Pain therapy

Pain-Related Gene Solute Carrier Family 24 Member 3 Is a Prognostic Biomarker and Correlated with Immune Infiltrates in Cervical Squamous Cell Carcinoma and Endocervical Adenocarcinoma: A Study via Integrated Bioinformatics Analyses and Experimental Verification

The aim of this study was to explore cervical carcinoma and screen a suitable gene as the biomarker used for prognosis evaluation as well as pain therapy. Low expression levels of solute carrier family 24 member 3 (SLC24A3) was involved in the appearance and development of numerous malignancies. Nevertheless, the prognostic value of SLC24A3 expression with cervical squamous cell carcinoma and endocervical adenocarcinoma (CESC) patients remains uncertain. During the present study, SLC24A3 expression in CESC was retrieved from TCGA, GEO, and MSigDB databases. Based on TCGA and GEO profiles, we performed survival and difference analyses about SLC24A3 both in two GEO (GSE44001 and GSE63514) and TCGA-CESC cohorts (all p < 0.05), indicating that SLC24A3 was low expressed in tumors and associated with higher overall survival in CESC patients. Additionally, we programmed a series of analyses, including genomic profiling, enrichment analysis, immune infiltration analysis, and therapy-related analysis to identify the mechanism of the SLC24A3 in the process of cancer in CESC. Meanwhile, qRT-PCR was used to validate that the expression of SLC24A3 mRNA in Hela and SiHa cell lines was significantly lower than in PANC-1 and HUCEC cell lines. Our finding elucidated that the SLC24A3, a sodium-calcium regulator of cells, is an indispensable factor which can significantly influence the prognosis of patients with CESC and could provide novel clinical evidence to serve as a potential biological indicator for future diagnosis and pain therapy.

Systemic Lidocaine Infusions for Pediatric Patients with Cancer-Related Pain

Pediatric patients with cancer experience significant distress from both treatment and cancer-related pain. Careful selection of an analgesic regimen should be based upon individual patient factors, including the level of pain, response to therapy, and physiologic profile. Refractory pain is a therapeutic dilemma frequently encountered in the pediatric cancer setting. Systemic lidocaine infusions have been described as both safe and efficacious, as prior studies show patients reporting decreased pain scores and improved quality of life after lidocaine treatment. Given the favorable side effect profile of lidocaine, it has the potential to be considered for analgesia in the setting of refractory pain. This review discusses the use of systemic lidocaine infusions for analgesia in pediatric oncology patients with cancer-related pain.

Pain and Analgesia in Children with Cancer after Hemipelvectomy: A Retrospective Analysis

A paucity of data exists centering on the pain experience of children following hemipelvectomy performed for primary bone and soft tissue sarcomas. In this study, we aimed to describe the incidence, severity, and evolution of perioperative pain and function in pediatric oncology patients undergoing hemipelvectomy, and, additionally, we sought to detail the analgesic regimens used for these patients perioperatively. A retrospective chart review was conducted, studying cancer patients, aged 21 years and under, who underwent hemipelvectomy at MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC) from 2018 to 2021. Primary outcomes included the evolution of pain throughout the perioperative course, as well as the route, type, dose, and duration of analgesic regimens. Eight patients were included in the analysis. The mean age at operation was 13 ± 2.93 years. All patients received opioids and acetaminophen. The mean pain scores were highest on post-operative day (POD)0, POD5, and POD 30. The mean opioid use was highest on POD5. A total of 75% of patients were noted to be ambulating after hemipelvectomy. The mean time to ambulation was 5.33 ± 2.94 days. The combination of acetaminophen with opioids, as well as adjunctive regional analgesia, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, gabapentin, and/or ketamine in select patients, appeared to be an effective analgesic regimen, and functional outcomes were excellent in 75% of patients.

Combining radiotherapy and focused ultrasound for pain palliation of cancer induced bone pain; a stage I/IIa study according to the IDEAL framework

•

Combined treatment of EBRT and MR-HIFU is feasible and well tolerated by patients.

•

Clinical outcomes of combined treatment of EBRT and MR-HIFU are promising.

•

Superiority of combined treatment over standard EBRT needs to be evaluated in a comparative study.

Background

Cancer induced bone pain (CIBP) strongly interferes with patient’s quality of life. Currently, the standard of care includes external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), resulting in pain relief in approximately 60% of patients. Magnetic Resonance guided High Intensity Focused Ultrasound (MR-HIFU) is a promising treatment modality for CIBP.

Methods

A single arm, R-IDEAL stage I/IIa study was conducted. Patients presenting at the department of radiation oncology with symptomatic bone metastases in the appendicular skeleton, as well as in the sacrum and sternum were eligible for inclusion. All participants underwent EBRT, followed by MR-HIFU within 4 days. Safety and feasibility were assessed, and pain scores were monitored for 4 weeks after completing the combined treatment.

Results

Six patients were enrolled. Median age was 67 years, median lesion diameter was 56,5 mm. In all patients it was logistically possible to plan and perform the MR-HIFU treatment within 4 days after EBRT. All patients tolerated the combined procedure well. Pain response was reported by 5 out of 6 patients at 7 days after completion of the combined treatment, and stabilized on 60% at 4 weeks follow up. No treatment related serious adverse events occurred.

