Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs as the first step in cancer pain therapy: double-blind, within-patient study comparing nine drugs

Optimal opioid treatment requires a consensual approach

This phase III multicenter randomized double-blind placebo-controlled comparative study evaluated the efficacy and safety of diclofenac sodium patches for the treatment of cancer pain. The study consisted of a 2-week to 4-week open-label dose-titration phase and a 4-week double-blind phase. In the double-blind phase, patients who were expected to continue treatment of cancer pain with nonopioid analgesics alone were randomized to the diclofenac sodium patch or placebo group. Once-daily diclofenac sodium patches were started at 150 mg/day (2 patches) and could be increased up to 225 mg/day (3 patches). The primary efficacy endpoint was the time to insufficient analgesic response. Statistical analysis of the double-blind phase included data from 120 patients of the diclofenac sodium patch group and 118 patients of the placebo group. Time to insufficient analgesic response was significantly longer with diclofenac sodium patches than with placebo (P = 0.0016). The hazard ratio for insufficient response for diclofenac sodium patch vs placebo was 0.459 (95% confidence interval, 0.275-0.768). Regarding sleep quality during the double-blind phase, the proportion of patients with “very good sleep” or “good sleep” in the diclofenac sodium patch and placebo groups was 90.8% and 88.1% at the start of the double-blind phase and 81.4% and 78.6% at the final assessment, respectively. The incidence of adverse events was 60.8% (73/120) in the diclofenac sodium patch group and 60.2% (71/118) in the placebo group. Once-daily diclofenac sodium patches are effective in treating cancer pain and are well tolerated.

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.

A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, comparative study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of newly developed diclofenac patches in patients with cancer pain

ABSTRACT

This phase III multicenter randomized double-blind placebo-controlled comparative study evaluated the efficacy and safety of diclofenac sodium patches for the treatment of cancer pain. The study consisted of a 2-week to 4-week open-label dose-titration phase and a 4-week double-blind phase. In the double-blind phase, patients who were expected to continue treatment of cancer pain with nonopioid analgesics alone were randomized to the diclofenac sodium patch or placebo group. Once-daily diclofenac sodium patches were started at 150 mg/day (2 patches) and could be increased up to 225 mg/day (3 patches). The primary efficacy endpoint was the time to insufficient analgesic response. Statistical analysis of the double-blind phase included data from 120 patients of the diclofenac sodium patch group and 118 patients of the placebo group. Time to insufficient analgesic response was significantly longer with diclofenac sodium patches than with placebo (P = 0.0016). The hazard ratio for insufficient response for diclofenac sodium patch vs placebo was 0.459 (95% confidence interval, 0.275-0.768). Regarding sleep quality during the double-blind phase, the proportion of patients with "very good sleep" or "good sleep" in the diclofenac sodium patch and placebo groups was 90.8% and 88.1% at the start of the double-blind phase and 81.4% and 78.6% at the final assessment, respectively. The incidence of adverse events was 60.8% (73/120) in the diclofenac sodium patch group and 60.2% (71/118) in the placebo group. Once-daily diclofenac sodium patches are effective in treating cancer pain and are well tolerated.

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.

Oral paracetamol (acetaminophen) for cancer pain

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 mild to moderate cancer pain, and are recommended for this purpose in the 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 NSAIDs, updates the evidence.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of oral paracetamol (acetaminophen) for cancer pain in adults and children, and the adverse events reported during its use in clinical trials.

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, studies of five days' duration or longer, comparing paracetamol alone with placebo, or paracetamol in combination with an opioid compared with the same dose of the opioid alone, for cancer pain of any intensity. Single-blind and open studies were also eligible for inclusion. 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

