Lack of adherence with the analgesic regimen: a significant barrier to effective cancer pain management

Effects of self-management interventions for cancer patients with pain: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials

AIMS

To evaluate the effects of self-management interventions targeting individuals with cancer-related pain on pain intensity, self-efficacy, quality of life (QoL), pain medication adherence, and pain-related knowledge and provide recommendations for the content and format of self-management interventions based on the existing evidence.

DESIGN

A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and narrative synthesis.

DATA SOURCES

A search of six electronic databases, including Medline, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Web of Science and Scopus.

REVIEW METHODS

This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies published from January 2011 to March 2022 in English were retrieved. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was used to assess quality. Data were summarised using narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

This systematic review included six RCTs involving 748 patients with cancer-related pain. The results support the effectiveness of the intervention on QoL and pain-related knowledge. Mixed results were observed in the effectiveness on pain intensity, self-efficacy and medication adherence. Overall, the quality of the evidence was low. The content of self-management interventions varied across studies but with similar formats (face-to-face coaching and telephone follow-up).

CONCLUSION

The existing evidence supports the effectiveness of self-management interventions on pain-related knowledge and QoL. Further high-quality RCTs are needed to determine the most effective interventions.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Self-management is recommended to improve cancer patients' pain awareness, self-management behaviour and adaptability. Components for self-management of cancer pain, including patient attitude and knowledge assessment, nurse coaching and counselling, reinforcement during follow-up period, and provision of supplementary materials on pain management and medication adherence, could be covered in the intervention. In the future, it is worthwhile exploring an effective intervention using Internet-based information technology, for example WeChat, to aid the delivery of self-management intervention.

NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This systematic review does not necessarily involve patients or public members in this work.

Daily pain and opioid administration in hospitalized patients with cancer: the importance of psychological factors, recent surgery, and current opioid use

ABSTRACT

Pain is common and variable in its severity among hospitalized patients with cancer. Although biopsychosocial factors are well established as modulators of chronic pain, less is known about what patient-level factors are associated with worse pain outcomes among hospitalized cancer patients. This prospective cohort study included patients with active cancer presenting to the emergency department (ED) with pain severity of ≥4/10 and followed pain outcomes longitudinally throughout hospital admission. Baseline demographic, clinical, and psychological factors were assessed on ED presentation, and daily average clinical pain ratings and opioid consumption during hospitalization were abstracted. Univariable and multivariable generalized estimating equation analyses examined associations of candidate biopsychosocial, demographic, and clinical predictors with average daily pain and opioid administration. Among 113 hospitalized patients, 73% reported pain as the primary reason for presenting to the ED, 43% took outpatient opioids, and 27% had chronic pain that predated their cancer. Higher pain catastrophizing ( B = 0.1, P ≤ 0.001), more recent surgery ( B = -0.2, P ≤ 0.05), outpatient opioid use ( B = 1.4, P ≤ 0.001), and history of chronic pain before cancer diagnosis ( B = 0.8, P ≤ 0.05) were independently associated with greater average daily pain while admitted to the hospital. Higher pain catastrophizing ( B = 1.6, P ≤ 0.05), higher anxiety ( B = 3.7, P ≤ 0.05), lower depression ( B = -4.9, P ≤ 0.05), metastatic disease ( B = 16.2, P ≤ 0.05), and outpatient opioid use ( B = 32.8, P ≤ 0.001) were independently associated with higher daily opioid administration. Greater psychological distress, especially pain catastrophizing, as well as pain and opioid use history, predicted greater difficulty with pain management among hospitalized cancer patients, suggesting that early assessment of patient-level characteristics may help direct consultation for more intensive pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions.

A Highly Sensitive and Specific Photonic Crystal-Based Opioid Sensor with Rapid Regeneration

Opioid misuse and overdose have caused devastating public health challenges and economic burdens, calling for the need of rapid, accurate sensitive opioid sensors. Here, we report a photonic crystal-based opioid sensor in the total internal reflection configuration, providing label-free, rapid, quantitative measurements through change of the refractive index. The one-dimensional photonic crystal with a defect layer that is immobilized with opioid antibodies acts as a resonator with an open microcavity. The highly accessible structure responds to analytes within a minute after the aqueous opioid solution is introduced, achieving the highest sensitivity of 5688.8 nm/refractive index unit (RIU) at the incident angle of 63.03°. Our sensor shows a limit of detection (LOD) of 7 ng/mL for morphine in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS, pH 7.4) solutions, well below the required clinical detection limit, and an LOD of 6 ng/mL for fentanyl in PBS, close to the clinical requirement. The sensor can selectively detect fentanyl from a mixture of morphine and fentanyl and be regenerated in 2 min with up to 93.66% recovery rate after five cycles. The efficacy of our sensor is further validated in artificial interstitial fluid and human urine samples.

Intravenous Patient-Controlled Analgesia Versus Oral Opioid to Maintain Analgesia for Severe Cancer Pain: A Randomized Phase II Trial

BACKGROUND

Optimal analgesic maintenance for severe cancer pain is unknown. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IPCA) with continuous infusion plus rescue dose or bolus-only dose versus conventional oral extended-release morphine as a background dose with normal-release morphine as a rescue dose to maintain analgesia in patients with severe cancer pain after successful opioid titration.

METHODS

Patients with persistent severe cancer pain (≥7 at rest on the 11-point numeric rating scale [NRS]) were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatment arms: (A1) IPCA hydromorphone with bolus-only dose where dosage was 10% to 20% of the total equianalgesic over the previous 24 hours (TEOP24H) administered as needed, (A2) IPCA hydromorphone with continuous infusion where dose per hour was the TEOP24H divided by 24 and bolus dosage for breakthrough pain was 10% to 20% of the TEOP24H, and (B) oral extended-release morphine based on TEOP24H/2 × 75% (because of incomplete cross-tolerance) every 12 hours plus normal-release morphine based on TEOP24H × 10% to 20% for breakthrough pain. After randomization, patients underwent IPCA hydromorphone titration for 24 hours to achieve pain control before beginning their assigned treatment. The primary endpoint was NRS over days 1 to 3.

RESULTS

A total of 95 patients from 9 oncology study sites underwent randomization: 30 into arm A1, 32 into arm A2, and 33 into arm B. Arm B produced a significantly higher NRS over days 1 to 3 compared with arm A1 or A2 (P<.001). Daily NRS from day 1 to day 6 and patient satisfaction scores on day 3 and day 6 were worse in arm B. Median equivalent-morphine consumption increase was significantly lower in A1 (P=.024) among the 3 arms. No severe adverse event occurred in any arm.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with oral morphine maintenance, IPCA hydromorphone for analgesia maintenance improves control of severe cancer pain after successful titration. Furthermore, IPCA hydromorphone without continuous infusion may consume less opioid.

Pharmacist-Led Management Improves Treatment Adherence and Quality of Life in Opioid-Tolerant Patients With Cancer Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Introduction

Opioid-tolerant patients are more likely to deviate from recommended treatments and to experience inadequate analgesia than opioid-naive ones. The aim of this study was to examine whether pharmacist-led management could help improve treatment adherence and quality of life.

Methods

Eligible patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to control group and intervention group. The control group received routine education and support, while the intervention group received additional individualized pharmacist-led care. The primary endpoint was treatment adherence in the per-protocol analysis, as evaluated by blinded assessors. An interim analysis was planned when 30% patients completed the study. Alpha was divided into the interim analysis (0.015) and the final analysis (0.035).

