Have We Improved Pain Control in Cancer Patients? A Multicenter Study of Ambulatory and Hospitalized Cancer Patients

Optimizing medication guidance support for patients with cancer pain: development and evaluation of a pharmaceutical care system for healthcare professionals

BACKGROUND

Effective management of cancer pain critically depends on timely medication administration and adherence to precise medication guidelines. In the context of limited time and a busy healthcare environment, tailoring the optimal medication schedule for each patient with cancer pain presents a significant challenge for physicians and clinical pharmacists.

METHODS

To address this challenge, we conducted a comprehensive analysis of healthcare professionals' needs in guiding cancer pain medication. By developing core features based on key user needs and continuously updating them, we have created the Universal Medication Schedule System (UMSS). We invited 20 physicians and pharmacists specializing in oncology or cancer pain to trial the system and assessed UMSS usage through distributed questionnaires.

RESULTS

We identified five key needs of healthcare professionals in cancer pain medication guidance. Based on these needs, we (1) constructed a comprehensive drug information database, including basic information for 1135 drugs, 130,590 drug interaction data entries, and 1409 individual medication timing constraints, and (2) developed a web-based system that provides essential reference information such as drug interactions and dietary restrictions. It can create medication schedules and provide medication education tailored to the patient's daily routine. Participating evaluators unanimously agreed (100%) that the system aids in accurately assessing the risks of polypharmacy and quickly scheduling medication regimens.

CONCLUSION

UMSS, by offering personalized medication schedule support, assists healthcare professionals in better managing patients' medication treatment plans. However, further improvements are needed in the automation of database updates and maintenance, as well as in integrating it with electronic health records.

[Prevalence and clinical characteristics of pain in patients with advanced chronic disease]

OBJECTIVES

Determine pain prevalence and clinical characteristics in patients with advanced chronic disease and identify breakthrough pain frequency.

DESIGN

Observational, descriptive, cross-sectional study.

LOCATION

Three primary care teams and one intermediate care hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

All patients with advanced chronic disease.

MAIN MEASUREMENTS

A semi-structured interview was performed to collect demographic, clinical, and specific variables of pain using validated scales. Patient location (home, nursing home or hospital) and advanced chronicity trajectory (organ failure, oncological disease, dementia, or multimorbidity) were recorded. Pain was assessed based on the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and, in cases of disabling dementia, using the Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia (PAINAD). A statistical descriptive, comparative analysis between variables was performed using the R software.

RESULTS

Of all patients selected, 223 (60.4%) were included. Prevalence of pain: 83.9% (n=187), with no differences based on location or trajectory. Significant differences in pain intensity based on location (P=.0046) (moderate-severe in patients at home, moderate in hospital patients, and mild in nursing home patients) and on trajectory (P<.0001) (moderate-severe in patients with organ failure and multimorbidity, moderate in patients with cancer, and mild in patients with dementia). Global functional impact of pain was mild-moderate, emotional impact was severe in 41.5% of patients (n=51), and breakthrough pain was observed in 8.6% (n=13).

CONCLUSIONS

Pain must always be explored and assessed in patients with advanced chronicity, since it was highly prevalent in all locations and trajectories, being particularly intense in patients at home with organ failure and multimorbidity. Breakthrough pain was found in non-oncological trajectories.

Acupuncture vs Massage for Pain in Patients Living With Advanced Cancer: The IMPACT Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Pain is challenging for patients with advanced cancer. While recent guidelines recommend acupuncture and massage for cancer pain, their comparative effectiveness is unknown.

Objective

To compare the effects of acupuncture and massage on musculoskeletal pain among patients with advanced cancer.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A multicenter pragmatic randomized clinical trial was conducted at US cancer care centers consisting of a northeastern comprehensive cancer center and a southeastern cancer institute from September 19, 2019, through February 23, 2022. The principal investigator and study statisticians were blinded to treatment assignments. The duration of follow-up was 26 weeks. Intention-to-treat analyses were performed (linear mixed models). Participants included patients with advanced cancer with moderate to severe pain and clinician-estimated life expectancy of 6 months or more. Patient recruitment strategy was multipronged (eg, patient database queries, mailings, referrals, community outreach). Eligible patients had English or Spanish as their first language, were older than 18 years, and had a Karnofsky score greater than or equal to 60 (range, 0-100; higher scores indicating less functional impairment).

