Patient-controlled versus staff-controlled analgesia with pethidine after allogeneic bone marrow transplantation

Interventions for treating oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment

BACKGROUND

Treatment of cancer is increasingly effective but associated with short and long term side effects. Oral side effects, including oral mucositis (mouth ulceration), remain a major source of illness despite the use of a variety of agents to treat them.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions for treating oral mucositis or its associated pain in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy or both.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic searches of Cochrane Oral Health Group and PaPaS Trials Registers (to 1 June 2010), CENTRAL via The Cochrane Library (to Issue 2, 2010), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 1 June 2010), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 1 June 2010), CINAHL via EBSCO (1980 to 1 June 2010), CANCERLIT via PubMed (1950 to 1 June 2010), OpenSIGLE (1980 to 1 June 2010) and LILACS via the Virtual Health Library (1980 to 1 June 2010) were undertaken. Reference lists from relevant articles were searched and the authors of eligible trials were contacted to identify trials and obtain additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials comparing agents prescribed to treat oral mucositis in people receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy or both. Outcomes were oral mucositis, time to heal mucositis, oral pain, duration of pain control, dysphagia, systemic infection, amount of analgesia, length of hospitalisation, cost and quality of life.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two review authors. Authors were contacted for details of randomisation, blindness and withdrawals. Risk of bias assessment was carried out on six domains. The Cochrane Collaboration statistical guidelines were followed and risk ratio (RR) values calculated using fixed-effect models (less than 3 trials in each meta-analysis).

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-two trials involving 1505 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria. Three comparisons for mucositis treatment including two or more trials were: benzydamine HCl versus placebo, sucralfate versus placebo and low level laser versus sham procedure. Only the low level laser showed a reduction in severe mucositis when compared with the sham procedure, RR 5.28 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.30 to 12.13).Only 3 comparisons included more than one trial for pain control: patient controlled analgesia (PCA) compared to the continuous infusion method, therapist versus control, cognitive behaviour therapy versus control. There was no evidence of a difference in mean pain score between PCA and continuous infusion, however, less opiate was used per hour for PCA, mean difference 0.65 mg/hour (95% CI 0.09 to 1.20), and the duration of pain was less 1.9 days (95% CI 0.3 to 3.5).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is weak and unreliable evidence that low level laser treatment reduces the severity of the mucositis. Less opiate is used for PCA versus continuous infusion. Further, well designed, placebo or no treatment controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of interventions investigated in this review and new interventions for treating mucositis are needed.

Efficacy and safety of transdermal fentanyl for treatment of oral mucositis pain caused by chemotherapy

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

We investigated the efficacy and safety of transdermal fentanyl for severe mucositis pain caused by chemotherapy.

METHODS

Thirty-two patients who had moderate to severe pain using the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) were enrolled in this study. The analgesic effect, quality of life and side effects were evaluated after the administration of transdermal fentanyl.

RESULTS

The median NRS score was reduced from 6 (range 4 - 9) before treatment to 4 (range 0 - 9), 2.5 (range 0 - 8), 2 (range 0 - 8), 2 (range 0 - 6) and 0 (range 0 - 5) on days 3, 5, 7, 10 and 15, respectively, after treatment (p < 0.001). The patients' quality of life also improved significantly (p < 0.01). The side effects of treatment were mild, and disappeared within several days.

CONCLUSIONS

Transdermal fentanyl is an effective, convenient and well-tolerated treatment for severe mucositis pain caused by chemotherapy that can improve patients' quality of life.

Palliative care in BMT

The field of high-dose therapy and SCT has made many advances in the past several years and the success rates have been steadily increasing as newer therapies emerge and improvements in supportive care continue to improve patient survival and cure rates. There still remains a mortality risk for high-dose therapy and the need for palliative care becomes more apparent as the focus also incorporates quality of life in all facets of cancer treatment and care. This paper reports on the lack of literature available on palliative care into the BMT and explores areas of future research in the integration of these two fields of medicine.

Interventions for treating oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment

BACKGROUND

Treatment of cancer is increasingly effective but associated with short and long term side effects. Oral side effects, including oral mucositis (mouth ulceration), remain a major source of illness despite the use of a variety of agents to treat them.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions for treating oral mucositis or its associated pain in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy or both.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Computerised searches of Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register; Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Group's Trials Register; CENTRAL; MEDLINE and EMBASE were undertaken. Reference lists from relevant articles were searched and the authors of eligible trials were contacted to identify trials and obtain additional information. Date of the most recent searches June 2006: CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2006, Issue 2).

