Title |
Nebulised morphine for severe interstitial lung disease
|
---|---|
Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2002
|
DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd002872 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Riccardo Polosa, Alexander Simidchiev, E. Haydn Walters |
Abstract |
The evidence to support the use of nebulized morphine to improve dyspnoea and exercise limitation in terminally ill patients with chronic lung disease is conflicting. To assess the effectiveness of nebulized morphine in reducing dyspnoea in patients with end-stage interstitial lung disease RCTs and good quality CCTs were identified by searching Medline, Embase, Cinahl as well as the Cochrane controlled clinical trial register. The following search terms were used: (inhaled OR nebulised)/AND/morphine AND/Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis/or/pulmonary fibrosis/or/idiopathic interstitial pneumonia/or/nonspecific interstitial pneumonia/or/non-specific interstitial pneumonia/or/usual interstitial pneumonia/or/desquamative interstitial pneumonia/or/cryptogenic fibrosing alveolitis/or/interstitial pneumonia/or/idiopathic interstitial lung disease/or/chronic interstitial pneumonia Any RCT and adequate quality CCT in adult patients with ILD that compared nebulized morphine with a control group. Only one small RCT was identified. Compared to placebo (normal saline), administration of low-dose nebulized morphine (2.5 and 5.0 mg) to six patients with ILD did not improve maximal exercise performance, and did not reduce dyspnoea during exercise. The hypothesis that nebulized morphine may reduce dyspnoea in patients with interstitial lung disease has not been confirmed in the single small RCT identified. |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 2 | 2% |
Unknown | 106 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 14 | 13% |
Researcher | 13 | 12% |
Student > Bachelor | 10 | 9% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 6% |
Other | 5 | 5% |
Other | 23 | 21% |
Unknown | 36 | 33% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 39 | 36% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 17 | 16% |
Psychology | 2 | 2% |
Computer Science | 2 | 2% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
Other | 7 | 6% |
Unknown | 39 | 36% |