Interventions

Weekly acupuncture or massage for 10 weeks with monthly booster sessions up to 26 weeks.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was the change in worst pain intensity score from baseline to 26 weeks. The secondary outcomes included fatigue, insomnia, and quality of life. The Brief Pain Inventory (range, 0-10; higher numbers indicate worse pain intensity or interference) was used to measure the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes included fatigue, insomnia, and quality of life.

Results

A total of 298 participants were enrolled (mean [SD] age, 58.7 [14.1] years, 200 [67.1%] were women, 33 [11.1%] Black, 220 [74.1%] White, 46 [15.4%] Hispanic, and 78.5% with solid tumors). The mean (SD) baseline worst pain score was 6.9 (1.5). During 26 weeks, acupuncture reduced the worst pain score, with a mean change of -2.53 (95% CI, -2.92 to -2.15) points, and massage reduced the Brief Pain Inventory worst pain score, with a mean change of -3.01 (95% CI, -3.38 to -2.63) points; the between-group difference was not significant (-0.48; 95% CI, -0.98 to 0.03; P = .07). Both treatments also improved fatigue, insomnia, and quality of life without significant between-group differences. Adverse events were mild and included bruising (6.5% of patients receiving acupuncture) and transient soreness (15.1% patients receiving massage).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial among patients with advanced cancer, both acupuncture and massage were associated with pain reduction and improved fatigue, insomnia, and quality of life over 26 weeks; however, there was no significant different between the treatments. More research is needed to evaluate how best to integrate these approaches into pain treatment to optimize symptom management for the growing population of people living with advanced cancer.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04095234.

Cancer-Related Pain Management in Suitable Intrathecal Therapy Candidates: A Spanish Multidisciplinary Expert Consensus

A consensus is needed among healthcare professionals involved in easing oncological pain in patients who are suitable candidates for intrathecal therapy. A Delphi consultation was conducted, guided by a multidisciplinary scientific committee. The 18-item study questionnaire was designed based on a literature review together with a discussion group. The first-round questionnaire assessed experts' opinion of the current general practice, as well as their recommendation and treatment feasibility in the near future (2-3-year period) using a 9-point Likert scale. Items for which consensus was not achieved were included in a second round. Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement (1-3 or 7-9). A total of 67 panelists (response rate: 63.2%) and 62 (92.5%) answered the first and second Delphi rounds, respectively. The participants were healthcare professionals from multiple medical disciplines who had an average of 17.6 (7.8) years of professional experience. A consensus was achieved on the recommendations (100%). The actions considered feasible to implement in the short term included effective multidisciplinary coordination, improvement in communication among the parties, and an assessment of patient satisfaction. Efforts should focus on overcoming the barriers identified, eventually leading to the provision of more comprehensive care and consideration of the patient's perspective.

Considerations for Pain Assessments in Cancer Patients: A Narrative Review of the Latin American Perspective

Cancer incidence in Latin America is lower than in Europe or the United States but morbidity and mortality rates are disproportionately high. A barrier to adequate pain control is inadequate pain assessment, which is a relatively easy and inexpensive metric. The objective of this narrative review is to describe pain assessment for cancer patients in Latin America. Cultural factors may influence pain perception, including contextualizing pain as noble or natural suffering and aspects of what is now called "spiritual pain." Unlike other painful conditions, cancer pain may be strongly associated with existential fear, psychosocial distress, anxiety, and spiritual concerns. Pain assessment allows not just quantification of pain intensity but may elucidate pain mechanisms involved or psychosocial aspects that may color the pain. Many current pain assessment instruments capture only pain intensity, which is but one aspect of the pain experience; some have expanded to include functional assessments, mental health status evaluations, and quality of life metrics. A quality-of-life assessment may be appropriate for cancer patients since chronic pain can severely impact function, which can in turn create a vicious cycle by exacerbating pain. The incidence of cancer in Latin America is expected to increase in the ensuing years. Better pain assessment and clinician education are needed to help manage pain in this large and growing patient population.

