Hospice & Palliative Medicine

Clinical question: What is the association of palliative care programs on quality of life, symptoms, and survival for patients and their caregivers?

Background: Palliative care programs have expanded across the country: More than 65% of U.S. hospitals have such a program. Efforts have been made to assess their effectiveness for terminally ill patients and their caregivers.

Study design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of 43 randomized controlled trials.

Setting: Not applicable

Synopsis: Two reviewers independently assessed 43 trials (12,731 patients and 2,479 caregivers) with the main outcomes being quality of life, symptom burden, survival, mood, advance care planning, site of death, health care satisfaction, resource utilization, and health care expenditures. Estimates of QOL were translated to units of the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–palliative care scale (FACIT-Pal) instrument and symptom burden was translated into the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS). Palliative care was associated with statistically and clinically significant improvements in patient QOL at the 1- to 3-month follow-up (standardized mean difference, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.08-0.83; FACIT-Pal mean difference, 11.36) and symptom burden at the 1- to 3-month follow-up (standardized mean difference, −0.66; 95% CI, −1.25 to −0.07; ESAS mean difference, −10.30).

Dr. Cerceo is an assistant professor in the Division of Hospital Medicine, and associate director of the internal medicine residency program at Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden, N.J.

Clinical question: What is the association of palliative care programs on quality of life, symptoms, and survival for patients and their caregivers?

Background: Palliative care programs have expanded across the country: More than 65% of U.S. hospitals have such a program. Efforts have been made to assess their effectiveness for terminally ill patients and their caregivers.

Study design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of 43 randomized controlled trials.

Setting: Not applicable

Synopsis: Two reviewers independently assessed 43 trials (12,731 patients and 2,479 caregivers) with the main outcomes being quality of life, symptom burden, survival, mood, advance care planning, site of death, health care satisfaction, resource utilization, and health care expenditures. Estimates of QOL were translated to units of the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–palliative care scale (FACIT-Pal) instrument and symptom burden was translated into the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS). Palliative care was associated with statistically and clinically significant improvements in patient QOL at the 1- to 3-month follow-up (standardized mean difference, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.08-0.83; FACIT-Pal mean difference, 11.36) and symptom burden at the 1- to 3-month follow-up (standardized mean difference, −0.66; 95% CI, −1.25 to −0.07; ESAS mean difference, −10.30).

Dr. Cerceo is an assistant professor in the Division of Hospital Medicine, and associate director of the internal medicine residency program at Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden, N.J.

Clinical question: What is the association of palliative care programs on quality of life, symptoms, and survival for patients and their caregivers?

Background: Palliative care programs have expanded across the country: More than 65% of U.S. hospitals have such a program. Efforts have been made to assess their effectiveness for terminally ill patients and their caregivers.

Study design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of 43 randomized controlled trials.

Setting: Not applicable

Synopsis: Two reviewers independently assessed 43 trials (12,731 patients and 2,479 caregivers) with the main outcomes being quality of life, symptom burden, survival, mood, advance care planning, site of death, health care satisfaction, resource utilization, and health care expenditures. Estimates of QOL were translated to units of the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–palliative care scale (FACIT-Pal) instrument and symptom burden was translated into the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS). Palliative care was associated with statistically and clinically significant improvements in patient QOL at the 1- to 3-month follow-up (standardized mean difference, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.08-0.83; FACIT-Pal mean difference, 11.36) and symptom burden at the 1- to 3-month follow-up (standardized mean difference, −0.66; 95% CI, −1.25 to −0.07; ESAS mean difference, −10.30).

Dr. Cerceo is an assistant professor in the Division of Hospital Medicine, and associate director of the internal medicine residency program at Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden, N.J.

Frail elderly patients are at high risk of adverse clinical outcomes, including those due to polypharmacy. Several groups tackle “deprescribing” by developing lists of medications that are potentially inappropriate for the elderly, such as the Beers or STOPP/START criteria.^1–4

In contrast, our group (the Palliative and Therapeutic Harmonization [PATH] program and the Dalhousie Academic Detailing Service) has developed evidence-based, frailty-specific guidelines for treating hypertension⁵ and diabetes,⁶ in which we advocate less-stringent treatment targets and tapering or discontinuing medications, as needed.

The PATH program⁷ is a clinical approach that prioritizes the consideration of frailty when making treatment decisions. The Dalhousie Academic Detailing Service collaborates with the Nova Scotia Health Authority to research and develop evidence-informed educational messages about the treatment of common medical conditions.

Here, we address lipid-lowering therapy in this population.

CONSIDERING FRAILTY

Frailty is defined in several ways. The Fried model^8,9 identifies frailty when 3 of the following characteristics are present: unintentional weight loss, exhaustion, muscle weakness, slow walking speed, or low levels of activity. The Clinical Frailty Scale^10,11 and the Frailty Assessment for Care-planning Tool (FACT)⁵ use deficits in cognition, function, and mobility to define frailty. According to these scales, people are considered severely frail when they require assistance with basic activities of daily living (such as bathing or dressing), owing to cognitive or physical deficits from any cause.

In reviewing the evidence, we consider five questions:

• What is the quality of the evidence? (Up to 48% of clinical practice guideline recommendations may be based on low-level evidence or expert opinion.¹²)
• How did the study population compare with the frail?
• Are study outcomes and potential benefits clinically relevant to those who are frail?
• How long did it take for the clinical benefit of a treatment to become apparent, and are the frail elderly likely to live that long?
• Have the harms of treatment been sufficiently considered?

WHAT IS THE QUALITY OF THE EVIDENCE?

We found no studies that specifically evaluated the benefit of lipid-lowering for severely frail older adults. Therefore, we examined randomized controlled trials that enrolled non-frail older adults,^13–28 subgroup analyses of randomized controlled trials,^29,30 meta-analyses that analyzed subgroups of elderly populations,^31,32 and publications describing the study designs of randomized controlled trials.^33–37

Most of the evidence comes from post hoc subgroup analyses of elderly populations. Although meta-analysis is commonly used to compare subgroups, the Cochrane handbook and others consider subgroup comparisons observational by nature.^38,39 (See Table 1 for lipid-lowering studies discussed in this article.)

Studies of statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease

For evidence of benefit from lipid-lowering for primary prevention (ie, to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with no known cardiovascular disease at baseline but at increased risk), we reviewed the meta-analysis conducted by the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaborators.³² Since this meta-analysis included the major trials that enrolled elderly patients, individual publications of post hoc, elderly subgroups were, for the most part, not examined individually. The exception to this approach was a decision to report on the PROSPER¹³ and JUPITER²⁸ trials separately, because PROSPER is the most representative of the elderly population and JUPITER reached the lowest LDL-C of primary prevention trials published to date and included a large elderly subgroup (n = 5,695).

Savarese et al⁴⁰ evaluated the benefits of statins for older adults who did not have established cardiovascular disease. We did not report on this meta-analysis, as not all of the subjects that populated the meta-analysis were representative of a typical prevention population. For instance, in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial lipid-lowering arm,⁴¹ 14% of the subjects had had a previous stroke or transient ischemic attack. In the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment Trial,⁴² 16% of the population had a family history of premature coronary heart disease.

In addition, all the trials in the Savarese meta-analysis were also included in the CTT meta-analysis.³² The CTT reports on baseline risk using patient-level data stratified by age and risk, which may be more relevant to the question of primary prevention for older adults, as highlighted in our review.

PROSPER (Prospective Study of Pravastatin in the Elderly at Risk),¹³ a well-conducted, double-blind, randomized controlled trial with low probability of bias, compared pravastatin 40 mg and placebo. It was the only study that specifically enrolled older adults, with prespecified analysis of primary and secondary prevention subgroups. The primary prevention subgroup accounted for 56% of the 5,084 participants.

JUPITER (Justification for the Use of Statins in Prevention)²⁸ compared rosuvastatin 20 mg and placebo in 17,802 participants. All had low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels below 3.4 mmol/L (130 mg/dL) and elevated levels of the inflammatory biomarker high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), ie, 2 mg/L or higher. Subsequently, Glynn et al performed a post hoc, exploratory subgroup analysis of elderly participants (N = 5,695).²⁹

The JUPITER trial had several limitations.^43,44 The planned follow-up period was 5 years, but the trial was stopped early at 1.9 years, after a statistically significant difference was detected in the primary composite outcome of reduction in all vascular events. Studies that are stopped early may exaggerate positive findings.⁴⁵

Further, JUPITER’s patients were a select group, with normal LDL-C levels, elevated hsCRP values, and without diabetes. Of 90,000 patients screened, 72,000 (80%) did not meet the inclusion criteria and were not enrolled. This high rate of exclusion limits the generalizability of study findings beyond the shortcomings of post hoc subgroup analysis.

The meta-analysis performed by the CTT Collaborators³² used individual participant data from large-scale randomized trials of lipid-modifying treatment. This analysis was specific to people at low risk of vascular disease. In a supplementary appendix, the authors described the reduction in major vascular events for each 1.0 mmol/L decrease in LDL-C in three age categories: under age 60, ages 61 to 70, and over age 70.

The authors also stratified the results by risk category and provided information about those with a risk of major vascular events of less than 20%, which would be more representative of a purer primary prevention population.

For the elderly subgroup at low risk, the CTT Collaborators³² only reported a composite of major vascular events (coronary death, nonfatal myocardial infarction [MI], ischemic stroke, or revascularization) and did not describe individual outcomes, such as prevention of coronary heart disease.

Study results are based on postrandomization findings and therefore may be observational, not experimental.⁴⁶

Studies of statins for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease

The aim of secondary prevention is to reduce the risk of recurrent cardiovascular events in patients who already have cardiovascular disease.

To address the question of whether statins reduce cardiovascular risk, we reviewed:

PROSPER,¹³ which included a preplanned analysis of the secondary prevention population.

Afilalo et al,^31,47 who performed a meta-analysis of the elderly subgroups of nine major secondary prevention studies (19,569 patients) using published and unpublished data.

To address the question of whether statins benefit individuals with heart failure, we found two relevant studies:

GISSI-HF (Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvivenza nell’Insufficienza Cardiaca Heart Failure)²⁵ and CORONA (Controlled Rosuvastatin Multinational Trial in Heart Failure),²⁶ which were large, international, well-conducted randomized controlled trials that examined statin use in heart failure.

To answer the question of whether statins benefit individuals after a stroke or transient ischemic attack, we found one relevant study:

SPARCL (Stroke Prevention by Aggressive Reduction in Cholesterol Levels),²⁷ which evaluated the benefit of statins in older adults with a history of stroke or transient ischemic attack. It was a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, international trial conducted at 205 centers. One to 6 months after their cerebrovascular event, patients were randomized to receive either atorvastatin 80 mg or placebo. Given the young age of patients in this trial (mean age 63), we also reviewed a post hoc subgroup analysis of the elderly patients in SPARCL (age > 65).³⁰

HOW DID THE STUDY POPULATION COMPARE WITH THOSE WHO ARE FRAIL?

Frail older adults are almost always excluded from large-scale clinical trials,⁴⁸ leading to uncertainty about whether the conclusions can be applied to those with advanced frailty.

Although age is an imperfect proxy measure of frailty,⁴⁹ we consider the age of the study population as well as their comorbidities.

Participants in the studies we reviewed were generally younger and healthier than those who are frail, with mean ages of about 75 or less (Table 1).

PROSPER was the most representative study, as it specifically enrolled older adults, albeit without frailty,¹³ and excluded people with poor cognitive function as defined by a Mini Mental State Examination score less than 24.

JUPITER enrolled a select population, as described above. The median age in the elderly subgroup was 74 (interquartile range 72–78).²⁹

The Afilalo et al³¹ meta-analysis primarily included studies of young-elderly patients, with a mean age of less than 70. PROSPER¹³ was an exception.

The GISSI-HF study,²⁵ which examined the benefit of statins in heart failure, described their study population as frail, although the mean age was only 68. Compared with those in GISSI-HF, the CORONA patients²⁶ with heart failure were older (mean age 73) and had more severe heart failure. Accordingly, it is possible that many of the CORONA participants were frail.

ARE STUDY OUTCOMES CLINICALLY RELEVANT TO THOSE WHO ARE FRAIL?

Because baseline cardiovascular risk increases with age, the elderly should, in theory, experience greater absolute benefit from lipid-lowering. However, there is uncertainty about whether this is true in practice.

Some, but not all, epidemiologic studies show a weaker relationship between cholesterol levels and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality rates in older compared to younger adults.^50,51 This may be because those with high cholesterol levels die before they get old (time-related bias), or because those with life-threatening illness may have lower cholesterol levels.⁵⁰ In addition, classic risk factors such as age, sex, systolic blood pressure, cholesterol values, diabetes, smoking, and left ventricular hypertrophy on electrocardiography may have less power to predict cardiovascular risk among older patients.⁵²

The goal of treatment in frailty is to prevent further disability or improve quality of life. Therefore, meaningful outcomes for lipid-lowering therapy should include symptomatic nonfatal MI and its associated morbidity (eg, heart failure and persistent angina) or symptomatic nonfatal stroke leading to disability. Outcomes without sustained clinical impact, such as transient ischemic attack, nondisabling stroke, or silent MI, while potentially important in other populations, are less relevant in severe frailty. Notably, in many statin studies, outcomes include asymptomatic heart disease (eg, silent MI and “suspected events”) and nondisabling stroke (eg, mild stroke, transient ischemic attack). When symptomatic outcomes are not reported separately, the impact of the reported benefit on quality of life and function is uncertain.

The outcome of all-cause mortality is generally recognized as a gold standard for determining treatment benefit. However, since advanced frailty is characterized by multiple competing causes for mortality, a reduction in all-cause mortality that is achieved by addressing a single issue in nonfrail populations may not extend to the frail.

To more fully understand the impact of lipid-lowering therapy on quality of life and function, we examined the following questions:

Do statins as primary prevention reduce symptomatic heart disease?

Outcomes for coronary heart disease from PROSPER and JUPITER are summarized in Table 2.

PROSPER. In the PROSPER primary prevention group,¹³ statin therapy did not reduce the combined outcome of coronary heart disease death and nonfatal MI.

The JUPITER trial demonstrated a statistically significant benefit for preventing MI in the elderly subpopulation (ages 70–97),²⁹ but the number needed to treat was high (211 for 2 years), with a wide confidence interval (CI) (95% CI 106–32,924). The trial did not adequately differentiate between symptomatic and asymptomatic events, making it difficult to determine outcome relevance. Also, due to the methodologic limitations of JUPITER as described above, its results should be interpreted with caution.^43,44

The CTT Collaborators³² did not report individual outcomes (eg, coronary heart disease) for the elderly low-risk subgroup and, therefore, this meta-analysis does not answer the question of whether statins reduce symptomatic heart disease in primary prevention populations.

Taken together, these findings do not provide convincing evidence that statin therapy as primary prevention reduces the incidence of symptomatic heart disease for severely frail older adults.

Do statins as secondary prevention reduce symptomatic heart disease?

Most studies defined secondary prevention narrowly as treatment for patients with established coronary artery disease. For instance, in the Afilalo et al meta-analysis,³¹ the small number of studies that included individuals with other forms of vascular disease (such as peripheral vascular disease) enrolled few participants with noncardiac conditions (eg, 29% in PROSPER¹³ and 13% in the Heart Protection Study²⁰).

Therefore, any evidence of benefit for secondary prevention demonstrated in these studies is most applicable to patients with coronary heart disease, with less certainty for those with other forms of cardiovascular disease.

In PROSPER,¹³ the secondary prevention group experienced benefit in the combined outcome of coronary heart disease death or nonfatal MI. In the treatment group, 12.7% experienced this outcome compared with 16.8% with placebo, an absolute risk reduction of 4.1% in 3 years (P = .004, number needed to treat 25, 95% CI 15–77). This measure includes coronary heart disease death, an outcome that may not be generalizable to those who are frail. In addition, the outcome of nonfatal MI includes both symptomatic and suspected events. As such, there is uncertainty whether the realized benefit is clinically relevant to frail older adults.

The Afilalo et al meta-analysis³¹ showed that the number needed to treat to prevent one nonfatal MI was 38 (95% CI 16–118) over 5 years (Table 2). However, this outcome included both symptomatic and asymptomatic (silent) events.

Based on the available data, we conclude that it is not possible to determine whether statins reduce symptomatic heart disease as secondary prevention for older adults who are frail.

Do statins reduce heart disease in combined populations?

In the combined primary and secondary population from PROSPER,¹³ pravastatin decreased the risk of nonfatal symptomatic MI from 4.3% in the placebo group to 3.4%, a relatively small reduction in absolute risk (0.9%) and not statistically significant by our chi-square calculation (P = .099).

Do statins prevent a first symptomatic stroke in people with or without preexisting cardiovascular disease?

Preventing strokes that cause functional decline is an important outcome for the frail elderly. Stroke outcomes from PROSPER,¹³ JUPITER,²⁹ and the Afilalo et al meta-analysis³¹ are summarized in Table 3.

For primary prevention:

In PROSPER (primary prevention),¹³ there was no statistically significant benefit in the combined outcome of fatal and nonfatal stroke or the single outcome of transient ischemic attack after 3.2 years.

JUPITER,²⁹ in contrast, found that rosuvastatin 20 mg reduced strokes in primary prevention, but the absolute benefit was small. In 2 years, 0.8% of the treatment group had strokes, compared with 1.4% with placebo, an absolute risk reduction of 0.6% (P = .023, number needed to treat 161, 95% CI 86–1,192).

Neither PROSPER nor JUPITER differentiated between disabling and nondisabling strokes.

For secondary prevention:

In PROSPER (secondary prevention),¹³ there was no statistically significant benefit in the combined outcome of fatal and nonfatal stroke or the single outcome of transient ischemic attack after 3.2 years.

The Afilalo et al secondary prevention meta-analysis demonstrated a 25% relative reduction in stroke (relative risk 0.75, 95% CI 0.56–0.94, number needed to treat 58, 95% CI 27–177).³¹

Notably, the stroke outcome in Afilalo included both disabling and nondisabling strokes. For example, in the Heart Protection Study,²⁰ the largest study in the Afilalo et al meta-analysis, approximately 50% of nonfatal, classifiable strokes in the overall study population (ie, both younger and older patients) were not disabling. Including disabling and nondisabling strokes in a composite outcome confounds the clinical meaningfulness of these findings in frailty, as the number needed to treat to prevent one disabling stroke cannot be calculated from the data provided.

Do statins prevent a second (symptomatic) stroke in people with a previous stroke?

SPARCL²⁷ (Table 3) examined the question of whether statins decrease the risk of recurrent ischemic stroke for patients with a prior history of stroke or transient ischemic attack. There was a statistically significant reduction in the primary composite outcome of fatal and nonfatal stroke, with 11.2% of the treatment group and 13.1% of the placebo group experiencing this outcome, an absolute risk reduction of 1.9% at 5 years (P = .03; number needed to treat 52, 95% CI 26–1,303). However, the difference in nonfatal stroke, which is the outcome of interest for frailty (since mortality has uncertain relevance), was not statistically significant (10.4% with treatment vs 11.8% with placebo, P =.11).

An exploratory subgroup analysis of SPARCL patients based on age³⁰ showed a smaller, nonsignificant reduction in the primary end point of fatal and nonfatal stroke in the group over age 65 (relative risk 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.73–1.11, P = .33) compared with the younger group (age < 65) (relative risk 0.74, 95% CI 0.57–0.96, P = .02).

The applicability of these results to the frail elderly is uncertain, since the subgroup analysis was not powered to determine outcomes based on age stratification and there were differences between groups in characteristics such as blood pressure and smoking status. In addition, the outcome of interest, nonfatal stroke, is not provided for the elderly subgroup.

In conclusion, in both primary and secondary prevention populations, the evidence that statins reduce nonfatal, symptomatic stroke rates for older adults is uncertain.

Do statins decrease all-cause mortality for primary or secondary prevention?

Due to competing risks for death, the outcome of mortality may not be relevant to those who are frail; however, studies showed the following:

For primary prevention, there was no decrease in mortality in PROSPER¹³ or in the elderly subgroup of JUPITER.²⁹

For secondary prevention, an analysis of PROSPER trial data by Afilalo et al³¹ showed a significant 18% decrease in all-cause mortality (relative risk 0.82, 95% CI 0.69–0.98) using pravastatin 40 mg.

A decrease in all-cause mortality with statins was also reported in the pooled result of the Afilalo et al meta-analysis.³¹

What are the reported composite outcomes for primary and secondary prevention?

While we were most interested in the symptomatic outcomes described above, we recognize that the small numbers of events make it difficult to draw firm conclusions. Therefore, we also considered composite primary outcomes, even though most included multiple measures that have varying associations with disability and relevancy to frail older adults.

For primary prevention, in the PROSPER preplanned subgroup analysis,¹³ there was no statistical benefit for any outcome, including the primary composite measure. In contrast, the elderly subpopulation in the JUPITER trial²⁸ showed a treatment benefit with rosuvastatin 20 mg compared with placebo for the primary composite outcome of MI, stroke, cardiovascular death, hospitalization for unstable angina, or revascularization. The number needed to treat for 2 years was 62 (95% CI 39–148).

In the CTT meta-analysis,³² patients at all levels of baseline risk showed benefit up to age 70. However, there was no statistically significant benefit in the composite primary outcome of coronary deaths, nonfatal myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or revascularization in the population most representative of elderly primary prevention—those who were more than 70 years old with a 5-year baseline risk of less than 20%.

For secondary prevention, in PROSPER,¹³ the subpopulation of patients treated for secondary prevention experienced benefit in the primary composite outcome of coronary heart disease death, nonfatal MI, or fatal or nonfatal stroke, achieving a 4% absolute risk reduction with a number needed to treat of 23 (95% CI 14–81) over 3 years.

Do statins decrease disability?

PROSPER was the only study that reported on disability. Compared with placebo, pravastatin did not decrease disability in the total population as measured by basic and instrumental activities of daily living scales.

Do statins help patients with heart failure?

Neither GISSI-HF²⁵ nor CORONA²⁶ found significant benefit from rosuvastatin 10 mg, despite LDL-C lowering of 27% in GISSI-HF and 45% in CORONA.

Do ezetimibe or other nonstatin lipid-lowering agents improve outcomes?

There is no definitive evidence that ezetimibe provides clinically meaningful benefit as a single agent.

For combination therapy, the IMPROVE-IT (Improved Reduction of Outcomes: Vytorin Efficacy International Trial)⁵³ showed that adding ezetimibe 10 mg to simvastatin 40 mg after an acute coronary syndrome reduced the risk of nonfatal myocardial infarction compared with simvastatin monotherapy (event rate 12.8% vs 14.4%; hazard ratio 0.87, 95% CI 0.80–0.95; P = .002) for a population with a mean age of 64. The risk of any stroke was also reduced; strokes occurred in 4.2% of those receiving combination therapy vs 4.8% with monotherapy (hazard ratio 0.86, 95% CI 0.73–1.00, P = .05). After a median of 6 years, 42% of patients in each group had discontinued treatment. Given the very specific clinical scenario of acute coronary syndrome and the young age of the patients in this trial, we do not think that this study justifies the use of ezetimibe for severely frail older adults.

There is no evidence that other combinations (ie, a statin plus another lipid-lowering drug) improve clinical outcomes for either primary or secondary prevention in any population.⁵⁴

WILL FRAIL PATIENTS LIVE LONG ENOUGH TO BENEFIT?

It is often difficult to determine the number of years that are needed to achieve benefit, as most trials do not provide a statistical analysis of varying time frames.

The PROSPER trial¹³ lasted 3.2 years. From the Kaplan-Meier curves in PROSPER, we estimate that it took about 1.5 years to achieve a 1% absolute risk reduction and 2.5 years for a 2% absolute risk reduction in coronary heart disease death and nonfatal MI in the combined primary and secondary groups.

JUPITER²⁸ was stopped early at 1.9 years. The Afilalo et al meta-analysis³¹ was based on follow-up over 4.9 years.

IMPROVE-IT⁵³ reported event rates at 7 years. The authors note that benefit in the primary composite outcome appeared to emerge at 1 year, although no statistical support is given for this statement and divergence in the Kaplan-Meier curves is not visually apparent.

The duration of other studies ranged between 2.7 and 4.9 years (Table 1).^26–28

It has been suggested that statins should be considered for elderly patients who have a life expectancy of at least 5 years.³ However, many older adults have already been taking statins for many years, which makes it difficult to interpret the available timeframe evidence.

In a multicenter, unblinded, randomized trial,⁵⁵ statins were either stopped or continued in older adults who had a short life expectancy and a median survival of approximately 7 months. Causes of death were evenly divided between cancer and noncancer diagnoses, and 22% of the patients were cognitively impaired. Discontinuing statin therapy did not increase mortality or cardiovascular events within 60 days. Nevertheless, stopping statin therapy did not achieve noninferiority for the primary end point, the proportion of participants who died within 60 days. Statin discontinuation was associated with improved quality of life, although the study was not blinded, which could have influenced results.

HAVE THE HARMS BEEN SUFFICIENTLY CONSIDERED?

Frail older adults commonly take multiple medications and are more vulnerable to adverse events.⁵⁶

Many statins require dose reduction with severe renal impairment (creatinine clearance < 30 mL/min/1.73 m²), which would be a common consideration in severely frail older adults.

Myopathy

Myopathy, which includes myalgias and muscle weakness, is a statin-related adverse event that can impair quality of life. Myopathy typically develops within the first 6 months but can occur at any time during statin treatment.⁵⁷ When muscle-related adverse effects occur, they may affect the elderly more significantly, particularly their ability to perform activities of daily living, rise from a chair, or mobilize independently. Another concern is that older adults with dementia may not be able to accurately report muscle-related symptoms.

It is difficult to ascertain the true prevalence of myopathy, especially in advanced age and frailty. Randomized controlled trials report incidence rates of 1.5% to 5%, which is comparable to placebo.^57,58 However, inconsistent definitions of myopathy and exclusion of subjects with previous statin intolerance or adverse effects during run-in periods limit interpretability.⁵⁷ Clinical experience suggests that muscle complaints may be relatively common.^59–61

Advanced age, female sex, low body mass index, and multisystem disease are all associated with frailty and have also been described as risk factors for statin-associated muscle syndromes.⁶¹ Physiologic changes associated with frailty, such as reduced muscle strength, decreased lean body mass, impaired functional mobility, decreased reserve capacity, and altered drug metabolism may increase the risk and severity of myopathy.⁶²

Adverse cognitive events

Meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials and narrative reviews find no definitive relationship between statin therapy and adverse cognitive events.^63–67 Nevertheless, there have been case reports of memory loss associated with the use of statins, and the US Food and Drug Administration has issued a warning that statins have been associated with memory loss and confusion.⁶⁸

It may be difficult to determine whether a statin is causing or aggravating cognitive symptoms among individuals with dementia without a trial withdrawal of the drug.

OUR RECOMMENDATIONS

The recommendations below are intended for adults with severe or very severe frailty (ie, a score of 7 or 8 on the Clinical Frailty Scale¹¹ or FACT⁵ and therefore apply to most older adults living in long-term care facilities.

Primary prevention

There is no reason to prescribe or continue statins for primary prevention, as it is unlikely that they would provide benefit for outcomes that are relevant in this population.

Secondary prevention

Statin treatment is probably not necessary for secondary prevention in those with severe frailty, although there may be extenuating circumstances that justify statin use.

Heart failure

There is no reason to start or continue statins for heart failure, as there is insufficient evidence that they are effective for this indication in any population.

Ezetimibe

There is no evidence that ezetimibe reduces cardiovascular events in any population when used as monotherapy. For a select population with acute coronary syndromes, ezetimibe has a modest effect. Given the very specific clinical scenario of acute coronary syndrome, we do not think that the available evidence justifies the use of ezetimibe for severely frail older adults.

Agents other than ezetimibe combined with statins

There is no reason to start or continue other lipid-lowering drugs in conjunction with statins.

Statin dosing

As statin adverse effects have the potential to increase with advancing age and frailty, lower doses may be appropriate.⁶⁸

Adverse events

Consider stopping statins on a trial basis if there is concern regarding myopathy, drug interactions, or other adverse effects.

BOTTOM LINE: DO STATINS IMPROVE QUALITY OF LIFE OR FUNCTION?

In primary prevention for older adults, there is doubt that statins prevent cardiovascular disease and stroke-related events because the main study involving the elderly did not show a benefit in the primary prevention subgroup.¹³ Additionally, there is no conclusive evidence that statin treatment decreases mortality in primary prevention.^13,29

There is insufficient information to determine whether the frail elderly should receive statins for secondary prevention. Although there is evidence that treatment decreases measures of coronary heart disease and stroke, it is unclear whether it improves quality of life or function for those who are frail. To answer this question, we need more information about whether reported outcomes (such as stroke and MI) are associated with disability, which is not provided in many of the studies we reviewed. When disability was specifically considered in the PROSPER trial for the combined population of primary and secondary prevention, treatment with statins had no impact on basic and instrumental activities of daily living.

