Oral paracetamol (acetaminophen) for cancer pain

Opioid analgesics for nociceptive cancer pain: A comprehensive review

Pain is one of the most burdensome symptoms in people with cancer, and opioid analgesics are considered the mainstay of cancer pain management. For this review, the authors evaluated the efficacy and toxicities of opioid analgesics compared with placebo, other opioids, nonopioid analgesics, and nonpharmacologic treatments for background cancer pain (continuous and relatively constant pain present at rest), and breakthrough cancer pain (transient exacerbation of pain despite stable and adequately controlled background pain). They found a paucity of placebo-controlled trials for background cancer pain, although tapentadol or codeine may be more efficacious than placebo (moderate-certainty to low-certainty evidence). Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs including aspirin, piroxicam, diclofenac, ketorolac, and the antidepressant medicine imipramine, may be at least as efficacious as opioids for moderate-to-severe background cancer pain. For breakthrough cancer pain, oral transmucosal, buccal, sublingual, or intranasal fentanyl preparations were identified as more efficacious than placebo but were more commonly associated with toxicities, including constipation and nausea. Despite being recommended worldwide for the treatment of cancer pain, morphine was generally not superior to other opioids, nor did it have a more favorable toxicity profile. The interpretation of study results, however, was complicated by the heterogeneity in the study populations evaluated. Given the limited quality and quantity of research, there is a need to reappraise the clinical utility of opioids in people with cancer pain, particularly those who are not at the end of life, and to further explore the effects of opioids on immune system function and quality of life in these individuals.

Multimodal Analgesia in Pediatric Cancer Pain Management: A Retrospective Single-Center Study

Objectives A multimodal approach to pain management, including potential interventional techniques, is suggested to achieve adequate pain control. This study discusses the techniques and medications employed to manage pain in pediatric oncology patients. Methodology This study included 90 patients under 18 years of age who underwent pain management in the algology clinic between 2002 and 2020. From the algology follow-up records, the following data were recorded: demographic information, follow-up time, cancer diagnosis and stage, cause and location of pain, systems involved, duration and intensity of pain, analgesic and adjuvant drugs prescribed, routes and duration of drug administration, complications, interventional procedures if performed, "pain intensity" scores prior to and following treatment, and daily and total analgesic consumption of the patients. Results The mean age was 11.4±4.1 years (min-max: 2-17). Leukemia and lymphoma were the most frequently diagnosed (30%). Of the 31 features identified in the staging, 27 (87.1%) were stage 4 at admission. The causes of pain in children were neoplasms in 81.2% (n = 73). At admission, 72.3% (n = 65) had severe pain for at least a month. It was determined that 90% (n = 81) of the patients were using opioids and 28.9% (n = 26) were using dual opioids. The mean tramadol dose was 129.0±97.9 mg/day (12-380 mg/day), and the mean morphine dose was 14.8±11.3 mg/day (1-52 mg/day). The mean transdermal fentanyl dose was 33.2±21.6 µgr/h (12-75 µgr/h). Adjuvant therapy was administered in 25.6% (n = 24) of the patients. Epidural catheterization was performed on 6.6% (n = 6) of the patients. The mean initial pain scores were 5.2±1.7, which decreased to 1.5±0.7 with a significant difference (p < 0.001). In the study, 93% (n = 84) of the patients had no pain management complications noted. Conclusions The pain level that pediatric cancer patients endure critically influences their and their family's quality of life. The fact that opioid-related adverse effects associated with pediatric pain management occur far less frequently than previously thought may help prevent opiophobia. Effective and safe analgesia can be provided with multimodal analgesia to manage pediatric cancer pain.

Intravenous acetaminophen with morphine versus intravenous morphine alone for acute pain in the emergency room: protocol for a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded study (ADAMOPA)

BACKGROUND

In emergency medicine, pain is a frequent reason for consultation. However, there is a great variation in its management which is often insufficient. The use intravenous morphine alone or multimodal analgesia with paracetamol is recommended for severe pain. But robust data are lacking to justify the association of paracetamol with morphine versus morphine alone for pain management in the emergency room (ER). The aim of our study is therefore to assess if in patients with acute pain of moderate to severe intensity with a numerical verbal scale (NVS) ≥5 in the ER, the intravenous administration of morphine alone is not inferior to the administration of intravenous morphine combined with paracetamol at 30 min from the first administration of the study drug.

METHODS

ADAMOPA is a prospective, non-inferiority, multicenter, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, randomized (1:1), double-blind trial. Subjects will be enrolled in the ER if they experience moderate to severe, acute, non-traumatic, and traumatic pain, defined as an NVS ≥5. The primary endpoint will be the between-group difference in mean change in NVS pain scores among patients receiving the combination of intravenous morphine plus paracetamol or intravenous morphine given alone, measured from the time before administration of the study medication to 30 min later.

DISCUSSION

This trial will determine the clinical utility of the association of paracetamol with morphine for pain management in the emergency room. The ADAMOPA trial will be conducted in accordance with the International Council on Harmonization Good Clinical Practices.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

EudraCT number: 2019-002149-39.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov identifier: NCT04148495. Date of trial registration: November 1, 2019.

Managing Pain and Discomfort in Children with Cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Approximately 15,600 children are diagnosed with cancer annually. Many of these children have cancer-related pain that improves with cancer treatment, but some develop intractable pain from cancer progression or sequelae from treatment modalities. The purpose of this paper is to provide a critical evaluation of the literature relevant to pain management in children with cancer. We intend to emphasize important and up-to-date findings in pharmacology, interventional pain management, and complementary and alternative medicine.

