A pilot phase II randomized, cross-over, double-blinded, controlled efficacy study of octreotide versus hyoscine hydrobromide for control of noisy breathing at the end-of-life. Non-pharmacological intervention for breathlessness in lung cancer. A multi-centre, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of liposomal prostaglandin E1 (TLC C-53) in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome.
Noisy breathing at the end of life (noisy breathing ("NB") occurs in up to 90% of people. Interventions have not been systematically evaluated. There has been clinical observation coupled with a proposed mechanism of effect that supports a role for octreotide in management of NB. The aim of this phase II study was to assess ten completed participants for the feasibility of an adequately powered phase III study. This randomized, double-blind, crossover pilot trial recruited participants from an inpatient palliative unit. Participants while well and their proxies simultaneously provided written informed consent. If NB were encountered, people were randomized to 200 mcg octreotide or 400 mcg hyoscine hydrobromide subcutaneously. If subsequent treatment was needed, the other medication was administered. A five point categorical scale documented the nurses' assessment of secretions over six hours. Eighty participants were consented of whom 10 (3 females, 7 males; median age 79, all with advanced cancer) received medication, five in each arm. There was no difference in the median time to administration of the second medication (3 hours). Two participants in each arm had a 2 category reduction of intensity after the second medication. Although feasible to consent and study this population in a way that respects autonomy and dignity even in the terminal hours of life, this pilot study suggests reconsideration of the pharmacological interventions (choice of agents, dosing, timing of dosing and pharmacokinetic profiles), standardizing of non-pharmacological care; and ways to measure directly family distress before further randomized studies for this symptom. To evaluate the effect of non-pharmacological intervention for breathlessness in lung cancer on breathlessness ratings and patient functioning.
                Randomised controlled pilot study.
                A nurse led clinic in a specialist cancer centre.
                20 patients with advanced small cell and non-small cell lung cancer.
                Weekly sessions with a nurse research practitioner over 3-6 weeks using counselling, breathing re-training, relaxation and teaching coping and adaptation strategies.
                Visual analogue scale ratings of breathlessness, distress caused by breathlessness, functional capacity, ability to perform activities of daily living and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale.
                Improvements in median scores on all measures were observed in the intervention group with the exception of depression, compared with the control group where median scores were static or worsened. Distress from breathlessness was improved by a median of 53%, breathlessness at worst by 35% and functional capacity by 21%. In contrast, distress in the control group worsened by a median of 10%. Significant improvements compared with the control group were observed in breathlessness at best (p < 0.02), breathlessness at worst (p < 0.05), distress caused by breathlessness (p < 0.01), functional capacity (p < 0.02) and ability to perform activities of daily living (p < 0.03) but were not observed for anxiety or depression.
                Lung cancer patients suffering from breathlessness benefited from this rehabilitative approach to breathlessness management and strategies employed in this pilot study warrant further multicentre research. Macmillan nurses and palliative care teams are recommended to explore the potential of adopting similar approaches. To evaluate the safety of liposomal PGE1 (TLC C-53) in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and determine its efficacy in improving oxygenation and reducing ventilator dependency.
                A multi-centre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical study.
                Thirty-one hospitals in six European countries.
                One hundred two patients with ARDS.
                Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive infusions of either the study drug TLC C-53 or placebo. Infusions were given over 60 min every 6 h for 7 days. The dose of study drug started at 0.6 microg/kg per h, rising over 24 h to a maximum dose of 1.8 microg/kg per h.
                Seventy patients received the study drug and 32 placebo. Sixty-nine patients (47 treatment, 22 placebo) completed the study protocol. Patients were monitored for changes in the PaO2/FIO2 ratio, changes in lung compliance, time to off-ventilator and 28-day mortality, in addition to basic haematological and haemodynamic parameters. There were no significant differences in demographics and baseline characteristics between the two groups. There were no differences in the time to off-ventilation (16 days with treatment, 16.6 days with placebo, p=0.94) or in 28-day mortality (30% with treatment, 28% with placebo, p=0.78). There was a difference in the time to achieve a PaO2/FIO2 ratio above 300 in favour of TLC C-53 (10.3 versus 26.5 days) but this was not statistically significant (p=0.23).
                TLC C-53 was generally well-tolerated but failed to reduce mortality or duration of mechanical ventilation.
In our original Cochrane review, we concluded that there was no evidence to show that any intervention, be it pharmacological or non-pharmacological, was superior to placebo in the treatment of noisy breathing. This conclusion has not changed. We acknowledge that in the face of heightened emotions when death is imminent, it is difficult for staff not to intervene. It is therefore likely that the current therapeutic options will continue to be used. However, patients need to be closely monitored for lack of therapeutic benefit and adverse effects while relatives need time, explanation and reassurance to relieve their fears and concerns. There remains a need for well-designed multi-centre studies with objective outcome measures which demonstrates the efficacy of intervention against placebo for this condition.