CHEST 2019

NEW ORLEANS – Physicians and patients both overestimate control of severe asthma, according to an observational study.

Jennifer Smith/MDedge News

More than half (53%) of cases physicians rated as controlled were actually uncontrolled according to the Asthma Control Test (ACT), and 30% of patients who considered their asthma controlled actually had uncontrolled asthma according to the ACT.

Reynold A. Panettieri Jr., MD, of Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J., presented these findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

The findings are from the CHRONICLE study, an ongoing observational study of adults with severe asthma who are being treated by U.S. allergists or pulmonologists. The study enrolled 796 patients from Feb. 2018 to Feb. 2019, and 482 of them were evaluable because they completed the necessary surveys.

The patients’ median age at enrollment was 55 years, and 68% of patients were female. Most were white (82%), 12% were black, 6% were an “other” race, and 7% had Hispanic ethnicity. The median body mass index was 31 kg/m².

Patients received care from an allergist (49%), a pulmonologist (38%), or both (13%). Patients were treated with biologics (n = 370), maintenance systemic corticosteroids (n = 64), or high-dosage inhaled corticosteroids with additional controllers (n = 90).

At patient enrollment, physicians reported their assessment of patients’ asthma control and completed the 5-point Global Evaluation of Treatment Effectiveness (GETE). The physicians’ assessments of patients were informed by patients’ verbal reports (50%), lung function testing (44%), in-office ACT (41%), and recent exacerbations (39%).

Patients also completed the ACT and GETE online at the time of enrollment. Neither patients nor physicians were privy to the other group’s responses.

Overall, physicians said 279 patients had controlled asthma. However, according to the ACT, 27% of these cases were very poorly controlled, 26% were not well controlled, and 47% were well controlled.

“So [when] we as a provider say the patient’s controlled, we’re wrong half the time,” Dr. Panettieri said.

However, physicians were more accurate when deeming patients’ asthma uncontrolled. Physicians said 201 cases of asthma were uncontrolled, and the ACT said 64% of these cases were very poorly controlled, 22% were not well controlled, and 13% were well controlled.

Compared with the physicians’ results, the patients’ reports were more in line with ACT results. However, the patients still overestimated control.

In all, 222 patients said their asthma was controlled. According to the ACT, 70% of these cases were well controlled, 23% were not well controlled, and 7% were very poorly controlled.

Patients were even more accurate when deeming their asthma uncontrolled. A total of 258 patients said their asthma was uncontrolled. According to the ACT, 74% of these cases were very poorly controlled, 25% were not well controlled, and 1% were well controlled.

“About 99% of the time, when a patient tells you they’re uncontrolled, they’re uncontrolled by the ACT,” Dr. Panettieri said.

Though patients were fairly accurate when assessing asthma control, they were less accurate when gauging treatment effectiveness. A majority of patients overestimated the effectiveness of treatment.

There were 124 patients who did not have any improvement after treatment, according to physicians. Although 23% of the patients concurred with this assessment, 77% said they did experience some improvement.

On the other hand, there were 355 patients who had some improvement after treatment according to physicians, and most of these patients (96%) agreed that they had some improvement.

Dr. Panettieri said these results support use of the ACT and similar tools. When using these tools isn’t feasible, Dr. Panettieri recommends simply asking patients how they are feeling. However, he said, providers should not rely on a patient’s report of treatment effectiveness to assess asthma control.

This study is supported by AstraZeneca. Dr. Panettieri disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Regeneron, Genentech, and Novartis.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Panettieri R et al. CHEST 2019. Abstract, doi. 10.1016/j.chest.2019.08.272.
 

NEW ORLEANS – Physicians and patients both overestimate control of severe asthma, according to an observational study.

Jennifer Smith/MDedge News

More than half (53%) of cases physicians rated as controlled were actually uncontrolled according to the Asthma Control Test (ACT), and 30% of patients who considered their asthma controlled actually had uncontrolled asthma according to the ACT.

Reynold A. Panettieri Jr., MD, of Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J., presented these findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

The findings are from the CHRONICLE study, an ongoing observational study of adults with severe asthma who are being treated by U.S. allergists or pulmonologists. The study enrolled 796 patients from Feb. 2018 to Feb. 2019, and 482 of them were evaluable because they completed the necessary surveys.

The patients’ median age at enrollment was 55 years, and 68% of patients were female. Most were white (82%), 12% were black, 6% were an “other” race, and 7% had Hispanic ethnicity. The median body mass index was 31 kg/m².

Patients received care from an allergist (49%), a pulmonologist (38%), or both (13%). Patients were treated with biologics (n = 370), maintenance systemic corticosteroids (n = 64), or high-dosage inhaled corticosteroids with additional controllers (n = 90).

At patient enrollment, physicians reported their assessment of patients’ asthma control and completed the 5-point Global Evaluation of Treatment Effectiveness (GETE). The physicians’ assessments of patients were informed by patients’ verbal reports (50%), lung function testing (44%), in-office ACT (41%), and recent exacerbations (39%).

Patients also completed the ACT and GETE online at the time of enrollment. Neither patients nor physicians were privy to the other group’s responses.

Overall, physicians said 279 patients had controlled asthma. However, according to the ACT, 27% of these cases were very poorly controlled, 26% were not well controlled, and 47% were well controlled.

“So [when] we as a provider say the patient’s controlled, we’re wrong half the time,” Dr. Panettieri said.

