Comparison of piroxicam and acetylsalicylic acid for pain in head and neck cancers: a double-blind study

Revision of Pharmacological Treatment Recommendations for Cancer Pain: Clinical Guidelines from the Japanese Society of Palliative Medicine

Background: Pain is one of the most common symptoms in cancer patients. The Japanese Society for Palliative Medicine (JSPM) first published its clinical guidelines for the management of cancer pain in 2010. Since then, more research on cancer pain management has been reported, and new drugs have become available in Japan. Thus, the JSPM has now revised the clinical guidelines using a validated methodology. Methods: This guideline was developed through a systematic review, discussion, and the Delphi method, following a formal guideline development process. Results: Thirty-five recommendations were created: 19 for the pharmacological management of cancer pain, 6 for the management of opioid-induced adverse effects, and 10 for pharmacological treatment procedures. Due to the lack of evidence that directly addressed our clinical questions, most of the recommendations had to be based on consensus among committee members and other guidelines. Discussion: It is critical to continue to build high-quality evidence in cancer pain management, and revise these guidelines accordingly.

Piroxicam

A comprehensive profile of piroxicam including the nomenclatures, formulae, elemental composition, appearance, uses and applications. The methods which were utilized for the preparation of the drug substance and their respective schemes are outlined. The physical characteristics of the drug including the ionization constant, solubility, x-ray powder diffraction pattern, differential scanning calorimetry, thermal behavior and spectroscopic studies are described. The methods which were used for the analysis of the drug substance in bulk drug and/or in pharmaceutical formulations including the compendial, spectrophotometric, electrochemical and the chromatographic methods are reported. The stability, toxicity, pharmacokinetics, bioavailability, drug evaluation, comparison, in addition to compiled reviews on the drug substance are involved. Finally, more than four hundred and fifty references are listed at the end of this profile.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and pain in cancer patients: a systematic review and reappraisal of the evidence

BACKGROUND

Emerging data highlights the potential role of cyclooxygenase (COX) inhibitors in the primary prevention of malignancy, reducing metastatic spread and improving overall mortality. Despite nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) forming a key component of the WHO analgesic ladder, their use in cancer pain management remains relatively low. This review re-appraises the current evidence regarding the efficacy of COX inhibitors as analgesics in cancer pain, providing a succinct resource to aid clinicians' decision making when determining treatment strategies.

METHODS

Medline® and Embase® databases were searched for publications up to November 2018. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and double-blind controlled studies considering the use of NSAIDs for management of cancer-related pain in adults were included. Animal studies, case reports, and retrospective observational data were excluded.

RESULTS

Thirty studies investigating the use of NSAIDs in cancer pain management were identified. There is a lack of high-quality evidence regarding the analgesic efficacy of NSAIDs in cancer pain, with short study durations and heterogeneity in outcome measures limiting the ability to draw meaningful conclusions.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the renewed interest in these cost-effective, well-established medications in cancer treatment outcomes, there is a paucity of data from the past 15 yr regarding their efficacy in cancer pain management. However, when analgesic strategies in the cancer population are being formulated, it is important that the potential benefits of this class of drug are considered. Further work investigating the role of NSAIDs in cancer pain management is undoubtedly warranted.

Systematic review and meta-analysis on non-opioid analgesics in palliative medicine

Non-opioid analgesics are widely used for pain relief in palliative medicine. However, there is a lack of evidence-based recommendations addressing the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of non-opioids in this field. A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis on current evidence can provide a basis for sound recommendations in clinical practice. A database search for controlled trials on the use of non-opioids in adult palliative patients was performed in Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and EMBASE from inception to 18 February 2018. Endpoints were pain intensity, opioid-sparing effects, safety, and quality of life. Studies with similar patients, interventions, and outcomes were included in the meta-analyses. Our systematic search was able to only identify studies dealing with cancer pain. Of 5991 retrieved studies, 43 could be included (n = 2925 patients). There was no convincing evidence for satisfactory pain relief by acetaminophen alone or in combination with strong opioids. We found substantial evidence of moderate quality for a satisfactory pain relief in cancer by non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), flupirtine, and dipyrone compared with placebo or other analgesics. There was no evidence for a superiority of one specific non-opioid. There was moderate quality of evidence for a similar pain reduction by NSAIDs in the usual dosage range compared with up to 15 mg of morphine or opioids of equianalgesic potency. The combination of NSAID and step III opioids showed a beneficial effect, without a decreased tolerability. There is scarce evidence concerning the combination of NSAIDs with weak opioids. There are no randomized-controlled studies on the use of non-opioids in a wide range of end-stage diseases except for cancer. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, flupirtine, and dipyrone can be recommended for the treatment of cancer pain either alone or in combination with strong opioids. The use of acetaminophen in the palliative setting cannot be recommended. Studies are not available for long-term use. There is a lack of evidence regarding pain treatment by non-opioids in specific cancer entities.

Oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for cancer pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Pain is a common symptom with cancer, and 30% to 50% of all people with cancer will experience moderate to severe pain that can have a major negative impact on their quality of life. Non-opioid drugs are commonly used to treat cancer pain, and are recommended for this purpose in the World Health Organization (WHO) cancer pain treatment ladder, either alone or in combination with opioids.A previous Cochrane review that examined the evidence for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or paracetamol, alone or combined with opioids, for cancer pain was withdrawn in 2015 because it was out of date; the date of the last search was 2005. This review, and another on paracetamol, updates the evidence.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of oral NSAIDs for cancer pain in adults, and the adverse events reported during their use in clinical trials.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase from inception to April 2017, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, and two online study registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, single-blind, or open-label studies of five days' duration or longer, comparing any oral NSAID alone with placebo or another NSAID, or a combination of NSAID plus opioid with the same dose of the opioid alone, for cancer pain of any pain intensity. The minimum study size was 25 participants per treatment arm at the initial randomisation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality and potential bias. We did not carry out any pooled analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven studies satisfied inclusion criteria, lasting one week or longer; 949 participants with mostly moderate or severe pain were randomised initially, but fewer completed treatment or had results of treatment. Eight studies were double-blind, two single-blind, and one open-label. None had a placebo only control; eight compared different NSAIDs, three an NSAID with opioid or opioid combination, and one both. None compared an NSAID plus opioid with the same dose of opioid alone. Most studies were at high risk of bias for blinding, incomplete outcome data, or small size; none was unequivocally at low risk of bias.It was not possible to compare NSAIDs as a group with another treatment, or one NSAID with another NSAID. Results for all NSAIDs are reported as a randomised cohort. We judged results for all outcomes as very low-quality evidence.None of the studies reported our primary outcomes of participants with pain reduction of at least 50%, and at least 30%, from baseline; participants with Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) of much improved or very much improved (or equivalent wording). With NSAID, initially moderate or severe pain was reduced to no worse than mild pain after one or two weeks in four studies (415 participants in total), with a range of estimates between 26% and 51% in individual studies.Adverse event and withdrawal reporting was inconsistent. Two serious adverse events were reported with NSAIDs, and 22 deaths, but these were not clearly related to any pain treatment. Common adverse events were thirst/dry mouth (15%), loss of appetite (14%), somnolence (11%), and dyspepsia (11%). Withdrawals were common, mostly because of lack of efficacy (24%) or adverse events (5%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no high-quality evidence to support or refute the use of NSAIDs alone or in combination with opioids for the three steps of the three-step WHO cancer pain ladder. There is very low-quality evidence that some people with moderate or severe cancer pain can obtain substantial levels of benefit within one or two weeks.

Randomized trial of standard pain control with or without gabapentin for pain related to radiation-induced mucositis in head and neck cancer

OBJECTIVE

Radiation-induced mucositis (RIM) in chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for head and neck cancer (HNC) causes severe pain and worsens CRT compliance, QOL and outcome. Following retrospective reports, we conducted a randomized trial of the safety and efficacy of gabapentin for RIM-associated pain during CRT.

METHODS

HNC patients (pts) receiving CRT were randomized to standard pain control (SPC) with acetaminophen and opioids, or SPC plus gabapentin (SPC+G). Gabapentin was maintained at 900mg/day for 4 weeks after CRT. Primary endpoint was maximum visual analogue scale (VAS) score during CRT, and secondary endpoints were total opioid dose, changes in QOL (EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-HN 35) from baseline to 4 weeks after CRT, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Twenty-two eligible Stage III or IV pts were randomly assigned to SPC or SPC+G (n=11 each). Twelve were treated in a locally advanced setting and 10 in a postoperative setting. Median maximum VAS scores, median total dose of opioids at maximum VAS and total dose of opioids at 4 weeks after CRT tended to be higher in the SPC+G arm (47 in SPC vs. 74 in SPC+G, p=0.517; 215mg vs. 745.3mg, p=0.880; and 1260mg vs. 1537.5mg, p=0.9438, respectively), without significance. QOL analysis showed significantly worse scores in the SPC+G arm for weight gain (p=0.005). Adverse events related to gabapentin were manageable.

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot study is the first prospective randomized trial of gabapentin for RIM-related pain. Gabapentin had no apparent beneficial effect. Further research into agents for RIM-related pain is warranted.