Conclusion

This is the first study to combine EBRT with MR-HIFU. Our results show that combined EBRT and MR-HIFU in first-line treatment of CIBP is safe and feasible, and is well tolerated by patients. Superiority over standard EBRT, in terms of (time to) pain relief and quality of life need to be evaluated in comparative (randomized) study.

A Stepped-Wedge Randomized Controlled Trial: Effects of eHealth Interventions for Pain Control Among Adults With Cancer in Hospice

CONTEXT

Unrelieved cancer pain at the end of life interferes with achieving patient-centered goals.

OBJECTIVE

To compare effects of usual hospice care and PAINRelieveIt® on pain outcomes in patients and their lay caregivers.

METHODS

In a five-step, stepped-wedge randomized, controlled study, 234 patients (49% male, 18% Hispanic, 51% racial minorities) and 231 lay caregivers (26% male, 20% Hispanic, 54% racial minorities) completed pre-pain/post-pain measures. They received usual hospice care with intervention components that included a summary of the patient's pain data, decision support for hospice nurses, and multimedia education tailored to the patient's and lay caregiver's misconceptions about pain.

RESULTS

The intervention effect on analgesic adherence (primary outcome) was not significant. Post-test worst pain intensity was significantly higher for the experimental group, but the difference (0.70; CI = [0.12, 1.27]) was not clinically meaningful. There was nearly universal availability of prescriptions for strong opioids and adjuvant analgesics for neuropathic pain in both groups. Lay caregivers' pain misconceptions (0-5 scale) were significantly lower in the experimental group than the usual care group (mean difference controlling for baseline is 0.38; CI = [0.08, 0.67]; P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

This randomized controlled trial was a negative trial for the primary study outcomes but positive for a secondary outcome. The trial is important for clearly demonstrating the feasibility of implementing the innovative set of interventions.

Antidepressants for chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents

BACKGROUND

Pain is a common feature of childhood and adolescence around the world, and for many young people, that pain is chronic. The World Health Organization guidelines for pharmacological treatments for children's persisting pain acknowledge that pain in children is a major public health concern of high significance in most parts of the world. While in the past pain was largely dismissed and was frequently left untreated, views on children's pain have changed over time and relief of pain is now seen as important.We designed a suite of seven reviews on chronic non-cancer pain and cancer pain (looking at antidepressants, antiepileptic drugs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, and paracetamol) in order to review the evidence for children's pain utilising pharmacological interventions.As the leading cause of morbidity in the world today, chronic disease (and its associated pain) is a major health concern. Chronic pain (that is pain lasting three months or longer) can arise in the paediatric population in a variety of pathophysiological classifications (nociceptive, neuropathic, or idiopathic) from genetic conditions, nerve damage pain, chronic musculoskeletal pain, and chronic abdominal pain, as well as for other unknown reasons.Antidepressants have been used in adults for pain relief and pain management since the 1970s. The clinical impression from extended use over many years is that antidepressants are useful for some neuropathic pain symptoms, and that effects on pain relief are divorced and different from effects on depression; for example, the effects of tricyclic antidepressants on pain may occur at different, and often lower, doses than those on depression. Amitriptyline is one of the most commonly used drugs for treating neuropathic pain in the UK.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of antidepressants used to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents aged between birth and 17 years, in any setting.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE via Ovid, and Embase via Ovid from inception to 6 September 2016. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and searched online clinical trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials, with or without blinding, of any dose and any route, treating chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents, comparing any antidepressant with placebo or an active comparator.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility. We planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and number needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created three 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies with a total of 272 participants (6 to 18 years of age) who had either chronic neuropathic pain, complex regional pain syndrome type 1, irritable bowel syndrome, functional abdominal pain, or functional dyspepsia. All of the studies were small. One study investigated amitriptyline versus gabapentin (34 participants), two studies investigated amitriptyline versus placebo (123 participants), and one study investigated citalopram versus placebo (115 participants). Due to a lack of available data we were unable to complete any quantitative analysis.Risk of bias for the four included studies varied, due to issues with randomisation and allocation concealment (low to unclear risk); blinding of participants, personnel, and outcome assessors (low to unclear risk); reporting of results (low to unclear risk); and size of the study populations (high risk). We judged the remaining domains, attrition and other potential sources of bias, as low risk of bias. Primary outcomesNo studies reported our primary outcomes of participant-reported pain relief of 30% or greater or 50% or greater (very low-quality evidence).No studies reported on Patient Global Impression of Change (very low-quality evidence).We rated the overall quality of the evidence (GRADE rating) as very low. We downgraded the quality of the evidence by three levels to very low because there was no evidence to support or refute. Secondary outcomesAll studies measured adverse events, with very few reported (11 out of 272 participants). All but one adverse event occurred in the active treatment groups (amitriptyline, citalopram, and gabapentin). Adverse events in all studies, across active treatment and comparator groups, were considered to be a mild reaction, such as nausea, dizziness, drowsiness, tiredness, and abdominal discomfort (very low-quality evidence).There were also very few withdrawals due to adverse events, again all but one from the active treatment groups (very low-quality evidence).No serious adverse events were reported across any of the studies (very low-quality evidence).There were few or no data for our remaining secondary outcomes (very low-quality evidence).We rated the overall quality of the evidence (GRADE rating) for these secondary outcomes as very low. We downgraded the quality of the evidence by three levels to very low due to too few data and the fact that the number of events was too small to be meaningful.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We identified only a small number of studies with small numbers of participants and insufficient data for analysis.As we could undertake no meta-analysis, we are unable to comment about efficacy or harm from the use of antidepressants to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents. Similarly, we cannot comment on our remaining secondary outcomes: Carer Global Impression of Change; requirement for rescue analgesia; sleep duration and quality; acceptability of treatment; physical functioning; and quality of life.There is evidence from adult randomised controlled trials that some antidepressants, such as amitriptyline, can provide some pain relief in certain chronic non-cancer pain conditions.There is no evidence from randomised controlled trials to support or refute the use of antidepressants to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children or adolescents.

