Opioids for the management of breakthrough (episodic) pain in cancer patients

Validation of the Spanish Version of the Breakthrough Pain Assessment Tool in Patients With Cancer

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Assessment of breakthrough pain is essential for adequate management of cancer pain. The Breakthrough Pain Assessment Tool (BAT) has been proven to be a brief, multidimensional, and reliable questionnaire for the assessment of breakthrough cancer pain (BTCP). Currently, there are no validated instruments in Spanish that allow assessing BTCP.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to validate the Breakthrough Pain Assessment Tool - Spanish (BAT-S) version of the BAT in adult patients with cancer.

METHODS

The BAT-S was tested in a prospective observational study conducted in adult patients with cancer-related pain and treated in a comprehensive cancer center in Mexico. We conducted a forward-backward translation and cross-cultural equivalence test in the Spanish language. The psychometric properties in patients with cancer were assessed using factor analysis, reliability, and validity. To assess reliability, the Kappa test and the intra-class correlation coefficient were used. For consistency, Cronbach's alpha test was used.

RESULTS

Seventy patients participated in the study; 140 questionnaires were analyzed. The Spanish translation was well accepted by participants. Reliability was comprised between 0.746 for "use of analgesics" and 1.00 for "pain location." Thirteen of the 14 items had values above 0.8, and 12 above 0.9. Cronbach´s alpha coefficient was 0.7.

CONCLUSION

This study confirms that BAT-S is a valid and reliable questionnaire to assess breakthrough pain in Mexican patients with cancer. This newly validated tool may be used to facilitate clinical management of primarily Spanish-speaking patients with breakthrough cancer pain.

KEY MESSAGE

This study describes a prospective observational study to assess the validity and reliability of the Breakthrough Pain Assessment Tool in its Spanish version. The results support the use of this newly validated tool to facilitate clinical management of primarily Spanish-speaking patients with breakthrough cancer pain.

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

The Indian Society for Study of Pain (ISSP), Cancer Pain Special Interest Group (SIG) guidelines on pharmacological management of cancer pain in adults provide a structured, stepwise approach, which will help to improve the management of cancer pain and to provide the patients with a minimally acceptable quality of life. The guidelines have been developed based on the available literature and evidence, to suit the needs, patient population, and situations in India. A questionnaire, based on the key elements of each sub draft addressing certain inconclusive areas where evidence was lacking, was made available on the ISSP website and circulated by e-mail to all the ISSP and Indian Association of Palliative Care members. We recommend that analgesics for cancer pain management should follow the World Health Organization 3-step analgesic ladder appropriate for the severity of pain. The use of paracetamol and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs alone or in combination with opioids for mild-to-moderate pain should be used. For mild-to-moderate pain, weak opioids such as tramadol, tapentadol, and codeine can be given in combination with nonopioid analgesics. We recommend morphine as the opioid of the first choice for moderate-to-severe cancer pain. Sustained-release formulations can be started 12 hourly, once the effective 24 h dose with immediate-release morphine is established. Opioid switch or rotation should be considered if there is inadequate analgesia or intolerable side effects. For opioid-induced respiratory depression, μ receptor antagonists (e.g. naloxone) must be used promptly. Antidepressants and/or anticonvulsants should be used to treat neuropathic cancer pain, and the dose should be titrated according to the clinical response and side effects. External beam radiotherapy should be offered to all patients with painful metastatic bone pain. There is evidence on use of ketamine in cancer neuropathic pain, but with no beneficial effect, thus, it is not recommended.

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

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

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

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

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

Expert consensus on the management of breakthrough cancer pain in older patients. A Delphi study

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to generate expert-based recommendations on the management of breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP) in older patients with cancer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A two-round multidisciplinary Delphi study. Specialists rated their agreement with a set of statements using a nine-point Likert scale (one = totally disagree and nine = totally agree). Statements were classified as appropriate (median ranged from seven to nine), irrelevant (median ranged from four to six) or inappropriate (median ranged from one to three). Consensus was established when at least two thirds of the panel scored within any of the ranges.

RESULTS

A total of 64 specialists from pain units (44.4%), palliative care units (25.4%), medical oncology (19.1%), geriatric medicine (7.9%) and others (3.2%), participated in two consultation rounds. Specialists agreed that effective coordination between the different specialties and levels of care is essential for proper management of BTcP. Most participants (81.3%) supported the assessment of frailty and resolved (96.8%) that frailty status is a better indicator of patient needs than biological age. Participants agreed (75.8%) in the application of the Davies algorithm for diagnosis of BTcP in older patients. A strong consensus was achieved regarding which pharmacological treatment (transmucosal fentanyl) and dosing method (start low and go slow) are the most suitable for the older population. No agreement was reached on how interventionist techniques should be integrated into the therapeutic strategy for BTcP.

CONCLUSIONS

The present Delphi has generated a set of recommendations that will help healthcare professionals in the management of BTcP in older patients.

Usability, Acceptability, and Usefulness of an mHealth App for Diagnosing and Monitoring Patients With Breakthrough Cancer Pain

Background

Breakthrough pain is a major problem and a source of distress in patients with cancer. We hypothesized that health care professionals may benefit from a real-time mobile app to assist in the diagnosis and monitoring of breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP).

Objective

This study aimed to test the usability, acceptability, and usefulness in real-world practice of the mobile App INES·DIO developed for the management of patients with BTcP.

Methods

This study consisted of a survey of a multidisciplinary sample of 175 physicians who evaluated the mobile app after testing it with 4 patients with BTcP each (for a total of 700 patients). The digital profile of the physicians, use of the different resources contained in the app, usefulness of the resources, acceptability, usability, potential improvements, intention to use, and additional resources to add were recorded.

Results

Of the 175 physicians, 96% (168/175) were working in public hospitals. They had an average of 12 (SD 7) years of experience in BTcP and almost all (174/175, 99.43%) had an active digital profile. The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group and Karnofsky performance scales, the Visual Analogue Scale, and the Davies algorithm to diagnose BTcP were the most frequently used tools with patients and were assessed as very useful by more than 80% (140/175) of physicians. The majority (157/175, 90%) answered that App INES·DIO was well designed and 94% (165/175) would probably or very probably recommend it to other colleagues. More than two-thirds indicated that the report provided by the app was worth being included in patients’ clinical records. The most valued resource in the app was the recording of the number, duration, and intensity of pain flares each day and baseline pain control to enhance diagnosis of BTcP. Additional patient-oriented cancer pain educational content was suggested for inclusion in future versions of App INES·DIO.

Conclusions

Our study showed that App INES·DIO is easy to use and useful for physicians to help diagnose and monitor breakthrough pain in patients with cancer. Participants suggested the implementation of additional educational content about breakthrough pain. They agreed on the importance of adding new clinical guidelines/protocols for the management of BTcP, improving their communication skills with patients, and introducing an evidence-based video platform that gathers new educational material on BTcP.