Some experts may not agree with our interpretation of the complex evidence presented in this article. Others may ask, “What is the harm in using statins, even if there is no definitive benefit?” However, the harms associated with statin therapy for the frail are poorly defined. In the face of these uncertainties and in the absence of definitive improvement in quality of life, we believe that “less is more” in the context of severe frailty.⁶⁹

The cost of medications should also be considered, especially in long-term care facilities, where there is an added expense of drug administration that diverts human resources away from interactions that are more congruent with respecting the lifestage of frailty.

Careful review of evidence before applying clinical practice guidelines to those who are frail should become the norm. When considering treatment of frail patients, the five questions described in this review shed light on the applicability of clinical trial evidence. Therapies that are highly effective in healthier populations may be less effective when individuals are severely frail. Accordingly, we propose that medications should only be used if they improve quality of life or function.

Frail elderly patients are at high risk of adverse clinical outcomes, including those due to polypharmacy. Several groups tackle “deprescribing” by developing lists of medications that are potentially inappropriate for the elderly, such as the Beers or STOPP/START criteria.^1–4

In contrast, our group (the Palliative and Therapeutic Harmonization [PATH] program and the Dalhousie Academic Detailing Service) has developed evidence-based, frailty-specific guidelines for treating hypertension⁵ and diabetes,⁶ in which we advocate less-stringent treatment targets and tapering or discontinuing medications, as needed.

The PATH program⁷ is a clinical approach that prioritizes the consideration of frailty when making treatment decisions. The Dalhousie Academic Detailing Service collaborates with the Nova Scotia Health Authority to research and develop evidence-informed educational messages about the treatment of common medical conditions.

Here, we address lipid-lowering therapy in this population.

CONSIDERING FRAILTY

Frailty is defined in several ways. The Fried model^8,9 identifies frailty when 3 of the following characteristics are present: unintentional weight loss, exhaustion, muscle weakness, slow walking speed, or low levels of activity. The Clinical Frailty Scale^10,11 and the Frailty Assessment for Care-planning Tool (FACT)⁵ use deficits in cognition, function, and mobility to define frailty. According to these scales, people are considered severely frail when they require assistance with basic activities of daily living (such as bathing or dressing), owing to cognitive or physical deficits from any cause.

In reviewing the evidence, we consider five questions:

• What is the quality of the evidence? (Up to 48% of clinical practice guideline recommendations may be based on low-level evidence or expert opinion.¹²)
• How did the study population compare with the frail?
• Are study outcomes and potential benefits clinically relevant to those who are frail?
• How long did it take for the clinical benefit of a treatment to become apparent, and are the frail elderly likely to live that long?
• Have the harms of treatment been sufficiently considered?

WHAT IS THE QUALITY OF THE EVIDENCE?

We found no studies that specifically evaluated the benefit of lipid-lowering for severely frail older adults. Therefore, we examined randomized controlled trials that enrolled non-frail older adults,^13–28 subgroup analyses of randomized controlled trials,^29,30 meta-analyses that analyzed subgroups of elderly populations,^31,32 and publications describing the study designs of randomized controlled trials.^33–37

Most of the evidence comes from post hoc subgroup analyses of elderly populations. Although meta-analysis is commonly used to compare subgroups, the Cochrane handbook and others consider subgroup comparisons observational by nature.^38,39 (See Table 1 for lipid-lowering studies discussed in this article.)

Studies of statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease

For evidence of benefit from lipid-lowering for primary prevention (ie, to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with no known cardiovascular disease at baseline but at increased risk), we reviewed the meta-analysis conducted by the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaborators.³² Since this meta-analysis included the major trials that enrolled elderly patients, individual publications of post hoc, elderly subgroups were, for the most part, not examined individually. The exception to this approach was a decision to report on the PROSPER¹³ and JUPITER²⁸ trials separately, because PROSPER is the most representative of the elderly population and JUPITER reached the lowest LDL-C of primary prevention trials published to date and included a large elderly subgroup (n = 5,695).

Savarese et al⁴⁰ evaluated the benefits of statins for older adults who did not have established cardiovascular disease. We did not report on this meta-analysis, as not all of the subjects that populated the meta-analysis were representative of a typical prevention population. For instance, in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial lipid-lowering arm,⁴¹ 14% of the subjects had had a previous stroke or transient ischemic attack. In the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment Trial,⁴² 16% of the population had a family history of premature coronary heart disease.

In addition, all the trials in the Savarese meta-analysis were also included in the CTT meta-analysis.³² The CTT reports on baseline risk using patient-level data stratified by age and risk, which may be more relevant to the question of primary prevention for older adults, as highlighted in our review.

PROSPER (Prospective Study of Pravastatin in the Elderly at Risk),¹³ a well-conducted, double-blind, randomized controlled trial with low probability of bias, compared pravastatin 40 mg and placebo. It was the only study that specifically enrolled older adults, with prespecified analysis of primary and secondary prevention subgroups. The primary prevention subgroup accounted for 56% of the 5,084 participants.

JUPITER (Justification for the Use of Statins in Prevention)²⁸ compared rosuvastatin 20 mg and placebo in 17,802 participants. All had low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels below 3.4 mmol/L (130 mg/dL) and elevated levels of the inflammatory biomarker high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), ie, 2 mg/L or higher. Subsequently, Glynn et al performed a post hoc, exploratory subgroup analysis of elderly participants (N = 5,695).²⁹

The JUPITER trial had several limitations.^43,44 The planned follow-up period was 5 years, but the trial was stopped early at 1.9 years, after a statistically significant difference was detected in the primary composite outcome of reduction in all vascular events. Studies that are stopped early may exaggerate positive findings.⁴⁵

Further, JUPITER’s patients were a select group, with normal LDL-C levels, elevated hsCRP values, and without diabetes. Of 90,000 patients screened, 72,000 (80%) did not meet the inclusion criteria and were not enrolled. This high rate of exclusion limits the generalizability of study findings beyond the shortcomings of post hoc subgroup analysis.

The meta-analysis performed by the CTT Collaborators³² used individual participant data from large-scale randomized trials of lipid-modifying treatment. This analysis was specific to people at low risk of vascular disease. In a supplementary appendix, the authors described the reduction in major vascular events for each 1.0 mmol/L decrease in LDL-C in three age categories: under age 60, ages 61 to 70, and over age 70.

The authors also stratified the results by risk category and provided information about those with a risk of major vascular events of less than 20%, which would be more representative of a purer primary prevention population.

For the elderly subgroup at low risk, the CTT Collaborators³² only reported a composite of major vascular events (coronary death, nonfatal myocardial infarction [MI], ischemic stroke, or revascularization) and did not describe individual outcomes, such as prevention of coronary heart disease.

Study results are based on postrandomization findings and therefore may be observational, not experimental.⁴⁶

Studies of statins for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease

The aim of secondary prevention is to reduce the risk of recurrent cardiovascular events in patients who already have cardiovascular disease.

To address the question of whether statins reduce cardiovascular risk, we reviewed:

PROSPER,¹³ which included a preplanned analysis of the secondary prevention population.

Afilalo et al,^31,47 who performed a meta-analysis of the elderly subgroups of nine major secondary prevention studies (19,569 patients) using published and unpublished data.

To address the question of whether statins benefit individuals with heart failure, we found two relevant studies:

GISSI-HF (Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvivenza nell’Insufficienza Cardiaca Heart Failure)²⁵ and CORONA (Controlled Rosuvastatin Multinational Trial in Heart Failure),²⁶ which were large, international, well-conducted randomized controlled trials that examined statin use in heart failure.

To answer the question of whether statins benefit individuals after a stroke or transient ischemic attack, we found one relevant study:

SPARCL (Stroke Prevention by Aggressive Reduction in Cholesterol Levels),²⁷ which evaluated the benefit of statins in older adults with a history of stroke or transient ischemic attack. It was a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, international trial conducted at 205 centers. One to 6 months after their cerebrovascular event, patients were randomized to receive either atorvastatin 80 mg or placebo. Given the young age of patients in this trial (mean age 63), we also reviewed a post hoc subgroup analysis of the elderly patients in SPARCL (age > 65).³⁰

HOW DID THE STUDY POPULATION COMPARE WITH THOSE WHO ARE FRAIL?

Frail older adults are almost always excluded from large-scale clinical trials,⁴⁸ leading to uncertainty about whether the conclusions can be applied to those with advanced frailty.

Although age is an imperfect proxy measure of frailty,⁴⁹ we consider the age of the study population as well as their comorbidities.

Participants in the studies we reviewed were generally younger and healthier than those who are frail, with mean ages of about 75 or less (Table 1).

PROSPER was the most representative study, as it specifically enrolled older adults, albeit without frailty,¹³ and excluded people with poor cognitive function as defined by a Mini Mental State Examination score less than 24.

JUPITER enrolled a select population, as described above. The median age in the elderly subgroup was 74 (interquartile range 72–78).²⁹

The Afilalo et al³¹ meta-analysis primarily included studies of young-elderly patients, with a mean age of less than 70. PROSPER¹³ was an exception.

The GISSI-HF study,²⁵ which examined the benefit of statins in heart failure, described their study population as frail, although the mean age was only 68. Compared with those in GISSI-HF, the CORONA patients²⁶ with heart failure were older (mean age 73) and had more severe heart failure. Accordingly, it is possible that many of the CORONA participants were frail.

ARE STUDY OUTCOMES CLINICALLY RELEVANT TO THOSE WHO ARE FRAIL?

Because baseline cardiovascular risk increases with age, the elderly should, in theory, experience greater absolute benefit from lipid-lowering. However, there is uncertainty about whether this is true in practice.

Some, but not all, epidemiologic studies show a weaker relationship between cholesterol levels and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality rates in older compared to younger adults.^50,51 This may be because those with high cholesterol levels die before they get old (time-related bias), or because those with life-threatening illness may have lower cholesterol levels.⁵⁰ In addition, classic risk factors such as age, sex, systolic blood pressure, cholesterol values, diabetes, smoking, and left ventricular hypertrophy on electrocardiography may have less power to predict cardiovascular risk among older patients.⁵²

The goal of treatment in frailty is to prevent further disability or improve quality of life. Therefore, meaningful outcomes for lipid-lowering therapy should include symptomatic nonfatal MI and its associated morbidity (eg, heart failure and persistent angina) or symptomatic nonfatal stroke leading to disability. Outcomes without sustained clinical impact, such as transient ischemic attack, nondisabling stroke, or silent MI, while potentially important in other populations, are less relevant in severe frailty. Notably, in many statin studies, outcomes include asymptomatic heart disease (eg, silent MI and “suspected events”) and nondisabling stroke (eg, mild stroke, transient ischemic attack). When symptomatic outcomes are not reported separately, the impact of the reported benefit on quality of life and function is uncertain.

The outcome of all-cause mortality is generally recognized as a gold standard for determining treatment benefit. However, since advanced frailty is characterized by multiple competing causes for mortality, a reduction in all-cause mortality that is achieved by addressing a single issue in nonfrail populations may not extend to the frail.

To more fully understand the impact of lipid-lowering therapy on quality of life and function, we examined the following questions:

Do statins as primary prevention reduce symptomatic heart disease?

Outcomes for coronary heart disease from PROSPER and JUPITER are summarized in Table 2.

PROSPER. In the PROSPER primary prevention group,¹³ statin therapy did not reduce the combined outcome of coronary heart disease death and nonfatal MI.

The JUPITER trial demonstrated a statistically significant benefit for preventing MI in the elderly subpopulation (ages 70–97),²⁹ but the number needed to treat was high (211 for 2 years), with a wide confidence interval (CI) (95% CI 106–32,924). The trial did not adequately differentiate between symptomatic and asymptomatic events, making it difficult to determine outcome relevance. Also, due to the methodologic limitations of JUPITER as described above, its results should be interpreted with caution.^43,44

The CTT Collaborators³² did not report individual outcomes (eg, coronary heart disease) for the elderly low-risk subgroup and, therefore, this meta-analysis does not answer the question of whether statins reduce symptomatic heart disease in primary prevention populations.

Taken together, these findings do not provide convincing evidence that statin therapy as primary prevention reduces the incidence of symptomatic heart disease for severely frail older adults.

Do statins as secondary prevention reduce symptomatic heart disease?

Most studies defined secondary prevention narrowly as treatment for patients with established coronary artery disease. For instance, in the Afilalo et al meta-analysis,³¹ the small number of studies that included individuals with other forms of vascular disease (such as peripheral vascular disease) enrolled few participants with noncardiac conditions (eg, 29% in PROSPER¹³ and 13% in the Heart Protection Study²⁰).

Therefore, any evidence of benefit for secondary prevention demonstrated in these studies is most applicable to patients with coronary heart disease, with less certainty for those with other forms of cardiovascular disease.

In PROSPER,¹³ the secondary prevention group experienced benefit in the combined outcome of coronary heart disease death or nonfatal MI. In the treatment group, 12.7% experienced this outcome compared with 16.8% with placebo, an absolute risk reduction of 4.1% in 3 years (P = .004, number needed to treat 25, 95% CI 15–77). This measure includes coronary heart disease death, an outcome that may not be generalizable to those who are frail. In addition, the outcome of nonfatal MI includes both symptomatic and suspected events. As such, there is uncertainty whether the realized benefit is clinically relevant to frail older adults.

The Afilalo et al meta-analysis³¹ showed that the number needed to treat to prevent one nonfatal MI was 38 (95% CI 16–118) over 5 years (Table 2). However, this outcome included both symptomatic and asymptomatic (silent) events.

Based on the available data, we conclude that it is not possible to determine whether statins reduce symptomatic heart disease as secondary prevention for older adults who are frail.

Do statins reduce heart disease in combined populations?

In the combined primary and secondary population from PROSPER,¹³ pravastatin decreased the risk of nonfatal symptomatic MI from 4.3% in the placebo group to 3.4%, a relatively small reduction in absolute risk (0.9%) and not statistically significant by our chi-square calculation (P = .099).

Do statins prevent a first symptomatic stroke in people with or without preexisting cardiovascular disease?

Preventing strokes that cause functional decline is an important outcome for the frail elderly. Stroke outcomes from PROSPER,¹³ JUPITER,²⁹ and the Afilalo et al meta-analysis³¹ are summarized in Table 3.

For primary prevention:

In PROSPER (primary prevention),¹³ there was no statistically significant benefit in the combined outcome of fatal and nonfatal stroke or the single outcome of transient ischemic attack after 3.2 years.

JUPITER,²⁹ in contrast, found that rosuvastatin 20 mg reduced strokes in primary prevention, but the absolute benefit was small. In 2 years, 0.8% of the treatment group had strokes, compared with 1.4% with placebo, an absolute risk reduction of 0.6% (P = .023, number needed to treat 161, 95% CI 86–1,192).

Neither PROSPER nor JUPITER differentiated between disabling and nondisabling strokes.

For secondary prevention:

In PROSPER (secondary prevention),¹³ there was no statistically significant benefit in the combined outcome of fatal and nonfatal stroke or the single outcome of transient ischemic attack after 3.2 years.

The Afilalo et al secondary prevention meta-analysis demonstrated a 25% relative reduction in stroke (relative risk 0.75, 95% CI 0.56–0.94, number needed to treat 58, 95% CI 27–177).³¹

Notably, the stroke outcome in Afilalo included both disabling and nondisabling strokes. For example, in the Heart Protection Study,²⁰ the largest study in the Afilalo et al meta-analysis, approximately 50% of nonfatal, classifiable strokes in the overall study population (ie, both younger and older patients) were not disabling. Including disabling and nondisabling strokes in a composite outcome confounds the clinical meaningfulness of these findings in frailty, as the number needed to treat to prevent one disabling stroke cannot be calculated from the data provided.

Do statins prevent a second (symptomatic) stroke in people with a previous stroke?

SPARCL²⁷ (Table 3) examined the question of whether statins decrease the risk of recurrent ischemic stroke for patients with a prior history of stroke or transient ischemic attack. There was a statistically significant reduction in the primary composite outcome of fatal and nonfatal stroke, with 11.2% of the treatment group and 13.1% of the placebo group experiencing this outcome, an absolute risk reduction of 1.9% at 5 years (P = .03; number needed to treat 52, 95% CI 26–1,303). However, the difference in nonfatal stroke, which is the outcome of interest for frailty (since mortality has uncertain relevance), was not statistically significant (10.4% with treatment vs 11.8% with placebo, P =.11).

An exploratory subgroup analysis of SPARCL patients based on age³⁰ showed a smaller, nonsignificant reduction in the primary end point of fatal and nonfatal stroke in the group over age 65 (relative risk 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.73–1.11, P = .33) compared with the younger group (age < 65) (relative risk 0.74, 95% CI 0.57–0.96, P = .02).

The applicability of these results to the frail elderly is uncertain, since the subgroup analysis was not powered to determine outcomes based on age stratification and there were differences between groups in characteristics such as blood pressure and smoking status. In addition, the outcome of interest, nonfatal stroke, is not provided for the elderly subgroup.

In conclusion, in both primary and secondary prevention populations, the evidence that statins reduce nonfatal, symptomatic stroke rates for older adults is uncertain.

Do statins decrease all-cause mortality for primary or secondary prevention?

Due to competing risks for death, the outcome of mortality may not be relevant to those who are frail; however, studies showed the following:

For primary prevention, there was no decrease in mortality in PROSPER¹³ or in the elderly subgroup of JUPITER.²⁹

For secondary prevention, an analysis of PROSPER trial data by Afilalo et al³¹ showed a significant 18% decrease in all-cause mortality (relative risk 0.82, 95% CI 0.69–0.98) using pravastatin 40 mg.

A decrease in all-cause mortality with statins was also reported in the pooled result of the Afilalo et al meta-analysis.³¹

What are the reported composite outcomes for primary and secondary prevention?

While we were most interested in the symptomatic outcomes described above, we recognize that the small numbers of events make it difficult to draw firm conclusions. Therefore, we also considered composite primary outcomes, even though most included multiple measures that have varying associations with disability and relevancy to frail older adults.

For primary prevention, in the PROSPER preplanned subgroup analysis,¹³ there was no statistical benefit for any outcome, including the primary composite measure. In contrast, the elderly subpopulation in the JUPITER trial²⁸ showed a treatment benefit with rosuvastatin 20 mg compared with placebo for the primary composite outcome of MI, stroke, cardiovascular death, hospitalization for unstable angina, or revascularization. The number needed to treat for 2 years was 62 (95% CI 39–148).

In the CTT meta-analysis,³² patients at all levels of baseline risk showed benefit up to age 70. However, there was no statistically significant benefit in the composite primary outcome of coronary deaths, nonfatal myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or revascularization in the population most representative of elderly primary prevention—those who were more than 70 years old with a 5-year baseline risk of less than 20%.

For secondary prevention, in PROSPER,¹³ the subpopulation of patients treated for secondary prevention experienced benefit in the primary composite outcome of coronary heart disease death, nonfatal MI, or fatal or nonfatal stroke, achieving a 4% absolute risk reduction with a number needed to treat of 23 (95% CI 14–81) over 3 years.

Do statins decrease disability?

PROSPER was the only study that reported on disability. Compared with placebo, pravastatin did not decrease disability in the total population as measured by basic and instrumental activities of daily living scales.

Do statins help patients with heart failure?

Neither GISSI-HF²⁵ nor CORONA²⁶ found significant benefit from rosuvastatin 10 mg, despite LDL-C lowering of 27% in GISSI-HF and 45% in CORONA.

Do ezetimibe or other nonstatin lipid-lowering agents improve outcomes?

There is no definitive evidence that ezetimibe provides clinically meaningful benefit as a single agent.

For combination therapy, the IMPROVE-IT (Improved Reduction of Outcomes: Vytorin Efficacy International Trial)⁵³ showed that adding ezetimibe 10 mg to simvastatin 40 mg after an acute coronary syndrome reduced the risk of nonfatal myocardial infarction compared with simvastatin monotherapy (event rate 12.8% vs 14.4%; hazard ratio 0.87, 95% CI 0.80–0.95; P = .002) for a population with a mean age of 64. The risk of any stroke was also reduced; strokes occurred in 4.2% of those receiving combination therapy vs 4.8% with monotherapy (hazard ratio 0.86, 95% CI 0.73–1.00, P = .05). After a median of 6 years, 42% of patients in each group had discontinued treatment. Given the very specific clinical scenario of acute coronary syndrome and the young age of the patients in this trial, we do not think that this study justifies the use of ezetimibe for severely frail older adults.

There is no evidence that other combinations (ie, a statin plus another lipid-lowering drug) improve clinical outcomes for either primary or secondary prevention in any population.⁵⁴

WILL FRAIL PATIENTS LIVE LONG ENOUGH TO BENEFIT?

It is often difficult to determine the number of years that are needed to achieve benefit, as most trials do not provide a statistical analysis of varying time frames.

The PROSPER trial¹³ lasted 3.2 years. From the Kaplan-Meier curves in PROSPER, we estimate that it took about 1.5 years to achieve a 1% absolute risk reduction and 2.5 years for a 2% absolute risk reduction in coronary heart disease death and nonfatal MI in the combined primary and secondary groups.

JUPITER²⁸ was stopped early at 1.9 years. The Afilalo et al meta-analysis³¹ was based on follow-up over 4.9 years.

IMPROVE-IT⁵³ reported event rates at 7 years. The authors note that benefit in the primary composite outcome appeared to emerge at 1 year, although no statistical support is given for this statement and divergence in the Kaplan-Meier curves is not visually apparent.

The duration of other studies ranged between 2.7 and 4.9 years (Table 1).^26–28

It has been suggested that statins should be considered for elderly patients who have a life expectancy of at least 5 years.³ However, many older adults have already been taking statins for many years, which makes it difficult to interpret the available timeframe evidence.

In a multicenter, unblinded, randomized trial,⁵⁵ statins were either stopped or continued in older adults who had a short life expectancy and a median survival of approximately 7 months. Causes of death were evenly divided between cancer and noncancer diagnoses, and 22% of the patients were cognitively impaired. Discontinuing statin therapy did not increase mortality or cardiovascular events within 60 days. Nevertheless, stopping statin therapy did not achieve noninferiority for the primary end point, the proportion of participants who died within 60 days. Statin discontinuation was associated with improved quality of life, although the study was not blinded, which could have influenced results.

HAVE THE HARMS BEEN SUFFICIENTLY CONSIDERED?

Frail older adults commonly take multiple medications and are more vulnerable to adverse events.⁵⁶

Many statins require dose reduction with severe renal impairment (creatinine clearance < 30 mL/min/1.73 m²), which would be a common consideration in severely frail older adults.

Myopathy

Myopathy, which includes myalgias and muscle weakness, is a statin-related adverse event that can impair quality of life. Myopathy typically develops within the first 6 months but can occur at any time during statin treatment.⁵⁷ When muscle-related adverse effects occur, they may affect the elderly more significantly, particularly their ability to perform activities of daily living, rise from a chair, or mobilize independently. Another concern is that older adults with dementia may not be able to accurately report muscle-related symptoms.

It is difficult to ascertain the true prevalence of myopathy, especially in advanced age and frailty. Randomized controlled trials report incidence rates of 1.5% to 5%, which is comparable to placebo.^57,58 However, inconsistent definitions of myopathy and exclusion of subjects with previous statin intolerance or adverse effects during run-in periods limit interpretability.⁵⁷ Clinical experience suggests that muscle complaints may be relatively common.^59–61

Advanced age, female sex, low body mass index, and multisystem disease are all associated with frailty and have also been described as risk factors for statin-associated muscle syndromes.⁶¹ Physiologic changes associated with frailty, such as reduced muscle strength, decreased lean body mass, impaired functional mobility, decreased reserve capacity, and altered drug metabolism may increase the risk and severity of myopathy.⁶²

Adverse cognitive events

Meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials and narrative reviews find no definitive relationship between statin therapy and adverse cognitive events.^63–67 Nevertheless, there have been case reports of memory loss associated with the use of statins, and the US Food and Drug Administration has issued a warning that statins have been associated with memory loss and confusion.⁶⁸

It may be difficult to determine whether a statin is causing or aggravating cognitive symptoms among individuals with dementia without a trial withdrawal of the drug.

OUR RECOMMENDATIONS

The recommendations below are intended for adults with severe or very severe frailty (ie, a score of 7 or 8 on the Clinical Frailty Scale¹¹ or FACT⁵ and therefore apply to most older adults living in long-term care facilities.

Primary prevention

There is no reason to prescribe or continue statins for primary prevention, as it is unlikely that they would provide benefit for outcomes that are relevant in this population.

Secondary prevention

Statin treatment is probably not necessary for secondary prevention in those with severe frailty, although there may be extenuating circumstances that justify statin use.

Heart failure

There is no reason to start or continue statins for heart failure, as there is insufficient evidence that they are effective for this indication in any population.

Ezetimibe

There is no evidence that ezetimibe reduces cardiovascular events in any population when used as monotherapy. For a select population with acute coronary syndromes, ezetimibe has a modest effect. Given the very specific clinical scenario of acute coronary syndrome, we do not think that the available evidence justifies the use of ezetimibe for severely frail older adults.

Agents other than ezetimibe combined with statins

There is no reason to start or continue other lipid-lowering drugs in conjunction with statins.

Statin dosing

As statin adverse effects have the potential to increase with advancing age and frailty, lower doses may be appropriate.⁶⁸

Adverse events

Consider stopping statins on a trial basis if there is concern regarding myopathy, drug interactions, or other adverse effects.

BOTTOM LINE: DO STATINS IMPROVE QUALITY OF LIFE OR FUNCTION?

In primary prevention for older adults, there is doubt that statins prevent cardiovascular disease and stroke-related events because the main study involving the elderly did not show a benefit in the primary prevention subgroup.¹³ Additionally, there is no conclusive evidence that statin treatment decreases mortality in primary prevention.^13,29

There is insufficient information to determine whether the frail elderly should receive statins for secondary prevention. Although there is evidence that treatment decreases measures of coronary heart disease and stroke, it is unclear whether it improves quality of life or function for those who are frail. To answer this question, we need more information about whether reported outcomes (such as stroke and MI) are associated with disability, which is not provided in many of the studies we reviewed. When disability was specifically considered in the PROSPER trial for the combined population of primary and secondary prevention, treatment with statins had no impact on basic and instrumental activities of daily living.

Some experts may not agree with our interpretation of the complex evidence presented in this article. Others may ask, “What is the harm in using statins, even if there is no definitive benefit?” However, the harms associated with statin therapy for the frail are poorly defined. In the face of these uncertainties and in the absence of definitive improvement in quality of life, we believe that “less is more” in the context of severe frailty.⁶⁹

The cost of medications should also be considered, especially in long-term care facilities, where there is an added expense of drug administration that diverts human resources away from interactions that are more congruent with respecting the lifestage of frailty.

Careful review of evidence before applying clinical practice guidelines to those who are frail should become the norm. When considering treatment of frail patients, the five questions described in this review shed light on the applicability of clinical trial evidence. Therapies that are highly effective in healthier populations may be less effective when individuals are severely frail. Accordingly, we propose that medications should only be used if they improve quality of life or function.

Frail elderly patients are at high risk of adverse clinical outcomes, including those due to polypharmacy. Several groups tackle “deprescribing” by developing lists of medications that are potentially inappropriate for the elderly, such as the Beers or STOPP/START criteria.^1–4

In contrast, our group (the Palliative and Therapeutic Harmonization [PATH] program and the Dalhousie Academic Detailing Service) has developed evidence-based, frailty-specific guidelines for treating hypertension⁵ and diabetes,⁶ in which we advocate less-stringent treatment targets and tapering or discontinuing medications, as needed.

The PATH program⁷ is a clinical approach that prioritizes the consideration of frailty when making treatment decisions. The Dalhousie Academic Detailing Service collaborates with the Nova Scotia Health Authority to research and develop evidence-informed educational messages about the treatment of common medical conditions.

Here, we address lipid-lowering therapy in this population.

CONSIDERING FRAILTY

Frailty is defined in several ways. The Fried model^8,9 identifies frailty when 3 of the following characteristics are present: unintentional weight loss, exhaustion, muscle weakness, slow walking speed, or low levels of activity. The Clinical Frailty Scale^10,11 and the Frailty Assessment for Care-planning Tool (FACT)⁵ use deficits in cognition, function, and mobility to define frailty. According to these scales, people are considered severely frail when they require assistance with basic activities of daily living (such as bathing or dressing), owing to cognitive or physical deficits from any cause.

In reviewing the evidence, we consider five questions:

• What is the quality of the evidence? (Up to 48% of clinical practice guideline recommendations may be based on low-level evidence or expert opinion.¹²)
• How did the study population compare with the frail?
• Are study outcomes and potential benefits clinically relevant to those who are frail?
• How long did it take for the clinical benefit of a treatment to become apparent, and are the frail elderly likely to live that long?
• Have the harms of treatment been sufficiently considered?