Results

In the interim analysis (97 and 87 patients in the control and intervention groups, respectively), the primary endpoint was met. Pharmacist-led intervention significantly increased treatment adherence (93.3 vs. 79.8%; OR: 2.25; 95% CI 1.02, 4.94; P = 0.013), quality of life (0.81 ± 0.17 vs. 0.72 ± 0.25; P = 0.008), and reporting of adverse events (82.7 vs. 61.9%; OR: 1.88; 95% CI 1.16, 3.07; P = 0.004). The two groups did not differ in pain control rate (66.7 vs. 57.1%; OR: 1.25; 95% CI 0.87, 1.78; P = 0.218), breakthrough pain-free rate (66.7 vs. 61.9%; OR: 1.12; 95% CI 0.78, 1.59; P = 0.532) and pain score (1.97 ± 1.04 vs. 2.15 ± 1.24; P = 0.522).

Conclusions

Pharmacist-led management improved treatment adherence, quality of life, and the reporting of adverse events in opioid-tolerant patients with cancer pain.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03455023.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40122-021-00342-0.

Adherence to Analgesics Among Outpatients Seriously Ill With Cancer

BACKGROUND

Adherence to prescribed analgesics for patients seriously ill with cancer pain is essential for comfort.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to determine the analgesic adherence in seriously ill patients with cancer and its association with clinical and demographic characteristics.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional study. At home, 202 patients with cancer (mean age, 59.9 ± 14.2 years; 58% female, 48% Black, and 42% White) admitted to hospice/palliative care completed measures on a pen tablet: PAIN Report It, Symptom Distress Scale, mood state item, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index item, and Pain Management Index.

RESULTS

The mean current pain intensity was 4.4 ± 2.9, and the mean worst pain in the past 24 hours was 7.2 ± 2.7. More than one-half of participants were not satisfied with their pain level (54%) and reported their pain was more intense than they wanted to tolerate for 18 hours or longer in the last 24 hours (51%). Only 12% were not prescribed analgesics appropriate for the intensity of their pain. Adherence rates were variable: nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (0.63 ± 0.50), adjuvants (0.93 ± 0.50), World Health Organization step 2 opioids (0.63 ± 0.49), and step 3 opioids (0.80 ± 0.40). With setting/clinical/demographic variables in the model, dose intervals of less than 8 hours were associated with less adherence ( P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Little progress has been made toward improving analgesic adherence even in settings providing analgesics without cost. Research focused on targeting analgesic dose intervals and barriers not related to cost is needed.

IMPLICATION FOR PRACTICE

Dose intervals of 8 hours or longer were significantly associated with higher adherence rates; therefore, use of longer-acting analgesics is one strategy to improve pain control at the end of life.

The effectiveness and safety of the rapid titration strategy of background controlled-release oxycodone hydrochloride for patients with moderate-to-severe cancer pain: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Oxycodone hydrochloride is a semisynthetic narcotic analgesic agent. This study aimed to explore optimal titration strategy of controlled-release (CR) oxycodone hydrochloride in patients with cancer pain.

METHODS

258 patients, who used regular strong opioids (morphine and CR oxycodone hydrochloride) for cancer pain across 25 three grade class hospitals in China during January 15th 2017 to April 30th 2017, were retrospectively studied. The patients were divided into 4 groups according to treatment regimens titrated. The pain remission rate and numeric rating scale (NRS) of cancer pain was recorded at 0, 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, 72 h after opioid titration. The incidence of adverse events (AEs) with therapy were also observed.

RESULTS

12 h after treatment, pain remission rate of Group B, C and D was significantly higher (P < 0.001) than Group A. For the complete remission rate, there were also significant differences among the four groups (P < 0.001). No significant difference was found among four groups for pain remission rate at 24, 72 h after treatment. Multiple comparison of NRS scores showed that the both Group B and C varied significantly with Group D (P = 0.028, P = 0.05, respectively), showing superior analgesic effect over Group D. AEs were significantly different among groups (P < 0.01), with the most frequent AEs in Group A, lowest in Group B.

CONCLUSION

The rapid titration strategy of background CR oxycodone hydrochloride was effectiveness and safety in patients with moderate-to-severe cancer pain.

Effects of a physician- and pharmacist-managed clinic on pain management in cancer patients in China

In China, pharmacists have started to manage cancer pain at outpatient clinics. This retrospective study performed at a tertiary teaching hospital was aimed to evaluate the effects of a physician-pharmacist joint clinic for cancer pain management. The study was performed between December 2016 and August 2019 and included 113 outpatients with moderate to severe cancer-related pain. Patients were divided into two groups according to the clinic each patient visited: the physician-pharmacist joint clinic (joint group, n = 59) or physician-only clinic (usual group, n = 54). Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and Morisky Medication Adherence Measure (MMAM) were used to collect data on pain intensity, interference and medication adherence. Pain Management Index (PMI) was also calculated. BPI, MMAM and PMI were assessed at baseline (patients' first visit, week 0) and week 4 follow-up. The Chinese version of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) was used to assess patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL) at week 4. The primary outcomes were the improvement in pain intensity, adequacy of pain management and medication adherence. The secondary outcome was the improvement in HRQoL. At week 4, compared to the usual group, the BPI pain intensity categories except the pain right now were significantly lower in the joint group: worst pain, 4 (3-7) vs 6 (4-8), P = .020; least pain, 1 (0-2) vs 2 (1-3), P = .010; average pain, 3 (2-4) vs 4 (2-5), P = .023; pain right now, 2 (1-3) vs 2 (0-4), P = .796. For the seven pain interference categories, there were no significant improvements in the joint group (P > .05). Significantly more patients achieved adequate pain control in the joint group than the usual group ((P = .002). There was also a significant difference in medication adherence between the two groups (P = .001). There were no significant differences in HRQoL between the two groups. The study suggests that pharmacist participation in outpatient cancer pain management is associated with improvement of patients' pain control and medication adherence.

The Association Between Analgesic Treatment Beliefs and Electronically Monitored Adherence for Cancer Pain

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether clusters based on analgesic treatment beliefs among patients with cancer predict objective analgesic adherence.

SAMPLE & SETTING

207 patients with cancer in the outpatient setting who were aged 18 years or older, self-identified as White or African American, were diagnosed with solid tumor or multiple myeloma, and were prescribed at least one around-the-clock analgesic prescription for reported cancer pain.

METHODS & VARIABLES

This study is a secondary analysis of an existing dataset. General linear modeling with a backward elimination approach was applied to determine whether previously identified analgesic treatment belief clusters, as well as sociodemographic, clinical, and pain variables, were associated with adherence behaviors.

RESULTS

Significant explanatory factors were experiential in nature and included sociodemographic, clinical, and pain-related variables, explaining 21% of the variance in analgesic adherence. Analgesic belief clusters were not predictive of adherence.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING

Future research should examine sociodemographic and other clinical factors, as well as the influence of analgesic treatment beliefs, to better understand adherence behaviors among patients with cancer.

Factors influencing non-adherence to opioids in cancer patients: a mixed-methods cross-sectional study

Background: Strong opioids are mainly utilized to attenuate pain in cancer patients. Adherence to analgesic drugs significantly promotes adequate pain management and improves quality of life. We aimed to identify the factors influencing non-adherence to strong opioids in cancer patients. Methods: A descriptive, cross-sectional, two-phased, mixed methods design was conducted prospectively to evaluate a cohort of 101 cancer patients who are currently prescribed strong opioids from a pain clinic in Thailand between January and March 2018. Participants were asked to complete a questionnaire that included the following sections: general characteristics; the Medication Taking Behavior in Thai (MTB-Thai) for assessing adherence to medications; and factors influencing nonadherence, which were analyzed using multivariate logistic regression. In addition, face-to-face in depth interviews were conducted with patients showing non-adherence to strong opioids (MTB-Thai score ≤21) and analyzed using thematic content analysis.  Results: Of 101 cancer pain patients that completed the questionnaire, 39.6% showed non-adherence to strong opioids. Illness understanding (P=0.047) and the use of more than three types of pain medication (P=0.032) were significant factors influencing non-adherence. Qualitative analysis indicated that fear of long-term outcomes, opioid side effects, ineffective pain control, attempts to make the regimen more acceptable, poor understanding, and non-acceptance of disease related to non-adherence. Conclusion: Non-adherence to opioids for cancer patients is a common problem. Awareness of patient factors, medication-related factors, and illness-related factors will provide the knowledge and adequate advice that may enhance adherence to medications.

