Search

Background/Aims: In the Norfolk and Waveney Integrated Care System, a community organisation and a hospice have collaborated to develop an innovative specialist palliative care service in a community hospital. The aim of this service evaluation was to review the specialist palliative care service 2 years after implementation began across the integrated care system. Methods: A multi-method approach was used to evaluate this service. Data were collected from pre-existing datasets on referrals, discharge and service use and described using descriptive statistics to assess how the service was used during the evaluation period (1 April 2019–31 March 2021). Qualitative data were collected via semi-structured interviews with 25 patients, carers, staff and other stakeholders. Interview transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. Results: During the 2-year evaluation period, the service recorded 1800 referrals, 189 admissions to specialist beds and 19 712 telephone calls to the 24-hour advice line. Thematic analysis of interview transcripts identified four themes: impact of the specialist palliative care beds, implementation of changes to practice, communication and coordination, and challenges related to providing the service. Overall, patients and carers had very positive views of the quality of care they received. Staff also identified benefits, including access to training and improved morale. Challenges included the limited number of beds and difficulties balancing the care needs of palliative care patients with other patients in the inpatient ward. Conclusions: The specialist palliative care service promoted collaborative working, leading to enhanced knowledge and skills for staff supporting patients with specialist palliative care needs. The service was well-used and patients and their carers were generally very satisfied with the care they received. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During COVID-19, it was critical that services adapted to meet the high demands of the pandemic. This qualitative study explores the experiences of several staff members of the community palliative care team, as they adapted the delivery of their services to such pressures. Semi-structured interviews via a virtual platform were conducted and four themes were identified: service development, communication, inter-professional relationships and support mechanisms. The participants supported the change in service delivery and use of technology to triage patients. The participants also reported improved collaboration and patient care-coordination, and enhanced support mechanisms used by the team helped sustain resilience and wellbeing. Although challenging, the team embraced the changes and described improved collaboration and coordination of patient care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Breakthrough pain is a transient exacerbation of pain that occurs either spontaneously or in relation to a specific predictable or unpredictable trigger despite relative stable and adequately controlled background pain. Breakthrough pain is a common and distinct component of cancer pain and is typically of rapid onset, severe in intensity, and generally self-limiting with an average duration of 30-60 minutes. Despite the self-limiting nature of breakthrough pain, it can place significant physical, psychological, and economic burdens on both patients and their carers. Patients with breakthrough pain are often less satisfied with their analgesic therapy, they have decreased functioning because of their pain, and may also experience social and psychosocial consequences, such as increased levels of anxiety and depression. Successful management of breakthrough pain is best achieved by a thorough assessment which includes determining the severity, pathophysiology, and aetiology of the pain and takes into account both background and breakthrough pains while considering whether the underlying disease, co-morbidities or precipitating events are amenable to interventions. The features of breakthrough pain and the challenges it presents to patients, their carers, and health professionals are illustrated with a case study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The discovery of peripheral opioid receptors has become the scientific basis for topical use of opioids in malignant and nonmalignant ulcers and oropharyngeal mucositis. This systematic review aimed to assess the quality of published literature and to examine whether topical opioids are effective in controlling pain in palliative care settings. After a systematic literature review, 19 studies (six randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and 13 case reports) met the inclusion criteria for the review. Eighteen studies favored topical opioids in pain relief, as evidenced by reductions in post-treatment pain scores, but time to onset and duration of analgesia varied widely. Because of the heterogeneity of the studies, meta-analysis was not possible. Despite clear clinical benefits described in small RCTs, there is a deficiency of higher-quality evidence on the role of topical opioids, and more robust primary studies are required to inform practice recommendations. N-of-1 trials should be encouraged for specific clinical circumstances. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Breakthrough pain is a common and distinct component of cancer pain that is usually managed with normal release opioids (also known as rescue medication) either before or soon after its onset. A prospective survey of hospice inpatients with breakthrough pain was undertaken to characterize their pain and then compare the time to onset of pain relief of their rescue medication. Patients presented with, on average, 1.7 different types of breakthrough pains (range, 1–4). The average number of breakthrough pains was four per day (range, 1–8), and the average duration of breakthrough pain was 35minutes (range, 15–60); most occurred suddenly and unpredictably. Patients used morphine, oxycodone, hydromorphone, methadone, or oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate as rescue medication and the average time to meaningful pain relief following their administration was 31minutes (range, 5–75). No difference was found between morphine, oxycodone, and hydromorphone. Methadone appeared to work faster than morphine (P <0.01) but no faster than oxycodone or hydromorphone, whereas oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate worked faster than morphine, oxycodone, hydromorphone, and methadone (P <0.001). [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Dyspnea is a complex subjective experience that is common in terminal illness. Patients may present at any time during the course of their illness, although prevalence increases with disease progression. Dyspnea has physical, psychological, social and spiritual components; without recognizing how each of these contributes to the total suffering of dyspnea, management is unlikely to be successful. The management of dyspnea involves both pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment. The main pharmacological palliative treatments are oxygen, opioids, and benzodiazepines, but the evidence to support these treatments is limited. More research is urgently needed to establish the efficacy of current treatments and to identify new ones. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Seventeen terminally ill cancer patients with primary or secondary intra- thoracic malignancy complaining of breathlessness were treated with nebulized morphine in doses of 20 mg 4-hourly for 48 h. The effect on dyspnoea was evaluated using the Dyspnoea Assessment Questionnaire. Most patients felt less dyspnoeic after 24 h; the effect was maintained, but not improved upon, after 48 h. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

In this article the author discusses guidelines on the pharmacological management of cancer pain which were created and published by the World Health Organization. The author is supportive of the organization's original guidelines on the management of cancer pain but suggests that in 2011 they may have to be adapted since new drugs, formulations, and different methods of administration have changed the way in which cancer pain is managed.