Current management of breakthrough cancer pain according to physicians from pain units in Spain

PURPOSE

Current evidence suggests the need to improve the management of breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP). For this reason, we aimed to assess the opinion of a panel of experts composed exclusively of physicians from pain units, who play a major role in BTcP diagnosis and treatment, regarding the key aspects of BTcP management.

METHODS

An ad hoc questionnaire was developed to collect real-world data on the management of BTcP. The questionnaire had 5 parts: (a) organizational aspects of pain units (n = 12), (b) definition and diagnosis (n = 3), (c) screening (n = 3), (d) treatment (n = 8), and (e) follow-up (n = 7).

RESULTS

A total of 89 pain-unit physicians from 13 different Spanish regions were polled. Most of them agreed on the traditional definition of BTcP (78.9%) and the key features of BTcP (92.1%). However, only 30.3% of participants used the Davies' algorithm for BTcP diagnosis. Respondents preferred to prescribe rapid-onset opioids [mean 77.0% (SD 26.7%)], and most recommended transmucosal fentanyl formulations as the first option for BTcP. There was also considerable agreement (77.5%) on the need for early follow-up (48-72 h) after treatment initiation. Finally, 65.2% of participants believed that more than 10% of their patients underused rapid-onset opioids.

CONCLUSIONS

There was broad agreement among pain experts on many important areas of BTcP management, except for the diagnostic method. Pain-unit physicians suggest that rapid-onset opioids may be underused by BTcP patients in Spain, an important issue that need to be evaluated in future studies.

Breakthrough Cancer Pain: A Systematic Review of Pharmacologic Management

BACKGROUND

Breakthrough cancer pain (BtCP), defined as a transient exacerbation of pain that occurs in conjunction with well-controlled background pain, is a common and burdensome problem in patients with cancer.
.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this systematic review is to identify evidence-based pharmacologic modalities for adequate management of BtCP. 
.

METHODS

PubMed and CINAHL® databases were searched to identify literature regarding pharmacologic strategies for BtCP published from January 2006 to June 2016. These studies were then synthesized by the Oncology Nursing Society Putting Evidence Into Practice pain team. 
.

FINDINGS

Forty-four studies provide evidence for the use of opioids for the management of BtCP. Transmucosal immediate-release fentanyl (TIRF) was found to have the most evidence for BtCP. Five studies and guidelines also suggest that oral opioids (not including TIRF products) be dosed proportionally to baseline opioids at 10%-20% of the 24-hour, around-the-clock dose.

[Dose-finding for treatment with a transdermal fentanyl patch : Titration with oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate and morphine sulfate]

To date, no studies investigating titration with oral transmucosal fentanyl for the dose-finding of transdermal fentanyl treatment have been published. In an open randomized study 60 patients with chronic malignant (n = 39) or nonmalignant pain (n = 21), who required opioid therapy according to step three of the guidelines of the World Health Organization (WHO), were investigated. In two groups of 30 patients each titration with immediate release morphine (IRM) or oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate (OTFC) was undertaken. For measurement purposes the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and Minimal Documentation System (MIDOS) were used. After a 24-h titration phase, in which patients documented the intensity of pain, nausea, and tiredness, treatment with transdermal fentanyl was evaluated over a 10-day period by means of the necessary dose adaptation (responder ≤ 1 dose adaptation; conversion formula 1:1 [OTFC group] vs 100:1 [IRM group]).The pain reduction over the first 24 h (titration phase) did not differ significantly between the groups. The number of responders (17 OTFC vs. 21 IRM) over the 10-day period did not show any difference either. In both groups there was a significant reduction in pain intensity (p < 0.001). Over the course of the study, there were significantly more drop-outs because of adverse effects in the OTFC group than in the IRM group (8 vs 1, p = 0.028).Oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate can be applied for the titration of transdermal fentanyl, but it does not show any clinically relevant advantage. For example, the risk of side effects-induced drop-outs was greater in the present study. Whether the unnecessary opioid switching to treat chronic pain and breakthrough pain is advantageous with regard to minimizing conversion errors cannot be definitively answered within the scope of this study.

[Special medical problems in end-of-life care : Crisis at the end of life - Which therapy is adequate and when is redefining treatment goals appropriate?]

Crisis at the end of life are exceptional challenges for patients, relatives and therapists. With respect to the individual treatment goals and the patients' autonomy, therapeutic action should be commenced in an adequate manner in order to preserve the patients' quality of life as much as possible. Advance care planning for specific critical scenarios may be helpful in order to treat patients according to their wishes and values even if they are not capable to express themselves. Furthermore, a crisis plan can define the scope of action for therapists in emergency situations. Dyspnea, pain and delirium are symptoms that may often lead to emergency calls. In such cases, pharmacological and other treatment options are available. Options for causal therapy should be checked and performed if adequate. Opioids are used to relieve pain and dyspnea. In a state of delirium, highly potent neuroleptics and atypical antipsychotics are used. For the treatment of anxiety or restlessness benzodiazepines can be prescribed. Sedative medication may reduce stress, for instance in the case of acute catastrophic bleeding. Palliative sedation is an ultima ratio concept for refractory symptoms at the end of life. Clinical practice guidelines (such as the German guideline "Palliative care for patients with incurable cancer") may provide an overview of the evidence base on symptom-guided therapy at the end of life.

Using education and support strategies to improve the way nurses assess regular and transient pain – A quality improvement study of three hospitals

Background and aims

Systematic and regular pain assessment has been shown to improve pain management. Well-functioning pain assessments require using strategies informed by well-established theory. This study evaluates documented pain assessments reported in medical records and by patients, including reassessment using a Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) after patients receive rescue medication.

Methods

Documentation surveys (DS) and patient surveys (PS) were performed at baseline (BL), after six months, and after 12 months in 44 in-patient wards at the three hospitals in Östergötland County, Sweden. Nurses and nurse assistants received training on pain assessment and support. The Knowledge to Action Framework guided the implementation of new routines.

Results

According to DS pain assessment using NRS, pain assessment increased significantly: from 7% at baseline to 36% at 12 months (p < 0.001). For PS, corresponding numbers were 33% and 50% (p < 0.001). According to the PS, the proportion of patients who received rescue medication and who had been reassessed increased from 73% to 86% (p = 0.003). The use of NRS to document pain assessment after patients received rescue medication increased significantly (4% vs. 17%; p < 0.001).

Conclusions

After implementing education and support strategies, systematic pain assessment increased, an encouraging finding considering the complex contexts of in-patient facilities. However, the achieved assessment levels and especially reassessments related to rescue medication were clinically unsatisfactory. Future studies should include nursing staff and physicians and increase interactivity such as providing online education support. A discrepancy between documented and reported reassessment in association with given rescue medication might indicate that nurses need better ways to provide pain relief.

