Comparison of numerical and verbal rating scales to measure pain exacerbations in patients with chronic cancer pain

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Numerical rating scales (NRS), and verbal rating scales (VRS) showed to be reliable and valid tools for subjective cancer pain measurement, but no one of them consistently proved to be superior to the other. Aim of the present study is to compare NRS and VRS performance in assessing breakthrough or episodic pain (BP-EP) exacerbations.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In a cross sectional multicentre study carried out on a sample of 240 advanced cancer patients with pain, background pain and BP-EP intensity in the last 24 hours were measured using both a 6-point VRS and a 0-10 NRS. In order to evaluate the reproducibility of the two scales, a subsample of 60 patients was randomly selected and the questionnaire was administered for a second time three to four hours later. The proportion of "inconsistent" (background pain intensity higher than or equal to peak pain intensity) evaluations was calculated to compare the two scales capability in discriminating between background and peak pain intensity and Cohen's K was calculated to compare their reproducibility.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>NRS revealed higher discriminatory capability than VRS in distinguishing between background and peak pain intensity with a lower proportion of patients giving inconsistent evaluations (14% vs. 25%). NRS also showed higher reproducibility when measuring pain exacerbations (Cohen's K of 0.86 for NRS vs. 0.53 for VRS) while the reproducibility of the two scales in evaluating background pain was similar (Cohen's K of 0.80 vs. 0.77).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Our results suggest that, in the measurement of cancer pain exacerbations, patients use NRS more appropriately than VRS and as such NRS should be preferred to VRS in this patient's population.</p

What to do and what not to do in the management of opioid-induced constipation. A Choosing Wisely report

Introduction: Despite the essential utility of opioids for the clinical management of pain, opioid-induced constipation (OIC) remains an important obstacle in clinical practice. In patients, OIC hinders treatment compliance and has negative effects on quality of life. From a clinician perspective, the diagnosis and management of OIC are hampered by the absence of a clear, universal diagnostic definition across disciplines and a lack of standardization in OIC treatment and assessment. Methods: A multidisciplinary panel of physician experts who treat OIC was assembled to identify a list of ten corrective actions-five "things to do" and five "things not to do"-for the diagnosis and management of OIC, utilizing the Choosing Wisely methodology. Results: The final list of corrective actions to improve the diagnosis and clinical management of OIC emphasized a need for: (i) better physician and patient education regarding OIC; (ii) systematic use of diagnostically validated approaches to OIC diagnosis and assessment (i.e., Rome IV criteria and Bristol Stool Scale, respectively) across various medical contexts; and (iii) awareness about appropriate, evidence-based treatments for OIC including available peripheral mu-opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORAs). Conclusions: Physicians who prescribe long-term opioids should be forthcoming with patients about the possibility of OIC and be adequately versed in the most recent guideline recommendations for its management

Referral criteria for outpatient specialty palliative cancer care : an international consensus

Although outpatient specialty palliative-care clinics improve outcomes, there is no consensus on who should be referred or the optimal timing for referral. In response to this issue, we did a Delphi study to develop consensus on a list of criteria for referral of patients with advanced cancer at secondary or tertiary care hospitals to outpatient palliative care. 60 international experts (26 from North America, 19 from Asia and Australia, and 11 from Europe) on palliative cancer care rated 39 needs-based criteria and 22 time-based criteria in three iterative rounds. Nearly all experts responded in each round. Consensus was defined by an a-priori agreement of 70% or more. Panellists reached consensus on 11 major criteria for referral: severe physical symptoms, severe emotional symptoms, request for hastened death, spiritual or existential crisis, assistance with decision making or care planning, patient request for referral, delirium, spinal cord compression, brain or leptomeningeal metastases, within 3 months of advanced cancer diagnosis for patients with median survival of 1 year or less, and progressive disease despite second-line therapy. Consensus was also reached on 36 minor criteria for specialist palliative-care referral. These criteria, if validated, could provide guidance for identification of patients suitable for outpatient specialty palliative care.Peer reviewe

Automatic referral to standardize palliative care access : an international Delphi survey

Palliative care referral is primarily based on clinician judgment, contributing to highly variable access. Standardized criteria to trigger automatic referral have been proposed, but it remains unclear how best to apply them in practice. We conducted a Delphi study of international experts to identify a consensus for the use of standardized criteria to trigger automatic referral. Sixty international experts stated their level of agreement for 14 statements regarding the use of clinician-based referral and automatic referral over two Delphi rounds. A consensus was defined as an agreement of ae70% a priori. The response rate was 59/60 (98%) for the first round and 56/60 (93%) for the second round. Twenty-six (43%), 19 (32%), and 11 (18%) respondents were from North America, Asia/Australia, and Europe, respectively. The panel reached consensus that outpatient palliative care referral should be based on both automatic referral and clinician-based referral (agreement = 86%). Only 18% felt that referral should be clinician-based alone, and only 7% agreed that referral should be based on automatic referral only. There was consensus that automatic referral criteria may increase the number of referrals (agreement = 98%), facilitate earlier palliative care access, and help administrators to set benchmarks for quality improvement (agreement = 86%). Our panelists favored the combination of automatic referral to augment clinician-based referral. This integrated referral framework may inform policy and program development.Peer reviewe

Oxycodone/Acetaminophen: The Tailoring Combination Treatment for Specific Clinical Profile of Opioid Well-Responsive Cancer Pain