RECENT FINDINGS

Alternative medications and routes of administration, complementary and alternative medicine techniques, and interventional pain procedures offer possible routes for a multi-pronged pediatric cancer pain management plan, although high-level data is often lacking. To improve pediatric cancer pain management, a multifaceted approach embracing the biopsychosocial model of pain is recommended, incorporating evidence-based pharmacology, complementary and alternative medicine techniques, and if needed, interventional pain procedures.

The Practice of Pain Assessment and Management in a Tertiary Oncology Center

Background

Pain is one of the common and devastating symptoms that affects millions of cancer patients globally. Despite published guidelines and education on the assessment and management of cancer-related pain, underestimated or undertreated pain continues to be a considerable worldwide public health concern among cancer patients. In this study, we aimed to assess physicians’ adherence to the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines in the management and assessment of pain in oncology patients based on the available score of pain in the Princess Noorah Oncology Center (PNOC) at the King Abdulaziz Medical City in Jeddah.

Methodology

This cross-sectional, retrospective chart review study studied 451 patients (selected through computerized random sampling) who were admitted to the PNOC during the study period.

Results

The pain was assessed using the Brief Pain Inventory in almost all patients (n = 450, 99.8%). The pain was categorized as mild in 386 (85.6%) patients, moderate in 46 (10.2%) patients, and severe in 19 (4.2%) patients. Opioid prescriptions were significantly higher among patients with moderate (76.1%) and severe pain (89.5%) compared to those with mild pain (39.1%; p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

The practice of pain documentation for cancer patients was adequate as indicated by reporting the pain scores of 99.8% of inpatients. Patients with moderate and severe pain were more likely to receive opioids and a combination of opioids plus non-opioid analgesics, whereas the prescription of analgesics was predicted by experiencing moderate cancer pain.

Systematic Review of Systemic and Neuraxial Effects of Acetaminophen in Preclinical Models of Nociceptive Processing

Acetaminophen (APAP) in humans has robust effects with a high therapeutic index in altering postoperative and inflammatory pain states in clinical and experimental pain paradigms with no known abuse potential. This review considers the literature reflecting the preclinical actions of acetaminophen in a variety of pain models. Significant observations arising from this review are as follows: 1) acetaminophen has little effect upon acute nociceptive thresholds; 2) acetaminophen robustly reduces facilitated states as generated by mechanical and thermal hyperalgesic end points in mouse and rat models of carrageenan and complete Freund’s adjuvant evoked inflammation; 3) an antihyperalgesic effect is observed in models of facilitated processing with minimal inflammation (eg, phase II intraplantar formalin); and 4) potent anti-hyperpathic effects on the thermal hyperalgesia, mechanical and cold allodynia, allodynic thresholds in rat and mouse models of polyneuropathy and mononeuropathies and bone cancer pain. These results reflect a surprisingly robust drug effect upon a variety of facilitated states that clearly translate into a wide range of efficacy in preclinical models and to important end points in human therapy. The specific systems upon which acetaminophen may act based on targeted delivery suggest both a spinal and a supraspinal action. Review of current targets for this molecule excludes a role of cyclooxygenase inhibitor but includes effects that may be mediated through metabolites acting on the TRPV1 channel, or by effect upon cannabinoid and serotonin signaling. These findings suggest that the mode of action of acetaminophen, a drug with a long therapeutic history of utilization, has surprisingly robust effects on a variety of pain states in clinical patients and in preclinical models with a good therapeutic index, but in spite of its extensive use, its mechanisms of action are yet poorly understood.

Multifarious Targets and Recent Developments in the Therapeutics for the Management of Bone Cancer Pain

Bone cancer pain (BCP) is a distinct pain state showing characteristics of both neuropathic and inflammatory pain. On average, almost 46% of cancer patients exhibit BCP with numbers flaring up to as high as 76% for terminally ill patients. Patients suffering from BCP experience a compromised quality of life, and the unavailability of effective therapeutics makes this a more devastating condition. In every individual cancer patient, the pain is driven by different mechanisms at different sites. The mechanisms behind the manifestation of BCP are very complex and poorly understood, which creates a substantial barrier to drug development. Nevertheless, some of the key mechanisms involved have been identified and are being explored further to develop targeted molecules. Developing a multitarget approach might be beneficial in this case as the underlying mechanism is not fixed and usually a number of these pathways are simultaneously dysregulated. In this review, we have discussed the role of recently identified novel modulators and mechanisms involved in the development of BCP. They include ion channels and receptors involved in sensing alteration of temperature and acidic microenvironment, immune system activation, sodium channels, endothelins, protease-activated receptors, neurotrophins, motor proteins mediated trafficking of glutamate receptor, and some bone-specific mechanisms. Apart from this, we have also discussed some of the novel approaches under preclinical and clinical development for the treatment of bone cancer pain.