Implications

The fairly low level of patient-reported pain via NRS and documented use of NRS before and 12 months after the educational programme stresses the need for education on pain management in nursing education. Implementations differing from traditional educational attempts such as interactive implementations might complement educational programmes given at the work place. Standardized routines for pain management that include the possibility for nurses to deliver pain medication within well-defined margins might improve pain management and increase the use of pain assessments. Further research is needed that examines the large discrepancy between patient-reported pain management and documentation in the medical recording system of transient pain.

Consensus and controversies in the definition, assessment, treatment and monitoring of BTcP: results of a Delphi study

Introduction

There is no unanimous consensus on the clinical features to define breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP). The current project aimed to investigate the opinion of a panel of experts on cancer pain on how to define, diagnose, assess, treat and monitor BTcP.

Materials and methods

A two-round Spanish multi-centre exploratory Delphi study was conducted with medical experts (n = 90) previously selected from Medical Oncology Services, Radiation Oncology, Palliative Care/Home Care Teams, and Pain Units. The study intended to seek experts’ consensus and to define a set of recommendations for the management of BTcP.

Results

It was generally agreed that, definition of BTcP implies that baseline pain should be controlled (84 %), although not necessarily with opioids (only 30 %); there must be exacerbations (98.9 %); the duration of each episode should last <1 h (70 %); the intensity of pain ≥7 out of 10 (67.8 %); and the number of flares per day should not be less than four. All participants supported the use of the Davies algorithm for the diagnosis. The use of a ‘Patient Diary’ was highly recommended. The optimal treatment should have a rapid onset, a short-acting analgesic effect (1–2 h) and transmucosal nasal or oral administration. It was considered very important to develop protocols for the management of cancer pain.

Conclusions

The present Delphi study identified a set of recommendations to define, assess and monitor BTcP.

A fixed inhaled nitrous oxide/oxygen mixture as an analgesic for adult cancer patients with breakthrough pain: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The management of breakthrough pain in cancer patients is always a challenge for medical professions. Occurring in 80% of cancer patients with advanced disease, breakthrough pain significantly decreases both patient's and caregiver's quality of life. The aim of this study is to assess the analgesic efficacy of a fixed inhaled nitrous oxide/oxygen mixture for adult cancer patients with breakthrough pain.

METHODS/DESIGN

This is a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study; it will be conducted in the General Hospital of Ningxia Medical University. The target study subjects are at least 18 years old, and are hospitalized cancer patients who are receiving routine opioids to control cancer-related pain but still experience breakthrough pain. A total of 240 patients will be recruited and randomly allocated between three treatment groups (A, B, C) and a control group (group D) in a ratio of 3:1. All treatment groups (A, B, C) will receive standard pain treatment (oral immediate-release morphine) plus a pre-prepared nitrous oxide/oxygen mixture, and the control group (D) will receive the standard pain treatment plus oxygen. Patients, doctors, nurses, and data collectors are all blind to the experiment. Assessments will be taken before treatment (T0), at 5 min (T1) and 15 min (T2) during treatment, and at 5 min after treatment (T3). The primary endpoint measures will be the percentage of patients whose pain is relieved at T1, T2, and T3. Secondary outcome measures will include the safety of treatment, adverse events, and satisfaction from both health professionals and patients.

DISCUSSION

This study aims to provide an effective and practical intervention for a fast breakthrough pain relief and to improve cancer patients' quality of life significantly. The Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group claim that a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled experimental intervention is the most appropriate design to demonstrate its efficacy, so this study could give a new approach to controlling breakthrough pain episodes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ChiCTR-INC-16008075 . Registered on 8 March 2016.

Canadian recommendations for the management of breakthrough cancer pain

Breakthrough cancer pain (btcp) represents an important element in the spectrum of cancer pain management. Because most btcp episodes peak in intensity within a few minutes, speed of medication onset is crucial for proper control. In Canada, several current provincial guidelines for the management of cancer pain include a brief discussion about the treatment of btcp; however, there are no uniform national recommendations for the management of btcp. That lack, accompanied by unequal access to pain medication across the country, contributes to both regional and provincial variability in the management of btcp. Currently, immediate-release oral opioids are the treatment of choice for btcp. This approach might not always offer optimal speed for onset of action and duration to match the rapid nature of an episode of btcp. Novel transmucosal fentanyl formulations might be more appropriate for some types of btcp, but limited access to such drugs hinders their use. In addition, the recognition of btcp and its proper assessment, which are crucial steps toward appropriate treatment selection, remain challenging for many health care professionals. To facilitate appropriate management of btcp, a group of prominent Canadian specialists in palliative care, oncology, and anesthesiology convened to develop a set of recommendations and suggestions to assist Canadian health care providers in the treatment of btcp and the alleviation of the suffering and discomfort experienced by adult cancer patients.

WITHDRAWN: Opioids for the management of breakthrough pain in cancer patients

At August 2015, this review has been withdrawn. It is correct at the date of publication, and previous versions can be accessed in the ‘Other versions’ tab on the Cochrane Library. The Cochrane Editorial Unit (CEU) agreed with the authors of the feedback that the review was misleading, and because the original author team was unavailable to update the review, the CEU advised that it should be withdrawn. See below for full details. PaPaS is seeking a new author team to develop a new review which will serve to update the original.

Feedback 1, received 15 February 2015

Dr Vicente Ruiz Garcia
 vicenteruizgarcia@gmail.com

With colleagues Xavier Bonfill Cosp, Eduardo Lopez Briz, Rafa Carbonell, Jose Luis Gonzalvez Perales, Sylvia Bort Martí, and Marta Roque Figuls.

Comment: Dear editor:

We have read the update of Zeppetella and Davies about management of breakthrough pain in cancer patients (1). We think that this review is very important to help clinicians and patients to decide whether the new treatments for the breakthrough pain in cancer could be a useful alternative to morphine.

In this update, some comments that we made to the previous review (the letter was not published) (2) were considered by the authors; in particular, not pooling the results obtained for oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate (OTFC) versus placebo, with those of OTFC versus morphine, and those of two trials that were titration of doses of fentanyl. However, we do not agree with the authors’ results when they state: “When compared with placebo or oral morphine, participants gave lower pain intensity and higher pain relief scores for transmucosal fentanyl formulations at all time points”. First, the outcomes at 15 min (the most important to obtain a quick relief of pain), Pain intensity Difference (Comparison 2. Transmucosal opioid versus oral morphine) and Comparison 4. OTFC versus intravenous morphine), failed to show statistically significant differences with oral morphine (mean difference 0.37 CI 95% 0.00‐0.73) and with morphine iv (mean difference 0.80 CI 95% 0.00‐1,60). In any case the results had no clinical relevance. Moreover the authors state “at all time points”, whereas they do not provide any data for longer times (i.e. 30, 45, 60 min). In addition, authors state “transmucosal fentanyl citrate are safe (..) (compared with both placebo and morphine) in relieving breakthrough pain”. Surprisingly no analysis of adverse events have been done that were only described in each study. Seven out 15 were crossover trials and it was impossible to draw conclusions about it.