WHAT IS THE QUALITY OF THE EVIDENCE?

We found no studies that specifically evaluated the benefit of lipid-lowering for severely frail older adults. Therefore, we examined randomized controlled trials that enrolled non-frail older adults,^13–28 subgroup analyses of randomized controlled trials,^29,30 meta-analyses that analyzed subgroups of elderly populations,^31,32 and publications describing the study designs of randomized controlled trials.^33–37

Most of the evidence comes from post hoc subgroup analyses of elderly populations. Although meta-analysis is commonly used to compare subgroups, the Cochrane handbook and others consider subgroup comparisons observational by nature.^38,39 (See Table 1 for lipid-lowering studies discussed in this article.)

Studies of statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease

For evidence of benefit from lipid-lowering for primary prevention (ie, to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with no known cardiovascular disease at baseline but at increased risk), we reviewed the meta-analysis conducted by the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaborators.³² Since this meta-analysis included the major trials that enrolled elderly patients, individual publications of post hoc, elderly subgroups were, for the most part, not examined individually. The exception to this approach was a decision to report on the PROSPER¹³ and JUPITER²⁸ trials separately, because PROSPER is the most representative of the elderly population and JUPITER reached the lowest LDL-C of primary prevention trials published to date and included a large elderly subgroup (n = 5,695).

Savarese et al⁴⁰ evaluated the benefits of statins for older adults who did not have established cardiovascular disease. We did not report on this meta-analysis, as not all of the subjects that populated the meta-analysis were representative of a typical prevention population. For instance, in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial lipid-lowering arm,⁴¹ 14% of the subjects had had a previous stroke or transient ischemic attack. In the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment Trial,⁴² 16% of the population had a family history of premature coronary heart disease.

In addition, all the trials in the Savarese meta-analysis were also included in the CTT meta-analysis.³² The CTT reports on baseline risk using patient-level data stratified by age and risk, which may be more relevant to the question of primary prevention for older adults, as highlighted in our review.

PROSPER (Prospective Study of Pravastatin in the Elderly at Risk),¹³ a well-conducted, double-blind, randomized controlled trial with low probability of bias, compared pravastatin 40 mg and placebo. It was the only study that specifically enrolled older adults, with prespecified analysis of primary and secondary prevention subgroups. The primary prevention subgroup accounted for 56% of the 5,084 participants.

JUPITER (Justification for the Use of Statins in Prevention)²⁸ compared rosuvastatin 20 mg and placebo in 17,802 participants. All had low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels below 3.4 mmol/L (130 mg/dL) and elevated levels of the inflammatory biomarker high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), ie, 2 mg/L or higher. Subsequently, Glynn et al performed a post hoc, exploratory subgroup analysis of elderly participants (N = 5,695).²⁹

The JUPITER trial had several limitations.^43,44 The planned follow-up period was 5 years, but the trial was stopped early at 1.9 years, after a statistically significant difference was detected in the primary composite outcome of reduction in all vascular events. Studies that are stopped early may exaggerate positive findings.⁴⁵

Further, JUPITER’s patients were a select group, with normal LDL-C levels, elevated hsCRP values, and without diabetes. Of 90,000 patients screened, 72,000 (80%) did not meet the inclusion criteria and were not enrolled. This high rate of exclusion limits the generalizability of study findings beyond the shortcomings of post hoc subgroup analysis.

The meta-analysis performed by the CTT Collaborators³² used individual participant data from large-scale randomized trials of lipid-modifying treatment. This analysis was specific to people at low risk of vascular disease. In a supplementary appendix, the authors described the reduction in major vascular events for each 1.0 mmol/L decrease in LDL-C in three age categories: under age 60, ages 61 to 70, and over age 70.

The authors also stratified the results by risk category and provided information about those with a risk of major vascular events of less than 20%, which would be more representative of a purer primary prevention population.

For the elderly subgroup at low risk, the CTT Collaborators³² only reported a composite of major vascular events (coronary death, nonfatal myocardial infarction [MI], ischemic stroke, or revascularization) and did not describe individual outcomes, such as prevention of coronary heart disease.

Study results are based on postrandomization findings and therefore may be observational, not experimental.⁴⁶

Studies of statins for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease

The aim of secondary prevention is to reduce the risk of recurrent cardiovascular events in patients who already have cardiovascular disease.

To address the question of whether statins reduce cardiovascular risk, we reviewed:

PROSPER,¹³ which included a preplanned analysis of the secondary prevention population.

Afilalo et al,^31,47 who performed a meta-analysis of the elderly subgroups of nine major secondary prevention studies (19,569 patients) using published and unpublished data.

To address the question of whether statins benefit individuals with heart failure, we found two relevant studies:

GISSI-HF (Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvivenza nell’Insufficienza Cardiaca Heart Failure)²⁵ and CORONA (Controlled Rosuvastatin Multinational Trial in Heart Failure),²⁶ which were large, international, well-conducted randomized controlled trials that examined statin use in heart failure.

To answer the question of whether statins benefit individuals after a stroke or transient ischemic attack, we found one relevant study:

SPARCL (Stroke Prevention by Aggressive Reduction in Cholesterol Levels),²⁷ which evaluated the benefit of statins in older adults with a history of stroke or transient ischemic attack. It was a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, international trial conducted at 205 centers. One to 6 months after their cerebrovascular event, patients were randomized to receive either atorvastatin 80 mg or placebo. Given the young age of patients in this trial (mean age 63), we also reviewed a post hoc subgroup analysis of the elderly patients in SPARCL (age > 65).³⁰

HOW DID THE STUDY POPULATION COMPARE WITH THOSE WHO ARE FRAIL?

Frail older adults are almost always excluded from large-scale clinical trials,⁴⁸ leading to uncertainty about whether the conclusions can be applied to those with advanced frailty.

Although age is an imperfect proxy measure of frailty,⁴⁹ we consider the age of the study population as well as their comorbidities.

Participants in the studies we reviewed were generally younger and healthier than those who are frail, with mean ages of about 75 or less (Table 1).

PROSPER was the most representative study, as it specifically enrolled older adults, albeit without frailty,¹³ and excluded people with poor cognitive function as defined by a Mini Mental State Examination score less than 24.

JUPITER enrolled a select population, as described above. The median age in the elderly subgroup was 74 (interquartile range 72–78).²⁹

The Afilalo et al³¹ meta-analysis primarily included studies of young-elderly patients, with a mean age of less than 70. PROSPER¹³ was an exception.

The GISSI-HF study,²⁵ which examined the benefit of statins in heart failure, described their study population as frail, although the mean age was only 68. Compared with those in GISSI-HF, the CORONA patients²⁶ with heart failure were older (mean age 73) and had more severe heart failure. Accordingly, it is possible that many of the CORONA participants were frail.

ARE STUDY OUTCOMES CLINICALLY RELEVANT TO THOSE WHO ARE FRAIL?

Because baseline cardiovascular risk increases with age, the elderly should, in theory, experience greater absolute benefit from lipid-lowering. However, there is uncertainty about whether this is true in practice.

Some, but not all, epidemiologic studies show a weaker relationship between cholesterol levels and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality rates in older compared to younger adults.^50,51 This may be because those with high cholesterol levels die before they get old (time-related bias), or because those with life-threatening illness may have lower cholesterol levels.⁵⁰ In addition, classic risk factors such as age, sex, systolic blood pressure, cholesterol values, diabetes, smoking, and left ventricular hypertrophy on electrocardiography may have less power to predict cardiovascular risk among older patients.⁵²

The goal of treatment in frailty is to prevent further disability or improve quality of life. Therefore, meaningful outcomes for lipid-lowering therapy should include symptomatic nonfatal MI and its associated morbidity (eg, heart failure and persistent angina) or symptomatic nonfatal stroke leading to disability. Outcomes without sustained clinical impact, such as transient ischemic attack, nondisabling stroke, or silent MI, while potentially important in other populations, are less relevant in severe frailty. Notably, in many statin studies, outcomes include asymptomatic heart disease (eg, silent MI and “suspected events”) and nondisabling stroke (eg, mild stroke, transient ischemic attack). When symptomatic outcomes are not reported separately, the impact of the reported benefit on quality of life and function is uncertain.

The outcome of all-cause mortality is generally recognized as a gold standard for determining treatment benefit. However, since advanced frailty is characterized by multiple competing causes for mortality, a reduction in all-cause mortality that is achieved by addressing a single issue in nonfrail populations may not extend to the frail.

To more fully understand the impact of lipid-lowering therapy on quality of life and function, we examined the following questions:

Do statins as primary prevention reduce symptomatic heart disease?

Outcomes for coronary heart disease from PROSPER and JUPITER are summarized in Table 2.

PROSPER. In the PROSPER primary prevention group,¹³ statin therapy did not reduce the combined outcome of coronary heart disease death and nonfatal MI.

The JUPITER trial demonstrated a statistically significant benefit for preventing MI in the elderly subpopulation (ages 70–97),²⁹ but the number needed to treat was high (211 for 2 years), with a wide confidence interval (CI) (95% CI 106–32,924). The trial did not adequately differentiate between symptomatic and asymptomatic events, making it difficult to determine outcome relevance. Also, due to the methodologic limitations of JUPITER as described above, its results should be interpreted with caution.^43,44

The CTT Collaborators³² did not report individual outcomes (eg, coronary heart disease) for the elderly low-risk subgroup and, therefore, this meta-analysis does not answer the question of whether statins reduce symptomatic heart disease in primary prevention populations.

Taken together, these findings do not provide convincing evidence that statin therapy as primary prevention reduces the incidence of symptomatic heart disease for severely frail older adults.

Do statins as secondary prevention reduce symptomatic heart disease?

Most studies defined secondary prevention narrowly as treatment for patients with established coronary artery disease. For instance, in the Afilalo et al meta-analysis,³¹ the small number of studies that included individuals with other forms of vascular disease (such as peripheral vascular disease) enrolled few participants with noncardiac conditions (eg, 29% in PROSPER¹³ and 13% in the Heart Protection Study²⁰).

Therefore, any evidence of benefit for secondary prevention demonstrated in these studies is most applicable to patients with coronary heart disease, with less certainty for those with other forms of cardiovascular disease.

In PROSPER,¹³ the secondary prevention group experienced benefit in the combined outcome of coronary heart disease death or nonfatal MI. In the treatment group, 12.7% experienced this outcome compared with 16.8% with placebo, an absolute risk reduction of 4.1% in 3 years (P = .004, number needed to treat 25, 95% CI 15–77). This measure includes coronary heart disease death, an outcome that may not be generalizable to those who are frail. In addition, the outcome of nonfatal MI includes both symptomatic and suspected events. As such, there is uncertainty whether the realized benefit is clinically relevant to frail older adults.

The Afilalo et al meta-analysis³¹ showed that the number needed to treat to prevent one nonfatal MI was 38 (95% CI 16–118) over 5 years (Table 2). However, this outcome included both symptomatic and asymptomatic (silent) events.

Based on the available data, we conclude that it is not possible to determine whether statins reduce symptomatic heart disease as secondary prevention for older adults who are frail.

Do statins reduce heart disease in combined populations?

In the combined primary and secondary population from PROSPER,¹³ pravastatin decreased the risk of nonfatal symptomatic MI from 4.3% in the placebo group to 3.4%, a relatively small reduction in absolute risk (0.9%) and not statistically significant by our chi-square calculation (P = .099).

Do statins prevent a first symptomatic stroke in people with or without preexisting cardiovascular disease?

Preventing strokes that cause functional decline is an important outcome for the frail elderly. Stroke outcomes from PROSPER,¹³ JUPITER,²⁹ and the Afilalo et al meta-analysis³¹ are summarized in Table 3.

For primary prevention:

In PROSPER (primary prevention),¹³ there was no statistically significant benefit in the combined outcome of fatal and nonfatal stroke or the single outcome of transient ischemic attack after 3.2 years.

JUPITER,²⁹ in contrast, found that rosuvastatin 20 mg reduced strokes in primary prevention, but the absolute benefit was small. In 2 years, 0.8% of the treatment group had strokes, compared with 1.4% with placebo, an absolute risk reduction of 0.6% (P = .023, number needed to treat 161, 95% CI 86–1,192).

Neither PROSPER nor JUPITER differentiated between disabling and nondisabling strokes.

For secondary prevention:

In PROSPER (secondary prevention),¹³ there was no statistically significant benefit in the combined outcome of fatal and nonfatal stroke or the single outcome of transient ischemic attack after 3.2 years.

The Afilalo et al secondary prevention meta-analysis demonstrated a 25% relative reduction in stroke (relative risk 0.75, 95% CI 0.56–0.94, number needed to treat 58, 95% CI 27–177).³¹

Notably, the stroke outcome in Afilalo included both disabling and nondisabling strokes. For example, in the Heart Protection Study,²⁰ the largest study in the Afilalo et al meta-analysis, approximately 50% of nonfatal, classifiable strokes in the overall study population (ie, both younger and older patients) were not disabling. Including disabling and nondisabling strokes in a composite outcome confounds the clinical meaningfulness of these findings in frailty, as the number needed to treat to prevent one disabling stroke cannot be calculated from the data provided.

Do statins prevent a second (symptomatic) stroke in people with a previous stroke?

SPARCL²⁷ (Table 3) examined the question of whether statins decrease the risk of recurrent ischemic stroke for patients with a prior history of stroke or transient ischemic attack. There was a statistically significant reduction in the primary composite outcome of fatal and nonfatal stroke, with 11.2% of the treatment group and 13.1% of the placebo group experiencing this outcome, an absolute risk reduction of 1.9% at 5 years (P = .03; number needed to treat 52, 95% CI 26–1,303). However, the difference in nonfatal stroke, which is the outcome of interest for frailty (since mortality has uncertain relevance), was not statistically significant (10.4% with treatment vs 11.8% with placebo, P =.11).

An exploratory subgroup analysis of SPARCL patients based on age³⁰ showed a smaller, nonsignificant reduction in the primary end point of fatal and nonfatal stroke in the group over age 65 (relative risk 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.73–1.11, P = .33) compared with the younger group (age < 65) (relative risk 0.74, 95% CI 0.57–0.96, P = .02).

The applicability of these results to the frail elderly is uncertain, since the subgroup analysis was not powered to determine outcomes based on age stratification and there were differences between groups in characteristics such as blood pressure and smoking status. In addition, the outcome of interest, nonfatal stroke, is not provided for the elderly subgroup.

In conclusion, in both primary and secondary prevention populations, the evidence that statins reduce nonfatal, symptomatic stroke rates for older adults is uncertain.

Do statins decrease all-cause mortality for primary or secondary prevention?

Due to competing risks for death, the outcome of mortality may not be relevant to those who are frail; however, studies showed the following:

For primary prevention, there was no decrease in mortality in PROSPER¹³ or in the elderly subgroup of JUPITER.²⁹

For secondary prevention, an analysis of PROSPER trial data by Afilalo et al³¹ showed a significant 18% decrease in all-cause mortality (relative risk 0.82, 95% CI 0.69–0.98) using pravastatin 40 mg.

A decrease in all-cause mortality with statins was also reported in the pooled result of the Afilalo et al meta-analysis.³¹

What are the reported composite outcomes for primary and secondary prevention?

While we were most interested in the symptomatic outcomes described above, we recognize that the small numbers of events make it difficult to draw firm conclusions. Therefore, we also considered composite primary outcomes, even though most included multiple measures that have varying associations with disability and relevancy to frail older adults.

For primary prevention, in the PROSPER preplanned subgroup analysis,¹³ there was no statistical benefit for any outcome, including the primary composite measure. In contrast, the elderly subpopulation in the JUPITER trial²⁸ showed a treatment benefit with rosuvastatin 20 mg compared with placebo for the primary composite outcome of MI, stroke, cardiovascular death, hospitalization for unstable angina, or revascularization. The number needed to treat for 2 years was 62 (95% CI 39–148).

In the CTT meta-analysis,³² patients at all levels of baseline risk showed benefit up to age 70. However, there was no statistically significant benefit in the composite primary outcome of coronary deaths, nonfatal myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or revascularization in the population most representative of elderly primary prevention—those who were more than 70 years old with a 5-year baseline risk of less than 20%.

For secondary prevention, in PROSPER,¹³ the subpopulation of patients treated for secondary prevention experienced benefit in the primary composite outcome of coronary heart disease death, nonfatal MI, or fatal or nonfatal stroke, achieving a 4% absolute risk reduction with a number needed to treat of 23 (95% CI 14–81) over 3 years.

Do statins decrease disability?

PROSPER was the only study that reported on disability. Compared with placebo, pravastatin did not decrease disability in the total population as measured by basic and instrumental activities of daily living scales.

Do statins help patients with heart failure?

Neither GISSI-HF²⁵ nor CORONA²⁶ found significant benefit from rosuvastatin 10 mg, despite LDL-C lowering of 27% in GISSI-HF and 45% in CORONA.

Do ezetimibe or other nonstatin lipid-lowering agents improve outcomes?

There is no definitive evidence that ezetimibe provides clinically meaningful benefit as a single agent.

For combination therapy, the IMPROVE-IT (Improved Reduction of Outcomes: Vytorin Efficacy International Trial)⁵³ showed that adding ezetimibe 10 mg to simvastatin 40 mg after an acute coronary syndrome reduced the risk of nonfatal myocardial infarction compared with simvastatin monotherapy (event rate 12.8% vs 14.4%; hazard ratio 0.87, 95% CI 0.80–0.95; P = .002) for a population with a mean age of 64. The risk of any stroke was also reduced; strokes occurred in 4.2% of those receiving combination therapy vs 4.8% with monotherapy (hazard ratio 0.86, 95% CI 0.73–1.00, P = .05). After a median of 6 years, 42% of patients in each group had discontinued treatment. Given the very specific clinical scenario of acute coronary syndrome and the young age of the patients in this trial, we do not think that this study justifies the use of ezetimibe for severely frail older adults.

There is no evidence that other combinations (ie, a statin plus another lipid-lowering drug) improve clinical outcomes for either primary or secondary prevention in any population.⁵⁴

WILL FRAIL PATIENTS LIVE LONG ENOUGH TO BENEFIT?

It is often difficult to determine the number of years that are needed to achieve benefit, as most trials do not provide a statistical analysis of varying time frames.

The PROSPER trial¹³ lasted 3.2 years. From the Kaplan-Meier curves in PROSPER, we estimate that it took about 1.5 years to achieve a 1% absolute risk reduction and 2.5 years for a 2% absolute risk reduction in coronary heart disease death and nonfatal MI in the combined primary and secondary groups.

JUPITER²⁸ was stopped early at 1.9 years. The Afilalo et al meta-analysis³¹ was based on follow-up over 4.9 years.

IMPROVE-IT⁵³ reported event rates at 7 years. The authors note that benefit in the primary composite outcome appeared to emerge at 1 year, although no statistical support is given for this statement and divergence in the Kaplan-Meier curves is not visually apparent.

The duration of other studies ranged between 2.7 and 4.9 years (Table 1).^26–28

It has been suggested that statins should be considered for elderly patients who have a life expectancy of at least 5 years.³ However, many older adults have already been taking statins for many years, which makes it difficult to interpret the available timeframe evidence.

In a multicenter, unblinded, randomized trial,⁵⁵ statins were either stopped or continued in older adults who had a short life expectancy and a median survival of approximately 7 months. Causes of death were evenly divided between cancer and noncancer diagnoses, and 22% of the patients were cognitively impaired. Discontinuing statin therapy did not increase mortality or cardiovascular events within 60 days. Nevertheless, stopping statin therapy did not achieve noninferiority for the primary end point, the proportion of participants who died within 60 days. Statin discontinuation was associated with improved quality of life, although the study was not blinded, which could have influenced results.

HAVE THE HARMS BEEN SUFFICIENTLY CONSIDERED?

Frail older adults commonly take multiple medications and are more vulnerable to adverse events.⁵⁶

Many statins require dose reduction with severe renal impairment (creatinine clearance < 30 mL/min/1.73 m²), which would be a common consideration in severely frail older adults.

Myopathy

Myopathy, which includes myalgias and muscle weakness, is a statin-related adverse event that can impair quality of life. Myopathy typically develops within the first 6 months but can occur at any time during statin treatment.⁵⁷ When muscle-related adverse effects occur, they may affect the elderly more significantly, particularly their ability to perform activities of daily living, rise from a chair, or mobilize independently. Another concern is that older adults with dementia may not be able to accurately report muscle-related symptoms.

It is difficult to ascertain the true prevalence of myopathy, especially in advanced age and frailty. Randomized controlled trials report incidence rates of 1.5% to 5%, which is comparable to placebo.^57,58 However, inconsistent definitions of myopathy and exclusion of subjects with previous statin intolerance or adverse effects during run-in periods limit interpretability.⁵⁷ Clinical experience suggests that muscle complaints may be relatively common.^59–61

Advanced age, female sex, low body mass index, and multisystem disease are all associated with frailty and have also been described as risk factors for statin-associated muscle syndromes.⁶¹ Physiologic changes associated with frailty, such as reduced muscle strength, decreased lean body mass, impaired functional mobility, decreased reserve capacity, and altered drug metabolism may increase the risk and severity of myopathy.⁶²

Adverse cognitive events

Meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials and narrative reviews find no definitive relationship between statin therapy and adverse cognitive events.^63–67 Nevertheless, there have been case reports of memory loss associated with the use of statins, and the US Food and Drug Administration has issued a warning that statins have been associated with memory loss and confusion.⁶⁸

It may be difficult to determine whether a statin is causing or aggravating cognitive symptoms among individuals with dementia without a trial withdrawal of the drug.

OUR RECOMMENDATIONS

The recommendations below are intended for adults with severe or very severe frailty (ie, a score of 7 or 8 on the Clinical Frailty Scale¹¹ or FACT⁵ and therefore apply to most older adults living in long-term care facilities.

Primary prevention

There is no reason to prescribe or continue statins for primary prevention, as it is unlikely that they would provide benefit for outcomes that are relevant in this population.

Secondary prevention

Statin treatment is probably not necessary for secondary prevention in those with severe frailty, although there may be extenuating circumstances that justify statin use.

Heart failure

There is no reason to start or continue statins for heart failure, as there is insufficient evidence that they are effective for this indication in any population.

Ezetimibe

There is no evidence that ezetimibe reduces cardiovascular events in any population when used as monotherapy. For a select population with acute coronary syndromes, ezetimibe has a modest effect. Given the very specific clinical scenario of acute coronary syndrome, we do not think that the available evidence justifies the use of ezetimibe for severely frail older adults.

Agents other than ezetimibe combined with statins

There is no reason to start or continue other lipid-lowering drugs in conjunction with statins.

Statin dosing

As statin adverse effects have the potential to increase with advancing age and frailty, lower doses may be appropriate.⁶⁸

Adverse events

Consider stopping statins on a trial basis if there is concern regarding myopathy, drug interactions, or other adverse effects.

BOTTOM LINE: DO STATINS IMPROVE QUALITY OF LIFE OR FUNCTION?

In primary prevention for older adults, there is doubt that statins prevent cardiovascular disease and stroke-related events because the main study involving the elderly did not show a benefit in the primary prevention subgroup.¹³ Additionally, there is no conclusive evidence that statin treatment decreases mortality in primary prevention.^13,29

There is insufficient information to determine whether the frail elderly should receive statins for secondary prevention. Although there is evidence that treatment decreases measures of coronary heart disease and stroke, it is unclear whether it improves quality of life or function for those who are frail. To answer this question, we need more information about whether reported outcomes (such as stroke and MI) are associated with disability, which is not provided in many of the studies we reviewed. When disability was specifically considered in the PROSPER trial for the combined population of primary and secondary prevention, treatment with statins had no impact on basic and instrumental activities of daily living.

Some experts may not agree with our interpretation of the complex evidence presented in this article. Others may ask, “What is the harm in using statins, even if there is no definitive benefit?” However, the harms associated with statin therapy for the frail are poorly defined. In the face of these uncertainties and in the absence of definitive improvement in quality of life, we believe that “less is more” in the context of severe frailty.⁶⁹

The cost of medications should also be considered, especially in long-term care facilities, where there is an added expense of drug administration that diverts human resources away from interactions that are more congruent with respecting the lifestage of frailty.

Careful review of evidence before applying clinical practice guidelines to those who are frail should become the norm. When considering treatment of frail patients, the five questions described in this review shed light on the applicability of clinical trial evidence. Therapies that are highly effective in healthier populations may be less effective when individuals are severely frail. Accordingly, we propose that medications should only be used if they improve quality of life or function.

The growing elderly population varies widely in functional capacity and mental agility. Age by itself is not a reliable indicator of physiologic performance in patients with cardiovascular disease.¹

See related article

The concept of frailty helps to identify elderly patients most susceptible to adverse outcomes. Frailty is a powerful indicator of disability, loss of independence, hospitalization, and death. In a patient whose health is declining, frailty is an appropriate impetus for the clinician and patient to reevaluate the goals of care.

In this issue of the Journal, Mallery et al² address an important topic: the use of preventive lipid-lowering therapies in frail patients with limited life expectancy. For these patients, they recommend against lipid-lowering therapy for primary prevention, and only in extenuating circumstances for secondary prevention.

No trials have evaluated lipid-lowering therapy specifically in frail older adults, and therefore, these recommendations are based on an evidence-informed appraisal of the literature. Mallery et al² suggest that in the frail elderly, improvement in function and quality of life are more relevant end points than traditional cardiovascular outcomes. They conclude that available evidence does not support lipid-lowering therapy for most patients with advanced frailty.

POINTS TO CONSIDER

Mallery et al² effectively articulate the need for frailty-specific care. Multimorbidity, polypharmacy, and increased adverse drug effects require special attention in the frail elderly. The authors make a sound argument against lipid-lowering therapy for primary prevention in the severely frail elderly, in whom the evidence for short-term benefit is not compelling. They also recommend against nonstatin lipid-lowering medications, and against statin therapy for heart failure, which is consistent with major guidelines. In the modern era of reflexive testing and prescribing, the authors’ “less is more” approach provides needed encouragement for thoughtful care in these vulnerable patients.

However, certain points of contention deserve additional consideration, including the imprecise definition of frailty, potential benefits and harms of statin therapy in high-risk patients, and the importance of shared decision-making.

How should frailty be defined?

Frailty biology is a field of ongoing research, and there is a lack of consensus on how best to define the condition.³ Estimates of the prevalence of frailty among older adults with cardiovascular disease range from 10% to 60%, owing to considerable variability in the tools used for frailty assessment.⁴

Mallery et al² consider an individual to be severely frail if he or she requires assistance with basic activities of daily living as the result of any physical or cognitive deficit (derived from the Clinical Frailty Scale or Frailty Assessment for Care Planning Tool). While functional dependence may be a consequence of frailty, this generalized definition does not characterize the clinical phenotype, which includes slowness, weakness, low physical activity, exhaustion, and unintentional weight loss.

Furthermore, this definition offers no insight into the unique characteristics, causes, and clinical course related to frailty. Significant heterogeneity among “frail” patients precludes a uniform treatment approach in this population.

Do statins benefit frail patients at high risk?

Regarding secondary prevention, the authors highlight a meta-analysis by Afilalo et al,⁵ the most comprehensive assessment to date of statin therapy in elderly patients with documented coronary heart disease. This study included nearly 20,000 elderly patients in nine secondary prevention trials, including the secondary prevention subgroup of the Prospective Study of Pravastatin in the Elderly at Risk (PROSPER) trial.⁶

Afilalo et al⁵ calculated that statin therapy reduced the rates of all-cause mortality by 22% and coronary death by 30%, with even greater reductions in the rates of nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, and revascularization. Furthermore, the absolute risk reduction was higher and the number needed to treat was lower in those over age 80. Overall, these data convincingly showed that high-risk patients ages 65 to 82 enrolled in clinical trials derive substantial benefit from statin therapy.

Mallery et al² contend that many of the secondary prevention statin trials evaluated composite outcomes over many years of follow-up and therefore are not generalizable to the frail elderly. However, the Afilalo meta-analysis⁵ does not provide patient-level data, and therefore the benefit for different clinical and demographic subgroups is unknown. It is only speculative to infer that those with frailty are unlikely to benefit. In fact, the improved outcomes observed with increasing age would argue against this notion.

Given the compelling data supporting statin therapy in the high-risk elderly population, some patients and clinicians may reasonably feel there is value in statin therapy—even in those with advanced frailty.

What about symptoms, disability, quality of life, and short-term benefits? Asymptomatic or “silent” myocardial infarction is associated with angina, congestive heart failure, and subsequent symptomatic myocardial infarction.^7,8 Dismissing the importance of these end points in clinical trials fails to recognize potential downstream effects that are directly relevant to a patient’s overall health status.

The Study Assessing Goals in the Elderly (SAGE) trial⁹ assessed the effect of statin therapy on ischemia burden in patients ages 65 to 85 with stable coronary disease. The results showed that both moderate and intensive statin dosing significantly reduced myocardial ischemia at 3 and 12 months, as detected by continuous electrocardiographic monitoring.

