No abstract

Context. The International Association for Hospice and Palliative Care developed a consensus-based definition of palliative care (PC) that focuses on the relief of serious health-related suffering, a concept put forward by the Lancet Commission Global Access to Palliative Care and Pain Relief. Objective. The main objective of this article is to present the research behind the new definition.

No abstract

This study shows that more effort should be focused on the reduction of the problems terminally ill patients have to face. While many of these problems are a result of financial troubles and could be eliminated if sufficient funds were available, others are a consequence of tradition and culture. Solutions for the improvement of patients' situations in accord with tradition and culture have to be found.

In India, a million people with cancer and an unknown number of people with other incurable and disabling diseases, need opioids for pain relief. Only about 0.4% of the population in need have access to them. Major barriers to access to opioids are complicated regulations and problems related to attitude and knowledge regarding pain relief and opioids among professionals and the public. The Pain and Policy Studies Group at Madison Wisconsin has been collaborating with many Indian palliative care workers and government officials to improve availability of opioids to those who need them for pain relief. As a result of this collaborative effort, the Government of India asked all state governments to modify the narcotic regulations following a model given to them. To facilitate the process, the collaboration has conducted workshops in 13 states in association with local champions. Currently, 13 states in India and one union territory have simplified regulations, but opioid availability has improved only in a minority of these states. Establishment of simple standard operating procedures to implement the simplified regulations, advocacy, and improved education of professionals are essential for further improvement of the situation. The past decade has demonstrated that government policy can be changed if palliative care enthusiasts work in tandem with the government. The progress has been slow, but real and encouraging.

Opioid-refractory pain is distressing because it is notoriously difficult to treat. Relief from adjuvant therapies often occurs after a lag time. Retrospective evidence points to a role for intravenous (IV) lidocaine in this setting for pain relief. This study was planned as a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study in which eligible patients received both lidocaine and placebo infusions separated by two weeks. Primary endpoints were magnitude and duration of pain relief. Fifty patients were included in the study. Pain relief was significantly better (P<0.001) and more patients reported a decrease in analgesic requirements (P=0.0012) after lidocaine infusion than after placebo. Onset of analgesia was noted at a mean of 40+/-16.28 minutes after initiation of infusion of IV lidocaine. Mean duration of this analgesia, 9.34+/-2.58 days after the single infusion, was significantly longer than that for placebo (P<0.01). Side effects observed were tinnitus, perioral numbness, sedation, light-headedness, and headache. All side effects were self-limited and did not require any intervention except termination of lidocaine infusion in one case. These data demonstrate that a single IV infusion of lidocaine provided a significantly greater magnitude and duration of pain relief than placebo infusion in opioid-refractory patients with cancer pain. Side effects were tolerable. It is thus a promising modality worth investigating further to establish guidelines for its use in cancer patients with opioid-refractory pain.

No abstract

This randomized controlled trial compared intravenous route with oral route for initial dose titration of morphine in 62 patients with end-stage cancer and severe pain. Patients in the intravenous group received 1.5 mg intravenous bolus doses of morphine every ten minutes till pain relief was total or until they became drowsy. After that they got oral morphine at a dose equal to the total initial intravenous requirement four-hourly. Patients in the oral group got oral morphine 5 mg doses (if opioid-naïve) or 10 mg (if already on weak opioid) four-hourly. Patients in both groups had the option to receive rescue doses of their regular oral dose as and when needed, if necessary hourly. Twenty-seven of 31 in the intravenous group had either total or satisfactory pain relief by the end of one hour, whereas only eight of 31 in the oral group had a similar result. After 24 hours and later both groups had similar results. There was no immediate serious side effect in any of the patients. The late side effects were similar in the two groups. In the intravenous group, the ratio of initial intravenous dose requirement to the subsequent regular single oral dose after two days centred around 1:1 (range 1:0.5-1:3.3). This study found the intravenous method to be safe, effective and superior to the traditional method in providing immediate relief to severe cancer pain.