[Tumor-associated pain]. / Tumorassoziierter Schmerz.

Tumor-associated pain has a high prevalence and is still a challenging aspect of pain medicine. Treatment-related etiologies often coexist with pain caused by the oncological disease itself. For cancer pain as well, a pathophysiologically oriented analysis of nociceptive, nociplastic and neuropathic pain is advisable for planning a tailored treatment. The analgesic three-step ladder of the World Health Organization (WHO) should be customized in this context, incorporating antineuropathic or antihypersensitizing pharmacological approaches as well as minimally invasive techniques. Psycho-oncological and exercise therapy interventions should be considered. In cases of long-term courses of treatment or following curative oncological treatment, chronically persistent or chronic tumor-associated pain can occur, necessitating multimodal therapeutic approaches analogue to noncancer pain conditions. Close integration with palliative medicine enhances the therapeutic effectiveness during the transition from nonpalliative to palliative treatment phases.

High-volume patient-controlled epidural vs. programmed intermittent epidural bolus for labour analgesia: a randomised controlled study.

The aim of neuraxial analgesia is to achieve excellent pain relief with the fewest adverse effects. The most recently introduced technique for epidural analgesia maintenance is the programmed intermittent epidural bolus. In a recent study, we compared this with patient-controlled epidural analgesia without a background infusion and found that a programmed intermittent epidural bolus was associated with less breakthrough pain, lower pain scores, higher local anaesthetic consumption and comparable motor block. However, we had compared 10 ml programmed intermittent epidural boluses with 5 ml patient-controlled epidural analgesia boluses. To overcome this potential limitation, we designed a randomised, multicentre non-inferiority trial using 10 ml boluses in each group. The primary outcome was the incidence of breakthrough pain and total analgesic intake. Secondary outcomes included motor block; pain scores; patient satisfaction; and obstetric and neonatal outcomes. The trial was considered positive if two endpoints were met: non-inferiority of patient-controlled epidural analgesia with respect to breakthrough pain; and superiority of patient-controlled epidural analgesia with respect to local anaesthetic consumption. A total of 360 nulliparous women were allocated randomly to patient-controlled epidural analgesia-only or programmed intermittent epidural bolus groups. The patient-controlled group received 10 ml boluses of ropivacaine 0.12% with sufentanil 0.75 µg.ml-1 ; the programmed intermittent group received 10 ml boluses supplemented by 5 ml patient-controlled boluses. The lockout period was 30 min in each group and the maximum allowed hourly local anaesthetic/opioid consumption was identical between the groups. Breakthrough pain was similar between groups (11.2% patient controlled vs. 10.8% programmed intermittent, p = 0.003 for non-inferiority). Total ropivacaine consumption was lower in the PCEA-group (mean difference 15.3 mg, p < 0.001). Motor block, patient satisfaction scores and maternal and neonatal outcomes were similar across both groups. In conclusion, patient-controlled epidural analgesia is non-inferior to programmed intermittent epidural bolus if equal volumes of patient-controlled epidural analgesia are used to maintain labour analgesia and superior with respect to local anaesthetic consumption.

Efficacy of reconstituted intravenous fentanyl to sublingual solution versus oral morphine syrup for breakthrough pain among patients with chronic gynecologic cancer pain: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

Rapid-acting fentanyl formulations are superior to oral morphine (OM) syrup in controlling breakthrough pain among patients with cancer, but they are expensive and unavailable in many countries. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of reconstituted intravenous fentanyl to sublingual solution (IFS) in relieving breakthrough pain as compared with OM. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled trial, patients with gynecologic cancer aged ≥18 years experiencing chronic cancer pain with breakthrough pain were enrolled. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive either 50 µg IFS or 5 mg OM. Pain intensity level was assessed at 5, 15, 30, 45, 60, and 120 min after treatment. The primary outcome was the reduction in pain intensity at 15 min in the intention-to-treat population (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05037539). RESULTS: Between June 15, 2021 and December 30, 2021, 40 participants were equally and randomly assigned to receive IFS or OM. The primary outcome was significantly higher in the IFS group (4.25 vs. 1.05, p < 0.0001). The secondary outcomes also showed higher reduction in pain intensity at 5 min in the IFS group. Subsequent breakthrough pain did not differ between the two groups. However, the reduction in pain was lower in the IFS group at 45, 60, and 120 min, where pain was classified as mild. No severe adverse effects were observed in both groups. Burning sensation without noticeable lesion was found in 20% of the IFS group. CONCLUSION: IFS can reduce early breakthrough pain. IFS may be considered for breakthrough pain when rapid-acting fentanyl formulations are unavailable.

