Nausea and vomiting are difficult symptoms to manage in patients with advanced cancer. Several classes of antiemetics are available, including phenothiazines, butyrophenones, substituted benzamides and selective serotonin antagonists, as well as corticosteroids. Most patients will respond to either single agents or combinations that frequently include corticosteroids. A minority of patients will have nausea that fails to respond. The atypical antipsychotic, olanzapine, relieves nausea in some patients failing to respond to the usual antiemetics. Two case reports are presented and the rationale for olanzapine's benefit is discussed.
Purpose To update the clinical practice guidelines for the use of antimicrobials, mucosal coating agents, anesthetics, and analgesics for the prevention and/or treatment of oral mucositis (OM). Methods A systematic review was conducted by the Mucositis Study Group of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO). The body of evidence for each intervention, in each cancer treatment setting, was assigned an evidence level. The findings were added to the database used to develop the 2014 MASCC/ ISOO clinical practice guidelines. Based on the evidence level, the following guidelines were determined: Recommendation, Suggestion, and No Guideline Possible. Results A total of 9 new papers were identified within the scope of this section, adding to the 62 papers reviewed in this section previously. A new Suggestion was made for topical 0.2% morphine for the treatment of OM-associated pain in head and neck (H&N) cancer patients treated with RT-CT (modification of previous guideline). A previous Recommendation against the use of sucralfate-combined systemic and topical formulation in the prevention of OM in solid cancer treatment with CT was changed from Recommendation Against to No Guideline Possible. Suggestion for doxepin and fentanyl for the treatment of mucositisassociated pain in H&N cancer patients was changed to No Guideline Possible.
An adjuvant (or co-analgesic) is a drug that in its pharmacological characteristic is not necessarily primarily identified as an analgesic in nature but that has been found in clinical practice to have either an independent analgesic effect or additive analgesic properties when used with opioids. The therapeutic role of adjuvant analgesics (AAs) is to increase the therapeutic index of opioids by a dose-sparing effect, add a unique analgesic action in opioid-resistant pain, or reduce opioid side effects. A notable difference between opioids and AAs is that unlike opioids some AAs are associated with permanent organ toxicity, for example, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and renal failure. It is impossible to predict in advance in a given individual what opioid dose they may require to control cancer pain. Most AAs have a ceiling effect for their analgesic actions, but often with continued dose-related toxicities and side effects (with the exception of glucocorticoids). The blood levels of opioids (and their metabolites) can be measured with great precision and accuracy. There is sometimes a role for drug blood levels of certain AAs, like tricyclic antidepressants or anticonvulsants when used for neuropathic pain. Age affects metabolism of most opioids. The therapeutic window of opioids is wide, with no ceiling effect. Most AAs (except corticosteroids) have a narrow therapeutic window. Naloxone is a pure opioid antagonist that competes and displaces opioids from their receptor sites. All clinically useful opioids are mu opioid receptor agonists. Not all routes of administration are available to all opioids. Adjuvant analgesics lack the versatility in routes of administration that opioids possess. Dosing flexibility is a major advantage when treating cancer-related pain with opioids. Dose flexibility is much less with AAs than opioids. Unlike opioids, the analgesic response is usually observed within hours to days of attaining an adequate dose with most AAs (1-2 days). Rotation among opioids is a useful therapeutic strategy to improve analgesic response or minimize toxicity. Most AAs are unsuitable for rescue dosing because of their pharmacological characteristics. The mu agonist side effect profile is similar among the different opioid agents, regardless of the route of administration. The appropriate use of AAs will reduce opioid-related side effects. No apparent tolerance to analgesia develops with AAs. Abrupt discontinuation of an opioid after chronic repeated use for more than a few days will cause a withdrawal syndrome of variable severity. Adjuvant analgesics are an essential tool in cancer pain.
Several of the targeted agents were significantly associated with increased risk of specific cardiovascular toxicities, CHF, DLVEF, and HTN. Several had significant increased risk for high-grade cardiovascular toxicities (CHF, DLVEF, and HTN). Patients receiving such therapy should be closely monitored for these toxicities and early and aggressive treatment should occur. However, clinical experience has demonstrated that some of these toxicities may be reversible and due to secondary effects.
Communication failures during patient handoff can lead to serious errors. A quality improvement team created a standardized handoff tool/process (DE-PASS: Decisive problem requiring admission, Evaluation time, Patient summary, Acute issues/action list, Situation unfinished/awareness, Signed out to) for admitting patients from the emergency department (ED) to the hospitalist inpatient service of a tertiary cancer center. DE-PASS mirrors the institution's ED workflow, stratifies patients as stable/urgent/emergent, and establishes requirements for verbal and email communications between providers. Comparison of preintervention and postintervention results from the 1-month pilot revealed that within a 24-hour period, DE-PASS reduced the number of intensive care unit transfers by 58% ( P = .393), the number of rapid-response team calls by 39% ( P = .637), and time to inpatient order by 31% ( P = .004). ED physicians' and hospitalists' satisfaction with DE-PASS increased. Reduction in intensive care unit transfers was sustained after the pilot ( P = .029). DE-PASS feasibility was evidenced by 100% uptake. By stratifying patients by risk level, DE-PASS reduced admission-to-evaluation times for unstable patients, potentially improving patient safety.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.