However, physicians were more accurate when deeming patients’ asthma uncontrolled. Physicians said 201 cases of asthma were uncontrolled, and the ACT said 64% of these cases were very poorly controlled, 22% were not well controlled, and 13% were well controlled.

Compared with the physicians’ results, the patients’ reports were more in line with ACT results. However, the patients still overestimated control.

In all, 222 patients said their asthma was controlled. According to the ACT, 70% of these cases were well controlled, 23% were not well controlled, and 7% were very poorly controlled.

Patients were even more accurate when deeming their asthma uncontrolled. A total of 258 patients said their asthma was uncontrolled. According to the ACT, 74% of these cases were very poorly controlled, 25% were not well controlled, and 1% were well controlled.

“About 99% of the time, when a patient tells you they’re uncontrolled, they’re uncontrolled by the ACT,” Dr. Panettieri said.

Though patients were fairly accurate when assessing asthma control, they were less accurate when gauging treatment effectiveness. A majority of patients overestimated the effectiveness of treatment.

There were 124 patients who did not have any improvement after treatment, according to physicians. Although 23% of the patients concurred with this assessment, 77% said they did experience some improvement.

On the other hand, there were 355 patients who had some improvement after treatment according to physicians, and most of these patients (96%) agreed that they had some improvement.

Dr. Panettieri said these results support use of the ACT and similar tools. When using these tools isn’t feasible, Dr. Panettieri recommends simply asking patients how they are feeling. However, he said, providers should not rely on a patient’s report of treatment effectiveness to assess asthma control.

This study is supported by AstraZeneca. Dr. Panettieri disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Regeneron, Genentech, and Novartis.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Panettieri R et al. CHEST 2019. Abstract, doi. 10.1016/j.chest.2019.08.272.
 

NEW ORLEANS – Physicians and patients both overestimate control of severe asthma, according to an observational study.

Jennifer Smith/MDedge News

More than half (53%) of cases physicians rated as controlled were actually uncontrolled according to the Asthma Control Test (ACT), and 30% of patients who considered their asthma controlled actually had uncontrolled asthma according to the ACT.

Reynold A. Panettieri Jr., MD, of Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J., presented these findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

The findings are from the CHRONICLE study, an ongoing observational study of adults with severe asthma who are being treated by U.S. allergists or pulmonologists. The study enrolled 796 patients from Feb. 2018 to Feb. 2019, and 482 of them were evaluable because they completed the necessary surveys.

The patients’ median age at enrollment was 55 years, and 68% of patients were female. Most were white (82%), 12% were black, 6% were an “other” race, and 7% had Hispanic ethnicity. The median body mass index was 31 kg/m².

Patients received care from an allergist (49%), a pulmonologist (38%), or both (13%). Patients were treated with biologics (n = 370), maintenance systemic corticosteroids (n = 64), or high-dosage inhaled corticosteroids with additional controllers (n = 90).

At patient enrollment, physicians reported their assessment of patients’ asthma control and completed the 5-point Global Evaluation of Treatment Effectiveness (GETE). The physicians’ assessments of patients were informed by patients’ verbal reports (50%), lung function testing (44%), in-office ACT (41%), and recent exacerbations (39%).

Patients also completed the ACT and GETE online at the time of enrollment. Neither patients nor physicians were privy to the other group’s responses.

Overall, physicians said 279 patients had controlled asthma. However, according to the ACT, 27% of these cases were very poorly controlled, 26% were not well controlled, and 47% were well controlled.

“So [when] we as a provider say the patient’s controlled, we’re wrong half the time,” Dr. Panettieri said.

However, physicians were more accurate when deeming patients’ asthma uncontrolled. Physicians said 201 cases of asthma were uncontrolled, and the ACT said 64% of these cases were very poorly controlled, 22% were not well controlled, and 13% were well controlled.

Compared with the physicians’ results, the patients’ reports were more in line with ACT results. However, the patients still overestimated control.

In all, 222 patients said their asthma was controlled. According to the ACT, 70% of these cases were well controlled, 23% were not well controlled, and 7% were very poorly controlled.

Patients were even more accurate when deeming their asthma uncontrolled. A total of 258 patients said their asthma was uncontrolled. According to the ACT, 74% of these cases were very poorly controlled, 25% were not well controlled, and 1% were well controlled.

“About 99% of the time, when a patient tells you they’re uncontrolled, they’re uncontrolled by the ACT,” Dr. Panettieri said.

Though patients were fairly accurate when assessing asthma control, they were less accurate when gauging treatment effectiveness. A majority of patients overestimated the effectiveness of treatment.

There were 124 patients who did not have any improvement after treatment, according to physicians. Although 23% of the patients concurred with this assessment, 77% said they did experience some improvement.

On the other hand, there were 355 patients who had some improvement after treatment according to physicians, and most of these patients (96%) agreed that they had some improvement.

Dr. Panettieri said these results support use of the ACT and similar tools. When using these tools isn’t feasible, Dr. Panettieri recommends simply asking patients how they are feeling. However, he said, providers should not rely on a patient’s report of treatment effectiveness to assess asthma control.

This study is supported by AstraZeneca. Dr. Panettieri disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Regeneron, Genentech, and Novartis.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Panettieri R et al. CHEST 2019. Abstract, doi. 10.1016/j.chest.2019.08.272.
 