[Cancer pain relief with drugs and neurolytic nerve blocks]. / A rosszindulatú daganatos fájdalom kezelése gyógyszerekkel és idegblokádokkal.

Drug therapy with non-opioid, opioid and adjuvant drugs is the mainstay of cancer pain relief. The three step analgesic ladder, published by WHO in 1986 Geneva, is useful for oncologists and general practitioners.
The first step is giving minor analgesics and adjuvant drugs; the second is giving minor analgesics, weak opioid and adjuvant drugs; the third step is giving minor analgesics, strong opioids and adjuvant drugs. For those patients who have severe pain it is a waste of time to prescribe the drugs of the first and second step, we suggest to start immediately with strong opioids!
Analgetic drugs should be given by the clock: the next dose is given before the effect of previous one has fully worn off. In this way it is possible to relieve pain continuously.
In selected cases the analgetic effect of nerve blockade is much better than that of the drug treatment. With successful blockades the patient can stop taking analgetic drugs for a long period of time and the blockades can be performed repeatedly. We briefly summarise the three most effective neuroblockades.

Effects of an oral mucosa protective formulation on chemotherapy- and/or radiotherapy-induced oral mucositis: a prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Oral mucositis (OM) associated with cancer treatment not only impairs patients' quality of life but also causes treatment delays or changes. This prospective exploratory study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of Episil® oral liquid, which is an approved protective formulation for the oral mucosa in patients with OM. The extent of the pain-relieving effect, feeling during use, and adverse events or problems were evaluated. METHODS: In total, 10 Japanese cancer patients with OM receiving chemotherapy, pretreatment therapy for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, or radiation therapy for head and neck cancer were enrolled. RESULTS: A numerical rating scale (NRS) was used to assess oral pain intensity due to OM. Compared to baseline, the mean NRS began to decrease at 5 min after using Episil® (7.1 ± 1.4 to 4.6 ± 2.87; p = 0.264). A significant decrease was observed in the pain score after using Episil® compared with that before using Episil®, and this effect lasted up to 120 min. The protective effects of Episil® were observed 3-5 min after application. Some patients felt slight soreness or discomfort when applying Episil®. However, this discomfort due to Episil®'s stimulation was within the allowable range and transient. No adverse events were observed in any of the cases. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this prospective study showed that Episil® could be an effective treatment to relieve oral pain in Japanese patients with moderate to severe OM, and this newly approved product might adequately support patients' oral intake. TRIAL REGISTRATION: University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN-CTR) ( UMIN000031921 ).

Carer preferences of route of administration of transmucosal diamorphine and willingness to take part in a randomised controlled trial: an interview study (DIPPER).

BACKGROUND: Children and young people are usually given liquid morphine by mouth for breakthrough pain, which can take thirty minutes to work. A faster-acting, quickly absorbed, needle-free pain medicine, that is easy to administer is needed such as transmucosal (sublingual, buccal, intranasal) diamorphine. Research evidence relating to the administration of medication for breakthrough pain in children and young people is limited. This study aims to describe the experiences and preferences of parents and/or children and young people regarding the route of administration of diamorphine, barriers and facilitators comparative to oral morphine, and participation in a randomised controlled trial. METHODS: In-depth, semi-structured interviews with parents and/or children and young people at home or hospital/hospice. RESULTS: Thirteen interviews with: nine mothers, one father, and three sets of parents jointly. No interviews took place with a child/young person. Most families had experience of the buccal route which was effective in ease of administration and time to control pain. The intranasal route was preferred by parents irrespective of experience. Parents' willingness for their child to take part in a trial depended on the time commitment, their child's pain trajectory and the stability of analgesic requirements. CONCLUSION: A randomised controlled trial of oral morphine versus transmucosal diamorphine would need to consider trial logistics, especially time commitment. Parents felt that the trial should be introduced initially by the clinical team, with written information from the research team, and sufficient time to ask questions. Patients who had discontinued oral morphine because of side effects, or those with gastrointestinal failure, should be excluded. Maintaining stability in pain management was essential to families, so the timing of the trial is a potential issue.