A number of studies have reported the analgesic effect of morphine when applied topically to painful skin ulcers. It has been suggested that morphine may exert a local action, as opioid receptors have been demonstrated on peripheral nerve terminals. In this study, we investigated the bioavailability of topically applied morphine to cutaneous ulcers. Six hospice inpatients with skin ulcers were given morphine sulfate 10 mg in Intrasite gel topically and morphine sulfate 10 mg subcutaneously over 4 hours, at least 48 hours apart, in randomized order. Morphine, morphine-6-glucuronide (M6G), and morphine-3-glucuronide (M3G) were determined in plasma using a specific HPLC method. In five patients morphine and its metabolites were undetectable when applied topically. In one patient (with the largest ulcer), morphine and M6G were detected. The calculated morphine and M6G bioavailability in this patient were 20% and 21%, respectively. M3G was also detected but was below the lower limit of quantitation. When applied topically to ulcers, morphine was not absorbed in the majority of patients, suggesting any analgesic effect would be mediated locally rather than systemically. However, in ulcers with a large surface area, systemic absorption may occur. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: This review is an update of a previously published review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Issue 1, 2006). Breakthrough pain is a transient exacerbation of pain that occurs either spontaneously or in relation to a specific predictable or unpredictable trigger despite relative stable and adequately controlled background pain. Breakthrough pain usually related to background pain and is typically of rapid onset, severe in intensity and generally self limiting with a mean duration of 30 minutes. Breakthrough pain has traditionally been managed by the administration of supplemental oral analgesia (rescue medication) at a dose proportional to the total around-the-clock (ATC) opioid dose., Objectives: To determine the efficacy of opioid analgesics given by any route, used for the management of breakthrough pain in patients with cancer, and to identify and quantify, if data permitted, any adverse effects of this treatment., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and trial registries in January 2005 for the original review, and again on 6 February 2013 for this update., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of opioids used as rescue medication against active or placebo comparator in patients with cancer pain. Outcome measures sought were reduction in pain intensity measured by an appropriate scale, adverse effects, attrition, patient satisfaction and quality of life. We applied no language restrictions., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently selected and examined eligible studies. We retrieved full text if any uncertainty about eligibility remained. We screened non-English texts. We conducted quality assessment and data extraction using standardised data forms. We compared drug and placebo dose, titration, route and formulation and recorded details of all outcome measures (if available)., Main Results: The original review included four studies (393 participants), all concerned with the use of oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate (OTFC) in the management of breakthrough pain. Two studies examined the titration of OTFC, one study compared OTFC versus normal-release morphine and one study compared OTFC versus placebo.Fifteen studies (1699 participants) met the inclusion criteria for this update. All studies reported on the utility of seven different transmucosal fentanyl formulations, five of which were administered orally and two nasally. Eight studies compared the transmucosal fentanyl formulations versus placebo, four studies compared them with another opioid, one study was a comparison of different doses of the same formulation and two were randomised titration studies. Oral and nasal transmucosal fentanyl formulations were an effective treatment for breakthrough pain. When compared with placebo or oral morphine, participants gave lower pain intensity and higher pain relief scores for transmucosal fentanyl formulations at all time points. Global assessment scores also favoured transmucosal fentanyl preparations. One study compared intravenous with the transmucosal route and both were effective., Authors' Conclusions: Oral and nasal transmucosal fentanyl is an effective treatment in the management of breakthrough pain. The RCT literature for the management of breakthrough pain is relatively small. Given the importance of this subject, more trials, including head-to-head comparisons of the available transmucosal fentanyl formulations are required.

Opioids are considered important analgesics in the treatment armamentarium for moderate-to-severe background cancer pain. The past decade has seen clinical trials of transmucosal opioid formulations for breakthrough pain in cancer (BTPc), beginning with oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate (OTFC), followed by fentanyl buccal tablet and intranasal fentanyl spray, and most recently sublingual fentanyl tablet, fentanyl buccal soluble film, and fentanyl pectin nasal spray. During that time, enough rigorous evidence has accumulated to support the development of recommendations on treating BTPc with transmucosal formulations. This article describes the randomized controlled trials that have led to the support of the use of transmucosal fentanyl therapies for BTPc, starting in 1999 with OTFC formulations through to the end of 2011. Although oral opioids have been used for historical reasons, evidence supports the use of intravenous morphine or transmucosal fentanyl for treating BTPc, regardless of the opioid being taken to manage background pain. Furthermore, most studies have found no meaningful relationship between the effective dose of transmucosal opioid and the around-the-clock scheduled medication nor the previous rescue medication. The accumulated evidence shows that transmucosal fentanyl formulations provide a rapid effect on BTPc, with adverse events typical of opioids.

Episodic pain is a transient increase in pain intensity over background pain. Episodic pain occurs commonly in cancer patients; it is a heterogeneous phenomenon that is incapacitating, debilitating and can have a significant impact on quality of life. Episodic pain can be difficult to manage; it is often unpredictable, typically of fast onset, of short duration and feels similar to background pain except that it may be more severe. The successful management of episodic pain can only be achieved following a thorough assessment. The subsequent management usually involves both pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies integrated into the overall care and appropriate for the stage of the patient's disease. Pharmacological management includes the implementation of primary therapies (e.g., chemotherapy for the underlying aetiology of the pain, optimising the scheduled medication (e.g., analgesics and adjuvant analgesics) and specific pharmacological interventions for the episodic pain (e.g., rescue medication).