More research is needed to determine the effect of statin therapy on functional capacity and quality of life. Currently, it is premature to conclude that statins have no relevance to these important patient-centered outcomes.

What are the potential harms?

Mallery et al² cite numerous articles that emphasize the potential adverse effects of statin therapy in the elderly. Unfortunately, data supporting the safety of statin therapy in the elderly were not included. This should be stressed, given that older statin-eligible patients are often undertreated in contemporary practice.¹⁰

A 2015 systematic review and meta-analysis indicated that statin-related events are relatively rare in the elderly.¹¹ Another study showed elderly patients who started statin therapy after a myocardial infarction had no change in short-term cognitive or physical function.¹²

Older age and low body mass index are risk factors for statin myopathy, underscoring the need for close monitoring in frail patients. However, it is important to maintain an objective and balanced approach when considering potential harms.

Need for shared decision-making

Mallery et al² make no mention of shared decision-making. Best practice guidelines for the management of frailty support a holistic medical review to establish an individualized care plan for each patient.¹³ Firm recommendations based on indeterminate evidence undermine the patient-physician relationship and do not allow for personal preferences of care. In an environment of uncertain benefit and harm, the patient’s priorities and values should serve as the cornerstone for clinical decisions.

The growing elderly population varies widely in functional capacity and mental agility. Age by itself is not a reliable indicator of physiologic performance in patients with cardiovascular disease.¹

See related article

The concept of frailty helps to identify elderly patients most susceptible to adverse outcomes. Frailty is a powerful indicator of disability, loss of independence, hospitalization, and death. In a patient whose health is declining, frailty is an appropriate impetus for the clinician and patient to reevaluate the goals of care.

In this issue of the Journal, Mallery et al² address an important topic: the use of preventive lipid-lowering therapies in frail patients with limited life expectancy. For these patients, they recommend against lipid-lowering therapy for primary prevention, and only in extenuating circumstances for secondary prevention.

No trials have evaluated lipid-lowering therapy specifically in frail older adults, and therefore, these recommendations are based on an evidence-informed appraisal of the literature. Mallery et al² suggest that in the frail elderly, improvement in function and quality of life are more relevant end points than traditional cardiovascular outcomes. They conclude that available evidence does not support lipid-lowering therapy for most patients with advanced frailty.

POINTS TO CONSIDER

Mallery et al² effectively articulate the need for frailty-specific care. Multimorbidity, polypharmacy, and increased adverse drug effects require special attention in the frail elderly. The authors make a sound argument against lipid-lowering therapy for primary prevention in the severely frail elderly, in whom the evidence for short-term benefit is not compelling. They also recommend against nonstatin lipid-lowering medications, and against statin therapy for heart failure, which is consistent with major guidelines. In the modern era of reflexive testing and prescribing, the authors’ “less is more” approach provides needed encouragement for thoughtful care in these vulnerable patients.

However, certain points of contention deserve additional consideration, including the imprecise definition of frailty, potential benefits and harms of statin therapy in high-risk patients, and the importance of shared decision-making.

How should frailty be defined?

Frailty biology is a field of ongoing research, and there is a lack of consensus on how best to define the condition.³ Estimates of the prevalence of frailty among older adults with cardiovascular disease range from 10% to 60%, owing to considerable variability in the tools used for frailty assessment.⁴

Mallery et al² consider an individual to be severely frail if he or she requires assistance with basic activities of daily living as the result of any physical or cognitive deficit (derived from the Clinical Frailty Scale or Frailty Assessment for Care Planning Tool). While functional dependence may be a consequence of frailty, this generalized definition does not characterize the clinical phenotype, which includes slowness, weakness, low physical activity, exhaustion, and unintentional weight loss.

Furthermore, this definition offers no insight into the unique characteristics, causes, and clinical course related to frailty. Significant heterogeneity among “frail” patients precludes a uniform treatment approach in this population.

Do statins benefit frail patients at high risk?

Regarding secondary prevention, the authors highlight a meta-analysis by Afilalo et al,⁵ the most comprehensive assessment to date of statin therapy in elderly patients with documented coronary heart disease. This study included nearly 20,000 elderly patients in nine secondary prevention trials, including the secondary prevention subgroup of the Prospective Study of Pravastatin in the Elderly at Risk (PROSPER) trial.⁶

Afilalo et al⁵ calculated that statin therapy reduced the rates of all-cause mortality by 22% and coronary death by 30%, with even greater reductions in the rates of nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, and revascularization. Furthermore, the absolute risk reduction was higher and the number needed to treat was lower in those over age 80. Overall, these data convincingly showed that high-risk patients ages 65 to 82 enrolled in clinical trials derive substantial benefit from statin therapy.

Mallery et al² contend that many of the secondary prevention statin trials evaluated composite outcomes over many years of follow-up and therefore are not generalizable to the frail elderly. However, the Afilalo meta-analysis⁵ does not provide patient-level data, and therefore the benefit for different clinical and demographic subgroups is unknown. It is only speculative to infer that those with frailty are unlikely to benefit. In fact, the improved outcomes observed with increasing age would argue against this notion.

Given the compelling data supporting statin therapy in the high-risk elderly population, some patients and clinicians may reasonably feel there is value in statin therapy—even in those with advanced frailty.

What about symptoms, disability, quality of life, and short-term benefits? Asymptomatic or “silent” myocardial infarction is associated with angina, congestive heart failure, and subsequent symptomatic myocardial infarction.^7,8 Dismissing the importance of these end points in clinical trials fails to recognize potential downstream effects that are directly relevant to a patient’s overall health status.

The Study Assessing Goals in the Elderly (SAGE) trial⁹ assessed the effect of statin therapy on ischemia burden in patients ages 65 to 85 with stable coronary disease. The results showed that both moderate and intensive statin dosing significantly reduced myocardial ischemia at 3 and 12 months, as detected by continuous electrocardiographic monitoring.

More research is needed to determine the effect of statin therapy on functional capacity and quality of life. Currently, it is premature to conclude that statins have no relevance to these important patient-centered outcomes.

What are the potential harms?

Mallery et al² cite numerous articles that emphasize the potential adverse effects of statin therapy in the elderly. Unfortunately, data supporting the safety of statin therapy in the elderly were not included. This should be stressed, given that older statin-eligible patients are often undertreated in contemporary practice.¹⁰

A 2015 systematic review and meta-analysis indicated that statin-related events are relatively rare in the elderly.¹¹ Another study showed elderly patients who started statin therapy after a myocardial infarction had no change in short-term cognitive or physical function.¹²

Older age and low body mass index are risk factors for statin myopathy, underscoring the need for close monitoring in frail patients. However, it is important to maintain an objective and balanced approach when considering potential harms.

Need for shared decision-making

Mallery et al² make no mention of shared decision-making. Best practice guidelines for the management of frailty support a holistic medical review to establish an individualized care plan for each patient.¹³ Firm recommendations based on indeterminate evidence undermine the patient-physician relationship and do not allow for personal preferences of care. In an environment of uncertain benefit and harm, the patient’s priorities and values should serve as the cornerstone for clinical decisions.

The growing elderly population varies widely in functional capacity and mental agility. Age by itself is not a reliable indicator of physiologic performance in patients with cardiovascular disease.¹

See related article

The concept of frailty helps to identify elderly patients most susceptible to adverse outcomes. Frailty is a powerful indicator of disability, loss of independence, hospitalization, and death. In a patient whose health is declining, frailty is an appropriate impetus for the clinician and patient to reevaluate the goals of care.

In this issue of the Journal, Mallery et al² address an important topic: the use of preventive lipid-lowering therapies in frail patients with limited life expectancy. For these patients, they recommend against lipid-lowering therapy for primary prevention, and only in extenuating circumstances for secondary prevention.

No trials have evaluated lipid-lowering therapy specifically in frail older adults, and therefore, these recommendations are based on an evidence-informed appraisal of the literature. Mallery et al² suggest that in the frail elderly, improvement in function and quality of life are more relevant end points than traditional cardiovascular outcomes. They conclude that available evidence does not support lipid-lowering therapy for most patients with advanced frailty.

POINTS TO CONSIDER

Mallery et al² effectively articulate the need for frailty-specific care. Multimorbidity, polypharmacy, and increased adverse drug effects require special attention in the frail elderly. The authors make a sound argument against lipid-lowering therapy for primary prevention in the severely frail elderly, in whom the evidence for short-term benefit is not compelling. They also recommend against nonstatin lipid-lowering medications, and against statin therapy for heart failure, which is consistent with major guidelines. In the modern era of reflexive testing and prescribing, the authors’ “less is more” approach provides needed encouragement for thoughtful care in these vulnerable patients.

However, certain points of contention deserve additional consideration, including the imprecise definition of frailty, potential benefits and harms of statin therapy in high-risk patients, and the importance of shared decision-making.

How should frailty be defined?

Frailty biology is a field of ongoing research, and there is a lack of consensus on how best to define the condition.³ Estimates of the prevalence of frailty among older adults with cardiovascular disease range from 10% to 60%, owing to considerable variability in the tools used for frailty assessment.⁴

Mallery et al² consider an individual to be severely frail if he or she requires assistance with basic activities of daily living as the result of any physical or cognitive deficit (derived from the Clinical Frailty Scale or Frailty Assessment for Care Planning Tool). While functional dependence may be a consequence of frailty, this generalized definition does not characterize the clinical phenotype, which includes slowness, weakness, low physical activity, exhaustion, and unintentional weight loss.

Furthermore, this definition offers no insight into the unique characteristics, causes, and clinical course related to frailty. Significant heterogeneity among “frail” patients precludes a uniform treatment approach in this population.

Do statins benefit frail patients at high risk?

Regarding secondary prevention, the authors highlight a meta-analysis by Afilalo et al,⁵ the most comprehensive assessment to date of statin therapy in elderly patients with documented coronary heart disease. This study included nearly 20,000 elderly patients in nine secondary prevention trials, including the secondary prevention subgroup of the Prospective Study of Pravastatin in the Elderly at Risk (PROSPER) trial.⁶

Afilalo et al⁵ calculated that statin therapy reduced the rates of all-cause mortality by 22% and coronary death by 30%, with even greater reductions in the rates of nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, and revascularization. Furthermore, the absolute risk reduction was higher and the number needed to treat was lower in those over age 80. Overall, these data convincingly showed that high-risk patients ages 65 to 82 enrolled in clinical trials derive substantial benefit from statin therapy.

Mallery et al² contend that many of the secondary prevention statin trials evaluated composite outcomes over many years of follow-up and therefore are not generalizable to the frail elderly. However, the Afilalo meta-analysis⁵ does not provide patient-level data, and therefore the benefit for different clinical and demographic subgroups is unknown. It is only speculative to infer that those with frailty are unlikely to benefit. In fact, the improved outcomes observed with increasing age would argue against this notion.

Given the compelling data supporting statin therapy in the high-risk elderly population, some patients and clinicians may reasonably feel there is value in statin therapy—even in those with advanced frailty.

What about symptoms, disability, quality of life, and short-term benefits? Asymptomatic or “silent” myocardial infarction is associated with angina, congestive heart failure, and subsequent symptomatic myocardial infarction.^7,8 Dismissing the importance of these end points in clinical trials fails to recognize potential downstream effects that are directly relevant to a patient’s overall health status.

The Study Assessing Goals in the Elderly (SAGE) trial⁹ assessed the effect of statin therapy on ischemia burden in patients ages 65 to 85 with stable coronary disease. The results showed that both moderate and intensive statin dosing significantly reduced myocardial ischemia at 3 and 12 months, as detected by continuous electrocardiographic monitoring.

More research is needed to determine the effect of statin therapy on functional capacity and quality of life. Currently, it is premature to conclude that statins have no relevance to these important patient-centered outcomes.

What are the potential harms?

Mallery et al² cite numerous articles that emphasize the potential adverse effects of statin therapy in the elderly. Unfortunately, data supporting the safety of statin therapy in the elderly were not included. This should be stressed, given that older statin-eligible patients are often undertreated in contemporary practice.¹⁰

A 2015 systematic review and meta-analysis indicated that statin-related events are relatively rare in the elderly.¹¹ Another study showed elderly patients who started statin therapy after a myocardial infarction had no change in short-term cognitive or physical function.¹²

Older age and low body mass index are risk factors for statin myopathy, underscoring the need for close monitoring in frail patients. However, it is important to maintain an objective and balanced approach when considering potential harms.

Need for shared decision-making

Mallery et al² make no mention of shared decision-making. Best practice guidelines for the management of frailty support a holistic medical review to establish an individualized care plan for each patient.¹³ Firm recommendations based on indeterminate evidence undermine the patient-physician relationship and do not allow for personal preferences of care. In an environment of uncertain benefit and harm, the patient’s priorities and values should serve as the cornerstone for clinical decisions.

To the Editor: I enjoyed Dr. Galicia-Castillo’s article about long-term opioid therapy in older adults,¹ which reaffirmed the imperative to “start low and go slow” to minimize the risk of addiction. However, the article missed an opportunity to raise awareness regarding another extremely important side effect of chronic prescription opioid consumption, that of ingestion prior to sleep, with consequent cessation of breathing leading to death.

According to the Drug Enforcement Administration,² most narcotic deaths are a result of respiratory depression. And the American Pain Society has stated, “No patient has succumbed to [opioid] respiratory depression while awake.”³

Dr. Galicia-Castillo noted that the prevalence of central sleep apnea in chronic opioid users is 24%, based on a review by Correa et al.⁴ As alarming as this number is, other investigators have estimated it to be even higher—as high as 50% to 90%.⁵

Walker et al,⁶ in a study of 60 patients, found that the higher the opioid dose the patients were on, the more episodes of obstructive sleep apnea and central sleep apnea per hour they had. Yet prescribing a low dose does not adequately protect the chronic opioid user. Farney et al⁷ reported that oxygen saturation dropped precipitously—from 98% to 70%—15 minutes after a patient took just 7.5 mg of hydrocodone in the middle of the night. Mogri et al⁸ reported that a patient had 91 apnea events within 1 hour of taking 15 mg of oxycodone at 2 am.

Opioids, benzodiazepines, barbiturates, and ethanol individually and additively suppress medullary reflex ventilatory drive during sleep, especially during non–rapid-eye-movement (non-REM) sleep.⁶ During waking hours, in contrast, there is redundant backup of cerebral cortical drive, ensuring that we keep breathing. Therefore, people are most vulnerable to dying of opioid ingestion during sleep.

Moreover, oxygen desaturation during episodes of sleep apnea may precipitate seizures (which may be lethal) or coronary vasospasm with consequent malignant arrhythmias and myocardial ischemia.

Continuous positive airway pressure protects against obstructive sleep apnea, but not against central sleep apnea.⁹

Patients need to be aware of the danger, and physicians need to consider the pharmacokinetic profiles of the opioid preparations they prescribe. If patients are taking an opioid that has a short half-life, such as immediate-release oxycodone, they should not take it within 5 hours of sleep. Longer-lasting preparations need a longer interval, and some, such as extended-release tramadol, may need to be taken only on awakening.

Safe sleep can be facilitated by medications that are sedating but do not compromise ventilation. Optimal agents also enhance restorative REM and stage III and IV deep-sleep duration, and some may have the additional benefit of reducing the risk of cancer.^10,11 Such agents may include baclofen, cyproheptadine, gabapentin, mirtazepine, and melatonin. Nonpharmacologic measures include sleep hygiene, aerobic exercise, and cognitive behavioral therapy.

A retrospective study¹² found that 301 (60.4%) of 498 patients who died while on opioid therapy and whose death was judged to be related to the opioid were also taking benzodiazepines. Patients who take opioids should avoid taking benzodiazepines, barbiturates, or alcohol before going to sleep, and physicians should be extremely cautious about prescribing benzodiazepines and barbiturates to patients who are on opioids. 

To the Editor: I enjoyed Dr. Galicia-Castillo’s article about long-term opioid therapy in older adults,¹ which reaffirmed the imperative to “start low and go slow” to minimize the risk of addiction. However, the article missed an opportunity to raise awareness regarding another extremely important side effect of chronic prescription opioid consumption, that of ingestion prior to sleep, with consequent cessation of breathing leading to death.

According to the Drug Enforcement Administration,² most narcotic deaths are a result of respiratory depression. And the American Pain Society has stated, “No patient has succumbed to [opioid] respiratory depression while awake.”³

Dr. Galicia-Castillo noted that the prevalence of central sleep apnea in chronic opioid users is 24%, based on a review by Correa et al.⁴ As alarming as this number is, other investigators have estimated it to be even higher—as high as 50% to 90%.⁵

Walker et al,⁶ in a study of 60 patients, found that the higher the opioid dose the patients were on, the more episodes of obstructive sleep apnea and central sleep apnea per hour they had. Yet prescribing a low dose does not adequately protect the chronic opioid user. Farney et al⁷ reported that oxygen saturation dropped precipitously—from 98% to 70%—15 minutes after a patient took just 7.5 mg of hydrocodone in the middle of the night. Mogri et al⁸ reported that a patient had 91 apnea events within 1 hour of taking 15 mg of oxycodone at 2 am.

Opioids, benzodiazepines, barbiturates, and ethanol individually and additively suppress medullary reflex ventilatory drive during sleep, especially during non–rapid-eye-movement (non-REM) sleep.⁶ During waking hours, in contrast, there is redundant backup of cerebral cortical drive, ensuring that we keep breathing. Therefore, people are most vulnerable to dying of opioid ingestion during sleep.

Moreover, oxygen desaturation during episodes of sleep apnea may precipitate seizures (which may be lethal) or coronary vasospasm with consequent malignant arrhythmias and myocardial ischemia.

Continuous positive airway pressure protects against obstructive sleep apnea, but not against central sleep apnea.⁹

Patients need to be aware of the danger, and physicians need to consider the pharmacokinetic profiles of the opioid preparations they prescribe. If patients are taking an opioid that has a short half-life, such as immediate-release oxycodone, they should not take it within 5 hours of sleep. Longer-lasting preparations need a longer interval, and some, such as extended-release tramadol, may need to be taken only on awakening.

Safe sleep can be facilitated by medications that are sedating but do not compromise ventilation. Optimal agents also enhance restorative REM and stage III and IV deep-sleep duration, and some may have the additional benefit of reducing the risk of cancer.^10,11 Such agents may include baclofen, cyproheptadine, gabapentin, mirtazepine, and melatonin. Nonpharmacologic measures include sleep hygiene, aerobic exercise, and cognitive behavioral therapy.

A retrospective study¹² found that 301 (60.4%) of 498 patients who died while on opioid therapy and whose death was judged to be related to the opioid were also taking benzodiazepines. Patients who take opioids should avoid taking benzodiazepines, barbiturates, or alcohol before going to sleep, and physicians should be extremely cautious about prescribing benzodiazepines and barbiturates to patients who are on opioids. 

To the Editor: I enjoyed Dr. Galicia-Castillo’s article about long-term opioid therapy in older adults,¹ which reaffirmed the imperative to “start low and go slow” to minimize the risk of addiction. However, the article missed an opportunity to raise awareness regarding another extremely important side effect of chronic prescription opioid consumption, that of ingestion prior to sleep, with consequent cessation of breathing leading to death.

According to the Drug Enforcement Administration,² most narcotic deaths are a result of respiratory depression. And the American Pain Society has stated, “No patient has succumbed to [opioid] respiratory depression while awake.”³

Dr. Galicia-Castillo noted that the prevalence of central sleep apnea in chronic opioid users is 24%, based on a review by Correa et al.⁴ As alarming as this number is, other investigators have estimated it to be even higher—as high as 50% to 90%.⁵

Walker et al,⁶ in a study of 60 patients, found that the higher the opioid dose the patients were on, the more episodes of obstructive sleep apnea and central sleep apnea per hour they had. Yet prescribing a low dose does not adequately protect the chronic opioid user. Farney et al⁷ reported that oxygen saturation dropped precipitously—from 98% to 70%—15 minutes after a patient took just 7.5 mg of hydrocodone in the middle of the night. Mogri et al⁸ reported that a patient had 91 apnea events within 1 hour of taking 15 mg of oxycodone at 2 am.

Opioids, benzodiazepines, barbiturates, and ethanol individually and additively suppress medullary reflex ventilatory drive during sleep, especially during non–rapid-eye-movement (non-REM) sleep.⁶ During waking hours, in contrast, there is redundant backup of cerebral cortical drive, ensuring that we keep breathing. Therefore, people are most vulnerable to dying of opioid ingestion during sleep.

Moreover, oxygen desaturation during episodes of sleep apnea may precipitate seizures (which may be lethal) or coronary vasospasm with consequent malignant arrhythmias and myocardial ischemia.

Continuous positive airway pressure protects against obstructive sleep apnea, but not against central sleep apnea.⁹

Patients need to be aware of the danger, and physicians need to consider the pharmacokinetic profiles of the opioid preparations they prescribe. If patients are taking an opioid that has a short half-life, such as immediate-release oxycodone, they should not take it within 5 hours of sleep. Longer-lasting preparations need a longer interval, and some, such as extended-release tramadol, may need to be taken only on awakening.

Safe sleep can be facilitated by medications that are sedating but do not compromise ventilation. Optimal agents also enhance restorative REM and stage III and IV deep-sleep duration, and some may have the additional benefit of reducing the risk of cancer.^10,11 Such agents may include baclofen, cyproheptadine, gabapentin, mirtazepine, and melatonin. Nonpharmacologic measures include sleep hygiene, aerobic exercise, and cognitive behavioral therapy.

A retrospective study¹² found that 301 (60.4%) of 498 patients who died while on opioid therapy and whose death was judged to be related to the opioid were also taking benzodiazepines. Patients who take opioids should avoid taking benzodiazepines, barbiturates, or alcohol before going to sleep, and physicians should be extremely cautious about prescribing benzodiazepines and barbiturates to patients who are on opioids. 

In Reply: Dr. Geller makes some excellent points about sleep and opioid use.

Opioids pose risks,¹ just like any other type of medication. In particular, opioids have been linked to sleep-disordered breathing, which affects 70% to 85% of patients taking opioids.^2–4

Other options can be used in some older adults, but they are not always successful. Ideally, nonpharmacologic strategies and nonopioid medications such as acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents, antidepressants, and anticonvulsants should be used, although these medications have their own side effects. Optimum pain control may offer the potential for significant improvement in function, and opioids are but one tool in the clinician’s kit.

Ongoing discussions of the risks and benefits are necessary, along with continuous re-evaluation of the need for and effect of opioids.

In Reply: Dr. Geller makes some excellent points about sleep and opioid use.

Opioids pose risks,¹ just like any other type of medication. In particular, opioids have been linked to sleep-disordered breathing, which affects 70% to 85% of patients taking opioids.^2–4

Other options can be used in some older adults, but they are not always successful. Ideally, nonpharmacologic strategies and nonopioid medications such as acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents, antidepressants, and anticonvulsants should be used, although these medications have their own side effects. Optimum pain control may offer the potential for significant improvement in function, and opioids are but one tool in the clinician’s kit.

Ongoing discussions of the risks and benefits are necessary, along with continuous re-evaluation of the need for and effect of opioids.

In Reply: Dr. Geller makes some excellent points about sleep and opioid use.

Opioids pose risks,¹ just like any other type of medication. In particular, opioids have been linked to sleep-disordered breathing, which affects 70% to 85% of patients taking opioids.^2–4

Other options can be used in some older adults, but they are not always successful. Ideally, nonpharmacologic strategies and nonopioid medications such as acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents, antidepressants, and anticonvulsants should be used, although these medications have their own side effects. Optimum pain control may offer the potential for significant improvement in function, and opioids are but one tool in the clinician’s kit.

Ongoing discussions of the risks and benefits are necessary, along with continuous re-evaluation of the need for and effect of opioids.

High doses of radiation are often followed by infection. HHS is preparing for emergencies by buying 2 colony-stimulating factor (CSF) products to reduce infection and risk of death in radiologic or nuclear incidents.
Related: Emergency Test for Absorbed Radiation

HHS is purchasing Neulasta (Amgen USA, Inc) and Leukine (Sanofi-Aventis US), under agreements totaling about $37.7 million and 37.6 million, respectively. Neulasta already is FDA approved to treat cancer patients exposed to high levels of radiation that damage bone marrow. Leukine is undergoing studies needed for approval.

The Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority had earlier sponsored advanced development and purchase of Neupogen, another leukocyte growth factor product approved for treating adults and children exposed to radiation that damages bone marrow.

Related: HHS Hails Big Ideas

The deal for Neulasta and Leukine thus increases the number of CSF factor doses available for use in an emergency. It also increases operational capability, HHS says, since treatments with Neulasta are given once weekly, whereas treatment with Neupogen is daily.

High doses of radiation are often followed by infection. HHS is preparing for emergencies by buying 2 colony-stimulating factor (CSF) products to reduce infection and risk of death in radiologic or nuclear incidents.
Related: Emergency Test for Absorbed Radiation

HHS is purchasing Neulasta (Amgen USA, Inc) and Leukine (Sanofi-Aventis US), under agreements totaling about $37.7 million and 37.6 million, respectively. Neulasta already is FDA approved to treat cancer patients exposed to high levels of radiation that damage bone marrow. Leukine is undergoing studies needed for approval.

The Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority had earlier sponsored advanced development and purchase of Neupogen, another leukocyte growth factor product approved for treating adults and children exposed to radiation that damages bone marrow.

Related: HHS Hails Big Ideas

The deal for Neulasta and Leukine thus increases the number of CSF factor doses available for use in an emergency. It also increases operational capability, HHS says, since treatments with Neulasta are given once weekly, whereas treatment with Neupogen is daily.

High doses of radiation are often followed by infection. HHS is preparing for emergencies by buying 2 colony-stimulating factor (CSF) products to reduce infection and risk of death in radiologic or nuclear incidents.
Related: Emergency Test for Absorbed Radiation

HHS is purchasing Neulasta (Amgen USA, Inc) and Leukine (Sanofi-Aventis US), under agreements totaling about $37.7 million and 37.6 million, respectively. Neulasta already is FDA approved to treat cancer patients exposed to high levels of radiation that damage bone marrow. Leukine is undergoing studies needed for approval.

The Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority had earlier sponsored advanced development and purchase of Neupogen, another leukocyte growth factor product approved for treating adults and children exposed to radiation that damages bone marrow.

Related: HHS Hails Big Ideas

The deal for Neulasta and Leukine thus increases the number of CSF factor doses available for use in an emergency. It also increases operational capability, HHS says, since treatments with Neulasta are given once weekly, whereas treatment with Neupogen is daily.

An indwelling pleural catheter should be considered when a malignant pleural effusion causes symptoms and recurs after thoracentesis, especially in patients with short to intermediate life expectancy or trapped lung, or who underwent unsuccessful pleurodesis.¹

MALIGNANT PLEURAL EFFUSION

Malignant pleural effusion affects about 150,000 people in the United States each year. It occurs in 15% of patients with advanced malignancies, most often lung cancer, breast cancer, lymphoma, and ovarian cancer, which account for more than 50% of cases.²

In most patients with malignant pleural effusion, disabling dyspnea causes poor quality of life. The prognosis is unfavorable, with life expectancy of 3 to 12 months. Patients with poor performance status and lower glucose concentrations in the pleural fluid face a worse prognosis and a shorter life expectancy.²

In general, management focuses on relieving symptoms rather than on cure. Symptoms can be controlled by thoracentesis, but if the effusion recurs, the patient needs repeated visits to the emergency room or clinic or a hospital admission to drain the fluid. Frequent hospital visits can be grueling for a patient with a poor functional status, and so can the adverse effects of repeated thoracentesis. For that reason, an early palliative approach to malignant pleural effusion in patients with cancer and a poor prognosis leads to better symptom control and a better quality of life.³ Multiple treatments can be offered to control the symptoms in patients with recurrent malignant pleural effusion (Table 1).

PLEURODESIS HAS BEEN THE TREATMENT OF CHOICE

Pleurodesis has been the treatment of choice for malignant pleural effusion for decades. In this procedure, adhesion of the visceral and parietal pleura is achxieved by inducing inflammation either mechanically or chemically between the pleural surfaces. Injection of a sclerosant into the pleural space generates the inflammation. The sclerosant can be introduced through a chest tube or thoracoscope such as in video-assisted thoracic surgery or medical pleuroscopy. The use of talc is associated with a higher success rate than other sclerosing agents such as bleomycin and doxycycline.⁴

The downside of this procedure is that pleural effusion recurs in 10% to 40% of cases, and patients require 2 to 4 days in the hospital. Also, the use of talc can lead to acute lung injury–acute respiratory distress syndrome, a rare but potentially life-threatening complication. The incidence of this complication may be related to particle size, with small particles posing a higher risk than large ones.^5,6

PLACEMENT OF AN INDWELLING PLEURAL CATHETER

Indwelling pleural catheters are currently used as palliative therapy for patients with recurrent malignant pleural effusion who suffer from respiratory distress due to rapid reaccumulation of pleural fluids that require multiple thoracentesis procedures.