Hydromorphone for cancer pain

BACKGROUND

This is an update of the original Cochrane Review first published in Issue 10, 2016. For people with advanced cancer, the prevalence of pain can be as high as 90%. Cancer pain is a distressing symptom that tends to worsen as the disease progresses. Evidence suggests that opioid pharmacotherapy is the most effective of these therapies. Hydromorphone appears to be an alternative opioid analgesic which may help relieve these symptoms.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the analgesic efficacy of hydromorphone in relieving cancer pain, as well as the incidence and severity of any adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and clinical trials registers in November 2020. We applied no language, document type or publication status limitations to the search.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared hydromorphone with placebo, an alternative opioid or another active control, for cancer pain in adults and children. Primary outcomes were participant-reported pain intensity and pain relief; secondary outcomes were specific adverse events, serious adverse events, quality of life, leaving the study early and death.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data. We calculated risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for binary outcomes on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis. We estimated mean difference (MD) between groups and 95% CI for continuous data. We used a random-effects model and assessed risk of bias for all included studies. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created three summary of findings tables.

MAIN RESULTS

With four new identified studies, the review includes a total of eight studies (1283 participants, with data for 1181 participants available for analysis), which compared hydromorphone with oxycodone (four studies), morphine (three studies) or fentanyl (one study). All studies included adults with cancer pain, mean age ranged around 53 to 59 years and the proportion of men ranged from 42% to 67.4%. We judged all the studies at high risk of bias overall because they had at least one domain with high risk of bias. We found no studies including children. We did not complete a meta-analysis for the primary outcome of pain intensity due to skewed data and different comparators investigated across the studies (oxycodone, morphine and fentanyl). Comparison 1: hydromorphone compared with placebo We identified no studies comparing hydromorphone with placebo. Comparison 2: hydromorphone compared with oxycodone Participant-reported pain intensity We found no clear evidence of a difference in pain intensity (measured using a visual analogue scale (VAS)) in people treated with hydromorphone compared with those treated with oxycodone, but the evidence is very uncertain (3 RCTs, 381 participants, very low-certainty evidence). Participant-reported pain relief We found no studies reporting participant-reported pain relief. Specific adverse events We found no clear evidence of a difference in nausea (RR 1.13 95% CI 0.74 to 1.73; 3 RCTs, 622 participants), vomiting (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.94; 3 RCTs, 622 participants), dizziness (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.44; 2 RCTs, 441 participants) and constipation (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.19; 622 participants) (all very low-certainty evidence) in people treated with hydromorphone compared with those treated with oxycodone, but the evidence is very uncertain. Quality of life We found no studies reporting quality of life. Comparison 3: hydromorphone compared with morphine Participant-reported pain intensity We found no clear evidence of a difference in pain intensity (measured using the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) or VAS)) in people treated with hydromorphone compared with those treated with morphine, but the evidence is very uncertain (2 RCTs, 433 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Participant-reported pain relief We found no clear evidence of a difference in the number of clinically improved participants, defined by 50% or greater pain relief rate, in the hydromorphone group compared with the morphine group, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.18; 1 RCT, 233 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Specific adverse events At 24 days of treatment, morphine may reduce constipation compared with hydromorphone, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.17; 1 RCT, 200 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We found no clear evidence of a difference in nausea (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.30; 1 RCT, 200 participants), vomiting (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.31; 1 RCT, 200 participants) and dizziness (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.88; 1 RCT, 200 participants) (all very low-certainty evidence) in people treated with hydromorphone compared with those treated with morphine, but the evidence is very uncertain. Quality of life We found no studies reporting quality of life. Comparison 4: hydromorphone compared with fentanyl Participant-reported pain intensity We found no clear evidence of a difference in pain intensity (measured by numerical rating scale (NRS)) at 60 minutes in people treated with hydromorphone compared with those treated with fentanyl, but the evidence is very uncertain (1 RCT, 82 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Participant-reported pain relief We found no studies reporting participant-reported pain relief. Specific adverse events We found no studies reporting specific adverse events. Quality of life We found no studies reporting quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence of the benefits and harms of hydromorphone compared with other analgesics is very uncertain. The studies reported some adverse events, such as nausea, vomiting, dizziness and constipation, but generally there was no clear evidence of a difference between hydromorphone and morphine, oxycodone or fentanyl for this outcome. There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of hydromorphone for cancer pain in comparison with other analgesics on the reported outcomes. Further research with larger sample sizes and more comprehensive outcome data collection is required.

Paracetamol: A Review of Guideline Recommendations

Musculoskeletal pain conditions are age-related, leading contributors to chronic pain and pain-related disability, which are expected to rise with the rapid global population aging. Current medical treatments provide only partial relief. Furthermore, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and opioids are effective in young and otherwise healthy individuals but are often contraindicated in elderly and frail patients. As a result of its favorable safety and tolerability record, paracetamol has long been the most common drug for treating pain. Strikingly, recent reports questioned its therapeutic value and safety. This review aims to present guideline recommendations. Paracetamol has been assessed in different conditions and demonstrated therapeutic efficacy on both acute and chronic pain. It is active as a single agent and is additive or synergistic with NSAIDs and opioids, improving their efficacy and safety. However, a lack of significant efficacy and hepatic toxicity have also been reported. Fast dissolving formulations of paracetamol provide superior and more extended pain relief that is similar to intravenous paracetamol. A dose reduction is recommended in patients with liver disease or malnourished. Genotyping may improve efficacy and safety. Within the current trend toward the minimization of opioid analgesia, it is consistently included in multimodal, non-opioid, or opioid-sparing therapies. Paracetamol is being recommended by guidelines as a first or second-line drug for acute pain and chronic pain, especially for patients with limited therapeutic options and for the elderly.