A new study has found that beta-blocker treatment did not prevent exacerbations in patients with moderate or severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

decade3d/Thinkstock

“These results differ from previously reported findings from observational studies suggesting that beta-blockers reduce the risks of exacerbation and death from any cause in patients with COPD,” wrote Mark T. Dransfield, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham and coauthors. Their findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians and also were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

To determine the value of beta-blockers as a potential treatment for COPD, the researchers launched a prospective randomized trial called BLOCK COPD, consisting of 532 patients with moderate or severe COPD. They were assigned to two groups: those receiving extended-release metoprolol (n = 268) and those receiving placebo (n = 264). The mean age of all patients was 65 years.

The groups saw no significant difference in median time until the first exacerbation, which was 202 days (95% confidence interval, 162-282) in the metoprolol group and 222 days (95% CI, 189-295) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.84-1.32; P = .66). Metoprolol was associated with a higher risk of severe or very severe exacerbations leading to hospitalization (HR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.29-2.83). During treatment, there were 11 deaths in the metoprolol group and 5 deaths in the placebo group.

Though there was no evidence of increases in patient-reported adverse events related to metoprolol, more discontinuations did occur in the metoprolol group compared with placebo (11.2% vs. 6.1%).

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, chiefly including the fact that the trial was ended early “on the basis of the conditional power analyses and concern about safety.” In addition, the reduction of heart rate and blood pressure in the metoprolol group made it impossible to fully blind the study. Finally, many patients in the trial had already suffered the effects of moderate to severe COPD, including previous hospitalization and the need for supplemental oxygen, leading to uncertainty as to “whether our results would apply to patients with mild airflow obstruction or a lower exacerbation risk.”

The study was supported by a grant from the Department of Defense. The authors reported numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants, personal fees and research funds from various pharmaceutical companies and government entities.
 

SOURCE: Dransfield MT et al. CHEST 2019. 2019 Oct 20. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908142.

A new study has found that beta-blocker treatment did not prevent exacerbations in patients with moderate or severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

decade3d/Thinkstock

“These results differ from previously reported findings from observational studies suggesting that beta-blockers reduce the risks of exacerbation and death from any cause in patients with COPD,” wrote Mark T. Dransfield, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham and coauthors. Their findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians and also were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

To determine the value of beta-blockers as a potential treatment for COPD, the researchers launched a prospective randomized trial called BLOCK COPD, consisting of 532 patients with moderate or severe COPD. They were assigned to two groups: those receiving extended-release metoprolol (n = 268) and those receiving placebo (n = 264). The mean age of all patients was 65 years.

The groups saw no significant difference in median time until the first exacerbation, which was 202 days (95% confidence interval, 162-282) in the metoprolol group and 222 days (95% CI, 189-295) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.84-1.32; P = .66). Metoprolol was associated with a higher risk of severe or very severe exacerbations leading to hospitalization (HR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.29-2.83). During treatment, there were 11 deaths in the metoprolol group and 5 deaths in the placebo group.

Though there was no evidence of increases in patient-reported adverse events related to metoprolol, more discontinuations did occur in the metoprolol group compared with placebo (11.2% vs. 6.1%).

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, chiefly including the fact that the trial was ended early “on the basis of the conditional power analyses and concern about safety.” In addition, the reduction of heart rate and blood pressure in the metoprolol group made it impossible to fully blind the study. Finally, many patients in the trial had already suffered the effects of moderate to severe COPD, including previous hospitalization and the need for supplemental oxygen, leading to uncertainty as to “whether our results would apply to patients with mild airflow obstruction or a lower exacerbation risk.”

The study was supported by a grant from the Department of Defense. The authors reported numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants, personal fees and research funds from various pharmaceutical companies and government entities.
 

SOURCE: Dransfield MT et al. CHEST 2019. 2019 Oct 20. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908142.

A new study has found that beta-blocker treatment did not prevent exacerbations in patients with moderate or severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

decade3d/Thinkstock

“These results differ from previously reported findings from observational studies suggesting that beta-blockers reduce the risks of exacerbation and death from any cause in patients with COPD,” wrote Mark T. Dransfield, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham and coauthors. Their findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians and also were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

To determine the value of beta-blockers as a potential treatment for COPD, the researchers launched a prospective randomized trial called BLOCK COPD, consisting of 532 patients with moderate or severe COPD. They were assigned to two groups: those receiving extended-release metoprolol (n = 268) and those receiving placebo (n = 264). The mean age of all patients was 65 years.

The groups saw no significant difference in median time until the first exacerbation, which was 202 days (95% confidence interval, 162-282) in the metoprolol group and 222 days (95% CI, 189-295) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.84-1.32; P = .66). Metoprolol was associated with a higher risk of severe or very severe exacerbations leading to hospitalization (HR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.29-2.83). During treatment, there were 11 deaths in the metoprolol group and 5 deaths in the placebo group.

Though there was no evidence of increases in patient-reported adverse events related to metoprolol, more discontinuations did occur in the metoprolol group compared with placebo (11.2% vs. 6.1%).

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, chiefly including the fact that the trial was ended early “on the basis of the conditional power analyses and concern about safety.” In addition, the reduction of heart rate and blood pressure in the metoprolol group made it impossible to fully blind the study. Finally, many patients in the trial had already suffered the effects of moderate to severe COPD, including previous hospitalization and the need for supplemental oxygen, leading to uncertainty as to “whether our results would apply to patients with mild airflow obstruction or a lower exacerbation risk.”