Antiepileptic drugs for chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents

BACKGROUND

Pain is a common feature of childhood and adolescence around the world, and for many young people, that pain is chronic. The World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for pharmacological treatments for children's persisting pain acknowledge that pain in children is a major public health concern of high significance in most parts of the world. While in the past, pain was largely dismissed and was frequently left untreated, views on children's pain have changed over time, and relief of pain is now seen as importantWe designed a suite of seven reviews on chronic non-cancer pain and cancer pain (looking at antidepressants, antiepileptic drugs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, and paracetamol) in order to review the evidence for children's pain utilising pharmacological interventions in children and adolescents.As the leading cause of morbidity in the world today, chronic disease (and its associated pain) is a major health concern. Chronic pain (that is pain lasting three months or longer) can occur in the paediatric population in a variety of pathophysiological classifications (nociceptive, neuropathic, or idiopathic) relating to genetic conditions, nerve damage pain, chronic musculoskeletal pain, and chronic abdominal pain, and for other unknown reasons.Antiepileptic (anticonvulsant) drugs, which were originally developed to treat convulsions in people with epilepsy, have in recent years been used to provide pain relief in adults for many chronic painful conditions and are now recommended for the treatment of chronic pain in the WHO list of essential medicines. Known side effects of antiepileptic drugs range from sweating, headache, elevated temperature, nausea, and abdominal pain to more serious effects including mental or motor function impairment.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of antiepileptic drugs used to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents aged between birth and 17 years, in any setting.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE via Ovid, and Embase via Ovid from inception to 6 September 2016. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews as well as online clinical trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials, with or without blinding, by any route, treating chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents, comparing any antiepileptic drug with placebo or an active comparator.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility. We planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and number needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods if data were available. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created two 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two studies with a total of 141 participants (aged 7 to 18 years) with chronic neuropathic pain, complex regional pain syndrome type 1 (CRPS-I), or fibromyalgia. One study investigated pregabalin versus placebo in participants with fibromyalgia (107 participants), and the other study investigated gabapentin versus amitriptyline in participants with CRPS-I or neuropathic pain (34 participants). We were unable to perform any quantitative analysis.Risk of bias for the two included studies varied, due to issues with randomisation (low to unclear risk), blinding of outcome assessors (low to unclear risk), reporting bias (low to unclear risk), the size of the study populations (high risk), and industry funding in the 'other' domain (low to unclear risk). We judged the remaining domains of sequence generation, blinding of participants and personnel, and attrition as low risk of bias. Primary outcomesOne study (gabapentin 900 mg/day versus amitriptyline 10 mg/day, 34 participants, for 6 weeks) did not report our primary outcomes (very low-quality evidence).The second study (pregabalin 75 to 450 mg/day versus placebo 75 to 450 mg/day, 107 participants, for 15 weeks) reported no significant change in pain scores for pain relief of 30% or greater between pregabalin 18/54 (33.3%), and placebo 16/51 (31.4%), P = 0.83 (very low-quality evidence). This study also reported Patient Global Impression of Change, with the percentage of participants feeling "much or very much improved" with pregabalin 53.1%, and placebo 29.5% (very low-quality evidence).We downgraded the evidence by three levels to very low for one of two reasons: due to the fact that there was no evidence to support or refute the use of the intervention, or that there were too few data and the number of events was too small to be meaningful. Secondary outcomesIn one small study, adverse events were uncommon: gabapentin 2 participants (2 adverse events); amitriptyline 1 participant (1 adverse event) (6-week trial). The second study reported a higher number of adverse events: pregabalin 38 participants (167 adverse events); placebo 34 participants (132 adverse events) (15-week trial) (very low-quality evidence).Withdrawals due to adverse events were infrequent in both studies: pregabalin (4 participants), placebo (4 participants), gabapentin (2 participants), and amitriptyline (1 participant) (very low-quality evidence).Serious adverse events were reported in both studies. One study reported only one serious adverse event (cholelithiasis and major depression resulting in hospitalisation in the pregabalin group) and the other study reported no serious adverse events (very low-quality evidence).There were few or no data for our remaining secondary outcomes (very low-quality evidence).We downgraded the evidence by three levels to very low due to too few data and the fact that the number of events was too small to be meaningful.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review identified only two small studies, with insufficient data for analysis.As we could undertake no meta-analysis, we were unable to comment about efficacy or harm from the use of antiepileptic drugs to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents. Similarly, we could not comment on our remaining secondary outcomes: Carer Global Impression of Change; requirement for rescue analgesia; sleep duration and quality; acceptability of treatment; physical functioning; and quality of life.We know from adult randomised controlled trials that some antiepileptics, such as gabapentin and pregabalin, can be effective in certain chronic pain conditions.We found no evidence to support or refute the use of antiepileptic drugs to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents.

