Intrathecal Drug Delivery Systems for Cancer Pain: An Analysis of a Prospective, Multicenter Product Surveillance Registry.

BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy of intrathecal drug delivery systems (IDDSs) for the treatment of cancer-related pain have been demonstrated in randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs). Despite positive evidence for this therapy, IDDS remains underutilized to treat cancer pain. Real-world registry data augment existing safety and effectiveness data and are presented here to broaden awareness of this therapeutic option, needed for adequate cancer-related pain treatment, and as a viable tool addressing concerns with systemic opioid use. METHODS: This prospective, long-term, multicenter (United States, Western Europe, and Latin America) registry started in 2003 to monitor the performance of SynchroMed Infusion Systems. Patient-reported outcomes were added in 2013. Before data acquisition, all sites obtained Ethics Committee/Institutional Review Board approval and written patient consent. The study was registered (NCT01524276 at clinicaltrials.gov) before patients were enrolled. Patients who provided informed consent were enrolled in the registry at initial IDDS implant or replacement. RESULTS: Through July 2017, 1403 patients with cancer pain were enrolled and implanted. The average (minimum/maximum) age of patients was 59 years (13/93 years), with 56.6% female. The most frequent cancer types were lung, breast, colon/rectal, pancreatic, and prostate. The majority of patients whose registry follow-up ended (87%; 1141/1311) were followed through death, with 4.3% (n = 57) exiting due to device explant or therapy discontinuation; the remaining 113 (8.6%) discontinued for reasons such as transfer of care, lost to follow-up, and site closure. Pain scores within the cohort of patients providing baseline and follow-up data improved significantly at 6 (P = .0007; n = 103) and 12 (P = .0026; n = 55) months compared to baseline, with EuroQol with 5 dimensions (EuroQol-5D) scores showing significant improvement at 6 months (P = .0016; n = 41). Infection requiring surgical intervention (IDDS explant, replacement, pocket revision, irrigation and debridement, etc) was reported in 3.2% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Adequate and improved pain control in patients with cancer, even in advanced stages, with concurrent quality of life maintenance is attainable. Results from this large-scale, multicenter, single-group cohort supplement existing RCT data that support IDDS as a safe and effective therapeutic option with a positive benefit-risk ratio in the treatment of cancer pain.

The Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference (PACC): Recommendations on Intrathecal Drug Infusion Systems Best Practices and Guidelines.

INTRODUCTION: Pain treatment is best performed when a patient-centric, safety-based philosophy is used to determine an algorithmic process to guide care. Since 2007, the International Neuromodulation Society has organized a group of experts to evaluate evidence and create a Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference (PACC) to guide practice. METHODS: The current PACC update was designed to address the deficiencies and innovations emerging since the previous PACC publication of 2012. An extensive literature search identified publications between January 15, 2007 and November 22, 2015 and authors contributed additional relevant sources. After reviewing the literature, the panel convened to determine evidence levels and degrees of recommendations for intrathecal therapy. This meeting served as the basis for consensus development, which was ranked as strong, moderate or weak. Algorithms were developed for intrathecal medication choices to treat nociceptive and neuropathic pain for patients with cancer, terminal illness, and noncancer pain, with either localized or diffuse pain. RESULTS: The PACC has developed an algorithmic process for several aspects of intrathecal drug delivery to promote safe and efficacious evidence-based care. Consensus opinion, based on expertise, was used to fill gaps in evidence. Thirty-one consensus points emerged from the panel considerations. CONCLUSION: New algorithms and guidance have been established to improve care with the use of intrathecal drug delivery.

Health Services Utilization and Payments in Patients With Cancer Pain: A Comparison of Intrathecal Drug Delivery vs. Conventional Medical Management.

