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.

Background Myocardial injury and inflammation on cardiac MRI in patients suffering from coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) have been described in recent publications. Concurrently, a chronic COVID-19 syndrome (CCS) after COVID-19 infection has been observed manifesting with symptoms like fatigue and exertional dyspnea. Purpose To explore the relationship between CCS and myocardial injury and inflammation as an underlying cause of the persistent complaints in previously healthy individuals. Materials and Methods In this prospective study from January 2021 to April 2021, study participants without known cardiac or pulmonary diseases prior to COVID-19 infection with persisting CCS symptoms like fatigue or exertional dyspnea after convalescence and healthy control participants underwent cardiac MRI. Cardiac MRI protocol included T1 and T2 relaxation times, extracellular volume (ECV), T2 signal intensity ratio, and late gadolinium enhancement (LGE). Student t test, Mann-Whitney U test, and χ 2 test were used for statistical analysis. Results 41 participants with CCS (39±13 years; 18 men) and 42 control participants (39±16 years; 26 men) were evaluated. Median time between initial mild to moderate COVID-19 disease without hospitalization and cardiac MRI was 103 days (interquartile range: 88-158). Troponin T levels were normal. Parameters indicating myocardial inflammation and edema were comparable between participants with CCS and control participants: T1 relaxation time (978±23 ms vs 971±25 ms; P=.17), T2 relaxation time (53±2 ms vs 52±2 ms; P=.47), T2 signal intensity ratio (1.6±0.2 vs 1.6±0.3; P=.10). Visible myocardial edema was present in none of the participants. Three of 41 (7%) participants with CCS demonstrated non-ischemic LGE compared to none in the control group (0 of 42 [0%]; P=.07). None of the participants fulfilled the 2018 Lake Louise criteria for the diagnosis of myocarditis. Conclusion Individuals without hospitalization for COVID-19 and with CCS did not demonstrate signs of active myocardial injury or inflammation on cardiac MRI. See also the editorial by Lima and Bluemke .

Objectives To analyse the diagnostic impact of dual energy computed tomography (DECT) in acute gout flares and acute calcium pyrophosphate (CPP) crystal arthritis when compared to the gold standard of arthrocentesis with compensated polarised light microscopy. Microscopy results were also compared to musculoskeletal ultrasound (MUS), conventional radiographs, and the suspected clinical diagnosis (SCD). Methods Thirty-six patients with a suspected gout flare (n = 24) or acute CPP crystal arthritis (n = 11, n = 1 suffered from neither) who received a DECT and underwent arthrocentesis were included. Two independent readers assessed DECT images for signs of monosodium urate crystals or calcium pyrophosphate deposition. Results Sensitivity of DECT for gout was 63% (95% CI 0.41–0.81) with a specificity of 92% (0.41–0.81) while sensitivity and specificity for acute CPP arthritis were 55% (0.23–0.83) and 92% (0.74–0.99), respectively. MUS had the highest sensitivity of all imaging modalities with 92% (0.73–0.99) and a specificity of 83% (0.52–0.98) for gout, while sensitivity and specificity for acute CPP crystal arthritis were 91% (0.59–1.00) and 92% (0.74–0.99), respectively. Conclusion DECT is an adequate non-invasive diagnostic tool for acute gout flares but might have a lower sensitivity than described by previous studies. Both MUS and SCD had higher sensitivities than DECT for acute gout flares and acute CPP crystal arthritis. Key Points• DECT offers a lower sensitivity for acute gout flares than previously described.• DECT sensitivity for acute CPP crystal arthritis is less than the already validated ultrasound.

Background: Despite ultrasound being an inherent part of medical education, only a few German medical schools have established a comprehensive ultrasound curriculum. This study aimed to explore medical students' perspectives on ultrasound in medical education (USMed).Results: Between January 1st, 2019 und June 30th, 2019, an online survey was conducted among German medical students via the students' associations and their respective teaching facilities. The survey consisted of 17 items regarding USMed. Statements were rated on a 4-point Likert scale for agreement. In total, 1040 students from 31 German medical faculties participated. The majority (1021, 98.2%) reported a very high to high interest in curricular USMed. Students agreed (n = 945, 90.9%) that USMed would be helpful along their entire course of medical studies. Considering the best starting time for USMed, the opinions of German medical students diverged: students studying in a model curriculum preferred to start in the second year (40.7%) while 49% of the students studying in a traditional curriculum preferred to start in the third year (p ≤ 0.001). An insufficient allotment of time for USMed in the planned curriculum (675, 65%) and a lack of courses run by medical faculty (305, 29.4%) were listed as perceived significant barriers to the participation in USMed. Peer teaching was regarded as an effective method in realizing USMed by 731 (70.3%) students.Conclusion: German medical students are very interested and willing to participate in USMed. There appears to be a high demand for US courses offered by medical schools.

BackgroundThis feasibility study addresses the applicability of matrix electrodes for the reduction of ongoing pain in cancer patients via low‐frequency electrical stimulation (LFS).MethodsLow‐frequency matrix stimulation (4 Hz) was applied to the skin within the ‘Head's zones’ referring to the tumour localization of cancer pain patients. Pain at baseline was compared to a 3‐day treatment interval consisting of 5 min of matrix stimulation in the morning and evening followed by a 3‐day follow‐up period without therapy. Main outcome parameters included numeric rating scale values (rating scale 0–100), painDETECT, HADS, and German pain questionnaire, as well as the opioid intake, calculated as the oral morphine equivalent (OME).ResultsTwenty patients with cancer pain (aged 64.4 ± 10.3; 9 women) were examined. In the majority of patients, the pain was classified as nociceptive. The mean pain reduction achieved by matrix therapy was 30%, under stable daily controlled‐release opioid doses between 177 and 184 mg/day (OME). Seventeen patients (85%) were responders, defined by a pain reduction of at least 30%, while four responders experienced a pain reduction of over 50%. The only side effect was short‐term erythema.ConclusionFindings are consistent with the concept of synaptic long‐term depression in cancer pain induced after conditioning LFS. Despite the short, but well‐tolerated, treatment duration of 2 × 5 min/day, effects persisted throughout the 3‐day follow‐up.SignificanceCutaneous neuromodulation using LFS via a matrix electrode has been shown to be a safe intervention for effectively reducing cancer pain in palliative care patients.