Factors influencing non-adherence to opioids in cancer patients: a mixed-methods cross-sectional study

Background: Strong opioids are mainly utilized to attenuate pain in cancer patients. Adherence to analgesic drugs significantly promotes adequate pain management and improves quality of life. We aimed to identify the factors influencing non-adherence to strong opioids in cancer patients. Methods: A descriptive, cross-sectional, two-phased, mixed methods design was conducted prospectively to evaluate a cohort of 101 cancer patients who are currently prescribed strong opioids from a pain clinic in Thailand between January and March 2018. Participants were asked to complete a questionnaire that included the following sections: general characteristics; the Medication Taking Behavior in Thai (MTB-Thai) for assessing adherence to medications; and factors influencing nonadherence, which were analyzed using multivariate logistic regression. In addition, face-to-face in depth interviews were conducted with patients showing non-adherence to strong opioids (MTB-Thai score ≤21) and analyzed using thematic content analysis.  Results: Of 101 cancer pain patients that completed the questionnaire, 39.6% showed non-adherence to strong opioids. Illness understanding (P=0.047) and the use of more than three types of pain medication (P=0.032) were significant factors influencing non-adherence. Qualitative analysis indicated that fear of long-term outcomes, opioid side effects, ineffective pain control, attempts to make the regimen more acceptable, poor understanding, and non-acceptance of disease related to non-adherence. Conclusion: Non-adherence to opioids for cancer patients is a common problem. Awareness of patient factors, medication-related factors, and illness-related factors will provide the knowledge and adequate advice that may enhance adherence to medications.

Comparing Effectiveness of Gabapentin and Pregabalin in Treatment of Neuropathic Pain: A Retrospective Cohort of Palliative Care Outpatients

Gabapentin and pregabalin are often considered first line treatment options for various neuropathic pain conditions. The purpose of this retrospective cohort study was to compare clinically meaningful pain reduction and other relevant outcomes among patients prescribed either gabapentin or pregabalin at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS) Palliative Care Clinic (PCC). The primary endpoint was a significant improvement in pain within six months of initiating either gabapentin or pregabalin. Secondary endpoints included the average number of pills per day as documented at last visit in the study period, the incidence of gabapentinoid dose reductions due to adverse effects, and the incidence of discontinuation of a gabapentinoid due to adverse effects. 222 patients were included in the gabapentin group and 30 patients were included in the pregabalin group. There was not a statistically significant difference between the groups in the primary outcome of pain reduction (p = 0.43). Dose reductions due to adverse effects were statistically significantly (p = 0.03) higher in the gabapentin group than the pregabalin group. The average number of pills per day by a patient in the gabapentin group was 1.8 pills higher than the pregabalin group which was statistically significant (p = 0.01). The results of this analysis support the notion that there is no significant difference in meaningful pain reduction with gabapentin versus pregabalin. This study demonstrates that pregabalin may afford better tolerability and lower pill burden compared to gabapentin.

Breakthrough cancer pain treatment in Spain: physicians' perception of current opioids utilization and prescription

Objectives: Multiple reasons for suboptimal treatment of breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP) have been reported in the literature. We aimed to ascertain the perception of physicians on the potential inappropriate use and prescription of rapid-onset opioids (ROOs) for breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP) and the causes thereof.Methods: Observational study based on an online survey addressed to doctors from different specialties (radiation oncology, medical oncology, anesthesia, palliative care and general practitioners) with experience in the management of BTcP in the Spanish public health setting.Results: A total of 114 eligible specialists mainly from radiation oncology (37.7%), medical oncology (24.6%) and pain units (18.4%) participated in the study. Most agreed on important aspects of BTcP management, such as their preference for ROOs or the need for early follow-up after treatment initiation. However, their answers revealed a lack of standardization of BTcP diagnosis. Half of respondents believed that their BTcP patients might misuse ROOs. Physicians polled believed that lack of training in pain management (71.9%) and inadequate BTcP diagnosis and evaluation (66.7%) were the greatest obstacles for prescribing opioids. Specialists also thought that they do not provide the necessary information to patients (51.8%) and caregivers (57.9%) to guarantee the correct use of these drugs.Conclusions: These results are of utmost importance as they highlight the need to increase physicians' awareness of BTcP and its management and the need to improve communication with patients and their caregivers. Our findings also indicate the need for future research on the possible misuse of opioids in BTcP patients and its causes.

Controlled Release of Oxycodone as an Opioid Titration for Cancer Pain Relief: A Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND In 2014, a Chinese expert consensus was proposed regarding a titration protocol with controlled-release (CR) oxycodone as a background dose for relieving the moderate to severe cancer pain. This work aimed to summarize its efficacy and safety in our hospital. MATERIAL AND METHODS The Good Pain Management (GPM) protocol comprises a CR morphine or oxycodone given every 12-hours as a background dose and an immediate-release (IR) opioid as a rescue dose. Cancer patients with moderate to severe cancer pain were treated with this protocol, and the successful titration (numerical rating scale [NRS] ≤3 within 3 days) rate was analyzed. SPSS was used for statistical analysis. Differences of variables between opioid intolerant patients and opioid tolerant patients were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test. The chi square test was used for comparison of frequencies in different groups. A P-value.

Relationship Between Adherence to Opioid Analgesics and Pain Beliefs Among Patients with Cancer Pain at Tertiary Care Hospitals in Malaysia

CONTEXT

Pain is a common and distressing symptom among cancer patients. Opioid analgesics are the mainstay of cancer pain management, and adequate adherence plays an important role in achieving good pain control.

PURPOSE

To determine the level of adherence to opioid analgesics in patients with cancer pain and to identify factors that may influence the adherence.

PATIENT AND METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study conducted from March to June 2018 at two tertiary care hospitals in Malaysia. Study instruments consisted of a set of validated questionnaires; the Medication Compliance Questionnaire, Brief Pain Inventory and Pain Opioid Analgesic Beliefs─Cancer scale.

RESULTS

A total of 134 patients participated in this study. The patients' adherence scores ranged from 52-100%. Factors with a moderate, statistically significant negative correlation with adherence were negative effect beliefs (r_s= -0.53, p<0.001), pain endurance beliefs (r_s = -0.49, p<0.001) and the use of aqueous morphine (r_s = -0.26, p=0.002). A multiple linear regression model on these predictors resulted in a final model which accounted for 47.0% of the total variance in adherence (R² = 0.47, F (7, 126) = 15.75, p<0.001). After controlling for other variables, negative effect beliefs were the strongest contributor to the model (β = -0.39, p<0.001) and uniquely explained 12.3% of the total variance.

CONCLUSION

The overall adherence to opioid analgesics among Malaysian patients with cancer pain was good. Negative effects beliefs regarding cancer pain and opioids strongly predicted adherence.

A Longitudinal Study of Predictors of Constipation Severity in Oncology Outpatients With Unrelieved Pain

CONTEXT

Although constipation is a common symptom in oncology patients, it often goes unrecognized and untreated. In addition, little is known about characteristics associated with interindividual differences in constipation severity.

