Subcutaneous ketorolac--a new development in pain control

Opioid-sparing effects of ketorolac in palliative care patients receiving opioids for chronic cancer-related pain: A systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

Standard of care in treatment of cancer-related pain involves opioids in combination with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID). Ketorolac, a NSAID, has demonstrated opioid-sparing effects in other clinical settings.

AIM

This systematic literature review investigated ketorolac's opioid-sparing effects in patients receiving opioids for chronic, cancer-related pain.

DESIGN

The primary outcome was total daily dose of opioids. Secondary outcomes included frequency of opioid use, use and frequency of 'rescue' medication and adverse events. Outcomes were described, and meta-analysed where possible. PROSPERO registration CRD42019130894.

DATA SOURCES

Articles included original research, from any study phase or methodology, published in English in a peer-reviewed journal or conference between 1990 and 2020; included subjects >18 years; had chronic cancer-related pain and described the use of opioid-sparing effect of ketorolac.

RESULTS

Nine articles were included. While there was significant heterogeneity, ketorolac may have an opioid-sparing effect, with significant reductions in total daily dose of morphine observed in a single randomised controlled trial (SMD -4.30 mg, 95% CI -5.36 to -3.25), but the changes in the before and after studies were not statistically significant -0.46 mg (95% CI -1.14 to 0.22). Ketorolac was associated with greater likelihood of complete pain relief, but the data were heterogeneous. Insufficient data were available to analyse frequency of opioid use, or rescue medication requirements.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the heterogeneity of the data, adequately powered, randomised controlled trials are required to establish any opioid-sparing effect of ketorolac. For patients not responding to conventional pain management, ketorolac may have a role in treatment augmentation.

Intravenous Ketorolac Infusion for Intractable Pleuritic Pain Secondary to Metastatic Epithelioid Hemangioendothelioma

Background: Epithelioid hemangioendothelioma (EHE) patients can experience severe pain. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, including ketorolac tromethamine, can effectively treat cancer-related pain, provide an opioid-sparing effect, and may be particularly effective for EHE pain. There are limited data describing prolonged (>5 days) continuous intravenous (IV) ketorolac infusion for cancer-related pain and no data on its use in EHE. Case Description: A 67-year-old woman with metastatic hepatic EHE suffered from chronic intractable pleuritic pain unresponsive to trials of nonopioid, opioid, adjuvant medications, and nonpharmacological interventions. In the hospital, continuous IV ketorolac infusion at 3.8 mg/hour (91.2 mg/day) effectively managed pain. With thorough monitoring, the patient was discharged on continuous IV ketorolac infusion at 3 mg/hour (72 mg/day). Infusion continued for 79 days without clinical or laboratory evidence of ketorolac toxicity. Conclusion: Ketorolac tromethamine as a long-term infusion is a potentially viable analgesic for patients with intractable EHE-related pain unresponsive to standard therapies.

Continuous Subcutaneous Infusion of Ketorolac in Cancer Neuropathic Pain Unresponsive to Opioid and Adjuvant Drugs. A Case Report

Ketorolac is a new non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) having a potent nonopioid analgesic activity. Administered by continuous subcutaneous infusion (CSI), its analgesic efficacy has been documented in the treatment of somatic and visceral cancer pain whilst it has been shown to be ineffective in the treatment of neuropathic pain. Here is a description of a cancer patient with neuropathic pain unresponsive to anticonvulsant or antidepressant drugs administered in association or not with oral opioids but who was successfully treated with ketorolac alone via CSI. Furthermore, the analgesia lasted over 75 days of treatment without any significant renal and gastric side effects.

Use of parecoxib by continuous subcutaneous infusion for cancer pain in a hospice population

OBJECTIVES

To characterise the use of the parenteral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug parecoxib when given by continuous subcutaneous infusion (CSCI) in a hospice population. Clinical experience suggests parecoxib CSCI may be of benefit in this population, but empirical evidence in relation to its safety and efficacy is lacking.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review of patients with a cancer diagnosis receiving parecoxib CSCI from 2008 to 2013 at the Marie Curie Hospice, Belfast. Data were collected on treatment regime, tolerability and, in patients receiving at least 7 days treatment, baseline opioid dose and changes in pain scores or opioid rescue medication requirements.

