Benefits in pain perception, ability function and health-related quality of life in patients with failed back surgery syndrome undergoing spinal cord stimulation in a clinical practice setting.

BACKGROUND: Failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) represents one main cause of chronic neuropathic or mixed pain, functional disability and reduced Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL). Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) can be a value for money option to treat patients refractory to conventional medical management (CMM). We estimated from real-world data: 1) the amount of reduced levels of HRQoL of target patients compared to general population, 2) the relationship between pain intensity, functional disability, and overall HRQoL, and 3) the improvement of patients' health from SCS intervention, and 4) we give some insights and make some suggestions on the selection of a battery of patients' reported health instruments for use in routine clinical practice. METHODS: At recruitment (before SCS) and every 6 months for 2 years after SCS a battery of questionnaires/tests were completed: the generic EQ-5D and SF-36 for HRQoL, the specific Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) to measure pain intensity, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) to measure functional disability. We conducted multilevel regression analyses to investigate the association of HRQoL with the NRS and ODI indexes; multiple regression analyses to compare EQ-5D data with those of the general population adjusted for age, sex and education, and statistical tests to compare the changes of HRQoL, NRS and ODI estimates at baseline with those measured during the follow-up. RESULTS: Eighty patients (40% male, mean age = 58 years) participated. HRQoL was significantly worse in the patients than in the corresponding general population. Pain, functional disability and HRQoL significantly related each other during follow-up, Significant improvements (p < 0.001) in pain intensity, functional capability and HRQoL were reached after 6 months from SCS and generally remained stable during follow-up. Specific instruments provided detailed information on disability and pain, while generic instruments assessed the overall HRQoL and allowed a comparison with the general population's one. CONCLUSIONS: SCS + CMM treatment reaches a statistically significant and probably a clinically relevant improvement in pain perception, functional disability and HRQoL in patients with FBSS refractory to CMM. An appropriate selection of instruments for use in clinical practice is crucial for a routine assessment of health perception in patients, aimed to guide decisions for optimal treatment.

Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Utility Analysis of Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients With Failed Back Surgery Syndrome: Results From the PRECISE Study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) in patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) refractory to conventional medical management (CMM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted an observational, multicenter, longitudinal ambispective study, where patients with predominant leg pain refractory to CMM expecting to receive SCS+CMM were recruited in 9 Italian centers and followed up to 24 months after SCS. We collected data on clinical status (pain intensity, disability), Health-Related Quality-of-Life (HRQoL) and on direct and indirect costs before (pre-SCS) and after (post-SCS) the SCS intervention. Costs were quantified in € 2009, adopting the National Health Service's (NHS), patient and societal perspectives. Benefits and costs pre-SCS versus post-SCS were compared to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness and cost utility ratios. RESULTS: 80 patients (40% male, mean age 58 years) were recruited. Between baseline and 24 months post-SCS, clinical outcomes and HRQoL significantly improved. The EQ-5D utility index increased from 0.421 to 0.630 (p < 0.0001). Statistically significant improvement was first observed six months post-SCS. Societal costs increased from €6600 (pre-SCS) to €13,200 (post-SCS) per patient per year. Accordingly, the cost-utility acceptability curve suggested that if decision makers' willingness to pay per Quality-Adjusted-Life-Years (QALYs) was €60,000, SCS implantation would be cost-effective in 80% and 85% of cases, according to the NHS's and societal point of views, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that in clinical practice, SCS+CMM treatment of FBSS patients refractory to CMM provides good value for money. Further research is encouraged in the form of larger, long-term studies.

Management of Opioid-Induced Constipation and Bowel Dysfunction: Expert Opinion of an Italian Multidisciplinary Panel.