OBJECTIVES

To describe prevalence, characteristics, and management of constipation; evaluate interindividual differences in constipation severity over 10 weeks; and identify demographic, clinical, and symptom characteristics associated with higher constipation severity scores.

METHODS

In this prospective, longitudinal study, 175 oncology patients with unrelieved pain were recruited from eight outpatient cancer settings in the U.S. Patients completed demographic and symptom questionnaires at enrollment. Constipation severity was evaluated over 10 weeks using the Constipation Assessment Scale (CAS). Hierarchical linear modeling was used to identify characteristics associated with higher CAS scores.

RESULTS

At enrollment, 70.1% of the patients reported constipation [i.e., CAS score of >2; mean CAS score: 3.72 (±3.11)]. While over the first week of the study patients used one to two constipation treatments per day, a large amount of interindividual variability was found in CAS scores. Higher percentage of days with no bowel movement, higher number of constipation treatments, higher state anxiety scores, and higher analgesic side effects scores were associated with higher CAS scores at enrollment. Higher percentage of days with no bowel movement was associated with interindividual differences in the trajectories of constipation.

CONCLUSION

Our findings underscore the high prevalence of and large amount of interindividual variability in constipation severity. The characteristics associated with worse CAS scores can assist clinicians to identify high-risk patients and initiate prompt interventions.

Are patient education and self-care advantageous for patients with head and neck cancer? A feasibility study

AIM

This study evaluates whether patient education and individually self-care reduces pain and improves QoL, mood and sleep during and after radiotherapy treatment for patients with head and neck cancer.

DESIGN

A longitudinal, two-armed feasibility study design was performed.

METHODS

Sixty-four participants with curative intent were included in the study. All participants answered questions about pain three times a week and completed a survey questionnaire about pain, QoL, psychological aspects and barriers towards pain management at baseline, at 4 weeks and at 10 weeks. Thirty-four of the participants attended in two education sessions on pain based on their beliefs about pain and received individualized self-care instructions based on their weekly rating of pain.

RESULT

This study did not find any significant group differences for the pain, QoL, mood and sleep.

Gender Difference in Cancer Patients' Adherence to Analgesics and Related Outcomes of Pain Management

BACKGROUND

Males and females have significant differences in certain medical outcomes. However, little research has explored the gender differences in cancer patient perceptions of analgesics, the relationship between gender and analgesic adherence, or the effectiveness of pain management.

OBJECTIVE

The objectives of this study were to compare gender differences associated with hesitancy to use analgesics, analgesic adherence, or pain management effectiveness and to examine whether gender can precisely predict analgesic adherence.

METHODS

The study was conducted in the outpatient oncology department of a medical center in Taiwan. A descriptive and cross-sectional design was used. The study samples were collected from 362 cancer patients. The participants completed the short version of the Barriers Questionnaire-Taiwan, the Morisky Analgesics Adherence Measure-Taiwan version, the Brief Pain Inventory-Chinese version, the Pain Management Index, and a demographic and disease questionnaire.

RESULTS

The pain intensity and hesitancy to use analgesics scores were significantly higher among females than among males. The Pain Management Index results indicated that a larger percentage of males had adequate pain management. In addition, being male was a significant predictor of higher analgesic adherence (odds ratio, 1.93; P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Gender could precisely predict cancer patients' medication adherence. Women experienced significantly greater pain than did men but also had more hesitancy to use analgesics, lower adherence, and inadequate pain management.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Healthcare professionals should consider women as a high-risk group for inadequate pain control. It is crucial for health providers to consider the gender discrepancy when attempting to improve cancer pain management.

Something Must Be Wrong with the Implementation of Cancer-pain Treatment Guidelines. A Lesson from Referrals to a Pain Clinic

OBJECTIVE

The World Health Organization's (WHO) guidelines for cancer pain management were intentionally made simple in order to be widely implemented by all physicians treating cancer patients. Referrals to pain specialists are advised if pain does not improve within a short time. The present study examined whether or not a reasonable use of the WHO guideline was made by non-pain specialists prior to referral of patients with cancer-related pain to a pain clinic.

METHODS

Cancer patients referred to a pain specialist completed several questionnaires including demographics, medical history, and cancer-related pain; the short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ); and the Short Form Health Survey SF-12. Data from referral letters and medical records were obtained. Treatments recommended by pain specialists were recorded and categorized as "unjustified" if they were within the WHO ladder framework, or "justified" if they included additional treatments.

RESULTS

Seventy-three patients (44 women, 29 men) aged 55 years (range, 25-85) participated in the study. Their pain lasted for a mean of 6 (1-192) months. Mean pain intensity scores on a 0-10 numerical rating scale were 7 (2-10) at rest and 8 (3-10) upon movement. Most patients complied with their referring physician's recommendations and consumed opioids. Adverse events were frequent. No significant correlation was found between the WHO analgesic medication step used and mean pain levels reported. There were 63 patient referrals (85%) categorized as "unjustified," whereas only 11 patients (15%) required "justified" interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings imply that analgesic treatment within the WHO framework was not reasonably utilized by non-pain specialists before referring patients to pain clinics.

Patient Patterns and Perspectives on Using Opioid Regimens for Chronic Cancer Pain

CONTEXT

With increasing attention to the undertreatment of cancer pain in parallel with concerns about opioid misuse, little is known about how patients with advanced cancer adhere to opioid regimens for chronic cancer pain.

OBJECTIVES

We explored patient approaches to managing chronic cancer pain with long-acting opioids.

METHODS

In a multimethods study at an academic medical center, adult patients with chronic cancer pain (n = 17) used electronic pill caps to record adherence to prescribed long-acting opioid regimens. After eight weeks, patients viewed their adherence records and completed a semistructured interview about their opioid use. With a framework approach, we coded interview data (Kappa >0.95) and identified themes in how patients perceived and used opioids to manage cancer pain.

RESULTS

Patients (59% female; 94% non-Hispanic white; median age = 65 years) felt grateful about pain benefit from opioids yet concerned about opioid side effects and addiction/tolerance. Main reasons for nonadherence included both intentional decisions (e.g., skipping doses) and unintentional barriers (e.g., missing doses due to inconsistent sleep schedules). Overall, patients set their own opioid adherence goals and developed routines to achieve them. Residual pain varied and was not consistently linked with opioid adherence.

CONCLUSION

Patients commonly felt conflicted about using prescribed long-acting opioids to manage cancer pain due to concurrent perceptions of their risks and benefits, and they set their own parameters for opioid-taking practices. Intentional and unintentional deviations from prescribed opioid schedules highlight the need to enhance adherence communication, education, and counseling, to optimize the use of long-acting opioids as a component of cancer pain management.

Caregiver-guided pain coping skills training for patients with advanced cancer: Background, design, and challenges for the CaringPals study

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Pain is a major concern of patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers. There is strong evidence that pain coping skills training interventions based on cognitive-behavioral principles can reduce pain severity and pain interference. However, few such interventions have been tested for patients with advanced cancer and their family caregivers. This study aims to test the efficacy of a caregiver-guided pain coping skills training protocol on patient and caregiver outcomes.

METHODS

A total of 214 patients age ≥18 with Stage III-Stage IV cancer and moderate to severe pain, along with their family caregivers, are being identified and randomized with a 1:1 allocation to the caregiver-guided pain coping skills training intervention or enhanced treatment-as-usual. Dyads in both conditions receive educational resources on pain management, and the caregiver-guided pain coping skills training intervention includes three weekly 60-min sessions conducted with the patient-caregiver dyad via videoconference. Measures of caregiver outcomes (self-efficacy for helping the patient manage pain, caregiver strain, caregiving satisfaction, psychological distress) and patient outcomes (self-efficacy for pain management, pain intensity and interference, psychological distress) are collected at baseline and post-intervention. Caregiver outcomes are also collected 3 and 6 months following the patient's death. The study is enrolling patients from four tertiary care academic medical centers and one free-standing hospice and palliative care organization. The primary outcome is caregiver self-efficacy for helping the patient manage pain.