Pain Management in Childhood Leukemia: Diagnosis and Available Analgesic Treatments

Pain is one of the most common symptoms in children suffering from leukemia, who are often misdiagnosed with other childhood painful diseases such as juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Corticosteroid-induced osteonecrosis (ON) and vincristine-induced peripheral neuropathy (VIPN) are the most common painful manifestations. Additionally, ongoing pain may continue to impact quality of life in survivorship. This narrative review focuses on the pathophysiological mechanisms of pain in childhood leukemia and current available indications for analgesic treatments. Pain management in children is often inadequate because of difficulties in pain assessment, different indications across countries, and the lack of specific pediatric trials. Analgesic drugs are often prescribed off-label to children by extrapolating information from adult guidelines, with possible increased risk of adverse events. Optimal pain management should involve a multidisciplinary team to ensure assessment and interventions tailored to the individual patient.

The Roles of Battlefield Acupuncture and Electroacupuncture in a Patient with Cancer-Related Pain

Background: Pain is one of the most-frightening complications of cancer and disrupts quality of life. Cancer-related pain can be caused by primary cancer itself, metastases that occur, and interventions to treat cancer. Almost all cancer-related pain is pain with moderate-to-severe intensity. Thus, cancer-related pain management often involves administration of opioid analgesics. However, administration of opioid analgesics can cause side-effects that cause new problems for these patients. Several studies have shown that acupuncture can reduce cancer-related pain and data show that acupuncture therapy is safe and can provide clinically meaningful improvements when used in conjunction with standard therapy. Case: A 72-year-old female patient had pain throughout her body since 1 month prior to before being admitted to the hospital. She was unable to sleep at night often cried because she was unable to stand the pain. This was reduced by morphine 3 × /day. Because of the drug's side-effects, she slept more often during the day, could not sleep at night, and was constipated. She also had breakthrough pain, on an average of 2-3 × /day. She had a history of malignancy in the pleura, liver, lungs, and cervix. There was an increase in some tumor markers. Her baseline numeric rating scale (NRS) assessment was 4 with an oral morphine slow-release tablet 3 × 15 mg/day. Acupuncture therapy was performed at Battlefield Acupuncture points of the right ear and body acupuncture points (LI 4, LI 11, ST 36, SP 6, and LR 3) was treated with 3-Hz continuous-wave electroacupuncture for 30 minutes at each session. During this therapy, there were reductions in pain (baseline NRS 4 became 2), need for morphine, morphine side-effects, and frequency of breakthrough pain. There were no significant side-effects due to acupuncture. Conclusions: Acupuncture is an effective and safe therapeutic option for reducing cancer pain with minimal side-effects. Acupuncture can enable a reduced need for narcotic analgesics.

Viral and atypical respiratory co-infections in COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives

Respiratory co-infections have the potential to affect the diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19 patients. This meta-analysis was performed to analyze the prevalence of respiratory pathogens (viruses and atypical bacteria) in COVID-19 patients.

Methods

This review was consistent with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Searched databases included: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and grey literature. Studies with a series of SARS-CoV-2-positive patients with additional respiratory pathogen testing were included. Independently, 2 authors extracted data and assessed quality of evidence across all studies using Cochrane's Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology and within each study using the Newcastle Ottawa scale. Data extraction and quality assessment disagreements were settled by a third author. Pooled prevalence of co-infections was calculated using a random-effects model with univariate meta-regression performed to assess the effect of study subsets on heterogeneity. Publication bias was evaluated using funnel plot inspection, Begg's correlation, and Egger's test.

Results

Eighteen retrospective cohorts and 1 prospective study were included. Pooling of data (1880 subjects) showed an 11.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 6.9-17.4, I 2 = 0.92) pooled prevalence of respiratory co-pathogens. Studies with 100% co-pathogen testing (1210 subjects) found a pooled prevalence of 16.8% (95% CI = 8.1-27.9, I 2 = 0.95) and studies using serum antibody tests (488 subjects) found a pooled prevalence of 26.8% (95%, CI = 7.9-51.9, I 2 = 0.97). Meta-regression found no moderators affecting heterogeneity.

Conclusion

Co-infection with respiratory pathogens is a common and potentially important occurrence in patients with COVID-19. Knowledge of the prevalence and type of co-infections may have diagnostic and management implications.

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

The Indian Society for Study of Pain (ISSP), Cancer Pain Special Interest Group guidelines on pharmacological management of cancer pain in adults provides a structured, step-wise approach which will help to improve the management of cancer pain and to provide the 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 drafts 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 (IAPC) members. We recommend that analgesics for cancer pain management should follow the World Health Organization three-step analgesic ladder appropriate for the severity of pain. The use of paracetamol and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs alone or in combination with opioids for mild-to-moderate pain should be used. For mild-to-moderate pain, weak opioids such as tramadol, tapentadol, and codeine can be given in combination with nonopioid analgesics. We recommend morphine as the opioid of first choice for moderate-to-severe cancer pain.

Managing Pain in the Older Cancer Patient

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This paper aims to give the specialist and non-specialist alike an overview of the considerations involved in the management of cancer-related pain in the older population.

