses; P ≤ 0.001). Oxycodone participants reported more nausea (P < 0.001). Conclusion: There was no signal of benefit from oxycodone over placebo. Future research should focus on investigating the existence of an opioid class effect on the reduction of chronic breathlessness.

BACKGROUND:Pain in people with advanced cancer is prevalent. When a stable dose of opioids is established, people still experience episodic breakthrough pain for which dosing of an immediate release opioid is usually a proportion of the total daily dose. METHODS:This multi-site, double blind, randomized trial tested three dose proportions (1/6, 1/8, 1/12 of total daily dose) in two blocks, each block with three dose proportions in random order (6 numbered bottles in total). When participants required opioid breakthrough doses and it was their first breakthrough dose for that study day, they took the next numbered bottle rather than their usual breakthrough dose. (Subsequent doses on that day reverted to their usual dose.) RESULTS: Eighty-five people were randomized in this study of whom 81 took at least one dose and 73 (90%) took at least block one (one of each dose proportion). No dose was found to be optimal at 30 min with approximately one-third of participants showing maximal reduction with each dose proportion. Median time to pain relief was 120 min. There were no differences in harms: drowsiness, confusion, nausea or vomiting at 30, 60 or 120 min. CONCLUSIONS:This adequately powered study did not show any difference with three dose proportions for reduction in pain intensity, time to pain relief, pain control on the subsequent day nor any difference in harms. From first principles, this suggests 1/12 the 24 hourly dose should be used as the lowest dose that delivers benefit. Future studies should include a placebo arm. SIGNIFICANCE:Despite the widespread use of immediate release morphine solution for breakthrough cancer pain, the ideal dose derived from background dose has not been determined in an adequately powered randomized, double-blind, crossover, dose ranging study. This study tested three dose levels in people with advanced cancer. Given no differences in time to onset, level of analgesia achieved, nor side effects, the lowest dose tested (1/12th of th

BACKGROUND:This analysis aims to evaluate health-related quality of life (HrQoL) (primary outcome for this analysis), nausea and vomiting, and pain in patients with inoperable malignant bowel obstruction (IMBO) due to cancer or its treatments randomised to standardised therapies plus octreotide or placebo over a maximum of 72 h in a double-blind clinical trial. METHODS:Adults with IMBO and vomiting recruited through 12 services spanning inpatient, consultative and community settings in Australia were randomised to subcutaneous octreotide infusion or saline. HrQoL was measured at baseline and treatment cessation (EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL). Mean within-group paired differences between baseline and post-treatment scores were analysed using Wilcoxon Signed Rank test and between group differences estimated using linear mixed models, adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, time, and study arm. RESULTS:One hundred six of the 112 randomised participants were included in the analysis (n = 52 octreotide, n = 54 placebo); 6 participants were excluded due to major protocol violations. Mean baseline HrQoL scores were low (octreotide 22.1, 95% CI 14.3, 29.9; placebo 31.5, 95% CI 22.3, 40.7). There was no statistically significant within-group improvement in the mean HrQoL scores in the octreotide (p = 0.21) or placebo groups (p = 0.78), although both groups reported reductions in mean nausea and vomiting (octreotide p < 0.01; placebo p = 0.02) and pain scores (octreotide p < 0.01; placebo p = 0.03). Although no statistically significant difference in changes in HrQoL scores between octreotide and placebo were seen, an adequately powered study is required to fully assess any differences in HrQoL scores. CONCLUSION:The HrQoL of patients with IMBO and vomiting is poor. Further research to formally evaluate the effects of standard therapies for IMBO is therefore warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12608000211369 (date registered 18/04/2008).

Introduction Delirium is a significant medical complication for hospitalised patients. Up to one-third of delirium episodes are preventable in older inpatients through non-pharmacological strategies that support essential human needs, such as physical and cognitive activity, sleep, hydration, vision and hearing. We hypothesised that a multicomponent intervention similarly may decrease delirium incidence, and/or its duration and severity, in inpatients with advanced cancer. Prior to a phase III trial, we aimed to determine if a multicomponent non-pharmacological delirium prevention intervention is feasible and acceptable for this specific inpatient group. Methods and analysis The study is a phase II cluster randomised wait-listed controlled trial involving inpatients with advanced cancer at four Australian palliative care inpatient units. Intervention sites will introduce delirium screening, diagnostic assessment and a multicomponent delirium prevention intervention with six domains of care: preserving natural sleep; maintaining optimal vision and hearing; optimising hydration; promoting communication, orientation and cognition; optimising mobility; and promoting family partnership. Interdisciplinary teams will tailor intervention delivery to each site and to patient need. Control sites will first introduce only delirium screening and diagnosis, later implementing the intervention, modified according to initial results. The primary outcome is adherence to the intervention during the first seven days of admission, measured for 40 consecutively admitted eligible patients. Secondary outcomes relate to fidelity and feasibility, acceptability and sustainability of the study intervention, processes and measures in this patient population, using quantitative and qualitative measures. Delirium incidence and severity will be measured to inform power calculations for a future phase III trial. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval was obtained for all four sites. Trial resu

© The Author(s) 2018. Background: Treating chronic, uncontrolled, cancer pain with subcutaneous ketamine in patients unresponsive to opioids and co-analgesics remains controversial, especially in light of recent evidence demonstrating ketamine does not have net clinical benefit in this setting. Aim: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of subcutaneous ketamine versus placebo in this patient population. Design and setting: A within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis of the Australian Palliative Care Clinical Studies Collaborative’s randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of ketamine was conducted from a healthcare provider perspective. Mean costs and outcomes were estimated from participant-level data over 5 days including positive response, health-related quality of life (HrQOL) measured with the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–Palliative Care (FACIT-Pal), ketamine costs, medication usage and in-patient stays. Results: There was no statistically significant difference in responder rates, but higher toxicity and worse HrQOL for ketamine participants (mean change −3.10 (standard error (SE) 1.76), ketamine n = 93; 4.53 (SE 1.38), placebo n = 92). Estimated total mean costs were AU$706 higher per ketamine participant (AU$6608) compared with placebo (AU$5902), attributable to the cost of higher in-patient costs as well as costs of ketamine administration. The results were robust to sensitivity analyses accounting for different medication use costing methods and removal of cost outliers. Conclusion: The findings suggest subcutaneous ketamine in conjunction with opioids and standard adjuvant therapy is neither an effective nor cost-effective treatment for refractory pain in advanced cancer patients.

Copyright ©ERS 2019. Does sertraline provide symptomatic relief for chronic breathlessness in people with advanced disease whose underlying cause(s) are optimally treated?223 participants with chronic breathlessness (modified Medical Research Council breathlessness scale ≥2) who had optimal treatment of underlying cause(s) were randomised 1:1 to sertraline 25-100 mg (titrated upwards over 9 days) or placebo for 4 weeks. The primary outcome was the proportion who had an improvement in intensity of current breathlessness >15% from baseline on a 100-mm visual analogue scale.The proportion of people responding to sertraline was similar to placebo for current breathlessness on days 26-28 (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.71-1.40) and for other measures of breathlessness. Quality of life in the sertraline arm had a higher likelihood of improving than in the placebo arm over the 4 weeks (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.01-0.41; p=0.044). No differences in performance status, anxiety and depression, or survival were observed. Adverse event rates were similar between arms.Sertraline does not appear to provide any benefit over placebo in the symptomatic relief of chronic breathlessness in this patient population.