Update on Prevalence of Pain in Patients with Cancer 2022: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

Experiencing pain and insufficient relief can be devastating and negatively affect a patient's quality of life. Developments in oncology such as new treatments and adjusted pain management guidelines may have influenced the prevalence of cancer pain and severity in patients. This review aims to provide an overview of the prevalence and severity of pain in cancer patients in the 2014-2021 literature period. A systematic literature search was performed using the databases PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane. Titles and abstracts were screened, and full texts were evaluated and assessed on methodological quality. A meta-analysis was performed on the pooled prevalence and severity rates. A meta-regression analysis was used to explore differences between treatment groups. We identified 10,637 studies, of which 444 studies were included. The overall prevalence of pain was 44.5%. Moderate to severe pain was experienced by 30.6% of the patients, a lower proportion compared to previous research. Pain experienced by cancer survivors was significantly lower compared to most treatment groups. Our results imply that both the prevalence of pain and pain severity declined in the past decade. Increased attention to the assessment and management of pain might have fostered the decline in the prevalence and severity of pain.

Good practice recommendations to better coordinate the management of oncological pain: a Delphi survey

Treatment of oncological pain is complex and requires a multidisciplinary management approach between oncology services and pain units. Although significant improvements have been achieved in the treatment and overall survival of cancer patients, the management of oncological pain has not followed the same directions. Many patients are not referred to pain units even though they could benefit from it. The purpose of this Delphi survey was to map the current situation in the management of cancer pain, identify barriers and propose recommendations to improve its management by emphasizing the importance of collaboration and coordination between oncology services and pain units. A survey among members with recognized experience in the management of oncology patients and oncological pain was held based on the Delphi method principles. The experts were asked to vote preselected statements on cancer pain management in two rounds and conclusions and recommendations were formulated based on the consensus reached for each statement. Barriers and areas for improvement were identified: need of multidisciplinary management approach, effective communication between oncology services and pain units, timely referral of cancer patients to pain units, training of health care professionals dealing with cancer aspects and identification of those patients that could benefit from a multidisciplinary management of their oncological disease. The experts issued recommendations targeting the identified barriers and areas for improvement by defining the service requirements of hospital and units treating cancer pain patients, establishing referral pathways necessities and adopted measures to improve the care of cancer patients.

Acupuncture versus massage for pain in patients living with advanced cancer: a protocol for the IMPACT randomised clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Pain, comorbid fatigue and sleep disturbances are common and distressing symptoms for patients with advanced cancer, negatively impacting their quality of life. Clinical guidelines recommend non-pharmacological interventions, including acupuncture and massage, for pain management in adult patients with cancer in adjunct to conventional care. However, high-quality evidence about the comparative effectiveness and long-term durability of these therapies for symptom management is limited.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We describe the design of a two-arm, parallel group, multicentre randomised controlled trial that investigates the use of acupuncture versus massage for musculoskeletal pain among 300 patients with diverse types of advanced cancer. The primary aim is to evaluate the long-term effectiveness (26 weeks from randomisation) of acupuncture vs massage for pain (primary outcome) and comorbid symptoms (fatigue, sleep disturbance and quality of life). The secondary aim is to identify patient-level demographic characteristics (eg, sex, race, age), clinical factors (eg, insomnia, pain severity) and psychological attributes that are associated with a greater reduction in pain for either acupuncture or massage. Patients will receive weekly acupuncture or massage treatments for 10 weeks, followed by monthly booster sessions up to 26 weeks. The primary endpoint will be the change in worst pain intensity score from baseline to 26 weeks. We will collect validated patient-reported outcomes at multiple time points over 26 weeks.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The Institutional Review Board at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York approved this protocol. Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed scientific journals and conference presentations. Our findings will help patients and healthcare providers make informed decisions about incorporating non-pharmacological treatments to manage pain for patients with advanced cancer.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04095234.

Evaluation of a whole process management model based on an information system for cancer patients with pain: A prospective nonrandomized controlled study

Objective

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of whole process management model interventions based on information system benefits reported by patients with cancer pain.