RESULTS

This article describes challenges in the design and implementation of the CaringPals trial. Key issues for trial design include the identification and recruitment of patients with advanced cancer and pain, and the follow-up and collection of data from caregivers following the patient's death.

CONCLUSION

The CaringPals trial addresses a gap in research in pain coping skills training interventions by addressing the unique needs of patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers. Findings from this study may lead to advances in the clinical care of patients with advanced cancer and pain, as well as a better understanding of the effects of training family caregivers to help patients cope with pain.

Pain prevalence and treatment in patients with metastatic bone disease

The accomplishment of successful pain treatment requires evaluation, characterization and quantification. The present study characterized pain and survival in a cohort of patients with cancer with bone metastasis who were treated with intravenous bisphosphonates. A total of 84 patients self-completed the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36), between November 2010 and March 2011 with a 5-year survival follow-up as a surrogate marker of cancer burden. The median age was 62 years old (34–85), 64% of patients were female and 58% of these females had breast cancer. In the population, self-reported pain was 91.6%, with 29 patients (34.5%) reporting severe pain (score 7–10). Among these patients, only 13 (44.8%) presented a similar report to that of their clinical files and 5 were undergoing treatment with strong opioids (17.2%). A total of 45 patients (46%) had not been prescribed analgesic drugs, of these patients, 32 were treated with a weak opioid, and 13 with a strong opioid. An association was observed between pain records and the prescribed analgesic (P=0.031). BPI maximum pain and overall survival data were analyzed, and a significant association was identified between male patients presenting severe pain and decreased survival (P=0.004). Male survival was associated with severe pain, which is consistent with other data. The results revealed a skeletal-related events (SRE)-free survival (time elapsed from diagnosis of the first bone metastasis to the first SRE) of 9 months (4.39–13.73, 95% CI) with a statistically significant difference between subgroups of time since diagnosis of bone metastasis (P=0.005). The added value of the present study is the suggestion that complete and accurate pain narratives are mandatory and may contribute to the optimization of analgesia, and may help to increase survival rates. Optimal pain management for patients with cancer remains an urgent requirement.

Pharmacist educational interventions for cancer pain management: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Educational interventions by pharmacists for patients with cancer pain aim to improve pain management, but little is known about the different components of interventions and their effectiveness. Our aim was to assess the benefit of pharmacist delivered educational interventions for patients with cancer pain. A systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental trials testing pharmacist delivered educational interventions for cancer pain was carried out to identify the components of interventions and effectiveness at improving pain-related outcomes for patients with cancer. A literature review was conducted in EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ASSIA, Web of Science and CENTRAL from inception until January 2018 searching for educational interventions involving a pharmacist for patients with cancer pain. Four studies were included involving 944 patients. Meta-analysis was carried out where possible.

KEY FINDINGS

Meta-analysis of three of the four studies found that mean pain intensity in the intervention group was reduced by 0.76 on a 0-10 scale (95% confidence interval), although only two of the studies used validated measures of pain. Improvements in knowledge, side effects and patient satisfaction were seen although with less reliable measures.

SUMMARY

Pharmacist educational interventions for patients with cancer pain have been found to show promise in reducing pain intensity. Studies were few and of varying quality. Further, good quality studies should be carried out in this area and these should be comprehensively reported. Trials measuring patient self-efficacy and patient satisfaction are needed before the impact of the pharmacist delivered interventions on these outcomes can be established.

Factors Related to Adherence to Opioids in Black Patients With Cancer Pain

CONTEXT

Cancer pain relief is often inadequate because of poor adherence to pain medication, especially for black patients.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study is to describe factors related to adherence to around-the-clock opioids among 110 black patients being treated for cancer pain.

METHODS

Sociodemographic, clinical, symptoms, and social support data were collected at baseline; pain and adherence data were collected at 30 days. Associations between these variables and opioid adherence measured by Medication Event Monitoring System were estimated using multiple regression.

RESULTS

Mean age was 56 (±10.1), the majority were women (63%) and college educated (56%). Mean pain severity at baseline equaled 4.6 (±2.3). Mean dose adherence was 60% (±28.5), while mean schedule adherence was 33.0% (±31.0). In adjusted analysis, 26% of the variance in dose adherence was explained by recent chemotherapy, changes in pain, concerns about nausea, and doctors' focus on cure versus pain control (P<0.001); 27% of the variance in schedule adherence was explained by recent chemotherapy, changes in pain, symptom burden, and concerns about doctors focus on cure versus pain control (P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Findings confirm pain medication adherence is poor and pain was not well relieved. Multiple factors influence adherence to around-the-clock opioids. Clinicians need to partner with patients by providing a personalized pain treatment plan including an in-depth assessment of treatment choices and adherence.

A nationwide survey of adherence to analgesic drugs among cancer patients in Taiwan: prevalence, determinants, and impact on quality of life

PURPOSE

Poor adherence to analgesic drugs is one of the most common barriers to adequate pain management. This prospective, cross-sectional, patient-oriented observational study aimed to explore the adherence rate, clinical factors, and impact of adherence to analgesic drugs on the quality of life (QoL) among cancer outpatients in Taiwan.

METHODS

Eight hundred ninety-seven consecutive adult outpatients with cancer who had reported tumor pain and received regular analgesic drug treatment were enrolled from 16 medical centers across Taiwan. The Brief Pain Inventory was used to assess pain intensity and QoL. Morisky's four-item medication adherence scale was used to assess adherence to analgesic drugs. Clinical factors possibly associated with good adherence to analgesic drugs were analyzed using multivariate logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

Of the 897 patients, 26.9% met criteria for the good, 35.5% for the moderate, and 37.6% for the poor adherence groups. The good adherence group had significantly better QoL outcomes than the moderate and poor adherence groups (all p < 0.05). Age ≥ 50 years, head and neck or hematological malignancies, cancer-related pain, patients who agreed or strongly agreed that the side effects of analgesic drugs were tolerable, and patients who disagreed or strongly disagreed that the dosing schedule could be flexibly self-adjusted to deal with the actual pain were predictors of good adherence to analgesic drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

Awareness of the clinical factors associated with adherence to analgesic drugs may help clinicians to identify cancer patients at a greater risk of non-adherence, reinforce optimal pain management, and improve the QoL by enhancing adherence to pain medications.

Patient Safety and Pro Re Nata Prescription and Administration: A Systematic Review

PRN is the acronym for 'pro re nata,' written against prescriptions whose administration should be based on patients' needs, rather than at set times. The aim of this systematic review was to explore safety issues and adverse events arising from PRN prescription and administration. Electronic databases including Scopus, PubMed [including Medline], Embase, Cinahl, Web of Science and ProQuest were systematically searched to retrieve articles published from 2005 to 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

we included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and studies with comparison groups, comparing PRN prescription and administration with scheduled administration, where safety issues and adverse events were reported. The authors independently assessed titles, abstracts and full-texts of retrieved studies based on inclusion criteria and risk of bias. Results were summarised narratively. The search identified 7699 articles. Title, abstract and full-text appraisals yielded 5 articles. The included studies were RCTs with one exception, a pre-test post-test experimental design. Patient populations, interventions and outcomes varied. Studies compared patient-controlled or routine administration with PRN and one trial assessed the effect of a practice guideline on implementation of PRN administration. More analgesia was administered in the patient-controlled than the PRN arms but pain reduction was similar. However, there was little difference in administration of psychotropic medicines. No differences between patient-controlled and PRN groups were reported for adverse events. The PRN practice guideline improved PRN patient education but non-documentation of PRN administration increased. This systematic review suggests that PRN safety issues and adverse events are an under-researched area of healthcare practice. Variations in the interventions, outcomes and clinical areas make it difficult to judge the overall quality of the evidence. Well-designed RCTs are needed to identify any safety issues and adverse events associated with PRN administration.