WITHDRAWN: NSAIDS or paracetamol, alone or combined with opioids, for cancer pain

This review is out of date, although it is correct at the date of publication. The review may be misleading as new studies could alter the original conclusions. All previous versions of the review can be found in the ‘Other versions’ tab. A new author team intends to develop four new reviews on this topic, which will serve to update and supersede this review. The new reviews will cover paracetamol, paracetamol plus opioids, NSAIDs, and NSAIDs plus opioids, for cancer pain. For more information, contact the PaPaS Review Group.

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

How are palliative care cancer populations characterized in randomized controlled trials? A literature review

CONTEXT

The difficulties in defining a palliative care patient accentuate the need to provide stringent descriptions of the patient population in palliative care research.

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a systematic literature review with the aim of identifying which key variables have been used to describe adult palliative care cancer populations in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

The data sources used were MEDLINE (1950 to January 25, 2010) and Embase (1980 to January 25, 2010), limited to RCTs in adult cancer patients with incurable disease. Forty-three variables were systematically extracted from the eligible articles.

RESULTS

The review includes 336 articles reporting RCTs in palliative care cancer patients. Age (98%), gender (90%), cancer diagnosis (89%), performance status (45%), and survival (45%) were the most frequently reported variables. A large number of other variables were much less frequently reported.

CONCLUSION

A substantial variation exists in how palliative care cancer populations are described in RCTs. Few variables are consistently registered and reported. There is a clear need to standardize the reporting. The results from this work will serve as the basis for an international Delphi process with the aim of reaching consensus on a minimum set of descriptors to characterize a palliative care cancer population.

Pharmacological and other interventions for head and neck cancer pain: a systematic review

Objectives

Pain is a common complication in head and neck cancer. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the evidence from randomised control trials investigating pharmacological and non-pharmacological methods of pain management in head and neck cancer.

Material and Methods

Medline, Embase and the Cochrane library databases were searched. Squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck excluding nasopharyngeal and salivary gland cancers were included. The limits were "human" and "randomised clinical trials". A quality assessment was carried out.

Results

13 studies were included with a total of 644 participants. The primary outcome for most of these papers was pain control post-treatment. Levels of bias varied between the studies. Majority (12 out of the 13 studies) reported intervention to be superior to the control or standard therapy in pain management. Only 46% of the studies were carried out on an intention to treat basis. Two studies reported high dropout rates, with one at 66%.

Conclusions

There is insufficient evidence from randomised clinical trials to suggest an optimal pharmacological intervention for head and neck cancer pain post-treatment. Further high quality randomised clinical trials should be conducted to develop an optimal management strategy for head and neck cancer pain.

NSAIDS or paracetamol, alone or combined with opioids, for cancer pain

BACKGROUND

NSAIDs are widely applied to treat cancer pain and are frequently combined with opioids in combination preparations for this purpose. However, it is unclear which agent is most clinically efficacious for relieving cancer-related pain, or even what may be the additional benefit of combining an NSAID with an opioid in this setting.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of NSAIDs, alone or combined with opioids, for the treatment of cancer pain.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 2, 2002), MEDLINE (January 1966 to March 2003), EMBASE (January 1980 to December 2001), LILACS (January 1984 to December 2001) and reference list of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials that compared NSAID versus placebo; NSAID versus NSAID; NSAID versus NSAID plus opioid; opioid versus opioid plus NSAID; or NSAID versus opioid.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information. Adverse event information was collected from trials. Where there was disagreement between reviewers, the opinion of an additional reviewer was sought to resolve the issue.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-two trials involving 3084 patients were included. Clinical heterogeneity of study methods and outcomes precluded meta-analyses and only supported a qualitative systematic review. Seven of eight papers that compared NSAID with placebo demonstrated superior efficacy of NSAID with no difference in side effects. Thirteen papers compared one NSAID with another; four reported increased efficacy of one NSAID over another. Four different studies found that one NSAID had fewer side effects than one or more others. Twenty-three studies compared NSAIDs and opioids in combination or alone with NSAID/opioid combinations. Thirteen out of 14 studies found no difference, or low clinical difference, when combining an NSAID plus an opioid versus either drug alone. Comparisons between various NSAID/opioid combinations were inconclusive. Nine studies assessed the association between dose and efficacy and safety. Four papers demonstrated increased efficacy with increased dose, but no dose-dependent increase in side effects within the dose ranges studied. Study duration ranged from single dose studies performed over six hours to crossover studies lasting six weeks; however the majority of studies were of less than seven days duration.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based upon limited data, NSAIDs appear to be more effective than placebo for cancer pain; clear evidence to support superior safety or efficacy of one NSAID over another is lacking; and trials of combinations of an NSAID with an opioid have disclosed either no difference (4 out of 14 papers), a statistically insignificant trend towards superiority (1 out of 14 papers), or at most a slight but statistically significant advantage (9 out of 14 papers), compared with either single entity. The short duration of studies undermines generalization of their findings on efficacy and safety of NSAIDs for cancer pain.

Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs, Alone or Combined With Opioids, for Cancer Pain

Purpose

To assess the safety and efficacy of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), alone or combined with opioids, for the treatment of cancer pain.

Patients and Methods

Forty-two trials involving 3,084 patients met inclusion criteria: eight compared NSAID with placebo; 13 compared one NSAID with another; 23 compared NSAID with opioid, NSAID or opioid versus NSAID plus opioid combinations, or NSAID plus opioid combinations versus NSAID plus opioid combinations; and nine studies assessed the effect of increasing NSAID dose.

Results

Sixteen studies lasted 1 week or longer and 11 evaluated a single dose. Seven of eight trials demonstrated superior efficacy of single doses of NSAID compared with placebo. Only four of 13 studies reported increased efficacy of one NSAID compared with another; four other studies found that one NSAID had fewer side effects than one or more others. Thirteen of 14 studies found no difference, or minimal clinical difference, when comparing an NSAID plus opioid combination versus either drug alone. Comparisons between various NSAID plus opioid combinations were inconclusive. Four studies demonstrated increased efficacy with increased NSAID dose, without dose-dependent increases in side effects.

Conclusion

Heterogeneity of study methods and outcomes precluded meta-analyses. Short duration of studies undermines generalization of findings on efficacy and safety. On the basis of limited data, NSAIDs appear to be more effective than placebo for cancer pain; clear evidence to support superior safety or efficacy of one NSAID compared with another is lacking; and trials of combinations of an NSAID with an opioid have disclosed either no significant difference, or at most a slight but statistically significant advantage, compared with either single entity.

What are the long-term results of endoscopic pancreatic sphincterotomy?

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic pancreatic sphincterotomy has been touted as effective therapy for chronic pancreatitis and unexplained abdominal pain resulting from pancreatic sphincter dysfunction. Although short-term data are encouraging, there are no reports on how these patients fare beyond the first few months.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of records on all patients who had pancreatic sphincterotomy during a 4-year period between August 1992 and November 1996. Chronic pancreatitis was diagnosed by pancreatography. Patients were evaluated for symptomatic response to pancreatic sphincterotomy and clinical improvement was defined as greater than 50% reduction in the magnitude of pain.

RESULTS

Fifty-five patients had pancreatic sphincterotomy including patients with (n = 40) and without (n = 15) chronic pancreatitis. After a median follow-up of 16 months, 60% of all patients reported improvement of pain scores (3.6 +/- 3.4 vs. 8.8 +/- 1.8; p < 0.01) with the best response in patients without evidence of chronic pancreatitis. Complications of pancreatic sphincterotomy included pancreatitis in 5 patients (9%), bleeding in 2 (3.6%) and early stent occlusion in 5 patients (9%). There were no deaths.

CONCLUSIONS

In a subgroup of patients with pancreatic sphincter dysfunction, endoscopic pancreatic sphincterotomy results in significant sustained clinical improvement.

[Aspirin against cancer]

PURPOSE

That aspirin as an anti-aggregative and anti-inflammatory compound might prevent tumor spread is an old concept that is still not of clinical relevance. To date, aspirin has been shown in several epidemiologic studies to be linked with a reduction of colorectal cancer incidence, as well as the incidence of lung and breast cancer. In this issue, we have summarized the mechanisms that support this hypothesis, and we have analysed the main clinical studies.

RESULTS

Only case-control studies and most of the prospective cohort studies showed a reduction of colorectal cancer incidence in regular aspirin users. Nevertheless, the minimum effective doses of aspirin and the duration of therapy remain unclear. To date, only one prospective randomized trial has evaluated the influence of aspirin in the prevention of colorectal cancer. Despite the inclusion of 22,000 subjects and a five-year follow-up, aspirin failed to show any protection. The mechanism of the potential role of aspirin in preventing cancer, primarily supposed to rely on the antiprostaglandin effect, is now under debate. Few studies have evaluated the prevention of other cancers, such as breast or lung cancers, by aspirin. Data remain too sparse to allow any conclusion.

CONCLUSION

The role of aspirin in the prevention of colorectal cancer still needs further studies, such as a prospective randomized study, which should be conducted in a high-risk population.

End-of-life care in patients dying of gynecologic cancer

In this article, the patient is considered from the time of disease recurrence, when any treatment is of necessity only palliative, through death. Good symptom control and psychosocial support are needed from the time of diagnosis. As death approaches, specific issues about cessation of active treatment and ethical issues over emergencies become important.

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.