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials comparing agents prescribed to treat oral mucositis in people receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy or both. Outcomes were oral mucositis, time to heal mucositis, oral pain, duration of pain control, dysphagia, systemic infection, amount of analgesia, length of hospitalisation, cost and quality of life.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two review authors. Authors were contacted for details of randomisation, blindness and withdrawals. Quality assessment was carried out on these three criteria. The Cochrane Oral Health Group statistical guidelines were followed and risk ratio (RR) values calculated using fixed effect models.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-six trials involving 1353 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria. Four agents, each in single trials, were found to be effective for improving (allopurinol RR 3.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06 to 10.49; granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor RR 4.23, 95% CI 1.35 to 13.24; immunoglobulin RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.65; human placentral extract RR 4.50, 95% CI 2.29 to 8.86) or eradicating mucositis (allopurinol RR 19.00, 95% CI 1.17 to 307.63). Three of these trials were rated as at moderate risk of bias and one as at high risk of bias. The following agents were not found to be effective: benzydamine HCl, sucralfate, tetrachlorodecaoxide, chlorhexidine and 'magic' (lidocaine solution, diphenhydramine hydrochloride and aluminum hydroxide suspension). Six trials compared the time to heal and mucositis was found to heal more quickly with two interventions: granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor when compared to povidone iodine, with mean difference -3.5 days (95% CI -4.1 to -2.9) and allopurinol compared to placebo, with mean difference -4.5 days (95% CI -5.8 to -3.2). Three trials compared patient controlled analgesia (PCA) to the continuous infusion method for controlling pain. There was no evidence of a difference, however, less opiate was used per hour for PCA, and the duration of pain was shorter. One trial demonstrated that pharmacokinetically based analgesia (PKPCA) reduced pain compared with PCA: however, more opiate was used with PKPCA.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is weak and unreliable evidence that allopurinol mouthwash, granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor, immunoglobulin or human placental extract improve or eradicate mucositis. There is no evidence that patient controlled analgesia (PCA) is better than continuous infusion method for controlling pain, however, less opiate was used per hour, and duration of pain was shorter, for PCA. Further, well designed, placebo-controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of allopurinol mouthwash, granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor, immunoglobulin, human placental extract, other interventions investigated in this review and new interventions for treating mucositis are needed.

Effectiveness of Transdermal Fentanyl Patch for Treatment of Acute Pain Due to Oral Mucositis in Patients Receiving Stem Cell Transplantation

The current study was performed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of transdermal therapeutic system (TTS) fentanyl in the management of acute pain due to oral mucositis in patients receiving stem cell transplantation. A cohort of consecutive patients with painful oral mucositis were enrolled. Initially, 25 microg/h of TTS fentanyl was administered for the treatment of oral mucositis pain. The pain score, based on a visual analogue scale, and mood and quality of sleep as determined by EORTC QLQ-C30 (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Quality of Life Questionnaire, Cancer 30), were all recorded before the treatment, then 2, 6, and 10 days later. Twenty-two patients with hematologic malignancies were enrolled. Three patients were excluded from the response assessment, as their TTS fentanyl treatment was stopped owing to related complaints, including severe dizziness, severe vomiting, and an extensive body rash. The total duration of the treatment was 8 days (range, 6-15 days) and the total amount of TTS fentanyl administered per patient was 2.21 at 25 microg/h and 0.63 at 50 microg/h. Six (31.6%) of the remaining 19 patients required an escalated dose of TTS fentanyl at 50 mug/h. The mean pain scores before treatment and 2, 6, and 10 days later were 6.68, 5.17, 3.42, and 2.13, respectively (P < .001). Eight (42.1%) and seven (36.8%) patients experienced improved sleep and mood after treatment, respectively. The TTS fentanyl was effective in both relieving oral mucositis pain with an excellent tolerability and improving the quality of life for hematological patients receiving high-dose chemotherapy with stem cell transplantation.

Differences in Postoperative Opioid Consumption in Patients Prescribed Patient-Controlled Analgesia Versus Intramuscular Injection

The purpose of this study was to examine differences in opioid consumption in patients prescribed patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) versus intramuscular injection (IMI) in the early postoperative period after open abdominal surgery. A retrospective audit of 115 patients elicited demographic and clinical data. No significant differences were found between the demographic variables of the PCA and IMI groups. There was a significant difference in the mean opioid dose used during the first 3 postoperative days (p < .01). Mean opioid consumption was 136.89 mg for the PCA group and 50.79 mg for the IMI group. Although there was a reduction in the amount of opioid consumed over the first 3 postoperative days, the PCA group consistently consumed more opioid analgesia compared with the IMI group. Furthermore, there was a disproportionate reduction in opioid consumption between the two groups from Day 1 (r = .34; p < .01) to Day 3 (r = .14; p = .14). This study shows that the amount of analgesia consumed during the postoperative period by patients who had abdominal surgery varied markedly depending on the mode of analgesia (PCA or IMI). The difference in analgesic consumption was also found to increase throughout the 3-day postoperative period. This divergence in the amount of opioid consumption between patients who were prescribed PCA and patients who were prescribed IM analgesia heightens the need for vigilance in assessment and management of pain during the early postoperative period, particularly in patients prescribed IM analgesia on an "as-needed" basis.

Clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and treatment of cancer therapy-induced oral and gastrointestinal mucositis

BACKGROUND

Oral and gastrointestinal (GI) mucositis can affect up to 100% of patients undergoing high-dose chemotherapy and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, 80% of patients with malignancies of the head and neck receiving radiotherapy, and a wide range of patients receiving chemotherapy. Alimentary track mucositis increases mortality and morbidity and contributes to rising health care costs. Consequently, the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer and the International Society for Oral Oncology assembled an expert panel to evaluate the literature and to create evidence-based guidelines for preventing, evaluating, and treating mucositis.

METHODS

Thirty-six panelists reviewed literature published between January 1966 and May 2002. An initial meeting in January 2002 produced a preliminary draft of guidelines that was reviewed at a second meeting the same year. Thereafter, a writing committee produced a report on mucositis pathogenesis, epidemiology, and scoring (also included in this issue), as well as clinical practice guidelines.

RESULTS

Panelists created recommendations from higher levels of evidence and suggestions when evidence was of a lower level and there was a consensus regarding the interpretation of the evidence by the panel. Panelists identified gaps in evidence that made it impossible to recommend or not recommend use of specific agents.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral/GI mucositis is a common side effect of many anticancer therapies. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines are presented as a benchmark for clinicians to use for routine care of appropriate patients and as a springboard to challenge clinical investigators to conduct high-quality trials geared toward areas in which data are either lacking or conflicting.

Interventions for treating oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment

BACKGROUND

Treatment of cancer is increasingly effective but associated with short and long-term side effects. Oral side effects, including oral mucositis (mouth ulceration), remain a major source of illness despite the use of a variety of agents to treat them.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions for treating oral mucositis or its associated pain in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Computerised searches of Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE were undertaken. Reference lists from relevant articles were searched and the authors of eligible trials were contacted to identify trials and obtain additional information. Date of the most recent searches August 2003: (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2003).

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials comparing agents prescribed to treat oral mucositis in people receiving chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy. Outcomes were oral mucositis, time to heal mucositis, oral pain, duration of pain control, dysphagia, systemic infection, amount of analgesia, length of hospitalisation, cost and quality of life.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two reviewers. Authors were contacted for details of randomisation, blindness and withdrawals. Quality assessment was carried out on these three criteria. The Cochrane Oral Health Group statistical guidelines were followed and relative risk values calculated using fixed effect models.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-five trials involving 1292 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria. Three agents, each in single trials, were found to be effective for improving (allopurinol RR 3.33, 95% CI 1.06 to 10.49; immunoglobulin RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.65; human placentral extract RR 4.50, 95% CI 2.29 to 8.86) or eradicating mucositis (allopurinol RR 19.00, 95% CI 1.17 to 307.63). Two of these trials were rated as at moderate risk of bias and one as at high risk of bias. The following agents were not found to be effective: benzydamine HCl, sucralfate, tetrachlorodecaoxide, chlorhexidine and 'magic' (lidocaine solution, diphenhydramine hydrochloride and aluminum hydroxide suspension). Six trials compared the time to heal and mucositis was found to heal more quickly with two interventions: Granulocyte Macrophage-Colony Stimulating Factor when compared to povidone iodine, with mean difference -3.5 days (95% CI -4.1 to -2.9) and allopurinol compared to placebo, with mean difference -4.5 days (95% CI -5.8 to -3.2). Three trials compared patient controlled analgesia (PCA) to the continuous infusion method for controlling pain. There was no evidence of a difference, however, less opiate was used per hour for PCA, and the duration of pain was shorter. One trial demonstrated that pharmacokinetically based analgesia (PKPCA) reduced pain compared with PCA, however more opiate was used with PKPCA.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

There is weak and unreliable evidence that allopurinol mouthwash, vitamin E, immunoglobulin or human placental extract improve or eradicate mucositis. There is no evidence that patient controlled analgesia (PCA) is better than continuous infusion method for controlling pain, however, less opiate was used per hour, and duration of pain was shorter, for PCA. Further, well designed, placebo-controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of allopurinol mouthwash, immunoglobulin, human placental extract, other interventions investigated in this review and new interventions for treating mucositis are needed.