INTRODUCTION: To compare health services utilization and payments for cancer patients who received an implantable intrathecal drug delivery (IDD) system, consisting of a pump and catheter, vs. conventional medical management (CMM) for the treatment of cancer-related pain. METHODS: This retrospective claims-data analysis compared health services utilization and payments in a population of patients receiving either IDD or CMM for treatment of cancer pain. Patients were propensity score-matched 1:1 based on characteristics including, but not limited to, age, gender, cancer type, comorbid conditions, and health care utilization and payments. RESULTS: From a sample of 142 IDD patients and 3188 CMM patients who met all inclusion/exclusion criteria, 73 matched pairs were obtained. In the year following implant, IDD patients had a consistent trend of lower medical utilization, and total payments that were $3195 lower compared to CMM. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the high initial cost of IDD, this analysis suggests that patients with IDD incur lower medical utilization and payments over the first year post-implant. Further analysis comprised of a larger, longitudinal sample would contribute to health economics and outcomes research, and assist with future practice guideline development.

Intrathecal Drug Delivery Systems (IDDS): The Implantable Systems Performance Registry (ISPR).

OBJECTIVES: The ISPR was initially created to monitor the product performance of Medtronic implanted intrathecal drug infusion and spinal cord systems available in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were collected from 50 representative sites implanting and following patients with intrathecal drug delivery systems across the United States between August 7, 2003 and January 31, 2014. Device performance over time was estimated using life table survival methods. RESULTS: Of the 6093 patients enrolled in the ISPR, 3405 (55.9%) were female and 2675 (43.9%) were male, and 13 (0.2%) did not provide gender data. The average age at enrollment was 52.9 years (SD =17.6 years) and average follow-up time was 29.6 months. Currently, the estimates of device survival from pump-related events exceed 90% for all pump models across the applicable follow-up time points. The majority of product performance events were catheter-related. At 5 years of follow-up, all applicable catheter models, with the exception of revised not as designed or grafted not as designed catheters, had greater than 81% survival from catheter-related events. CONCLUSIONS: The ISPR is designed to serve as an ongoing source of system and device-related information with a focus on "real-world" safety and product performance. ISPR data continue to be used to guide future product development efforts aimed at improving product reliability and quality.

Effective Dose Titration of Fentanyl Sublingual Spray in Patients With Breakthrough Cancer Pain.

OBJECTIVE: To further describe effective dose titration of fentanyl sublingual spray to treat breakthrough cancer pain (BTCP) during the 26-day open-label titration phase of a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. METHODS: Opioid-tolerant patients with 1 to 4 episodes of BTCP per day were enrolled. For randomization into double-blind treatment, patients must have titrated to a dose (100 to 1,600 mcg) providing effective analgesia for 2 consecutive BTCP episodes. The Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication was administered at baseline and at titration end and included a Global Satisfaction domain. RESULTS: Of 130 patients undergoing titration, 98 (75%) achieved pain relief (median dose = 800 mcg). The most common doses that allowed for adequate pain relief were 800 mcg (24.5%) and 1,200 mcg (20.4%). Of 32 (25%) patients who withdrew from the study, only 3 (2.3%) did not achieve an effective dose. In patients attaining an effective dose, mean Global Satisfaction increased from 54.9 ± 2.1 at baseline to 75.3 ± 1.7 at the end of the titration phase. Seventy-eight patients (60%) reported ≥ 1 adverse event (AE). Thirty-three AEs (25.4%) were considered probably related to treatment, with nausea (6.2%) and somnolence (4.6%) most commonly reported. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with BTCP, fentanyl sublingual spray can be rapidly and safely titrated to an effective dose, resulting in greater satisfaction with fentanyl sublingual spray than previous BTCP medications.

Patient Satisfaction with Fentanyl Sublingual Spray in Opioid-Tolerant Patients with Breakthrough Cancer Pain.