An indwelling pleural catheter is contraindicated in patients with uncontrolled coagulopathy, multiloculated pleural effusions, or extensive malignancy in the skin.³ Other factors that need to be considered are the patient’s social circumstances: ie, the patient must be in a clean and safe environment and must have insurance coverage for the supplies.

Catheters are 66 cm long and 15.5F and are made of silicone rubber with fenestrations along the distal 24 cm. They have a one-way valve at the proximal end that allows fluids and air to go out but not in (Figure 1).¹ Several systems are commercially available in the United States.

The catheter is inserted and tunneled percutaneously with the patient under local anesthesia and conscious sedation (Figure 2). Insertion is a same-day outpatient procedure, and intermittent pleural fluid drainage can be done at home by a home heathcare provider or a trained family member.⁷

In a meta-analysis, insertion difficulties were reported in only 4% of cases, particularly in patients who underwent prior pleural interventions. Spontaneous pleurodesis occurred in 45% of patients at a mean of 52 days after insertion.⁸

After catheter insertion, the pleural space should be drained three times a week. No more than 1,000 mL of fluid should be removed at a time—or less if drainage causes chest pain or cough secondary to trapped lung (see below). When the drainage declines to 150 mL per session, the sessions can be reduced to twice a week. If the volume drops to less than 50 mL per session, imaging (computed tomography or bedside thoracic ultrasonography) is recommended to ensure the achievement of pleurodesis and to rule out catheter blockage.

A large multicenter randomized controlled trial⁹ compared indwelling pleural catheter therapy and chest tube insertion with talc pleurodesis. Both procedures relieved symptoms for the first 42 days, and there was no significant difference in quality of life. However, the median length of hospital stay was 4 days for the talc pleurodesis group compared with 0 days for the indwelling pleural catheter group. Twenty-two percent of the talc group required a further pleural procedure such as a video-assisted thoracic surgery or thoracoscopy, compared with 6% of the indwelling catheter group. On the other hand, 36% of those in the indwelling catheter group experienced nonserious adverse events such as pleural infections that mandated outpatient oral antibiotic therapy, cellulitis, and catheter blockage, compared with 7% of the talc group.⁹

Symptomatic, inoperable trapped lung is another condition for which an indwelling pleural catheter is a reasonable strategy compared with pleurodesis. Trapped lung is a condition in which the lung fails to fully expand despite proper pleural fluid removal, creating a vacuum space between the parietal and visceral pleura (Figure 3).

Patients with trapped lung complain of severe dull or sharp pain during drainage of pleural fluids due to stretching of the visceral pleura against the intrathoracic vacuum space. Trapped lung can be detected objectively by using intrathoracic manometry while draining fluids, looking for more than a 20-cm H₂O drop in the intrathoracic pressure. Radiographically, this may be identified as a pneumothorax ex vacuo¹⁰ (ie, caused by inability of the lung to expand to fill the thoracic cavity after pleural fluid has been drained) and is not a procedure complication.

Placement of an indwelling pleural catheter is the treatment of choice for trapped lung, since chemical pleurodesis is not feasible without the potential of parietal and visceral pleural apposition. In a retrospective study of indwelling catheter placement for palliative symptom control, a catheter relieved symptoms, improved quality of life, and afforded a substantial increase in mobility.^1,11

In another multicenter pilot study,¹² rapid pleurodesis was achieved in 30 patients with recurrent malignant pleural effusion by combining chemical pleurodesis and indwelling catheter placement. Both were done under direct vision with medical thoracoscopy. Pleurodesis succeeded in 92% of patients by day 8 after the procedure. The hospital stay was reduced to a mean of 2 days after the procedure. In the catheter group, fluids were drained three times in the first day after the procedure and twice a day on the second and third days. Of the 30 patients in this study, 2 had fever, 1 needed to have the catheter replaced, and 1 contracted empyema.

AN EFFECTIVE INITIAL TREATMENT

Placement of an indwelling pleural catheter is an effective initial treatment for recurrent malignant pleural effusion. Compared with chemical pleurodesis, it has a comparable success rate and complication rate. It offers the advantages of being a same-day surgical procedure entailing a shorter hospital stay and less need for further pleural intervention. This treatment should be considered for patients with symptomatic malignant pleural effusion, especially those in whom symptomatic malignant pleural effusion recurred after thoracentesis.⁸

An indwelling pleural catheter should be considered when a malignant pleural effusion causes symptoms and recurs after thoracentesis, especially in patients with short to intermediate life expectancy or trapped lung, or who underwent unsuccessful pleurodesis.¹

MALIGNANT PLEURAL EFFUSION

Malignant pleural effusion affects about 150,000 people in the United States each year. It occurs in 15% of patients with advanced malignancies, most often lung cancer, breast cancer, lymphoma, and ovarian cancer, which account for more than 50% of cases.²

In most patients with malignant pleural effusion, disabling dyspnea causes poor quality of life. The prognosis is unfavorable, with life expectancy of 3 to 12 months. Patients with poor performance status and lower glucose concentrations in the pleural fluid face a worse prognosis and a shorter life expectancy.²

In general, management focuses on relieving symptoms rather than on cure. Symptoms can be controlled by thoracentesis, but if the effusion recurs, the patient needs repeated visits to the emergency room or clinic or a hospital admission to drain the fluid. Frequent hospital visits can be grueling for a patient with a poor functional status, and so can the adverse effects of repeated thoracentesis. For that reason, an early palliative approach to malignant pleural effusion in patients with cancer and a poor prognosis leads to better symptom control and a better quality of life.³ Multiple treatments can be offered to control the symptoms in patients with recurrent malignant pleural effusion (Table 1).

PLEURODESIS HAS BEEN THE TREATMENT OF CHOICE

Pleurodesis has been the treatment of choice for malignant pleural effusion for decades. In this procedure, adhesion of the visceral and parietal pleura is achxieved by inducing inflammation either mechanically or chemically between the pleural surfaces. Injection of a sclerosant into the pleural space generates the inflammation. The sclerosant can be introduced through a chest tube or thoracoscope such as in video-assisted thoracic surgery or medical pleuroscopy. The use of talc is associated with a higher success rate than other sclerosing agents such as bleomycin and doxycycline.⁴

The downside of this procedure is that pleural effusion recurs in 10% to 40% of cases, and patients require 2 to 4 days in the hospital. Also, the use of talc can lead to acute lung injury–acute respiratory distress syndrome, a rare but potentially life-threatening complication. The incidence of this complication may be related to particle size, with small particles posing a higher risk than large ones.^5,6

PLACEMENT OF AN INDWELLING PLEURAL CATHETER

Indwelling pleural catheters are currently used as palliative therapy for patients with recurrent malignant pleural effusion who suffer from respiratory distress due to rapid reaccumulation of pleural fluids that require multiple thoracentesis procedures.

An indwelling pleural catheter is contraindicated in patients with uncontrolled coagulopathy, multiloculated pleural effusions, or extensive malignancy in the skin.³ Other factors that need to be considered are the patient’s social circumstances: ie, the patient must be in a clean and safe environment and must have insurance coverage for the supplies.

Catheters are 66 cm long and 15.5F and are made of silicone rubber with fenestrations along the distal 24 cm. They have a one-way valve at the proximal end that allows fluids and air to go out but not in (Figure 1).¹ Several systems are commercially available in the United States.

The catheter is inserted and tunneled percutaneously with the patient under local anesthesia and conscious sedation (Figure 2). Insertion is a same-day outpatient procedure, and intermittent pleural fluid drainage can be done at home by a home heathcare provider or a trained family member.⁷

In a meta-analysis, insertion difficulties were reported in only 4% of cases, particularly in patients who underwent prior pleural interventions. Spontaneous pleurodesis occurred in 45% of patients at a mean of 52 days after insertion.⁸

After catheter insertion, the pleural space should be drained three times a week. No more than 1,000 mL of fluid should be removed at a time—or less if drainage causes chest pain or cough secondary to trapped lung (see below). When the drainage declines to 150 mL per session, the sessions can be reduced to twice a week. If the volume drops to less than 50 mL per session, imaging (computed tomography or bedside thoracic ultrasonography) is recommended to ensure the achievement of pleurodesis and to rule out catheter blockage.

A large multicenter randomized controlled trial⁹ compared indwelling pleural catheter therapy and chest tube insertion with talc pleurodesis. Both procedures relieved symptoms for the first 42 days, and there was no significant difference in quality of life. However, the median length of hospital stay was 4 days for the talc pleurodesis group compared with 0 days for the indwelling pleural catheter group. Twenty-two percent of the talc group required a further pleural procedure such as a video-assisted thoracic surgery or thoracoscopy, compared with 6% of the indwelling catheter group. On the other hand, 36% of those in the indwelling catheter group experienced nonserious adverse events such as pleural infections that mandated outpatient oral antibiotic therapy, cellulitis, and catheter blockage, compared with 7% of the talc group.⁹

Symptomatic, inoperable trapped lung is another condition for which an indwelling pleural catheter is a reasonable strategy compared with pleurodesis. Trapped lung is a condition in which the lung fails to fully expand despite proper pleural fluid removal, creating a vacuum space between the parietal and visceral pleura (Figure 3).

Patients with trapped lung complain of severe dull or sharp pain during drainage of pleural fluids due to stretching of the visceral pleura against the intrathoracic vacuum space. Trapped lung can be detected objectively by using intrathoracic manometry while draining fluids, looking for more than a 20-cm H₂O drop in the intrathoracic pressure. Radiographically, this may be identified as a pneumothorax ex vacuo¹⁰ (ie, caused by inability of the lung to expand to fill the thoracic cavity after pleural fluid has been drained) and is not a procedure complication.

Placement of an indwelling pleural catheter is the treatment of choice for trapped lung, since chemical pleurodesis is not feasible without the potential of parietal and visceral pleural apposition. In a retrospective study of indwelling catheter placement for palliative symptom control, a catheter relieved symptoms, improved quality of life, and afforded a substantial increase in mobility.^1,11

In another multicenter pilot study,¹² rapid pleurodesis was achieved in 30 patients with recurrent malignant pleural effusion by combining chemical pleurodesis and indwelling catheter placement. Both were done under direct vision with medical thoracoscopy. Pleurodesis succeeded in 92% of patients by day 8 after the procedure. The hospital stay was reduced to a mean of 2 days after the procedure. In the catheter group, fluids were drained three times in the first day after the procedure and twice a day on the second and third days. Of the 30 patients in this study, 2 had fever, 1 needed to have the catheter replaced, and 1 contracted empyema.

AN EFFECTIVE INITIAL TREATMENT

Placement of an indwelling pleural catheter is an effective initial treatment for recurrent malignant pleural effusion. Compared with chemical pleurodesis, it has a comparable success rate and complication rate. It offers the advantages of being a same-day surgical procedure entailing a shorter hospital stay and less need for further pleural intervention. This treatment should be considered for patients with symptomatic malignant pleural effusion, especially those in whom symptomatic malignant pleural effusion recurred after thoracentesis.⁸

An indwelling pleural catheter should be considered when a malignant pleural effusion causes symptoms and recurs after thoracentesis, especially in patients with short to intermediate life expectancy or trapped lung, or who underwent unsuccessful pleurodesis.¹

MALIGNANT PLEURAL EFFUSION

Malignant pleural effusion affects about 150,000 people in the United States each year. It occurs in 15% of patients with advanced malignancies, most often lung cancer, breast cancer, lymphoma, and ovarian cancer, which account for more than 50% of cases.²

In most patients with malignant pleural effusion, disabling dyspnea causes poor quality of life. The prognosis is unfavorable, with life expectancy of 3 to 12 months. Patients with poor performance status and lower glucose concentrations in the pleural fluid face a worse prognosis and a shorter life expectancy.²

In general, management focuses on relieving symptoms rather than on cure. Symptoms can be controlled by thoracentesis, but if the effusion recurs, the patient needs repeated visits to the emergency room or clinic or a hospital admission to drain the fluid. Frequent hospital visits can be grueling for a patient with a poor functional status, and so can the adverse effects of repeated thoracentesis. For that reason, an early palliative approach to malignant pleural effusion in patients with cancer and a poor prognosis leads to better symptom control and a better quality of life.³ Multiple treatments can be offered to control the symptoms in patients with recurrent malignant pleural effusion (Table 1).

PLEURODESIS HAS BEEN THE TREATMENT OF CHOICE

Pleurodesis has been the treatment of choice for malignant pleural effusion for decades. In this procedure, adhesion of the visceral and parietal pleura is achxieved by inducing inflammation either mechanically or chemically between the pleural surfaces. Injection of a sclerosant into the pleural space generates the inflammation. The sclerosant can be introduced through a chest tube or thoracoscope such as in video-assisted thoracic surgery or medical pleuroscopy. The use of talc is associated with a higher success rate than other sclerosing agents such as bleomycin and doxycycline.⁴

The downside of this procedure is that pleural effusion recurs in 10% to 40% of cases, and patients require 2 to 4 days in the hospital. Also, the use of talc can lead to acute lung injury–acute respiratory distress syndrome, a rare but potentially life-threatening complication. The incidence of this complication may be related to particle size, with small particles posing a higher risk than large ones.^5,6

PLACEMENT OF AN INDWELLING PLEURAL CATHETER

Indwelling pleural catheters are currently used as palliative therapy for patients with recurrent malignant pleural effusion who suffer from respiratory distress due to rapid reaccumulation of pleural fluids that require multiple thoracentesis procedures.

An indwelling pleural catheter is contraindicated in patients with uncontrolled coagulopathy, multiloculated pleural effusions, or extensive malignancy in the skin.³ Other factors that need to be considered are the patient’s social circumstances: ie, the patient must be in a clean and safe environment and must have insurance coverage for the supplies.

Catheters are 66 cm long and 15.5F and are made of silicone rubber with fenestrations along the distal 24 cm. They have a one-way valve at the proximal end that allows fluids and air to go out but not in (Figure 1).¹ Several systems are commercially available in the United States.

The catheter is inserted and tunneled percutaneously with the patient under local anesthesia and conscious sedation (Figure 2). Insertion is a same-day outpatient procedure, and intermittent pleural fluid drainage can be done at home by a home heathcare provider or a trained family member.⁷

In a meta-analysis, insertion difficulties were reported in only 4% of cases, particularly in patients who underwent prior pleural interventions. Spontaneous pleurodesis occurred in 45% of patients at a mean of 52 days after insertion.⁸

After catheter insertion, the pleural space should be drained three times a week. No more than 1,000 mL of fluid should be removed at a time—or less if drainage causes chest pain or cough secondary to trapped lung (see below). When the drainage declines to 150 mL per session, the sessions can be reduced to twice a week. If the volume drops to less than 50 mL per session, imaging (computed tomography or bedside thoracic ultrasonography) is recommended to ensure the achievement of pleurodesis and to rule out catheter blockage.

A large multicenter randomized controlled trial⁹ compared indwelling pleural catheter therapy and chest tube insertion with talc pleurodesis. Both procedures relieved symptoms for the first 42 days, and there was no significant difference in quality of life. However, the median length of hospital stay was 4 days for the talc pleurodesis group compared with 0 days for the indwelling pleural catheter group. Twenty-two percent of the talc group required a further pleural procedure such as a video-assisted thoracic surgery or thoracoscopy, compared with 6% of the indwelling catheter group. On the other hand, 36% of those in the indwelling catheter group experienced nonserious adverse events such as pleural infections that mandated outpatient oral antibiotic therapy, cellulitis, and catheter blockage, compared with 7% of the talc group.⁹

Symptomatic, inoperable trapped lung is another condition for which an indwelling pleural catheter is a reasonable strategy compared with pleurodesis. Trapped lung is a condition in which the lung fails to fully expand despite proper pleural fluid removal, creating a vacuum space between the parietal and visceral pleura (Figure 3).

Patients with trapped lung complain of severe dull or sharp pain during drainage of pleural fluids due to stretching of the visceral pleura against the intrathoracic vacuum space. Trapped lung can be detected objectively by using intrathoracic manometry while draining fluids, looking for more than a 20-cm H₂O drop in the intrathoracic pressure. Radiographically, this may be identified as a pneumothorax ex vacuo¹⁰ (ie, caused by inability of the lung to expand to fill the thoracic cavity after pleural fluid has been drained) and is not a procedure complication.

Placement of an indwelling pleural catheter is the treatment of choice for trapped lung, since chemical pleurodesis is not feasible without the potential of parietal and visceral pleural apposition. In a retrospective study of indwelling catheter placement for palliative symptom control, a catheter relieved symptoms, improved quality of life, and afforded a substantial increase in mobility.^1,11

In another multicenter pilot study,¹² rapid pleurodesis was achieved in 30 patients with recurrent malignant pleural effusion by combining chemical pleurodesis and indwelling catheter placement. Both were done under direct vision with medical thoracoscopy. Pleurodesis succeeded in 92% of patients by day 8 after the procedure. The hospital stay was reduced to a mean of 2 days after the procedure. In the catheter group, fluids were drained three times in the first day after the procedure and twice a day on the second and third days. Of the 30 patients in this study, 2 had fever, 1 needed to have the catheter replaced, and 1 contracted empyema.

AN EFFECTIVE INITIAL TREATMENT

Placement of an indwelling pleural catheter is an effective initial treatment for recurrent malignant pleural effusion. Compared with chemical pleurodesis, it has a comparable success rate and complication rate. It offers the advantages of being a same-day surgical procedure entailing a shorter hospital stay and less need for further pleural intervention. This treatment should be considered for patients with symptomatic malignant pleural effusion, especially those in whom symptomatic malignant pleural effusion recurred after thoracentesis.⁸

Clinical Question: How do patterns of end-of-life care compare for patients with different diseases?

Background: Studies regarding quality of care at the end of life have focused primarily on patients dying from cancer. Few studies to date have looked at patients dying from other illnesses, and few have taken into account perspectives of family members.

Study Design: Retrospective cross-sectional.

Setting: 146 inpatient facilities in the Veterans Affairs (VA) health system.

Synopsis: The authors identified 57,753 patients who died while hospitalized at VA facilities during the study period, and 34,015 next of kin completed the Bereaved Family Survey. Overall, approximately half (43.7%–50.4%) of patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD), frailty, or cardiopulmonary disease received palliative-care consultations compared with 73.5% and 61.4% of patients with cancer and dementia, respectively. Patients with cancer or dementia were less likely to die in the ICU compared to patients with other diagnoses (8.9%–13.4% compared to 32.3%–35.2%). Quality of care as perceived by the bereaved families was higher for patients with cancer or dementia (59.2%–59.3% compared to 53.7%–54.8%).

While large, this study was limited in applicability to different populations due to being conducted within the VA system. Overall, it showed significant differences in end-of-life care between patients who died from different diseases. This study suggests several practical steps that may improve disparities in end-of-life care, in particular, increasing discussion of goals of care and improving access to inpatient palliative-care consults for patients with ESRD, frailty, or cardiopulmonary disease.

Bottom Line: Quality and satisfaction indicators for end-of-life care for patients with ESRD, frailty, or cardiopulmonary disease were lower than for patients with dementia or cancer.

Citation: Wachterman MW, Pilver C, Smith D, Ersek M, Lipsitz SR, Keating NL. Quality of end-of-life care provided to patients with different serious illnesses. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(8):1095-1102.

Clinical Question: How do patterns of end-of-life care compare for patients with different diseases?

Background: Studies regarding quality of care at the end of life have focused primarily on patients dying from cancer. Few studies to date have looked at patients dying from other illnesses, and few have taken into account perspectives of family members.

Study Design: Retrospective cross-sectional.

Setting: 146 inpatient facilities in the Veterans Affairs (VA) health system.

Synopsis: The authors identified 57,753 patients who died while hospitalized at VA facilities during the study period, and 34,015 next of kin completed the Bereaved Family Survey. Overall, approximately half (43.7%–50.4%) of patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD), frailty, or cardiopulmonary disease received palliative-care consultations compared with 73.5% and 61.4% of patients with cancer and dementia, respectively. Patients with cancer or dementia were less likely to die in the ICU compared to patients with other diagnoses (8.9%–13.4% compared to 32.3%–35.2%). Quality of care as perceived by the bereaved families was higher for patients with cancer or dementia (59.2%–59.3% compared to 53.7%–54.8%).

While large, this study was limited in applicability to different populations due to being conducted within the VA system. Overall, it showed significant differences in end-of-life care between patients who died from different diseases. This study suggests several practical steps that may improve disparities in end-of-life care, in particular, increasing discussion of goals of care and improving access to inpatient palliative-care consults for patients with ESRD, frailty, or cardiopulmonary disease.

Bottom Line: Quality and satisfaction indicators for end-of-life care for patients with ESRD, frailty, or cardiopulmonary disease were lower than for patients with dementia or cancer.

Citation: Wachterman MW, Pilver C, Smith D, Ersek M, Lipsitz SR, Keating NL. Quality of end-of-life care provided to patients with different serious illnesses. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(8):1095-1102.

Clinical Question: How do patterns of end-of-life care compare for patients with different diseases?

Background: Studies regarding quality of care at the end of life have focused primarily on patients dying from cancer. Few studies to date have looked at patients dying from other illnesses, and few have taken into account perspectives of family members.

Study Design: Retrospective cross-sectional.

Setting: 146 inpatient facilities in the Veterans Affairs (VA) health system.

Synopsis: The authors identified 57,753 patients who died while hospitalized at VA facilities during the study period, and 34,015 next of kin completed the Bereaved Family Survey. Overall, approximately half (43.7%–50.4%) of patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD), frailty, or cardiopulmonary disease received palliative-care consultations compared with 73.5% and 61.4% of patients with cancer and dementia, respectively. Patients with cancer or dementia were less likely to die in the ICU compared to patients with other diagnoses (8.9%–13.4% compared to 32.3%–35.2%). Quality of care as perceived by the bereaved families was higher for patients with cancer or dementia (59.2%–59.3% compared to 53.7%–54.8%).

While large, this study was limited in applicability to different populations due to being conducted within the VA system. Overall, it showed significant differences in end-of-life care between patients who died from different diseases. This study suggests several practical steps that may improve disparities in end-of-life care, in particular, increasing discussion of goals of care and improving access to inpatient palliative-care consults for patients with ESRD, frailty, or cardiopulmonary disease.

Bottom Line: Quality and satisfaction indicators for end-of-life care for patients with ESRD, frailty, or cardiopulmonary disease were lower than for patients with dementia or cancer.

Citation: Wachterman MW, Pilver C, Smith D, Ersek M, Lipsitz SR, Keating NL. Quality of end-of-life care provided to patients with different serious illnesses. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(8):1095-1102.

Case Scenario

A 62-year-old man who regularly presented to the ED for exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) after running out of his medications presented again for evaluation and treatment. His outpatient care had been poorly coordinated, and he relied on the ED to provide him with the support he needed. This presentation represented his fifth visit to the ED over the past 3 months.

The patient’s medical history was positive for asthma since childhood, tobacco use, hypertension, and a recent diagnosis of congestive heart failure (CHF). Over the past year, he had four hospital admissions, and was currently unable to walk from his bedroom to another room without becoming short of breath. He also had recently experienced a 20-lb weight loss.

At this visit, the patient complained of chest pain and lightheadedness, which he described as suffocating. Prior to these recent symptoms, he enjoyed walking in his neighborhood and talking with friends. He was an avid reader and sports fan, but admitted that he now had trouble focusing on reading and following games on television. He lived alone, and his family lived across the country. The patient further admitted that although he had attempted to quit cigarette smoking, he was unable to give up his 50-pack per year habit. He had no completed advance health care directive and had significant challenges tending to his basic needs.

The Trajectory of COPD

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is a common chronic illness that causes significant morbidity and mortality. A 2016 National Health Services report cited respiratory illness, primarily from COPD, as the third leading cause of death in the United States in 2014.¹The trajectory of this disease is marked by frequent exacerbations with partial recovery to baseline function. The burden of those living with COPD is significant and marked by a poor overall health-related quality of life (QOL). The ED has become a staging area for patients seeking care for exacerbations of COPD.²

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) have defined COPD as a spectrum of diseases including emphysema, chronic bronchitis, and chronic obstructive asthma characterized by persistent airflow limitation that is usually progressive and associated with an enhanced chronic inflammatory response to noxious particles or gases in the airways and lungs.³ Exacerbations and comorbidities contribute to the overall severity of COPD in individual patients.⁴

The case presented in this article illustrates the common scenario of a patient whose COPD has become severe and highly symptomatic with declining function to the point where he requires home support. His physical decline had been rapid and resulted in many unmet needs. When a patient such as this presents for emergent care, he must first be stabilized; then a care plan will need to be developed prior to discharge.

Management Goals

The overall goals of treating COPD are based on preserving function and are not curative in nature. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is a progressive illness that will intensify over time.⁵ As such, palliative care services are warranted. However, many patients with COPD do not receive palliative care services compared to patients with such other serious and life-limiting disease as cancer and heart disease.

Acute Exacerbations of COPD

Incidence

The frequency of acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD) increases with age, productive cough, long-standing COPD, previous hospitalizations related to COPD, eosinophilia, and comorbidities (eg, CHF). Patients with moderate to severe COPD and a history of prior exacerbations were found to have a higher likelihood of future exacerbations. From a quality and cost perspective, it may be useful to identify high-risk patients and strengthen their outpatient program to lessen the need for ED care and more intensive support.^6,7

In our case scenario, the patient could have been stabilized at home with a well-controlled plan and home support, which would have resulted in an improved QOL and more time free from his high symptom burden.

Causes

Bacterial and viral respiratory infections are the most likely cause of AECOPD. Environmental pollution and pulmonary embolism are also triggers. Typically, patients with AECOPD present to the ED up to several times a year² and represent the third most common cause of 30-day readmissions to the hospital.⁸ Prior exacerbations, dyspnea, and other medical comorbidities are also risk factors for more frequent hospital visits.

Presenting Signs and Symptoms

Each occurrence of AECOPD represents a worsening of a patient’s respiratory symptoms beyond normal variations. This might include increases in cough, sputum production, and dyspnea. The goal in caring for a person with an AECOPD is to stabilize the acute event and provide a treatment plan. The range of acuity for moderate to severe disease makes devising an appropriate treatment plan challenging, and after implementing the best plans, the patient’s course may be characterized by a prolonged cycle of admissions and readmissions without substantial return to baseline.

Management

In practice, ED management of AECOPD in older adults typically differs significantly from published guideline recommendations,⁹ which may result in pooroutcomes related to shortcomings in quality of care. Better adherence to guideline recommendations when caring for elderly patients with COPD may lead to improved clinical outcomes and better resource usage.^6,9

Risk Stratification

Complicating ED management is the challenge of determining the severity of illness and degree of the exacerbation. Airflow obstruction alone is not sufficient to predict outcomes, as any particular measure of obstruction is associated with a spectrum of forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV₁) and varying performance. Moreover, peak-flow measurements are not useful in the setting of AECOPD, as opposed to their use in acute asthma exacerbations, and are not predictive of changes in clinical status.

GOLD and NICE Criteria

Guidelines have been developed and widely promoted to assist ED and hospital and community clinicians in providing evidence-based management for COPD patients. The GOLD Criteria and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) are both clinical guidelines on management of COPD.¹⁰

Although well recognized and commonly used, the original GOLD criteria did not take into account the frequency and importance of the extrapulmonary manifestations of COPD in predicting outcome. Typically, those with severe or very severe COPD have an average of 12 co-occurring symptoms, an even greater number of signs and symptoms than those occurring in patients with cancer or heart or renal disease.¹¹

BODE Criteria

The body mass index, airflow obstruction, dyspnea and exercise capacity (BODE) criteria assess and predict the health-related QOL and mortality risk for patients with COPD. Risk is adjusted based on four factors—weight, airway obstruction, dyspnea, and exercise capacity (ie, 6-minute walk distance).¹³

Initial Evaluation and Work-Up

As previously noted, when an AECOPD patient arrives to the ED, the first priority is to stabilize the patient and initiate treatment. In this respect, initial identification of the patient’s pulse oxygen saturation (SpO₂) is important.

Laboratory Evaluation

In cases of respiratory failure, obtaining arterial blood gas (ABG) values are critical. The ABG test will assist in determining acute exacerbations of chronic hypercapnia and the need for ventilatory support. When considering CHF, a plasma B-type natriuretic peptide is useful to assess for CHF.

Imaging Studies

A chest radiograph may be useful in the initial evaluation to identify abnormalities, including barotrauma (ie, pneumothorax) and infiltrates. Additionally, in patients with comorbidities, it is important to assess cardiac status, and a chest X-ray may assist in identification of pulmonary edema, pleural effusions, and cardiomegaly. If the radiograph does show a pulmonary infiltrate (ie, pneumonia), it will help identify the probable triggers, but even in these instances, a sputum gram stain will not assist in the diagnosis.

