Breakthrough pain in patients with multiple myeloma: a secondary analysis of IOPS MS study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to characterize breakthrough pain (BTcP) in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a large multicenter study of patients with BTcP. Background pain intensity and opioid doses were recorded. The BTcP characteristics, including the number of BTcP episodes, intensity, onset, duration, predictability, and interference with daily activities were recorded. Opioids prescribed for BTcP, time to achieve a meaningful pain relief after taking a medication, adverse effects, and patients' satisfaction were assessed. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients with MM were examined. In comparison with other tumors, in patients with MM BTcP was more predictable (p=0.04), with the predominant trigger being the physical activity (p<0.001). Other BTcP characteristics, pattern of opioids used for background pain and BTcP, satisfaction and adverse effects did not differ. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with MM have their own peculiarities. Given the peculiar involvement of the skeleton, BTcP was highly predictable and triggered by movement.

Breakthrough cancer pain: The importance of the right treatment at the right time.

BACKGROUND: Confusion remains over the definition of breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP) potentially leading to delayed diagnosis and treatment. METHODS: An on-line survey was conducted in four EU countries among relevant healthcare professionals and cancer patients diagnosed with BTcP. The roles of healthcare professionals (HCPs) were examined and their knowledge and use of available medications recorded. Patients were questioned on how BTcP affected their lives and on the medications they had received/were receiving. RESULTS: There was a 'time lag' of 58 and 13 weeks in Germany and Spain respectively between the initial diagnosis of BTcP and its treatment. Four in ten oncologists across the four countries considered themselves not fully confident in their choice of the appropriate therapy. A quarter of patients in Germany, Italy and Spain and four in ten in France were treated only with increased dosages of the therapy already prescribed for their background pain - often morphine. Almost another quarter received morphine in addition to their treatment for background pain. Oncologists indicated a need for faster-acting treatments revealing a potential lack of awareness of rapid onset oral opioids and patients expressed a desire for more effective pain relief and better psychological support. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for a universal definition of BTcP to facilitate earlier and more accurate diagnosis. It is essential that BTcP is treated immediately on diagnosis with therapies that more closely mirror its temporal characteristics to ensure that patients' desire for more effective pain relief is fulfilled. SIGNIFICANCE: Many cancer patients suffered episodes of BTcP needlessly over many months due to missed diagnosis. Even after diagnosis, many physicians were not fully confident in their choice of 'rescue' therapy which perhaps is not surprising given the very low level of awareness of treatment guidelines, both national and international.

Neuropathic pain in cancer: systematic review, performance of screening tools and analysis of symptom profiles.

BACKGROUND: The objectives of this study were to evaluate the methodological quality of rigorous neuropathic pain assessment tools in applicable clinical studies, and determine the performance of screening tools for identifying neuropathic pain in patients with cancer. METHODS: Systematic literature search identified studies reporting use of Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (LANSS), Douleur Neuropathique en 4 (DN4) or painDETECT (PDQ) in cancer patients with a clinical diagnosis of neuropathic or not neuropathic pain. Individual patient data were requested to examine descriptor item profiles. RESULTS: Six studies recruited a total of 2301 cancer patients of which 1564 (68%) reported pain. Overall accuracy of screening tools ranged from 73 to 94%. There was variation in description and rigour of clinical assessment, particularly related to the rigour of clinical judgement of pain as the reference standard. Individual data from 1351 patients showed large variation in the selection of neuropathic pain descriptor items by cancer patients with neuropathic pain. LANSS and DN4 items characterized a significantly different neuropathic pain symptom profile from non-neuropathic pain in both tumour- and treatment-related cancer pain aetiologies. CONCLUSIONS: We identified concordance between the clinician diagnosis and screening tool outcomes for LANSS, DN4 and PDQ in patients with cancer pain. Shortcomings in relation to standardized clinician assessment are likely to account for variation in screening tool sensitivity, which should include the use of the neuropathic pain grading system. Further research is needed to standardize and improve clinical assessment in patients with cancer pain. Until the standardization of clinical diagnosis for neuropathic cancer pain has been validated, screening tools offer a practical approach to identify potential cases of neuropathic cancer pain.