Paracetamol (acetaminophen) for chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents

BACKGROUND

Pain is a common feature of childhood and adolescence around the world, and for many young people, that pain is chronic. The World Health Organization guidelines for pharmacological treatments for children's persisting pain acknowledge that pain in children is a major public health concern of high significance in most parts of the world. While in the past, pain was largely dismissed and was frequently left untreated, views on children's pain have changed over time, and relief of pain is now seen as important.We designed a suite of seven reviews on chronic non-cancer pain and cancer pain (looking at antidepressants, antiepileptic drugs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, and paracetamol as priority areas) in order to review the evidence for children's pain utilising pharmacological interventions in children and adolescents.As the leading cause of morbidity in children and adolescents in the world today, chronic disease (and its associated pain) is a major health concern. Chronic pain (lasting three months or longer) can arise in the paediatric population in a variety of pathophysiological classifications: nociceptive, neuropathic, idiopathic, visceral, nerve damage pain, chronic musculoskeletal pain, and chronic abdominal pain, and other unknown reasons.Paracetamol (acetaminophen) is one of the most widely used analgesics in both adults and children. The recommended dosage in the UK, Europe, Australia, and the USA for children and adolescents is generally 10 to 15 mg/kg every four to six hours, with specific age ranges from 60 mg (6 to 12 months old) up to 500 to 1000 mg (over 12 years old). Paracetamol is the only recommended analgesic for children under 3 months of age. Paracetamol has been proven to be safe in appropriate and controlled dosages, however potential adverse effects of paracetamol if overdosed or overused in children include liver and kidney failure.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of paracetamol (acetaminophen) used to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents aged between birth and 17 years, in any setting.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE via Ovid, and Embase via Ovid from inception to 6 September 2016. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and searched online clinical trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials, with or without blinding, of any dose and any route, treating chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents, comparing paracetamol with placebo or an active comparator.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility. We planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and numbers needed to treat, using standard methods where data were available. We assessed GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and planned to create a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

No studies were eligible for inclusion in this review. We rated the quality of the evidence as very low. We downgraded the quality of evidence by three levels due to the lack of data reported for any outcome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was no evidence from randomised controlled trials to support or refute the use of paracetamol (acetaminophen) to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents. We are unable to comment about efficacy or harm from the use of paracetamol to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents.We know from adult randomised controlled trials that paracetamol, can be effective, in certain doses, and in certain pain conditions (not always chronic).This means that no conclusions could be made about efficacy or harm in the use of paracetamol (acetaminophen) to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents

BACKGROUND

Pain is a common feature of childhood and adolescence around the world, and for many young people, that pain is chronic. The World Health Organization guidelines for pharmacological treatments for children's persisting pain acknowledge that pain in children is a major public health concern of high significance in most parts of the world. While in the past pain was largely dismissed and was frequently left untreated, views on children's pain have changed over time, and relief of pain is now seen as important.We designed a suite of seven reviews on chronic non-cancer pain and cancer pain (looking at antidepressants, antiepileptic drugs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, and paracetamol) in order to review the evidence for children's pain utilising pharmacological interventions.As the leading cause of morbidity in the world today, chronic disease (and its associated pain) is a major health concern. Chronic pain (that is pain lasting three months or longer) can arise in the paediatric population in a variety of pathophysiological classifications (nociceptive, neuropathic, or idiopathic) from genetic conditions, nerve damage pain, chronic musculoskeletal pain, and chronic abdominal pain, as well as for other unknown reasons.Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are used to treat pain, reduce fever, and for their anti-inflammation properties. They are commonly used within paediatric pain management. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are currently licensed for use in Western countries, however they are not approved for infants under three months old. The main adverse effects include renal impairment and gastrointestinal issues. Common side effects in children include diarrhoea, headache, nausea, constipation, rash, dizziness, and abdominal pain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of NSAIDs used to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents aged between birth and 17 years, in any setting.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE via Ovid, and Embase via Ovid from inception to 6 September 2016. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, as well as online clinical trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials, with or without blinding, of any dose and any route, treating chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents, comparing any NSAID with placebo or an active comparator.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility. We planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and number needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods. We assessed GRADE and created three 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven studies with a total of 1074 participants (aged 2 to 18 years) with chronic juvenile polyarthritis or chronic juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. All seven studies compared an NSAID with an active comparator. None of the studies were placebo controlled. No two studies investigated the same type of NSAID compared with another. We were unable to perform a meta-analysis.Risk of bias varied. For randomisation and allocation concealment, one study was low risk and six studies were unclear risk. For blinding of participants and personnel, three studies were low risk and four studies were unclear to high risk. For blinding of outcome assessors, all studies were unclear risk. For attrition, four studies were low risk and three studies were unclear risk. For selective reporting, four studies were low risk, two studies were unclear risk, and one study was high risk. For size, three studies were unclear risk and four studies were high risk. For other potential sources of bias, seven studies were low risk. Primary outcomesThree studies reported participant-reported pain relief of 30% or greater, showing no statistically significant difference in pain scores between meloxicam and naproxen, celecoxib and naproxen, or rofecoxib and naproxen (P > 0.05) (low-quality evidence).One study reported participant-reported pain relief of 50% or greater, showing no statistically significant difference in pain scores between low-dose meloxicam (0.125 mg/kg) and high-dose meloxicam (0.25 mg/kg) when compared to naproxen 10 mg/kg (P > 0.05) (low-quality evidence).One study reported Patient Global Impression of Change, showing 'very much improved' in 85% of ibuprofen and 90% of aspirin participants (low-quality evidence). Secondary outcomesAll seven studies reported adverse events. Participants reporting an adverse event (one or more per person) by drug were: aspirin 85/202; fenoprofen 28/49; ibuprofen 40/45; indomethacin 9/30; ketoprofen 9/30; meloxicam 18/47; naproxen 44/202; and rofecoxib 47/209 (very low-quality evidence).All seven studies reported withdrawals due to adverse events. Participants withdrawn due to an adverse event by drug were: aspirin 16/120; celecoxib 10/159; fenoprofen 0/49; ibuprofen 0/45; indomethacin 0/30; ketoprofen 0/30; meloxicam 10/147; naproxen 17/285; and rofecoxib 3/209 (very low-quality evidence).All seven studies reported serious adverse events. Participants experiencing a serious adverse event by drug were: aspirin 13/120; celecoxib 5/159; fenoprofen 0/79; ketoprofen 0/30; ibuprofen 4/45; indomethacin 0/30; meloxicam 11/147; naproxen 10/285; and rofecoxib 0/209 (very low-quality evidence).There were few or no data for our remaining secondary outcomes: Carer Global Impression of Change; requirement for rescue analgesia; sleep duration and quality; acceptability of treatment; physical functioning as defined by validated scales; and quality of life as defined by validated scales (very low-quality evidence).We rated the overall quality of the evidence (GRADE rating) for our primary and secondary outcomes as very low because there were limited data from studies and no opportunity for a meta-analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We identified only a small number of studies, with insufficient data for analysis.As we could undertake no meta-analysis, we are unable to comment about efficacy or harm from the use of NSAIDs to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents. Similarly, we cannot comment on our remaining secondary outcomes: Carer Global Impression of Change; requirement for rescue analgesia; sleep duration and quality; acceptability of treatment; physical functioning; and quality of life.We know from adult randomised controlled trials that some NSAIDs, such as ibuprofen, naproxen, and aspirin, can be effective in certain chronic pain conditions.