The study was supported by a grant from the Department of Defense. The authors reported numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants, personal fees and research funds from various pharmaceutical companies and government entities.
 

SOURCE: Dransfield MT et al. CHEST 2019. 2019 Oct 20. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908142.

SAN ANTONIO – Opioids do not mix well with sleep, interfering with breathing and increasing the risk of central sleep apnea, explained Anita Rajagopal, MD, a pulmonologist in private practice in Indianapolis.

“The chronic respiratory suppressant effects of opioids are well described,” Dr. Rajagopal told attendees at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians. “The most characteristic signs of chronic opioid effects are irregular central apneas, ataxic breathing, Biot’s respiration and hypoxemia, mainly during NREM sleep.”

Dr. Rajagopal reviewed the research on the effects of opioid use, primarily for therapeutic use, during sleep, especially highlighting the adverse respiratory effects.

In one small study of 24 patients, ages 18-75, who were taking long-term opioids for chronic pain, 46% had severe sleep-disordered breathing, defined as an apnea-hypopnea index greater than 30/hour (J Clin Sleep Med. 2014 Aug 15;10[8]:847-52).

When compared to sleep clinic patients referred for sleep disordered breathing, the participants taking opioids had a higher frequency of central apneas and a lower arousal index. Further, the researchers found that “morphine equivalent doses correlated with the severity of sleep-disordered breathing.”

In another study, a systematic review from 2015, researchers sought to characterize the clinical features of sleep-disordered breathing associated with chronic opioid therapy (Anesth Analg. 2015 Jun;120[6]:1273-85). They identified eight studies with 560 patients, about a quarter of whom (24%) had central sleep apnea.

Once again, “The morphine equivalent daily dose was strongly associated with the severity of the sleep disordered breathing, predominantly central sleep apnea, with a morphine equivalent daily dose of more than 200 mg being a threshold of particular concern,” the researchers reported.

Patients receiving methadone therapy for heroin addiction are not spared the respiratory risks of opioids during sleep. Dr. Rajagopal shared research revealing that patients receiving methadone treatment for at least two months had a blunted hypercapnic respiratory response and increased hypoxemic ventilatory response, changes related to respiratory rate but not tidal volume.

“All mu-opioid receptor agonists can cause complex and potentially lethal effects on respiration during sleep,” Dr. Rajagopal said as she shared evidence from a 2007 study that compared breathing patterns during sleep between 60 patients taking chronic opioids and 60 matched patients not taking opioids (J Clin Sleep Med. 2007 Aug 15;3[5]:455-61).

That study found chronic opioid use to be associated with increased central apneas and reduced arterial oxygen saturation during wakefulness and NREM sleep. Again, a dose-response relationship emerged between morphine dose equivalent and the apnea-hypopnea, obstructive apnea, hypopnea and central apnea indices (P less than .001).

Patients who took opioids long-term were also more likely to have ataxic or irregular breathing during NREM sleep, compared with patients not taking opioids.

In yet another meta-analysis and systematic review she related, researchers found across 803 patients in seven studies that long-term opioids users had a modestly increased risk for central sleep apnea but no similar increased risk for obstructive sleep apnea (J Clin Sleep Med. 2016 Apr 15;12[4]:617-25).

“REM and slow-wave sleep are decreased across all categories of opioid use — intravenous morphine, oral morphine, or methadone and heroin,” she said.

Since some patients are still going to need opioids, such as methadone therapy for those recovering from opioid use disorder, it’s important to understand appropriate effective treatments for central sleep apnea.

“CPAP [continuous positive airway pressure] is generally ineffective for opioid-induced sleep apnea and may augment central events,” Dr. Rajagopal explained, but adaptive servo ventilation (ASV) is effective for opioid-induced central apneas.

In one study of 20 patients receiving opioid therapy and referred for obstructive apnea, for example, the participants were diagnosed instead with central sleep apnea (J Clin Sleep Med. 2014 Jun 15;10[6]:637-43). The 16 patients who received CPAP continued to show central sleep apnea, with an AHI of 34 events/hour and central-apnea index (CAI) of 20 events/hour. Even after a four-week break before restarting CPAP, patients’ apnea did not resolve.

After receiving ASV, however, the average AHI dropped to 11 events/hour and CAI dropped to 0 events/hour. Those changes were accompanied by improvements in oxygen saturation, with the oxyhemoglobin saturation nadir increasing from 83% to 90%.

Similarly, a prospective multi-center observational trial assessed 27 patients with central apnea after they used ASV at home for three months (Chest. 2015 Dec;148[6]:1454-1461). The participants began with an average AHI of 55 and CAI of 23 at baseline. CPAP dropped these values only to an AHI of 33 and CAI of 10, but treatment with ASV dropped them to an AHI of 4 and CAI of 0 (P less than .001).

SAN ANTONIO – Opioids do not mix well with sleep, interfering with breathing and increasing the risk of central sleep apnea, explained Anita Rajagopal, MD, a pulmonologist in private practice in Indianapolis.

“The chronic respiratory suppressant effects of opioids are well described,” Dr. Rajagopal told attendees at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians. “The most characteristic signs of chronic opioid effects are irregular central apneas, ataxic breathing, Biot’s respiration and hypoxemia, mainly during NREM sleep.”