RECENT FINDINGS

Comprehensive guidelines on cancer pain management have been published recently by expert bodies. Cancer pain differs in many respects to other pain conditions and we are likely to encounter it more frequently in older patients in the future. The elderly are more sensitive to the effects of many analgesic medications. The elderly patient with cancer pain presents a unique challenge to the treating physician. The biological effects of ageing impact on the efficacy of many pain management strategies as well as its diagnosis and assessment. Treatment options can be broadly divided into pharmacological, non-pharmacological and interventional. A multidisciplinary approach and frequent re-assessment are essential in achieving favourable outcomes in this patient group.

Pharmacokinetics of ropivacaine in elderly patients receiving fascia iliaca compartment block

Local anesthetic of ropivacaine was demonstrated to reduce the postoperative pain in elderly patients. This study investigated the pharmacokinetics of ropivacaine at different concentrations in elderly patients subjected to fascia iliaca compartment block. Forty patients with femoral neck fracture at American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I-II status, undergoing fascia iliaca compartment block (FICB) were randomized to two groups receiving 0.7 ml/kg of solution containing 0.375% ropivacaine (group L) or 0.5% ropivacaine (group H). Samples of venous blood were obtained immediately at different time points after FICB, and the total and free plasma concentrations of ropivacaine were measured by liquid chromatography-electrospray ionization-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-ESI-MS/MS). Statistical analysis was carried out using a pharmacokinetic calculation program (DAS 3.0). Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores were significantly decreased after FICB in both groups, and VAS score in group H was lower compared with group L. The total maximum plasma concentration (C_max) and the free C_max of ropivacaine in group H was higher than that in group L (P<0.05). The decrease of the total and free plasma concentration was operation time-dependent. Neither group showed signs of central nervous system and circulatory system toxicity. On the basis of these results, the concentrations of 0.375 and 0.5% ropivacaine held an efficiently analgesic effect for FICB, suggesting that ropivacaine can be employed in analgesic therapy. However, both concentrations have a potentially theoretical risk of local anesthetics poisoning, suggesting that a lower concentration may be a safer option for a single large volume of FICB.

Real-life management of patients with breakthrough cancer pain caused by bone metastases in Spain

Purpose: We aimed to explore the characteristics, and real-life therapeutic management of patients with breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP) caused by bone metastases in Spain, and to evaluate physicians’ opinion of and satisfaction with prescribed BTcP therapy.

Participants and methods: For the purposes of this study, an ad-hoc questionnaire was developed consisting of two domains: a) organizational aspects and care standards; b) clinical and treatment variables of bone metastatic BTcP patients. In addition, physicians’ satisfaction with their prescribed BTcP therapy was assessed. Specialists collected data from up to five patients receiving treatment for BTcP caused by bone metastasis, all patients gave their consent to participate prior to inclusion.

Results: A total of 103 cancer pain specialists (radiation oncologists [38.8%], pain specialists [33.0%], and palliative care (PC) specialists [21.4%]) were polled, and data on 386 BTcP patients with bone metastatic disease were collected. Only 33% of the specialists had implemented specific protocols for BTcP management, and 19.4% had established referral protocols for this group of patients. Half of all participants (50.5%) address quality of life and quality of care in their patients; however, only 27.0% did so from the patient’s perspective, as they should do. Most patients had multiple metastases and were prescribed rapid-onset fentanyl preparations (71.2%), followed by immediate-release morphine (9.3%) for the treatment of BTcP. Rapid-onset fentanyl was prescribed more often in PC units (79.0%) than in pain units (75.9%) and radiation oncology units (61.1%) (p<0.01). Furthermore, most physicians (71.8%) were satisfied with the BTcP therapy prescribed.

Conclusions: Our results demonstrate the need for routine assessment of quality of life in patients with bone BTcP. These findings also underscore the necessity for a multidisciplinary therapeutic strategy for breakthrough pain in clinical practice in Spain.