OBJECTIVES: Breakthrough cancer pain (BTCP) is associated with decreased satisfaction with around-the-clock opioid therapy. This analysis examined patient satisfaction with fentanyl sublingual spray for BTCP during the open-label titration period of a randomized, placebo-controlled study. METHODS: Opioid-tolerant patients with 1 to 4 daily BTCP episodes were included. During a 26-day, open-label titration phase, a successful dose (100 to 1600 mcg) of fentanyl sublingual spray was established that provided effective analgesia for 2 consecutive BTCP episodes with tolerable side effects. The Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) was administered at baseline to assess satisfaction with previous BTCP medication and at the end of the titration to assess satisfaction with fentanyl sublingual spray. RESULTS: Of 130 enrolled patients, 115 (88.5%) had a TSQM measure at baseline and at the end of their titration period. Scores on all 4 TSQM domains increased from baseline to end of the titration, with mean (standard error [SE]) improvements of 22.3 (2.3) for effectiveness, 7.7 (3.2) for side effects, 6.8 (2.2) for convenience, and 12.9 (2.8) for global satisfaction (P < 0.05 for all). Satisfaction with symptom relief (26.1% to 77.4%) and onset of action (21.7% to 82.6%) also improved from baseline to end of titration. At least one adverse event (AE) was reported by 78 patients (60.0%). The most common AEs considered possibly or probably related to study medication were dizziness, somnolence, and nausea (n = 10 [7.7%] each). DISCUSSION: These data indicate markedly improved satisfaction among patients receiving fentanyl sublingual spray relative to previous BTCP medications.

Best practices for intrathecal drug delivery for pain.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to identify best practices and provide guidance to clinicians to ensure safety and optimize intrathecal drug delivery for chronic intractable pain. METHODS: Twelve experienced pain medicine practitioners-eight anesthesiologists, one neurosurgeon, one physiatrist, one clinical psychologist, and one advanced practice registered nurse-from the United States, Australia, and Europe gathered to identify and publish consensus on best practices in three areas related to safe intrathecal therapy for pain: safety and monitoring, patient and device management, and patient selection and trialing. CONCLUSIONS: Intrathecal drug delivery is a valuable alternative drug delivery system for many patients with severe chronic or end-of-life pain. While device-related complications (mostly with catheters) and surgical-site infections can occur, the main therapy-related safety issues associated with intrathecal drug delivery arise primarily with inadequate patient monitoring (e.g., respiratory depression), inflammatory mass (e.g., high doses and concentrations of opioids), wound healing, dosing errors (e.g., medication concentration and pump programming), pump fills or refills (e.g., pocket fills), and interaction with concomitant systemic medications (e.g., opioids and benzodiazepines). Many of the reported adverse events and complications of intrathecal drug delivery can be prevented by adequate clinician training, implementation of best practices, and experience. In adopting the therapy, patients must be apprised of its risks and benefits. Physicians and patients must partner to achieve both safety and effectiveness.

Subcutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation with inter-lead stimulation for axial neck and low back pain: case series and review of the literature.

OBJECTIVES: While pain in the extremities often responds to treatment using spinal cord stimulation (SCS), axial pain is notoriously refractory to SCS. Interest in subcutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation (SQ PNS) as an alternative to SCS has emerged, but the most appropriate electrode locations and neurostimulator programming techniques are not yet clear. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of consecutive patients evaluated from August 2009 to December 2010 who had undergone trial of SQ PNS with inter-lead stimulation for axial spine pain. Patients proceeding to implant were followed postoperatively with routine clinical visits and a survey form at last follow-up. Ultrasound was used intraoperatively to ensure placement of electrodes at the appropriate depth in patients with larger body mass index. Primary outcome was patient-reported pain relief at last follow-up. Literature review was conducted by searching MEDLINE (1948-present) and through an unstructured review by the authors. RESULTS: Ten patients underwent trial of SQ PNS and six proceeded to permanent implantation. Fifty percent (3/6) of implanted patients preferred neurostimulation programming that included inter-lead stimulation ("cross-talk"). Average duration of postoperative follow-up was 4.5 months (range 2-9 months). Average patient-reported pain relief at last follow-up was 45% (range 20-80%). One patient required re-operation for migration. Patients not proceeding to implant had paresthesia coverage but no analgesia. CONCLUSION: SQ PNS is a promising therapy for axial neck and back pain based on a small cohort of patients. Ultrasound was useful to assist with electrode placement at the most appropriate depth beneath the skin. While inter-lead stimulation has been preferred by patients in published reports, we did not find it clearly influenced pain relief. Future investigations should include a randomized, controlled study design, as well as defined implantation technique and neurostimulator programming algorithms.

Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference--2012: recommendations to reduce morbidity and mortality in intrathecal drug delivery in the treatment of chronic pain.

INTRODUCTION: Targeted intrathecal drug infusion to treat moderate to severe chronic pain has become a standard part of treatment algorithms when more conservative options fail. This therapy is well established in the literature, has shown efficacy, and is an important tool for the treatment of both cancer and noncancer pain; however, it has become clear in recent years that intrathecal drug delivery is associated with risks for serious morbidity and mortality. METHODS: The Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference is a meeting of experienced implanting physicians who strive to improve care in those receiving implantable devices. Employing data generated through an extensive literature search combined with clinical experience, this work group formulated recommendations regarding awareness, education, and mitigation of the morbidity and mortality associated with intrathecal therapy to establish best practices for targeted intrathecal drug delivery systems. RESULTS: Best practices for improved patient care and outcomes with targeted intrathecal infusion are recommended to minimize the risk of morbidity and mortality. Areas of focus include respiratory depression, infection, granuloma, device-related complications, endocrinopathies, and human error. Specific guidance is given with each of these issues and the general use of the therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Targeted intrathecal drug delivery systems are associated with risks for morbidity and mortality that can be devastating. The panel has given guidance to treating physicians and healthcare providers to reduce the incidence of these problems and to improve outcomes when problems occur.

Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference 2012: recommendations for the management of pain by intrathecal (intraspinal) drug delivery: report of an interdisciplinary expert panel.

INTRODUCTION: The use of intrathecal (IT) infusion of analgesic medications to treat patients with chronic refractory pain has increased since its inception in the 1980s, and the need for clinical research in IT therapy is ongoing. The Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference (PACC) panel of experts convened in 2000, 2003, and 2007 to make recommendations on the rational use of IT analgesics based on preclinical and clinical literature and clinical experiences. METHODS: The PACC panel convened again in 2011 to update the standard of care for IT therapies to reflect current knowledge gleaned from literature and clinical experience. A thorough literature search was performed, and information from this search was provided to panel members. Analysis of published literature was coupled with the clinical experience of panel members to form recommendations regarding the use of IT analgesics to treat chronic pain. RESULTS: After a review of literature published from 2007 to 2011 and discussions of clinical experience, the panel created updated algorithms for the rational use of IT medications for the treatment of neuropathic pain and nociceptive pain. CONCLUSIONS: The advent of new algorithmic tracks for neuropathic and nociceptive pain is an important step in improving patient care. The panel encourages continued research and development, including the development of new drugs, devices, and safety recommendations to improve the care of patients with chronic pain.

Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference--2012: consensus on diagnosis, detection, and treatment of catheter-tip granulomas (inflammatory masses).

INTRODUCTION: Continuous intrathecal infusion of drugs to treat chronic pain and spasticity has become a standard part of the algorithm of care. The use of opioids has been associated with noninfectious inflammatory masses at the tip of the intrathecal catheter, which can result in neurologic complications. METHODS: The Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference is a meeting of a group of well-published and experienced practitioners; the purpose of the meeting is to update the standard of care for intrathecal therapies to reflect current knowledge gleaned from literature and clinical experience. An exhaustive literature search was performed, and information from this search was provided to panel members. Analysis of the published literature was coupled with the clinical experience of panel participants to form recommendations regarding intrathecal inflammatory masses or granulomas. RESULTS: The panel has made recommendations for the prevention, diagnosis, and management of intrathecal granulomas. CONCLUSION: The use of chronic infusions of intrathecal opioids is associated with the formation of inflammatory masses at the intrathecal catheter tip in a small minority of treated patients. Nonetheless, the appearance of these space-occupying lesions can lead to devastating neurologic sequelae. The prevention, early detection, and successful treatment of intraspinal granulomas are important considerations when offering intrathecal drug therapy to patients with chronic intractable pain.

Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference--2012: recommendations on trialing for intrathecal (intraspinal) drug delivery: report of an interdisciplinary expert panel.