Opioids for chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents

BACKGROUND

Pain is a common feature of childhood and adolescence around the world, and for many young people, that pain is chronic. The World Health Organization guidelines for pharmacological treatments for children's persisting pain acknowledge that pain in children is a major public health concern of high significance in most parts of the world. While in the past, pain was largely dismissed and was frequently left untreated, views on children's pain have changed over time, and relief of pain is now seen as importantWe designed a suite of seven reviews on chronic non-cancer pain and cancer pain (looking at antidepressants, antiepileptic drugs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, and paracetamol as priority areas) in order to review the evidence for children's pain utilising pharmacological interventions in children and adolescents.As the leading cause of morbidity in children and adolescents in the world today, chronic disease (and its associated pain) is a major health concern. Chronic pain (lasting three months or longer) can arise in the paediatric population in a variety of pathophysiological classifications: nociceptive, neuropathic, idiopathic, visceral, nerve damage pain, chronic musculoskeletal pain, and chronic abdominal pain, and other unknown reasons.Opioids are used worldwide for the treatment of pain. They bind to opioid receptors in the central nervous system (mu, kappa, delta, and sigma) and can be agonists, antagonists, mixed agonist-antagonists, or partial agonists. Opioids are generally available in healthcare settings across most high-income countries, but access may be restricted in low- and middle-income countries. For example, opioids currently available in the UK include: buprenorphine, codeine, fentanyl, hydromorphone, methadone, morphine, oxycodone, and tramadol. Opioids are used in varying doses (generally based on body weight for paediatric patients) by means of parenteral, transmucosal, transdermal, or oral administration (immediate release or modified release). To achieve adequate pain relief in children using opioids, with an acceptable grade of adverse effects, the recommended method is a lower dose gradually titrated to effect in the child.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of opioids used to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents aged between birth and 17 years, in any setting.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via Ovid, and Embase via Ovid from inception to 6 September 2016. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and searched online clinical trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials, with or without blinding, of any dose and any route, treating chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents, comparing opioids with placebo or an active comparator.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility. We planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and number needed to treat, using standard methods. We assessed GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and planned to create a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

No studies were eligible for inclusion in this review. We rated the quality of the evidence as very low. We downgraded the quality of evidence by three levels due to the lack of data reported for any outcome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was no evidence from randomised controlled trials to support or refute the use of opioids to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents. We are unable to comment about efficacy or harm from the use of opioids to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents.We know from adult randomised controlled trials that some opioids, such as morphine and codeine, can be effective in certain chronic pain conditions.This means that no conclusions could be made about efficacy or harm in the use of opioids to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for cancer-related pain in children and adolescents

