Alleviating breathlessness in patients with cancer with dexamethasone (ABCD): A parallel-group, double-blind, randomized clinical trial (RCT).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
12112 Background: Systemic corticosteroids are commonly prescribed for palliation of dyspnea in patients with cancer; however, evidence to support their use is limited. A small RCT suggested that dexamethasone may be efficacious. In this confirmatory RCT, we compared the effect of high dose dexamethasone and placebo on dyspnea in patients with cancer. Methods: This NCI-funded, multi-site, double-blind, parallel group RCT enrolled ambulatory patients with cancer, age ≥18, dyspnea ≥4/10 and randomly assigned them to receive dexamethasone 8 mg orally every 12 hours for 7 days followed by 4 mg orally every 12 hours for 7 days or matching placebo capsules. Permuted block randomization (block size = 6, 2:1) was conducted, stratified by baseline dyspnea and study site. Patients, research staff and clinicians were blinded. The primary outcome was change in average dyspnea intensity assessed with a 0-10 numeric rating scale (0 = none, 10 = worst) between baseline and day 7. Secondary outcomes included the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) and adverse effects (CTCAE v4.02). Intention-to-treat analysis was conducted with linear models to compare between groups. The planned sample size of 201 patients provided 80% power to detect a mean difference of 1.0 between treatment groups with a two-sided α of 5%, assuming a standard deviation of 2.0 and 15% attrition. (Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03367156). Results: Between 1/11/2017 and 4/23/2021, we enrolled 149 patients and 128 received the blinded study interventions (dexamethasone n = 85, placebo n = 43). Enrollment was terminated early by the Data Safety Monitoring Board when futility criterion was met in pre-planned interim analysis. The mean change in dyspnea NRS intensity between baseline and day 7 was -1.6 (95% CI -2, -1.2) in the dexamethasone group and -1.6 (95% CI -2.3, -0.9) in the placebo group, with no significant between-group difference (mean 0, 95% CI -0.8, 0.7; P = 0.91). Secondary analyses showed that the dexamethasone group had a significantly better ESAS appetite (mean difference -1.2, 95% CI -2.2, -0.1; P = 0.03) and well being (mean -1, 95% CI -1.8, -0.2; P = 0.02), and worse ESAS anxiety (mean 1.1, 95% CI 0.3, 1.9; P = 0.01) and depression (mean 0.9, 95% CI 0.1, 1.7; P = 0.02) compared to placebo. Similar magnitude of changes in dyspnea and ESAS symptoms were observed by day 14. Adverse effects were reported more frequently in the dexamethasone group (any grade): insomnia (38% v. 12%), neuropsychiatric symptoms (31% vs. 7%), infections (21% v. 12%), dyspepsia (26% v. 12%), edema (18% v. 9%), hiccups (12% v. 7%), flushing (9% v. 5%) and respiratory distress (6% v. 0%). More patients in the dexamethasone group required hospitalization within 30 d of last study medication (25% vs. 7%, P = 0.02). Conclusions: High dose dexamethasone did not improve dyspnea in patients with cancer more than placebo and was associated with more adverse events. Clinical trial information: NCT03367156.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".