Further investigation of the rapid-onset and short-duration action of the G protein-biased µ-ligand oliceridine.

TRV130 (oliceridine), a G protein-biased ligand for µ-opioid receptor, has recently been synthesized. It is considered to have strong antinociceptive effects and only minor adverse effects. However, whether or not oliceridine actually exhibits an ideal pharmacological profile as an analgesic has not yet been fully clarified in animal studies. This study examined the pharmacological profile of oliceridine in cells and animals. Oliceridine (10 µM) did not produce any µ-opioid receptor internalization in cells even though it increased impedance, which reflects the activation of Gi protein using the CellKey™ system, and inhibited the formation of cAMP. In mice, oliceridine (0.3-10 mg/kg) produced a dose-dependent antinociceptive effect with a rapid-onset and short-duration action in the hot-plate test, as well as antihyperalgesia after sciatic nerve ligation without the development of antinociceptive tolerance using the thermal hyperalgesia test. On the other hand, oliceridine inhibited gastrointestinal transit. Furthermore, oliceridine produced rapid-onset hyperlocomotion at antinociceptive doses; sensitization developed in mice and an emetic effect was observed in ferrets. These results indicate that, although oliceridine may produce dopamine-related behaviors even through selective stimulation of the G-protein-biased µ-opioid receptor pathway, it still offers advantages for breakthrough pain without antinociceptive tolerance with adequate doses.

Drug utilization study on immediate release Fentanyl in Spain. Prevalence, incidence, and indication.

PURPOSE: We aimed to characterize the trends of immediate release fentanyl (IRF) use in Spain between 2012 and 2017 and indication for its use. IRF drugs are rapid-acting opioids approved to treat breakthrough cancer pain (BTCP) in patients already receiving maintenance opioid therapy for chronic cancer pain. A substantial increase in consumption of IRF has been observed with emerging cases of abuse and dependence, most of them in noncancer patients. METHODS: An ecological descriptive consumption study with aggregated data from drug dispensed by community pharmacies and reimbursed by the National Health System in which Defined Daily Doses per 10 000 inhabitants (DID) were calculated and a retrospective cohort study using data from the Spanish Database for Pharmacoepidemiological Research in Primary Care in which participants entered the cohort study after 1 year with the Primary Care Practitioners were performed. Annual prevalence and incidence rate of IRF use were estimated by sex and calendar year. Potential indication was also assessed. RESULTS: IRF use in Spain increased from 2.1 DID in 2012 to 3.8 DID in 2017. The incidence rate and prevalence increased in 53% and 74%, respectively. Patients without previous cancer or BCTP diagnosis represented 27% of incident users, predominantly women. Half of patients with noncancer-related diagnosis had a musculoskeletal disorder linked to the first IRF prescription. CONCLUSIONS: National consumption and new IRF users in Spain increased over the study period and one quarter of patients did not have a BTCP or cancer diagnosis registered in their clinical record.

Healthcare professionals' views of the use of oral morphine and transmucosal diamorphine in the management of paediatric breakthrough pain and the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial: A focus group study (DIPPER).

BACKGROUND: Oral morphine is frequently used for breakthrough pain but the oral route is not always available and absorption is slow. Transmucosal diamorphine is administered by buccal, sublingual or intranasal routes, and rapidly absorbed. AIM: To explore the perspectives of healthcare professionals in the UK caring for children with life-limiting conditions concerning the assessment and management of breakthrough pain; prescribing and administration of transmucosal diamorphine compared with oral morphine; and the feasibility of a comparative clinical trial. DESIGN/ PARTICIPANTS: Three focus groups, analysed using a Framework approach. Doctors, nurses and pharmacists (n = 28), caring for children with life-limiting illnesses receiving palliative care, participated. RESULTS: Oral morphine is frequently used for breakthrough pain across all settings; with transmucosal diamorphine largely limited to use in hospices or given by community nurses, predominantly buccally. Perceived advantages of oral morphine included confidence in its use with no requirement for specific training; disadvantages included tolerability issues, slow onset, unpredictable response and unsuitability for patients with gastrointestinal failure. Perceived advantages of transmucosal diamorphine were quick onset and easy administration; barriers included lack of licensed preparations and prescribing guidance with fears over accountability of prescribers, and potential issues with availability, preparation and palatability. Factors potentially affecting recruitment to a trial were patient suitability and onerousness for families, trial design and logistics, staff time and clinician engagement. CONCLUSIONS: There were perceived advantages to transmucosal diamorphine, but there is a need for access to a safe preparation. A clinical trial would be feasible provided barriers were overcome.

