Comprehensive Targeted Treatment for Neuropathic and Nociceptive Pain in Palliative Care Patients.

BACKGROUND: Pain is a common symptom in patients with advanced, metastatic, or terminal cancer. Neuropathic pain and psycho-emotional suffering are factors that increase the difficulty of pain management. Pain control in patients with cancer remains a challenge for medical professionals. STUDY QUESTION: What is the evolution of neuropathic/mixed pain compared with nociceptive pain under standardized treatment in patients with cancer? STUDY DESIGN: A prospective, longitudinal, open-label, nonrandomized study was conducted on patients with cancer pain. MEASURES AND OUTCOMES: Pain type was assessed at admission using the modified Brief Pain Inventory, and pain intensity was assessed daily using the Numerical Rating Scale for 14 days and on days 21 and 28. Screening of depression was performed on days 1, 7, 14, 21, and 28 using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. Patients with pain and depression received analgesics with antidepressants, while patients without depression received analgesics or analgesics with an anticonvulsant depending on the pain subtype. RESULTS: Of 72 patients, 23 had nociceptive pain and 49 had neuropathic/mixed pain. At admission, pain intensity was higher for patients with neuropathic/mixed pain compared with nociceptive pain (mean values: 7.06 vs. 5.82) with statistical significance ( P = 0.001) and remained as such at the end of this study (mean values: 3.77 vs. 2.73). A decrease in the mean pain intensity was observed in all types of pain, but without statistical significance regardless of pain type and treatment protocol used ( P = 0.77). If depression was present, antidepressants combined with analgesics decreased pain and depression scores significantly ( P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with neuropathic/mixed pain have higher levels of pain and lower response to treatment. Identifying psycho-emotional suffering can improve pain control by intervening in the physical and psycho-emotional components of pain.

Common Pathways for Pain and Depression-Implications for Practice.

BACKGROUND: Pain and depression have a high impact on caring for the people who need palliative care, but both of these are neglected compared with the approach for other symptoms encountered by these patients. AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY: There are few studies in humans that support the existence of common neural circuits between depression and pain that also explore the use of drugs with effects in both conditions. More knowledge is needed about the relationship of these clinical entities that will lead to the optimization of the treatment and improvement of quality of life. DATA SOURCES: We conducted a search in PubMed to identify relevant articles and reviews that have been published in the last 5 years, concerning the topic of common pathways between depression and pain (2014-April 2019). THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES: The connections between the 2 clinical entities start at the level of the cortical regions. The hippocampus is the main site of neural changes, modification of the immune system, neuromodulators, neurotransmitters, and signaling pathways implicated in both conditions. Increased levels of peripheral proinflammatory cytokines and neuroinflammatory changes are related to the physiopathology of these entities. Inflammation links depression and pain by altering neural circuits and changes in their common cortical regions. Antidepressants are used to treat depression and chronic, pain but more experimental studies are needed to determine which antidepressant drugs are the most effective in treating the 2 entities. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions targeting cortical changes in pain and depression are promising, but more clinical studies are needed to validate their usefulness.

Insomnia in cancer patients - A survey of health-care professionals' views and current practice in Romania.

BACKGROUND: Changes in the quality of sleep are reported often in cancer patients and have a major impact on general health. However, insomnia tends to be insufficiently evaluated and managed. AIM: The aim of the study was to analyze the perception of clinical staff working in oncology units regarding patients' sleep disorders. Furthermore, we assessed the prevalence of insomnia in this category of professionals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was cross sectional and used a descriptive and correlational design. Clinical personnel working in oncology departments were invited to complete a questionnaire regarding sleep problems in patients, and optionally, the Pittsburgh sleep quality index questionnaire was administered. Correlations between age, profession, experience, and their responses were statistically analyzed. RESULTS: We gathered 101 responses, with 63.4% coming from doctors. With one exception, all professionals observed changes in sleep patterns in patients, but less than a third were actively looking for these problems and only three health professionals used questionnaires. No significant differences in answers were noted based on age, profession, or experience. Regarding professionals, 45.6% of them had impaired sleep based on the Pittsburgh questionnaire results. CONCLUSION: Oncology staff are aware of the existence and impact of sleep problems, but active assessment for sleep problems is low. There is a relative high prevalence of poor sleep quality among oncology staff. In order to improve the well-being of patients, the quality of sleep should be documented as part of the care plan. The existence of guidelines is desirable.

Comparison of the Burden Evolution of the Family Caregivers for Patients With Cancer and Nononcological Diseases Who Need Palliative Care: A Prospective Longitudinal Study.

Background: The family caregiver (FCG) is with the patient from diagnosis till the end of life. The accumulated burden has a negative impact on the caregiver's quality of life and on his physical and emotional well-being. Objective: To quantify the burden of care for a patient with palliative needs, and to compare the burden experienced by caregivers for nononcological patients with those for cancer patients. Design: Prospective longitudinal study. Setting/Participants: One hundred forty patient-primary caregiver pairs participated in the study, which were separated into two groups: those who cared for patients with nononcological diseases (n = 63) and those who cared for patients with cancer (n = 77). Measurements: The burden measurement was assessed with Burden Scale for FCGs. Results: The average score of the FCG's burden was significantly higher in the nononcological group (45 ± 14.45 vs. 36.52 ± 15.05; p = 0.001). In the case of caregivers for cancer patients it is noticed that the caregivers' burden decreases after the intervention of the specialized team (45.58 ± 14.11 at T1 vs. 36.65 ± 16.10 at T2; p = 0.001). The burden values for caring for patients with nononcological diseases remained in the plateau, indicating incremental caregiver adaptation, although the rising trend is still present toward the end of the term (47.43 ± 13.32 vs. 56.69 ± 15.44; p < 0.001). Conclusions: The burden dynamics are different depending on the patient's disease, duration of care, degree of dependence, number of comorbidities, and on the intervention of the palliative care team that ensures the support of the caregiver for the palliative patient.