Topical Ketamine with Other Adjuvants: Underutilized for Refractory Cancer Pain? A Case Series and Suggested Revision of the World Health Organization Stepladder for Cancer Pain

Topical Traditional Chinese Medicines for Cancer Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Safe and effective management of cancer-related pain is a worldwide challenge. In the search for treatment options, natural products used in Chinese herbal medicines (CHMs) have received attention in clinical studies for their effects on cancer-related pain. The objective of this systematic review is to evaluate the clinical evidence for topically applied CHMs as adjunctive treatments for cancer pain management.

METHODS

Nine biomedical databases and 4 clinical trial registries were searched for randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) that reported measures of pain and/or quality of life. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool. Meta-analysis employed mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (random effects).

RESULTS

Twenty (20) RCTs (1636 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses were grouped based on the comparisons and outcome measures. For pain intensity, there was a greater reduction in the topical CHM group versus placebo (MD -0.72 [-1.04, -0.40]), no difference when compared to tramadol (MD -0.15 [-0.38, 0.08]), and a greater reduction when topical CHMs were combined with conventional analgesic medications (MD -0.67 [-0.93, -0.40]). Analgesic onset time was reduced in the CHM group compared to tramadol (MD -26.02 [-27.57, -24.47] minutes), and for CHMs combined with conventional medications (MD -19.17 [-21.83, -16.52] minutes). When CHMs were combined with analgesic medications, improvements were found for duration of analgesia (MD 1.65 [0.78, 2.51] hours), analgesic maintenance dose (MD -31.72 [-50.43, -13.01] milligrams/day), and quality of life.

CONCLUSION

Addition of topical CHMs to conventional analgesic medications was associated with improved outcomes for pain intensity, some other pain-related outcomes, and measures of quality of life. Limitations included methodological issues in some studies and considerable heterogeneity in some pooled results.

Scoping Review of Off-Label Topical Analgesia in Palliative, Hospice and Cancer Care: Towards Flexibility in Evidence-Based Medicine

Purpose

Scoping reviews address the nature of the literature per se rather than inferring evidence-based treatment guidelines. Scoping reviews of the published literature are intended to describe the aggregated nature of the evidence surrounding some agent or intervention, in contrast to systematic reviews that seek when possible to guide clinical practice. We conducted a scoping review to identify reports of potential clinical utility of off-label topical analgesics and adjuvants when FDA-approved treatments have proven inadequate.

Methods

We performed a comprehensive search of three databases (PubMed, Web of Science and Embase) for articles dating from 1947 to the present. Mindful that FDA-approved and WHO-recommended analgesic medications often prove inadequate for individual patients in extremis with palliative, hospice or cancer pain, we used broad, structured inclusion criteria to retrieve articles.

Results

We retrieved 12,100 articles; after screening, we had 39 reports addressing 19 different topical agents out of the 32 chemical entities. Our scoping review disclosed evidence about agents that might not have met inclusion criteria for clinical practice guidelines.

Discussion

Although generally considered lower quality evidence, case reports or series present suggestions for diverse topical medications to manage pain in challenging circumstances when high-quality evidence for agents and routes of administration is lacking.

Conclusion

Patients with the greatest need for evidence to identify and guide lesser-used agents during aggressive pain management are the most difficult to enroll and follow in standardized, controlled and/or blinded clinical trials. This scoping review identifies medications, dosages, and routes of topical agents reported to be effective in these often-challenging circumstances. Until larger and higher quality studies are completed, we must rely on the best available evidence even if of lower quality.

A review of the clinical applications of ketamine in pediatric oncology

Ketamine is a dissociative anesthetic agent with excellent analgesic properties and a favorable safety profile. The feasibility and efficacy of various routes of administration have been established, including intravenous (IV), intramuscular (IM), oral, intranasal, rectal, and transdermal routes. The advent of newer anesthetic agents has led to a decline in the use of ketamine as an anesthetic, but its utility in short-term sedation and analgesia has expanded. Its value for chronic pain management in children with cancer is being increasingly recognized but requires more evidence. The use of topical ketamine is largely in investigational stages. Medical use of ketamine is, to a great extent, free from significant long-term neurological side effects. The objective of this review is to provide a brief account of the pharmacology of ketamine and primarily focus on the clinical applications of ketamine in pediatric oncology.