As reviewers we know that multiple comparisons could be made, but the most clinical interesting comparison is the gold standard, morphine.

The review only shows in SOF, comparisons of fentanyl with placebo and concludes, that it is effective. Surprisingly, there is no mention of morphine comparison, which we consider a key point, because no patient will take placebo if he has a breakthrough pain, but morphine for obvious reasons.

In our opinion, traversing the authors’ conclusions, this review did not show that the use of oral and nasal transmucosal fentanyl is an effective alternative to morphine for patients with breakthrough cancer pain.

Reply

The authors of the review were contacted but chose not to provide a response to the feedback.

Contributors

Kate Seers, PaPaS Feedback Editor, and Anna Hobson, PaPaS Managing Editor.

Additional feedback 2, received May 2015

On 15 February 2015, Dr Vicente Ruiz Garcia (University Hospital La Fe, Spain), and his colleagues Xavier Bonfill Cosp, Eduardo Lopez Briz, Rafa Carbonell, Jose Luis Gonzalvez Perales, Sylvia Bort Martí, and Marta Roque Figuls submitted feedback via the Cochrane Library. The main complaint is available above.

On 23 February, 16 March and 15 April, Kate Seers (Feedback Editor, PaPaS) contacted the authors and invited them to respond. On 21 March, John Zeppetella (lead author) declined to provide a formal response. No response was received from Andrew Davies (second author).

On 31 March, PaPaS sought advice from the Cochrane Editorial Unit (CEU) on how to manage the issue; advised to publish without a response, depending on nature of feedback.

On 11 May 2015, review re‐published with feedback incorporated.

On 20 May 2015, Marta Roqué Figuls (Statistician, Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre) wrote to the CEU repeating the initial claim. They did not agree with the approach decided upon by the Co‐Ed, which was supported by the EiC. They stated “The CCIb assessment is that the review presents methodological shortcomings, and the conclusions are skewed in favor of fentanyl. Consequently, we support Vicente and colleagues’ petition to re‐assess the publication status of the review.”

Reply

On 9 June, Christopher Eccleston (Co‐ordinating Editor, PaPaS) advised that the review remain unchanged until it was ready for updating in September 2015.

On 25 June 2015 David Tovey (Editor in Chief, Cochrane) responded to say “We have now had a chance to appraise this review and also obtain a report from our screening team… In summary we agree with almost all of the criticisms made of the review, and are concerned that the flaws may mean that the findings are misleading as currently presented. We note that the authors have declined to respond to the useful comments provided by Vicente. Having considered this and discussed it internally, we agree with our colleagues at the IbCC that the review should be withdrawn temporarily until the errors have been fixed and the review updated. We would like to re‐screen the review before any update or amendment is published.”

On 2 July and 23 July, Anna Hobson (Managing Editor, PaPaS) again invited the authors to respond to the initial feedback and subsequent reviews by 23 July. No response was forthcoming.

At August 2015, the review was withdrawn.

Contributors

Kate Seers (Feedback Editor, PaPaS), Cochrane Editorial Unit (CEU), Christopher Eccleston (Co‐ordinating Editor, PaPaS), David Tovey (Editor in Chief, Cochrane), Anna Hobson (Managing Editor, PaPaS).

The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.

Breakthrough pain in elderly patients with cancer: treatment options

The prevalence of pain is high in the elderly and increases with the occurrence of cancer. Pain treatment is challenging because of age-related factors such as co-morbidities, and over half of the patients with cancer pain experience transient exacerbation of pain that is known as breakthrough pain (BTP). As with background pain, BTP should be properly assessed before being treated. The first step to be taken is optimizing around-the-clock analgesia with expert titration of the painkiller. Rescue medication should then be provided as per the requested need, while at the same time preventing identified potential precipitating factors. In the elderly, starting treatment with a lower dose of analgesics may be justified because of age-related physiological changes such as decreased hepatic and renal function. Whenever possible, oral medication should be provided prior to a painful maneuver. In the case of unpredictable BTP, immediate rescue medication is mandatory and the subcutaneous route is preferred unless patient-controlled analgesia via continuous drug infusion is available. Recently, transmucosal preparations have appeared in the medical armamentarium but it is not yet known whether they represent a truly efficient alternative, although their rapid onset of activity is already well recognized. Adjuvant analgesics, topical analgesics, anesthetic techniques and interventional techniques are all valid methods to help in the difficult management of pain and BTP in elderly patients with cancer. However, none has reached a satisfying scientific level of evidence as to nowadays make the development of undisputed best practice guidelines possible. Further research is therefore on the agenda.

Safety and efficacy of oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate compared to morphine sulphate immediate release tablet in management of breakthrough cancer pain

Aim:

To compare the efficacy and safety of oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate (OTFC) and oral morphine in Indian patients with breakthrough episodes of cancer pain.

Materials and Methods:

In this randomized, open label, active controlled, clinical study, total 186 patients who regularly experienced 1-4 episodes of breakthrough cancer pain (BTCP) daily, over the persistent pain controlled by taking oral morphine 60 mg/day or its equivalent were randomized to receive either OTFC 200 mcg or oral morphine 10 mg for the treatment of BTCP for 3 days. Improvement in pain as determined by numerical rating scale (NRS) at 5, 15, 30, and 60 minutes of drug administration and percentage of BTCP episodes showing reduction in pain intensity by >33% at 15 minutes were primary efficacy endpoints. Secondary efficacy endpoints were requirement for rescue analgesia and global assessment by physician and patient. Data of both treatment groups were analysed by appropriate statistical test using software, STATISTICA, version 11.

Results:

Patients treated with OTFC experienced significantly greater improvement in pain intensity of breakthrough episodes compared to those treated with oral morphine at all assessment time points (P < 0.0001). 56% of breakthrough pain episodes treated with OTFC showed a greater than 33% reduction in pain intensity from baseline at 15 minutes compared to 39% episodes treated with oral morphine (P < 0.0001). Patient's and physician's global assessment favoured OTFC than oral morphine (P < 0.0001). Requirement of rescue analgesia in both the study groups was similar (P > 0.05). Both study drugs were well tolerated.

Conclusions:

OTFC was found to provide faster onset of analgesic effect than immediate release oral morphine in management of breakthrough cancer pain.

Managing cancer pain at the end of life with multiple strong opioids: a population-based retrospective cohort study in primary care

BACKGROUND

End-of-life cancer patients commonly receive more than one type of strong opioid. The three-step analgesic ladder framework of the World Health Organisation (WHO) provides no guidance on multiple opioid prescribing and there is little epidemiological data available to inform practice. This study aims to investigate the time trend of such cases and the associated factors.