Three studies in adults satisfied the inclusion criteria, lasting up to one week; 122 participants were randomised initially, and 95 completed treatment. We found no studies in children. One study was parallel-group, and two had a cross-over design. All used paracetamol as an add-on to established treatment with strong opioids (median daily morphine equivalent doses of 60 mg, 70 mg, and 225 mg, with some participants taking several hundred mg of oral morphine equivalents daily). Other non-paracetamol medication included non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), tricyclic antidepressants, or neuroleptics. All studies were at high risk of bias for incomplete outcome data and small size; none was unequivocally at low risk of bias.None of the studies reported any of our primary outcomes: participants with pain reduction of at least 50%, and at least 30%, from baseline; participants with pain no worse than mild at the end of the treatment period; participants with Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) of much improved or very much improved (or equivalent wording). What pain reports there were indicated no difference between paracetamol and placebo when added to another treatment. There was no convincing evidence of paracetamol being different from placebo with regards to quality of life, use of rescue medication, or participant satisfaction or preference. Measures of harm (serious adverse events, other adverse events, and withdrawal due to lack of efficacy) were inconsistently reported and provided no clear evidence of difference.Our GRADE assessment of evidence quality was very low for all outcomes, because studies were at high risk of bias from several sources.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no high-quality evidence to support or refute the use of paracetamol alone or in combination with opioids for the first two steps of the three-step WHO cancer pain ladder. It is not clear whether any additional analgesic benefit of paracetamol could be detected in the available studies, in view of the doses of opioids used.

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.

Efficacy and Safety of Ibuprofen and Acetaminophen in Children and Adults: A Meta-Analysis and Qualitative Review

Objective:

To evaluate the analgesic and antipyretic efficacy and safety of ibuprofen compared to acetaminophen in children and adults.

Data Sources:

Literature searches were performed using PubMed/MEDLINE (through August 2009) and EMBASE (through January 2008) and were restricted to the English language. In PubMed/MEDLINE, search terms used were ibuprofen, acetaminophen, paracetamol, clinical trials, and randomized controlled trials. EMBASE search terms included ibuprofen and acetaminophen, restricted to human and clinical trials.

Study Selection And Data Extraction:

All English-language articles identified from the data sources were reviewed. Multiple review articles were studied for any pertinent references and this yielded additional articles. Only articles that directly compared ibuprofen and acetaminophen were eligible for this review.

Data Synthesis:

Eighty-five studies that directly compared ibuprofen to acetaminophen were identified; 54 contained analgesic efficacy data, 35 contained antipyretic/temperature reduction data, and 66 contained safety data (some articles contained more than 1 type of data). Qualitative review of the literature revealed that, for the most part, ibuprofen was more efficacious than acetaminophen for the treatment of pain and fever in both pediatric and adult populations, and that these 2 drugs were equally safe. Meta-analyses on the subset of randomized clinical trial articles that reported sufficient quantitative information to calculate either an odds ratio (adverse event [AE]) or standardized mean difference (pain and fever) confirmed the qualitative results for adult (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.69; 95% CI 0.57 to 0.81) and pediatric (SMD 0.28; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.46) pain at 2 hours postdose and pediatric fever (SMD 0.26; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.41) at 4 hours postdose. Conclusions regarding adult fever/temperature reduction could not be made due to a lack of evaluable data. The combined odds ratio for the proportion of adult subjects experiencing at least 1 AE slightly favored ibuprofen; however, the difference was not statistically significant (1.12; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.25). No significant difference between drugs in AE incidence was found for pediatric patients (0.82; 95% CI 0.60 to 1.12).

Conclusions:

Ibuprofen is as or more efficacious than acetaminophen for the treatment of pain and fever in adult and pediatric populations and is equally safe.

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.

Naproxen 500 mg bid versus acetaminophen 1000 mg qid: effect on swelling and other acute postoperative events after bilateral third molar surgery

