You are here

Responses

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Review
Opioids for breathlessness: a narrative review
Free
Compose a Response to This Article
Compose Response

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on: 29 June 2021
    In response to Williams
    • Miriam Johnson, Professor of Palliative Medicine Wolfson Palliative Care Research Centre, University of Hull, UK
    • Other Contributors:
      • David Currow, Professor of Palliative Care

    Dear Editor
    We note the concerns expressed by Dr. Williams regarding our article about opioids for breathlessness. In particular she takes highlights three statements:
    - “There is 1a evidence to support the use of opioids for breathlessness.”
    - “The best evidence is for 10-30mg daily de novo low dose oral sustained release morphine”
    - “This should be considered the current standard of care”

    We address these concerns point by point:
    1. Level 1a evidence.
    a. Williams states: “The 1a evidence that the authors are referring to here is Dr Currow’s own paper: Regular sustained-release morphine for chronic breathlessness: a multicentre, double blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. [1]"
    To qualify as level 1a evidence, there needs to be evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses – a single trial is only level 1b. We clearly reference four meta-analyses, all in favour of opioids.[2, 3, 4, 5]
    b. She goes on to say: “What they neglect to mention when citing this paper (Currow et al [1]) is that it clearly found that there was no superiority to using sustained release morphine when compared to placebo.”
    Not only do we state that “There was no benefit for the primary outcome of breathlessness now over placebo”, but we provide a detailed critique of the methodological challenges – including the issue that immediate release morphine was available in both arms and with greater use in the placebo arm (not the...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    As previously noted: DCC has received an unrestricted research grant from Mundipharma, is an unpaid member of an advisory board for Helsinn Pharmaceuticals and has consulted Mayne Pharma and received intellectual property payments from them. MJJ has received consulting payments from Mayne Pharma.
  • Published on: 8 June 2021
    Opioids for breathlessness? A over estimation of the effectiveness.

    Dear Editor
    I write in response to an article printed in BMJ Supportive and Palliative Care; Opioids for breathlessness: a narrative review.1
    In this review Johnson and Currow strongly advocate for the use of sustained release morphine for breathlessness in the palliative care setting. The paper states:
    - “There is 1a evidence to support the use of opioids for breathlessness.”
    - “The best evidence is for 10-30mg daily de novo low dose oral sustained release morphine”
    - “This should be considered the current standard of care”
    The wording of this article, in particularly the seductive summary boxes, leads the reader to the conclusion that there is superior evidence to support using sustained release preparations of morphine as opposed to the more common approach of using immediate release ‘rescue’ preparations. However, this is not the case.
    The 1a evidence that the authors are referring to here is Dr Currow’s own paper: Regular sustained-release morphine for chronic breathlessness: a multicentre, double blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.2 What they neglect to mention when citing this paper is that it clearly found that there was no superiority to using sustained release morphine when compared to placebo.
    In this study, patients were randomised to sustained release morphine or placebo. Both groups were also permitted to take “as needed” immediate release morphine. The study found no sign...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.