METHODS

Strong opioid prescribing in the last three months of life of cancer patients were extracted from the General Practice Research Database (GPRD). The outcome variable was the number of different types of prescribed non-rescue doses of opioids (1 vs 2-4, referred to as a complex case). Associated factors were evaluated using prevalence ratios (PR) derived from multivariate log-binomial model, adjusting for clustering effects and potential confounding variables.

RESULTS

Overall, 26.4% (95% CI: 25.6-27.1%) of 13,427 cancer patients (lung 41.7%, colorectal 19.1%, breast 18.6%, prostate 15.5%, head and neck 5.0%) were complex cases. Complex cases increased steadily over the study period (1.02% annually, 95%CI: 0.42-1.61%, p = 0.048) but with a small dip (7.5% reduction, 95%CI: -0.03 to 17.8%) around the period of the Shipman case, a British primary care doctor who murdered his patients with opioids. The dip significantly affected the correlation of the complex cases with persistent increasing background opioid prescribing (weighted correlation coefficients pre-, post-Shipman periods: 0.98(95%CI: 0.67-1.00), p = 0.011; 0.14 (95%CI: -0.85 to 0.91), p = 0.85). Multivariate adjusted analysis showed that the complex cases were predominantly associated with year of death (PRs vs 2000: 1.05-1.65), not other demographic and clinical factors except colorectal cancer (PR vs lung cancer: 1.24, 95%CI: 1.12-1.37).

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that prescribing behaviour, rather than patient factors, plays an important role in multiple opioid prescribing at the end of life; highlighting the need for training and education that goes beyond the well-recognised WHO approach for clinical practitioners.

Opioids for the management of breakthrough pain in cancer patients

BACKGROUND

This review is an update of a previously published review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Issue 1, 2006). Breakthrough pain is a transient exacerbation of pain that occurs either spontaneously or in relation to a specific predictable or unpredictable trigger despite relative stable and adequately controlled background pain. Breakthrough pain usually related to background pain and is typically of rapid onset, severe in intensity and generally self limiting with a mean duration of 30 minutes. Breakthrough pain has traditionally been managed by the administration of supplemental oral analgesia (rescue medication) at a dose proportional to the total around-the-clock (ATC) opioid dose.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of opioid analgesics given by any route, used for the management of breakthrough pain in patients with cancer, and to identify and quantify, if data permitted, any adverse effects of this treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and trial registries in January 2005 for the original review, and again on 6 February 2013 for this update.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of opioids used as rescue medication against active or placebo comparator in patients with cancer pain. Outcome measures sought were reduction in pain intensity measured by an appropriate scale, adverse effects, attrition, patient satisfaction and quality of life. We applied no language restrictions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected and examined eligible studies. We retrieved full text if any uncertainty about eligibility remained. We screened non-English texts. We conducted quality assessment and data extraction using standardised data forms. We compared drug and placebo dose, titration, route and formulation and recorded details of all outcome measures (if available).

MAIN RESULTS

The original review included four studies (393 participants), all concerned with the use of oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate (OTFC) in the management of breakthrough pain. Two studies examined the titration of OTFC, one study compared OTFC versus normal-release morphine and one study compared OTFC versus placebo.Fifteen studies (1699 participants) met the inclusion criteria for this update. All studies reported on the utility of seven different transmucosal fentanyl formulations, five of which were administered orally and two nasally. Eight studies compared the transmucosal fentanyl formulations versus placebo, four studies compared them with another opioid, one study was a comparison of different doses of the same formulation and two were randomised titration studies. Oral and nasal transmucosal fentanyl formulations were an effective treatment for breakthrough pain. When compared with placebo or oral morphine, participants gave lower pain intensity and higher pain relief scores for transmucosal fentanyl formulations at all time points. Global assessment scores also favoured transmucosal fentanyl preparations. One study compared intravenous with the transmucosal route and both were effective.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Oral and nasal transmucosal fentanyl is an effective treatment in the management of breakthrough pain. The RCT literature for the management of breakthrough pain is relatively small. Given the importance of this subject, more trials, including head-to-head comparisons of the available transmucosal fentanyl formulations are required.

Pain management for the cancer patient - current practice and future developments

Anaesthesiologists will be asked to provide pain management for cancer patients in the absence of more specialised services, when interventional techniques are indicated and in the postoperative period. In all these settings, the complexity of cancer pain and its psychosocial connotations need to be considered to provide appropriate and holistic care. Principles of systemic pain management, effective in most patients, continue to follow established guidelines; identification of neuropathic pain and its appropriate treatment is important here. Interventional pain relief is required in a minority of cancer patients, but it should be considered when appropriate and then done with best available expertise. Neurolytic procedures have lost importance here over the years. Postoperative pain management should be multimodal with consideration of regional techniques when applicable. In managing postoperative pain in cancer patients, opioid tolerance needs to be addressed to avoid withdrawal and poor analgesia. Preventive techniques aiming to reduce chronic postoperative pain should be considered.

Clinical pharmacology of analgesics assessed with human experimental pain models: bridging basic and clinical research

The medical impact of pain is such that much effort is being applied to develop novel analgesic drugs directed towards new targets and to investigate the analgesic efficacy of known drugs. Ongoing research requires cost-saving tools to translate basic science knowledge into clinically effective analgesic compounds. In this review we have re-examined the prediction of clinical analgesia by human experimental pain models as a basis for model selection in phase I studies. The overall prediction of analgesic efficacy or failure of a drug correlated well between experimental and clinical settings. However, correct model selection requires more detailed information about which model predicts a particular clinical pain condition. We hypothesized that if an analgesic drug was effective in an experimental pain model and also a specific clinical pain condition, then that model might be predictive for that particular condition and should be selected for development as an analgesic for that condition. The validity of the prediction increases with an increase in the numbers of analgesic drug classes for which this agreement was shown. From available evidence, only five clinical pain conditions were correctly predicted by seven different pain models for at least three different drugs. Most of these models combine a sensitization method. The analysis also identified several models with low impact with respect to their clinical translation. Thus, the presently identified agreements and non-agreements between analgesic effects on experimental and on clinical pain may serve as a solid basis to identify complex sets of human pain models that bridge basic science with clinical pain research.

Fentanyl for the treatment of tumor-related breakthrough pain

BACKGROUND

Breakthrough cancer pain (BTCP) is common among cancer patients and markedly lowers their quality of life. The treatment for BTCP episodes that is recommended in current guidelines involves extended-release formulations in combination with rapid-onset and short-acting opioids. In the past few years, several new preparations of fentanyl, an opioid with a very rapid onset, have been approved for this indication. Treating physicians need to be aware of the clinical differences between the newer fentanyl preparations and immediate-release opioids.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed and Embase databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of fentanyl for buccal, sublingual or intranasal administration in comparison with other opioids or a different fentanyl preparation for the treatment of BTCP.