Comparative analgesic efficacy and safety of intermittent local anaesthetic epidural bolus for labour: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Continuous epidural infusion (CEI) is commonly used for labour analgesia, but concerns over potential motor block, second-stage labour complications, and ineffective analgesia in late labour have prompted examining intermittent epidural bolus (IEB) as an alternative. However, evidence comparing these modalities is conflicting. The meta-analysis evaluates the analgesic efficacy of CEI vs IEB. METHODS: Databases were searched for trials comparing CEI to IEB for labour analgesia. The two co-primary outcomes were risk of breakthrough pain and difference in area under the curve (AUC) for pain scores during the first 4 h post-epidural initiation. Local anaesthetic consumption, maternal outcomes (i.e. delivery mode, labour duration, and maternal satisfaction), and side-effects of epidural analgesia were also evaluated. Results were pooled using random-effects modelling. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was used to evaluate evidence reliability. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies (3133 patients) were analysed. Compared with CEI, IEB decreased risk of breakthrough pain by 38% (risk ratio [95% confidence interval {CI}] of 0.62 [0.48, 0.81]; P=0.0004; I2=47%; 1164 patients) and reduced AUC of pain during the 4 h interval by 32.9% (mean difference [95% CI] of -16.7 mm h-1 [-18.9, -14.4]; P<0.0001; 1638 patients). Intermittent epidural bolus enhanced maternal satisfaction, shortened labour duration, decreased motor block, and reduced local anaesthetic consumption. The difference between the two groups was not statistically significant for epidural side-effects or mode of delivery. The TSA indicated adequate power for reliable inferences. CONCLUSIONS: Intermittent epidural bolus provides improved labour pain control during the first 4 h after epidural initiation with less breakthrough pain. Moderate- to high-quality evidence of intermittent epidural bolus superiority support its use as a safe and effective continuous epidural infusion alternative for labour analgesia.

Effects of age and gender in patients receiving doses of opioids for breakthrough pain proportional to background opioid doses.

AIM: To identify the role of age and gender in analgesic and adverse effects after administering fentanyl products for breakthrough pain (BT), given in doses proportional to opioid doses given for background pain. METHODS: Data from nine studies, in which patients with BP were given fentanyl products in doses proportional to their basal opioid regimen, were analyzed. RESULTS: A total 462 patients presenting 1905 episodes of BP were included in this analysis. In older patients, the decrease in pain intensity was more pronounced 15 min after administration of a BP medication. No gender differences were found. No significant differences in frequency and intensity of adverse effects for age and gender were found. CONCLUSION: Fentanyl products given for BP in doses proportional to background opioid regimen were more effective in older patients without adding risks of adverse effects. Gender did not influence analgesia and adverse effects of fentanyl products.

Programmed intermittent epidural bolus vs. patient-controlled epidural analgesia for maintenance of labour analgesia: a two-centre, double-blind, randomised study†.

The programmed intermittent epidural bolus technique has shown superiority to continuous epidural infusion techniques, with or without patient-controlled epidural analgesia for pain relief, reduced motor block and patient satisfaction. Many institutions still use patient-controlled epidural analgesia without a background infusion, and a comparative study between programmed intermittent epidural bolus and patient-controlled epidural analgesia without a background infusion has not yet been performed. We performed a randomised, two-centre, double-blind, controlled trial of these two techniques. The primary outcome was the incidence of breakthrough pain requiring a top-up dose by an anaesthetist. Secondary outcomes included: motor block; pain scores; patient satisfaction; local anaesthetic consumption; and obstetric and neonatal outcomes. We recruited 130 nulliparous women who received initial spinal analgesia, and then epidural analgesia was initiated and maintained with either programmed intermittent epidural bolus or patient-controlled epidural analgesia using ropivacaine 0.12% with sufentanil 0.75 µg·ml-1 . The programmed intermittent epidural bolus group had a programmed bolus of 10 ml every hour, with on-demand patient-controlled epidural analgesia boluses of 5 ml with a 20 min lockout, and the patient-controlled epidural analgesia group had a 5 ml bolus with a 12 min lockout interval; the potential maximum volume per hour was the same in both groups. The patients in the programmed intermittent epidural bolus group had less frequent breakthrough pain compared with the patient-controlled epidural analgesia group, 7 (10.9%) vs. 38 (62.3%; p < 0.0001), respectively. There was a significant difference in motor block (modified Bromage score ≤ 4) frequency between groups, programmed intermittent epidural bolus group 1 (1.6%) vs. patient-controlled epidural analgesia group 8 (13.1%); p = 0.015. The programmed intermittent epidural bolus group had greater local anaesthetic consumption with fewer patient-controlled epidural analgesia boluses. Patient satisfaction scores and obstetric or neonatal outcomes were not different between groups. In conclusion, we found that a programmed intermittent epidural bolus technique using 10 ml programmed boluses and 5 ml patient-controlled epidural analgesia boluses was superior to a patient-controlled epidural analgesia technique using 5 ml boluses and no background infusion.