Number of Unused Medications at the Time of Last Admission: A Prospective Observational Study in a Single Palliative Care Unit

BACKGROUND:

Unused medications (UM) are an important issue, with the waste associated with UM a burden to the health-care system. The aims of this study were to clarify the amount and costs of UM in patients with advanced cancer at the time of their last admission to a palliative care unit and to explore the factors contributing to the cost of UM and how patients dealt with UM.

METHODS:

A prospective observational study was conducted in single palliative care unit. Unused medications were classified into 6 categories and the number and cost of UM by category calculated per patient. Patients were classified into 2 cost groups (high and low) based on the total cost of UM, and the number and cost of UM by category were compared between these 2 groups.

RESULTS:

Of 194 consecutive hospitalized patients, data were analyzed for 90. The mean number and cost of UM per patient was 440 and US$301, respectively. Opioids accounted for 47% of the cost of UM. Comparing costs by UM category, the proportion of opioids (51% vs 21%; P < .0001) and oral anticancer drugs (14% vs 3%; P = .02) was higher in the high- than in the low-cost group.

CONCLUSION:

Based on the results of the present study, the estimated annual waste cost of UM for patients with cancer who died in Japan was approximately US$110 million. Interventions to educate patients regarding UM and to eliminate barriers to opioid use may help reduce the cost of UM, particularly opioids and anticancer drugs.

Optimal pain management for patients with cancer in the modern era

Pain is a common symptom among patients with cancer. Adequate pain assessment and management are critical to improve the quality of life and health outcomes in this population. In this review, the authors provide a framework for safely and effectively managing cancer-related pain by summarizing the evidence for the importance of controlling pain, the barriers to adequate pain management, strategies to assess and manage cancer-related pain, how to manage pain in patients at risk of substance use disorder, and considerations when managing pain in a survivorship population. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:182-196. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Outpatient Pain Medication Use: An Electronic Daily Diary Study in Metastatic Breast Cancer

CONTEXT

Understanding cancer patients' everyday pain experiences and their concomitant use of pain medication may help identify ways to improve pain management among outpatients.

OBJECTIVES

This study examined the between-person and within-person associations between pain intensity and analgesic use in metastatic breast cancer patients.

METHODS

Fifty-three women who were initiating treatment for metastatic breast cancer completed electronic diary assessments six times per day for 14 days.

RESULTS

The likelihood of taking medication was found to depend on patients' average pain levels and on whether their pain was better or worse than usual at the time. Patients who typically experienced moderate-to-high pain were more likely to be prescribed and to take analgesics than were patients who typically experienced low pain. However, these patients tended not to vary their medication use based on within-person fluctuations in pain. In contrast, patients who typically experienced low pain tended to increase their medication use at times when their pain was higher than usual but were less likely to use medication than were patients who typically experienced higher levels of pain.

CONCLUSION

Our findings provide some evidence that patients with advanced cancer tend to use their pain medications appropriately. Patients with lower pain appear to be taking medications in response to increases in pain, whereas patients whose pain is typically more intense may be relying on other cues to prompt them to take analgesic medication. Clinicians may need to be sensitive to individual differences in the factors associated with pain medication use in daily life.

A Systematic Review of the Patient- and Carer-Related Factors Affecting the Experience of Pain for Advanced Cancer Patients Cared for at Home

CONTEXT

Effective pain management is a priority in the palliative care of advanced cancer patients. A body of research is emerging examining the factors that influence the management and experience of pain for such individuals. Identifying such factors should allow for the development of targeted interventions to improve pain management in the home while ultimately reducing unnecessary suffering for the patient.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to identify relevant patient- and carer-related factors which have an effect on the pain experienced by advanced cancer patients cared for at home.

METHOD

This is a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses (PRISMA) statement guidelines. Studies were retrieved from the CINAHL, MEDLINE, and Web of Science and assessed independently by two reviewers with discrepancies assessed by a third before quality assessment and data extraction. A narrative synthesis was produced.

RESULTS

Our search strategy produced 720 hits, of which 10 studies were retained for the final analysis. The factors identified included carer knowledge of cancer pain management, carer burden, carer and patient distress, pain rating disparity, patient well-being, patient depression, patient affective experience, patient body image, and satisfaction with palliative/medical care. All factors identified are supported by only some evidence with many having only been explored in single studies.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a lack of quantitative research in the area of factors influencing the experience of pain for advanced cancer patients cared for at home. Such findings would be useful in developing theories of change that would underpin interventions aimed at improving pain outcomes for this population.

Newly developed controlled release subcutaneous formulation for tramadol hydrochloride

This study presents a drug delivery system of poly (Ɛ-caprolactone) (PCL) ribbons to optimize the pharmaceutical action of tramadol for the first time according to our knowledge. PCL ribbons were fabricated and loaded with tramadol HCl. Ribbons were prepared by slip casting technique and coated with dipping technique with β-cyclodextrin. The chemical integrity and surface morphology of the ribbons were confirmed using FTIR and SEM coupled with EDX. In addition, thermodynamic behavior of the fabricated ribbons was investigated using DSC/TGA. Tramadol loading into PCL ribbons, biodegradation of ribbons and tramadol release kinetics were studied in PBS.The results revealed that the formulated composition did not affect the chemical integrity of the drug. Furthermore, SEM/EDX confirmed the inclusion of tramadol into the PCL matrix in homogenous distribution pattern without any observation of porous structure. The particle size of loaded tramadol was found to be in the range of (2-4 nm). The formulated composition did not affect the chemical integrity of the drug and should be further investigated for bioavailability. Tramadol exhibited controlled release behavior from PCL ribbons up to 45 days governed mainly by diffusion mechanism. The fabricated ribbons have a great potentiality to be implemented in the long term subcutaneous delivery of tramadol.

Inadequate treatment practices for pain relief and adverse event management in cancer patients across 10 countries/regions in Asia: a call for greater efforts to improve standards for patient care

AIM

To examine the treatment practices for cancer pain relief and adverse event management, and the factors related to patient outcomes in the participating countries/regions.

METHODS

The study was a cross-sectional survey conducted between September and December 2013 in 10 countries/regions across Asia. Adult patients with a history of cancer pain at least 1 month before study entry completed the survey questionnaire.

RESULTS

A total of 1190 patients were included. The mean Box Scale-11 (BS-11) pain score was 6.0 (SD 2.1), with 86.2% experiencing moderate-to-severe pain and 53.2% receiving opioids at time of the survey. The mean BS-11 scores were 5.3 (SD 2.1) in the "others" (single non-opioid medication or untreated) group, 6.3 (SD 2.0) in the ≥2 non-opioids group and 6.7 (SD 1.9) in the opioid group. The proportions of patients experiencing moderate-to-severe pain were 79.1%, 87.3% and 93.7%, respectively. About 70% of patients reported adverse events due to their pain medications, about half had received medications to manage these symptoms. Adverse events were negatively associated with activities of daily living (P < 0.0001). Pain and hindrance to activities of daily living were negatively associated with employment status (P = 0.003 and 0.021). Unemployment was significantly associated with poorer quality of life (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

This analysis demonstrates inadequate management of cancer pain and treatment-related adverse events in the participating cohort. Pain and inadequate management of adverse events were negatively associated with patients' overall well-being. More collaborative efforts should be taken to optimize pain treatment and increase awareness of adverse event management in physicians.