RESULTS

In 6 trials of buccal, sublingual or intranasal fentanyl versus oral immediate-release opioids for the treatment of BTCP episodes, the use of fentanyl was associated with significantly less intense pain. In particular, fentanyl more often lowered the intensity of pain by at least 33% (range between studies: 13% to 57%) or by at least 50% (range between studies: 9% to 38%) within 15 minutes. Please change to "versus" if you agree.] Dose titration should begin at the lowest dose. When one fentanyl preparation is exchanged for another, the effective dose will probably differ.

CONCLUSION

The newer fentanyl preparations extend the treatment options for BTCP. They relieve pain within a short time better than conventional, immediate-release oral opioids do and may therefore be very helpful for patients with suddenly arising, intense, and short-lasting BTCP episodes. Further comparative trials are urgently needed.

Drug therapy optimization at the end of life

Older people reaching end-of-life status are particularly at risk of adverse effects of drug therapy. Polypharmacy, declining organ function, co-morbidity, malnutrition, cachexia and changes in body composition all sum up to increase the risk of many drug-related problems in individuals who receive end-of-life care. End of life is defined by a limited lifespan or advanced disability. Optimal prescribing for end-of-life patients with multimorbidity, especially in those dying from non-cancer conditions, remains mostly unexplored, despite the increasing recognition that the management goals for patients with chronic diseases should be redefined in the setting of reduced life expectancy. Most drugs used for symptom palliation in end-of-life care of older patients are used without solid evidence of their benefits and risks in this particularly frail population. Appropriate dosing or optimal administration routes are in most cases unknown. Avoiding or discontinuing drugs that aim to prolong life or prevent disability is usually common sense in end-of-life care, particularly when the time needed to obtain the expected benefits from the drug is longer than the life expectancy of a particular individual. However, discontinuation of drugs is not standard practice, and prescriptions are usually not adapted to changes in the course of advanced diseases. Careful consideration of remaining life expectancy, time until benefit, goals of care and treatment targets for each drug seems to be a sensible framework for decision making. In this article, some key issues on drug therapy at the end of life are discussed, including principles of decision making about drug treatments, specific aspects of drug therapy in some common geriatric conditions (heart failure and dementia), treatment of acute concurrent problems such as infections, evidence to guide the choice and use of drugs to treat symptoms in palliative care, and avoidance of some long-term therapies in end-of-life care. Solid evidence is lacking to guide optimal pharmacotherapy in most end-of-life settings, especially in non-cancer diseases and very old patients. Some open questions for research are suggested.

Use of opioid analgesics in the treatment of cancer pain: evidence-based recommendations from the EAPC

Here we provide the updated version of the guidelines of the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) on the use of opioids for the treatment of cancer pain. The update was undertaken by the European Palliative Care Research Collaborative. Previous EAPC guidelines were reviewed and compared with other currently available guidelines, and consensus recommendations were created by formal international expert panel. The content of the guidelines was defined according to several topics, each of which was assigned to collaborators who developed systematic literature reviews with a common methodology. The recommendations were developed by a writing committee that combined the evidence derived from the systematic reviews with the panellists' evaluations in a co-authored process, and were endorsed by the EAPC Board of Directors. The guidelines are presented as a list of 16 evidence-based recommendations developed according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system.

Long-term dosing, safety, and tolerability of fentanyl buccal tablet in the management of noncancer-related breakthrough pain in opioid-tolerant patients

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the long-term dosing, safety, and tolerability of fentanyl buccal tablet (FBT) in a large cohort of opioid-tolerant patients with chronic noncancer pain and breakthrough pain (BTP).

DESIGN

Combined analysis of three double-blind, placebo-controlled, and two open-label studies.

RESULTS

Of 1160 patients who received ≥1 dose of FBT, 83% achieved a successful dose, ranging from 100 to 800 μg, mostly at 600 or 800 μg. Not all of the patients included in this analysis were enrolled in long-term studies and 156 (13%) patients were still receiving ongoing treatment when their study site closed. Median treatment duration was 106.0 days. The mean FBT dose in the post-titration population (n = 946) increased from 2108 to 3132 μg/day, with ≥1 FBT dose increase in 27% of patients; most dose increases occurred during the first 6 months. The FBT daily dose as a proportion of the daily opioid dose remained fairly stable (59-65%) throughout the treatment period. Overall, 925 (80%) enrolled patients had ≥1 adverse event (AE). The most frequent AEs were nausea (21% of patients), vomiting (11%), dizziness (10%), and headache (10%). Common AEs generally occurred within 7 days of starting treatment and lasted for ≤2 days. Serious AEs occurred in 136 (12%) patients and included six deaths (none related to FBT) and 11 instances of opioid overdose (all with satisfactory resolution). AE-related discontinuations occurred in 163 (14%) patients and were similar to the common AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the limitations, including the controlled clinical setting, this pooled analysis of several clinical studies provides valuable information for the long-term management of BTP with FBT. Patients require regular evaluation and, when necessary, adjustment of opioid medications to maintain adequate pain control. FBT was generally safe and well tolerated in this setting.

[Intranasal delivery of systemic drugs: a new route for opioid drugs]

The intranasal delivery of drugs is widely used for the local treatment of rhinitis or nasal polyposis. This route of delivery could represent an interesting alternative for systemic drugs with low digestive absorption. The nasal mucosa acts as an anatomical obstacle hard to get over, except for compounds with low molecular weight or highly lipophilic. Among morphinic drugs, fentanyl, very lipophilic, is rapidly absorbed via intranasal administration with a bioavailability close to 90%. This route of delivery for fentanyl is a new alternative for the treatment of breakthrough pain and gives the opportunity to discuss on the interest and the limits of nasal route administration of drugs, particularly of opioids.

Recent and Upcoming Approaches in the Management of Cancer Breakthrough Pain

The pharmacokinetics of the traditional oral opioids do not match the time course of breakthrough cancer pain, a common and distinct component of cancer pain which has a negative impact on quality of life for the patient.Fentanyl and alfentanil are potent, lipophilic, fast acting opioids with short durations of action and consequently more appropriate for the treatment of breakthrough cancer pain. These agents are ideal for oral transmucosal or nasal transmucosal administration.There are now four licensed preparations of fentanyl in the UK for the treatment of cancer breakthrough pain; lozenge, buccal tablet, sublingual tablet and nasal spray. They are not interchangeable and all require titration using the lowest dose.Alfentanil is available as a buccal or nasal spray. It is an unlicensed product and is available as a special order from Torbay Pharmacy Manufacturing Unit.There is a paucity of comparator studies for these new modes of administration.Further innovative delivery systems of fentanyl are on the horizon.