The prescribing and use of opioid analgesics is increasing in Italy owing to a profusion in the number and types of opioid analgesic products available, and the increasing prevalence of conditions associated with severe pain, the latter being related to population aging. Herein we provide the expert opinion of an Italian multidisciplinary panel on the management of opioid-induced constipation (OIC) and bowel dysfunction. OIC and opioid-induced bowel dysfunction are well-recognised unwanted effects of treatment with opioid analgesics that can profoundly affect quality of life. OIC can be due to additional factors such as reduced mobility, a low-fibre diet, comorbidities, and concomitant medications. Fixed-dose combinations of opioids with mu (µ) opioid receptor antagonists, such as oxycodone/naloxone, have become available, but have limited utility in clinical practice because the individual components cannot be independently titrated, creating a risk of breakthrough pain as the dose is increased. A comprehensive prevention and management strategy for OIC should include interventions that aim to improve fibre and fluid intake, increase mobility or exercise, and restore bowel function without compromising pain control. Recommended first-line pharmacological treatment of OIC is with an osmotic laxative (preferably polyethylene glycol [macrogol]), or a stimulant laxative such as an anthraquinone. A second laxative with a complementary mechanism of action should be added in the event of an inadequate response. Second-line treatment with a peripherally acting µ opioid receptor antagonist (PAMORA), such as methylnaltrexone, naloxegol or naldemedine, should be considered in patients with OIC that has not responded to combination laxative treatment. Prokinetics or intestinal secretagogues, such as lubiprostone, may be appropriate in the third-line setting, but their use in OIC is off-label in Italy, and should therefore be restricted to settings such as specialist centres and clinical trials.

Cancer Pain Management: An Italian Delphi Survey from the Rational Use of Analgesics (RUA) Group.

BACKGROUND: In patients with cancer, the prevalence of pain is high, and pain management is often challenging despite the wide availability of drugs and guidelines. METHODS: This Delphi survey was organized within the Rational Use of Analgesics (RUA) Group projects to reach a consensus among Italian palliative care specialists on pain assessment and management. Items were identified from recent publications on cancer pain and guidelines. RESULTS: This survey included input from 190 palliative care specialists representing all Italian territory. A consensus was reached on 17 statements. Items concerning pain assessment achieved over 70% agreement amongst the participants. Items on principles of pain management and management according to type of pain, including breakthrough cancer-related pain and neuropathic pain also achieved high levels of agreement. CONCLUSION: Results from the RUA project showed that Italian palliative care specialists had a particular interest in items related to pain challenges, in addition to the evaluation and control of pain associated with cancer. However, some discrepancies between current guidelines and clinical practice were observed.

The restore rechargeable, implantable neurostimulator: handling and clinical results of a multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord stimulation is an effective therapy for chronic, neuropathic pain refractory to medication. Use of a rechargeable neurostimulation system (Restore, Medtronic Inc) could provide greater longevity in the treatment of complex pain. However, patients' ability to successfully recharge a neurostimulation system has not yet been demonstrated. PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: Ability of patients to recharge the neurostimulator. SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: Patient and physician satisfaction with the system, pain relief, quality of life, functional status, adverse events. METHODS: Prospective, open-label, multicenter, European study in patients with long-term refractory neuropathic pain. Recharging ability was assessed 1-month postimplant. Patient and physician satisfaction, pain relief, quality of life, and functional status were assessed at scheduled follow-up visits through 12 months. Adverse events were monitored throughout. RESULTS: Primary end point: 100% of patients (n=41) successfully recharged the neurostimulator. Secondary end points at 1 month: 78.6% of patients found recharging easy. At 12 months: physicians were satisfied with the system for 92.7% of patients; pain intensity decreased significantly (P<0.001); mean self-reported pain relief was 62%; 80.5% of patients had more than 50% pain relief; quality of life and functional status improved significantly (P<0.001); 98% of patients would recommend spinal cord stimulation to others. Overall, 41 device-related complications (23 patients) were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Twelve-month experience indicates that the rechargeable neurostimulation system (Restore) was easy to use, with 100% of patients able to recharge successfully. Patient and physician satisfaction was high, with significant improvements in pain, quality of life, and functional status. Complications were comparable to prior experience with this therapy.

Palliative Sedation in Terminal Cancer Patients Admitted to Hospice or Home Care Programs: Does the Setting Matter? Results From a National Multicenter Observational Study.

