A regional survey of opioid use by patients receiving specialist palliative care

Heterogeneity of chronic pain

Chronic pain is a widespread public health issue that has many effects on physical, emotional and cognitive functions. An estimated 10-55% of all adults are thought to have chronic pain. Chronic pain is a multifactorial condition, caused by the complex interplay of nociceptive, neuropathic or mixed pathogenic mechanisms. Chronic pain is associated with specific and non-specific medical conditions such as cancer, HIV/AIDS, rheumatoid arthritis, fibromyalgia, osteoarthritis, low back pain or spinal stenosis and is broadly categorized as cancer pain and non-cancer pain. Evaluation of chronic pain requires a clear understanding of the nature of the pain and its underlying pathophysiology. Adequate assessment of pain, using validated tools, is an essential prerequisite of successful pain management. Unidimensional scales are useful for the measurement of pain intensity, while multidimensional scales measure both pain intensity and the extent to which pain interferes with life activity and emotional functioning. Patients should be reassessed and followed up in order to monitor progress and measure improvements in pain.

Inappropriate use of high doses of transdermal fentanyl at admission to a palliative care unit

A retrospective study was conducted to determine the patterns of strong opioid use in patients admitted to a hospice inpatient unit, with special attention to the use of the transdermal fentanyl patch. This study was conducted to validate or negate the subjective feeling that many patients, treated at admittance with the fentanyl patch, received inappropriately high doses compared to patients treated with oral or parenteral opioids. The case notes of 1154 patients were reviewed and data collected on age, sex, diagnosis, care settings, opioid form and dose on referral, maximal dose during admission and opioid use during the last 24 hours of their life. At admission opioids had been prescribed for 47% of patients. Thirty-two percent of these patients received oral morphine. The median dose at admission of those patients was 60 mg (oral morphine equivalent (OME)). Thirty-six percent of the patients on opioids were using the fentanyl patch. The median dose at admission was triple that of the orally treated patients (median 180 mg OME). In the 199 patients using transdermal fentanyl at admission, in most patients the dose of the patch was gradually diminished and finally stopped in 58% of patients. Only 83 kept it until the last 24 hours. We would like to draw attention to the fact that (sometimes inappropriately) high doses of fentanyl were used at admission, probably due to lack of knowledge of the relative strength of the opioid involved and to the failure to recognize the phenomenon of opioid-induced hyperalgesia. In addition, in our experience the long action of the patch can be a disadvantage during the last days and weeks of life, due to the difficulty of dose adjustment and the risk for toxicity.

Medication in the last days of life for motor neuron disease/amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

Our objective was to study the use of opioid and other medication at the end of life for patients with ALS/MND under specialist palliative care. A retrospective study looked at the medication received by 62 patients with MND/ALS in the last 72 h of life in six hospices in the UK and Ireland. Medication is widely used in the last 24 h of life, and use of the parenteral route increases as death approaches. We found that the doses of opioids and other medication do not increase appreciably during this period. The mean dose of opioid in the last 24 h of life was 80 mg oral morphine equivalent/24 h. These results are further evidence that opioids can be used both effectively and safely to manage symptoms at the end of life for people with MND/ALS.

Pain therapy

Cancer-related pain is a major issue of healthcare systems worldwide. The reported incidence, considering all stages of the disease, is 51%, which can increase to 74% in the advanced and terminal stages. For advanced cancer, pain is moderate to severe in about 40-50% and very severe or excruciating in 25-30% of cases. Pain is both a sensation and an emotional experience. Pain is always subjective; and may be affected by emotional, social and spiritual components thus it has been defined as "total pain". From a pathophysiological point of view, pain can be classified as nociceptive (somatic and visceral), neuropathic (central, peripheral, sympathetic) idiopathic or psychogenic. A proper pain assessment is fundamental for an effective and individualised treatment. In 1986 the World Health Organisation (WHO) published analgesic guidelines for the treatment of cancer pain based on a three-step ladder and practical recommendations. These guidelines serve as an algorithm for a sequential pharmacological approach to treatment according to the intensity of pain as reported by the patient. The WHO analgesic ladder remains the clinical model for pain therapy. Its clinical application should be employed only after a complete and comprehensive assessment and evaluation based on the needs of each patient. When applying the WHO guidelines, up to 90% of patients can find relief regardless of the settings of care, social and/or cultural environment. This is the standard treatment on a type C basis. Only when such an approach is ineffective are interventions such as spinal administration of opioid analgesics or neuroinvasive procedures recommended.