BACKGROUND

Pain is a common feature of childhood and adolescence around the world, and for many young people, that pain is chronic. The World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for pharmacological treatments for persisting pain in children acknowledge that pain in children is a major public health concern of high significance in most parts of the world. Views on children's pain have changed over time and relief of pain is now seen as important. In the past, pain was largely dismissed and was frequently left untreated, and it was assumed that children quickly forgot about painful experiences.We designed a suite of seven reviews in chronic non-cancer pain and cancer pain (looking at antidepressants, antiepileptic drugs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, and paracetamol as priority areas) to review the evidence for children's pain using pharmacological interventions.As one of the leading causes of mortality and morbidity for children and adolescents in the world today, childhood cancer (and its associated pain) is a major health concern. Specific mortality and morbidity data relating to children are not currently identified. All childhood cancer rates are on the rise; for example, in the USA approximately 10,380 children aged under 15 years were expected to be diagnosed with cancer by the end of 2016. However, with survival rates also increasing, over 80% of paediatric cancer patients are expected to survive for five years or more, thus identifying the need to address pain management in this population.Cancer pain in infants, children, and adolescents is primarily nociceptive pain with negative long term effects. Cancer-related pain is generally caused directly by the tumour itself such as compressing on the nerve or inflammation of the organs. Cancer-related pain generally occurs as a result of perioperative procedures, nerve damage caused by radiation or chemotherapy treatments, or mucositis. However, this review focused on pain caused directly by the tumour itself such as nerve infiltration, external nerve compression, and other inflammatory events.Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are used to treat pain, reduce fever, and for their anti-inflammatory properties. They are commonly used within paediatric pain management. NSAIDs are currently licensed for use in western countries, however not approved for infants aged under three months. Primary adverse effects include gastrointestinal issues and possible renal impairment with long term use. Other adverse effects in children include diarrhoea, headache, nausea, constipation, rash, dizziness, and abdominal pain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy, and adverse events, of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) used to treat cancer-related pain in children and adolescents aged from birth and 17 years, in any setting.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE via Ovid, and Embase via Ovid from inception to 21 February 2017. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and searched online clinical trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind trials of any dose, and any route, treating cancer-related pain in children and adolescents, comparing NSAIDs with placebo or an active comparator.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility. We planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and number needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods. We assessed GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and planned to create a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

No studies were eligible for inclusion in this review (very low quality evidence). We downgraded the quality of evidence by three levels due to the lack of data reported for any outcome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence from randomised controlled trials that non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduce cancer-related pain in children and adolescents. This means that no reliance or conclusions can be made about efficacy or harm in the use of NSAIDs to treat chronic cancer-related pain in children and adolescents.

Opioids for cancer-related pain in children and adolescents

BACKGROUND

Pain is a common feature of childhood and adolescence around the world, and for many young people, that pain is chronic. The World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for pharmacological treatments for children's persisting pain acknowledge that pain in children is a major public health concern of high significance in most parts of the world. Views on children's pain have changed over time and relief of pain is now seen as important. In the past, pain was largely dismissed and was frequently left untreated, and it was assumed that children quickly forgot about painful experiences.We designed a suite of seven reviews in chronic non-cancer pain and cancer pain (looking at antidepressants, antiepileptic drugs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, and paracetamol) to review the evidence for children's pain using pharmacological interventions.As one of the leading causes of mortality and morbidity for children and adolescents in the world today, childhood cancer (and its associated pain) is a major health concern. Cancer pain in infants, children, and adolescents is primarily nociceptive pain with negative long term effects. Cancer-related pain is generally caused directly by the tumour itself such as compressing on the nerve or inflammation of the organs. Cancer-related pain generally occurs as a result of perioperative procedures, nerve damage caused by radiation or chemotherapy treatments, or mucositis. However, this review focused on pain caused directly by the tumour itself such as nerve infiltration, external nerve compression, and other inflammatory events.Opioids are used worldwide for the treatment of pain. Currently available opioids include: buprenorphine, codeine, fentanyl, hydromorphone, methadone, morphine, oxycodone, and tramadol. Opioids are generally available in healthcare settings across most developed countries but access may be restricted in developing countries. To achieve adequate pain relief in children using opioids, with an acceptable grade of adverse effects, the recommended method is to start with a low dose gradually titrated to effect or unacceptable adverse effect in the child.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy, and adverse events, of opioids used to treat cancer-related pain in children and adolescents aged between birth and 17 years, in any setting.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE via Ovid and Embase via Ovid from inception to 22 February 2017. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and searched online clinical trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), with or without blinding, of any dose, and any route, treating cancer-related pain in children and adolescents, comparing opioids with placebo or an active comparator.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility. We planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and number needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods. We assessed GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and planned to create a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

No studies were identified that were eligible for inclusion in this review (very low quality evidence). Several studies tested opioids on adults with cancer-related pain, but none in participants aged from birth to 17 years.We rated the quality of evidence as very low, downgraded due to a lack of available data; no analyses could be undertaken.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No conclusions can be drawn about efficacy or harm in the use of opioids to treat cancer-related pain in children and adolescents. As a result, there is no RCT evidence to support or refute the use of opioids to treat cancer-related pain in children and adolescents.

Opioids for cancer‐related pain in children and adolescents

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows:

To assess the analgesic efficacy, and adverse events, of opioids used to treat cancer pain in children and adolescents between birth and 17 years, in any setting.

Antidepressants for chronic non‐cancer pain in children and adolescents

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows:

To assess the analgesic efficacy, and adverse events, of antidepressants used to treat chronic non‐cancer pain in children and adolescents between birth and 17 years, in any setting.

Non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for chronic non‐cancer pain in children and adolescents

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows:

To assess the analgesic efficacy, and adverse events, of NSAIDs used to treat chronic non‐cancer pain in children and adolescents aged between birth and 17 years, in any setting.