INTRODUCTION: Trialing for intrathecal pump placement is an essential part of the decision-making process in placing a permanent device. In both the United States and the international community, the proper method for trialing is ill defined. METHODS: The Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference (PACC) is a group of well-published experienced practitioners who meet to update the state of care for intrathecal therapies on the basis of current knowledge in the literature and clinical experience. Anexhaustive search is performed to create a base of information that the panel considers when making recommendations for best clinical practices. This literature, coupled with clinical experience, is the basis for recommendations and for identification of gaps in the base of knowledge regarding trialing for intrathecal pump placement. RESULTS: The panel has made recommendations for the proper methods of trialing for long-term intrathecal drug delivery. CONCLUSION: The use of intrathecal drug delivery is an important part of the treatment algorithm for moderate to severe chronic pain. It has become common practice to perform a temporary neuroaxial infusion before permanent device implantation. On the basis of current knowledge, the PACC has developed recommendations to improve care. The need to update these recommendations will be very important as new literature is published.

Medical practice perspective: identification and mitigation of risk factors for mortality associated with intrathecal opioids for non-cancer pain.

OBJECTIVE: The authors recently determined that early and longer term mortality after initiation or reinitiation of intrathecal opioid therapy is higher than previously appreciated: 0.088% within 3 days, 0.39% at 1 month, and 3.89% at 1 year. These rates were 7.5 (confidence interval, 5.7-9.8), 3.4 (confidence interval, 2.9-3.8), and 2.7 (confidence interval, 2.6-2.8) times higher, respectively, at each interval than expected based on the age- and gender-matched general U.S. population. A substantial portion of this excess mortality is probably therapy related and cannot be entirely accounted for by underlying demographic or patient-related factors, or by device malfunctions. We also analyzed multiple complementary internal, governmental, and insurance databases to quantify mortality and to identify medical practice patterns that appear to be associated with patient mortality risks, and to suggest measures for physicians and health care facilities to consider in order to reduce those risks. Both of those objectives involve judgments, which may be controversial and are subject to practical limitations. RESULTS: Multiple clinical and patient- or therapy-related factors appear to increase the risk for early post-implant mortality. Specific risk mitigation measures associated with each factor include: close attention to the starting intrathecal opioid dose (or restarting dose after therapy interruption); avoidance of outpatient implant or other device procedures that involve less than 24-hour monitoring for respiratory depression; supervision of concomitant opioid, respiratory depressant, or other central nervous system active drug intake early post-implant and chronically in the outpatient setting; and careful programming or dosage calculations and decisions in order to avoid the unintentional administration of high intrathecal opioid drug doses. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality after initiation of or device interventions in intrathecal drug delivery patients appears to occur as a result of multiple factors that present possible mitigation opportunities for physicians and health care facilities.

Technical aspects of spinal cord stimulation for managing chronic visceral abdominal pain: the results from the national survey.

UNLABELLED: BACKGROUND, OBJECTIVES, AND METHODS: A few recent reports suggested that spinal cord stimulation (SCS) effectively suppresses chronic abdominal pain. However, there is no consensus on patient selection or technical aspects of SCS for such pain. That is why we conducted national survey and collected 76 case reports. There were six incompletely filled reports, so we analyzed 70 cases. RESULTS: There were 43 female and 27 male patients. SCS was trialed in an average of 4.7 days (median of 4 days). In most patients, the leads were positioned for the SCS trial with their tips at the level of the T5 vertebral body (26 patients) or T6 vertebral body (15 patients). Four patients failed SCS trial: their average baseline visual analog scale (VAS) pain score was 7 +/- 2.4 cm and did not improve at the conclusion of the trial (6.5 +/- 1.9 cm; P = 0.759). Pain relief exceeded 50% in 66 of 70 patients reported. Among those, VAS pain score before the trial averaged 7.9 +/- 1.8 cm. During the trial VAS pain scores decreased to 2.45 +/- 1.45 cm (P < 0.001). The opioid use decreased from 128 +/- 159 mg of morphine sulfate equivalents a day to 79 +/- 112 mg (P < 0.017). During permanent implantation most of the physicians used two octrode leads and were positioned midline at T5-6 levels. The average patient follow-up was 84 weeks. VAS pain scores before an implant were 8 +/- 1.9 cm, while after the implant 2.49 +/- 1.9 cm. The opioid use before an implant was 158 +/- 160 mg and at the last office visit after the implant 36 +/- 49 mg. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, it seems that the SCS for the treatment of the abdominal visceral pain may provide a positive patient long-term experience, significant improvements in pain scores and a decrease in opioid use.