Opioid use in dying patients in hospice and hospital, with and without specialist palliative care team involvement

Newspapers claim that patients in hospices have their opioid doses increased to a point at which doctors know that they will die. However, research has produced conflicting results about whether hospice patients receive higher doses of opioids. This study investigated the differences in opioid prescribing between cancer patients dying in hospice and hospital with and without hospital palliative care team (HPCT) involvement and non-cancer patients dying in hospital, in Dundee, UK. The only statistically significant difference in the mean dose of opioids was that the cancer patients were prescribed and received higher doses of opioids than non-cancer patients. There was no statistically significant difference in the mean dose of opioids prescribed to and given to the different groups of cancer patients dying in different settings, indicating that the claims of the press are untrue. The cancer patients dying in hospital who were not on the HPCT records more commonly received Tramadol, which may indicate a reluctance of hospital doctors to move from weak opioids to strong opioids.

[Influence of body weight, age, and primary tumor site on opioid dose in advanced cancer pain patients]

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between maximum opioid dose and body weight, age, and primary site in terminal cancer patients in a palliative care unit.

METHODS

Medical records of 152 terminal cancer patients were reviewed retrospectively. Body weight, primary tumor site, age, and analgesic state were used as independent variables, and the maximum opioid dose was used as a dependent variable.

RESULTS

There was no correlation between body weight and maximum opioid requirement. Selected independent variables were age and location of the primary lesion in the lower gastrointestinal tract. Maximum opioid dose was negatively correlated with age (P < or =0.0001). Opioid needs of age <65 was 344.2 mg/day oral morphine equivalent, but age 65-74 was 168.5, and age > or =75 was 116.9 mg/day.

CONCLUSION

Elderly cancer patients required a lower amount of opioid analgesia than younger adults. The ratio for age <65, 65-74, and > or =75 was about 1:1/2:1/3.

Codeine/acetaminophen and hydrocodone/acetaminophen combination tablets for the management of chronic cancer pain in adults: A 23-day, prospective, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study

BACKGROUND

Analgesics are an essential component of the treatment of cancer-associated pain. Pharmacologic treatment is usually begun with nonopioid analgesics, most frequently acetaminophen. If pain relief is not achieved, the so-called "weak" opioids, such as codeine and hydrocodone, may be used in combination with acetaminophen. Adverse effects (AEs) of the opioids include constipation, somnolence, nausea, and vomiting. Based on the results of a literature search, data comparing the effects of the opioids are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the analgesic efficacy and tolerability of codeine phosphate versus hydrocodone bitartrate in combination with acetaminophen in the relief of cancer-related pain.

METHODS

This 23-day, prospective, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study was conducted at 3 Colombian centers: University Libre, Social Security Institute, and General Hospital of Medellín, Cali, Colombia. Outpatients with cancer were eligible for the study if they were aged >-18 years and had chronic (duration, >/= 3 months) moderate to severe cancer-related pain (score on 10-cm visual analog scale [VAS], > 3 cm [moderate]; score on a 4-point verbal pain-intensity scale, > 1 [moderate]). Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive 1 tablet of codeine/acetaminophen (C/A) 30/500 mg or hydrocodone/acetaminophen (H/A) 5/500 mg PO q4h (total daily doses, 150/2500 and 25/2500 mg, respectively) for 23 days. In both groups, if pain intensity was rated as > 3 on the VAS at week 1 or 2, the dosage was doubled. The primary end point was the proportion of patients who achieved pain relief (defined as a score of > 1 on a 5-point verbal rating scale [VRS] (0 = none; 1 = a little; 2 = some; 3 = a lot; and 4 = complete) on study days 1 and 2 and weeks 1, 2, and 3. The secondary end point was the proportion of patients in whom pain was decreased (VAS score, <- 3 cm). AEs were self-reported on a 4-point VRS (0 = absent; 1 = mild; 2 = moderate; and 3 = severe).

RESULTS

Of the 121 patients who participated, 59 received C/A and 62 received H/A. Of the total number of cases, 59% were aged 60 to 89 years, and 55% were men. At baseline, 88% of the patients described their pain intensity as moderate; 12%, severe. Of the patients who received C/A, 58% responded to the initial dosage of 150/2500 mg/d, and 8% of the patients responded to the double dosage; 34% did not experience pain relief. In patients with H/A, pain was reported as absent or mild in 56% of patients at the starting dosage of 25/2500 mg/d; an additional 15% of the patients responded to the double dosage; the remaining 29% of patients did not experience any pain relief. None of the between-group differences in response rates were significant. The most common AEs in the C/A and H/A groups were constipation (36% and 29%, respectively), dizziness (24% and 19%), vomiting (24% and 16%), and dry mouth (15% and 18%), with no significant differences between groups.