Dr. Rajagopal reviewed the research on the effects of opioid use, primarily for therapeutic use, during sleep, especially highlighting the adverse respiratory effects.

In one small study of 24 patients, ages 18-75, who were taking long-term opioids for chronic pain, 46% had severe sleep-disordered breathing, defined as an apnea-hypopnea index greater than 30/hour (J Clin Sleep Med. 2014 Aug 15;10[8]:847-52).

When compared to sleep clinic patients referred for sleep disordered breathing, the participants taking opioids had a higher frequency of central apneas and a lower arousal index. Further, the researchers found that “morphine equivalent doses correlated with the severity of sleep-disordered breathing.”

In another study, a systematic review from 2015, researchers sought to characterize the clinical features of sleep-disordered breathing associated with chronic opioid therapy (Anesth Analg. 2015 Jun;120[6]:1273-85). They identified eight studies with 560 patients, about a quarter of whom (24%) had central sleep apnea.

Once again, “The morphine equivalent daily dose was strongly associated with the severity of the sleep disordered breathing, predominantly central sleep apnea, with a morphine equivalent daily dose of more than 200 mg being a threshold of particular concern,” the researchers reported.

Patients receiving methadone therapy for heroin addiction are not spared the respiratory risks of opioids during sleep. Dr. Rajagopal shared research revealing that patients receiving methadone treatment for at least two months had a blunted hypercapnic respiratory response and increased hypoxemic ventilatory response, changes related to respiratory rate but not tidal volume.

“All mu-opioid receptor agonists can cause complex and potentially lethal effects on respiration during sleep,” Dr. Rajagopal said as she shared evidence from a 2007 study that compared breathing patterns during sleep between 60 patients taking chronic opioids and 60 matched patients not taking opioids (J Clin Sleep Med. 2007 Aug 15;3[5]:455-61).

That study found chronic opioid use to be associated with increased central apneas and reduced arterial oxygen saturation during wakefulness and NREM sleep. Again, a dose-response relationship emerged between morphine dose equivalent and the apnea-hypopnea, obstructive apnea, hypopnea and central apnea indices (P less than .001).

Patients who took opioids long-term were also more likely to have ataxic or irregular breathing during NREM sleep, compared with patients not taking opioids.

In yet another meta-analysis and systematic review she related, researchers found across 803 patients in seven studies that long-term opioids users had a modestly increased risk for central sleep apnea but no similar increased risk for obstructive sleep apnea (J Clin Sleep Med. 2016 Apr 15;12[4]:617-25).

“REM and slow-wave sleep are decreased across all categories of opioid use — intravenous morphine, oral morphine, or methadone and heroin,” she said.

Since some patients are still going to need opioids, such as methadone therapy for those recovering from opioid use disorder, it’s important to understand appropriate effective treatments for central sleep apnea.

“CPAP [continuous positive airway pressure] is generally ineffective for opioid-induced sleep apnea and may augment central events,” Dr. Rajagopal explained, but adaptive servo ventilation (ASV) is effective for opioid-induced central apneas.

In one study of 20 patients receiving opioid therapy and referred for obstructive apnea, for example, the participants were diagnosed instead with central sleep apnea (J Clin Sleep Med. 2014 Jun 15;10[6]:637-43). The 16 patients who received CPAP continued to show central sleep apnea, with an AHI of 34 events/hour and central-apnea index (CAI) of 20 events/hour. Even after a four-week break before restarting CPAP, patients’ apnea did not resolve.

After receiving ASV, however, the average AHI dropped to 11 events/hour and CAI dropped to 0 events/hour. Those changes were accompanied by improvements in oxygen saturation, with the oxyhemoglobin saturation nadir increasing from 83% to 90%.

Similarly, a prospective multi-center observational trial assessed 27 patients with central apnea after they used ASV at home for three months (Chest. 2015 Dec;148[6]:1454-1461). The participants began with an average AHI of 55 and CAI of 23 at baseline. CPAP dropped these values only to an AHI of 33 and CAI of 10, but treatment with ASV dropped them to an AHI of 4 and CAI of 0 (P less than .001).

SAN ANTONIO – Opioids do not mix well with sleep, interfering with breathing and increasing the risk of central sleep apnea, explained Anita Rajagopal, MD, a pulmonologist in private practice in Indianapolis.

“The chronic respiratory suppressant effects of opioids are well described,” Dr. Rajagopal told attendees at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians. “The most characteristic signs of chronic opioid effects are irregular central apneas, ataxic breathing, Biot’s respiration and hypoxemia, mainly during NREM sleep.”

Dr. Rajagopal reviewed the research on the effects of opioid use, primarily for therapeutic use, during sleep, especially highlighting the adverse respiratory effects.

In one small study of 24 patients, ages 18-75, who were taking long-term opioids for chronic pain, 46% had severe sleep-disordered breathing, defined as an apnea-hypopnea index greater than 30/hour (J Clin Sleep Med. 2014 Aug 15;10[8]:847-52).

When compared to sleep clinic patients referred for sleep disordered breathing, the participants taking opioids had a higher frequency of central apneas and a lower arousal index. Further, the researchers found that “morphine equivalent doses correlated with the severity of sleep-disordered breathing.”

In another study, a systematic review from 2015, researchers sought to characterize the clinical features of sleep-disordered breathing associated with chronic opioid therapy (Anesth Analg. 2015 Jun;120[6]:1273-85). They identified eight studies with 560 patients, about a quarter of whom (24%) had central sleep apnea.