[Pain therapy in palliative ENT patients]. / Schmerztherapie bei HNO-Palliativpatienten.

Alleviation of physical complaints through pain management and symptom control represents an essential part of a palliative treatment concept. Persistent cancer pain in palliative care leads to a significant reduction in quality of life. Evaluation of pain on the basis of a detailed pain history allows recognition of the types of pain and initiation of a corresponding effective pain therapy. The basis of cancer pain therapy in palliative patients is transdermal and oral administration of long-acting analgesics according to a fixed time schedule. Especially important is the detection and treatment of breakthrough pain. For this form of pain, sufficiently effective analgesics with a fast effect are available. Palliative otorhinologic (ENT) patients often pose a major challenge to their treating physicians, as advanced oropharyngeal tumors are often associated with dysphagia. The following article presents an overview of the possibilities of drug-based cancer pain therapy in palliative ENT patients.

Indian Society for Study of Pain, Cancer Pain Special Interest Group Guidelines on Pharmacological Management of Cancer Pain (Part III).

The Indian Society for Study of Pain (ISSP), Cancer Pain Special Interest Group, guidelines on pharmacological management of cancer pain in adults provide a structured, step-wise approach which will help to improve the management of cancer pain and to provide patients with a minimally acceptable quality of life. The guidelines have been developed based on the available literature and evidence, to suit the needs, patient population, and situations in India. A questionnaire based on the key elements of each sub draft addressing certain inconclusive areas where evidence was lacking, was made available on the ISSP website and circulated by E-mail to all the ISSP and Indian Association of Palliative Care members. Antidepressants and/or anticonvulsants should be used to treat neuropathic cancer pain and the dose should be titrated according to the clinical response and side effects. External beam radiotherapy should be offered to all patients with painful metastatic bone pain. There is evidence on the use of ketamine in cancer neuropathic pain, but with no beneficial effect, thus it is not recommended.

Response to Oral Immediate-Release Opioids for Breakthrough Pain in Patients with Advanced Cancer with Adequately Controlled Background Pain.

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence about the response of breakthrough pain (BTP) to the most commonly used oral immediate-release (IR) opioids. Our aim was to determine response rate to oral IR opioids for BTP control in patients with advanced cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective study, palliative care outpatients, with advanced cancer and adequately managed background pain, were asked to complete a self-administered survey. We assessed patients' baseline demographics, pain characteristics, alcoholism (CAGE questionnaire), tobacco and substance abuse, and Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scores (ESAS). We determined the effectiveness of oral IR BTP opioids by using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from "very ineffective" to "very effective." "Effective" and "very effective" were defined a priori as a good response to IR opioids for BTP. RESULTS: Of 592 evaluable patients, 192 (32%) had background pain of ≤3 (ESAS pain scale 0-10). Among these 192 patients, 152 (79%) reported BTP, 143/152 (94%) took oral IR opioids for BTP, and 127/143 (89%) responded to a median dose of 10% of the total morphine equivalent daily dose. In univariate logistic regression analysis, younger age (odds ratio [OR], 0.94 per year; p = .008), higher ESAS scores for pain (OR, 1.32; p = .012), anxiety (OR, 1.24; p = .017), and dyspnea (OR, 1.31; p = .007) had statistically significant association with poor response to IR opioids for BTP. In multicovariate logistic regression, adjusted for age, a higher ESAS dyspnea score was significantly associated with poor response to oral IR opioids (OR, 1.44; p = .002). CONCLUSION: The vast majority of patients with advanced cancer with adequately controlled background pain reported a good response to oral IR opioids for BTP, supporting their use in clinical practice. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Oral immediate-release opioids are standard treatment for cancer breakthrough pain. However, information regarding treatment response to these commonly used opioids is limited. This study provides information that the vast majority of patients with advanced cancer, with adequately controlled background pain, reported good response to oral immediate release opioids for managing their breakthrough pain episodes. Results of this study support the use of conventional oral immediate release opioids that are relatively inexpensive and readily available for management of breakthrough pain in patients with advanced cancer.