RESULTS

Parecoxib CSCI was initiated in 80 patients with a mean administration of 17.9 days (median 11, range 1-94). When used for a period of 7 days, there was a statistically significant reduction in pain scores (p=0.002) and in the number of rescue opioid doses required (p=0.001), but no statistically significant opioid-sparing effect (p=0.222). It was generally well tolerated, although gastrointestinal, renal adverse effects and local site irritation were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Parecoxib may have a valuable place in the management of cancer pain, especially towards the end of life when oral administration is no longer possible and CSCI administration is relied on. Further studies into the efficacy and tolerability of parecoxib CSCI are merited.

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.

Daily subcutaneous parecoxib injection for cancer pain: an open label pilot study

BACKGROUND

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory analgesics (NSAIDs) are useful in cancer pain but the specific use of subcutaneous parecoxib has not been previously reported.

OBJECTIVE

This pilot study aimed to establish the efficacy and side effect profile of short-term sequential single daily dose subcutaneous parecoxib sodium in patients with severe cancer bone pain.

METHODS

Nineteen hospitalized patients with advanced cancer and uncontrolled malignant bone pain (9 males, 10 females) received 24 courses of one, two, or three days sequential therapy with 'off-label' daily subcutaneous parecoxib. All patients were receiving opioid therapy; the median baseline daily oral equivalent dose (OED) of morphine was 180 mg. Pain was assessed at baseline, 24 hours, 48 hours, and 72 hours. Pain scores as assessed on an 11-point numeric pain rating scale (NPRS), any side effects including subcutaneous site reactions, as well as patient satisfaction rating with analgesia were recorded. A clinically significant decrease in pain scores was defined as a reduction of two or more points on the NPRS.

RESULTS

Median pain score of all patient treatments decreased from 7 to 4.5 at 24 hours (p<0.001) and 4.0 at 48 hours. A response was seen in 17 (71%) of the 24 treatments at 24 hours. There was no difference between median negative change in pain scores in 19 (79%) treatments where pain was either strongly movement related, or in 22 (94%) treatments where local bone tenderness was more pronounced. No major side effects were observed during treatment. One patient died from pulmonary embolism after cessation of concurrent prophylactic low molecular weight heparin prior to staging liver biopsy. Subcutaneous site reactions occurred in 2 (8%) treatments and were mild and self limiting.

CONCLUSIONS

Short-term daily subcutaneous parecoxib injection was effective for malignant bone pain when added to existing analgesic therapy and was well tolerated. Further research is warranted into the short-term use of parecoxib in hospitalized patients with intractable malignant bone pain.

Sniffing out endodontic pain: use of an intranasal analgesic in a randomized clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Orofacial pain is a common encounter in dentistry (affecting 12% of the population) and is a primary reason for patients seeking emergency care. Dentists often prescribe oral analgesics, which have disadvantages of decreased absorption rates and delayed onset. Intranasal (IN) delivery takes advantage of a large surface area of mucosal tissue for rapid absorption. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of IN ketorolac for endodontic pain using a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel design study.

METHODS

Twenty-two patients presenting with moderate to severe endodontic pain were selected to receive IN treatment with placebo (n = 11) or ketorolac (n = 11) 30 minutes before endodontic treatment was started and immediately after the completion of endodontic treatment. Baseline pain levels were recorded before IN treatment. Pain levels were also recorded at 15 and 30 minutes after the initial IN dosing (before endodontic treatment); 30 minutes after completion of endodontic treatment; and 4, 8, and 12 hours after the initial IN spray. Primary analysis was a repeated-measures analysis of variance.

RESULTS

IN ketorolac alone or with endodontic treatment showed significantly better pain relief compared with IN placebo spray alone or with endodontic treatment at 30 minutes after the first or second intranasal dose and at 4 hours after the first intranasal dose (P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that IN ketorolac may provide a novel and efficacious method for pain relief in endodontic pain patients.