What are the current challenges of managing cancer pain and could digital technologies help?

Objectives

Pain remains a problem for people with cancer despite effective treatments being available. We aimed to explore current pain management strategies used by patients, caregivers and professionals and to investigate opportunities for digital technologies to enhance cancer pain management.

Methods

A qualitative study comprising semistructured interviews and focus groups. Patients with cancer pain, their caregivers and health professionals from Northeast Scotland were recruited from a purposive sample of general practices. Professionals were recruited from regional networks.

Results

Fifty one participants took part in 33 interviews (eight patients alone, six patient/caregiver dyads and 19 professionals) and two focus groups (12 professionals). Living with cancer was hard work for patients and caregivers and comparable to a ‘full-time job’. Patients had personal goals which involved controlling pain intensity and balancing this with analgesic use, side effects, overall symptom burden and social/physical activities.

Digital technologies were embraced by most patients, and made living life with advanced cancer easier and richer (eg, video calls with family). Technology was underutilised for pain and symptom management. There were suggestions that technology could support self-monitoring and communicating problems to professionals, but patients and professionals were concerned about technological monitoring adding to the work of managing illness.

Conclusions

Cancer pain management takes place in the context of multiple, sometimes competing personal goals. It is possible that technology could be used to help patients share individual symptom experiences and goals, thus enhancing tailored care. The challenge is for digital solutions to add value without adding undue burden.

Co-creative development of an eHealth nursing intervention: Self-management support for outpatients with cancer pain

INTRODUCTION

Co-creative methods, having an iterative character and including different perspectives, allow for the development of complex nursing interventions. Information about the development process is essential in providing justification for the ultimate intervention and crucial in interpreting the outcomes of subsequent evaluations. This paper describes a co-creative method directed towards the development of an eHealth intervention delivered by registered nurses to support self-management in outpatients with cancer pain.

METHODS

Intervention development was divided into three consecutive phases (exploration of context, specification of content, organisation of care). In each phase, researchers and technicians addressed five iterative steps: research, ideas, prototyping, evaluation, and documentation. Health professionals and patients were consulted during research and evaluation steps.

RESULTS

Collaboration of researchers, health professionals, patients and technicians was positive and valuable in optimising outcomes. The intervention includes a mobile application for patients and a web application for nurses. Patients are requested to monitor pain, adverse effects and medication intake, while being provided with graphical feedback, education and contact possibilities. Nurses monitor data, advise patients, and collaborate with the treating physician.

CONCLUSION

Integration of patient self-management and professional care by means of eHealth key into well-known barriers and seem promising in improving cancer pain follow-up. Nurses are able to make substantial contributions because of their expertise, focus on daily living, and their bridging function between patients and health professionals in different care settings. Insights from the intervention development as well as the intervention content give thought for applications in different patients and care settings.

Salient concerns in using analgesia for cancer pain among outpatients: A cluster analysis study

AIM

To identify unique clusters of patients based on their concerns in using analgesia for cancer pain and predictors of the cluster membership.

METHODS

This was a 3-mo prospective observational study (n = 207). Patients were included if they were adults (≥ 18 years), diagnosed with solid tumors or multiple myelomas, and had at least one prescription of around-the-clock pain medication for cancer or cancer-treatment-related pain. Patients were recruited from two outpatient medical oncology clinics within a large health system in Philadelphia. A choice-based conjoint (CBC) analysis experiment was used to elicit analgesic treatment preferences (utilities). Patients employed trade-offs based on five analgesic attributes (percent relief from analgesics, type of analgesic, type of side-effects, severity of side-effects, out of pocket cost). Patients were clustered based on CBC utilities using novel adaptive statistical methods. Multiple logistic regression was used to identify predictors of cluster membership.

RESULTS

The analyses found 4 unique clusters: Most patients made trade-offs based on the expectation of pain relief (cluster 1, 41%). For a subset, the main underlying concern was type of analgesic prescribed, i.e., opioid vs non-opioid (cluster 2, 11%) and type of analgesic side effects (cluster 4, 21%), respectively. About one in four made trade-offs based on multiple concerns simultaneously including pain relief, type of side effects, and severity of side effects (cluster 3, 28%). In multivariable analysis, to identify predictors of cluster membership, clinical and socioeconomic factors (education, health literacy, income, social support) rather than analgesic attitudes and beliefs were found important; only the belief, i.e., pain medications can mask changes in health or keep you from knowing what is going on in your body was found significant in predicting two of the four clusters [cluster 1 (-); cluster 4 (+)].

CONCLUSION

Most patients appear to be driven by a single salient concern in using analgesia for cancer pain. Addressing these concerns, perhaps through real time clinical assessments, may improve patients’ analgesic adherence patterns and cancer pain outcomes.

Are newer, more expensive pharmacotherapy options associated with superior symptom control compared to less costly agents used in a collaborative practice setting?

Innovative approaches to care may be necessary to provide the most effective symptom management to hospice patients. One approach is prescribing newer pharmacotherapy options with the potential to improve symptom management in hospice. Such therapies are sometimes prescribed outside of Food and Drug Administration indications and are typically more costly than older agents usedfor the same symptoms. Another approach is the collaborative practice (CP) care model, whereby clinical pharmacists are given prescriptive authority according to evidence-based protocols and algorithms within boundaries approved by a physician. The agents typically included in CPprotocols are those with wide therapeutic indices and with substantial evidence to support their use. The purpose of this study was to examine both approaches to management ofpain, insomnia, and nausea, comparing symptom scores for those patients who received noncollaborative drug therapies (transdermal fentanyl, zolpidem, and ondansetron) to those who received agents under CP (oral sustained-release opioids, temazepam, andprochlorperazine). The object of the study was to investigate outcomes associated with newer drug therapy options as compared to older agents for the management of pain, insomnia, and nausea. A secondary goal is to compare symptom outcomes for patients receiving pharmaceutical care under CP and non-CP models. The study design was retrospective with a cohort. A total of 50 patients were randomly selected for each cohort of the pain and insomnia study arms. Only 45 patients prescribed oral ondansetron met inclusion criteriafor the nausea group; 45 patients prescribed prochlorperazine were randomly selected as the comparator group. Patients were compared on their degree of response to the prescribed therapy. Response was classified as complete, partial, no improvement from baseline, worsened, or unknown. A complete response was defined as the symptom score improving to a 0 of 10, regardless of the previous value documented. A partial response was defined as any improvement in score that did not result in a 0 of 10. No improvement from baseline reflected a lack of overall change in score throughout the series of data points collected. A worsened response was any score found to be higher than the score documented at the time of dispense. The unknown category reflects any set of scores that had an “NIA” documented at the time of medication dispense or when documented for both attempts subsequent to dispensing the medication. A complete response was present in 14 of 50 (24 percent) of the patients prescribed fentanyl as compared with 12 of 50 (28 percent) of those prescribed oral therapy (p = .82). Responses defined as partial, no improvement over baseline, worsened, and unknown were also comparable between the two cohorts. A complete response was seen in 26 patients prescribed temazepam (52 percent), whereas only 11 (22 percent) of patients initially prescribed zolpidem achieved the same response (p = .003 7). Both groups had a similar distribution of partial, no improvement over baseline, and worsened responses. For the nausea arm of the study, a difference was found in the number of complete responses, favoring prochlorperazine (22 of 45, 48.9 percent for prochlorperazine, 12 of 45, 26.7 percent for ondansetron, p =. 0504), as well as an increased number of worse responses seen with ondansetron patients (p = .0513); however, neither difference was statistically significant. Newer pharmacotherapy options for the management of pain, insomnia, and nausea were not found to be superior when compared to older agents prescribed under CR

Establishing the safety and efficacy of an opioid titration protocol

The primary goal of this single-group study was to determine the safety of a standard opioid titration order sheet to manage pain in ambulatory cancer patients. Secondary goals were to examine opioid toxicity and efficacy of this pain protocol.