The evidence of neuraxial administration of analgesics for cancer-related pain: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The present systematic review analysed the existing evidence of analgesic efficacy and side effects of opioids without and with adjuvant analgesics delivered by neuraxial route (epidural and subarachnoid) in adult patients with cancer. METHODS: Search strategy was elaborated with words related to cancer, pain, neuraxial route, analgesic and side effects. The search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane for the period until February 2014. Studies were analysed according to methods, results, quality of evidence, and strength of recommendation. RESULTS: The number of abstracts retrieved was 2147, and 84 articles were selected for full reading. The final selection comprised nine articles regarding randomised controlled trials (RCTs) divided in four groups: neuraxial combinations of opioid and adjuvant analgesic compared with neuraxial administration of opioid alone (n = 4); single neuraxial drug in bolus compared with continuous administration (n = 2); single neuraxial drug compared with neuraxial placebo (n = 1); and neuraxial opioid combined with or without adjuvant analgesic compared with other comprehensive medical management than neuraxial analgesics (n = 2). The RCTs presented clinical and methodological diversity that precluded a meta-analysis. They also presented several limitations, which reduced study internal validity. However, they demonstrated better pain control for all interventions analysed. Side effects were described, but there were few significant differences in favour of the tested interventions. CONCLUSION: Heterogeneous characteristics and several methodological limitations of the studies resulted in evidence of low quality and a weak recommendation for neuraxial administration of opioids with or without adjuvant analgesics in adult patients with cancer.

Evidence of peripheral nerve blocks for cancer-related pain: a systematic review.

The European Association for Palliative Care has initiated a comprehensive program to achieve an over-all review of the evidence of multiple cancer pain management strategies in order to extend the current guideline for treatment of cancer pain. The present systematic review analyzed the existing evidence of analgesic efficacy for peripheral nerve blocks in adult patients with cancer. A search strategy was elaborated with words related to cancer, pain, peripheral nerve and block. The search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane for the period until February 2014. The number of abstracts retrieved was 155. No controlled studies were identified. Sixteen papers presented a total of 79 cases. The blocks applied were paravertebral blocks (10 cases), blocks in the head region (2 cases), plexus blocks (13 cases), intercostal blocks (43 cases) and others (11 cases). In general, most cases reported good pain relief and no side effects. The use of peripheral blocks is based upon anecdotal evidence. However, this review only demonstrates the lack of studies, which does not equal a lack of effectiveness.

Spinal neuronal correlates of tapentadol analgesia in cancer pain: a back-translational approach.

BACKGROUND: Pain is a common and highly debilitating complication for cancer patients significantly compromising their quality of life. Cancer-induced bone pain involves a complex interplay of multiple mechanisms including both inflammatory and neuropathic processes and also some unique changes. Strong opioids are a mainstay of treatments but side effects are problematic and can compromise optimal pain control. Tapentadol is a novel dual-action drug, both stimulating inhibitory µ-opioid receptors (MOR) and mediating noradrenaline reuptake inhibition (NRI) leading to activation of the inhibitory α-2 adrenoceptor. It has been demonstrated to treat effectively both acute and chronic pain. We here demonstrate the efficacy in a model of cancer-induced bone pain. METHODS: MRMT-1 mammary carcinoma cells were inoculated into the tibia of 6-week-old rats and 2 weeks after, the neuronal responses to a wide range of peripheral stimulation were evaluated. The recordings were made from wide-dynamic range neurons in lamina V of the dorsal horn before and after administration of tapentadol as well as antagonists of the two mechanisms, naloxone or atipamezole. RESULTS: We found marked inhibitions of the neuronal activity with efficacy against mechanical, thermal and electrically evoked activity following tapentadol administration. In addition, the effects of the drug were fully reversible by naloxone and partly by atipamezole, supporting the idea of MOR-NRI dual actions. CONCLUSIONS: These findings add to the mechanistic understanding of cancer-induced bone pain and support the sparse clinical data indicating a possible use of the drug as a therapeutic alternative for cancer patients with metastatic pain complication.

Pan-European, open-label dose titration study of fentanyl buccal tablet in patients with breakthrough cancer pain.

BACKGROUND: Fentanyl buccal tablet (FBT), a rapid onset opioid used to treat breakthrough cancer pain, must be titrated to an effective dose that provides adequate analgesia and minimizes undesirable events. This open-label, randomized study compared the percentage of patients achieving an effective dose of FBT when starting titration at 100 or 200 µg. METHODS: Opioid-tolerant patients with chronic cancer-related pain who experienced up to four breakthrough pain episodes daily were randomized to a starting dose of 100 or 200 µg for the titration period. The dose was increased until an effective dose (100, 200, 400, 600 or 800 µg) providing adequate analgesia with acceptable adverse events was achieved. Patients achieving an effective dose entered a treatment period during which they treated up to eight breakthrough pain episodes with their effective dose. RESULTS: A total of 442 patients from 135 sites in seven European countries were screened. Non-inferiority was established with the percentage of patients achieving an effective dose starting titration at 200 µg (81.4%) compared with the 100-µg (75.2%) starting dose. The most common effective doses of FBT were 200 µg (39.6%) and 400 µg (26.9%). No new safety concerns were identified with use of FBT at doses up to 800 µg per episode. CONCLUSIONS: This study involving a real clinical practice setting showed a similar percentage of patients safely achieving an effective dose by titration starting with 100 versus 200 µg of FBT.