Once again, “The morphine equivalent daily dose was strongly associated with the severity of the sleep disordered breathing, predominantly central sleep apnea, with a morphine equivalent daily dose of more than 200 mg being a threshold of particular concern,” the researchers reported.

Patients receiving methadone therapy for heroin addiction are not spared the respiratory risks of opioids during sleep. Dr. Rajagopal shared research revealing that patients receiving methadone treatment for at least two months had a blunted hypercapnic respiratory response and increased hypoxemic ventilatory response, changes related to respiratory rate but not tidal volume.

“All mu-opioid receptor agonists can cause complex and potentially lethal effects on respiration during sleep,” Dr. Rajagopal said as she shared evidence from a 2007 study that compared breathing patterns during sleep between 60 patients taking chronic opioids and 60 matched patients not taking opioids (J Clin Sleep Med. 2007 Aug 15;3[5]:455-61).

That study found chronic opioid use to be associated with increased central apneas and reduced arterial oxygen saturation during wakefulness and NREM sleep. Again, a dose-response relationship emerged between morphine dose equivalent and the apnea-hypopnea, obstructive apnea, hypopnea and central apnea indices (P less than .001).

Patients who took opioids long-term were also more likely to have ataxic or irregular breathing during NREM sleep, compared with patients not taking opioids.

In yet another meta-analysis and systematic review she related, researchers found across 803 patients in seven studies that long-term opioids users had a modestly increased risk for central sleep apnea but no similar increased risk for obstructive sleep apnea (J Clin Sleep Med. 2016 Apr 15;12[4]:617-25).

“REM and slow-wave sleep are decreased across all categories of opioid use — intravenous morphine, oral morphine, or methadone and heroin,” she said.

Since some patients are still going to need opioids, such as methadone therapy for those recovering from opioid use disorder, it’s important to understand appropriate effective treatments for central sleep apnea.

“CPAP [continuous positive airway pressure] is generally ineffective for opioid-induced sleep apnea and may augment central events,” Dr. Rajagopal explained, but adaptive servo ventilation (ASV) is effective for opioid-induced central apneas.

In one study of 20 patients receiving opioid therapy and referred for obstructive apnea, for example, the participants were diagnosed instead with central sleep apnea (J Clin Sleep Med. 2014 Jun 15;10[6]:637-43). The 16 patients who received CPAP continued to show central sleep apnea, with an AHI of 34 events/hour and central-apnea index (CAI) of 20 events/hour. Even after a four-week break before restarting CPAP, patients’ apnea did not resolve.

After receiving ASV, however, the average AHI dropped to 11 events/hour and CAI dropped to 0 events/hour. Those changes were accompanied by improvements in oxygen saturation, with the oxyhemoglobin saturation nadir increasing from 83% to 90%.

Similarly, a prospective multi-center observational trial assessed 27 patients with central apnea after they used ASV at home for three months (Chest. 2015 Dec;148[6]:1454-1461). The participants began with an average AHI of 55 and CAI of 23 at baseline. CPAP dropped these values only to an AHI of 33 and CAI of 10, but treatment with ASV dropped them to an AHI of 4 and CAI of 0 (P less than .001).

SAN ANTONIO – Understanding the experience of “moral distress” in critical care is essential because of its potential negative effects on health care providers and the need to prevent or address those effects, according to Marian Altman, PhD, RN, a clinical practice specialist from the American Association of Critical Care Nurses.

Tara Haelle/MDedge News

Dr. Altman spoke about moral distress as part of a panel discussion at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians on how to handle nonbeneficial treatment requests from families, including the legal and ethical obligations of care providers when a patient is receiving life-sustaining treatment.

“The key point about moral distress is that these are personal constraints, and so the choices of what is best for a patient often conflicts with what is best for the organization,” Dr. Altman told CHEST 2018 attendees. “It could conflict with what’s best for the care providers, the family, or even other patients, and so it’s that personal experience of moral compromise that often originates in this broader practice of our routine.”

While it does not necessarily occur frequently, moral distress is intense when it does occur.

“It really threatens the identity and the integrity of those who experience it because they truly believe they are seriously compromised with this deep personal effect,” Dr. Altman said.

Dr. Altman credited Andrew Jameton, a bioethicist who authored a seminal book on ethical issues in nursing in 1984, with defining exactly what moral distress is: “painful feelings and/or the psychological disequilibrium that occurs when a person is conscious of the morally appropriate action a situation requires but cannot carry out that action because of the institutionalized obstacles, such as lack of time, lack of supervisory support, exercise of medical power, and institutional policy or legal limits.” Or, in plainer terms, “Moral distress occurs when one knows the ethically correct action to take but feels powerless to take that action,” as Elizabeth G. Epstein, PhD, RN, and Sarah Delgado, MSN, RN, wrote in the Online Journal of Issues in Nursing.

To understand moral distress, it’s important to know what it’s not, too, Dr. Altman said. It’s not the daily stress of work or compassion fatigue or even burnout, though it can lead to burnout.

“Burnout is the state of physical, emotional, and mental fatigue and exhaustion caused by long-term involvement in situations that are emotionally demanding,” Dr. Altman said. “Burnout has been linked with moral distress, but they are two very different things.”

It’s also not a disagreement among colleagues or “an excuse to avoid a challenging situation.” In fact, the No. 1 cause of moral distress, in study after study, Dr. Altman said, is providing medical care, particularly medically futile care.

