Opioid therapy for refractory dyspnea in patients with advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: patients' experiences and outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dyspnea that is refractory to conventional treatments affects up to 50% of patients with advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Although professional societies recommend opioids in this setting, evidence supporting their use over months is limited. We conducted a multicentre mixed-methods study to understand patients' experiences when opioids are added to optimized conventional treatments for advanced COPD. METHODS: A total of 44 patients (median age 74, range 51-89 years) agreed to participate in this 6-month study. After baseline assessments, immediate-release morphine sulfate syrup (initially 0.5 mg twice daily) was slowly titrated upward based on weekly assessments of symptoms. We conducted semistructured interviews and collected contemporaneous measures of health-related quality of life, severity of dyspnea, anxiety, depression, global ratings of opioid "helpfulness" and adverse effects before, at 2 months and at 4-6 months after opioids were started. RESULTS: Of the 44 patients, 32 (73%) completed the trial; 27 (90%) of 30 patients reported the opioid treatment as very (43%) or somewhat (47%) helpful. Three main themes emerged from the patients' overall positive experiences: small gains have big impact; realign hopes with reality; and "try it." Significant improvements were observed in median (interquartile range) scores between baseline and 4-6 months' assessment for health-related quality of life (Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire: 3.5 [2.8-4.0] v. 4.2 [3.6-4.8]; and Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire-Dyspnea domain: 2.8 [2.3-3.6] v. 3.9 [2.8-4.5]) and decreases in severity of dyspnea (numerical rating scale: 7.0 [5.0-8.0] v. 5.0 [4.0-6.0]). Adverse effects were minimal for most patients. INTERPRETATION: Opioids were a helpful and acceptable intervention for refractory dyspnea in patients with advanced COPD. Many of the patients experienced sustained benefits over months, which supports recent recommendations to consider opioids in this setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.gov, no. NCT00982891.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".