The Hawthorne effect in the assessment of pain by house staff

Internal medicine residents are one component of the healthcare delivery team in the hospital setting. Their ability to assess and treat pain should be considered in quality improvement efforts. We surveyed our residents, using a 0 to 10 scale to determine how well they assessed their patients' level of pain. We then asked half of these residents to write down their patients' pain score as a fifth vital sign in the medical record. We repeated the house staff survey three weeks later. The residents improved their assessment as a whole, with the nonintervention group faring better on the follow-up surveys. We believe that the residents' improvement can be attributed to the Hawthorne effect, in which a group that is singled out for special study or consideration has its performance positively affected. The residents' ability to accurately rate patients with moderate and severe pain is still an area for further development. Improvements in our palliative care curriculum have been implemented to enhance our residents' education and performance in this area.

Patient-controlled analgesia: an appropriate method of pain control in children

Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) is an analgesic technique originally used in adults but now with an established role in paediatric practice. It is well tolerated in children as young as 5 years and has uses in postoperative pain as well as burns, oncology and palliative care. The use of background infusions is more frequent in children and improves efficacy; however, it may increase the occurrence of adverse effects such as nausea and respiratory depression. Monitoring involves measurement of respiratory rate, level of sedation and oxygen saturation. Efficacy is assessed by self-reporting, visual analogue scales, faces pain scales and usage patterns. This is optimally performed both at rest and on movement. The selection of opioid used in PCA is perhaps less critical than the appropriate selection of parameters such as bolus dose, lockout and background infusion rate. Moreover, opioid choice may be based on adverse effect profile rather than efficacy. The concept of PCA continues to be developed in children, with patient-controlled epidural analgesia, subcutaneous PCA and intranasal PCA being recent extensions of the method. There may also be a role for patient-controlled sedation. PCA, when used with adequate monitoring, is a well tolerated technique with high patient and staff acceptance. It can now be regarded as a standard for the delivery of postoperative analgesia in children aged >5 years.

Impact of the Hawthorne effect in a longitudinal clinical study: the case of anesthesia

Clinical research can be influenced by many factors that are capable of invalidating results, and one of these factors is known as the Hawthorne effect: the mere awareness of being under observation can alter the way in which a person behaves. In experimental research this effect can be the undesired effect of the experiments themselves, and the stronger its presence, the greater it can influence the results. In anesthesia practice, owing to the particular emotional condition of a patient facing a surgical operation, the Hawthorne effect could be especially strong. The aim of our study was to show the impact that the knowledge of being included in a study has (Hawthorne effect), by comparing the postoperative changes in psychological well-being in two groups of patients undergoing knee arthroscopy and receiving different information about the study from the anesthetist during the preoperative interview. Other signs and symptoms such as postoperative knee pain, nausea, vomiting (the most feared occurrences), headache, return of spontaneous diuresis, analgesic request, anesthesia complications, as well as the intensity of anxiety were also assessed as secondary endpoints. Our results show that subjects who were aware that they were part of a study scored significantly better on postoperative measures of psychological well-being and postoperative knee pain, compared to subjects who were unaware. The size of the effect, as measured by the odds ratio, remains unchanged when controlling for potential confounding factors. The study has enabled us to demonstrate the presence of the Hawthorne effect in clinical research. Therefore, the Hawthorne effect should be acknowledged and accounted for in the design of a study and in the interpretation of results.

Research advances in oral mucositis

Oral mucositis is a common toxicity of high-dose chemotherapy and upper mantle head and neck radiation. Published evidence from the past 14 months provides insight into the multiple possible mechanisms. In addition, the data highlight the clinical importance that this lesion exerts relative to infection risk, quality of life, and cost of care. Oral mucositis has emerged as a dose-limiting toxicity in selected cancer therapy models. Thus, it has direct impact on duration of disease remission, cure rates, and long-term survival. Because of its importance in the clinical setting, oral mucositis remains under extensive laboratory and clinical investigation. Advances in the 1980s relative to infection prevention and reduced duration of profound neutropenia via growth factors have elevated oral mucositis to a prominent toxicity of cancer therapy. A contemporary model for mucositis involving four principal phases was published in 1998. Future research will likely add further insight into this model relative to the roles of mucosal immune dysregulation, colonizing microflora, and wound-healing mechanisms. Basic and clinical studies directed to these several components may well lead to effective preventive strategies in the future, with positive impact on quality of life and survival of cancer patients.