Breakthrough pain in patients with multiple myeloma: a secondary analysis of IOPS MS study

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to characterize breakthrough pain (BTcP) in patients with multiple myeloma (MM).PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a sec-ondary analysis of a large multicenter study of patients with BTcP. Background pain intensity and opioid doses were recorded. The BTcP char-acteristics, including the number of BTcP ep-isodes, intensity, onset, duration, predictabil-ity, and interference with daily activities were recorded. Opioids prescribed for BTcP, time to achieve a meaningful pain relief after taking a medication, adverse effects, and patients' satis- faction were assessed.RESULTS: Fifty-four patients with MM were ex-amined. In comparison with other tumors, in pa-tients with MM BTcP was more predictable (p=0.04), with the predominant trigger being the physical ac-tivity (p < 0.001). Other BTcP characteristics, pattern of opioids used for background pain and BTcP, sat-isfaction and adverse effects did not differ.CONCLUSIONS: Patients with MM have their own peculiarities. Given the peculiar involve-ment of the skeleton, BTcP was highly predict-able and triggered by movement

A longitudinal study of breakthrough cancer pain: An extension of iops-ms study

The aim of this study was to longitudinally assess the characteristics of background pain and breakthrough pain (BTcP), analgesic treatment, and satisfaction with treatment four weeks after the first assessment. Methods: Adult cancer patients with a diagnosis of BTcP were included. At T0, age, gender, visit setting, cancer diagnosis, the extent of the disease, ongoing anticancer treatments, and Karnofsky level were recorded. The background pain intensity in the last 24 h (on a numerical scale 0–10), opioids used for background pain, and their doses, expressed as oral morphine equivalents (OME), as well as other analgesic drugs, were recorded. The number of BTcP episodes, their intensity, predictability and precipitating factors, onset duration of untreated episodes, and interference with daily activities were collected. Analgesics and doses used for BTcP, and the mean time to meaningful pain relief after taking medication, were assessed. The level of satisfaction with BTcP medication was also assessed. Adverse effects to be attributed to these medications were also recorded. At T4, the same data were evaluated. Results: After one-month follow-up, patients had a lower number of BTcP episodes and peak intensity, possibly due to the optimization of background analgesia. The principal characteristics of BTcP did not change significantly. Conclusion: A careful and continuous assessment should be guaranteed to all patients to limit the burden induced by BTcP, other than treating BTcP episodes with short-onset opioids

Can cancer patients assess the influence of pain on functions? A randomised, controlled study of the pain interference items in the Brief Pain Inventory

BACKGROUND: The Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) is recommended as a pain measurement tool by the Expert Working Group of the European Association of Palliative Care. The BPI is designed to assess both pain severity and interference with functions caused by pain. The purpose of this study was to investigate if pain interference items are influenced by other factors than pain. METHODS: We asked adult cancer patients to complete the original and a revised BPI on two study days. In the original version of the BPI the patients were asked how, during the last 24 hours, pain has interfered with functions. In the revised BPI this question was changed to how, during the last 24 hours, these functions are affected in general. Heath related quality of life was assessed at both study days applying the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire. RESULTS: Forty-eight of the 55 included patients completed both assessments. The BPI pain intensities scores and the health related quality of life scores were similar at the two study days. Except for mood this study observed no significant distinctions between the patients' BPI interference items scores in the original (pain influence on function) and the revised BPI (function in general). Seventeen patients reported higher influence from pain on functions than the total influence on function from all causes. CONCLUSION: We observed similar scores in the original BPI interference scores (pain influence on function) compared with the revised BPI interference scores (decreased function in general). This finding might imply that the BPI interference scale measures are partly responded to as more of a global interference measure

Towards a standardised approach for evaluating guidelines and guidance documents on palliative sedation: Study protocol

Background: Sedation in palliative care has received growing attention in recent years; and so have guidelines, position statements, and related literature that provide recommendations for its practice. Yet little is known collectively about the content, scope and methodological quality of these materials. According to research, there are large variations in palliative sedation practice, depending on the definition and methodology used. However, a standardised approach to comparing and contrasting related documents, across countries, associations and governmental bodies is lacking. This paper reports on a protocol designed to enable thorough and systematic comparison of guidelines and guidance documents on palliative sedation. Methods and design. A multidisciplinary and international group of palliative care researchers, identified themes and clinical issues on palliative sedation based on expert consultations and evidence drawn from the EAPC (European Association of Palliative Care) framework for palliative sedation and AGREE II (Appraisal Guideline Research and Evaluation) instrument for guideline assessment. The most relevant themes were selected and built into a comprehensive checklist. This was tested on people working closely with practitioners and patients, for user-friendliness and comprehensibility, and modified where necessary. Next, a systematic search was conducted for guidelines in English, Dutch, Flemish, or Italian. The search was performed in multiple databases (PubMed, CancerLit, CNAHL, Cochrane Library, NHS Evidence and Google Scholar), and via other Internet resources. Hereafter, the final version of the checklist will be used to extract data from selected literature, and the same will be compiled, entered into SPSS, cleaned and analysed systematically for publication. Discussion. We have together developed a comprehensive checklist in a scientifically rigorous manner to allow standardised and systematic comparison. The protocol is applicable to all guidelines on palliative sedation, and the approach will contribute to rigorous and systematic comparison of international guidelines on any challenging topic such as this. Results from the study will provide valuable insights into common core elements and differences between the selected guidelines, and the extent to which recommendations are derived from, or match those in the EAPC framework. The outcomes of the study will be disseminated via peer-reviewed journals and directly to appropriate audiences