Mediation of Movement-Induced Breakthrough Cancer Pain by IB4-Binding Nociceptors in Rats.

Cancer-induced bone pain is characterized by moderate to severe ongoing pain that commonly requires the use of opiates. Even when ongoing pain is well controlled, patients can suffer breakthrough pain (BTP), episodic severe pain that "breaks through" the medication. We developed a novel model of cancer-induced BTP using female rats with mammary adenocarcinoma cells sealed within the tibia. We demonstrated previously that rats with bone cancer learn to prefer a context paired with saphenous nerve block to elicit pain relief (i.e., conditioned place preference, CPP), revealing the presence of ongoing pain. Treatment with systemic morphine abolished CPP to saphenous nerve block, demonstrating control of ongoing pain. Here, we show that pairing BTP induced by experimenter-induced movement of the tumor-bearing hindlimb with a context produces conditioned place avoidance (CPA) in rats treated with morphine to control ongoing pain, consistent with clinical observation of BTP. Preventing movement-induced afferent input by saphenous nerve block before, but not after, hindlimb movement blocked movement-induced BTP. Ablation of isolectin B4 (IB4)-binding, but not TRPV1+, sensory afferents eliminated movement-induced BTP, suggesting that input from IB4-binding fibers mediates BTP. Identification of potential molecular targets specific to this population of fibers may allow for the development of peripherally restricted analgesics that control BTP and improve quality of life in patients with skeletal metastases.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT We present a novel preclinical measure of movement-induced breakthrough pain (BTP) that is observed in the presence of morphine controlling ongoing pain. Blockade of sensory input before movement prevented BTP, whereas nerve block after movement failed to reverse BTP. These observations indicate that blocking peripheral sensory input may prevent BTP and targeting central sites may be required for pain relief once BTP has been initiated. Preventing sensory input from TRPV1-expressing fibers failed to alter movement-induced BTP. In contrast, preventing sensory input from isolectin B4 (IB4)-binding fibers blocked movement-induced BTP. Therefore, examining molecular targets on this population of nociceptive fibers may prove useful for developing an improved strategy for preventing BTP in cancer patients with skeletal metastases.

Breakthrough cancer pain tailored treatment: which factors influence the medication choice? An observational, prospective and cross-sectional study in patients with terminal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Various options for the pharmacological treatment of breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP) are available. International guidelines on BTcP treatment are not univocal. A tailored treatment should be based on the assessment of different variables such as BTcP characteristics, oral mucositis, chronic rhinitis and a patient's ability to take medication. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study is to assess the relationship between these variables and the medication treatment for BTcP in a sample of patients with terminal cancer. METHODS: A prospective, cross-sectional study was carried out among 1180 patients who were receiving palliative care programmes. Patients were recruited if they had a diagnosis of BTcP and had been prescribed rescue opioids. Variables that might influence the BTcP treatment were assessed. RESULTS: One hundred and forty-nine eligible patients were enrolled; 59.1% of patients received short-acting oral morphine (OM), 27.5% transmucosal immediate-release fentanyl (TIRF) and 13.4% parenteral morphine for BTcP treatment. Short-acting OM prescription was related to background pain treatment with OM <60 mg daily (p<0.0001) and to home-care setting of assistance (p=0.004). Continuous intravenous morphine infusion and the presence of a vascular access were the main factors related to intravenous morphine prescription for BTcP. TIRF use was mainly related to background opioid dosage and the patient's self-sufficiency in taking medication. CONCLUSION: In clinical practice, the factors that most influenced the pharmacological treatment for BTcP were baseline opioid dosage, setting of assistance and self-ability to take medication. Further research is needed to improve the knowledge on tailored BTcP treatment.