Efficacy, tolerability and virological consequences of long-term use of unboosted atazanavir plus 2 NRTIs in HIV-infected patients.

PURPOSE: Switch to unboosted atazanavir (ATV) is an attractive option due to convenience and tolerability in HIV-positive patients. With limited available data we investigated the determinants of long-term efficacy and the consequences of virological failure of unboosted atazanavir-based regimens. METHODS: Retrospective analysis in two Italian large outpatient clinics including demographic, immunovirological, resistance and pharmacokinetic data. RESULTS: 249 patients receiving atazanavir (400 mg once-daily) plus 2 NRTIs were included; 163 were males (65.5%) and median age was 47 years (42-51.5). Median CD4+ T-cell count was 396/uL (261-583); 146 (58.6%) presented a viral load < 50 copies/mL. Over a median follow up of 157 weeks (106-203) 193 patients (77.5%) were still on treatment with 10 (4%) and 2 (0.8%) stopping for virological failure or toxicity, respectively. Ten patients with virological failure presented newly selected resistance associated mutations (RAMs) for NRTIs (2/10) or ATV (4/10, one I50L). Total cholesterol and triglycerides showed significant decreases at 48 [-4 mg/dL and -41 mg/dL] and 96 weeks [-14 mg/dL and -54 mg/dL] as compared to baseline. At multivariate analysis a genotypic sensitivity score ≤ 1, atazanavir RAMs > 1 and suboptimal adherence were independently associated with virological failure; in lamivudine/emtricitabine-treated patients the presence of M184V (without other NRTI RAMs) was not associated with virological failure. CONCLUSION: Unboosted-atazanavir containing regimens were efficacious (with uncommon virological failures) and well-tolerated (with improvements in lipid profile over time) treatments in HIV-positive patients. Isolated M184V in lamivudine/emtricitabine recipients was not associated with higher failure rates supporting the use of functional ATV-based dual therapies as maintenance strategies.

Conversion of spinal anesthesia into general anesthesia: an evaluation of more than 35,000 spinal anesthetics.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the number of conversions from spinal anesthesia (SA) into general anesthesia (GA) in a large number of patients who underwent surgery over a period of twenty-one years. METHODS: From the hospital's database, all surgical procedures performed under SA between January 1, 1988 and December 31, 2008 were retrieved. From this file, all SA cases converted into GA cases requiring endotracheal intubation were selected. Patients were divided in four groups, according to the reason for GA: IMPOSS (SA impossible to perform), FAIL (SA non profound enough for allowing surgery, even with light sedation), INSUFF (SA inadequate for unexpected prolonged duration of surgery), and COMPL (occurrence of complications associated with SA and requiring rapid control of ventilation). Anesthesiologists who performed SA were divided according their experience. The outcomes of patients converted to GA were compared with a matched sample of patients who received planned GA. RESULTS: A total of 35,960 SA cases were performed from 1988 to 2008; 29,220 and 6,740 SA cases were for elective and emergency surgery, respectively. Two hundred seventeen (0.6%) SA cases were converted into GA cases; 80.2% and 19.8% of the conversions were recorded in elective and emergency operations, respectively, with obstetric operations being the most prevalent (82/217). The primary reasons for the conversions, in a rank order, were INSUFF 107 (49.3%), FAIL 84 (38.7%), IMPOSS 13 (5.9%), and COMPL 13 (5.9%). Complications more frequently occurred in the aged population (P<0.05). Anesthesiologists with less experience had higher percentages of FAIL, IMPOSS, INSUFF, and COMPL SA cases in comparison with experienced anesthesiologists (odd ratios being 4.7, 3.0, 2.4, and 4.4, respectively). There was no difference in the frequency of complications compared to a matched sample of 1,000 patients who underwent GA (P=0.65). CONCLUSION: SA has been found to be a safe and highly effective technique. Failure of SA was infrequent in a large number of patients surveyed and most often occurred with less experienced anesthesiologists. Conversion to GA did not produced different outcomes in comparison with planned GA. Prospective studies with a definite protocol for recording data performed on a large number of patients may help in determining the factors associated with conversion from SA into GA and how to avoid these unexpected situations.

