Pharmacological Treatment of Pain in Cancer Patients: The Role of Adjuvant Analgesics, a Systematic Review

CONTEXT: In patients with cancer, pain is one of the most feared and burdensome symptoms. Adjuvant analgesics are an important cornerstone on which treatment of pain in patients with cancer is based. OBJECTIVES: To update our guidelines for the treatment of pain in patients with cancer, we performed a systematic review on the use of adjuvant analgesics in pain in cancer. METHODS: A systematic search of the literature was performed searching for articles that studied the effect of (1) antidepressants, (2) anti-epileptics, (3) N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists, and (4) other adjuvant analgesics in patients with cancer pain and described their effects on pain intensity and/or side effects. RESULTS: Based on the keywords and after reading the full papers, we could include 12 papers on anticonvulsants, 10 papers on antidepressants, four on NMDA receptor antagonists, and 10 papers on other adjuvant analgesics. The methodological quality of the included papers was graded as low to very low. Overall, there was a low quality of evidence that gabapentin, pregabalin, amitriptyline, and venlafaxine were effective in reducing pain intensity in patients with cancer pain. There was insufficient evidence on the effectiveness of lamotrigine, levetiracetam, NMDA antagonists, cannabinoids, corticosteroids, and local anesthetics on reducing pain intensity in patients with cancer pain. CONCLUSION: The quality of currently available evidence on the effectiveness of adjuvant analgesics in the treatment of cancer pain is low. The treatment of pain associated with cancer should be tailored to the patient's personal preferences

Pharmacological Treatment of Pain in Cancer Patients : The Role of Adjuvant Analgesics, a Systematic Review

CONTEXT: In patients with cancer, pain is one of the most feared and burdensome symptoms. Adjuvant analgesics are an important cornerstone on which treatment of pain in patients with cancer is based. OBJECTIVES: To update our guidelines for the treatment of pain in patients with cancer, we performed a systematic review on the use of adjuvant analgesics in pain in cancer. METHODS: A systematic search of the literature was performed searching for articles that studied the effect of (1) antidepressants, (2) anti-epileptics, (3) N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists, and (4) other adjuvant analgesics in patients with cancer pain and described their effects on pain intensity and/or side effects. RESULTS: Based on the keywords and after reading the full papers, we could include 12 papers on anticonvulsants, 10 papers on antidepressants, four on NMDA receptor antagonists, and 10 papers on other adjuvant analgesics. The methodological quality of the included papers was graded as low to very low. Overall, there was a low quality of evidence that gabapentin, pregabalin, amitriptyline, and venlafaxine were effective in reducing pain intensity in patients with cancer pain. There was insufficient evidence on the effectiveness of lamotrigine, levetiracetam, NMDA antagonists, cannabinoids, corticosteroids, and local anesthetics on reducing pain intensity in patients with cancer pain. CONCLUSION: The quality of currently available evidence on the effectiveness of adjuvant analgesics in the treatment of cancer pain is low. The treatment of pain associated with cancer should be tailored to the patient's personal preferences

Application of the adverse outcome pathway (AOP) concept to structure the available in vivo and in vitro mechanistic data for allergic sensitization to food proteins

Background: The introduction of whole new foods in a population may lead to sensitization and food allergy. This constitutes a potential public health problem and a challenge to risk assessors and managers as the existing under‑ standing of the pathophysiological processes and the currently available biological tools for prediction of the risk for food allergy development and the severity of the reaction are not sufficient. There is a substantial body of in vivo and in vitro data describing molecular and cellular events potentially involved in food sensitization. However, these events have not been organized in a sequence of related events that is plausible to result in sensitization, and useful to chal‑ lenge current hypotheses. The aim of this manuscript was to collect and structure the current mechanistic under‑ standing of sensitization induction to food proteins by applying the concept of adverse outcome pathway (AOP). Main body: The proposed AOP for food sensitization is based on information on molecular and cellular mechanisms and pathways evidenced to be involved in sensitization by food and food proteins and uses the AOPs for chemical skin sensitization and respiratory sensitization induction as templates. Available mechanistic data on protein respira‑ tory sensitization were included to fill out gaps in the understanding of how proteins may affect cells, cell–cell interac‑ tions and tissue homeostasis. Analysis revealed several key events (KE) and biomarkers that may have potential use in testing and assessment of proteins for their sensitizing potential. Conclusion: The application of the AOP concept to structure mechanistic in vivo and in vitro knowledge has made it possible to identify a number of methods, each addressing a specific KE, that provide information about the food allergenic potential of new proteins. When applied in the context of an integrated strategy these methods may reduce, if not replace, current animal testing approaches. The proposed AOP will be shared at the www.aopwiki.org platform to expand the mechanistic data, improve the confidence in each of the proposed KE and key event relations (KERs), and allow for the identification of new, or refinement of established KE and KERs

Prophylactic abdominal drainage after distal pancreatectomy (PANDORINA):an international, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial

Background: Prophylactic passive abdominal drainage is standard practice after distal pancreatectomy. This approach aims to mitigate the consequences of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) but its added value, especially in patients at low risk of POPF, is currently being debated. We aimed to assess the non-inferiority of a no-drain policy in patients after distal pancreatectomy. Methods: In this international, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older undergoing open or minimally invasive elective distal pancreatectomy for all indications in 12 centres in the Netherlands and Italy. We excluded patients with an American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) physical status of 4–5 or WHO performance status of 3–4, added by amendment following the death of a patient with ASA 4 due to a pre-existing cardiac condition. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) intraoperatively by permuted blocks (size four to eight) to either no drain or prophylactic passive drain placement, stratified by annual centre volume (&lt;40 or ≥40 distal pancreatectomies) and low risk or high risk of grade B or C POPF. High-risk was defined as a pancreatic duct of more than 3 mm in diameter, a pancreatic thickness at the neck of more than 19 mm, or both, based on the Distal Pancreatectomy Fistula Risk Score. Other patients were considered low-risk. The primary outcome was the rate of major morbidity (Clavien–Dindo score ≥III), and the most relevant secondary outcome was grade B or C POPF, grading per the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery. Outcomes were assessed up to 90 days postoperatively and analysed in the intention-to-treat population and per-protocol population, which only included patients who received the allocated treatment. A prespecified non-inferiority margin of 8% was compared with the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI (Wald) of unadjusted risk difference to assess non-inferiority. This trial is closed and registered in the Netherlands Trial Registry, NL9116. Findings: Between Oct 3, 2020, and April 28, 2023, 376 patients were screened for eligibility and 282 patients were randomly assigned to the no-drain group (n=138; 75 [54%] women and 63 [46%] men) or the drain group (n=144; 73 [51%] women and 71 [49%] men). Seven patients in the no-drain group received a drain intraoperatively; consequently, the per-protocol population included 131 patients in the no-drain group and 144 patients in the drain group. The rate of major morbidity was non-inferior in the no-drain group compared with the drain group in the intention-to-treat analysis (21 [15%] vs 29 [20%]; risk difference –4·9 percentage points [95% CI –13·8 to 4·0]; p non-inferiority=0·0022) and the per-protocol analysis (21 [16%] vs 29 [20%]; risk difference –4·1 percentage points [–13·2 to 5·0]; p non-inferiority=0·0045). Grade B or C POPF was observed in 16 (12%) patients in the no-drain group and in 39 (27%) patients in the drain group (risk difference –15·5 percentage points [95% CI –24·5 to –6·5]; p non-inferiority&lt;0·0001) in the intention-to-treat analysis. Three patients in the no-drain group died within 90 days; the cause of death in two was not considered related to the trial. The third death was a patient with an ASA score of 4 who died after sepsis and a watershed cerebral infarction at second admission, leading to multiple organ failure. No patients in the drain group died within 90 days. Interpretation: A no-drain policy is safe in terms of major morbidity and reduced the detection of grade B or C POPF, and should be the new standard approach in eligible patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy. Funding: Ethicon UK (Johnson &amp; Johnson Medical, Edinburgh, UK).</p

Prophylactic abdominal drainage after distal pancreatectomy (PANDORINA):an international, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial

Background: Prophylactic passive abdominal drainage is standard practice after distal pancreatectomy. This approach aims to mitigate the consequences of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) but its added value, especially in patients at low risk of POPF, is currently being debated. We aimed to assess the non-inferiority of a no-drain policy in patients after distal pancreatectomy. Methods: In this international, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older undergoing open or minimally invasive elective distal pancreatectomy for all indications in 12 centres in the Netherlands and Italy. We excluded patients with an American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) physical status of 4–5 or WHO performance status of 3–4, added by amendment following the death of a patient with ASA 4 due to a pre-existing cardiac condition. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) intraoperatively by permuted blocks (size four to eight) to either no drain or prophylactic passive drain placement, stratified by annual centre volume (&lt;40 or ≥40 distal pancreatectomies) and low risk or high risk of grade B or C POPF. High-risk was defined as a pancreatic duct of more than 3 mm in diameter, a pancreatic thickness at the neck of more than 19 mm, or both, based on the Distal Pancreatectomy Fistula Risk Score. Other patients were considered low-risk. The primary outcome was the rate of major morbidity (Clavien–Dindo score ≥III), and the most relevant secondary outcome was grade B or C POPF, grading per the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery. Outcomes were assessed up to 90 days postoperatively and analysed in the intention-to-treat population and per-protocol population, which only included patients who received the allocated treatment. A prespecified non-inferiority margin of 8% was compared with the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI (Wald) of unadjusted risk difference to assess non-inferiority. This trial is closed and registered in the Netherlands Trial Registry, NL9116. Findings: Between Oct 3, 2020, and April 28, 2023, 376 patients were screened for eligibility and 282 patients were randomly assigned to the no-drain group (n=138; 75 [54%] women and 63 [46%] men) or the drain group (n=144; 73 [51%] women and 71 [49%] men). Seven patients in the no-drain group received a drain intraoperatively; consequently, the per-protocol population included 131 patients in the no-drain group and 144 patients in the drain group. The rate of major morbidity was non-inferior in the no-drain group compared with the drain group in the intention-to-treat analysis (21 [15%] vs 29 [20%]; risk difference –4·9 percentage points [95% CI –13·8 to 4·0]; p non-inferiority=0·0022) and the per-protocol analysis (21 [16%] vs 29 [20%]; risk difference –4·1 percentage points [–13·2 to 5·0]; p non-inferiority=0·0045). Grade B or C POPF was observed in 16 (12%) patients in the no-drain group and in 39 (27%) patients in the drain group (risk difference –15·5 percentage points [95% CI –24·5 to –6·5]; p non-inferiority&lt;0·0001) in the intention-to-treat analysis. Three patients in the no-drain group died within 90 days; the cause of death in two was not considered related to the trial. The third death was a patient with an ASA score of 4 who died after sepsis and a watershed cerebral infarction at second admission, leading to multiple organ failure. No patients in the drain group died within 90 days. Interpretation: A no-drain policy is safe in terms of major morbidity and reduced the detection of grade B or C POPF, and should be the new standard approach in eligible patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy. Funding: Ethicon UK (Johnson &amp; Johnson Medical, Edinburgh, UK).</p