Title |
Respiratory distress symptom intervention for non-pharmacological management of the lung cancer breathlessness–cough–fatigue symptom cluster: randomised controlled trial
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care , October 2022
|
DOI | 10.1136/spcare-2022-003924 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Janelle Yorke, Miriam J Johnson, Grant Punnett, Jaclyn Smith, Fiona Blackhall, Mari Lloyd Williams, Peter Mackereth, Jemma Haines, David Ryder, Ashma Krishan, Linda Davies, Aysha Khan, Alex Molassiotis |
Abstract |
In lung cancer, three prominent symptoms, such as breathlessness, cough and fatigue, are closely related with each other forming a 'respiratory distress symptom cluster'. The aim of this study was to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the respiratory distress symptom intervention (RDSI) for the management of this symptom cluster in people with lung cancer. A single blind, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial conducted in eight centres in England, UK. A total of 263 patients with lung cancer were randomised, including 132 who received RDSI and 131 who received standard care. To be eligible, participants self-reported adverse impact in daily life from at least two of the three symptoms, in any combination. Outcomes were change at 12 weeks for each symptom within the cluster, including Dyspnoea-12 (D-12), Manchester Cough in Lung Cancer (MCLC) and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness-Fatigue. At baseline, nearly 60% of participants reported all three symptoms. At trial completion the total trial attrition was 109 (41.4%). Compared with the control group, the RDSI group demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in D-12 (p=0.007) and MCLC (p<0.001). The minimal clinically important difference MCID) was achieved for each outcome: D-12 -4.13 (MCID >3), MCLC -5.49 (MCID >3) and FACIT-F 4.91 (MCID >4). RDSI is a clinically effective, low-risk intervention to support the management of the respiratory distress symptom cluster in lung cancer. However, the study did experience high attrition, which needs to be taken onto consideration when interpreting these results. NCT03223805. |
Twitter Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 7 | 28% |
Ireland | 2 | 8% |
Korea, Democratic People's Republic of | 1 | 4% |
Australia | 1 | 4% |
India | 1 | 4% |
Unknown | 13 | 52% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 13 | 52% |
Scientists | 6 | 24% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 20% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 6 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 17% |
Unknown | 5 | 83% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 17% |
Unknown | 5 | 83% |