Mortality associated with implantation and management of intrathecal opioid drug infusion systems to treat noncancer pain.

BACKGROUND: In 2006, the authors observed a cluster of three deaths, which circumstances suggested were opioid-related, within 1 day after placement of intrathecal opioid pumps for noncancer pain. Further investigation suggested that mortality among such patients was higher than previously appreciated. The authors performed investigations to quantify that mortality and compare the results to control populations, including spinal cord stimulation and low back surgery. METHODS: After analyzing nine index cases--three sentinel cases and six identified by a prospective strategy--the authors used epidemiological methods to investigate whether mortality rates reflected patient- or therapy-related differences. Mortality rates after intrathecal opioid therapy and spinal cord stimulation were derived by correlating Medtronic device registration data with de-identified data from the Social Security Death Master File. Aggregate demographic and comorbidity data were obtained from Medicare and United Healthcare population databases to examine the influence of demographics and comorbidities on mortality. RESULTS: Device registration and Social Security analyses revealed an intrathecal opioid therapy mortality rate of 0.088% at 3 days after implantation, 0.39% at 1 month, and 3.89% at 1 yr-a higher mortality than after spinal cord stimulation implants or after lumbar diskectomy in community hospitals. Demographic, illness profile, and mortality analyses of large databases suggest, despite limitations, that excess mortality was related to intrathecal opioid therapy, and could not be fully explained by other factors. These findings were consistent with the nine index cases that revealed that respiratory arrest caused or contributed to death in all patients. No device malfunctions associated with overinfusion were identified among cases where data were available. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with noncancer pain treated with intrathecal opioid therapy experience increased mortality compared to similar patients treated by using other therapies. Respiratory depression as a consequence of intrathecal drug overdosage or mixed intrathecal and systemic drug interactions is one plausible, but hypothetical mechanism. The exact causes for patient deaths and the proportion of those deaths attributable to intrathecal opioid therapy remain to be determined. These findings, although based on incomplete information, suggest that it may be possible to reduce mortality in noncancer intrathecal opioid therapy patients.

Assessment of Health Care Utilization and Cost of Targeted Drug Delivery and Conventional Medical Management vs Conventional Medical Management Alone for Patients With Cancer-Related Pain.

Importance: Targeted drug delivery (TDD) has potential for cost savings compared with conventional medical management (CMM). Despite positive clinical and economic evidence, TDD remains underused to treat cancer pain. Objective: To assess the cost of TDD and CMM in treating cancer-related pain. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective economic evaluation using propensity score-matched analysis was conducted using MarketScan commercial claims data on beneficiaries receiving TDD and CMM or CMM only for cancer pain from January 1, 2009, to September 30, 2015. Participants were matched on age, sex, cancer type, comorbidity score, and pre-enrollment characteristics. Data analysis was performed from June 1 to September 30, 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures: Total 2-, 6-, and 12-month costs, number of health care encounters, length of hospital stay, additional components of cost, and health care utilization. Results: A total of 376 TDD and CMM patients (mean [SD] age, 51.88 [9.98] years; 216 [57.5%] female) and 4839 CMM only patients (mean [SD] age, 51.52 [11.16] years; 3005 [62.1%] female) were identified for study inclusion. After matching, 536 patients were included in the study: 268 patients in the TDD and CMM group and 268 in the CMM only group. Compared with CMM only, TDD and CMM was associated with mean total cost savings of $15 142 (95% CI, $3690 to $26 594; P = .01) at 2 months and $63 498 (95% CI, $4620 to $122 376; P = .03) at 12 months; cost savings at 6 months were not statistically different ($19 577; 95% CI, -$12 831 to $51 984; P = .24). The TDD and CMM group had fewer inpatient visits (2-month mean difference [MD], 1.0; 95% CI, 0.8-1.2; P < .001; 6-month MD, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.8-1.7; P < .001; 12-month MD, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.2-3.4; P < .001) and shorter hospital stays (2-month MD, 6.8 days; 95% CI, 5.0-8.7 days; P < .001; 6-month MD, 6.8 days; 95% CI, 3.1-10.5 days; P < .001; 12-month MD, 10.6 days; 95% CI, 2.9-18.3 days; P = .007). Use of CMM only was associated with greater opioid use at 12 months (MD, 3.2; 95% CI, 0.4-6.0; P = .03). Conclusions and Relevance: Compared with CMM alone, TDD and CMM together were associated with significantly lower cost and health care utilization. The findings suggest that TDD is a cost-saving therapy that should be considered in patients with cancer for whom oral opioids are inadequate or produce intolerable adverse effects and should be expanded as health care systems transition to value-based models.