Pregabalin for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

This review updates part of an earlier Cochrane Review titled "Pregabalin for acute and chronic pain in adults", and considers only neuropathic pain (pain from damage to nervous tissue). Antiepileptic drugs have long been used in pain management. Pregabalin is an antiepileptic drug used in management of chronic pain conditions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of pregabalin for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase for randomised controlled trials from January 2009 to April 2018, online clinical trials registries, and reference lists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind trials of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing pregabalin (any route of administration) with placebo or another active treatment for neuropathic pain, with participant-reported pain assessment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality and biases. Primary outcomes were: at least 30% pain intensity reduction over baseline; much or very much improved on the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) Scale (moderate benefit); at least 50% pain intensity reduction; or very much improved on PGIC (substantial benefit). We calculated risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial (NNTB) or harmful outcome (NNTH). We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 45 studies lasting 2 to 16 weeks, with 11,906 participants - 68% from 31 new studies. Oral pregabalin doses of 150 mg, 300 mg, and 600 mg daily were compared with placebo. Postherpetic neuralgia, painful diabetic neuropathy, and mixed neuropathic pain predominated (85% of participants). High risk of bias was due mainly to small study size (nine studies), but many studies had unclear risk of bias, mainly due to incomplete outcome data, size, and allocation concealment.Postherpetic neuralgia: More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 300 mg than with placebo (50% vs 25%; RR 2.1 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.6 to 2.6); NNTB 3.9 (3.0 to 5.6); 3 studies, 589 participants, moderate-quality evidence), and more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (32% vs 13%; RR 2.5 (95% CI 1.9 to 3.4); NNTB 5.3 (3.9 to 8.1); 4 studies, 713 participants, moderate-quality evidence). More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 600 mg than with placebo (62% vs 24%; RR 2.5 (95% CI 2.0 to 3.2); NNTB 2.7 (2.2 to 3.7); 3 studies, 537 participants, moderate-quality evidence), and more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (41% vs 15%; RR 2.7 (95% CI 2.0 to 3.5); NNTB 3.9 (3.1 to 5.5); 4 studies, 732 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Somnolence and dizziness were more common with pregabalin than with placebo (moderate-quality evidence): somnolence 300 mg 16% versus 5.5%, 600 mg 25% versus 5.8%; dizziness 300 mg 29% versus 8.1%, 600 mg 35% versus 8.8%.Painful diabetic neuropathy: More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 300 mg than with placebo (47% vs 42%; RR 1.1 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.2); NNTB 22 (12 to 200); 8 studies, 2320 participants, moderate-quality evidence), more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (31% vs 24%; RR 1.3 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.5); NNTB 22 (12 to 200); 11 studies, 2931 participants, moderate-quality evidence), and more had PGIC much or very much improved (51% vs 30%; RR 1.8 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.0); NNTB 4.9 (3.8 to 6.9); 5 studies, 1050 participants, moderate-quality evidence). More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 600 mg than with placebo (63% vs 52%; RR 1.2 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.4); NNTB 9.6 (5.5 to 41); 2 studies, 611 participants, low-quality evidence), and more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (41% vs 28%; RR 1.4 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.7); NNTB 7.8 (5.4 to 14); 5 studies, 1015 participants, low-quality evidence). Somnolence and dizziness were more common with pregabalin than with placebo (moderate-quality evidence): somnolence 300 mg 11% versus 3.1%, 600 mg 15% versus 4.5%; dizziness 300 mg 13% versus 3.8%, 600 mg 22% versus 4.4%.Mixed or unclassified post-traumatic neuropathic pain: More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 600 mg than with placebo (48% vs 36%; RR 1.2 (1.1 to 1.4); NNTB 8.2 (5.7 to 15); 4 studies, 1367 participants, low-quality evidence), and more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (34% vs 20%; RR 1.5 (1.2 to 1.9); NNTB 7.2 (5.4 to 11); 4 studies, 1367 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Somnolence (12% vs 3.9%) and dizziness (23% vs 6.2%) were more common with pregabalin.Central neuropathic pain: More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 600 mg than with placebo (44% vs 28%; RR 1.6 (1.3 to 2.0); NNTB 5.9 (4.1 to 11); 3 studies, 562 participants, low-quality evidence) and at least 50% pain intensity reduction (26% vs 15%; RR 1.7 (1.2 to 2.3); NNTB 9.8 (6.0 to 28); 3 studies, 562 participants, low-quality evidence). Somnolence (32% vs 11%) and dizziness (23% vs 8.6%) were more common with pregabalin.Other neuropathic pain conditions: Studies show no evidence of benefit for 600 mg pregabalin in HIV neuropathy (2 studies, 674 participants, moderate-quality evidence) and limited evidence of benefit in neuropathic back pain or sciatica, neuropathic cancer pain, or polyneuropathy.Serious adverse events, all conditions: Serious adverse events were no more common with placebo than with pregabalin 300 mg (3.1% vs 2.6%; RR 1.2 (95% CI 0.8 to 1.7); 17 studies, 4112 participants, high-quality evidence) or pregabalin 600 mg (3.4% vs 3.4%; RR 1.1 (95% CI 0.8 to 1.5); 16 studies, 3995 participants, high-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence shows efficacy of pregabalin in postherpetic neuralgia, painful diabetic neuralgia, and mixed or unclassified post-traumatic neuropathic pain, and absence of efficacy in HIV neuropathy; evidence of efficacy in central neuropathic pain is inadequate. Some people will derive substantial benefit with pregabalin; more will have moderate benefit, but many will have no benefit or will discontinue treatment. There were no substantial changes since the 2009 review.

Treatment of Pain in Cancer: Towards Personalised Medicine

Despite increased attention to cancer pain, pain prevalence in patients with cancer has not improved over the last decade and one third of cancer patients on anticancer therapy and half of patients with advanced disease still suffer from moderate to severe pain. In this review, we explore the possible reasons for the ongoing high prevalence of cancer pain and discuss possible future directions for improvement in personalised pain management. Among possible reasons for the lack of improvement are: Barriers for patients to discuss pain with clinicians spontaneously; pain measurement instruments are not routinely used in daily practice; limited knowledge concerning the assessment of undertreatment; changes in patients’ characteristics, including the ageing of the population; lack of significant improvement in the treatment of neuropathic pain; limitations of pharmacological treatment and lack of evidence-based nonpharmacological treatment strategies. In order to improve cancer pain treatment, we recommend: (1) Physicians proactively ask about pain and measure pain using assessment instruments; (2) the development of an optimal tool measuring undertreatment; (3) educational interventions to improve health care workers’ skills in pain management; (4) the development of more effective and personalised pharmacological and nonpharmacological pain treatment.