A randomised controlled study on the use of anti-inflammatory drugs in patients with cancer pain on morphine therapy: effects on dose-escalation and a pharmacoeconomic analysis

The role of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in cancer pain has been well established in the treatment of mild pain and in association with opioids in the treatment of moderate to severe pain. The aim of this study was to verify the effects of NSAIDs on morphine escalation in advanced cancer patients with pain followed-up at home and to assess the pharmacoeconomic implications. A prospective randomised controlled study was carried out in 156 consecutive advanced cancer patients with pain followed-up at home in the period December 1999-December 2000. In this group of patients, 47 were selected with pain progression after 1 week of opioid stabilisation. Patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups: group 'O' patients were treated with continuing opioid escalation according to their clinical needs; group 'OK' received ketorolac 60 mg/daily orally (p.o.) in three doses and then continued opioid escalation according to their clinical situation. Performance status, doses of morphine before and after starting treatment, mean weekly pain intensity (assessed by means of a numerical scale from 0 to 10), mean weekly symptoms intensity, adverse effects and pain mechanisms were recorded. Moreover, drug costs per day in both groups were calculated. Patients who received ketorolac in addition to morphine showed a better analgesia after a week in comparison to the group treated with morphine only (P=0.005). Thereafter, morphine escalation was slower and the maximum morphine dose was lower in the group treated with ketorolac. The incidence and the severity of gastric discomfort was more evident in patients treated with ketorolac, while constipation was significantly increased in patients who received morphine only. Drug costs per day were similar in both groups; statistical differences were observed in patients who started on lower morphine doses (<100 mg/daily) in the two groups (4.3 in the ketorolac-morphine group versus 3.4 in the morphine group; P=0.012). The use of NSAIDs reduces the need for an opioid dose escalation or allows the use of lower doses. Their use is associated with a more intense gastric discomfort, but results in less opioid-related constipation. The eventual additive cost for NSAIDs therapy is negligible, especially in patients taking high doses of morphine.

The use of anti-inflammatory drugs in cancer pain

The role of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in cancer pain has been well established in the treatment of mild pain and also alone or in association with opioids for the treatment of moderate to severe pain. Acutely, NSAIDs may be more than mild analgesics, and may provide additional analgesia when combined with opioids. However, NSAIDs have ceiling effects and there is no therapeutic gain from increasing dosages beyond those recommended. As there is no clearly superior NSAID, the choice should be based on experience and the toxicity profile that probably relates to the COX-1:COX-2 ratio. Among the older drugs, ibuprofen seems to have these properties.Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs have been shown to have an opioid-sparing effect. Although the value of a simple narcotic-sparing effect may be questioned in cancer pain treatment, the use of NSAIDs may be useful when the increase in opioid dosage determine the occurrence of opioid toxicity. Like opioids, NSAIDs should not be considered analgesics for a specific type or cause of pain. There is a lack of evidence for any difference between different routes of NSAIDs administration. The long-term toxicity of NSAIDs in cancer pain is poorly defined due to a lack of studies. A variety of strategies have been used in an attempt to reduce the risks associated with NSAID therapy. Those NSAIDs that are weak COX-1 inhibitors may be preferred. In addition, concomitant administration of misoprostol is recommended in patients at increased risk for upper gastrointestinal complications.

Opioid and Nonopioid Therapy in Cancer Pain: The Traditional and the New

Management of cancer pain has made sidnificant progress in recent years, partly due to the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR) guidelines, but mostly it seems to be due to the death and dying movement in the world. However, cancer pain on occasion poses significant problems and needs accurate diganosis and appropriate intervention. Pharmacotherapy remains the mainstay of treating cancer pain. Most cancer pain syndromes present with moderate to severe pain, associated with several comorbid problems necessitating the multidisciplinary approach to optimally treat it. The psychologic factors associated wth serious illness, terminal prognoses, and dying complicate the scenario even more as compared with that of nonmalignant pain. Although such patients are entitled to more aggressive analgesic therapy, it is unfortunate that this is not achieved in a significant percentage of cases. In this review, we address some of the above issues and attempt to summarize the traditional pharmacologic therapies highlighting their modern modes of implementation in cancer pain management. Special emphasis on the state-of-the art innovations in this field wil be noted.

Guidelines for use of the MS26 daily rate syringe driver in the community

Many patients cared for in the community have complex care and treatment needs and syringe drivers are commonly used to administer a range of drugs to patients at home. However, serious problems have been associated with this route of administration. In Scotland between 1989 and 1994 there were 23 incidents including 4 fatalities associated with the use of small volume syringe pumps reported to the Common Services Agency supplies division (Scottish Office Home and Health Department (SOHHD), 1995). The four fatalities were attributed to over-infusion (SOHHD, 1995). In those fatal inadvertent incidents no fault was found with the infusion device, suggesting that an inadvertent error had been made by attendants in setting up or in using the device, or that some form of tampering had taken place. The Department of Health issued a hazard warning in 1994 (DoH, 1994) about confusion between the two Sims Graseby syringe drivers the MS16A and the MS26. This article outlines guidance on the use of the Sims Graseby MS26 in the community. Community nurses have a vital role to play in management of syringe drivers, and it is through increased awareness of correct procedures that incidents and fatalities will be avoided.