Randomized clinical trial of an implantable drug delivery system compared with comprehensive medical management for refractory cancer pain: impact on pain, drug-related toxicity, and survival.

PURPOSE: Implantable intrathecal drug delivery systems (IDDSs) have been used to manage refractory cancer pain, but there are no randomized clinical trial (RCT) data comparing them with comprehensive medical management (CMM). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We enrolled 202 patients on an RCT of CMM versus IDDS plus CMM. Entry criteria included unrelieved pain (visual analog scale [VAS] pain scores >/= 5 on a 0 to 10 scale). Clinical success was defined as >/= 20% reduction in VAS scores, or equal scores with >/= 20% reduction in toxicity. The main outcome measure was pain control combined with change of toxicity, as measured by the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria, 4 weeks after randomization. RESULTS: Sixty of 71 IDDS patients (84.5%) achieved clinical success compared with 51 of 72 CMM patients (70.8%, P =.05). IDDS patients more often achieved >/= 20% reduction in both pain VAS and toxicity (57.7% [41 of 71] v 37.5% [27 of 72], P =.02). The mean CMM VAS score fell from 7.81 to 4.76 (39% reduction); for the IDDS group, the scores fell from 7.57 to 3.67 (52% reduction, P =.055). The mean CMM toxicity scores fell from 6.36 to 5.27 (17% reduction); for the IDDS group, the toxicity scores fell from 7.22 to 3.59 (50% reduction, P =.004). The IDDS group had significant reductions in fatigue and depressed level of consciousness (P <.05). IDDS patients had improved survival, with 53.9% alive at 6 months compared with 37.2% of the CMM group (P =.06). CONCLUSION: IDDSs improved clinical success in pain control, reduced pain, significantly relieved common drug toxicities, and improved survival in patients with refractory cancer pain.

Intrathecal drug delivery for the management of cancer pain: a multidisciplinary consensus of best clinical practices.

A substantial number of patients with cancer suffer considerable pain at some point during their disease, and approximately 25% of cancer patients die in pain. Providing effective pain management for patients with severe pain that impacts quality of life can present the oncologist or palliative care specialist with complex clinical challenges that often require multifaceted therapeutic measures. This paper presents multidisciplinary consensus-based recommendations for the treatment of intractable cancer pain using intrathecal drug delivery systems, which offer rapid and effective pain relief with less toxicity relative to oral or parenteral administration. Intrathecal drug delivery systems can be highly effective in a variety of patient settings, including cases of refractory pain, diminished performance status, poor tolerability of oral medications, polyanalgesia for complex pain, and inadequate dosing due to addiction concerns. The use of implantable or external systems is discussed, as well as implantation procedures, drug titration recommendations, and management of potential side effects. The authors offer a newly developed algorithm for delivering intraspinal analgesia in patients with cancer. The intent is that increased understanding of available options for truly effective pain management in the oncology and palliative care arena and the benefits of multidisciplinary cooperation will translate into genuine improvements in patient quality of life and a measurable decrease in the number of patients who suffer needlessly in their final days.