CONTEXT: Few studies regarding palliative sedation (PS) have been carried out in home care (HC) setting. A comparison of PS rate and practices between hospice (HS) and HC is also lacking. OBJECTIVES: Comparing HC and HS settings for PS rate, patient clinical characteristics before and during PS, decision-making process, and clinical aspects of PS. METHODS: About 38 HC/HS services in Italy participated in a multicenter observational longitudinal study. Consecutive adult cancer patients followed till death during a four-month period and undergoing PS were eligible. Symptom control and level of consciousness were registered every eight hours to death. RESULTS: About 4276 patients were screened, 2894 followed till death, and 531 (18%) underwent PS. PS rate was 15% in HC and 21% in HS (P < 0.001). Principal refractory symptoms were delirium (54%) and dyspnea (45%), respectively, more common in HC (P < 0.001) and HS (P = 0.03). Informed consent was not obtained in 72% of patients but achieved by 96% of families. Midazolam was the most used drug (94% HS vs. 75% HC; P < 0.001) mainly by continuous infusion (74% HC vs. 89% HS; P < 0.001). PS duration was less than 48 hours in 67% of patients. Hydration during PS was less frequent in HC (27% vs. 49%; P < 0.001). In the eight hours before death, consciousness level was unrousable to mild physical stimulation in 81% and symptom control complete in 89% of cases. CONCLUSION: Our results show feasibility of PS in HC and HS and suggest setting differences in rates, indications, and practice of PS, possibly related to patients' selection or care organization.

Pain in cancer. An outcome research project to evaluate the epidemiology, the quality and the effects of pain treatment in cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Management of pain related to advanced or metastatic cancer, although the availability of several pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions and the existence of well-known guidelines and protocols, is often difficult and inadequate. Evidence of the relative effectiveness of current options for treating cancer pain from comparative randomized studies is scanty. METHODS: In the context of a wider project, a multicenter, open label, prospective Outcome Research study will be launched in Italy in 2006 to investigate the epidemiology of cancer pain and of its treatments, the quality of analgesic-drug therapy and the effectiveness of alternative analgesic strategies in a large, prospective, unselected cohort of cancer patients using the state-of-the art of patient-reported-outcomes. About 100 Italian centers will recruit 2500 patients with advanced/progressive/metastatic cancer with pain (related to the cancer disease) requiring analgesic treatments. Each center is expected to recruit 25 consecutive and eligible patients during the study inception period. Approximately two months will be allowed for subject recruitment and enrollment. Subject evaluation and follow-up will be for 3 months. The effect on outcomes of various therapeutic analgesic options administered by physicians, given the observational approach where patients are not assigned at random to different treatments, will be compared using the propensity score approach, allowing the adjustment for treatment selection bias. Later, after the launch of the observational study and on the basis of results, in specific subsamples of patients and in select centers of the network, a Randomized Controlled Trial will be carried out to formally compare the efficacy of alternative analgesic strategies, with particular emphasis on oral morphine (as comparator) and buprenorphine patch (as experimental arm). Results from the outcome (cohort) and experimental (Randomized Controlled Trial) studies will ensure both the external and internal validity.

Breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP): a synthesis of taxonomy, pathogenesis, therapy, and good clinical practice in adult patients in Italy.

Pain presents in 80% of patients with advanced cancer, and 30% have periods of increased pain due to fluctuating intensity, known as breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP). BTcP is high-intensity, short-duration pain occurring in several episodes per day and is non-responsive to treatment. The clinical approach to BTcP is variable. A review of the literature was performed to provide clinicians and practitioners with a rational synthesis of the ongoing scientific debate on BTcP and to provide a basis for optimal clinical approach to BTcP in adult Italian patients. Data show that circadian exacerbations of pain should be carefully monitored, differentiating, if possible, between fluctuations of background pain (BP), end-of-dose effect, and BTcP. BTcP should be monitored in all care contexts in clinical practice and each care facility must have all the medications and products approved for use in BTcP at their disposal. Data show that knowledge about medications for BTcP is lacking: medications for BTcP treatment are not interchangeable, although containing the same active substance; each physician must know the specific characteristics of each medication, its pharmacological properties, limitations in clinical practice, specifics relating to titration and repeatability of administration, and technical specifics relating to the accessibility and delivery. Importantly, before choosing a rapid-onset opioid (ROO), it is essential to deeply understand the status of patient and the characteristics of their family unit/caregivers, taking into account the patient's progressive loss of autonomy and/or cognitive-relational functionality. When BTcP therapy is initiated or changed, special attention must be paid to training the patient and family members/caregivers, providing clear instructions regarding the timing of drug administration. The patient must already be treated effectively with opioids before introducing ROOs for control of BTcP.

Breakthrough cancer pain: an observational study of 1000 European oncology patients.