Analgesic effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in cancer pain due to somatic or visceral mechanisms

The role of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is well established in the treatment of cancer pain. This class of drugs is considered particularly effective in pain due to somatic mechanisms, although proof of this observation is lacking. To ascertain whether NSAIDs are more effective in specific nociceptive forms of cancer pain, they were administered alone or added to opioids in 32 patients with a sole pain mechanism, somatic pain due to bone metastases (17 patients) or visceral pain (15 patients), respectively. Pain intensity, mean doses of opioids used, and symptoms were recorded after starting NSAID. A significant reduction in pain intensity was found at 3, 7, and 14 days. No differences in pain intensity between the two groups were observed. However, patients with a visceral mechanism required higher opioid doses after a week of treatment. No differences in adverse effects were reported. NSAIDs may be useful drugs in the management of cancer pain, regardless of the mechanism of pain involved. The incidence of adverse effects during prolonged administration should be assessed in future studies.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs as adjuvant analgesics in cancer patients

The role of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is examined in the control of cancer pain with a particular focus on their use as adjuvants to opioids in advanced cancer pain. These agents have both a peripheral effect on inflammation and a role in attenuating central pain pathways. The possibility of obtaining the benefits of NSAIDs with fewer side-effects by using COX-2-specific agents is discussed. The gastrointestinal, renal, haemostatic, cognitive and hypersensitivity side-effects of NSAIDs are reviewed and their potential impact assessed. The evidence for the efficacy of NSAIDs as single agents for cancer pain is reviewed together with the nine papers which have reported the effects of NSAIDs as adjuvants to opioids in cancer pain. All of these papers reported positive results of NSAIDs, but, in the absence of any randomized, double-blind controlled trials, where NSAIDs were used as adjuvants on a long-term basis alongside optimal opioid use, definite conclusions cannot be reached. Guidelines for the safe use of NSAIDs are suggested. Finally, suggestions for future research are made.

The opioid-sparing effects of intravenous ketorolac as an adjuvant analgesic in cancer pain: application in bone metastases and the opioid bowel syndrome

Side effects of morphine are common when given in titrated doses to control severe pain in advanced cancer. We report a case series of acutely ill cancer patients suffering from pain, complications of advanced disease, and opioid side effects. They were treated with intravenous (i.v.) ketorolac along with i.v. morphine using repeated dosing. Excellent pain relief with improvement in the opioid bowel syndrome was achieved. We found it possible to switch from IV ketorolac to oral ketorolac along with oral morphine for long-term pain control. Ketorolac can be well tolerated in high-dose, long-term use even in this frail patient population. An algorithm is presented for the suggested use of ketorolac as a morphine sparing agent. Potential methods for studying ketorolac further in this role are discussed.

Prolonged central intravenous ketorolac continuous infusion in a cancer patient with intractable bone pain

OBJECTIVE

To report the case of a prolonged intravenous ketorolac continuous infusion given via a central line in a cancer patient with intractable bone pain.

CASE SUMMARY

A 56-year-old Hispanic man with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer and multiple bone metastases was admitted to the hospital for intractable pain inadequately controlled at home by conventional therapy. He was treated with an intravenous continuous infusion of ketorolac 120 mg in 250 mL of NaCl 0.9% infused over 24 hours. The ketorolac was given via a central line for 14 days in addition to fentanyl patient-controlled analgesia. Over this time period the patient reported his pain to be well controlled. His requests for bolus doses of fentanyl decreased dramatically and the dose of the continuous intravenous fentanyl was reduced by 22%. In addition, the total daily dose of ketorolac was reduced following a change from intermittent bolus dosing to a continuous infusion.

DISCUSSION

The management of cancer pain secondary to bone metastasis is a difficult and challenging problem frequently encountered by the healthcare team. The use of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) as adjuvant therapy is a common practice. However, many terminally ill patients are unable to take oral medications, thus limiting NSAID treatment options. Ketorolac tromethamine is approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a parenteral NSAID. As with other NSAIDs, the risk of adverse drug reactions must be considered when using this class of medication. The FDA has approved ketorolac for the short-term (< or = 5 d) management of moderately severe acute pain that requires analgesia at the opioid level, usually in the postoperative setting. However, certain patients may benefit from long-term use exceeding the FDA-recommended guidelines of 5 days of maximum therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

A prolonged central intravenous ketorolac continuous infusion was successful in treating a cancer patient with intractable bone pain secondary to widely metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.