Formulations of fentanyl for the management of pain

Fentanyl is an opioid initially developed for parenteral administration. While oral administration is not an option due to a high first-pass metabolism, its high potency and lipophilicity have made a number of new routes of administration feasible. The transdermal therapeutic system offers an excellent option for long-term treatment of cancer and chronic pain, achieving stable plasma concentrations over the treatment period. The recent change from reservoir to matrix systems has made these systems more convenient to wear and safer to use, while being bioequivalent. In contrast, the patient-controlled iontophoretic transdermal system has been developed to enable on-demand delivery of transdermal bolus doses of fentanyl to treat postoperative pain. It offers a needle-free system to provide patient-controlled analgesia otherwise offered by intravenous pumps. However, due to technical difficulties the system is currently not clinically available. Oral transmucosal fentanyl utilizes the rapid uptake through the buccal mucosa to achieve high plasma concentrations rapidly and is indicated to treat breakthrough pain in patients who are not opioid-naive. The recently introduced fentanyl buccal tablets offer slightly better pharmacokinetics for the same indication. The intranasal route is another option to achieve rapid uptake of fentanyl, and is currently being investigated to provide acute and breakthrough pain relief. Transpulmonary administration of fentanyl remains experimental and this route of administration is not yet in clinical use. Overall, the specific pharmacological and physicochemical properties of fentanyl have made this compound highly suitable for novel routes of administration in a range of clinical indications.

The use of morphine to treat cancer-related pain: a synthesis of quantitative and qualitative research

Morphine is the most commonly used opioid for severe cancer-related pain. Despite its established effectiveness, it is often used cautiously in clinical practice, particularly outside specialist palliative care. This review identifies the key social, contextual, and physical concerns held by patients, carers, and health care professionals when using morphine, which might explain the caution taken in its use. The review used an approach called critical interpretive synthesis (CIS), which combines conventional systematic review techniques with methods for interpretative synthesis of qualitative research. An existing review examining the effectiveness of morphine and a guideline on its use were synthesized with 19 qualitative articles to establish understanding of how context of use can affect the established effectiveness of morphine. The article argues for the appropriateness of CIS for answering questions of this type. The results demonstrate that using morphine is a balancing act and a trade-off between pain relief and adverse effects. Deep-seated concerns regarding the symbolism of morphine, addiction, and tolerance are held by patients, carers, and clinicians, which influence prescription and use. Cancer pain is a referent for disease status and has existential meaning, with the introduction of morphine becoming a metaphor for impending death. Cancer pain is intersubjective, with its perception and reporting influenced by those with whom the patient interacts. By understanding the context and social meaning surrounding the use of morphine to treat cancer pain, health care professionals can begin to anticipate, acknowledge, and address some of the barriers to its use, thereby enhancing pain control.

Impact of opioid rescue medication for breakthrough pain on the efficacy and tolerability of long-acting opioids in patients with chronic non-malignant pain

Background

There is little evidence that short-acting opioids as rescue medication for breakthrough pain is an optimal long-term treatment strategy in chronic non-malignant pain. We compared clinical studies of long-acting opioids that allowed short-acting opioid rescue medication with those that did not, to determine the impact of opioid rescue medication use on the analgesic efficacy and tolerability of chronic opioid therapy in patients with chronic non-malignant pain.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE (1950 to July 2006) and EMBASE (1974 to July 2006) using terms for chronic non-malignant pain and long-acting opioids. Independent review of the search results identified 48 studies that met the study selection criteria. The effect of opioid rescue medication on analgesic efficacy and the incidence of common opioid-related side-effects were analysed using meta-regression.

Results

After adjusting for potentially confounding variables (study design and type of opioid), the difference in analgesic efficacy between the ‘rescue’ and the ‘no rescue’ studies was not significant, with regression coefficients close to 0 and 95% confidence intervals that excluded an effect of more than 18 points on a 0–100 scale in each case. There was also no significant difference between the ‘rescue’ and the ‘no rescue’ studies for the incidence of nausea, constipation, or somnolence in both the unadjusted and the adjusted analyses.

Conclusions

We found no evidence that rescue medication with short-acting opioids for breakthrough pain affects analgesic efficacy of long-acting opioids or the incidence of common opioid-related side-effects among chronic non-malignant pain patients.

Pain therapy

Cancer-related pain is a major issue of healthcare systems worldwide. The reported incidence, considering all stages of the disease, is 51%, which can increase to 74% in the advanced and terminal stages. For advanced cancer, pain is moderate to severe in about 40-50% and very severe or excruciating in 25-30% of cases. Pain is both a sensation and an emotional experience. Pain is always subjective; and may be affected by emotional, social and spiritual components thus it has been defined as "total pain". From a pathophysiological point of view, pain can be classified as nociceptive (somatic and visceral), neuropathic (central, peripheral, sympathetic) idiopathic or psychogenic. A proper pain assessment is fundamental for an effective and individualised treatment. In 1986 the World Health Organisation (WHO) published analgesic guidelines for the treatment of cancer pain based on a three-step ladder and practical recommendations. These guidelines serve as an algorithm for a sequential pharmacological approach to treatment according to the intensity of pain as reported by the patient. The WHO analgesic ladder remains the clinical model for pain therapy. Its clinical application should be employed only after a complete and comprehensive assessment and evaluation based on the needs of each patient. When applying the WHO guidelines, up to 90% of patients can find relief regardless of the settings of care, social and/or cultural environment. This is the standard treatment on a type C basis. Only when such an approach is ineffective are interventions such as spinal administration of opioid analgesics or neuroinvasive procedures recommended.

How useful are systematic reviews for informing palliative care practice? Survey of 25 Cochrane systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

In contemporary medical research, randomised controlled trials are seen as the gold standard for establishing treatment effects where it is ethical and practical to conduct them. In palliative care such trials are often impractical, unethical, or extremely difficult, with multiple methodological problems. We review the utility of Cochrane reviews in informing palliative care practice.

METHODS

Published reviews in palliative care registered with the Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Group as of December 2007 were obtained from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, issue 1, 2008. We reviewed the quality and quantity of primary studies available for each review, assessed the quality of the review process, and judged the strength of the evidence presented. There was no prior intention to perform any statistical analyses.

RESULTS

25 published systematic reviews were identified. Numbers of included trials ranged from none to 54. Within each review, included trials were heterogeneous with respect to patients, interventions, and outcomes, and the number of patients contributing to any single analysis was generally much lower than the total included in the review. A variety of tools were used to assess trial quality; seven reviews did not use this information to exclude low quality studies, weight analyses, or perform sensitivity analysis for effect of low quality. Authors indicated that there were frequently major problems with the primary studies, individually or in aggregate. Our judgment was that the reviewing process was generally good in these reviews, and that conclusions were limited by the number, size, quality and validity of the primary studies.We judged the evidence about 23 of the 25 interventions to be weak. Two reviews had stronger evidence, but with limitations due to methodological heterogeneity or definition of outcomes. No review provided strong evidence of no effect.

CONCLUSION

Cochrane reviews in palliative care are well performed, but fail to provide good evidence for clinical practice because the primary studies are few in number, small, clinically heterogeneous, and of poor quality and external validity. They are useful in highlighting the weakness of the evidence base and problems in performing trials in palliative care.