CONCLUSION

In this study, efficacy and tolerability were comparable between C/A and H/A over 23 days of treatment in these patients with moderate or severe, chronic, cancer-related pain.

A validation study of the WHO analgesic ladder: a two-step vs three-step strategy

GOALS OF WORK

The aims of the present study were to verify whether an innovative therapeutic strategy for the treatment of mild-moderate chronic cancer pain, passing directly from step I to step III of the WHO analgesic ladder, is more effective than the traditional three-step strategy and to evaluate the tolerability and therapeutic index in both strategies.

METHODS

Patients aged 18 years or older with multiple viscera or bone metastases or with locally advanced disease were randomized. Pain intensity was assessed using a 0-10 numerical rating scale based on four questions selected from the validated Italian version of the Brief Pain Inventory. Treatment-specific variables and other symptoms were recorded at baseline up to a maximum follow-up of 90 days per patient.

RESULTS

Fifty-four patients were randomized onto the study, and pain intensity was assessed over a period of 2,649 days. The innovative treatment presented a statistically significant advantage over the traditional strategy in terms of the percentage of days with worst pain > or =5 (22.8 vs 28.6%, p < 0.001) and > or =7 (8.6 vs 11.2%, p = 0.023). Grades 3 and 4 anorexia and constipation were more frequently reported in the innovative strategy arm, although prophylactic laxative therapy was used less in this setting.

CONCLUSIONS

Our preliminary data would seem to suggest that a direct move to the third step of the WHO analgesic ladder is feasible and could reduce some pain scores but also requires careful management of side effects.

Use of opioids in a Danish population-based cohort of cancer patients

Until recently, Denmark has had the highest use of strong opioids per capita in the world. Our aim was to analyze cancer patients' use of opioids in this population by linkage between the Danish Cancer Register and a prescription database. The changes in opioid use from 1994 to 1998 in the entire cohort of cancer patients (n=24,190) in a Danish county (n approximately 470,000) were analyzed. The overall consumption of opioids increased from 20 kg to 37 kg oral morphine equivalents (omeq) per year. The average consumption increased from 7.6 to 10.7 g omeq/opioid user/year. The annual proportion of users increased from 17% to 20%. The proportion of patients who were alive 2 years after their first opioid prescription increased from 38% to 55%. Increased awareness towards pain treatment, with earlier initiation of opioid treatment and higher doses to the cancer patients, could be major explanations for the increase in the cancer patients' use of opioids.

Opioid switch in palliative care, opioid choice by clinical need and opioid availability

Availability of different WHO-step 3 opioids has encouraged the discussion on their value and led to the concepts of opioid rotation. Rotation is suggested, when other measures fail to achieve optimal analgesia and tolerability in cancer pain treatment. Opioid use was assessed in a prospective cohort study of 412 palliative care patients from 14 inpatient and outpatient palliative care facilities in Germany. The most frequently used opioids at baseline were morphine and fentanyl. The most frequent changes in medication (N=106) occurred from oral to parenteral morphine. Only in 49 cases true switches to other long acting opioids were recorded. This is far less than expected from other reports. True switches and adverse side effects were found to occur more frequently in inpatients, while efficacy problems were more frequently recorded in outpatients. There was no correlation between the opioid used at baseline and switch frequency, but numbers of cases receiving other opioids than fentanyl or morphine were low. Reasons for and frequencies of changes in medication were found to be largely shaped by the setting reflecting patients' needs and clinical necessities. Recommendation of first line therapy and availability of opioid formulations define the frequency of opioid use. This impedes evaluation of specific differences between the opioids.

Factors influencing constipation in advanced cancer patients: a prospective study of opioid dose, dantron dose and physical functioning

The relationship between opioid dose, dantron dose, bowel function and physical functioning (measured with the modified Barthel Index) was determined in a sample of 50 inpatients with advanced cancer. Data were collected prospectively from chart review and patient interviews one week after admission to allow for protocol-driven management of constipation to be established. Bowel scores were significantly reduced in 35 patients treated with opioids compared with 15 patients not treated with opioids. Within the opioid group, however, there was no relationship between opioid dose, bowel score, dantron dose or Barthel Index. Higher doses of dantron were associated with better physical functioning (but not opioid dose) suggesting that for any given dose of opioid, fitter patients were treated with larger doses of laxatives. Factors other than opioid dose and physical functioning may be more important in contributing to constipation in this group of patients. Less potent opioid drugs, such as codeine, are just as likely to cause constipation as more potent opioids.