Ketorolac continuous infusion: a case report and review of the literature

We report a case of intractable pain due to metastatic carcinoma that was effectively managed with a continuous intravenous (IV) infusion of ketorolac. Unlike previous reports of short-term continuous IV ketorolac for postoperative analgesia, this case is unique because of the etiology of the pain and the duration of treatment. The published literature on continuous administration of ketorolac by the intravenous, intramuscular, and subcutaneous routes is also reviewed.

National survey of drug use in palliative care

The objective was to compile data on therapeutic approaches employed in palliative care in Australia, including practices relating to combining drugs in syringe drivers for administration by subcutaneous infusion. A questionnaire, with a reply-paid envelope, was sent to 130 teaching hospitals and palliative care services throughout Australia. Ninety-six responses were received (74% response rate). Drugs commonly administered in palliative care included oral morphine (97% of respondents), subcutaneous morphine (76%), oral metoclopramide (82%), subcutaneous metoclopramide (41%), oral dexamethasone (70%), oral haloperidol (50%), subcutaneous haloperidol (43%), oral prochlorperazine (47%), oral codeine (38%) and subcutaneous midazolam (36%). Drugs frequently combined in syringe drivers for subcutaneous infusion included morphine plus metoclopramide (67%), morphine plus midazolam (66%), and all three of these drugs (35%). Only 48% of the palliative care services had a policy on combining drugs in syringe drivers for administration by subcutaneous infusion and 34% had an upper limit on the number of drugs combined in syringe drivers. Twenty-nine per cent of respondents had encountered problems (e.g. incompatibilities) when combining drugs in syringe drivers for administration by subcutaneous infusion. This study has revealed considerable variation in the practice of therapeutics and the combining of drugs in syringe drivers for administration by subcutaneous infusion in palliative care.

Use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in cancer

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used in cancer, yet they are also responsible for many, often serious, adverse effects. This review examines the various mechanisms through which NSAIDs work. It looks at the experience built up in using NSAIDs in cancer pain in general, but then particularly examines whether the evidence available supports the claim often made that these drugs have a specific role in relief of pain from bony metastases. Criteria for choosing one NSAID over another, including adverse effect profiles, efficacy and tolerability, are considered, as are methods for improving the safe use of these drugs.

Palliative care

Though many of the treatment strategies used in palliative care have never been subjected to clinical trial, it has been argued that advances in palliative care have outstripped those in many other specialties. This article is not a comprehensive review of therapeutic options, nor even of recent advances in this topic, but concentrates on the latest developments and controversies in the pharmacological treatment of four frequent and important symptoms: neuropathic pain, anorexia and cachexia, intestinal obstruction, and breathlessness. It is difficult to perform blinded, randomised trials in patients with advanced disease and poor performance status, yet it is these patients who may gain most from the adoption of new well evaluated treatment strategies.

Use of ketorolac by continuous subcutaneous infusion for the control of cancer-related pain

Ketorolac tromethamine is a newly available non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug which is suitable for parenteral administration. We have given it by continuous subcutaneous infusion to 36 patients with pain due to advanced cancer. Improvement in pain control occurred in 29 (80%). A reduction in the dose of concomitant opioid analgesia was possible in 22 (76%) and a reduction in opioid-related adverse effects occurred in 16 (73%) of these. Ketorolac was most effective in patients who had bone or visceral pain. It was mixed safely with diamorphine in a syringe driver at concentrations up to 4 g diamorphine/10 ml and 120 mg ketorolac/10 ml. Infusion was well tolerated for periods of up to 115 days (mean 21 days; median 15 days; range 3-115 days). Four patients experienced gastrointestinal bleeding and one colonic perforation to which treatment with ketorolac may have been a contributory factor. No other clinically significant adverse effects were observed.

Handling the withdrawn patient--a flow diagram

The withdrawn patient challenges effective communication. Some patients are naturally introverted or quiet, but for others the withdrawal represents a change with many possible causes. This flow diagram describes the approach to a withdrawn patient and outlines management.