Treatment

Relieving airflow obstruction is achieved with inhaled short-acting bronchodilators and systemic glucocorticoids, by treating infection, and by providing supplemental oxygen and ventilatory support.

Bronchodilators

The short-acting beta-adrenergic agonists (eg, albuterol) act rapidly and are effective in producing bronchodilation. Nebulized therapy may be most comfortable for the acutely ill patient. Typical dosing is 2.5 mg albuterol diluted to 3 cc by nebulizer every hour. Higher doses are not more effective, and there is no evidence of a higher response rate from constant nebulized therapy, which can cause anxiety and tachycardia in patients.¹⁴ Anticholinergic agents (eg, ipratropium) are often added despite unclear data regarding clinical advantage. In one study evaluating the effectiveness of adding ipratropium to albuterol, patients receiving a combination had the same improvement in FEV₁ at 90 minutes.¹⁵ Patients receiving ipratropium alone had the lowest rate of reported side effects.¹⁵

Systemic Glucocorticoids

Short-course systemic glucocorticoids are an important addition to treatment and have been found to improve spirometry and decrease relapse rate. The oral and intravenous (IV) routes provide the same benefit. For the acutely ill patient with challenges swallowing, the IV route is preferred. The optimal dose is not clear, but hydrocortisone doses of 100 mg to 125 mg every 6 hours for 3 days are effective, as is oral prednisone 30 mg per day for 14 days, or 60 mg per day for 3 days with a taper.

Antibiotic Therapy

Antibiotics are indicated for patients with moderate to severe AECOPD who are ill enough to be admitted to the hospital. Empiric broad spectrum treatment is recommended. The initial antibiotic regimen should target likely bacterial pathogens (Haemophilus influenzae, Moraxella catarrhalis, and Streptococcus pneumoniae in most patients) and take into account local patterns of antibiotic resistance. Flouroquinolones or third-generation cephalosporins generally provide sufficient coverage. For patients experiencing only a mild exacerbation, antibiotics are not warranted.

Magnesium Sulfate

Other supplemental medications that have been evaluated include magnesium sulfate for bronchial smooth muscle relaxation. Studies have found that while magnesium is helpful in asthma, results are mixed with COPD.¹⁶

Supplemental Oxygen

Oxygen therapy is important during an AECOPD episode. Often, concerns arise about decreasing respiratory drive, which is typically driven by hypoxia in patients who have chronic hypercapnia. Arterial blood gas determinations are important in managing a patient’s respiratory status and will assist in determining actual oxygenation and any coexistent metabolic disturbances.

Noninvasive Ventilation. Oxygen can be administered efficiently by a venturi mask, which delivers precise fractions of oxygen, or by nasal cannula. A facemask is less comfortable, but is available for higher oxygen requirements, providing up to 55% oxygen, while a nonrebreather mask delivers up to 90% oxygen.

When necessary, noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) improves outcomes for those with severe dyspnea and signs of respiratory fatigue manifested as increased work of breathing. Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation can improve clinical outcomes and is the ventilator mode of choice for those patients with COPD. Indications include severe dyspnea with signs of increased work of breathing and respiratory acidosis (arterial pH <7.35) and partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide (PaCO₂) >45 mm Hg.

Whenever possible, NPPV should be initiated with a triggered mode to allow spontaneous breaths. Inspiratory pressure of 8 cm to 12 cm H₂O and expiratory pressure of 3 cm to 5 cm of H₂ are recommended.

Mechanical Ventilation. Mechanical ventilation is often undesirable because it may be extraordinarily difficult to wean a patient off the device and permit safe extubation. However, if a patient cannot be stabilized with NPPV, intubation and mechanical ventilation must be considered. Typically, this occurs when there is severe respiratory distress, tachypnea >30 breaths/min, accessory muscle use, and altered mentation.

Goals of intubation/mechanical respiration include correcting oxygenation and severe respiratory acidosis as well as reducing the work of breathing. Barotrauma is a significant risk when patients with COPD require mechanical ventilation. Volume-limited modes of ventilation are commonly used, while pressure support or pressure-limited modes are less suitable for patients with airflow limitation. Again, invasive ventilation should only be administered if a patient cannot tolerate NPPV.

Palliative Care in the ED

Palliative care is an approach that improves the QOL of patients and their families facing the issues associated with life-threatening illness, through the prevention and relief of suffering by means of early identification and accurate assessment and treatment of pain and physical, psychosocial, and spiritual problems.³ This approach to care is warranted for COPD patients given the myriad of burdensome symptoms and functional decline that occurs.¹⁷

Palliative care expands traditional treatment goals to include enhancing QOL; helping with medical decision making; and identifying the goals of care. Palliative care is provided by board-certified physicians for the most complex of cases. However, the primary practice of palliative care must be delivered at the bedside by the treating provider. Managing pain, dyspnea, nausea, vomiting, and changes in bowel habits, as well as discussing goals of care, are among the basic palliative care skills all providers need to have and apply when indicated.

Palliative Care for Dyspnea

Opioids. Primary palliative care in the ED includes the appropriate use of low-dose oral and parenteral opioids to treat dyspnea in AECOPD. The use of a low-dose opioid, such as morphine 2 mg IV, titrated up to a desired response, is a safe and effective practice.¹⁸ Note the 2-mg starting dose is considered low-dose.¹⁹

With respect to managing dyspnea in AECOPD patients, nebulized opioids have not been found to be better than nebulized saline. More specific data regarding the use of oral opioids for managing refractory dyspnea in patients with predominantly COPD have been recently published: Long-acting morphine 20 mg once daily provides symptomatic relief in refractory dyspnea in the community setting. For the opioid-naïve patient, a lower dose is recommended.²⁰

Oxygenation. There is no hard evidence of the effectiveness of oxygen in the palliation of breathlessness. Humidified air is effective initially, as is providing a fan at the bedside. Short-burst oxygen therapy should only be considered for episodes of severe breathlessness in patients whose COPD is not relieved by other treatments. Oxygen should continue to be prescribed only if an improvement in breathlessness following therapy has been documented. The American Thoracic Society recommends continuous oxygen therapy in patients with COPD who have severe resting hypoxemia (PaCO₂ ≤55 mm Hg or SpO₂ ≤88%).²¹

POLST Form

The Physicians Order for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) form is a set of medical orders, similar to the “do not resuscitate” (allow natural death) order. A POLST form is not an advance directive and does not serve as a substitute for a patient’s assignation of a health care agent or durable power of attorney for health care.²²

The POLST form enables physicians to order treatments patients would want, identify those treatments that patients would not want, and not provide those the patient considers “extraordinary” and excessively burdensome. A POLST form does not allow for active euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide.

Identifying treatment preferences is an important part of the initial evaluation of all patients. When dealing with an airway issue in a COPD patient, management can become complex. Ideally, the POLST form should arrive with the patient in the ED and list preferences regarding possible intensive interventions such as intubation and chest compressions. Discussing these issues with a patient in extreme distress is difficult or impossible, and in these cases, access to pertinent medical records, discussing preferences with family caregivers, and availability of a POLST form are much better ways to determine therapy.

Palliative Home Care

Patient Safety Considerations

Weight loss and associated muscle wasting are common features in patients with severe COPD, creating a high-risk situation for falls and a need for assistance with activities of daily living. The patient who is frail when discharged home from the ED requires a home-care plan before leaving the ED, and strict follow-up with the patient’s primary care provider will typically be needed within 2 to 4 weeks.

Psychological Considerations

Being mindful of the anxiety and depression that accompany the physical limitations of those with COPD is important. Mood disturbances serve as risk factors for re-hospitalization and mortality.¹³Multiple palliative care interventions provide patients assistance with these issues, including the use of antidepressants that may aid sleep, stabilize mood, and stimulate appetite.

Early referral to the palliative care team will provide improved care for the patient and family. Palliative care referral will provide continued management of the physical symptoms and evaluation and treatment of the psychosocial issues that accompany COPD. Additionally, the palliative care team can assist with safe discharge planning and follow-up, including the provision of the patient’s home needs as well as the family’s ability to cope with the home setting.

Prognosis

Predicting prognosis is difficult for the COPD patient due to the highly variable illness trajectory. Some patients have a low FEV₁ and yet are very functional. However, assessment of severity of lung function impairment, frequency of exacerbations, and need for long-term oxygen therapy helps identify those patients who are entering the final 12 months of life. Evaluating symptom burden and impact on activities of daily living for patients with COPD is comparable to those of cancer patients, and in both cases, palliative care approaches are necessary.

Predicting Morbidity and Mortality

A profile developed from observational studies can help predict 6- to 12-month morbidity and mortality in patients with advanced COPD. This profile includes the following criteria:

• Significant dyspnea;
• FEV₁ <30%;
• Number of exacerbations;
• Left heart failure or other comorbidities;
• Weight loss or cachexia;
• Decreasing performance status;
• Age older than 70 years; and
• Depression.

Although additional research is required to refine and verify this profile, reviewing these data points can prompt providers to initiate discussions with patients about treatment preferences and end-of-life care.^23,24

Palliative Performance Scale

The Palliative Performance Scale (PPS) is another scale used to predict prognosis and eligibility for hospice care.²⁵ This score provides a patient’s estimated survival.²⁵ For a patient with a PPS score of 50%, hospice education may be appropriate.

Case Scenario Continued

Both the BODE and GOLD criteria scores assisted in determining prognosis and risk profiles of the patient in our case scenario. By applying the BODE criteria, our patient had a 4-year survival benefit of under 18%. The GOLD criteria results for this patient also were consistent with the BODE criteria and reflected end-stage COPD. Since this patient also had a PPS score of 50%, hospice education and care were discussed and initiated.

Conclusion

Patients with AECOPD commonly present to the ED. Such patients suffer with a high burden of illness and a need for immediate symptom management. However, after these measures have been instituted, strong evidence suggests that these patients typically do not receive palliative care with the same frequency compared to cancer or heart disease patients.

Management of AECOPD in the ED must include rapid treatment of dyspnea and pain, but also a determination of treatment preferences and an understanding of the prognosis. Several criteria are available to guide prognostic awareness and may help further the goals of care and disposition. Primary palliative care should be started by the ED provider for appropriate patients, with early referral to the palliative care team.

Case Scenario

A 62-year-old man who regularly presented to the ED for exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) after running out of his medications presented again for evaluation and treatment. His outpatient care had been poorly coordinated, and he relied on the ED to provide him with the support he needed. This presentation represented his fifth visit to the ED over the past 3 months.

The patient’s medical history was positive for asthma since childhood, tobacco use, hypertension, and a recent diagnosis of congestive heart failure (CHF). Over the past year, he had four hospital admissions, and was currently unable to walk from his bedroom to another room without becoming short of breath. He also had recently experienced a 20-lb weight loss.

At this visit, the patient complained of chest pain and lightheadedness, which he described as suffocating. Prior to these recent symptoms, he enjoyed walking in his neighborhood and talking with friends. He was an avid reader and sports fan, but admitted that he now had trouble focusing on reading and following games on television. He lived alone, and his family lived across the country. The patient further admitted that although he had attempted to quit cigarette smoking, he was unable to give up his 50-pack per year habit. He had no completed advance health care directive and had significant challenges tending to his basic needs.

The Trajectory of COPD

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is a common chronic illness that causes significant morbidity and mortality. A 2016 National Health Services report cited respiratory illness, primarily from COPD, as the third leading cause of death in the United States in 2014.¹The trajectory of this disease is marked by frequent exacerbations with partial recovery to baseline function. The burden of those living with COPD is significant and marked by a poor overall health-related quality of life (QOL). The ED has become a staging area for patients seeking care for exacerbations of COPD.²

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) have defined COPD as a spectrum of diseases including emphysema, chronic bronchitis, and chronic obstructive asthma characterized by persistent airflow limitation that is usually progressive and associated with an enhanced chronic inflammatory response to noxious particles or gases in the airways and lungs.³ Exacerbations and comorbidities contribute to the overall severity of COPD in individual patients.⁴

The case presented in this article illustrates the common scenario of a patient whose COPD has become severe and highly symptomatic with declining function to the point where he requires home support. His physical decline had been rapid and resulted in many unmet needs. When a patient such as this presents for emergent care, he must first be stabilized; then a care plan will need to be developed prior to discharge.

Management Goals

The overall goals of treating COPD are based on preserving function and are not curative in nature. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is a progressive illness that will intensify over time.⁵ As such, palliative care services are warranted. However, many patients with COPD do not receive palliative care services compared to patients with such other serious and life-limiting disease as cancer and heart disease.

Acute Exacerbations of COPD

Incidence

The frequency of acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD) increases with age, productive cough, long-standing COPD, previous hospitalizations related to COPD, eosinophilia, and comorbidities (eg, CHF). Patients with moderate to severe COPD and a history of prior exacerbations were found to have a higher likelihood of future exacerbations. From a quality and cost perspective, it may be useful to identify high-risk patients and strengthen their outpatient program to lessen the need for ED care and more intensive support.^6,7

In our case scenario, the patient could have been stabilized at home with a well-controlled plan and home support, which would have resulted in an improved QOL and more time free from his high symptom burden.

Causes

Bacterial and viral respiratory infections are the most likely cause of AECOPD. Environmental pollution and pulmonary embolism are also triggers. Typically, patients with AECOPD present to the ED up to several times a year² and represent the third most common cause of 30-day readmissions to the hospital.⁸ Prior exacerbations, dyspnea, and other medical comorbidities are also risk factors for more frequent hospital visits.

Presenting Signs and Symptoms

Each occurrence of AECOPD represents a worsening of a patient’s respiratory symptoms beyond normal variations. This might include increases in cough, sputum production, and dyspnea. The goal in caring for a person with an AECOPD is to stabilize the acute event and provide a treatment plan. The range of acuity for moderate to severe disease makes devising an appropriate treatment plan challenging, and after implementing the best plans, the patient’s course may be characterized by a prolonged cycle of admissions and readmissions without substantial return to baseline.

Management

In practice, ED management of AECOPD in older adults typically differs significantly from published guideline recommendations,⁹ which may result in pooroutcomes related to shortcomings in quality of care. Better adherence to guideline recommendations when caring for elderly patients with COPD may lead to improved clinical outcomes and better resource usage.^6,9

Risk Stratification

Complicating ED management is the challenge of determining the severity of illness and degree of the exacerbation. Airflow obstruction alone is not sufficient to predict outcomes, as any particular measure of obstruction is associated with a spectrum of forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV₁) and varying performance. Moreover, peak-flow measurements are not useful in the setting of AECOPD, as opposed to their use in acute asthma exacerbations, and are not predictive of changes in clinical status.

GOLD and NICE Criteria

Guidelines have been developed and widely promoted to assist ED and hospital and community clinicians in providing evidence-based management for COPD patients. The GOLD Criteria and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) are both clinical guidelines on management of COPD.¹⁰

Although well recognized and commonly used, the original GOLD criteria did not take into account the frequency and importance of the extrapulmonary manifestations of COPD in predicting outcome. Typically, those with severe or very severe COPD have an average of 12 co-occurring symptoms, an even greater number of signs and symptoms than those occurring in patients with cancer or heart or renal disease.¹¹

BODE Criteria

The body mass index, airflow obstruction, dyspnea and exercise capacity (BODE) criteria assess and predict the health-related QOL and mortality risk for patients with COPD. Risk is adjusted based on four factors—weight, airway obstruction, dyspnea, and exercise capacity (ie, 6-minute walk distance).¹³

Initial Evaluation and Work-Up

As previously noted, when an AECOPD patient arrives to the ED, the first priority is to stabilize the patient and initiate treatment. In this respect, initial identification of the patient’s pulse oxygen saturation (SpO₂) is important.

Laboratory Evaluation

In cases of respiratory failure, obtaining arterial blood gas (ABG) values are critical. The ABG test will assist in determining acute exacerbations of chronic hypercapnia and the need for ventilatory support. When considering CHF, a plasma B-type natriuretic peptide is useful to assess for CHF.

Imaging Studies

A chest radiograph may be useful in the initial evaluation to identify abnormalities, including barotrauma (ie, pneumothorax) and infiltrates. Additionally, in patients with comorbidities, it is important to assess cardiac status, and a chest X-ray may assist in identification of pulmonary edema, pleural effusions, and cardiomegaly. If the radiograph does show a pulmonary infiltrate (ie, pneumonia), it will help identify the probable triggers, but even in these instances, a sputum gram stain will not assist in the diagnosis.

Treatment

Relieving airflow obstruction is achieved with inhaled short-acting bronchodilators and systemic glucocorticoids, by treating infection, and by providing supplemental oxygen and ventilatory support.

Bronchodilators

The short-acting beta-adrenergic agonists (eg, albuterol) act rapidly and are effective in producing bronchodilation. Nebulized therapy may be most comfortable for the acutely ill patient. Typical dosing is 2.5 mg albuterol diluted to 3 cc by nebulizer every hour. Higher doses are not more effective, and there is no evidence of a higher response rate from constant nebulized therapy, which can cause anxiety and tachycardia in patients.¹⁴ Anticholinergic agents (eg, ipratropium) are often added despite unclear data regarding clinical advantage. In one study evaluating the effectiveness of adding ipratropium to albuterol, patients receiving a combination had the same improvement in FEV₁ at 90 minutes.¹⁵ Patients receiving ipratropium alone had the lowest rate of reported side effects.¹⁵

Systemic Glucocorticoids

Short-course systemic glucocorticoids are an important addition to treatment and have been found to improve spirometry and decrease relapse rate. The oral and intravenous (IV) routes provide the same benefit. For the acutely ill patient with challenges swallowing, the IV route is preferred. The optimal dose is not clear, but hydrocortisone doses of 100 mg to 125 mg every 6 hours for 3 days are effective, as is oral prednisone 30 mg per day for 14 days, or 60 mg per day for 3 days with a taper.

Antibiotic Therapy

Antibiotics are indicated for patients with moderate to severe AECOPD who are ill enough to be admitted to the hospital. Empiric broad spectrum treatment is recommended. The initial antibiotic regimen should target likely bacterial pathogens (Haemophilus influenzae, Moraxella catarrhalis, and Streptococcus pneumoniae in most patients) and take into account local patterns of antibiotic resistance. Flouroquinolones or third-generation cephalosporins generally provide sufficient coverage. For patients experiencing only a mild exacerbation, antibiotics are not warranted.

Magnesium Sulfate

Other supplemental medications that have been evaluated include magnesium sulfate for bronchial smooth muscle relaxation. Studies have found that while magnesium is helpful in asthma, results are mixed with COPD.¹⁶

Supplemental Oxygen

Oxygen therapy is important during an AECOPD episode. Often, concerns arise about decreasing respiratory drive, which is typically driven by hypoxia in patients who have chronic hypercapnia. Arterial blood gas determinations are important in managing a patient’s respiratory status and will assist in determining actual oxygenation and any coexistent metabolic disturbances.

Noninvasive Ventilation. Oxygen can be administered efficiently by a venturi mask, which delivers precise fractions of oxygen, or by nasal cannula. A facemask is less comfortable, but is available for higher oxygen requirements, providing up to 55% oxygen, while a nonrebreather mask delivers up to 90% oxygen.

When necessary, noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) improves outcomes for those with severe dyspnea and signs of respiratory fatigue manifested as increased work of breathing. Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation can improve clinical outcomes and is the ventilator mode of choice for those patients with COPD. Indications include severe dyspnea with signs of increased work of breathing and respiratory acidosis (arterial pH <7.35) and partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide (PaCO₂) >45 mm Hg.

Whenever possible, NPPV should be initiated with a triggered mode to allow spontaneous breaths. Inspiratory pressure of 8 cm to 12 cm H₂O and expiratory pressure of 3 cm to 5 cm of H₂ are recommended.

Mechanical Ventilation. Mechanical ventilation is often undesirable because it may be extraordinarily difficult to wean a patient off the device and permit safe extubation. However, if a patient cannot be stabilized with NPPV, intubation and mechanical ventilation must be considered. Typically, this occurs when there is severe respiratory distress, tachypnea >30 breaths/min, accessory muscle use, and altered mentation.

Goals of intubation/mechanical respiration include correcting oxygenation and severe respiratory acidosis as well as reducing the work of breathing. Barotrauma is a significant risk when patients with COPD require mechanical ventilation. Volume-limited modes of ventilation are commonly used, while pressure support or pressure-limited modes are less suitable for patients with airflow limitation. Again, invasive ventilation should only be administered if a patient cannot tolerate NPPV.

Palliative Care in the ED

Palliative care is an approach that improves the QOL of patients and their families facing the issues associated with life-threatening illness, through the prevention and relief of suffering by means of early identification and accurate assessment and treatment of pain and physical, psychosocial, and spiritual problems.³ This approach to care is warranted for COPD patients given the myriad of burdensome symptoms and functional decline that occurs.¹⁷

Palliative care expands traditional treatment goals to include enhancing QOL; helping with medical decision making; and identifying the goals of care. Palliative care is provided by board-certified physicians for the most complex of cases. However, the primary practice of palliative care must be delivered at the bedside by the treating provider. Managing pain, dyspnea, nausea, vomiting, and changes in bowel habits, as well as discussing goals of care, are among the basic palliative care skills all providers need to have and apply when indicated.

Palliative Care for Dyspnea

Opioids. Primary palliative care in the ED includes the appropriate use of low-dose oral and parenteral opioids to treat dyspnea in AECOPD. The use of a low-dose opioid, such as morphine 2 mg IV, titrated up to a desired response, is a safe and effective practice.¹⁸ Note the 2-mg starting dose is considered low-dose.¹⁹

With respect to managing dyspnea in AECOPD patients, nebulized opioids have not been found to be better than nebulized saline. More specific data regarding the use of oral opioids for managing refractory dyspnea in patients with predominantly COPD have been recently published: Long-acting morphine 20 mg once daily provides symptomatic relief in refractory dyspnea in the community setting. For the opioid-naïve patient, a lower dose is recommended.²⁰

Oxygenation. There is no hard evidence of the effectiveness of oxygen in the palliation of breathlessness. Humidified air is effective initially, as is providing a fan at the bedside. Short-burst oxygen therapy should only be considered for episodes of severe breathlessness in patients whose COPD is not relieved by other treatments. Oxygen should continue to be prescribed only if an improvement in breathlessness following therapy has been documented. The American Thoracic Society recommends continuous oxygen therapy in patients with COPD who have severe resting hypoxemia (PaCO₂ ≤55 mm Hg or SpO₂ ≤88%).²¹

POLST Form

The Physicians Order for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) form is a set of medical orders, similar to the “do not resuscitate” (allow natural death) order. A POLST form is not an advance directive and does not serve as a substitute for a patient’s assignation of a health care agent or durable power of attorney for health care.²²

The POLST form enables physicians to order treatments patients would want, identify those treatments that patients would not want, and not provide those the patient considers “extraordinary” and excessively burdensome. A POLST form does not allow for active euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide.

Identifying treatment preferences is an important part of the initial evaluation of all patients. When dealing with an airway issue in a COPD patient, management can become complex. Ideally, the POLST form should arrive with the patient in the ED and list preferences regarding possible intensive interventions such as intubation and chest compressions. Discussing these issues with a patient in extreme distress is difficult or impossible, and in these cases, access to pertinent medical records, discussing preferences with family caregivers, and availability of a POLST form are much better ways to determine therapy.

Palliative Home Care

Patient Safety Considerations

Weight loss and associated muscle wasting are common features in patients with severe COPD, creating a high-risk situation for falls and a need for assistance with activities of daily living. The patient who is frail when discharged home from the ED requires a home-care plan before leaving the ED, and strict follow-up with the patient’s primary care provider will typically be needed within 2 to 4 weeks.

Psychological Considerations

Being mindful of the anxiety and depression that accompany the physical limitations of those with COPD is important. Mood disturbances serve as risk factors for re-hospitalization and mortality.¹³Multiple palliative care interventions provide patients assistance with these issues, including the use of antidepressants that may aid sleep, stabilize mood, and stimulate appetite.

Early referral to the palliative care team will provide improved care for the patient and family. Palliative care referral will provide continued management of the physical symptoms and evaluation and treatment of the psychosocial issues that accompany COPD. Additionally, the palliative care team can assist with safe discharge planning and follow-up, including the provision of the patient’s home needs as well as the family’s ability to cope with the home setting.

Prognosis

Predicting prognosis is difficult for the COPD patient due to the highly variable illness trajectory. Some patients have a low FEV₁ and yet are very functional. However, assessment of severity of lung function impairment, frequency of exacerbations, and need for long-term oxygen therapy helps identify those patients who are entering the final 12 months of life. Evaluating symptom burden and impact on activities of daily living for patients with COPD is comparable to those of cancer patients, and in both cases, palliative care approaches are necessary.

Predicting Morbidity and Mortality

A profile developed from observational studies can help predict 6- to 12-month morbidity and mortality in patients with advanced COPD. This profile includes the following criteria:

• Significant dyspnea;
• FEV₁ <30%;
• Number of exacerbations;
• Left heart failure or other comorbidities;
• Weight loss or cachexia;
• Decreasing performance status;
• Age older than 70 years; and
• Depression.

Although additional research is required to refine and verify this profile, reviewing these data points can prompt providers to initiate discussions with patients about treatment preferences and end-of-life care.^23,24

Palliative Performance Scale

The Palliative Performance Scale (PPS) is another scale used to predict prognosis and eligibility for hospice care.²⁵ This score provides a patient’s estimated survival.²⁵ For a patient with a PPS score of 50%, hospice education may be appropriate.

Case Scenario Continued

Both the BODE and GOLD criteria scores assisted in determining prognosis and risk profiles of the patient in our case scenario. By applying the BODE criteria, our patient had a 4-year survival benefit of under 18%. The GOLD criteria results for this patient also were consistent with the BODE criteria and reflected end-stage COPD. Since this patient also had a PPS score of 50%, hospice education and care were discussed and initiated.

Conclusion

Patients with AECOPD commonly present to the ED. Such patients suffer with a high burden of illness and a need for immediate symptom management. However, after these measures have been instituted, strong evidence suggests that these patients typically do not receive palliative care with the same frequency compared to cancer or heart disease patients.

Management of AECOPD in the ED must include rapid treatment of dyspnea and pain, but also a determination of treatment preferences and an understanding of the prognosis. Several criteria are available to guide prognostic awareness and may help further the goals of care and disposition. Primary palliative care should be started by the ED provider for appropriate patients, with early referral to the palliative care team.

Case Scenario

A 62-year-old man who regularly presented to the ED for exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) after running out of his medications presented again for evaluation and treatment. His outpatient care had been poorly coordinated, and he relied on the ED to provide him with the support he needed. This presentation represented his fifth visit to the ED over the past 3 months.

The patient’s medical history was positive for asthma since childhood, tobacco use, hypertension, and a recent diagnosis of congestive heart failure (CHF). Over the past year, he had four hospital admissions, and was currently unable to walk from his bedroom to another room without becoming short of breath. He also had recently experienced a 20-lb weight loss.

At this visit, the patient complained of chest pain and lightheadedness, which he described as suffocating. Prior to these recent symptoms, he enjoyed walking in his neighborhood and talking with friends. He was an avid reader and sports fan, but admitted that he now had trouble focusing on reading and following games on television. He lived alone, and his family lived across the country. The patient further admitted that although he had attempted to quit cigarette smoking, he was unable to give up his 50-pack per year habit. He had no completed advance health care directive and had significant challenges tending to his basic needs.

The Trajectory of COPD

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is a common chronic illness that causes significant morbidity and mortality. A 2016 National Health Services report cited respiratory illness, primarily from COPD, as the third leading cause of death in the United States in 2014.¹The trajectory of this disease is marked by frequent exacerbations with partial recovery to baseline function. The burden of those living with COPD is significant and marked by a poor overall health-related quality of life (QOL). The ED has become a staging area for patients seeking care for exacerbations of COPD.²

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) have defined COPD as a spectrum of diseases including emphysema, chronic bronchitis, and chronic obstructive asthma characterized by persistent airflow limitation that is usually progressive and associated with an enhanced chronic inflammatory response to noxious particles or gases in the airways and lungs.³ Exacerbations and comorbidities contribute to the overall severity of COPD in individual patients.⁴

The case presented in this article illustrates the common scenario of a patient whose COPD has become severe and highly symptomatic with declining function to the point where he requires home support. His physical decline had been rapid and resulted in many unmet needs. When a patient such as this presents for emergent care, he must first be stabilized; then a care plan will need to be developed prior to discharge.

Management Goals

The overall goals of treating COPD are based on preserving function and are not curative in nature. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is a progressive illness that will intensify over time.⁵ As such, palliative care services are warranted. However, many patients with COPD do not receive palliative care services compared to patients with such other serious and life-limiting disease as cancer and heart disease.