How Do Hospital Palliative Care Teams Use the WHO Guidelines to Manage Unrelieved Cancer Pain? A 1-Year, Multicenter Audit in Japan

It has been reported that pain relief for patients with cancer is suboptimal in Japan. This has been mainly attributed to inadequate dissemination of the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for cancer pain management. To better understand this problem, we reviewed how 6 hospital palliative care teams (HPCTs) used the WHO guidelines for unrelieved pain in a 1-year audit that included 534 patients. The HPCT interventions were classified according to the contents of the WHO guidelines. In our study, HPCT interventions involved opioid prescriptions in >80% of referred patients, and “For the Individual” and “Attention to Detail” were the 2 most important principles. Our study indicates which parts of the WHO guidelines should be most heavily emphasized, when disseminating them in Japan.

Antinociception of spirocyclopiperazinium salt compound LXM-10-M targeting α7 nicotinic receptor and M4 muscarinic receptor and inhibiting CaMKIIα/CREB/CGRP signaling pathway in mice

The present study was designed to investigate the antinociception of spirocyclopiperazinium salt compound LXM-10-M (2,4-dimethyl-9-β-m-hydroxyphenylethyl-3-oxo-6, 9-diazaspiro [5.5] undecane chloride) in thermal and chemical pain models, and further to explore the molecular target and potential signal pathway. We assessed the antinociception of LXM-10-M in hot-plate test, formalin test and acetic acid writhing test in mice. The possible changes of calcium/calmodulin-dependent protein kinase IIα (CaMKIIα)/cAMP response element-binding protein (CREB)/calcitonin gene related peptide (CGRP) signaling pathway were detected by Western Blot in mice. Administration of LXM-10-M produced significant antinociception in hot-plate test, formalin test and acetic acid writhing test in mice, with no obvious toxicity. The antinociceptive effects were blocked by pretreatment with methyllycaconitine citrate (MLA, α7 nicotinic receptor antagonist) or tropicamide (TRO, M4 muscarinic receptor antagonist). Western blot analysis showed that the upregulations of p-CaMKIIα, p-CREB and CGRP in the spinal cord were reduced by LXM-10-M in chemical pain model in mice, and the effects were blocked by MLA or TRO pretreatment. This is the first paper to report that LXM-10-M exerted significant antinociception, which may be attributed to the activation of α7 nicotinic receptor and M4 muscarinic receptor and thereby triggering the inhibition of CaMKIIα/CREB/CGRP signaling pathway in mice.

The role of subcutaneous ketorolac for pain management

This Hospital Pharmacy feature is extracted from Off-Label Drug Facts, a publication available from Wolters Kluwer Health. Off-Label Drug Facts is a practitioner-oriented resource for information about specific drug uses that are unapproved by the US Food and Drug Administration. This new guide to the literature enables the health care professional or clinician to quickly identify published studies on off-label uses and determine if a specific use is rational in a patient care scenario. References direct the reader to the full literature for more comprehensive information before patient care decisions are made. Direct questions or comments regarding Off-Label Drug Uses to jgeneral@ku.edu.

Pain management

Despite published guidelines and educational programs on the assessment and treatment of cancer-related pain, in any stage of oncological disease, unrelieved pain continues to be a substantial worldwide public health concern either in patients with solid and haematological malignancies. The proper and regular self-reporting assessment of pain is the first step for an effective and individualized treatment. Opioids are the mainstay of analgesic therapy and can be associated with non-opioids drugs such as paracetamol or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and to adjuvant drugs (for neuropathic pain and symptom control). The role and the utility of weak opioids (i.e. codeine, dihydrocodeine, tramadol) are a controversy point. Morphine has been placed by World Health Organization on its Essential Drug List. In the comparative study with other strong opioids (hydromorphone, oxycodone), there is no evidence to show superiority or inferiority with morphine as the first choice opioid. Oral methadone is a useful and safe alternative to morphine. Methadone presents the potential to control pain difficult to manage with other opioids. although the oral route of opioid administration is considered the one of choice, intravenous, subcutaneous, rectal, transdermal, sublingual, intranasal, and spinal routes must be used in particular situation. Transdermal opioids such as fentanyl and buprenorphine are best reserved for patients whose opioid requirements are stable. Switching from one opioid to another can improve analgesia and tolerability.

A multicentre open-label safety and efficacy study of tetrodotoxin for cancer pain

BACKGROUND

Cancer pain is highly prevalent, and existing treatments are often insufficient to provide adequate relief.

OBJECTIVES

We assessed the long-term safety and efficacy of subcutaneous tetrodotoxin treatment in reducing the intensity of chronic cancer-related pain.

METHODS

In this multicentre open-label longitudinal trial, 30 μg tetrodotoxin was administered subcutaneously twice daily for 4 days in a heterogeneous cohort of patients with persistent pain despite opioids and other analgesics. "Responder" was defined as a mean reduction of 30% or more in pain intensity from baseline; and "clinical responder" as some pain reduction, but less than 30%, plus agreement on the part of both the patient and the physician that a meaningful analgesic response to treatment had occurred.

RESULTS

Of 45 patients who entered the longitudinal trial, 41 had sufficient data for analysis. Of all 45 patients, 21 (47%) met the criteria for "responder" [16 patients (36%)] or "clinical responder" [5 patients (11%)]. Onset of pain relief was typically cumulative over days, and after administration ended, the analgesic effect subsided over the course of a few weeks. No evidence of loss of analgesic effect was observed during subsequent treatments (2526 patient-days in total and a maximum of 400 days in 1 patient). One patient withdrew from the study because of adverse events. Toxicity was usually mild (82%) or moderate (13%), and remained so through subsequent treatment cycles, with no evidence of cumulative toxicity or tolerance.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term treatment with tetrodotoxin is associated with acceptable toxicity and, in a substantial minority of patients, resulted in a sustained analgesic effect. Further study of tetrodotoxin for moderate-to-severe cancer pain is warranted.