Systematic review and meta-analysis on non-opioid analgesics in palliative medicine

Non-opioid analgesics are widely used for pain relief in palliative medicine. However, there is a lack of evidence-based recommendations addressing the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of non-opioids in this field. A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis on current evidence can provide a basis for sound recommendations in clinical practice. A database search for controlled trials on the use of non-opioids in adult palliative patients was performed in Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and EMBASE from inception to 18 February 2018. Endpoints were pain intensity, opioid-sparing effects, safety, and quality of life. Studies with similar patients, interventions, and outcomes were included in the meta-analyses. Our systematic search was able to only identify studies dealing with cancer pain. Of 5991 retrieved studies, 43 could be included (n = 2925 patients). There was no convincing evidence for satisfactory pain relief by acetaminophen alone or in combination with strong opioids. We found substantial evidence of moderate quality for a satisfactory pain relief in cancer by non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), flupirtine, and dipyrone compared with placebo or other analgesics. There was no evidence for a superiority of one specific non-opioid. There was moderate quality of evidence for a similar pain reduction by NSAIDs in the usual dosage range compared with up to 15 mg of morphine or opioids of equianalgesic potency. The combination of NSAID and step III opioids showed a beneficial effect, without a decreased tolerability. There is scarce evidence concerning the combination of NSAIDs with weak opioids. There are no randomized-controlled studies on the use of non-opioids in a wide range of end-stage diseases except for cancer. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, flupirtine, and dipyrone can be recommended for the treatment of cancer pain either alone or in combination with strong opioids. The use of acetaminophen in the palliative setting cannot be recommended. Studies are not available for long-term use. There is a lack of evidence regarding pain treatment by non-opioids in specific cancer entities.

Updates in palliative care - overview and recent advancements in the pharmacological management of cancer pain

Pain is a common symptom in many types of cancer. Interdisciplinary team management, including pain assessment, explanation to the patient/family, treating the reversible, non-pharmacological treatments and reassessment are essential. This article focuses on the pharmacological management of cancer pain, and overviews and updates on the recent advances in this field. Both non-opioid and opioid analgesia as well as coanalgesics (adjuvants) are reviewed. Within non-opioid analgesia the risks of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are considered and recommendations for NSAIDs in patients at risk of gastrointestinal and cardiovascular toxicity are made. For opioid analgesics, side effects of opioids are discussed alongside practical guidance on opioid prescribing and converting between opioids. Newer drugs such as tapentadol are considered in this update. Amitriptyline, duloxetine, gabapentin and pregabalin, and the guidance for their use are reviewed in the coanalgesics (adjuvants) section.

Oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for cancer pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Pain is a common symptom with cancer, and 30% to 50% of all people with cancer will experience moderate to severe pain that can have a major negative impact on their quality of life. Non-opioid drugs are commonly used to treat cancer pain, and are recommended for this purpose in the World Health Organization (WHO) cancer pain treatment ladder, either alone or in combination with opioids.A previous Cochrane review that examined the evidence for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or paracetamol, alone or combined with opioids, for cancer pain was withdrawn in 2015 because it was out of date; the date of the last search was 2005. This review, and another on paracetamol, updates the evidence.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of oral NSAIDs for cancer pain in adults, and the adverse events reported during their use in clinical trials.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase from inception to April 2017, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, and two online study registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, single-blind, or open-label studies of five days' duration or longer, comparing any oral NSAID alone with placebo or another NSAID, or a combination of NSAID plus opioid with the same dose of the opioid alone, for cancer pain of any pain intensity. The minimum study size was 25 participants per treatment arm at the initial randomisation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality and potential bias. We did not carry out any pooled analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven studies satisfied inclusion criteria, lasting one week or longer; 949 participants with mostly moderate or severe pain were randomised initially, but fewer completed treatment or had results of treatment. Eight studies were double-blind, two single-blind, and one open-label. None had a placebo only control; eight compared different NSAIDs, three an NSAID with opioid or opioid combination, and one both. None compared an NSAID plus opioid with the same dose of opioid alone. Most studies were at high risk of bias for blinding, incomplete outcome data, or small size; none was unequivocally at low risk of bias.It was not possible to compare NSAIDs as a group with another treatment, or one NSAID with another NSAID. Results for all NSAIDs are reported as a randomised cohort. We judged results for all outcomes as very low-quality evidence.None of the studies reported our primary outcomes of participants with pain reduction of at least 50%, and at least 30%, from baseline; participants with Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) of much improved or very much improved (or equivalent wording). With NSAID, initially moderate or severe pain was reduced to no worse than mild pain after one or two weeks in four studies (415 participants in total), with a range of estimates between 26% and 51% in individual studies.Adverse event and withdrawal reporting was inconsistent. Two serious adverse events were reported with NSAIDs, and 22 deaths, but these were not clearly related to any pain treatment. Common adverse events were thirst/dry mouth (15%), loss of appetite (14%), somnolence (11%), and dyspepsia (11%). Withdrawals were common, mostly because of lack of efficacy (24%) or adverse events (5%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no high-quality evidence to support or refute the use of NSAIDs alone or in combination with opioids for the three steps of the three-step WHO cancer pain ladder. There is very low-quality evidence that some people with moderate or severe cancer pain can obtain substantial levels of benefit within one or two weeks.