Acute Exacerbations of COPD

Incidence

The frequency of acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD) increases with age, productive cough, long-standing COPD, previous hospitalizations related to COPD, eosinophilia, and comorbidities (eg, CHF). Patients with moderate to severe COPD and a history of prior exacerbations were found to have a higher likelihood of future exacerbations. From a quality and cost perspective, it may be useful to identify high-risk patients and strengthen their outpatient program to lessen the need for ED care and more intensive support.^6,7

In our case scenario, the patient could have been stabilized at home with a well-controlled plan and home support, which would have resulted in an improved QOL and more time free from his high symptom burden.

Causes

Bacterial and viral respiratory infections are the most likely cause of AECOPD. Environmental pollution and pulmonary embolism are also triggers. Typically, patients with AECOPD present to the ED up to several times a year² and represent the third most common cause of 30-day readmissions to the hospital.⁸ Prior exacerbations, dyspnea, and other medical comorbidities are also risk factors for more frequent hospital visits.

Presenting Signs and Symptoms

Each occurrence of AECOPD represents a worsening of a patient’s respiratory symptoms beyond normal variations. This might include increases in cough, sputum production, and dyspnea. The goal in caring for a person with an AECOPD is to stabilize the acute event and provide a treatment plan. The range of acuity for moderate to severe disease makes devising an appropriate treatment plan challenging, and after implementing the best plans, the patient’s course may be characterized by a prolonged cycle of admissions and readmissions without substantial return to baseline.

Management

In practice, ED management of AECOPD in older adults typically differs significantly from published guideline recommendations,⁹ which may result in pooroutcomes related to shortcomings in quality of care. Better adherence to guideline recommendations when caring for elderly patients with COPD may lead to improved clinical outcomes and better resource usage.^6,9

Risk Stratification

Complicating ED management is the challenge of determining the severity of illness and degree of the exacerbation. Airflow obstruction alone is not sufficient to predict outcomes, as any particular measure of obstruction is associated with a spectrum of forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV₁) and varying performance. Moreover, peak-flow measurements are not useful in the setting of AECOPD, as opposed to their use in acute asthma exacerbations, and are not predictive of changes in clinical status.

GOLD and NICE Criteria

Guidelines have been developed and widely promoted to assist ED and hospital and community clinicians in providing evidence-based management for COPD patients. The GOLD Criteria and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) are both clinical guidelines on management of COPD.¹⁰

Although well recognized and commonly used, the original GOLD criteria did not take into account the frequency and importance of the extrapulmonary manifestations of COPD in predicting outcome. Typically, those with severe or very severe COPD have an average of 12 co-occurring symptoms, an even greater number of signs and symptoms than those occurring in patients with cancer or heart or renal disease.¹¹

BODE Criteria

The body mass index, airflow obstruction, dyspnea and exercise capacity (BODE) criteria assess and predict the health-related QOL and mortality risk for patients with COPD. Risk is adjusted based on four factors—weight, airway obstruction, dyspnea, and exercise capacity (ie, 6-minute walk distance).¹³

Initial Evaluation and Work-Up

As previously noted, when an AECOPD patient arrives to the ED, the first priority is to stabilize the patient and initiate treatment. In this respect, initial identification of the patient’s pulse oxygen saturation (SpO₂) is important.

Laboratory Evaluation

In cases of respiratory failure, obtaining arterial blood gas (ABG) values are critical. The ABG test will assist in determining acute exacerbations of chronic hypercapnia and the need for ventilatory support. When considering CHF, a plasma B-type natriuretic peptide is useful to assess for CHF.

Imaging Studies

A chest radiograph may be useful in the initial evaluation to identify abnormalities, including barotrauma (ie, pneumothorax) and infiltrates. Additionally, in patients with comorbidities, it is important to assess cardiac status, and a chest X-ray may assist in identification of pulmonary edema, pleural effusions, and cardiomegaly. If the radiograph does show a pulmonary infiltrate (ie, pneumonia), it will help identify the probable triggers, but even in these instances, a sputum gram stain will not assist in the diagnosis.

Treatment

Relieving airflow obstruction is achieved with inhaled short-acting bronchodilators and systemic glucocorticoids, by treating infection, and by providing supplemental oxygen and ventilatory support.

Bronchodilators

The short-acting beta-adrenergic agonists (eg, albuterol) act rapidly and are effective in producing bronchodilation. Nebulized therapy may be most comfortable for the acutely ill patient. Typical dosing is 2.5 mg albuterol diluted to 3 cc by nebulizer every hour. Higher doses are not more effective, and there is no evidence of a higher response rate from constant nebulized therapy, which can cause anxiety and tachycardia in patients.¹⁴ Anticholinergic agents (eg, ipratropium) are often added despite unclear data regarding clinical advantage. In one study evaluating the effectiveness of adding ipratropium to albuterol, patients receiving a combination had the same improvement in FEV₁ at 90 minutes.¹⁵ Patients receiving ipratropium alone had the lowest rate of reported side effects.¹⁵

Systemic Glucocorticoids

Short-course systemic glucocorticoids are an important addition to treatment and have been found to improve spirometry and decrease relapse rate. The oral and intravenous (IV) routes provide the same benefit. For the acutely ill patient with challenges swallowing, the IV route is preferred. The optimal dose is not clear, but hydrocortisone doses of 100 mg to 125 mg every 6 hours for 3 days are effective, as is oral prednisone 30 mg per day for 14 days, or 60 mg per day for 3 days with a taper.

Antibiotic Therapy

Antibiotics are indicated for patients with moderate to severe AECOPD who are ill enough to be admitted to the hospital. Empiric broad spectrum treatment is recommended. The initial antibiotic regimen should target likely bacterial pathogens (Haemophilus influenzae, Moraxella catarrhalis, and Streptococcus pneumoniae in most patients) and take into account local patterns of antibiotic resistance. Flouroquinolones or third-generation cephalosporins generally provide sufficient coverage. For patients experiencing only a mild exacerbation, antibiotics are not warranted.

Magnesium Sulfate

Other supplemental medications that have been evaluated include magnesium sulfate for bronchial smooth muscle relaxation. Studies have found that while magnesium is helpful in asthma, results are mixed with COPD.¹⁶

Supplemental Oxygen

Oxygen therapy is important during an AECOPD episode. Often, concerns arise about decreasing respiratory drive, which is typically driven by hypoxia in patients who have chronic hypercapnia. Arterial blood gas determinations are important in managing a patient’s respiratory status and will assist in determining actual oxygenation and any coexistent metabolic disturbances.

Noninvasive Ventilation. Oxygen can be administered efficiently by a venturi mask, which delivers precise fractions of oxygen, or by nasal cannula. A facemask is less comfortable, but is available for higher oxygen requirements, providing up to 55% oxygen, while a nonrebreather mask delivers up to 90% oxygen.

When necessary, noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) improves outcomes for those with severe dyspnea and signs of respiratory fatigue manifested as increased work of breathing. Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation can improve clinical outcomes and is the ventilator mode of choice for those patients with COPD. Indications include severe dyspnea with signs of increased work of breathing and respiratory acidosis (arterial pH <7.35) and partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide (PaCO₂) >45 mm Hg.

Whenever possible, NPPV should be initiated with a triggered mode to allow spontaneous breaths. Inspiratory pressure of 8 cm to 12 cm H₂O and expiratory pressure of 3 cm to 5 cm of H₂ are recommended.

Mechanical Ventilation. Mechanical ventilation is often undesirable because it may be extraordinarily difficult to wean a patient off the device and permit safe extubation. However, if a patient cannot be stabilized with NPPV, intubation and mechanical ventilation must be considered. Typically, this occurs when there is severe respiratory distress, tachypnea >30 breaths/min, accessory muscle use, and altered mentation.

Goals of intubation/mechanical respiration include correcting oxygenation and severe respiratory acidosis as well as reducing the work of breathing. Barotrauma is a significant risk when patients with COPD require mechanical ventilation. Volume-limited modes of ventilation are commonly used, while pressure support or pressure-limited modes are less suitable for patients with airflow limitation. Again, invasive ventilation should only be administered if a patient cannot tolerate NPPV.

Palliative Care in the ED

Palliative care is an approach that improves the QOL of patients and their families facing the issues associated with life-threatening illness, through the prevention and relief of suffering by means of early identification and accurate assessment and treatment of pain and physical, psychosocial, and spiritual problems.³ This approach to care is warranted for COPD patients given the myriad of burdensome symptoms and functional decline that occurs.¹⁷

Palliative care expands traditional treatment goals to include enhancing QOL; helping with medical decision making; and identifying the goals of care. Palliative care is provided by board-certified physicians for the most complex of cases. However, the primary practice of palliative care must be delivered at the bedside by the treating provider. Managing pain, dyspnea, nausea, vomiting, and changes in bowel habits, as well as discussing goals of care, are among the basic palliative care skills all providers need to have and apply when indicated.

Palliative Care for Dyspnea

Opioids. Primary palliative care in the ED includes the appropriate use of low-dose oral and parenteral opioids to treat dyspnea in AECOPD. The use of a low-dose opioid, such as morphine 2 mg IV, titrated up to a desired response, is a safe and effective practice.¹⁸ Note the 2-mg starting dose is considered low-dose.¹⁹

With respect to managing dyspnea in AECOPD patients, nebulized opioids have not been found to be better than nebulized saline. More specific data regarding the use of oral opioids for managing refractory dyspnea in patients with predominantly COPD have been recently published: Long-acting morphine 20 mg once daily provides symptomatic relief in refractory dyspnea in the community setting. For the opioid-naïve patient, a lower dose is recommended.²⁰

Oxygenation. There is no hard evidence of the effectiveness of oxygen in the palliation of breathlessness. Humidified air is effective initially, as is providing a fan at the bedside. Short-burst oxygen therapy should only be considered for episodes of severe breathlessness in patients whose COPD is not relieved by other treatments. Oxygen should continue to be prescribed only if an improvement in breathlessness following therapy has been documented. The American Thoracic Society recommends continuous oxygen therapy in patients with COPD who have severe resting hypoxemia (PaCO₂ ≤55 mm Hg or SpO₂ ≤88%).²¹

POLST Form

The Physicians Order for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) form is a set of medical orders, similar to the “do not resuscitate” (allow natural death) order. A POLST form is not an advance directive and does not serve as a substitute for a patient’s assignation of a health care agent or durable power of attorney for health care.²²

The POLST form enables physicians to order treatments patients would want, identify those treatments that patients would not want, and not provide those the patient considers “extraordinary” and excessively burdensome. A POLST form does not allow for active euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide.

Identifying treatment preferences is an important part of the initial evaluation of all patients. When dealing with an airway issue in a COPD patient, management can become complex. Ideally, the POLST form should arrive with the patient in the ED and list preferences regarding possible intensive interventions such as intubation and chest compressions. Discussing these issues with a patient in extreme distress is difficult or impossible, and in these cases, access to pertinent medical records, discussing preferences with family caregivers, and availability of a POLST form are much better ways to determine therapy.

Palliative Home Care

Patient Safety Considerations

Weight loss and associated muscle wasting are common features in patients with severe COPD, creating a high-risk situation for falls and a need for assistance with activities of daily living. The patient who is frail when discharged home from the ED requires a home-care plan before leaving the ED, and strict follow-up with the patient’s primary care provider will typically be needed within 2 to 4 weeks.

Psychological Considerations

Being mindful of the anxiety and depression that accompany the physical limitations of those with COPD is important. Mood disturbances serve as risk factors for re-hospitalization and mortality.¹³Multiple palliative care interventions provide patients assistance with these issues, including the use of antidepressants that may aid sleep, stabilize mood, and stimulate appetite.

Early referral to the palliative care team will provide improved care for the patient and family. Palliative care referral will provide continued management of the physical symptoms and evaluation and treatment of the psychosocial issues that accompany COPD. Additionally, the palliative care team can assist with safe discharge planning and follow-up, including the provision of the patient’s home needs as well as the family’s ability to cope with the home setting.

Prognosis

Predicting prognosis is difficult for the COPD patient due to the highly variable illness trajectory. Some patients have a low FEV₁ and yet are very functional. However, assessment of severity of lung function impairment, frequency of exacerbations, and need for long-term oxygen therapy helps identify those patients who are entering the final 12 months of life. Evaluating symptom burden and impact on activities of daily living for patients with COPD is comparable to those of cancer patients, and in both cases, palliative care approaches are necessary.

Predicting Morbidity and Mortality

A profile developed from observational studies can help predict 6- to 12-month morbidity and mortality in patients with advanced COPD. This profile includes the following criteria:

• Significant dyspnea;
• FEV₁ <30%;
• Number of exacerbations;
• Left heart failure or other comorbidities;
• Weight loss or cachexia;
• Decreasing performance status;
• Age older than 70 years; and
• Depression.

Although additional research is required to refine and verify this profile, reviewing these data points can prompt providers to initiate discussions with patients about treatment preferences and end-of-life care.^23,24

Palliative Performance Scale

The Palliative Performance Scale (PPS) is another scale used to predict prognosis and eligibility for hospice care.²⁵ This score provides a patient’s estimated survival.²⁵ For a patient with a PPS score of 50%, hospice education may be appropriate.

Case Scenario Continued

Both the BODE and GOLD criteria scores assisted in determining prognosis and risk profiles of the patient in our case scenario. By applying the BODE criteria, our patient had a 4-year survival benefit of under 18%. The GOLD criteria results for this patient also were consistent with the BODE criteria and reflected end-stage COPD. Since this patient also had a PPS score of 50%, hospice education and care were discussed and initiated.

Conclusion

Patients with AECOPD commonly present to the ED. Such patients suffer with a high burden of illness and a need for immediate symptom management. However, after these measures have been instituted, strong evidence suggests that these patients typically do not receive palliative care with the same frequency compared to cancer or heart disease patients.

Management of AECOPD in the ED must include rapid treatment of dyspnea and pain, but also a determination of treatment preferences and an understanding of the prognosis. Several criteria are available to guide prognostic awareness and may help further the goals of care and disposition. Primary palliative care should be started by the ED provider for appropriate patients, with early referral to the palliative care team.

Regulatory bodies and professional societies have encouraged or mandated written pain treatment agreements for over a decade as a way to establish informed consent, improve adherence, and mitigate risk. Unfortunately, the content of these agreements varies, their efficacy is uncertain, and some are stigmatizing or coercive and jeopardize trust. Additionally, many are written at reading levels beyond most patients’ understanding. However, we believe a well-written agreement is still an important tool in chronic pain management.

In this article, we explore common limitations of current pain treatment “contracts” and propose strategies to improve their usefulness and acceptance.

PAIN AND ITS TREATMENT HAVE COSTS

Chronic pain affects 100 million US adults and is estimated to cost $635 billion each year in treatment, lost wages, and reduced productivity.¹

Opioid therapy for chronic noncancer pain is being called into question,^2–5 and a 2016 guideline from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has called for more limited and judicious use of opioids in primary care.⁶ Nevertheless, long-term opioid therapy is probably helpful in some circumstances and will likely continue to have a role in chronic pain management for the foreseeable future.⁷

Concerns about opioids include risks of overdose and death. Unintentional drug overdoses, typically with opioids, exceeded motor vehicle accidents in 2009 as the leading cause of accidental death in the United States⁸; by 2014, nearly one and a half times as many people were dying of a drug overdose than of a car accident.⁹ Even when used appropriately, opioids are associated with sedation, falls, motor vehicle accidents, addiction, and unintended overdose.¹⁰

The potential harm extends beyond the patient to the community at large. Diversion of prescription drugs for nonmedical use is common¹¹ and, after marijuana and alcohol abuse, is the most common form of drug abuse in the United States.¹² Misuse of prescription drugs costs health insurers an estimated $72.5 billion each year—a cost largely passed on to consumers through higher premiums.¹³ Most individuals who abuse prescription opioids get them from friends and family, sometimes by stealing them.¹⁴

THE SPECIAL ROLE OF THE PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIAN

Chronic pain is extremely prevalent in general internal medicine and primary care practice.^15,16 It has tremendous associated medical, social, and economic costs.¹

In light of the risks and complexity of opioid use and the increasing regulatory requirements for safe prescribing, some primary care physicians have stopped prescribing opioids altogether and refer patients elsewhere for pain management.

This does a disservice to patients. Primary care physicians cannot entirely avoid chronic pain management or absolutely refuse to prescribe opioids in all circumstances and still provide quality care. And although some primary care physicians may need more training in prescribing opioids, their comprehensive understanding of the patient’s other health issues enables them to address the psychosocial generators and consequences of the patient’s chronic pain more fully than a specialist can.

Furthermore, access to board-certified pain specialists is limited. There are only four such specialists for every 100,000 patients with chronic pain,¹⁷ and those who are available often restrict the types of insurance they accept, disproportionately excluding Medicaid patients.

We encourage primary care physicians to undertake continuing medical education and professional development as needed to prescribe opioids as safely and effectively as possible.

A CONTROLLED-SUBSTANCE AGREEMENT INSTEAD OF A ‘NARCOTIC CONTRACT’

To address the challenges of long-term opioid therapy, many state officials, medical licensing boards, professional societies, and other regulatory bodies recommend proactive monitoring and management of prescribing risks. Often promoted and sometimes mandated is the use of a written pain treatment agreement, sometimes called a “pain contract” or “narcotic contract,” in which the patient and the physician ostensibly agree to various conditions under which opioids will be prescribed or discontinued. Although well-intentioned, these documents can cause several problems.

Contracts were being advocated in treating opiate addiction as early as 1981.¹⁸ Since then, the term “narcotic contract” has become widely used, even as most professional guidelines have now moved away from using it. A Google search for the term on November 27, 2015, yielded 2,000 results, with numerous examples of the documents in clinical use.

But the phrase is misleading, and we believe physicians should avoid using it. Clinically, the word “narcotic” is imprecise and can refer to substances other than opioids. For example, the US Controlled Substances Act lists cocaine as a narcotic.¹⁹ The word also carries a stigma, as law enforcement agencies and drug abuse programs commonly use phrases such as “narcotic task force” or “narcotic treatment program.” On the other hand, the more accurate term “opioid” may be unfamiliar to patients. We recommend using the term “controlled substance” instead.

Similarly, the word “contract” can be perceived as coercive, can erode physician-patient trust, and implies that failure to agree to it will result in loss of access to pain medications.^20–23

For these reasons, we encourage physicians to adopt the phrase “controlled-substance agreement” or something similar. This label accurately reflects the specificity of the treatment and connotes a partnership between patient and physician. Furthermore, it allows the physician to use the agreement when prescribing other controlled substances such as benzodiazepines and stimulants that also carry a risk of addiction, misuse, and adverse effects.

STIGMATIZING THE PATIENT

Although no studies have systematically assessed the style and tone of available treatment agreements, many of the agreements seem to stigmatize the patient, using language that is mistrustful, accusatory, and even confrontational and that implies that the patient will misuse or abuse the medications.^21,24 For example, “Failure to comply with the terms of the contract will risk loss of medication or discharge from the medical practice” is inflammatory and coercive, but variations of this phrase appear in many of the results of the aforementioned Google search.

Such language defeats attempts to communicate openly and implies a deprecatory attitude towards patients. Stigmatization may result in undertreatment of pain, physician refusal to prescribe opioids, and patient refusal to submit to the terms of a one-sided agreement perceived as unfair. Therefore, poorly written opioid agreements impair the trust necessary for a therapeutic physician-patient relationship and can interfere with optimal pain management.^20–23

Some physicians stigmatize inadvertently. Believing that they can identify which patients will misuse their prescriptions, they use controlled-substance agreements only in this subgroup. But in fact, physicians are notoriously poor at predicting which patients will misuse prescription opioids or suffer adverse effects.²⁵ Therefore, it is important to be transparent and consistent with monitoring practices for all patients on chronic opioid therapy.²⁶

Framing the controlled-substance agreement in terms of safety and using it universally can minimize miscommunication and unintentional stigmatization.

SHARED DECISION-MAKING AND CHRONIC OPIOID THERAPY

We recommend using controlled-substance agreements only in the context of personalized patient counseling and shared decision-making.

Shared decision-making promotes mutual respect between patients and physicians, is feasible to implement in primary care, and may improve health outcomes.^27,28 A study found that physicians who received 2 hours of training in shared decision-making for chronic opioid therapy were more likely to complete treatment agreements and set mutually agreed-upon functional goals with patients, and they felt more confident, competent, and comfortable treating chronic pain.²⁹ Additionally, after learning about the risks, some patients may choose to forgo opioid therapy.

To be consistent with shared decision-making, the controlled-substance agreement must:

• Engage the patient, emphasizing the shared, reciprocal obligations of physician and patient
• Address goals of treatment that are personalized and mutually agreed-upon and that incorporate the patient’s values and preferences
• Explain treatment options in a way that is understandable and informative for the patient.

Table 1 outlines other key elements in detail.^27,30,31

Shared decision-making is especially useful when the balance between the risks and benefits of a treatment plan is uncertain. It is not a substitute for medical expertise, and a patient’s preferences do not override the physician’s clinical judgment. A physician should not offer or implement chronic opioid therapy if he or she believes it is not indicated or is contraindicated, or that the risks for that patient clearly outweigh the benefits.³²

THE CONTROLLED-SUBSTANCE AGREEMENT: FOUR OBJECTIVES

Stigmatizing language in the controlled-substance agreement may result from physician ambivalence regarding its intent and objectives. For example, some may perceive the agreement as a way to facilitate communication, while others may use it in a possibly unethical manner to control patient behavior with the threat of cutting off access to pain medication.³³

Controlled-substance agreements have four commonly identified objectives,³⁴ explored further below:

• To improve adherence with the safe use of controlled substances while reducing aberrant behaviors
• To obtain informed consent
• To outline the prescribing policies of the practice
• To mitigate the prescriber’s legal risk.

Improving adherence

Many authors say that the primary goal of the controlled-substance agreement is to promote the use of the medication as prescribed, without variance, and from one physician only.^35–38 This goal seems reasonable. However, many other classes of medications are also risky when used aberrantly, and we do not ask the patient to sign an agreement when we prescribe them. This double standard may reflect both the inherently higher risks associated with controlled substances and physician ambivalence regarding their use.

Regardless, the efficacy of controlled­substance agreements in improving safe-use adherence and reducing aberrant medication-taking behaviors is uncertain. A 2010 systematic review based on observational and largely poor-quality studies concluded that using treatment agreements along with urine drug testing modestly reduced opioid misuse,³⁹ while other reports have called their efficacy into question.⁴⁰ We remain optimistic that well-written controlled-substance agreements can advance this objective, and that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence—ie, lack of efficacy. However, the data are not yet clear.

Interestingly, a 2014 survey found that most primary care physicians thought that controlled-substance agreements do not meaningfully reduce opioid misuse but do give a sense of protection against liability.⁴¹ Additionally, these documents are associated with a greater sense of physician satisfaction and mastery,⁴² and for some physicians these reasons may be enough to justify their use.

Somewhat alarmingly though, one study suggests that many patients do not even know that they signed a treatment agreement.⁴³ Using a controlled-substance agreement without the full awareness and engagement of the patient cannot promote adherence and is likely counterproductive.

Obtaining informed consent

It is essential to discuss possible benefits and risks so that informed and shared decision-making can occur.

Controlled-substance agreements may advance this aim if carefully written, although medical practices often design them for use across a spectrum of patients with varying indications, contraindications, and risks, making these documents inherently inflexible. A one-size-fits-all document does not allow for meaningful personalization and is insufficient without patient-centered counseling.

We strongly recommend that treatment agreements complement but not replace personalized patient-centered counseling about individual risks and benefits. Well-written controlled-substance agreements may reduce the chance of overlooking key risks and launch further customized discussion. Additionally, they can be written in a manner that allows patients and physicians to agree on and document personalized goals (Table 2).

Furthermore, when crafted within a risk-benefit framework, a controlled-substance agreement can help to clarify an ethically important concept, ie, that the physician is judging the safety and appropriateness of the treatment, not the character of the patient.⁴⁴ The prescriber can focus on evaluating the risks and benefits of treatment choices, not being a police officer or a judge of how “deserving” of opioid therapy the patient is.

Importantly, for patients to provide meaningful informed consent, the agreement must be understandable. A study of 162 opioid treatment agreements found that on average, they were written at a 14th grade level, which is beyond the reading comprehension of most patients.⁴⁵ Another study evaluated patients’ ability to understand and follow instructions on labels for common prescriptions; even though 70% of the patients could read the labels, only 34.7% could demonstrate the instructions “take two tablets by mouth twice daily.”⁴⁶

We recommend analyzing all controlled- substance agreements for readability by assessing their Flesch-Kincaid grade level or a similar literacy assessment, using readily available computer apps. The average education level of the patients cared for in each practice will vary based on the demographic served, and the controlled-substance agreement can be modified accordingly, but typically writing the document at the 6th- to 7th-grade reading level is suggested.

Outlining practice policies

Opioids are federally controlled substances with prescribing restrictions that vary based on the drug’s Drug Enforcement Agency schedule. State laws and regulations also govern opioid prescribing and are constantly evolving.⁴⁷

Refilling opioid prescriptions should be a deliberate process during which the prescriber reviews the appropriateness of the medication and issues the prescription as safely as possible.

To promote practice consistency and to share expectations transparently with patients, we recommend spelling out in the agreement your policies on:

• Who can manage this patient’s opioid therapy
• How to handle refill requests after hours and on weekends
• When and how patients should request opioid refills
• Which pharmacies patients will use
• Whether the practice allows others to pick up refills for the patient.

This not only serves as a reference for patients, who keep a copy for their records, it also reduces the risk of inconsistent processes within the office, which will quickly lead to chaos and confusion among patients and physicians alike. Inconsistent prescription and refill practices can give the impression that a double standard exists and that some patients get more leeway than others, without apparent justification.

There is little evidence that this approach truly improves practice efficiency,^34,48 but we believe that it may avert future confusion and conflict.

Mitigating the prescriber’s risk

Most licensing boards and clinical guidelines recommend controlled-substance agreements as part of opioid risk mitigation. These documents are now the standard of care, with many bodies recommending or mandating them, including the Federation of State Medical Boards,⁴⁹ many states,⁵⁰ Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing,⁵¹ the American Academy of Pain Management,⁵² and the American Pain Society along with the American Academy of Pain Medicine.⁵³

Historically, primary care physicians have used controlled-substance agreements inconsistently and primarily for patients believed to be at high risk of misuse.⁵⁴ However, because physicians cannot accurately predict who will misuse or divert medications,²⁵ controlled-substance agreements should be used universally, ie, for all patients prescribed controlled substances.

A controlled-substance agreement can serve as documentation. The patient can keep a copy for future reference, and a cosigned document is evidence that a discussion took place and may lower the risk of malpractice litigation.⁵⁵ Further, if a state requires physicians to check their prescription monitoring database before prescribing opioids, the controlled-substance agreement can serve to both inform patients about this obligation and to obtain their consent when required.

At a minimum, we recommend that prescribers learn about the regulatory framework in their state and use controlled-substance agreements as legislatively mandated.

A CHECKLIST FOR THE PHYSICIAN AND PATIENT

To facilitate the development and use of ethically appropriate controlled-substance agreements with a focus on shared decision-making, we offer a sample tool in the form of a checklist (Table 2). It can be modified and implemented instead of a traditional controlled-substance agreement or can be used alongside other more comprehensive documents to facilitate discussion.

The model presents critical information for the patient and physician to discuss and acknowledge (initial) in writing. It is divided into three sections: shared responsibilities, patient responsibilities, and physician responsibilities. Each contains an approximately equal number of items; this is deliberate and visually conveys the notion of equivalent and shared responsibilities for patient and physician. The patient, physician, or both should initial each item to indicate their agreement.

The document is customizable for the specific treatment prescribed. It is written at a Flesch-Kincaid grade level of 6.8, consistent with current health literacy recommendations, and avoids medical jargon and complex compound sentences as much as possible.

We indicate key elements of shared decision-making^27,30,31 in parentheses in Table 2 and cross-reference them with Table 1, which describes them more fully.

A BETTER TOOL

Both chronic pain and prescription drug abuse are highly prevalent and carry serious consequences. These overlapping epidemics put the prescriber in the difficult position of trying to prevent misuse, abuse, and diversion while simultaneously adequately treating pain.

Physicians and policy makers look to controlled-substance agreements as tools to help them balance the benefits and risks, but frequently at the expense of eroding trust between the patient and physician, stigmatizing the patient, using pejorative and coercive language, not adhering to health literacy guidelines, and failing to share decisions.

We believe a better tool is possible and suggest that controlled-substance agreements be universally applied, use deliberate and understandable language, be framed in terms of safety, and be implemented according to the principles of shared decision-making.

Regulatory bodies and professional societies have encouraged or mandated written pain treatment agreements for over a decade as a way to establish informed consent, improve adherence, and mitigate risk. Unfortunately, the content of these agreements varies, their efficacy is uncertain, and some are stigmatizing or coercive and jeopardize trust. Additionally, many are written at reading levels beyond most patients’ understanding. However, we believe a well-written agreement is still an important tool in chronic pain management.

In this article, we explore common limitations of current pain treatment “contracts” and propose strategies to improve their usefulness and acceptance.

