Effectiveness of epidural morphine for the treatment of cancer pain in patients with gastrointestinal neoplasm-a systematic review.

One-third of cancer pain patients do not experience adequate pain relief using analgesic ladder by the World Health Organization. Interventional procedures, such as epidural morphine, have been considered. This study aimed to review the literature comparing the effects of epidural administration of morphine with the oral route. This systematic review included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted with patients with gastrointestinal neoplasm. A search was conducted on PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL databases to identify studies published up to May 2023. The retrieved study was evaluated using the Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool and qualitatively synthesized. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach (Prospero: CRD42021264728). Only one RCT, a crossover trial, was included in this systematic review. The study was conducted with ten participants (one withdrawal) and reported a statistically significant difference between both subcutaneous and epidural morphine solutions and oral morphine. The adverse events were not described. The included study presents some concerns of bias and low certainty of evidence on the effectiveness and security of epidural morphine administration. The available literature does not suffice to elucidate whether morphine administration via the epidural route is more effective than other routes. Further RCTs are necessary to improve the level of evidence on the effectiveness and risk-benefit of epidural morphine in the management of cancer pain in gastrointestinal neoplasm patients.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of epidural morphine/ropivacaine treatment in patients with cancer pain.

BACKGROUND: Cancer pain is one of the main causes of human suffering, which can generate disabilities and compromise quality of life, giving rise to several psychosocial and economic consequences. AIMS: This quantitative study sought to perform a cost-effectiveness pharmacoeconomic analysis to assess the impact of implanting epidural morphine associated with ropivacaine treatment in gastrointestinal cancer patients with pain that is difficult clinical control, compared with conventional oral treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study population consisted of 24 patients with gastrointestinal neoplasia who underwent treatment for cancer pain that was difficult to clinically control. 12 patients each were recruited into the control and intervention groups, respectively. While patients in the control group were administered drug treatment orally, patients in the intervention group underwent a surgical procedure for subcutaneous implantation of a catheter that allowed epidural administration of morphine and ropivacaine. For pain assessment, the Visual Analogue Scale was applied. Data analysis had a descriptive character of costs, taking into account the costs for the year 2021. The study perspective was the Brazilian public healthcare provider, referred to as the Unified Health System (Sistema Único de-SUS in Portuguese). Costs were computed over the time horizon corresponding to the duration of treatment, from the first medical consultation (when the treatment was defined) to the end (end of treatment, disease progression, or death). Treatment duration was divided into three phases (first 60 days, support with palliative care, and end-of-life care). To assess the robustness of the economic analysis, sensitivity analyses were performed, considering the effectiveness of pain reduction on the Visual Analogue Scale, and a comparison of results using the median prices of pharmaceutical components used in the study. RESULTS: The mean age of patients was 59.3 years. The results from the cost-effectiveness analysis showed the epidural morphine/ropivacaine treatment to be more effective with regard to pain reduction on the pain scale, particularly for end-of-life care, when compared to the conventional oral treatment, however, at a significantly higher cost. DISCUSSION: From the accomplishment of this research, it was observed that the application of the pain assessment scale is a way to better interpret and understand the patient's pain, facilitating care planning and decision-making by health professionals, as well as monitoring the effectiveness of the proposed new treatment. CONCLUSION: To present a better cost-effectiveness ratio, a reduction in the cost of the new epidural technology or an increase in the value of the existing oral intervention would be required. However, the latter is not feasible and unlikely to occur. A value judgement to decide whether the incremental benefit associated with the use of the new intervention is worth the extra cost will have to be made by the healthcare provider. Interventions that can relieve cancer pain symptoms should be investigated continuously, in search of evidence to support clinical practice and promote better quality of life for patients.

Oral pregabalin is effective as preemptive analgesia in abdominal hysterectomy-A randomized controlled trial.

Postoperative pain is one of the main negative symptoms resulting from surgery and the use of new methods to control this symptom is of ever-increasing relevance. Opioid-sparing strategies, such as multimodal analgesia, are trends in this scenario. Pregabalin is a well-established treatment for neuropathic pain; however, it is still controversial in the surgical context for postoperative analgesia. This study investigated the effect of pregabalin on postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing abdominal hysterectomy. It is a prospective, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Female patients undergoing abdominal hysterectomy were randomised to use pregabalin (group P1), 300 mg orally 2 h before surgery, or identical placebo pills (group P0). The main outcome includes the postoperative pain index by visual analogue scale (VAS) and McGill's pain questionnaire. Secondary outcomes include opioid consumption and the presence of adverse effects. A value of p < 0.05 was used to reject type I error. Fifty-five patients were randomised amongst the groups. Patients in group P1 had lower pain rates by VAS scale, both at rest and in active motion, than group P0. In McGill's questionnaire, patients from group P1 also had lower pain rates (12 × 28.5). There was approximately twice as much opioid consumption amongst patients in group P0. Regarding side effects, there was a difference between the two groups only for dizziness, being more incident in group P1. This study suggests that pregabalin is an important adjuvant drug in treating postoperative pain in patients with abdominal hysterectomy.