Oral paracetamol (acetaminophen) for cancer pain

BACKGROUND

Pain is a common symptom with cancer, and 30% to 50% of all people with cancer will experience moderate to severe pain that can have a major negative impact on their quality of life. Non-opioid drugs are commonly used to treat mild to moderate cancer pain, and are recommended for this purpose in the WHO cancer pain treatment ladder, either alone or in combination with opioids.A previous Cochrane review that examined the evidence for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or paracetamol, alone or combined with opioids, for cancer pain was withdrawn in 2015 because it was out of date; the date of the last search was 2005. This review, and another on NSAIDs, updates the evidence.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of oral paracetamol (acetaminophen) for cancer pain in adults and children, and the adverse events reported during its use in clinical trials.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase from inception to March 2017, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, and two online study registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, studies of five days' duration or longer, comparing paracetamol alone with placebo, or paracetamol in combination with an opioid compared with the same dose of the opioid alone, for cancer pain of any intensity. Single-blind and open studies were also eligible for inclusion. The minimum study size was 25 participants per treatment arm at the initial randomisation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality and potential bias. We did not carry out any pooled analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

Three studies in adults satisfied the inclusion criteria, lasting up to one week; 122 participants were randomised initially, and 95 completed treatment. We found no studies in children. One study was parallel-group, and two had a cross-over design. All used paracetamol as an add-on to established treatment with strong opioids (median daily morphine equivalent doses of 60 mg, 70 mg, and 225 mg, with some participants taking several hundred mg of oral morphine equivalents daily). Other non-paracetamol medication included non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), tricyclic antidepressants, or neuroleptics. All studies were at high risk of bias for incomplete outcome data and small size; none was unequivocally at low risk of bias.None of the studies reported any of our primary outcomes: participants with pain reduction of at least 50%, and at least 30%, from baseline; participants with pain no worse than mild at the end of the treatment period; participants with Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) of much improved or very much improved (or equivalent wording). What pain reports there were indicated no difference between paracetamol and placebo when added to another treatment. There was no convincing evidence of paracetamol being different from placebo with regards to quality of life, use of rescue medication, or participant satisfaction or preference. Measures of harm (serious adverse events, other adverse events, and withdrawal due to lack of efficacy) were inconsistently reported and provided no clear evidence of difference.Our GRADE assessment of evidence quality was very low for all outcomes, because studies were at high risk of bias from several sources.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no high-quality evidence to support or refute the use of paracetamol alone or in combination with opioids for the first two steps of the three-step WHO cancer pain ladder. It is not clear whether any additional analgesic benefit of paracetamol could be detected in the available studies, in view of the doses of opioids used.

Opioids for cancer pain - an overview of Cochrane reviews

BACKGROUND

Pain is a common symptom with cancer, and 30% to 50% of all people with cancer will experience moderate to severe pain that can have a major negative impact on their quality of life. Opioid (morphine-like) drugs are commonly used to treat moderate or severe cancer pain, and are recommended for this purpose in the World Health Organization (WHO) pain treatment ladder. The most commonly-used opioid drugs are buprenorphine, codeine, fentanyl, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, methadone, morphine, oxycodone, tramadol, and tapentadol.

OBJECTIVES

To provide an overview of the analgesic efficacy of opioids in cancer pain, and to report on adverse events associated with their use.

METHODS

We identified systematic reviews examining any opioid for cancer pain published to 4 May 2017 in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in the Cochrane Library. The primary outcomes were no or mild pain within 14 days of starting treatment, withdrawals due to adverse events, and serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine reviews with 152 included studies and 13,524 participants, but because some studies appeared in more than one review the number of unique studies and participants was smaller than this. Most participants had moderate or severe pain associated with a range of different types of cancer. Studies in the reviews typically compared one type of opioid or formulation with either a different formulation of the same opioid, or a different opioid; few included a placebo control. Typically the reviews titrated dose to effect, a balance between pain relief and adverse events. Various routes of administration of opioids were considered in the reviews; oral with most opioids, but transdermal administration with fentanyl, and buprenorphine. No review included studies of subcutaneous opioid administration. Pain outcomes reported were varied and inconsistent. The average size of included studies varied considerably between reviews: studies of older opioids, such as codeine, morphine, and methadone, had low average study sizes while those involving newer drugs tended to have larger study sizes.Six reviews reported a GRADE assessment (buprenorphine, codeine, hydromorphone, methadone, oxycodone, and tramadol), but not necessarily for all comparisons or outcomes. No comparative analyses were possible because there was no consistent placebo or active control. Cohort outcomes for opioids are therefore reported, as absolute numbers or percentages, or both.Reviews on buprenorphine, codeine with or without paracetamol, hydromorphone, methadone, tramadol with or without paracetamol, tapentadol, and oxycodone did not have information about the primary outcome of mild or no pain at 14 days, although that on oxycodone indicated that average pain scores were within that range. Two reviews, on oral morphine and transdermal fentanyl, reported that 96% of 850 participants achieved that goal.Adverse event withdrawal was reported by five reviews, at rates of between 6% and 19%. Participants with at least one adverse event were reported by three reviews, at rates of between 11% and 77%.Our GRADE assessment of evidence quality was very low for all outcomes, because many studies in the reviews were at high risk of bias from several sources, including small study size.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The amount and quality of evidence around the use of opioids for treating cancer pain is disappointingly low, although the evidence we have indicates that around 19 out of 20 people with moderate or severe pain who are given opioids and can tolerate them should have that pain reduced to mild or no pain within 14 days. This accords with the clinical experience in treating many people with cancer pain, but overstates to some extent the effectiveness found for the WHO pain ladder. Most people will experience adverse events, and help may be needed to manage the more common undesirable adverse effects such as constipation and nausea. Perhaps between 1 in 10 and 2 in 10 people treated with opioids will find these adverse events intolerable, leading to a change in treatment.