Methods

We performed a quantitative, prospective nonrandomized controlled design from June to October 2020. A total of 124 cancer patients with pain were enrolled. Patients in the experimental group received a whole process management model intervention based on an information system compared to the control group who received routine cancer pain management. Data were collected at baseline and after a four-week follow-up, acting as a test-retest control. The primary outcome was pain management quality, which was measured using the American Pain Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire-Chinese version (APS-POQ-C). Secondary outcomes were patient-related attitudinal barriers and analgesic adherence. The Barrier Questionnaire (BQ) and a single-item questionnaire were used. Chi-square tests were used to compare the pain intensity and analgesic adherence, independent sample t-test and Mann-Whitney U test were performed to test the differences in the pain management quality and patient-related attitudinal barriers between control and experimental groups.

Results

Baseline characteristics and outcomes of the participants did not differ significantly (P ​> ​0.05). Primary outcomes were changes in four aspect of the quality of pain management (APS-POQ-C) between the two groups (P ​< ​0.05). Patients in the whole process management group reported significantly better pain control and perception of care than the control group. With respect to secondary endpoints, a significant difference in favor of the experimental group was found for barriers (P ​< ​0.05) and medication adherence (60.0% vs. 40.0%; P ​< ​0.05) after the interventions.

Conclusions

The whole process management of patients with cancer pain effectively improves patient-reported quality of pain management, reduces patient-perceived barriers, enhances patient adherence to analgesic drugs and is worthy of clinical application.

What is the impact of specialist palliative care outpatient consultations on pain in adult patients with cancer? A systematic review

PURPOSE

The aim of this systematic review was to determine the impact of specialist palliative care (SPC) consultations in outpatient settings on pain control in adults suffering from cancer.

METHODS

Systematic Review. Databases CINAHL, Medline, PsychInfo, and Embase were searched in February 2021. Relevant studies were also hand-searched and gray literature was searched in February 2021. The PICO mnemonic (Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome) was used to form the review question. Of 1053 potential studies identified, 10 met the inclusion criteria. Quality appraisal of included studies was conducted using the evidence-based librarian (EBL) critical appraisal checklist.

RESULTS

Outcome data from 56% (n = 5/9) studies indicated a non-statistically significant reduction in pain. Narrative analysis of the remaining studies indicated a statistically significant reduction in pain in 50% (n = 2/4) of the studies, one study showed mixed results, and one study found no statistically significant improvement in pain control. In relation to secondary outcomes, results from 33% (3/9) of studies indicated statistically significant improvement in symptom control. Data from 22% (n = 2/9) of studies indicated no statistically significant improvement in the symptoms measured. Narrative analysis of the remaining four studies indicated generally mixed results. EBL scores of included studies ranged between 50% and 95.23%.

CONCLUSION

Outpatient SPC consultations may have a positive impact on the control of pain and other distressing symptoms for cancer patients, however, results show mixed effects. Given that it is unclear what it is about outpatient SPC that impacts positively or otherwise on pain and symptom control.

Quality of life in patients with breakthrough cancer pain in radiation oncology departments in Spain: the CAVIDIOR study

Aim: The CAVIDIOR study evaluated quality of life (QoL) in patients with breakthrough cancer pain receiving palliative radiation therapy in radiation oncology departments (RODs) in Spain. Patients & methods: Prospective observational study at 11 Spanish RODs (July 2016-November 2017). QoL was assessed using Short Form Health Survey 12. Secondary end points were sleep quality, caregiver burden and patient/perception of improvement. Results: QoL improved according to the Short Form Health Survey 12 mental component. Sleep quality and caregivers' burden improved significantly. Conclusion: Breakthrough cancer pain is highly prevalent and can be substantially reduced with appropriate diagnosis and management in RODs. Along with the QoL questionnaire, sleep quality and caregiver burden provide a more comprehensive assessment of overall health status in patients receiving radiation therapy in RODs. Clinical trial registration: NCT02836379 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Opioid-Induced Constipation in Oncological Patients: New Strategies of Management

OPINION STATEMENT

Cancer-associated pain has traditionally been treated with opioid analgesics, often in escalating doses. Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is a common problem associated with chronic use of opioid analgesics. Typical treatment strategies to alleviate constipation are based on dietary changes, exercise, and laxatives. However, laxatives have a nonspecific action and do not target underlying mechanisms of OIC. This article will review prevalent, clinical presentation and recommendations for the treatment of OIC. An independent literature search was carried out by the authors. We reviewed the literature for randomized controlled trials that studied the efficacy of laxatives, naloxone, and naloxegol in treating OIC. Newer strategies addressing the causal pathophysiology of OIC are needed for a more effective assessment and management of OIC. Finally, traditional recommended therapies are appraised and compared with the latest pharmacological developments. Future research should address whether naloxegol is more efficacious by its comparison directly with first-line treatments, including laxatives.