Palliative care in Italy: problem areas emerging from the literature.

The aim of this study was to review the Italian literature regarding attitudes toward palliative care in cancer patients, as well as cultural, educational and organizational problems in Italy with respect to palliative care services. The Italian literature published in the last ten years on PUBMED was reviewed. Clinical trials were excluded from this analysis, as their focus was beyond the scope of this study. Non-cancer studies were also excluded. Thirty-nine papers were retrieved. Several weaknesses were recognized in the studies, including a lack of knowledge and negative attitudes regarding cancer pain management and the use of alternative treatments. Communication with patients and family was also inadequate. In general, poor organization of palliative care services was also shown. An appropriate place to die was often not guaranteed and was dependent on the availability of local resources. However, the most striking finding was that there were geographical differences in the distribution of palliative care resources. The development of a range of palliative care programs integrating primary territorial care and specialized palliative services may constitute the ideal synthesis to respond to patients' needs.

Salivary gland dysfunction ('dry mouth') in patients with cancer: a consensus statement.

A group of interested professionals was convened to develop some evidence-based recommendations on the management of salivary gland dysfunction (SGD) in oncology patients. A Medline search was performed to identify the literature on SGD. The abstracts of all identified papers were read, and the full texts of all relevant papers were reviewed. The evidence was graded according to the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network grading system for recommendations in evidence-based guidelines. The summary of the main recommendations are: (1) patients with cancer should be regularly assessed for SGD (grade of recommendation - D); (2) the management of SGD should be individualised (D); (3) consideration should be given to strategies to prevent the development of radiation-induced SGD (C); (4) consideration should be given to treatment of the cause(s) of the SGD (C); (5) the treatment of choice for the symptomatic management of SGD is use of an appropriate saliva stimulant (C); (6) consideration should be given to prevention of the complications of the SGD (D); (7) consideration should be given to treatment of the complications of the SGD (D); and (8) patients with SGD should be regularly reassessed (D).

A comparison of intranasal fentanyl spray with oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate for the treatment of breakthrough cancer pain: an open-label, randomised, crossover trial.

OBJECTIVE: The efficacy of intranasal fentanyl spray (INFS) was compared with that of oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate (OTFC) for the relief of cancer-related breakthrough pain (BTP) in an open-label, crossover trial. METHODS: Adult cancer patients receiving stable background opioid treatment and experiencing BTP episodes were recruited from 44 study centres in seven European countries (Austria, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom); of the 196 patients enrolled, 139 were randomised to receive INFS followed by OTFC, or vice versa. Patients were titrated to an effective dose of one agent (50, 100 or 200 microg INFS; 200, 400, 600, 800, 1200 or 1600 microg OTFC) to treat six BTP episodes, then titration and treatment were repeated with the other agent. The primary outcome was patient-recorded time to onset of 'meaningful' pain relief. Secondary outcomes included pain intensity difference (PID) at 10 and 30 minutes (PID(10), PID(30)), sum of PID at 15 and 60 minutes (SPID(0-15), SPID(0-60)), ease of administration, treatment preference and relationship between background opioid dose and effective INFS dose. Additional outcome measures included proportions of episodes with > or =33% and > or =50% pain intensity (PI) reduction, and PID at additional time points. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00496392. RESULTS: Among the intention-to-treat population (n = 139), median time to onset of 'meaningful' pain relief was 11 minutes with INFS versus 16 minutes with OTFC; 65.7% of patients attained faster time to 'meaningful' pain-relief onset with INFS (p < 0.001). PID was statistically significantly greater for INFS than OTFC from 5 minutes post-dosing. Significantly more INFS-treated breakthrough pain episodes achieved clinically important pain relief (> or =33% and > or =50% PI reduction) up to 30 minutes post-dosing. The proportions of episodes treated with INFS and OTFC achieving a PI reduction of > or =33% at 5 minutes were 25.3% versus 6.8% (p < 0.001), and at 10 minutes were 51.0% versus 23.6% (p < 0.001), respectively; the proportions of episodes treated with INFS and OTFC achieving a > or =50% PI reduction at 5 minutes were 12.8% versus 2.1% (p < 0.001), and at 10 minutes were 36.9% versus 9.7% (p < 0.001), respectively. Higher SPID(0-15) and SPID(0-60) scores were achieved with INFS (p < 0.001). More patients preferred INFS than OTFC (p < 0.001) and more patients found it very easy/easy to use. Both treatments were well tolerated. In the safety population (n = 139), 56.8% (n = 79) of patients experienced > or =1 AE during the trial. The only AE that occurred in > or =5% of patients in either treatment group was nausea. Among those patients who experienced serious AEs (13.7%, n = 19), none were considered to be related to either study medication. There was a weak correlation between effective INFS doses and background opioid doses. CONCLUSION: In this open-label, randomised, crossover trial, significantly more patients attained faster 'meaningful' pain relief with INFS than OTFC, and more patients preferred INFS to OTFC.

