Participant Safety in Multisite, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trials in Hospice/Palliative Care: Data from the Contracted Studies of the Australian National Palliative Care Clinical Studies Collaborative.

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.

Phase II, double blind, placebo controlled, multi-site study to evaluate the safety, feasibility and desirability of conducting a phase III study of anamorelin for anorexia in people with small cell lung cancer: A study protocol (LUANA trial).

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 future evaluation design. Trial registration. The trial has been registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry [ACTRN12622000129785] and approved by the South Western Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee [2021/ETH11339]. https://clin.larvol.com/trial-detail/ACTRN12622000129785.

Lidocaine for Neuropathic Cancer Pain (LiCPain): study protocol for a mixed-methods pilot study.

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 includes 80% and excludes 60%. The protocol and Patient Information and Consent Form have been approved by Sydney Local Health District (Concord) Human Research Ethics Committee 2019/ETH07984 and University of Technology Sydney ETH17-1820. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ANZCTR ACTRN12617000747325.

Testosterone Levels in People Taking Regular Low-Dose Sustained-Release Morphine for Persisting Breathlessness: An Exploratory Study.

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.

Effect of Regular, Low-Dose, Extended-release Morphine on Chronic Breathlessness in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: The BEAMS Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Chronic breathlessness is common in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Regular, low-dose, extended-release morphine may relieve breathlessness, but evidence about its efficacy and dosing is needed. Objective: To determine the effect of different doses of extended-release morphine on worst breathlessness in people with COPD after 1 week of treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial including people with COPD and chronic breathlessness (defined as a modified Medical Research Council score of 3 to 4) conducted at 20 centers in Australia. People were enrolled between September 1, 2016, and November 20, 2019, and followed up through December 26, 2019. Interventions: People were randomized 1:1:1 to 8 mg/d or 16 mg/d of oral extended-release morphine or placebo during week 1. At the start of weeks 2 and 3, people were randomized 1:1 to 8 mg/d of extended-release morphine, which was added to the prior week's dose, or placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was change in the intensity of worst breathlessness on a numerical rating scale (score range, 0 [none] to 10 [being worst or most intense]) using the mean score at baseline (from days -3 to -1) to the mean score after week 1 of treatment (from days 5 to 7) in the 8 mg/d and 16 mg/d of extended-release morphine groups vs the placebo group. Secondary outcomes included change in daily step count measured using an actigraphy device from baseline (day -1) to the mean step count from week 3 (from days 19 to 21). Results: Among the 160 people randomized, 156 were included in the primary analyses (median age, 72 years [IQR, 67 to 78 years]; 48% were women) and 138 (88%) completed treatment at week 1 (48 in the 8 mg/d of morphine group, 43 in the 16 mg/d of morphine group, and 47 in the placebo group). The change in the intensity of worst breathlessness at week 1 was not significantly different between the 8 mg/d of morphine group and the placebo group (mean difference, -0.3 [95% CI, -0.9 to 0.4]) or between the 16 mg/d of morphine group and the placebo group (mean difference, -0.3 [95%, CI, -1.0 to 0.4]). At week 3, the secondary outcome of change in mean daily step count was not significantly different between the 8 mg/d of morphine group and the placebo group (mean difference, -1453 [95% CI, -3310 to 405]), between the 16 mg/d of morphine group and the placebo group (mean difference, -1312 [95% CI, -3220 to 596]), between the 24 mg/d of morphine group and the placebo group (mean difference, -692 [95% CI, -2553 to 1170]), or between the 32 mg/d of morphine group and the placebo group (mean difference, -1924 [95% CI, -47 699 to 921]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among people with COPD and severe chronic breathlessness, daily low-dose, extended-release morphine did not significantly reduce the intensity of worst breathlessness after 1 week of treatment. These findings do not support the use of these doses of extended-release morphine to relieve breathlessness. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02720822.

Phase III, international, multicentre, double-blind, dose increment, parallel-arm, randomised controlled trial of duloxetine versus pregabalin for opioid-unresponsive neuropathic cancer pain: a JORTC-PAL16 trial protocol.

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 at international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: jRCTs051190097, ACTRN12620000656932.

Opioid-sparing effects of ketorolac in palliative care patients receiving opioids for chronic cancer-related pain: A systematic literature review.

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.

A randomised, double blind, placebo-controlled trial of megestrol acetate or dexamethasone in treating symptomatic anorexia in people with advanced cancer.

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).

Health-related quality of life in patients with inoperable malignant bowel obstruction: secondary outcome from a double-blind, parallel, placebo-controlled randomised trial of octreotide.

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).

A Multicomponent Nonpharmacological Intervention to Prevent Delirium for Hospitalized People with Advanced Cancer: A Phase II Cluster Randomized Waitlist Controlled Trial (The PRESERVE Pilot Study).

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.

A randomized, double-blind, crossover, dose ranging study to determine the optimal dose of oral opioid to treat breakthrough pain for patients with advanced cancer already established on regular opioids.

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 the daily dose) should be used.