PAIN AND ITS TREATMENT HAVE COSTS

Chronic pain affects 100 million US adults and is estimated to cost $635 billion each year in treatment, lost wages, and reduced productivity.¹

Opioid therapy for chronic noncancer pain is being called into question,^2–5 and a 2016 guideline from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has called for more limited and judicious use of opioids in primary care.⁶ Nevertheless, long-term opioid therapy is probably helpful in some circumstances and will likely continue to have a role in chronic pain management for the foreseeable future.⁷

Concerns about opioids include risks of overdose and death. Unintentional drug overdoses, typically with opioids, exceeded motor vehicle accidents in 2009 as the leading cause of accidental death in the United States⁸; by 2014, nearly one and a half times as many people were dying of a drug overdose than of a car accident.⁹ Even when used appropriately, opioids are associated with sedation, falls, motor vehicle accidents, addiction, and unintended overdose.¹⁰

The potential harm extends beyond the patient to the community at large. Diversion of prescription drugs for nonmedical use is common¹¹ and, after marijuana and alcohol abuse, is the most common form of drug abuse in the United States.¹² Misuse of prescription drugs costs health insurers an estimated $72.5 billion each year—a cost largely passed on to consumers through higher premiums.¹³ Most individuals who abuse prescription opioids get them from friends and family, sometimes by stealing them.¹⁴

THE SPECIAL ROLE OF THE PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIAN

Chronic pain is extremely prevalent in general internal medicine and primary care practice.^15,16 It has tremendous associated medical, social, and economic costs.¹

In light of the risks and complexity of opioid use and the increasing regulatory requirements for safe prescribing, some primary care physicians have stopped prescribing opioids altogether and refer patients elsewhere for pain management.

This does a disservice to patients. Primary care physicians cannot entirely avoid chronic pain management or absolutely refuse to prescribe opioids in all circumstances and still provide quality care. And although some primary care physicians may need more training in prescribing opioids, their comprehensive understanding of the patient’s other health issues enables them to address the psychosocial generators and consequences of the patient’s chronic pain more fully than a specialist can.

Furthermore, access to board-certified pain specialists is limited. There are only four such specialists for every 100,000 patients with chronic pain,¹⁷ and those who are available often restrict the types of insurance they accept, disproportionately excluding Medicaid patients.

We encourage primary care physicians to undertake continuing medical education and professional development as needed to prescribe opioids as safely and effectively as possible.

A CONTROLLED-SUBSTANCE AGREEMENT INSTEAD OF A ‘NARCOTIC CONTRACT’

To address the challenges of long-term opioid therapy, many state officials, medical licensing boards, professional societies, and other regulatory bodies recommend proactive monitoring and management of prescribing risks. Often promoted and sometimes mandated is the use of a written pain treatment agreement, sometimes called a “pain contract” or “narcotic contract,” in which the patient and the physician ostensibly agree to various conditions under which opioids will be prescribed or discontinued. Although well-intentioned, these documents can cause several problems.

Contracts were being advocated in treating opiate addiction as early as 1981.¹⁸ Since then, the term “narcotic contract” has become widely used, even as most professional guidelines have now moved away from using it. A Google search for the term on November 27, 2015, yielded 2,000 results, with numerous examples of the documents in clinical use.

But the phrase is misleading, and we believe physicians should avoid using it. Clinically, the word “narcotic” is imprecise and can refer to substances other than opioids. For example, the US Controlled Substances Act lists cocaine as a narcotic.¹⁹ The word also carries a stigma, as law enforcement agencies and drug abuse programs commonly use phrases such as “narcotic task force” or “narcotic treatment program.” On the other hand, the more accurate term “opioid” may be unfamiliar to patients. We recommend using the term “controlled substance” instead.

Similarly, the word “contract” can be perceived as coercive, can erode physician-patient trust, and implies that failure to agree to it will result in loss of access to pain medications.^20–23

For these reasons, we encourage physicians to adopt the phrase “controlled-substance agreement” or something similar. This label accurately reflects the specificity of the treatment and connotes a partnership between patient and physician. Furthermore, it allows the physician to use the agreement when prescribing other controlled substances such as benzodiazepines and stimulants that also carry a risk of addiction, misuse, and adverse effects.

STIGMATIZING THE PATIENT

Although no studies have systematically assessed the style and tone of available treatment agreements, many of the agreements seem to stigmatize the patient, using language that is mistrustful, accusatory, and even confrontational and that implies that the patient will misuse or abuse the medications.^21,24 For example, “Failure to comply with the terms of the contract will risk loss of medication or discharge from the medical practice” is inflammatory and coercive, but variations of this phrase appear in many of the results of the aforementioned Google search.

Such language defeats attempts to communicate openly and implies a deprecatory attitude towards patients. Stigmatization may result in undertreatment of pain, physician refusal to prescribe opioids, and patient refusal to submit to the terms of a one-sided agreement perceived as unfair. Therefore, poorly written opioid agreements impair the trust necessary for a therapeutic physician-patient relationship and can interfere with optimal pain management.^20–23

Some physicians stigmatize inadvertently. Believing that they can identify which patients will misuse their prescriptions, they use controlled-substance agreements only in this subgroup. But in fact, physicians are notoriously poor at predicting which patients will misuse prescription opioids or suffer adverse effects.²⁵ Therefore, it is important to be transparent and consistent with monitoring practices for all patients on chronic opioid therapy.²⁶

Framing the controlled-substance agreement in terms of safety and using it universally can minimize miscommunication and unintentional stigmatization.

SHARED DECISION-MAKING AND CHRONIC OPIOID THERAPY

We recommend using controlled-substance agreements only in the context of personalized patient counseling and shared decision-making.

Shared decision-making promotes mutual respect between patients and physicians, is feasible to implement in primary care, and may improve health outcomes.^27,28 A study found that physicians who received 2 hours of training in shared decision-making for chronic opioid therapy were more likely to complete treatment agreements and set mutually agreed-upon functional goals with patients, and they felt more confident, competent, and comfortable treating chronic pain.²⁹ Additionally, after learning about the risks, some patients may choose to forgo opioid therapy.

To be consistent with shared decision-making, the controlled-substance agreement must:

• Engage the patient, emphasizing the shared, reciprocal obligations of physician and patient
• Address goals of treatment that are personalized and mutually agreed-upon and that incorporate the patient’s values and preferences
• Explain treatment options in a way that is understandable and informative for the patient.

Table 1 outlines other key elements in detail.^27,30,31

Shared decision-making is especially useful when the balance between the risks and benefits of a treatment plan is uncertain. It is not a substitute for medical expertise, and a patient’s preferences do not override the physician’s clinical judgment. A physician should not offer or implement chronic opioid therapy if he or she believes it is not indicated or is contraindicated, or that the risks for that patient clearly outweigh the benefits.³²

THE CONTROLLED-SUBSTANCE AGREEMENT: FOUR OBJECTIVES

Stigmatizing language in the controlled-substance agreement may result from physician ambivalence regarding its intent and objectives. For example, some may perceive the agreement as a way to facilitate communication, while others may use it in a possibly unethical manner to control patient behavior with the threat of cutting off access to pain medication.³³

Controlled-substance agreements have four commonly identified objectives,³⁴ explored further below:

• To improve adherence with the safe use of controlled substances while reducing aberrant behaviors
• To obtain informed consent
• To outline the prescribing policies of the practice
• To mitigate the prescriber’s legal risk.

Improving adherence

Many authors say that the primary goal of the controlled-substance agreement is to promote the use of the medication as prescribed, without variance, and from one physician only.^35–38 This goal seems reasonable. However, many other classes of medications are also risky when used aberrantly, and we do not ask the patient to sign an agreement when we prescribe them. This double standard may reflect both the inherently higher risks associated with controlled substances and physician ambivalence regarding their use.

Regardless, the efficacy of controlled­substance agreements in improving safe-use adherence and reducing aberrant medication-taking behaviors is uncertain. A 2010 systematic review based on observational and largely poor-quality studies concluded that using treatment agreements along with urine drug testing modestly reduced opioid misuse,³⁹ while other reports have called their efficacy into question.⁴⁰ We remain optimistic that well-written controlled-substance agreements can advance this objective, and that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence—ie, lack of efficacy. However, the data are not yet clear.

Interestingly, a 2014 survey found that most primary care physicians thought that controlled-substance agreements do not meaningfully reduce opioid misuse but do give a sense of protection against liability.⁴¹ Additionally, these documents are associated with a greater sense of physician satisfaction and mastery,⁴² and for some physicians these reasons may be enough to justify their use.

Somewhat alarmingly though, one study suggests that many patients do not even know that they signed a treatment agreement.⁴³ Using a controlled-substance agreement without the full awareness and engagement of the patient cannot promote adherence and is likely counterproductive.

Obtaining informed consent

It is essential to discuss possible benefits and risks so that informed and shared decision-making can occur.

Controlled-substance agreements may advance this aim if carefully written, although medical practices often design them for use across a spectrum of patients with varying indications, contraindications, and risks, making these documents inherently inflexible. A one-size-fits-all document does not allow for meaningful personalization and is insufficient without patient-centered counseling.

We strongly recommend that treatment agreements complement but not replace personalized patient-centered counseling about individual risks and benefits. Well-written controlled-substance agreements may reduce the chance of overlooking key risks and launch further customized discussion. Additionally, they can be written in a manner that allows patients and physicians to agree on and document personalized goals (Table 2).

Furthermore, when crafted within a risk-benefit framework, a controlled-substance agreement can help to clarify an ethically important concept, ie, that the physician is judging the safety and appropriateness of the treatment, not the character of the patient.⁴⁴ The prescriber can focus on evaluating the risks and benefits of treatment choices, not being a police officer or a judge of how “deserving” of opioid therapy the patient is.

Importantly, for patients to provide meaningful informed consent, the agreement must be understandable. A study of 162 opioid treatment agreements found that on average, they were written at a 14th grade level, which is beyond the reading comprehension of most patients.⁴⁵ Another study evaluated patients’ ability to understand and follow instructions on labels for common prescriptions; even though 70% of the patients could read the labels, only 34.7% could demonstrate the instructions “take two tablets by mouth twice daily.”⁴⁶

We recommend analyzing all controlled- substance agreements for readability by assessing their Flesch-Kincaid grade level or a similar literacy assessment, using readily available computer apps. The average education level of the patients cared for in each practice will vary based on the demographic served, and the controlled-substance agreement can be modified accordingly, but typically writing the document at the 6th- to 7th-grade reading level is suggested.

Outlining practice policies

Opioids are federally controlled substances with prescribing restrictions that vary based on the drug’s Drug Enforcement Agency schedule. State laws and regulations also govern opioid prescribing and are constantly evolving.⁴⁷

Refilling opioid prescriptions should be a deliberate process during which the prescriber reviews the appropriateness of the medication and issues the prescription as safely as possible.

To promote practice consistency and to share expectations transparently with patients, we recommend spelling out in the agreement your policies on:

• Who can manage this patient’s opioid therapy
• How to handle refill requests after hours and on weekends
• When and how patients should request opioid refills
• Which pharmacies patients will use
• Whether the practice allows others to pick up refills for the patient.

This not only serves as a reference for patients, who keep a copy for their records, it also reduces the risk of inconsistent processes within the office, which will quickly lead to chaos and confusion among patients and physicians alike. Inconsistent prescription and refill practices can give the impression that a double standard exists and that some patients get more leeway than others, without apparent justification.

There is little evidence that this approach truly improves practice efficiency,^34,48 but we believe that it may avert future confusion and conflict.

Mitigating the prescriber’s risk

Most licensing boards and clinical guidelines recommend controlled-substance agreements as part of opioid risk mitigation. These documents are now the standard of care, with many bodies recommending or mandating them, including the Federation of State Medical Boards,⁴⁹ many states,⁵⁰ Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing,⁵¹ the American Academy of Pain Management,⁵² and the American Pain Society along with the American Academy of Pain Medicine.⁵³

Historically, primary care physicians have used controlled-substance agreements inconsistently and primarily for patients believed to be at high risk of misuse.⁵⁴ However, because physicians cannot accurately predict who will misuse or divert medications,²⁵ controlled-substance agreements should be used universally, ie, for all patients prescribed controlled substances.

A controlled-substance agreement can serve as documentation. The patient can keep a copy for future reference, and a cosigned document is evidence that a discussion took place and may lower the risk of malpractice litigation.⁵⁵ Further, if a state requires physicians to check their prescription monitoring database before prescribing opioids, the controlled-substance agreement can serve to both inform patients about this obligation and to obtain their consent when required.

At a minimum, we recommend that prescribers learn about the regulatory framework in their state and use controlled-substance agreements as legislatively mandated.

A CHECKLIST FOR THE PHYSICIAN AND PATIENT

To facilitate the development and use of ethically appropriate controlled-substance agreements with a focus on shared decision-making, we offer a sample tool in the form of a checklist (Table 2). It can be modified and implemented instead of a traditional controlled-substance agreement or can be used alongside other more comprehensive documents to facilitate discussion.

The model presents critical information for the patient and physician to discuss and acknowledge (initial) in writing. It is divided into three sections: shared responsibilities, patient responsibilities, and physician responsibilities. Each contains an approximately equal number of items; this is deliberate and visually conveys the notion of equivalent and shared responsibilities for patient and physician. The patient, physician, or both should initial each item to indicate their agreement.

The document is customizable for the specific treatment prescribed. It is written at a Flesch-Kincaid grade level of 6.8, consistent with current health literacy recommendations, and avoids medical jargon and complex compound sentences as much as possible.

We indicate key elements of shared decision-making^27,30,31 in parentheses in Table 2 and cross-reference them with Table 1, which describes them more fully.

A BETTER TOOL

Both chronic pain and prescription drug abuse are highly prevalent and carry serious consequences. These overlapping epidemics put the prescriber in the difficult position of trying to prevent misuse, abuse, and diversion while simultaneously adequately treating pain.

Physicians and policy makers look to controlled-substance agreements as tools to help them balance the benefits and risks, but frequently at the expense of eroding trust between the patient and physician, stigmatizing the patient, using pejorative and coercive language, not adhering to health literacy guidelines, and failing to share decisions.

We believe a better tool is possible and suggest that controlled-substance agreements be universally applied, use deliberate and understandable language, be framed in terms of safety, and be implemented according to the principles of shared decision-making.

Regulatory bodies and professional societies have encouraged or mandated written pain treatment agreements for over a decade as a way to establish informed consent, improve adherence, and mitigate risk. Unfortunately, the content of these agreements varies, their efficacy is uncertain, and some are stigmatizing or coercive and jeopardize trust. Additionally, many are written at reading levels beyond most patients’ understanding. However, we believe a well-written agreement is still an important tool in chronic pain management.

In this article, we explore common limitations of current pain treatment “contracts” and propose strategies to improve their usefulness and acceptance.

PAIN AND ITS TREATMENT HAVE COSTS

Chronic pain affects 100 million US adults and is estimated to cost $635 billion each year in treatment, lost wages, and reduced productivity.¹

Opioid therapy for chronic noncancer pain is being called into question,^2–5 and a 2016 guideline from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has called for more limited and judicious use of opioids in primary care.⁶ Nevertheless, long-term opioid therapy is probably helpful in some circumstances and will likely continue to have a role in chronic pain management for the foreseeable future.⁷

Concerns about opioids include risks of overdose and death. Unintentional drug overdoses, typically with opioids, exceeded motor vehicle accidents in 2009 as the leading cause of accidental death in the United States⁸; by 2014, nearly one and a half times as many people were dying of a drug overdose than of a car accident.⁹ Even when used appropriately, opioids are associated with sedation, falls, motor vehicle accidents, addiction, and unintended overdose.¹⁰

The potential harm extends beyond the patient to the community at large. Diversion of prescription drugs for nonmedical use is common¹¹ and, after marijuana and alcohol abuse, is the most common form of drug abuse in the United States.¹² Misuse of prescription drugs costs health insurers an estimated $72.5 billion each year—a cost largely passed on to consumers through higher premiums.¹³ Most individuals who abuse prescription opioids get them from friends and family, sometimes by stealing them.¹⁴

THE SPECIAL ROLE OF THE PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIAN

Chronic pain is extremely prevalent in general internal medicine and primary care practice.^15,16 It has tremendous associated medical, social, and economic costs.¹

In light of the risks and complexity of opioid use and the increasing regulatory requirements for safe prescribing, some primary care physicians have stopped prescribing opioids altogether and refer patients elsewhere for pain management.

This does a disservice to patients. Primary care physicians cannot entirely avoid chronic pain management or absolutely refuse to prescribe opioids in all circumstances and still provide quality care. And although some primary care physicians may need more training in prescribing opioids, their comprehensive understanding of the patient’s other health issues enables them to address the psychosocial generators and consequences of the patient’s chronic pain more fully than a specialist can.

Furthermore, access to board-certified pain specialists is limited. There are only four such specialists for every 100,000 patients with chronic pain,¹⁷ and those who are available often restrict the types of insurance they accept, disproportionately excluding Medicaid patients.

We encourage primary care physicians to undertake continuing medical education and professional development as needed to prescribe opioids as safely and effectively as possible.

A CONTROLLED-SUBSTANCE AGREEMENT INSTEAD OF A ‘NARCOTIC CONTRACT’

To address the challenges of long-term opioid therapy, many state officials, medical licensing boards, professional societies, and other regulatory bodies recommend proactive monitoring and management of prescribing risks. Often promoted and sometimes mandated is the use of a written pain treatment agreement, sometimes called a “pain contract” or “narcotic contract,” in which the patient and the physician ostensibly agree to various conditions under which opioids will be prescribed or discontinued. Although well-intentioned, these documents can cause several problems.

Contracts were being advocated in treating opiate addiction as early as 1981.¹⁸ Since then, the term “narcotic contract” has become widely used, even as most professional guidelines have now moved away from using it. A Google search for the term on November 27, 2015, yielded 2,000 results, with numerous examples of the documents in clinical use.

But the phrase is misleading, and we believe physicians should avoid using it. Clinically, the word “narcotic” is imprecise and can refer to substances other than opioids. For example, the US Controlled Substances Act lists cocaine as a narcotic.¹⁹ The word also carries a stigma, as law enforcement agencies and drug abuse programs commonly use phrases such as “narcotic task force” or “narcotic treatment program.” On the other hand, the more accurate term “opioid” may be unfamiliar to patients. We recommend using the term “controlled substance” instead.

Similarly, the word “contract” can be perceived as coercive, can erode physician-patient trust, and implies that failure to agree to it will result in loss of access to pain medications.^20–23

For these reasons, we encourage physicians to adopt the phrase “controlled-substance agreement” or something similar. This label accurately reflects the specificity of the treatment and connotes a partnership between patient and physician. Furthermore, it allows the physician to use the agreement when prescribing other controlled substances such as benzodiazepines and stimulants that also carry a risk of addiction, misuse, and adverse effects.

STIGMATIZING THE PATIENT

Although no studies have systematically assessed the style and tone of available treatment agreements, many of the agreements seem to stigmatize the patient, using language that is mistrustful, accusatory, and even confrontational and that implies that the patient will misuse or abuse the medications.^21,24 For example, “Failure to comply with the terms of the contract will risk loss of medication or discharge from the medical practice” is inflammatory and coercive, but variations of this phrase appear in many of the results of the aforementioned Google search.

Such language defeats attempts to communicate openly and implies a deprecatory attitude towards patients. Stigmatization may result in undertreatment of pain, physician refusal to prescribe opioids, and patient refusal to submit to the terms of a one-sided agreement perceived as unfair. Therefore, poorly written opioid agreements impair the trust necessary for a therapeutic physician-patient relationship and can interfere with optimal pain management.^20–23

Some physicians stigmatize inadvertently. Believing that they can identify which patients will misuse their prescriptions, they use controlled-substance agreements only in this subgroup. But in fact, physicians are notoriously poor at predicting which patients will misuse prescription opioids or suffer adverse effects.²⁵ Therefore, it is important to be transparent and consistent with monitoring practices for all patients on chronic opioid therapy.²⁶

Framing the controlled-substance agreement in terms of safety and using it universally can minimize miscommunication and unintentional stigmatization.

SHARED DECISION-MAKING AND CHRONIC OPIOID THERAPY

We recommend using controlled-substance agreements only in the context of personalized patient counseling and shared decision-making.

Shared decision-making promotes mutual respect between patients and physicians, is feasible to implement in primary care, and may improve health outcomes.^27,28 A study found that physicians who received 2 hours of training in shared decision-making for chronic opioid therapy were more likely to complete treatment agreements and set mutually agreed-upon functional goals with patients, and they felt more confident, competent, and comfortable treating chronic pain.²⁹ Additionally, after learning about the risks, some patients may choose to forgo opioid therapy.

To be consistent with shared decision-making, the controlled-substance agreement must:

• Engage the patient, emphasizing the shared, reciprocal obligations of physician and patient
• Address goals of treatment that are personalized and mutually agreed-upon and that incorporate the patient’s values and preferences
• Explain treatment options in a way that is understandable and informative for the patient.

Table 1 outlines other key elements in detail.^27,30,31

Shared decision-making is especially useful when the balance between the risks and benefits of a treatment plan is uncertain. It is not a substitute for medical expertise, and a patient’s preferences do not override the physician’s clinical judgment. A physician should not offer or implement chronic opioid therapy if he or she believes it is not indicated or is contraindicated, or that the risks for that patient clearly outweigh the benefits.³²

THE CONTROLLED-SUBSTANCE AGREEMENT: FOUR OBJECTIVES

Stigmatizing language in the controlled-substance agreement may result from physician ambivalence regarding its intent and objectives. For example, some may perceive the agreement as a way to facilitate communication, while others may use it in a possibly unethical manner to control patient behavior with the threat of cutting off access to pain medication.³³

Controlled-substance agreements have four commonly identified objectives,³⁴ explored further below:

• To improve adherence with the safe use of controlled substances while reducing aberrant behaviors
• To obtain informed consent
• To outline the prescribing policies of the practice
• To mitigate the prescriber’s legal risk.

Improving adherence

Many authors say that the primary goal of the controlled-substance agreement is to promote the use of the medication as prescribed, without variance, and from one physician only.^35–38 This goal seems reasonable. However, many other classes of medications are also risky when used aberrantly, and we do not ask the patient to sign an agreement when we prescribe them. This double standard may reflect both the inherently higher risks associated with controlled substances and physician ambivalence regarding their use.

Regardless, the efficacy of controlled­substance agreements in improving safe-use adherence and reducing aberrant medication-taking behaviors is uncertain. A 2010 systematic review based on observational and largely poor-quality studies concluded that using treatment agreements along with urine drug testing modestly reduced opioid misuse,³⁹ while other reports have called their efficacy into question.⁴⁰ We remain optimistic that well-written controlled-substance agreements can advance this objective, and that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence—ie, lack of efficacy. However, the data are not yet clear.

Interestingly, a 2014 survey found that most primary care physicians thought that controlled-substance agreements do not meaningfully reduce opioid misuse but do give a sense of protection against liability.⁴¹ Additionally, these documents are associated with a greater sense of physician satisfaction and mastery,⁴² and for some physicians these reasons may be enough to justify their use.

Somewhat alarmingly though, one study suggests that many patients do not even know that they signed a treatment agreement.⁴³ Using a controlled-substance agreement without the full awareness and engagement of the patient cannot promote adherence and is likely counterproductive.

Obtaining informed consent

It is essential to discuss possible benefits and risks so that informed and shared decision-making can occur.

Controlled-substance agreements may advance this aim if carefully written, although medical practices often design them for use across a spectrum of patients with varying indications, contraindications, and risks, making these documents inherently inflexible. A one-size-fits-all document does not allow for meaningful personalization and is insufficient without patient-centered counseling.

We strongly recommend that treatment agreements complement but not replace personalized patient-centered counseling about individual risks and benefits. Well-written controlled-substance agreements may reduce the chance of overlooking key risks and launch further customized discussion. Additionally, they can be written in a manner that allows patients and physicians to agree on and document personalized goals (Table 2).

Furthermore, when crafted within a risk-benefit framework, a controlled-substance agreement can help to clarify an ethically important concept, ie, that the physician is judging the safety and appropriateness of the treatment, not the character of the patient.⁴⁴ The prescriber can focus on evaluating the risks and benefits of treatment choices, not being a police officer or a judge of how “deserving” of opioid therapy the patient is.

Importantly, for patients to provide meaningful informed consent, the agreement must be understandable. A study of 162 opioid treatment agreements found that on average, they were written at a 14th grade level, which is beyond the reading comprehension of most patients.⁴⁵ Another study evaluated patients’ ability to understand and follow instructions on labels for common prescriptions; even though 70% of the patients could read the labels, only 34.7% could demonstrate the instructions “take two tablets by mouth twice daily.”⁴⁶

We recommend analyzing all controlled- substance agreements for readability by assessing their Flesch-Kincaid grade level or a similar literacy assessment, using readily available computer apps. The average education level of the patients cared for in each practice will vary based on the demographic served, and the controlled-substance agreement can be modified accordingly, but typically writing the document at the 6th- to 7th-grade reading level is suggested.

Outlining practice policies

Opioids are federally controlled substances with prescribing restrictions that vary based on the drug’s Drug Enforcement Agency schedule. State laws and regulations also govern opioid prescribing and are constantly evolving.⁴⁷

Refilling opioid prescriptions should be a deliberate process during which the prescriber reviews the appropriateness of the medication and issues the prescription as safely as possible.

To promote practice consistency and to share expectations transparently with patients, we recommend spelling out in the agreement your policies on:

• Who can manage this patient’s opioid therapy
• How to handle refill requests after hours and on weekends
• When and how patients should request opioid refills
• Which pharmacies patients will use
• Whether the practice allows others to pick up refills for the patient.

This not only serves as a reference for patients, who keep a copy for their records, it also reduces the risk of inconsistent processes within the office, which will quickly lead to chaos and confusion among patients and physicians alike. Inconsistent prescription and refill practices can give the impression that a double standard exists and that some patients get more leeway than others, without apparent justification.

There is little evidence that this approach truly improves practice efficiency,^34,48 but we believe that it may avert future confusion and conflict.

Mitigating the prescriber’s risk

Most licensing boards and clinical guidelines recommend controlled-substance agreements as part of opioid risk mitigation. These documents are now the standard of care, with many bodies recommending or mandating them, including the Federation of State Medical Boards,⁴⁹ many states,⁵⁰ Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing,⁵¹ the American Academy of Pain Management,⁵² and the American Pain Society along with the American Academy of Pain Medicine.⁵³

Historically, primary care physicians have used controlled-substance agreements inconsistently and primarily for patients believed to be at high risk of misuse.⁵⁴ However, because physicians cannot accurately predict who will misuse or divert medications,²⁵ controlled-substance agreements should be used universally, ie, for all patients prescribed controlled substances.

A controlled-substance agreement can serve as documentation. The patient can keep a copy for future reference, and a cosigned document is evidence that a discussion took place and may lower the risk of malpractice litigation.⁵⁵ Further, if a state requires physicians to check their prescription monitoring database before prescribing opioids, the controlled-substance agreement can serve to both inform patients about this obligation and to obtain their consent when required.

At a minimum, we recommend that prescribers learn about the regulatory framework in their state and use controlled-substance agreements as legislatively mandated.

A CHECKLIST FOR THE PHYSICIAN AND PATIENT

To facilitate the development and use of ethically appropriate controlled-substance agreements with a focus on shared decision-making, we offer a sample tool in the form of a checklist (Table 2). It can be modified and implemented instead of a traditional controlled-substance agreement or can be used alongside other more comprehensive documents to facilitate discussion.

The model presents critical information for the patient and physician to discuss and acknowledge (initial) in writing. It is divided into three sections: shared responsibilities, patient responsibilities, and physician responsibilities. Each contains an approximately equal number of items; this is deliberate and visually conveys the notion of equivalent and shared responsibilities for patient and physician. The patient, physician, or both should initial each item to indicate their agreement.

The document is customizable for the specific treatment prescribed. It is written at a Flesch-Kincaid grade level of 6.8, consistent with current health literacy recommendations, and avoids medical jargon and complex compound sentences as much as possible.

We indicate key elements of shared decision-making^27,30,31 in parentheses in Table 2 and cross-reference them with Table 1, which describes them more fully.

A BETTER TOOL

Both chronic pain and prescription drug abuse are highly prevalent and carry serious consequences. These overlapping epidemics put the prescriber in the difficult position of trying to prevent misuse, abuse, and diversion while simultaneously adequately treating pain.

Physicians and policy makers look to controlled-substance agreements as tools to help them balance the benefits and risks, but frequently at the expense of eroding trust between the patient and physician, stigmatizing the patient, using pejorative and coercive language, not adhering to health literacy guidelines, and failing to share decisions.

We believe a better tool is possible and suggest that controlled-substance agreements be universally applied, use deliberate and understandable language, be framed in terms of safety, and be implemented according to the principles of shared decision-making.