Background: International guidelines recommend moderate-to-severe cancer pain to be treated with strong opioids. However, pain management remains an unsolved matter, at least in the demanding oncology and palliative care setting. Although cancer pain consists of multiple components, which interact in complex ways where combination therapy can better intercept multiple pain characteristics, few studies have used a non-opioid/opioid association to exploit possible synergistic actions. Even the efforts of a recent approach emphasizing appropriate pain assessment and accurate classification to obtain personalized pain management have not produced a satisfactory analgesic strategy. Objective: This analysis was intended to evaluate the effectiveness of the immediate release fixed combination of oxycodone/acetaminophen (OxyIR/Par) for the treatment of moderate-to-severe intensity background pain used alone or in combination with other strong opioids in cancer patients with breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP). This is a secondary analysis of a wider observational, prospective, multicenter study [Italian Oncologic Pain multiSetting Multicentric Survey (IOPS-MS)] performed on 179 patients treated with opioids for cancer pain who received the fixed combination of oxycodone/acetaminophen (OxyIR/Par) for the treatment of background pain (BGP). Results: Cancer patients with breakthrough cancer pain and controlled BGP (Background Pain) were classified according to the presence of analgesic therapy with tablets of fixed combination OxyIR/Par alone (group A, n=120) or tablets of fixed combination OxyIR/Par combined with other strong opioids (group B, n=59). Clinical features of group A were different to group B: higher mean Karnofsky Performance Status Index 70.3% (95% CI=67.2-73.5; median=70, CI=60-80) vs 58.3 (95% CI=53.4-63.2; median=50, CI=45-70) (P&lt;0.001), and mainly group A patients were treated in an ambulatory setting (55.0% group A vs 33.9% group B) (p&lt;0.001). Both groups had managed BGP with similar mean dosages (group A: 12.0, CI=10.5-13.4; group B: 13.1, CI=11.0-15.1) and frequencies of OxyIR/Par alone for group A and in association to other opioids for group B, but Breakthrough cancer Pain (BTcP) exhibited different characteristics in the two groups, showing a lower mean intensity numerical rating scale (NRS) of 7.5 (95% CI=7.2-7.7; median=7, CI=7-8 group A) vs 7.9 (95% CI=7.6, 8.2; median= 8, CI=7-9 group B) (P=0.04) and a higher percentage of patients had a faster onset, defined as the maximum intensity reached in less than 10 minutes, 81.7% (N=98) in group A vs 59.3% (n=35) in group B (P=0.002). Conclusion: This is the first analysis about the efficacy of an immediate-release fixed combination of OxyIR/Par in the real world for moderate-to-severe background cancer pain and breakthrough cancer pain. The oral fixed combination OxyIR/Par provided an adequate level of analgesia for moderate-severe background cancer pain, in a different cohort of cancer patients with different performance status, both in ambulatory and palliative settings. The low dosage of fixed combination OxyIR/Par was effective alone or in association with other opioids

From "Breakthrough" to "Episodic" Cancer Pain? A European Association for Palliative Care Research Network Expert Delphi Survey Towards a Common Terminology and Classification of Transient Cancer Pain Exacerbations

Context: Cancer pain can appear with spikes of higher intensity. Breakthrough cancer pain (BTCP) is the most common term for the transient exacerbations of pain, but the ability of the nomenclature to capture relevant pain variations and give treatment guidance is questionable. Objectives: To reach consensus on definitions, terminology, and sub classification of transient cancer pain exacerbations. Methods: The most frequent authors on BTCP literature were identified using the same search strategy as in a systematic review and invited to participate in a two-round Delphi survey. Topics with a low degree of consensus on BTCP classification were refined into twenty statements. The participants rated their degree of agreement with the statements on a numeric rating scale (NRS 0-10). Consensus was defined as a median NRS score of ≥ 7 and an interquartile range of ≤ 3. Results: Fifty-two authors had published three or more papers on BTCP over the past ten years. Twenty-seven responded in the first round and 24 in the second round. Consensus was reached for 13 of 20 statements. Transient cancer pain exacerbations can occur without background pain, when background pain is uncontrolled, and regardless of opioid treatment. There exist cancer pain exacerbations other than BTCP, and the phenomenon could be named “episodic pain”. Patient reported treatment satisfaction is important with respect to assessment. Sub classification according to pain pathophysiology can provide treatment guidance. Conclusion: Significant transient cancer pain exacerbations include more than just BTCP. Patient input and pain classification are important factors for tailoring treatment

Are There Differences in the Prevalence of Palliative Care-Related Problems in People Living With Advanced Cancer and Eight Non-Cancer Conditions? A Systematic Review

AbstractContextIf access to effective palliative care is to extend beyond cancer patients, an understanding of the comparative prevalence of palliative care problems among cancer and non-cancer patients is necessary.ObjectivesThis systematic review aimed to describe and compare the prevalence of seventeen palliative care-related problems across the four palliative care domains among adults with advanced cancer, acquired immune deficiency syndrome, chronic heart failure, end-stage renal disease (ESRD), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, multiple sclerosis, motor neuron disease, Parkinson's disease, and dementia.MethodsThree databases were searched using three groups of keywords. The results of the extraction of the prevalence figures were summarized.ResultsThe electronic searches yielded 4697 hits after the removal of 1784 duplicates. Of these hits, 143 met the review criteria. The greatest number of studies were found for advanced cancer (n=57) and ESRD patients (n=47), and 75 of the 143 studies used validated scales. Few data were available for people living with multiple sclerosis (n=2) and motor neuron disease (n=3). The problems with a prevalence of 50% or more found across most of the nine studied diagnostic groups were: pain, fatigue, anorexia, dyspnea, and worry.ConclusionThere are commonalities in the prevalence of problems across cancer and non-cancer patients, highlighting the need for palliative care to be provided irrespective of diagnosis. The methodological heterogeneity across the studies and the lack of non-cancer studies need to be addressed in future research