RESUMEN
Background: Intrathecal Drug Delivery Systems (IDDS) are underused in the management of cancer-related pain despite evidence of both efficacy and survival benefit. There is currently limited evidence to indicate which patients might benefit most from IDDS. Aim: The aim of the study was to describe the baseline characteristics and survival outcomes of patients who accepted IDDS, patients who declined IDDS and patients who wished to go ahead with IDDS but whose condition deteriorated before they could do so. Design/participants: The survival data for 75 consecutive patients who had been offered intrathecal drug delivery were examined as part of a retrospective cohort study. Survival data was compared between three groups: those who accepted intrathecal drug delivery and went on to receive it (n = 41), those who accepted it but whose condition deteriorated before it commenced (n = 17) and those who declined this treatment modality (n = 17). Results: Patients who received IDDS survived significantly longer after assessment compared to those who declined IDDS (hazard ratio (HR) for the IDDS group relative to the declined group 0.29 (95% CI 0.16 to 0.53), and 0.23 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.44) after adjustment for gender and baseline functional status. In patients who accepted IDDS but who were unable to commence treatment, survival after assessment was not significantly different from those who declined the IDDS (HR for the deteriorated group relative to the declined group 1.28 (95% CI 0.65 to 2.53), and 0.80 (95% CI 0.65 to 2.53) after adjustment for gender and baseline functional status). Conclusion: In this retrospective analysis, an improvement in survival may be associated with patients who accept ongoing pain management with an implanted intrathecal drug delivery system compared to those patients who either declined intrathecal drug delivery or deteriorated before it could be commenced.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Intrathecal Drug Delivery Systems are underutilised in the management of refractory cancer pain despite evidence of their efficacy. Not all patients who are offered this treatment modality accept it. There is no current evidence that indicates if the use of intrathecal drug delivery systems impacts on place of care for patients with cancer related pain. AIMS: This service evaluation compared place of care, place of death and morphine equivalent daily dose at end of life for patients in whom Intrathecal Drug Delivery was successfully established versus those who chose comprehensive medical management. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective longitudinal cohort study of 45 patients with cancer pain comparing those who had ongoing analgesia successfully delivered via an implanted Intrathecal Drug Delivery System (n = 28) with those who continued to receive comprehensive medical management (n = 17). RESULTS: There was a markedly greater time spent in the community in the intrathecal group than the medical management group (median 126.5vs 25.5 days; p = 0.002) and a lower morphine equivalent daily dose at end of life (median 127.5vs 440.0 p = 0.022). CONCLUSION: In patients with advanced cancer, the successful establishment of intrathecal analgesia is associated with more time in the community and a lower morphine equivalent daily dose at end of life. The study has low numbers, and the sample was retrospectively selected. Nevertheless, these findings suggest the initial investment of time in an inpatient setting may be beneficial. Further research is required, using larger, prospective studies of patient outcomes in this setting.