CONTEXT: Breakthrough pain is common in patients with cancer and is a significant cause of morbidity in this group of patients. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to characterize breakthrough pain in a diverse population of cancer patients. METHODS: The study involved 1000 cancer patients from 13 European countries. Patients were screened for breakthrough pain using a recommended diagnostic algorithm and then questioned about the characteristics and management of their pain. RESULTS: Of the 1000 patients, 44% reported incident pain, 41.5% spontaneous pain, and 14.5% a combination. The median number of episodes was three a day. The median time to peak intensity was 10 minutes, with the median for patients with incident pain being five minutes (P < 0.001). The median duration of untreated episodes was 60 minutes, with the median for patients with incident pain being 45 minutes (P = 0.001). Eight hundred six patients stated that pain stopped them doing something, 66 that it sometimes stopped them doing something, and only 107 that it did not interfere with their activities. Patients with incident pain reported more interference with walking ability and normal work, whereas patients with spontaneous pain reported more interference with mood and sleep. As well, 65.5% of patients could identify an intervention that improved their pain (29.5%, pharmacological; 23%, nonpharmacological; 12%, combination). Regarding medications, 980 patients were receiving an opioid to treat their pain, although only 191 patients were receiving a transmucosal fentanyl product licensed for the treatment of breakthrough pain. CONCLUSION: Breakthrough cancer pain is an extremely heterogeneous condition.

Episodic (breakthrough) pain prevalence in a population of cancer pain patients. Comparison of clinical diagnoses with the QUDEI--Italian questionnaire for intense episodic pain.

CONTEXT: Breakthrough/episodic pain (BP-EP) diagnosis is often based on clinical experience, and different opinions exist, even among palliative care clinicians, about its definition and application to clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: The primary aim of this study was to assess the prevalence and clinical characteristics of BP-EP in an unselected Italian population of patients with cancer-related chronic pain, based on clinical diagnosis and on the use of an assessment tool, the Questionnaire for Intense Episodic Pain (QUDEI). METHODS: A cross-sectional multicenter prevalence study of 240 consecutive cancer pain patients was carried out. The physicians participating in the study attended a training session aimed at defining and recognizing BP-EP. The QUDEI, a screening and assessment tool based on patient interview, diagnosed the presence of BP-EP in patients regularly taking analgesics for the previous three days and who had at least one pain flare in the previous 24 hours. Clinical evaluation and questionnaire application were carried out by different health care providers. RESULTS: The estimated prevalence of BP-EP was 73% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 67%, 79%) when the diagnosis was made by physicians and 66% (95% CI = 60%, 72%) when the QUDEI was applied (86% agreement). When only patients with baseline pain less than or equal to six were included in the analysis, the above prevalences decreased to 67% and 60%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Because BP-EP is a significant phenomenon in cancer pain management, its appropriate recognition requires a more widely, internationally accepted general definition and specific validated tools for its screening and evaluation.

Effects of transdermal buprenorphine on patients-reported outcomes in cancer patients: results from the Cancer Pain Outcome Research (CPOR) Study Group.

OBJECTIVES: Pain still afflicts most cancer patients, mainly in the metastatic phases, and under-treatment is well documented. Transdermal delivery systems (TDS) containing fentanyl or buprenorphine could potentiality have advantages over oral and parenteral routes, but evidence from comparative trials are scanty. In the framework of a wider initiative, an Outcome Research Study was carried out in Italy in 2006 to evaluate the effects of various analgesic options, particularly buprenorphine TDS. METHODS: This is a multicenter, open-label, prospective, nonrandomized study. Data were collected using a web-based standardized system, with a follow-up up of to 3 months. Pain intensity, the primary outcomes of the study, was measured using 11-point numerical rating scales from the Brief Pain Inventory. RESULTS: One-hundred ten centers recruited 1801 cases, most of which (60%) were receiving a strong opioid at the time of inclusion. Of these, 257 had TDS buprenorphine as first choice. Of the remaining 709 patients who at the time of inclusion were not on a strong opioid, 325 changed to a strong opioid and in 43% it was TDS buprenorphine. During the follow-up, physicians had to increase the dosage to control pain (average increase between 16% and 17%). About 34% of patients had an improvement of at least 2 points in worst pain, 15% had a 20% improvement in pain relief, and 40% in satisfaction. Results were in line with those of patients receiving other World Health Organization-level III opioids. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the limitations owing to the observational design, these findings may be useful to clinicians to judge the value of the drug under evaluation better and to help researchers design further comparative studies.