Clinical and financial analysis of an acute palliative care unit in an oncological department.

The aim of this article is to describe the clinical activity and medical intervention of an acute model of palliative care unit (APC), as well as the reimbursement procedures and economic viability. A sample of 504 patients admitted at an APC in 1 year was surveyed. Indications for admission, pain and symptom intensity, analgesic treatments, procedures, instrumental examinations and modalities of discharge were recorded. For each patient, tariff for reimbursement was calculated according to the existent disease related grouping (DRG) system. The mean age was 62 years, and 246 patients were males. The mean hospital stay was 5.4 days. Pain control was the most frequent indication for admission. All patients had laboratory tests and several instrumental examinations. Almost all patients were prescribed one or more opioids at significant doses, and different routes of administration, as well as medication as needed. 59 patients received blood cell transfusions and 34 interventional procedures. Only 40 patients died in the unit, 11 of them being sedated at the end of life. Treatment efficacy was considered optimal and mild in 264 and 226 patients respectively. A mean of 3019 euros for admission was reimbursed by the Health Care System. APCs are of paramount importance within an oncological department, as they provide effective and intensive treatments during the entire course of disease, providing a simultaneous and integrated approach. Our findings also suggest both a cost and quality incentive for oncological departments to develop APC.

Transmucosal fentanyl vs intravenous morphine in doses proportional to basal opioid regimen for episodic-breakthrough pain.

The use of supplemental doses of opioids is commonly suggested to manage breakthrough pain. A comparative study of intravenous morphine (IV-MO) and oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate (OTFC) given in doses proportional to the basal opioid regimen was performed in 25 cancer patients receiving stable opioid doses. For each episode, when it occurred and 15 and 30 min after the treatment, pain intensity and opioid-related symptoms were recorded. Fifty-three couples of breakthrough events, each treated with IV-MO and OTFC, were recorded. In episodes treated with IV-MO, pain intensity decreased from a mean of 6.9 to 3.3 and to 1.7 at T1 and T2, respectively. In episodes treated with OTFC, pain intensity decreased from a mean of 6.9 to 4.1 and to 2.4 at T1 and T2, respectively. Statistical differences between the two treatments were found at T1 (P=0.013), but not at T2 (P=0.059). Adverse effects were comparable and were not significantly related with the IV-MO and OTFC doses. Intravenous morphine and OTFC in doses proportional to the scheduled daily dose of opioids were both safe and effective, IV-MO having a shorter onset than OTFC. Future comparative studies with appropriate design should compare titration methods and proportional methods of OTFC dosing.

Use of antiepileptics and tricyclic antidepressants in cancer patients with neuropathic pain.

Using a large US health insurance claims database, we identified all persons aged > or =18 years with > or =2 medical encounters with diagnoses of cancer and > or =2 medical encounters with diagnoses of painful neuropathies in calendar year (CY) 2000; persons with seizure disorders or depression were excluded. We then examined the use of antiepileptics (AEDs), tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) and other pain-related pharmacotherapy among these selected persons, as proxied by pharmacy dispenses. A total of 956 persons were identified who met all entry criteria; 17% received AEDs in CY2000 and 14% received TCAs. Gabapentin was the most widely used AED (92% of all AED patients); amitriptyline was the most widely used TCA (79% of all TCA patients). Patients who received AEDs and/or TCAs were similar in age, gender and the presence of metastases to those who had not received these medications; they were more likely to have received other pain-related therapies, however, including short-acting opioids (73% vs. 53%; P < 0.01) and long-acting opioids (23% vs. 8%; P < 0.01). Use of AEDs and TCAs appears to be relatively low among cancer patients with painful neuropathies. Further research is needed to better understand reasons for this finding, as well as its potential implications for pain management in this patient population.