Search

PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical benefits of switching from morphine to oral methadone in patients who experience poor analgesia or adverse effects from morphine. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifty-two consecutive cancer patients receiving oral morphine but with uncontrolled pain and/or moderate to severe opioid adverse effects were switched to oral methadone administered every 8 hours using different dose ratios. Intensity of pain and adverse effects were assessed daily, and the symptom distress score (DS) was calculated before and after switching. RESULTS: Data were analyzed for 50 patients. Switching was considered effective in 80% of the patients; results were achieved in an average of 3.65 days. In the 10 patients who switched to methadone because of uncontrolled pain, a significant reduction in pain intensity (P < .005) and an average of a 33% increase in methadone doses necessary (P < .01) were found after an average of 3.5 days. DS significantly decreased from an average of 8.4 to 4.5 (P < .0005). In the 32 patients switching because of uncontrolled pain and morphine-related adverse effects, significant improvement was found in pain intensity (P < .0005), nausea and vomiting (P < .03), constipation (P < .001), and drowsiness (P < .01), but a significant increase in the methadone dose of an average of 20% (P < .004) was required. CONCLUSION: In most patients with cancer pain referred for poor pain control and/or adverse effects, switching to oral methadone is a valid therapeutic option. In the clinical setting of poor pain control, higher doses of methadone are necessary with respect to the equianalgesic calculated dose ratios previously published.

A number of controlled studies have recently demonstrated the role of disodium pamidronate in the prevention of skeletal complications in patients with metastatic bone disease due to breast cancer and multiple myeloma. They have also shown that it relieves pain and is well tolerated. The aim of this open prospective study was to evaluate the acceptability of a new schedule of pamidronate infusion and to assess pain, analgesic consumption and the Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) in patients with metastatic bone pain treated with pamidronate in association or not with chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and hormone therapy. Patients with different types of cancer and at least one painful bone metastasis were treated with two cycles of 60 mg intravenous (iv) pamidronate weekly for three consecutive doses, with a 3-week interval between the two cycles (six infusions over 7 weeks), followed by one infusion every 3 weeks for a total of 24 infusions. Two hundred patients were enrolled in the study, of whom 94 received at least the first six infusions; 25 patients received all 24 infusions. Pamidronate was well tolerated in the majority of the patients both during the first six infusions and during the whole study period. In the patients under study, pain intensity decreased compared with T0sub after the first two infusions (second week of treatment). The mean equivalent daily dose of oral morphine required ranged from 21.5 to 41.5 mg/day and was low and stable during the study. For the patients who remained in the study, the KPS remained around 70 during the whole treatment period and intrasubject analysis showed a substantial stability of the KPS within each subject. A first fracture occurred within 321 days in 25% of the whole population under study. Pamidronate represents a further valid therapy to add to an already consolidated list of therapies such as radiotherapy, chemotherapy, hormone therapy and orthopaedic intervention in the pain management of patients with bone metastases. Future studies are necessary to evaluate the role of pamidronate and the appropriate schedule in patients with advanced or terminal cancer who are no longer being treated with oncological therapies.

According to the data of the literature, the prevalence of pain in cancer patients at various stages of the disease and the settings of care range from 38 to 51%, with an increase of up to 74% in the advanced and terminal stages. Despite published World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for pain management, 42 to 51% of cancer patients receive inadequate analgesia and 30% receive no analgesics at all. A 3-year Research Project “Towards a Pain-free Hospital”, which began one year ago, is ongoing at the National Cancer Institute of Milan. The research is organized in three subsequent steps. In the 1st one, a series of patient- and staff-oriented evaluation tools are used to assess the level of appropriateness of pain communication, assessment, management and control of the in-patients. The 2nd step will implement a number of continuing educational interventions aimed at improving patient awareness and staff knowledge of the appropriate pain assessment and management in order to respond to the patient's pain problem. In the 3rd step, all the assessment tools used in step one will be applied again to establish the prevalence of pain, the causes and intensity and patient satisfaction with pain management and to evaluate the impact of the interventions performed during the 2nd step regarding the overall ability of our hospital to tackle pain emergency in the hospitalized cancer population. The results relative to the 1st step are herein reported, in particular as regards the study on prevalence, causes, severity of pain, the interference of pain with sleep, mood and concentration, the use of pain medications and the relief obtained, the structural validity and internal consistency of the assessment tool used. A total of 258 patients hospitalized for at least 24 h were interviewed by 9 physicians using a brief structured questionnaire prepared ad hoc: 51.5% of the patients presented pain during the previous 24 h caused by surgery (49.6%) or by the tumor mass itself (29.3%). Out of the 133 patients with pain, a high degree (much or very much) of pain at rest was present in 27.1% and pain on movement in 30.8%; 31.6% did not take any analgesic treatment, and 14.3% of the latter reported a high degree of pain at rest and 21.4% on movement. Pain interfered with sleep from much to very much in 28.8% and with irritability and nervousness in 15.9% of the patients. In the 91 patients taking analgesics, 57.2% reported a high degree of pain relief. A high degree of pain and interference, however, was associated with low relief levels. The assessment tool used was shown to have a good structural validity and internal consistency (Chrombach alpha index of interference scale = 0.73). Although the Milan Cancer Institute has the longest tradition in Italy of pain assessment by means of validated tools and pain management according to the WHO guidelines and educational efforts in this field, the results of the study clearly show that it is necessary to persevere with continuing educational and informative programs in order to reduce the frequency and severity of pain and thus improve the quality of life of in-patients.