Regular, sustained-release morphine for chronic breathlessness: a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Morphine may decrease the intensity of chronic breathlessness but data from a large randomised controlled trial (RCT) are lacking. This first, large, parallel-group trial aimed to test the efficacy and safety of regular, low-dose, sustained-release (SR) morphine compared with placebo for chronic breathlessness. METHODS: Multisite (14 inpatient and outpatient cardiorespiratory and palliative care services in Australia), parallel-arm, double-blind RCT. Adults with chronic breathlessness (modified Medical Research Council≥2) were randomised to 20 mg daily oral SR morphine and laxative (intervention) or placebo and placebo laxative (control) for 7 days. Both groups could take ≤6 doses of 2.5 mg, 'as needed', immediate-release morphine (≤15 mg/24 hours) as required by the ethics review board. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in intensity of breathlessness now (0-100 mm visual analogue scale; two times per day diary) between groups. Secondary endpoints included: worst, best and average breathlessness; unpleasantness of breathlessness now, fatigue; quality of life; function; and harms. RESULTS: Analysed by intention-to-treat, 284 participants were randomised to morphine (n=145) or placebo (n=139). There was no difference between arms for the primary endpoint (mean difference -0.15 mm (95% CI -4.59 to 4.29; p=0.95)), nor secondary endpoints. The placebo group used more doses of oral morphine solution during the treatment period (mean 8.7 vs 5.8 doses; p=0.001). The morphine group had more constipation and nausea/vomiting. There were no cases of respiratory depression nor obtundation. CONCLUSION: No differences were observed between arms for breathlessness, but the intervention arm used less rescue immediate-release morphine. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12609000806268.

Assessing quality of life in palliative care settings: head-to-head comparison of four patient-reported outcome measures (EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL, FACT-Pal, FACT-Pal-14, FACT-G7).

PURPOSE: Head-to-head comparison of reliability, validity and responsiveness of four patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS) suitable for assessing health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in palliative care settings: EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL, FACT-G7, FACIT-Pal and short-form FACIT-Pal-14. METHODS: Secondary analysis of two phase III randomised trials: ketamine for chronic cancer pain, octreotide for vomiting in inoperable malignant bowel obstruction. Sub-groups were defined by Australia-modified Karnofsky performance status (AKPS) and participants' global impression of change (GIC). Two aspects of reliability were assessed: internal consistency (Cronbach alpha, α); test-retest reliability (intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC)) of patients with stable AKPS and those who self-reported 'no change' on GIC. Construct validity was assessed via pre-determined hypotheses about sensitivity of PROM scores to AKPS groups and responsiveness of PROM change scores to GIC groups using analysis of variance. RESULTS: FACIT-Pal had better internal consistency (α ranged 0.59-0.80, 15/18 ≥ 0.70) than QLQ-C15-PAL (0.51-0.85, 4/8 ≥ 0.70) and FACT-G7 (0.54-0.64, 0/2 ≥ 0.70). FACIT scales had better test-retest reliability (FACIT-Pal 11/27 ICCs ≥ 0.70, FACT-G7 2/3 ICCs ≥ 0.70) than QLQ-C15-PAL (2/30 ICCs ≥ 0.70, 18/30 ≤ 0.5). Four scales demonstrated sensitivity to AKPS: QLQ-PAL-15 Physical Functioning and Global QOL, FACT-G Functional Wellbeing and FACIT-Pal Trial Outcome Index (TOI). Nine scales demonstrated responsiveness: three in the ketamine trial population (QLQ-C15-PAL Pain, FACIT-Pal-14, FACT-G7), six in the octreotide trial population (QLQ-C15-PAL Fatigue; FACIT-Pal PalCare, TOI, Total; FACT-G Physical Wellbeing and Total). CONCLUSIONS: No PROM was clearly superior, confirming that choosing the best PROM requires careful consideration of the research goals, patient population and the domains of HRQOL targeted by the intervention being investigated.

Controlled-Release Oxycodone vs. Placebo in the Treatment of Chronic Breathlessness-A Multisite Randomized Placebo Controlled Trial.

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.

No excess harms from sustained-release morphine: a randomised placebo-controlled trial in chronic breathlessness.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to identify and evaluate: (1) treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE (worse or new since baseline)) and the subgroup of severe TEAEs in a placebo-controlled 7-day randomised trial of regular, low-dose, sustained-release oral morphine for chronic breathlessness and (2) clinical characteristics associated with TEAE. METHODS: Safety analysis of trial data. Adults with chronic breathlessness (modified Medical Research Council breathlessness score ≥2) due to heart or lung disease, or cancer, not on regular opioids were eligible. Symptoms associated with opioids (TEAE of special interest) were systematically sought using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) grading. Other harms could be reported at any time. The relationship between characteristics and presence of ≥1 TEAE of special interest was explored using univariable logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: 1449/5624 (26%) Adverse Events from 279 participants were TEAE of which 150/1449 (10%) were severe (CTCAE grades 3-5). 1086/5624 (75%) were events of special interest of which 41/1086 (4%) were severe. Compared with placebo, morphine was not associated with more TEAE or severe TEAE of special interest (TEAE: OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.38, p=0.20; severe TEAE: OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.41, p=0.95) nor with CTCAE severity grade (χ2=4.39, p=0.50). Among the 26/150 (17%) with severe TEAEs, study withdrawal was more common in the morphine arm (18/26 (69%) morphine arm; 8/26 (30%) placebo arm). None of the severe TEAEs was a respiratory harm. CONCLUSIONS: Severe morphine-associated toxicity was uncommon and not associated with study arm. Clinical consequences were minor and self-limiting. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN126000806268.