Pain Prevalence and Pain Management in a Chinese Hospital

Background

Pain prevalence has been investigation in many developed countries, but integrated information about pain prevalence in Chinese hospitals is lacking. To achieve better pain treatment of hospitalized patients, pain management needs to be investigated. The present descriptive and cross-sectional study was performed to demonstrate the prevalence of pain by comparison with the 4 traditional vital signs, and to investigate pain management in a Chinese teaching hospital.

Material/Methods

Structured and systematic interviews were undertaken by independent researchers. During a patient’s hospitalization, the prevalence of pain and the 4 vital signs were recorded. Then, the catalog, severity, causes, duration of pain, and pain management were assessed.

Results

We found: (1) 63.36% of patients (3248 in total) suffered from pain while in hospital, which was 1.8~2.8 times higher than the prevalence of abnormality of the 4 vital signs. (2) 76% of patients had moderate pain and 21.98% had severe pain. (3) Pain intensity differed among patients with different diseases, but did not differ by demographic factors. (4) Acute and chronic pain were present in 68% and 26% of patients, respectively. In addition, 16% of the patients had neuropathic pain. (5) More than half of the patients with pain refused to receive pain-relief medication because they worried about addiction to opioids and the adverse effects of analgesics. (6) Most medical staff properly understood the 3 ladder analgesics.

Conclusions

The prevalence of pain is higher than the abnormality of the 4 traditional vital signs in a Chinese hospital. Although pain management has broadly improved, more patient education is necessary.

Improving Patient-reported Pain During Radiotherapy Through Nurse Involvement and Patient Education

OBJECTIVES

Pain management during radiotherapy helps assess quality of care. By establishing an intervention to address pain during on-treatment visits (OTVs), we aim to lower patient-reported pain scores.

METHODS

A total of 171 patients were included in the analysis: 58 were retrospectively reviewed to provide a control and 113 were prospectively enrolled and evaluated after the intervention. The intervention included (1) a pain management in-service performed with the resident physician and nurses, (2) distribution of pain management educational materials, and (3) nurse consultation for patients with a pain score ≥5 within 2 days of the in-service. Study aims were to reduce the number of pain scores ≥5 by 30% and increase the number of pain scores documented during every OTV to >90%.

RESULTS

Median patient age was 65 years. Before the intervention, the average DVPRS score at initial consultation was 2 (range, 0 to 9) and 98% of patients had scores documented during OTVs. Overall, 26% (44/171) of OTV scores measured ≥5. Following the intervention, average DVPRS score at initial consultation was 2 (range, 0 to 10) and 99% of scores were documented during OTVs. About 14% (49/341) of patient-reported scores were ≥5, representing an ~50% relative reduction (P=0.023). The number of patients with 2+ pain scores ≥5 was reduced from 21% (12/58) before the intervention to 11% (12/109) after the intervention (P=0.1068).

CONCLUSION

Involving nursing staff in the education and follow-up of patients with uncontrolled pain during radiotherapy led to an ~50% relative reduction in patient-reported DVPRS scores of 5+ during weekly OTVs.

SEOM clinical guideline for treatment of cancer pain (2017)

Pain is a highly prevalent symptom in patients with cancer. Despite therapeutic advances and well-accepted treatment guidelines, a percentage of patients with pain are under-treated. Currently, it has been recognized that several barriers in pain management still exist and, in addition, there are new challenges surrounding complex subtypes of pain, such as breakthrough and neuropathic pain, requiring further reviews and recommendations. This is an update of the guide our society previously published and represents the continued commitment of SEOM to move forward and improve supportive care of cancer patients.

Is Early Palliative Care Feasible in Patients With Multiple Myeloma?