The challenge of international consensus: defining an opioid essential prescription package

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To describe a new strategy that aimed to facilitate opioid prescription for better pain management.

RECENT FINDINGS

The International Association of Hospice and Palliative Care recently develop a single prescription package (drugs and dosing) with one opioid, one laxative, and one antiemetic for the initiation of opioid treatment in cancer pain and other life-threatening conditions, with the intention to facilitate opioid use, improve patient compliance, and reduce adverse effects.

SUMMARY

The opioid essential prescription package was an international project designed to ensure that opioids are better tolerated by reducing the adverse effects of opioids, which could lead to more sustained improvements in pain management.

Impact of early access to a palliative/supportive care intervention on pain management in patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

No study has so far addressed whether differences do exist in the management of cancer pain between patients receiving usual care by primary specialists and those receiving early palliative/supportive intervention.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A multicentre cross-sectional study in 32 Italian Hospitals has included 1450 patients, receiving analgesic therapy for cancer pain: 602 with access to primary specialist alone (standard care, SC) and 848 with early access to a palliative/supportive care (ePSC) team, concomitant with primary oncology care.

RESULTS

Statistically significant differences in the analgesic drug administration according to care model have been evident: non-opioids were more frequently used in SC (9.5% versus 2%; P<0.001), while strong opioids in ePSC group (80% versus 63%; P<0.001). The number of patients with severe pain was lower in ePSC compared with SC group (31% versus 17%; P<0.001). Results of multivariate analysis have shown that ePSC integrated with primary oncologic care (relative risk 0.69; 95% confidence interval 0.48-0.99; P=0.045) was an independent factor associated with a 31% reduced risk of suffering from severe pain.

CONCLUSIONS

An ePSC team provides the most effective standard of analgesic therapy for cancer pain. A randomized clinical trial is needed to confirm these findings.

Spinal opioids in adult patients with cancer pain: a systematic review: a European Palliative Care Research Collaborative (EPCRC) opioid guidelines project

BACKGROUND

A systematic review, undertaken according to an initiative to revise European Association for Palliative Care guidelines on the use of opioids for cancer pain, which aimed to analyse analgesic efficacy and side effects of spinal opioids in adult cancer patients previously treated with systemic opioids.

METHODS

Search strategy elaborated with MeSH terms and words related to cancer, palliative care, pain, spinal route and opioids. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane assessed in Nov 2009. Studies were analysed and classified according to quality of evidence and strength of recommendation.

RESULTS

Out of 2939 abstracts, 44 articles were selected (nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs), two non-randomized cohort studies, 28 uncontrolled prospective studies, and five case series). Relief of pain and/or side effects were reported in 42 articles; however, there were few studies of high quality design (RCTs) and these studies had methodological limitations that reduced their quality of evidence to very low.

CONCLUSION

There are few RCTs and these are of very low quality. As a result, they provide weak recommendation for using spinal opioids in adult cancer patients. Further studies are clearly needed.

The medical consumption of opioids in Colombia, 1997-2007

The World Health Organization classifies opioid analgesics as essential medicines in the treatment of severe pain and recommends their increased availability. The combination of availability, training of professionals, and a legal framework granting access to these medicines has led to a sharp increase in the consumption of morphine and other opioids in developed countries. However, in Colombia, consumption of opioid analgesics appears to fail to meet patient needs. To analyze the current trends in medical consumption of opioids in Colombia, the numbers of defined daily doses of opioid analgesics for total inhabitants and the population that died of cancer between 1997 and 2007 were calculated and compared. The import of raw materials and medicines varied greatly every year. However, from 2003, a trend toward the increased consumption of morphine, hydromorphone, and methadone was observed. Availability was inconsistent and opioid consumption showed an increase when calculated for total inhabitants and for cancer deaths. The unreliable availability of opioid analgesics may be responsible for their limited consumption. Chronic underuse and a trend toward increased consumption have been confirmed. Monitoring of consumption to promote rational use is recommended.

Anesthetic considerations for the pediatric oncology patient--part 3: pain, cognitive dysfunction, and preoperative evaluation

In part three of this three-part review, we continue with discussion of the effects of tumor and its therapy as they impact neurocognitive functioning, psychosocial issues of the patient and family, and the mechanisms and experience of pain in the child with cancer. A discussion of preanesthetic testing and evaluation in this patient population is next presented for the reader, focusing on the factors which pose the commonest and greatest risks to the child undergoing surgery. Lastly, an algorithmic approach to evaluating and managing key components of the medical history of pediatric patients is presented.

Palliative care for the cancer patient

Palliation of symptoms to optimize QOL is the foundation of cancer care regardless of stage of disease or level of anticancer treatment. Patients commonly experience pain, constipation, nausea, vomiting, dyspnea, fatigue, and delirium. Many valid clinical tools are available to the primary care clinician to screen for symptoms, assess severity, measure treatment response, and elicit the patient's subjective symptom experience. Although there is limited evidence regarding the relative efficacy of symptom interventions from randomized controlled trials, clinical practice guidelines are available.