“Providing really unnecessary treatments and providing end-of-life care can lead to it as well as complex patients and challenging situations,” Dr. Altman said. Other causes include inadequate staffing, incompetent providers, poor communication, and advanced technology used to sustain life.

Though people often associate moral distress with intensive care, it can occur “wherever care is provided” and can “affect all members of the health care team,” Dr. Altman said. Though the early research into moral distress focused on critical care nurses, the field has since exploded, across all medical disciplines and in countries around the world.

That research has revealed how intensely moral distress can impact the psychological, biological, and social health of people. Physical symptoms that can result from moral distress include diarrhea, headache, heart palpitations, neck pain, muscle aches, and vomiting. The emotions it rouses include frustration, fear, anger, anxiety, and, especially, powerlessness and guilt.

Moral distress can lead to burnout and dissatisfaction in individuals and, subsequently, reduced retention and productivity within institutions. Health care providers who experience moral distress may leave their position, their unit, or the profession altogether.

“That can have a huge impact in a time when we need many more health care providers to care for this exploding population,” Dr. Altman said. It can also negatively influence the patient-provider relationship, potentially affecting the quantity and safety of care delivered, she explained.

But there are ways to address moral distress, she said.

“We’re not going to eradicate it because we will never eradicate critical care or end-of-life care, and those are the causes that lead to moral distress,” Dr. Altman said. “But what we can do, and what the research is now focusing on, is concentrate on improving our work environment, and help people recognize that they’re experiencing moral distress before it gets to burnout … or mitigating moral distress when it occurs.”

Those improvements include fostering both a positive ethical environment, with ethics education, an ethics committee, and on-site ethics experts, and a healthy work environment with collaboration and skillful communication.

Research has shown that “a higher ethical work environment is correlated with a decrease in moral distress frequency,” Dr. Altman said. And structured communication processes should focus on the goals of care, she said. More formal programs may include moral distress workshops, a moral distress consult service, an ethics consult service, and distress debriefings, during which a facilitator leads providers in a structured, collaborative discussion about a distressing event that has occurred.

SAN ANTONIO – Understanding the experience of “moral distress” in critical care is essential because of its potential negative effects on health care providers and the need to prevent or address those effects, according to Marian Altman, PhD, RN, a clinical practice specialist from the American Association of Critical Care Nurses.

Tara Haelle/MDedge News

Dr. Altman spoke about moral distress as part of a panel discussion at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians on how to handle nonbeneficial treatment requests from families, including the legal and ethical obligations of care providers when a patient is receiving life-sustaining treatment.

“The key point about moral distress is that these are personal constraints, and so the choices of what is best for a patient often conflicts with what is best for the organization,” Dr. Altman told CHEST 2018 attendees. “It could conflict with what’s best for the care providers, the family, or even other patients, and so it’s that personal experience of moral compromise that often originates in this broader practice of our routine.”

While it does not necessarily occur frequently, moral distress is intense when it does occur.

“It really threatens the identity and the integrity of those who experience it because they truly believe they are seriously compromised with this deep personal effect,” Dr. Altman said.

Dr. Altman credited Andrew Jameton, a bioethicist who authored a seminal book on ethical issues in nursing in 1984, with defining exactly what moral distress is: “painful feelings and/or the psychological disequilibrium that occurs when a person is conscious of the morally appropriate action a situation requires but cannot carry out that action because of the institutionalized obstacles, such as lack of time, lack of supervisory support, exercise of medical power, and institutional policy or legal limits.” Or, in plainer terms, “Moral distress occurs when one knows the ethically correct action to take but feels powerless to take that action,” as Elizabeth G. Epstein, PhD, RN, and Sarah Delgado, MSN, RN, wrote in the Online Journal of Issues in Nursing.

To understand moral distress, it’s important to know what it’s not, too, Dr. Altman said. It’s not the daily stress of work or compassion fatigue or even burnout, though it can lead to burnout.

“Burnout is the state of physical, emotional, and mental fatigue and exhaustion caused by long-term involvement in situations that are emotionally demanding,” Dr. Altman said. “Burnout has been linked with moral distress, but they are two very different things.”

It’s also not a disagreement among colleagues or “an excuse to avoid a challenging situation.” In fact, the No. 1 cause of moral distress, in study after study, Dr. Altman said, is providing medical care, particularly medically futile care.

“Providing really unnecessary treatments and providing end-of-life care can lead to it as well as complex patients and challenging situations,” Dr. Altman said. Other causes include inadequate staffing, incompetent providers, poor communication, and advanced technology used to sustain life.

Though people often associate moral distress with intensive care, it can occur “wherever care is provided” and can “affect all members of the health care team,” Dr. Altman said. Though the early research into moral distress focused on critical care nurses, the field has since exploded, across all medical disciplines and in countries around the world.

That research has revealed how intensely moral distress can impact the psychological, biological, and social health of people. Physical symptoms that can result from moral distress include diarrhea, headache, heart palpitations, neck pain, muscle aches, and vomiting. The emotions it rouses include frustration, fear, anger, anxiety, and, especially, powerlessness and guilt.

Moral distress can lead to burnout and dissatisfaction in individuals and, subsequently, reduced retention and productivity within institutions. Health care providers who experience moral distress may leave their position, their unit, or the profession altogether.