Practice Patterns in Distinguishing Between Background Pain and Breakthrough Pain During Patient Education: a Korean Physician Survey.

This study sought to explore the association between physician practice patterns and patient education, with a focus on breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP). A nationwide online survey was conducted by 92 Korean physicians. Thirteen questions on Korean physician's assessment, prescription, patient education practices, and knowledge regarding BTcP were administered. Based on their responses, physicians were divided using two methods: (1) by their patient education practices, where the "education group" always explained the distinction between background pain and BTcP and the "less education group" which explained it less frequently; and (2) by their definition of BTcP, as occurring "after control of background pain" or "regardless of background pain." We compared practice patterns using Fisher's exact test or Student's t test and performed multiple logistic regression analysis. The "education group" (65 physicians, 70.7 %) was more likely than the "less education group" to assess BTcP meticulously (odds ratio [OR] 17.13, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 4.98-58.94), prepare rescue medications in advance (OR 3.67, 95 % CI 1.36-9.90), and give explicit instructions regarding medications (OR 36.68, 95 % CI 5.63-239.15). Physicians who defined BTcP as occurring "after control of background pain" were more likely to explain how to take rescue medication (P < 0.05) than physicians who defined BTcP as occurring "regardless of background pain." Korean physicians' BTcP practice patterns may be affected by whether they consistently educate patients on the distinction between background pain and BTcP, regardless of their knowledge of the definition of BTcP.

Effectiveness of acetaminophen in control of breakthrough pain: Randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To reduce postoperative pain by using additional analgesic agent in between the usual parenteral analgesia that is used in the postoperative period in surgical patients. METHODS: The double-blind, randomised control intervention was conducted from June to November 2015 at Rehman Medical Institute, Peshawar, Pakistan, and comprised postoperative surgical patients of either gender aged 18 or more who had undergone uneventful elective surgery The subjects were divided into test and placebo groups. In the test group, 1gm acetaminophen was additionally prescribed, while in the control group placebo (starch) was administered. Demographics were noted and pain score was recorded using three internationally validated pain scales; Verbal pain intensity scale, Visual analogue scale, and Numeric pain scale. SPSS version 15.0 is used for calculation. Data was collected twice over 48 hours. RESULTS: Out of 220 patients, 165(75 %) were male with mean age 31.5±1.93 years and 55(25%) were female with mean age 31.5±1.48 years. There were 118(53.6%) patients in the test group and 102(43.4%) in the control group. In the first 24 hours the cumulative pain score, from numeric pain scale and visual analogue scale, for the control group showed 5(4.90%) patients had no pain, 39(38.24%) had mild pain, 52(50.98%) moderate pain and 6(5.80%) had severe pain. In the test group, 13(11.02%) reported no pain, 83(70.34%) had mild pain, 19(16%) had moderate pain while 3(2.54%) complained of severe pain. In the next 48 hours cumulative pain score in the test group showed 44(37.29%)subjects had no pain, 67(56.78%) had mild pain, 6(5.08%) had moderate pain, 1(0.85%) had severe pain, while in the control group 10(10%) had no pain, 56(55%) had mild pain, 33(32%) had moderate pain and 3(3%) had severe pain. . CONCLUSIONS: Additional acetaminophen reduced mild to moderate pain between two doses of parenteral analgesia.

Breakthrough cancer pain and rational drug use.

Recent data indicate that there are large disparities in the use of opioid analgesics to control breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP) in Europe and worldwide. While it is clear that affordability is a key factor, it is certainly not the only one, and other factors, such as cultural differences and overall awareness, are undoubtedly responsible. More work remains to be done to overcome barriers in the use of these medications when warranted. When prescribing a medication for BTcP, it must be considered that its time profile is different from chronic persistent pain. The best control of background pain can best be achieved with a low dose of an extended opioid, and managing BTcP with a rapid-onset opioid, providing a good combination of overall pain control and lower opioid exposure. Notwithstanding their efficacy, greater attention needs to be paid to inappropriate use of opioids. It is important to evaluate patients for potential opioid misuse, including assessment of risk factors, and aberrant drug-taking behaviours must be investigated. In our institution, several measures have been adopted in this patient population in order to prevent aberrant opioid-induced behaviours. The adoption of some or all of these principles, depending on the individual patient and treatment setting, can undoubtedly help to reduce the risk of developing an aberrant behaviour related to opioid use as rescue medication for BTcP.