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

Knowledge, attitudes, and current practices toward lung cancer palliative care management in China: a national survey

Scope

The present investigation seeks to illuminate the current state and disparities in the knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) among healthcare professionals regarding the management of lung cancer palliative care (LCPC) in China, while simultaneously assessing the prevalence and context of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) usage in the management of cancer-related pain.

Methods

A total of 2093 healthcare practitioners from 706 hospitals across China completed a structured questionnaire that probed various facets of LCPC management. The questionnaire consisted of seven thematic sections, incorporating chi-square tests and Fisher's exact probabilities to statistically assess the discrepancies in KAP among healthcare professionals across different hospital grades. Ordered data distributions among hospital grades were compared using non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis H and Mann-Whitney U tests. Multiple-choice items were subjected to multiple-response cross-tabulation analysis, while the Spearman rank-order correlation coefficient was employed to gauge potential associations among variables.

Results

Around 84.2% of the respondents perceived anti-tumor therapy to be of equal importance to palliative care. Statistically significant differences (χ² = 27.402, P = 0.002) in satisfaction levels were observed, with participants from Tertiary hospitals demonstrating higher satisfaction compared to those from Secondary and Primary hospitals. Pain emerged as the most prevalent symptom necessitating LCPC. Major impediments to LCPC adoption included patients' and families' concerns about the safety of long-term palliative care-related drug use. 31.1% of the respondents cited the most frequent rationale for PCA use as cases involving patients who required systemic administration of large opioid doses or exhibited intolerable adverse reactions to opioids. The principal deterrents against the use of PCA for cancer pain management were (1): apprehension about adverse drug reactions due to overdose (2), concern about the potential for opioid addiction, and (3) the anticipated increase in patients' economic burdens. Over the preceding 24-month period, 33.9% of the surveyed healthcare practitioners reported no engagement in either online or offline LCPC-related training initiatives.

Conclusion

This study emphasizes the pressing need for comprehensive training in LCPC among Chinese health personnels, particularly focusing on the effective management of cancer pain symptoms.

Patient-Controlled Subcutaneous Analgesia with Hydromorphone versus Oral Oxycontin for Opioid Titration of Cancer Pain: A Prospective Multicenter Randomized Trial

Background

Studies have shown that oral oxycontin tablets can be used for opioid titration. The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) guidelines for adult cancer pain recommend opioid titration through the parenteral route, usually the intravenous or subcutaneous route. Patient-controlled subcutaneous analgesia (PCSA) with hydromorphone needs further evaluation for opioid titration. This prospective multicenter study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of hydromorphone PCSA with oral oxycontin tablets for opioid titration of cancer pain.

Patients and Methods

Eligible patients with cancer pain were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the PCSA group or the oxycontin group for dose titration. Different titration methods were given in both groups depending on whether the patient had an opioid tolerance. The primary endpoint of this study was time to successful titration (TST).

Results

A total of 256 patients completed this study. The PCSA group had a significantly lower TST compared with the oxycontin group (median [95% confidence interval (CI)], 5.5[95% CI:2.5-11.5] hours vs.16.0 [95% CI:11.5-22.5] hours; p<0.001). The frequency (median; interquartile) of breakthrough pain (Btp) over 24 hours was significantly lower in the PCSA group (2.5;2.0-3.5) than in the oxycontin group.(3.0; 2.5-4.5) (p=0.04). The pain was evaluated by numeric rating scale (NRS) score at 12 hours after the start of titration. The pain score (median; interquartile) was significantly lower in the PCSA versus the oxycontin group (2.5;1.5-3.0) vs 4.5;3.0-6.0) (p=0.02). The equivalent dose of oral morphine (EDOM) for a successful titration was similar in both groups (p=0.29), but there was a significant improvement in quality of life (QoL) in both groups (p=0.03). No between-group difference in the incidence of opioid-related adverse effects was observed (p=0.32).

Conclusion

Compared with oral oxycontin tablet, the use of PCSA with hydromorphone achieved a shorter titration duration for patients with cancer pain (p<0.001), without significantly increasing adverse events (p=0.32).