“That can have a huge impact in a time when we need many more health care providers to care for this exploding population,” Dr. Altman said. It can also negatively influence the patient-provider relationship, potentially affecting the quantity and safety of care delivered, she explained.

But there are ways to address moral distress, she said.

“We’re not going to eradicate it because we will never eradicate critical care or end-of-life care, and those are the causes that lead to moral distress,” Dr. Altman said. “But what we can do, and what the research is now focusing on, is concentrate on improving our work environment, and help people recognize that they’re experiencing moral distress before it gets to burnout … or mitigating moral distress when it occurs.”

Those improvements include fostering both a positive ethical environment, with ethics education, an ethics committee, and on-site ethics experts, and a healthy work environment with collaboration and skillful communication.

Research has shown that “a higher ethical work environment is correlated with a decrease in moral distress frequency,” Dr. Altman said. And structured communication processes should focus on the goals of care, she said. More formal programs may include moral distress workshops, a moral distress consult service, an ethics consult service, and distress debriefings, during which a facilitator leads providers in a structured, collaborative discussion about a distressing event that has occurred.

SAN ANTONIO – Understanding the experience of “moral distress” in critical care is essential because of its potential negative effects on health care providers and the need to prevent or address those effects, according to Marian Altman, PhD, RN, a clinical practice specialist from the American Association of Critical Care Nurses.

Tara Haelle/MDedge News

Dr. Altman spoke about moral distress as part of a panel discussion at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians on how to handle nonbeneficial treatment requests from families, including the legal and ethical obligations of care providers when a patient is receiving life-sustaining treatment.

“The key point about moral distress is that these are personal constraints, and so the choices of what is best for a patient often conflicts with what is best for the organization,” Dr. Altman told CHEST 2018 attendees. “It could conflict with what’s best for the care providers, the family, or even other patients, and so it’s that personal experience of moral compromise that often originates in this broader practice of our routine.”

While it does not necessarily occur frequently, moral distress is intense when it does occur.

“It really threatens the identity and the integrity of those who experience it because they truly believe they are seriously compromised with this deep personal effect,” Dr. Altman said.

Dr. Altman credited Andrew Jameton, a bioethicist who authored a seminal book on ethical issues in nursing in 1984, with defining exactly what moral distress is: “painful feelings and/or the psychological disequilibrium that occurs when a person is conscious of the morally appropriate action a situation requires but cannot carry out that action because of the institutionalized obstacles, such as lack of time, lack of supervisory support, exercise of medical power, and institutional policy or legal limits.” Or, in plainer terms, “Moral distress occurs when one knows the ethically correct action to take but feels powerless to take that action,” as Elizabeth G. Epstein, PhD, RN, and Sarah Delgado, MSN, RN, wrote in the Online Journal of Issues in Nursing.

To understand moral distress, it’s important to know what it’s not, too, Dr. Altman said. It’s not the daily stress of work or compassion fatigue or even burnout, though it can lead to burnout.

“Burnout is the state of physical, emotional, and mental fatigue and exhaustion caused by long-term involvement in situations that are emotionally demanding,” Dr. Altman said. “Burnout has been linked with moral distress, but they are two very different things.”

It’s also not a disagreement among colleagues or “an excuse to avoid a challenging situation.” In fact, the No. 1 cause of moral distress, in study after study, Dr. Altman said, is providing medical care, particularly medically futile care.

“Providing really unnecessary treatments and providing end-of-life care can lead to it as well as complex patients and challenging situations,” Dr. Altman said. Other causes include inadequate staffing, incompetent providers, poor communication, and advanced technology used to sustain life.

Though people often associate moral distress with intensive care, it can occur “wherever care is provided” and can “affect all members of the health care team,” Dr. Altman said. Though the early research into moral distress focused on critical care nurses, the field has since exploded, across all medical disciplines and in countries around the world.

That research has revealed how intensely moral distress can impact the psychological, biological, and social health of people. Physical symptoms that can result from moral distress include diarrhea, headache, heart palpitations, neck pain, muscle aches, and vomiting. The emotions it rouses include frustration, fear, anger, anxiety, and, especially, powerlessness and guilt.

Moral distress can lead to burnout and dissatisfaction in individuals and, subsequently, reduced retention and productivity within institutions. Health care providers who experience moral distress may leave their position, their unit, or the profession altogether.

“That can have a huge impact in a time when we need many more health care providers to care for this exploding population,” Dr. Altman said. It can also negatively influence the patient-provider relationship, potentially affecting the quantity and safety of care delivered, she explained.

But there are ways to address moral distress, she said.

“We’re not going to eradicate it because we will never eradicate critical care or end-of-life care, and those are the causes that lead to moral distress,” Dr. Altman said. “But what we can do, and what the research is now focusing on, is concentrate on improving our work environment, and help people recognize that they’re experiencing moral distress before it gets to burnout … or mitigating moral distress when it occurs.”

Those improvements include fostering both a positive ethical environment, with ethics education, an ethics committee, and on-site ethics experts, and a healthy work environment with collaboration and skillful communication.

Research has shown that “a higher ethical work environment is correlated with a decrease in moral distress frequency,” Dr. Altman said. And structured communication processes should focus on the goals of care, she said. More formal programs may include moral distress workshops, a moral distress consult service, an ethics consult service, and distress debriefings, during which a facilitator leads providers in a structured, collaborative discussion about a distressing event that has occurred.