CONTEXT

Evidence for the benefits of early palliative care (EPC) in patients with solid tumors is strong, but EPC has received scant attention in hematologic malignancies.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the benefits of outpatient-based EPC for symptom control in patients with multiple myeloma.

METHODS

Retrospective study of patients attending the Multiple Myeloma Palliative Care Clinic at our hospital in the year 2013 (February 1-December 31). The following symptoms were assessed at baseline and at three follow-up consultations using a Numerical Visual Scale (0 = no symptoms; 10 = worst possible): pain, anorexia, constipation, insomnia, nausea/vomiting, dyspnea, anxiety, and sadness. Physical and emotional symptom burden scores were calculated. Pain interference with general activity, sleep, and mood was also evaluated.

RESULTS

About 67 patients were included. The proportion of patients reporting moderate-to-severe pain (Numerical Visual Scale ≥5) decreased significantly from baseline to the final follow-up: worst pain decreased from 57% to 18% (P < 0.0001), whereas average pain fell from 24% to 2% (P < 0.0001). The percentage of patients reporting no pain interference increased significantly from baseline: general activity (52% vs. 82%; P = 0.0001), sleep (73% vs. 91%; P = 0.01), and mood (52% vs. 87.5%; P = 0.0001). Physical and emotional symptom burden also improved, with significantly fewer patients reporting depression (13% vs. 5%; P = 0.001). Most patients (86.6%) were alive and still attending the Multiple Myeloma Palliative Care Clinic at study end.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings indicate that EPC is feasible in patients with multiple myeloma. Pain and other symptoms were well controlled.

COMBAT study - Computer based assessment and treatment - A clinical trial evaluating impact of a computerized clinical decision support tool on pain in cancer patients

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The prevalence of pain in cancer patients are relatively high and indicate inadequate pain management strategies. Therefore, it is necessary to develop new methods and to improve implementation of guidelines to assess and treat pain. The vast improvement in information technology facilitated development of a computerized symptom assessment and decision support system (CCDS) - the Combat system - which was implemented in an outpatient cancer clinic to evaluate improvement in pain management.

METHODS

We conducted a controlled before-and-after study between patient cohorts in two consecutive study periods: before (n=80) and after (n=134) implementation of the Combat system. Patients in the first cohort completed questionnaires with the paper-and-pencil method and this data was not shown to physicians. Patients in the latter cohort completed an electronic questionnaire by using an iPad and the data were automatically transferred and presented to physicians at point of care. Additionally, the system provided computerized decision support at point of care for the physician based on the electronic questionnaires completed by the patients, an electronic CRF completed by physicians and clinical guidelines.

RESULTS

The Combat system did not improve pain intensity and there were no significant alterations in the prescribed dose of opiates compared to the cohort of patients managed without the Combat system.

CONCLUSION

The Combat system did not improve pain management. This may be explained by several factors, however, we consider lack of proper implementation of the CCDS in the clinic to be the most important factor. As a result, we did not manage to change the behaviour of the physicians in the clinic.

IMPLICATIONS

There is a need to conduct larger prospective studies to evaluate the efficacy of modern information technology to improve pain management in cancer patients. Before introducing new information technology in the clinics, it is important to have a well thought out implementation strategy. The trial is registered at Clinialtrials.gov, number NCT01795157.

CE: Intrathecal Pumps for Managing Cancer Pain

: It is estimated that more than 1.6 million new cases of cancer were diagnosed in the United States in 2014. Among patients with cancer, moderate to severe pain is prevalent and can be refractory, even with the use of systemic opioids, which may cause adverse effects that are difficult to manage at the doses required to control pain. When delivered intrathecally, however, opioids and adjuvant analgesics may provide greater pain relief at dramatically lower doses and with fewer adverse effects. Although the use of intrathecal drug delivery systems for cancer pain management has increased dramatically over the past several years and is expected to continue growing, patients with intrathecal pumps often report interactions with nurses unfamiliar with the technology. This article provides an overview of intrathecal pump therapy and explains how it prolongs duration of action and improves the efficacy of certain analgesics while reducing their adverse effects. The author discusses the costs involved, the patients most likely to derive benefit, the types of pumps currently used in the United States, the medications that can be delivered intrathecally, the potential risks and complications associated with intrathecal therapy, and the nursing care required by patients who use an intrathecal pump.