A controlled, randomized, double-blind crossover study, in which the patients acted as their own controls, was carried out to test the efficacy of naproxen 500 mg x 2 versus acetaminophen 1000 mg x 4 for 3 days on the postoperative course following third molar surgery. Acetaminophen reduced the mean swelling on the 3rd postoperative day by 22.4% (p = 0.023) compared to that after naproxen. On the 6th postoperative day, there was 20.9% less mean swelling with naproxen (p = 0.44), although the total swelling measurements were much less than those measured on the 3rd postoperative day. Summed pain intensity (SUMPI3.5-11) on the day of surgery revealed no statistically significant difference between the acetaminophen or naproxen regimen with the exception of 0.5 hours (p = 0.002) and 1 hour (p = 0.009) after first medication when acetaminophen gave less pain than naproxen. Since the drug regimens were different, summed PI for the first acetaminophen dose interval (SUMPI3.5-6) and the first naproxen dose interval (SUMPI3.5-9) was calculated. There was a tendency toward a statistically significant difference in favor of acetaminophen for SUMPI3.5-6 (p = 0.055) but no statistically significant difference (p = 0.41) between the treatments with respect to SUMPI3.5-9. Naproxen was statistically superior (p < or = 0.002) to acetaminophen at 08:00, 12:00, and 16:00 hours on the 1st postoperative day and at 08:00 hours on the 2nd postoperative day, when the pain intensity level was lower than that on the day of surgery. A 3-day acetaminophen regimen reduces acute postoperative swelling better than naproxen on the 3rd postoperative day after third molar surgery but not on the 6th postoperative day when the total swelling is less.

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.

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.

Pain treatment and outcomes for patients with advanced cancer who receive follow-up care at home

BACKGROUND

A small sample size, a high rate of exclusions, inadequate follow-up in different settings, and a lack of comparison with previous levels of analgesia have recently been reported to be the principal limitations of the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines regarding cancer pain.

METHODS

A total of 3678 consecutive patients with advanced cancer referred to a home palliative care program were enrolled in an open prospective study over a 9-year period, from June 1988 to June 1997, to determine the effectiveness, safety, and feasibility of implementing the WHO guidelines. Age, gender, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, pain mechanism at referral, pain and symptom intensity, and doses and days of drug administration during the course of the treatment were recorded at regular intervals.

RESULTS

Therapy was required for 70.3% of patients for a mean duration of 64 days. The mean duration periods of the 3 steps were 18, 27, and 19 days, respectively. At referral, most patients received inadequate treatment. In the last week of life, 16%, 49%, and 35% of patients were taking nonopioid drugs, moderate opioids, and strong opioids, respectively. A significant improvement in pain and symptom intensity was achieved after referral. Symptom intensity worsened in the last week of life. A minority of patients (2.65%) underwent invasive procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that a managed home care system enables patients to receive adequate pain treatment, according to WHO guidelines, in the comfort of their own homes.

Opioid-sparing effect of diclofenac in cancer pain

This study investigated the opioid-sparing effect of diclofenac using patient-controlled analgesia with oral methadone. Fifteen patients with advanced cancer participated. After achieving adequate analgesia with regular dosing of oral methadone (T1), patient-controlled analgesia with methadone was administered for 3 days (T2). Intramuscular diclofenac 75 mg twice daily was then added to this regimen for 3 days (T3). Compared to T2 values, methadone dose was significantly reduced at T2 and T2, and pain report (recorded on a visual analogue scale) was significantly reduced at T3. A reduction in methadone plasma concentration was also observed at T2 and T3, although it did not attain statistical significance. Significant decreases in the intensity of several symptoms other than pain were also found at T2 and T3. Diclofenac appears to have a relevant opioid-sparing effect when using patient-controlled analgesia with oral methadone.

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.

Diclofenac does not modify morphine bioavailability in cancer patients

We determined morphine plasma concentrations in 6 cancer patients before and with administration of diclofenac for 5 days. The non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug does not modify morphine bioavailability. This observation suggests that diclofenac can be used in association with morphine during cancer pain treatment, without increasing the risk of overdosage or side effects of the opiate.

A clinical study on the use of codeine, oxycodone, dextropropoxyphene, buprenorphine, and pentazocine in cancer pain

The authors report a prospective study on 944 cancer pain patients treated with one of the following opioids: codeine, oxycodone, dextropropoxyphene, buprenorphine, and pentazocine. Level of analgesia, duration of treatment, side effects, and drop out were evaluated for each drug. Twenty-four percent of the patients still benefitted from treatment at the fourth week of study, even if high drug dosages were not used. Pentazocine did not show an evident analgesic effect during the first 2 wk of treatment. The other opioids were found to be valid therapeutic instruments for chronic cancer pain control in a limited number of patients.