How do terminally ill patients at home take their medication?

Compliance with prescribed medication was assessed in 111 terminally ill patients referred to a community palliative care team using semistructured interviews and pill counting. One-hundred-and-six patients were prescribed a total of 597 drugs; of these patients, 64 (60%) were noncompliant. Thirty-five patients (33%) took less medication than prescribed, usually due to experiencing, or anxieties about, adverse events; the commonest drugs involved were analgesics. Seventeen patients (16%) took additional medication, usually purchased over the counter in response to inadequate symptom control or to adverse events from other drugs; the most common preparations were vitamins and analgesics. Twelve patients (11%) both took less medication than prescribed and also purchased medication over the counter. Most patients (90%) had two or more prescribers; patients who saw their general practitioners as their main prescriber were more likely to adhere to their prescribed medication. Patients who omitted and/or reduced their medication were more likely to see the hospital as their main prescriber. Drugs prescribed four times daily were most likely to be omitted and/or reduced.

High-dose tramadol in comparison to low-dose morphine for cancer pain relief

Cancer pain treatment following the World Health Organization guidelines is effective and feasible. However, the evidence supporting the use of opioids for mild to moderate pain on the second step of the analgesic ladder is widely discussed. The present evaluation compares the efficacy and safety of high doses of oral tramadol (> or = 300 mg/d) with low doses of oral morphine (< or = 60 mg/d). Patients were included in this nonblinded and nonrandomized study if the combination of a nonopioid analgesic and up to 250 mg/d of oral tramadol was inadequate. 810 patients received oral tramadol for a total of 23,497 days, and 848 patients received oral morphine for a total of 24,695 days. The average dose of tramadol was 428 +/- 101 mg/d (range 300-600 mg/d); the average dose of morphine was 42 +/- 13 mg/d (range 10-60 mg/d). Additional nonopioid analgesics were given on more than 95% of days. Antiemetics, laxatives, neuroleptics, and steroids were prescribed significantly more frequently in the morphine group; the use of other adjuvants was similar in both groups. The mean pain intensity on a 0-100 numerical rating scale (NRS) was 27 +/- 21 (95% CI 26-29) in the tramadol and 26 +/- 20 (95% CI 24-27) in the morphine group (NS). The analgesic efficacy was good in 74% and 78%, satisfactory in 10% and 7%, and inadequate in 16% and 15% of patients receiving tramadol and morphine, respectively (NS). Constipation, neuropsychological symptoms, and pruritus were observed significantly more frequently with low-dose morphine; other symptoms had similar frequencies in both groups. These data suggest that tramadol can be used for the treatment of cancer pain, when nonopioids alone are not effective. High doses of tramadol are effective and safe.

New approaches to pain control in patients with cancer

Pain affects most patients with malignant disease, and the prevalence of severe pain increases in the advanced stages of the condition. One in 5 patients with cancer has uncontrolled pain, even after 10 years of the use of the World Health Organization programme for cancer pain control and its 'three-step ladder' for the rational use of analgesics including morphine. Morphine has long been the 'gold standard' for the treatment of severe cancer pain. However, its side-effects, particularly sedation, cognitive impairment and myoclonus at high doses, have provoked the use of 'opioid rotation' to alternatives such as methadone and hydromorphone. The new 72-h transdermal patch for fentanyl also offers advantages of reduced side-effects and increased convenience over oral morphine. Intravenous strontium-89 and bisphosphonate therapy are effective for both short- and long-term control of metastatic bone pain. The spinal N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor is important in modulating the plasticity of the central nervous system and in aggravating chronic pain through the phenomenon of 'wind-up'. The NMDA antagonist ketamine, an anaesthetic, can be used at low doses for the management of refractory and neuropathic pains. Among adjuvant drugs, ketorolac has emerged as a potent non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug. Palliative care is gaining acceptance as a new discipline in healthcare. Its strategic role is being reviewed as an adjunct to cancer therapy at all stages and its use is no longer confined to the terminal phase of disease after curative treatment has failed. Pain control and other aspects of symptom control are, therefore, viewed as an integral part of cancer management.

Xerostomia--a review

Xerostomia, or dry mouth, is a very common symptom amongst the terminally ill and can have profound negative effects on patients' quality of life. Yet, it is often considered trivial and therefore tends to be neglected and ignored. This review examines the pathophysiology, aetiology and methods of assessing xerostomia and its effects and discusses its management, with particular emphasis upon palliation. If xerostomia is managed sensitively and effectively, it is possible to improve patients' comfort and sense of well-being and so improve overall care.