Twenty-seven patients who required fixed-dose opioids and who had uncontrolled pain were enrolled. All patients had their initial opioid dose titrated by the study physician using the opioid titration order sheet. Data were obtained by the study nurse during a weekly telephone interview and used to determine if pain was controlled. After initial titration, a trained study nurse titrated opioid doses based upon the standing order sheet. At each contact, patients were assessed for adverse effects, pain intensity, and analgesics used.

Patients who completed the four-week trial (n = 17) did not differ from patients who did not complete the trial. No adverse effects were observed in 39 opioid titrations completed by the study nurse. Opioid toxicities, worst pain, usual pain, and pain-related distress declined from baseline to week four. Patients who were adherent to their prescribed medications reported significantly lower pain intensity and distress (psα .06).

The opioid titration order sheet, used by a trained nurse, is safe to use in ambulatory cancer patients who have moderate to severe pain. Common opioid toxicities were reduced. The protocol also demonstrated initial efficacy in improving worst and usual pain and pain-related distress. Further research to establish efficacy of the protocol is recommended.

Update on Prevalence of Pain in Patients With Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

CONTEXT

Cancer pain has a severe impact on quality of life and is associated with numerous psychosocial responses. Recent studies suggest that treatment of cancer pain has improved during the last decade.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to examine the present status of pain prevalence and pain severity in patients with cancer.

METHODS

A systematic search of the literature published between September 2005 and January 2014 was performed using the databases PubMed, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane. Articles in English or Dutch that reported on the prevalence of cancer pain in an adult population were included. Titles and abstracts were screened by two authors independently, after which full texts were evaluated and assessed on methodological quality. Study details and pain characteristics were extracted from the articles with adequate study quality. Prevalence rates were pooled with meta-analysis; meta-regression was performed to explore determinants of pain prevalence.

RESULTS

Of 4117 titles, 122 studies were selected for the meta-analyses on pain (117 studies, n = 63,533) and pain severity (52 studies, n = 32,261). Pain prevalence rates were 39.3% after curative treatment; 55.0% during anticancer treatment; and 66.4% in advanced, metastatic, or terminal disease. Moderate to severe pain (numerical rating scale score ≥5) was reported by 38.0% of all patients.

CONCLUSION

Despite increased attention on assessment and management, pain continues to be a prevalent symptom in patients with cancer. In the upcoming decade, we need to overcome barriers toward effective pain treatment and develop and implement interventions to optimally manage pain in patients with cancer.

Mediating Effect of Family Caregivers' Hesitancy to Use Analgesics on Homecare Cancer Patients' Analgesic Adherence

CONTEXT

Family caregivers play an increasingly critical role in cancer patients' symptom management as the number of cancer patients receiving home care grows. However, there is a lack of research measuring the impact of the family caregivers' hesitancy to use analgesics on analgesic adherence and the resulting influence on patient pain intensity.

OBJECTIVES

To examine whether family caregivers' hesitancy to use analgesics is a mediator that influences patient adherence and investigate how analgesic regimen adherence affects pain intensity.

METHODS

This study used a cross-sectional and descriptive design. One hundred seventy-six patient-family caregiver dyads (N = 352) were recruited from one local hospital in southern Taiwan. Instruments included the Short Version of the Barriers Questionnaire-Taiwan, the Morisky Medication Adherence Measure-Taiwan, the Brief Pain Inventory-Chinese, and demographic and illness questionnaires. A one-way analysis of variance and post hoc comparisons were performed to assess the influence of analgesic regimen adherence on pain intensity. Sobel tests were used to examine mediating effects.

RESULTS

Family caregivers' hesitancy to use analgesics was a significant mediator between patient barriers to use analgesics and patient analgesic regimen adherence (P < 0.0001). Patients with low and moderate adherence levels reported significantly higher levels of pain severity (F = 3.83, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

This study showed that family caregivers' hesitancy to use analgesics was a significant mediator associated with their hesitancy to use analgesics and the patients' analgesic adherence. It is important for health care providers to consider family caregivers' hesitancy to use analgesics when attempting to improve adherence to pain management regimens in clinical practice.

Medical Oncology Patients: Are They Offered Help and Does It Provide Relief?

CONTEXT

Identifying modifiable gaps in the symptom management pathway, as perceived by patients, is the first step to relieving patient suffering.

OBJECTIVES

The objective is to describe the proportion of patients experiencing treatable cancer-related symptoms who reported 1) a health care provider at the treatment center offered assistance for their symptom, 2) they accepted the assistance offered, and 3) the assistance relieved suffering. Variation in symptom management among treatment centers also was examined.

METHODS

A survey was done with 528 medical oncology outpatients recruited from six treatment centers. Eight items explored management of prevalent, burdensome, and treatable cancer-related symptoms: pain, fatigue, other physical side effects, and emotional distress. Participants were asked about symptom management provided at the clinic from where they were recruited. Questions referred to the last occasion the patient experienced the symptom.

RESULTS

Fewer patients were offered help to relieve fatigue (44%) and emotional distress (57%), than pain (90%) and other physical side effects (84%). In most cases, help was not offered as clinic staff were not aware of the patient's symptom. Although the vast majority of patients accepted the help that was offered, more patients accepted help for physical symptoms (pain, 97%; fatigue, 95%; and other side effects, 98%) than emotional symptoms (87%). When care was provided, most patients experienced at least a little relief from pain (99%), fatigue (94%), and emotional distress (96%). Symptom management did not vary significantly by treatment center (P = 0.073).

CONCLUSION

Quality improvement initiatives must focus primarily on improving providers' awareness of their patients' symptoms and ensuring that patients are subsequently offered help.

Adherence to Analgesics for Cancer Pain: A Comparative Study of African Americans and Whites Using an Electronic Monitoring Device

Despite well-documented disparities in cancer pain outcomes among African Americans, surprisingly little research exists on adherence to analgesia for cancer pain in this group. We compared analgesic adherence for cancer-related pain over a 3-month period between African Americans and whites using the Medication Event Monitoring System (MEMS). Patients (N = 207) were recruited from outpatient medical oncology clinics of an academic medical center in Philadelphia (≥18 years of age, diagnosed with solid tumors or multiple myeloma, with cancer-related pain, and at least 1 prescription of oral around-the-clock analgesic). African Americans reported significantly greater cancer pain (P < .001), were less likely than whites to have a prescription of long-acting opioids (P < .001), and were more likely to have a negative Pain Management Index (P < .001). There were considerable differences between African Americans and whites in the overall MEMS dose adherence, ie, percentage of the total number of prescribed doses that were taken (53% vs 74%, P < .001). On subanalysis, analgesic adherence rates for African Americans ranged from 34% (for weak opioids) to 63% (for long-acting opioids). Unique predictors of analgesic adherence varied by race; income levels, analgesic side effects, and fear of distracting providers predicted analgesic adherence for African Americans but not for whites. Perspective: Despite evidence of disparities in cancer pain outcomes among African Americans, surprisingly little research exists on African Americans' adherence to analgesia for cancer pain. This prospective study uses objective measures to compare adherence to prescribed pain medications between African American and white patients with cancer pain.