Search

Context: Breakthrough pain is common in patients with cancer and is a significant cause of morbidity in this group of patients., Objectives: The aim of this study was to characterize breakthrough pain in a diverse population of cancer patients., Methods: The study involved 1000 cancer patients from 13 European countries. Patients were screened for breakthrough pain using a recommended diagnostic algorithm and then questioned about the characteristics and management of their pain., Results: Of the 1000 patients, 44% reported incident pain, 41.5% spontaneous pain, and 14.5% a combination. The median number of episodes was three a day. The median time to peak intensity was 10 minutes, with the median for patients with incident pain being five minutes (P < 0.001). The median duration of untreated episodes was 60 minutes, with the median for patients with incident pain being 45 minutes (P = 0.001). Eight hundred six patients stated that pain stopped them doing something, 66 that it sometimes stopped them doing something, and only 107 that it did not interfere with their activities. Patients with incident pain reported more interference with walking ability and normal work, whereas patients with spontaneous pain reported more interference with mood and sleep. As well, 65.5% of patients could identify an intervention that improved their pain (29.5%, pharmacological; 23%, nonpharmacological; 12%, combination). Regarding medications, 980 patients were receiving an opioid to treat their pain, although only 191 patients were receiving a transmucosal fentanyl product licensed for the treatment of breakthrough pain., Conclusion: Breakthrough cancer pain is an extremely heterogeneous condition., (Copyright © 2013 U.S. Cancer Pain Relief Committee. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Here we provide the updated version of the guidelines of the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) on the use of opioids for the treatment of cancer pain. The update was undertaken by the European Palliative Care Research Collaborative. Previous EAPC guidelines were reviewed and compared with other currently available guidelines, and consensus recommendations were created by formal international expert panel. The content of the guidelines was defined according to several topics, each of which was assigned to collaborators who developed systematic literature reviews with a common methodology. The recommendations were developed by a writing committee that combined the evidence derived from the systematic reviews with the panellists' evaluations in a co-authored process, and were endorsed by the EAPC Board of Directors. The guidelines are presented as a list of 16 evidence-based recommendations developed according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

This study involved 320 cancer patients from four Northern European countries. Patients with breakthrough pain were questioned about the characteristics of their pain, the current management of their pain, and the acceptability/utility of alternative routes of administration. The median number of episodes was 3/day. Forty-four percent patients reported incident-type pain, 39% spontaneous-type pain, and 17% a combination of these pains. The median duration was 60 min, and the median time to peak intensity was 15 min. Three percent patients reported "mild" pain, 37% "moderate" pain, and 60% "severe" pain. Ninety percent patients stated that the pain interfered with their daily activities. All patients were using opioids as rescue medication (mainly oral morphine/oxycodone), whilst 28% patients were using non-opioids, and 50% patients were using non-pharmacological interventions. Only 55% patients took rescue medication every time they experienced breakthrough pain. Sixty-five percent patients would definitely consider using an oral transmucosal product; patients from Denmark were less likely to answer positively, and a positive response was associated with previous use of the route for breakthrough pain. Seventy-three percent patients reported regular oral problems. Forty-two percent patients would definitely consider using an intranasal product, with 26% patients stating they would definitely not use such a preparation; patients from Denmark and Sweden were less likely to answer positively, and a positive response was associated with male gender, and previous use of the route. Forty-four percent patients reported regular nasal problems. Sixty percent patients would definitely consider using a subcutaneous product, and 44% patients would definitely consider using an intrapulmonary product., (Copyright © 2010 European Federation of International Association for the Study of Pain Chapters. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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.

Purpose of Review: To outline the impact of breakthrough pain, the evidence for the current management and new treatment options that are becoming available., Recent Findings: Breakthrough pain is a transient exacerbation of pain that occurs either spontaneously, or in relation to a specific predictable or unpredictable trigger, despite relatively stable and adequately controlled background pain. Despite its self-limiting nature, breakthrough pain can place significant physical, psychological, and economic burdens on both patients and their carers. The successful management breakthrough pain may require a combination of pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatment strategies; supplemental analgesia, known as rescue medication, is a common pharmacological treatment option. The ideal rescue medication should have a rapid onset, good efficacy, relatively short duration of action, and minimal adverse effects and is best administered before or soon after breakthrough pain has started. Although oral opioids are commonly used, there is increasing evidence that transmucosal opioids may be more effective., Summary: Breakthrough is a common heterogeneous pain state that can have a devastating impact on both patients and carers. Despite the growing literature on breakthrough pain, there are still many aspects yet to be addressed including an urgent need to standardize terminology, for carefully designed epidemiological studies and for well designed controlled trials comparing the different treatment options.

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: A task group of the Science Committee of the Association for Palliative Medicine of Great Britain and Ireland (APM) was convened to produce some up-to-date, evidence-based, practical, clinical guidelines on the management of cancer-related breakthrough pain in adults. On the basis of a review of the literature, the task group was unable to make recommendations about any individual interventions, but was able to make a series of 12 recommendations about certain generic strategies. However, most of the aforementioned recommendations are based on limited evidence (i.e., case series, expert opinion). The task group also proposed a definition of breakthrough pain, and some diagnostic criteria for breakthrough pain. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The analgesic effects of morphine applied topically to painful ulcers was assessed in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover pilot study of five patients with painful sacral sores. Patients were treated for two days with either 10 mg morphine sulfate or placebo (water for injection) applied topically to the ulcer. After a two-day wash-out period, patients were crossed over for a further two days of the alternative treatment. Patients were asked to rate analgesia using a visual analogue scale (VAS) and to document any local or systemic adverse effects. All patients reported lower VAS scores with morphine compared to placebo and no local or systemic adverse events attributable to morphine were noted by either patients or nursing staff. This pilot study suggests that morphine applied topically is an effective method of producing local analgesia, well tolerated by patients, and not associated with systemic adverse effects. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

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]