Management of breakthrough pain in patients with cancer

Breakthrough pain (BTP) in patients with cancer lacks a consensus definition and is subsequently inadequately diagnosed and assessed, therefore making it more challenging to manage. Cancer pain is generally moderate to severe in intensity and persistent in nature. Despite the problematic definition of BTP, it is generally described as having similar intensity, but may also be transitory and variable in predictability. Most breakthrough analgesia fails to be effective in the time required for BTP. No useful analgesia is therefore provided but drug adverse effects escalate. Cancer pain management relies on the WHO analgesic ladder. The frequency of BTP and its inadequate management means that it has significant adverse effects on patients, their families and those involved in their care. This article outlines a systematic, clinical and evidence-based approach to managing BTP in patients with cancer that emphasizes a holistic approach and an understanding of multidimensional 'total pain'. Guidelines for managing BTP are presented and areas of developing research are identified.

Translational medicine: cancer pain mechanisms and management

Cancer-induced bone pain (CIBP) is a major clinical problem with up to 85% of patients with bony metastases having pain, often associated with anxiety and depression, reduced performance status, and a poor quality of life. Malignant bone disease creates a chronic pain state through sensitization and synaptic plasticity within the spinal cord that amplifies nociceptive signals and their transmission to the brain. Fifty per cent of patients are expected to gain adequate analgesia from palliative radiotherapy within 4-6 weeks of treatment. Opioid analgesia does make a useful contribution to the management of CIBP, especially in terms of suppressing tonic background pain. However, CIBP remains a clinical challenge because the spontaneous and movement-related components are more difficult to treat with opioids and commonly used analgesic drugs, without unacceptable side-effects. Recently developed laboratory models of CIBP, which show congruency with the clinical syndrome, are contributing to an improved understanding of the neurobiology of CIBP. This chronic pain syndrome appears to be unique and distinct from other chronic pain states, such as inflammatory or neuropathic pain. This has clear implications for treatment and development of future therapies. A translational medicine approach, using a highly iterative process between the clinic and the laboratory, may allow improved understanding of the underlying mechanisms of CIBP to be rapidly translated into real clinical benefits in terms of improved pain management.

Opioids for cancer breakthrough pain: a pilot study reporting patient assessment of time to meaningful pain relief

Breakthrough pain is a common and distinct component of cancer pain that is usually managed with normal release opioids (also known as rescue medication) either before or soon after its onset. A prospective survey of hospice inpatients with breakthrough pain was undertaken to characterize their pain and then compare the time to onset of pain relief of their rescue medication. Patients presented with, on average, 1.7 different types of breakthrough pains (range, 1-4). The average number of breakthrough pains was four per day (range, 1-8), and the average duration of breakthrough pain was 35 minutes (range, 15-60); most occurred suddenly and unpredictably. Patients used morphine, oxycodone, hydromorphone, methadone, or oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate as rescue medication and the average time to meaningful pain relief following their administration was 31 minutes (range, 5-75). No difference was found between morphine, oxycodone, and hydromorphone. Methadone appeared to work faster than morphine (P<0.01) but no faster than oxycodone or hydromorphone, whereas oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate worked faster than morphine, oxycodone, hydromorphone, and methadone (P<0.001).

Opioids for persistent noncancer pain

This article concentrates on recent evidence about opioid analgesics for persistent noncancer pain. Evidence confirms that opioids are drugs with a definite risk of adverse events. Therefore, before prescribing opioids, careful consideration must be given to be certain that the intended benefit of a particular opioid merits its use despite the potential side effects and to determine if the co-prescription of other pharmacologic agents could reduce the risk of adverse events. Strong opioids should be reserved for patients who fail to respond to other lower-risk options and only after proper consideration is given to the long-term consequences of strong opioid use. Problems associated with opioids dictate that more efficacious and safer drugs need to be found.

Pharmacological strategies for the management of cancer pain in developing countries

Pain associated with cancer is often under treated especially in the developing countries where there are problems of poor economy, poor purchasing power of the citizens, absence of effective national health insurance schemes, poor manpower, fake adulterated and expired drugs, poor drug storage conditions; adverse temperature conditions combined with poor power supply which may affect drug efficacy. There is also poor understanding of the physiopharmacology of cancer pain management by health care providers. Assessment of the severity of the pain by location, oncological type, as well as psychosocial, emotional and environmental factors are necessary. The pain often occurs from malignancy, from procedures done to diagnose, stage and treat the malignancy, and from the toxicities of therapy used in treating the cancer. The first priority of treatment is to control pain rapidly and completely, as judged by the patient. The second priority is to prevent recurrence of pain. Analgesic drugs are given 'by the ladder,' 'by the clock' and 'by the appropriate route' using the analgesic ladder guideline proposed by the World Health Organization (WHO). The pharmacological aspects of various drugs used in the management of cancer pain are discussed.

Opioids for persistent noncancer pain

Opioids are extensively used in the management of all types of pain and their use is underpinned by extensive trial evidence and an abundance of practical experience. We are still amassing insight into how they achieve their pain-relieving effects, however, and this understanding becomes more complex as time progresses and shows that opioids are medications with complex and diverse central and peripheral nervous system effects. Despite the 200 years that have passed since the chemical isolation of morphine, every year brings new understanding of the mode of action, propensity to cause side effects, and appropriate clinical use of opioids. This article concentrates on this "new" evidence as disclosed by recent publications.

The Treatment of Breakthrough Pain

OBJECTIVE

To review strategies for treating patients with breakthrough pain (BTP).

DESIGN

This review is based on expert consensus recommendations for treating BTP and is supplemented by recent clinical studies and the author's clinical experience.

RESULTS

Breakthrough pain is severe or excruciating pain of rapid onset that can disable or even immobilize the patient. Patients with BTP should be assessed after baseline persistent pain has been stabilized with around-the-clock (ATC) analgesics. Clues about the cause and pattern of BTP may be identified from a patient history, preferably including a pain diary. Effective treatment can greatly improve the patient's quality of life and should be tailored for each patient, taking into consideration the cause and type of the BTP episodes. Short-acting opioid analgesics are the primary treatment. The absorption characteristics, onset of action, and duration of effect vary among the available opioid compounds based on their lipophilicity. The dose and/or dosing frequency of the ATC analgesic should be adjusted for patients with end-of-dose BTP. Short-acting oral opioids are useful when given preemptively in patients with predictable incident BTP, while rapid-onset transmucosal lipophilic opioids are most effective for patients with unpredictable incident or idiopathic BTP. Regardless of the subtype of BTP, nonpharmacologic strategies are often helpful in alleviating pain and anxiety and should be used to supplement pharmacologic intervention for BTP.

CONCLUSION

Breakthrough pain can often be successfully treated by tailoring opioid therapy based on the subtype of BTP. These characteristics of BTP will determine the most appropriate opioid compound (i.e., hydrophilic vs lipophilic) and most effective mode of drug delivery.