No abstract

Successful pain management with opioids requires that adequate analgesia be achieved without excessive adverse effects. By these criteria, a substantial minority of patients treated with oral morphine (10% to 30%) do not have a successful outcome because of (1) excessive adverse effects, (2) inadequate analgesia, or (3) a combination of both excessive adverse effects along with inadequate analgesia. The management of excessive adverse effects remains a major clinical challenge. Multiple approaches have been described to address this problem. The clinical challenge of selecting the best option is enhanced by the lack of definitive, evidence-based comparative data. Indeed, this aspect of opioid therapeutics has become a focus of substantial controversy. This study presents evidence-based recommendations for clinical-practice formulated by an Expert Working Group of the European Association of Palliative Care (EAPC) Research NETWORK: These recommendations highlight the need for careful evaluation to distinguish between morphine adverse effects from comorbidity, dehydration, or drug interactions, and initial consideration of dose reduction (possibly by the addition of a co analgesic). If side effects persist, the clinician should consider options of symptomatic management of the adverse effect, opioid rotation, or switching route of systemic administration. The approaches are described and guidelines are provided to aid in selecting between therapeutic options.

Despite the increasing clinical use of transdermal buprenorphine, questions have persisted about the possibility of a ceiling effect for analgesia, its combination with other μ-opioid agonists, and the reversibility of side effects. In October 2008, a consensus group of experts met to review recent research into the pharmacology and clinical use of buprenorphine. The objective was to achieve consensus on the conclusions to be drawn from this work. It was agreed that buprenorphine clearly behaves as a full μ-opioid agonist for analgesia in clinical practice, with no ceiling effect, but that there is a ceiling effect for respiratory depression, reducing the likelihood of this potentially fatal adverse event. This is entirely consistent with receptor theory. In addition, the effects of buprenorphine can be completely reversed by naloxone. No problems are encountered when switching to and from buprenorphine and other opioids, or in combining them. Buprenorphine exhibits a pronounced antihyperalgesic effect that might indicate potential advantages in the treatment of neuropathic pain. Other beneficial properties are the compound's favorable safety profile, particularly in elderly patients and those with renal impairment, and its lack of effect on sex hormones and the immune system. The expert group agreed that these properties, as well as proven efficacy in severe pain and favorable tolerability, mean that buprenorphine can be considered a safe and effective option for treating chronic cancer and noncancer pain.

The paper highlights a series of questions that doctors need to consider when faced with end-stage cancer patients with bowel obstruction: Is the patient fit for surgery? Is there a place for stenting? Is it necessary to use a venting nasogastric tube (NGT) in inoperable patients? What drugs are indicated for symptom control, what is the proper route for their administration and which can be administered in association? When should a venting gastrostomy be considered? What is the role of total parenteral nutrition (TPN) and parenteral hydration (PH)? A working group was established to review issues relating to bowel obstruction in end-stage cancer and to make recommendations for management. A steering group was established by the (multidisciplinary) Board of Directors of the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) to select members of the expert panel, who were required to have specific clinical and research interests relating to the topic and to have published significant papers on advanced cancer patients in the last 5 years, or to have particular clinical expertise that is recognised internationally. The final constitution of this group was approved by the Board of the EAPC. This Working Group was made up of English, French and Italian physicians involved in the field of palliative care for advanced and terminal cancer patients; and of English, American and Italian surgeons who also specialized in artificial nutrition (Dr. Bozzetti) and a professor of health economics. We applied a systematic review methodology that showed the relative lack of RCTs in this area and the importance of retrospective and clinical reports from different authors in different countries. The brief was to review published data but also to provide clinical opinion where data were lacking. The recommendations reflect specialist clinical practice in the countries represented. Each member of the group was allocated a specific question and briefed to review the literature and produce a position paper on the indications, advantages and disadvantages of each symptomatic treatment. The position papers were circulated and then debated at a meeting held in Athens and attended by all panel members. The group reviewed all the available data, discussed the evidence and discussed what practical recommendations could be derived from it. An initial outline of the results of the review and recommendations was produced. Where there were gaps in the evidence, consensus was achieved by debate. Only unanimous conclusions have been incorporated. Subsequently the recommendations were drawn together by Carla Ripamonti (Chairperson) and Robert Twycross (Co-Chair) and refined with input from all panel members. The recommendations have been endorsed by the Board of Directors of the EAPC. It was concluded that surgery should not be undertaken routinely in patients with poor prognostic criteria, such as intra-abdominal carcinomatosis, poor performance status and massive ascites. A nasogastric tube should be used only as a temporary measure. Medical measure...

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.

Neurolytic celiac plexus block alone is capable of providing complete pain relief until death in a few cases and, therefore, should be considered as an adjuvant treatment in the analgesic strategy. Combination palliative therapy is necessary in most cases. Failure of the block may be attributed to tumor metastasizing beyond the nerves that conduct pain via the celiac plexus and the component nerves that form it. Concomitant pain of somatic origin (frequently observed in upper gastrointestinal cancer because of significant peritoneal involvement) requires other therapeutic measures.

No abstract

Bowel obstruction may be an inoperable complication in patients with end-stage cancer. Scopolamine butylbromide (SB) and octreotide (OCT) have been successfully used with the aim of reducing gastrointestinal (GI) secretions to avoid placement of a nasogastric tube (NGT); however, there have been no comparative studies concerning the efficacy of these drugs. Furthermore, there is little information about the role played by parenteral hydration in symptom control of these patients. In a prospective trial that involved all 17 inoperable bowel-obstructed patients presenting to our services with a decompressive NGT, patients were randomized to OCT 0.3 mg/day or SB 60 mg/day for 3 days through a continuous subcutaneous infusion. Clinical data, survival time, and the time interval from the first diagnosis of cancer to the onset of inoperable bowel obstruction were noted. The intensity of pain, nausea, dry mouth, thirst, dyspnea, feeling of abdominal distension, and drowsiness were assessed by means of a verbal scale before starting treatment with the drugs under study (T0) and then daily for 3 days (T1, T2, T3). Moreover, daily information was collected regarding the quantity of GI secretions through the NGT, the oral intake of fluids, the quantity of parenteral hydration, and the analgesic therapy used. The NGT could be removed in all 10 home care and in 3 hospitalized patients without changing the dosage of the drugs. OCT significantly reduced the amount of GI secretions at T2 (P = 0.016) and T3 (P = 0.020). Compared to the home care patients, the hospitalized patients received significantly more parenteral hydration (P = 0.0005) and drank more fluids (P = 0.025). There was no difference in the daily thirst and dry mouth intensity in relation to the amount of parenteral hydration or the treatment provided (OCT or SB). Independent of antisecretory treatment, the patients receiving less parenteral hydration presented significantly more nausea (T0 P = 0.002; T1 P = 0.001; T2 P = 0.003; T3 P = 0.001) and drowsiness at T3 (P < 0.5). Pain relief was obtained in all 17 patients and only two patients required an increase in morphine dose at T1. All patients with inoperable malignant bowel obstruction should undergo treatment with antisecretory drugs so as to evaluate the possibility of removing the NGT. When a more rapid reduction in GI secretions is desired, OCT should be considered as the first choice drug. Parenteral hydration over 500 ml/day may reduce nausea and drowsiness.