Pain Management in Patients with Cancer: Focus on Opioid Analgesics

Cancer pain is generally treated with pharmacological measures, relying on using opioids alone or in combination with adjuvant analgesics. Weak opioids are used for mild-to-moderate pain as monotherapy or in a combination with nonopioids. For patients with moderate-to-severe pain, strong opioids are recommended as initial therapy rather than beginning treatment with weak opioids. Adjunctive therapy plays an important role in the treatment of cancer pain not fully responsive to opioids administered alone (ie, neuropathic, bone, and visceral colicky pain). Supportive drugs should be used wisely to prevent and treat opioids’ adverse effects. Understanding the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, interactions, and cautions with commonly used opioids can help determine appropriate opioid selection for individual cancer patients

Pain outcomes in patients with bone metastases from advanced cancer: assessment and management with bone-targeting agents

Bone metastases in advanced cancer frequently cause painful complications that impair patient physical activity and negatively affect quality of life. Pain is often underreported and poorly managed in these patients. The most commonly used pain assessment instruments are visual analogue scales, a single-item measure, and the Brief Pain Inventory Questionnaire-Short Form. The World Health Organization analgesic ladder and the Analgesic Quantification Algorithm are used to evaluate analgesic use. Bone-targeting agents, such as denosumab or bisphosphonates, prevent skeletal complications (i.e., radiation to bone, pathologic fractures, surgery to bone, and spinal cord compression) and can also improve pain outcomes in patients with metastatic bone disease. We have reviewed pain outcomes and analgesic use and reported pain data from an integrated analysis of randomized controlled studies of denosumab versus the bisphosphonate zoledronic acid (ZA) in patients with bone metastases from advanced solid tumors. Intravenous bisphosphonates improved pain outcomes in patients with bone metastases from solid tumors. Compared with ZA, denosumab further prevented pain worsening and delayed the need for treatment with strong opioids. In patients with no or mild pain at baseline, denosumab reduced the risk of increasing pain severity and delayed pain worsening along with the time to increased pain interference compared with ZA, suggesting that use of denosumab (with appropriate calcium and vitamin D supplementation) before patients develop bone pain may improve outcomes. These data also support the use of validated pain assessments to optimize treatment and reduce the burden of pain associated with metastatic bone disease

Evolution of bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw in patients with multiple myeloma and Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia: a retrospective multicentric study

Bisphosphonates (BPs) are used intravenously to treat cancer-related conditions for the prevention of pathological fractures. Osteonecrosis of the jaw (BRONJ) is a rare complication reported in 4–15% of patients. We studied, retrospectively, 55 patients with multiple myeloma or Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia followed up from different haematological departments who developed BRONJ. All patients were treated with BPs for bone lesions and/or fractures. The most common trigger for BRONJ was dental alveolar surgery. After a median observation of 26 months, no death caused by BRONJ complication was reported. In all, 51 patients were treated with antibiotic therapy, and in 6 patients, this was performed in association with surgical debridement of necrotic bone, in 16 with hyperbaric O2 therapy/ozonotherapy and curettage and in 12 with sequestrectomy and O2/hyperbaric therapy. Complete response was observed in 20 cases, partial response in 21, unchanged in 9 and worsening in 3. The association of surgical treatment with antibiotic therapy seems to be more effective in eradicating the necrotic bone than antibiotic treatment alone. O2 hyperbaric/ozonotherapy is a very effective treatment. The cumulative dosage of BPs is important for the evolution of BRONJ. Because the most common trigger for BRONJ was dental extractions, all patients, before BP treatment, must achieve an optimal periodontal health

Prevalence of bisphosphonate associated osteonecrosis of the jaws in multiple myeloma patients

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Bisphosphonate-associated osteonecrosis of the jaws (BP-ONJ) is an adverse effect of bisphosphonate treatment with varying reported incidence rates.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In two neighboring German cities, prevalence and additional factors of the development of BP-ONJ in multiple myeloma patients with bisphosphonates therapy were recorded using a retrospective (RS) and cross-sectional study (CSS) design. For the RS, all patients treated from Jan. 2000 - Feb. 2006 were contacted by letter. In the CSS, all patients treated from Oct. 2006 - Mar. 2008 had a physical and dental examination. Additionally, a literature review was conducted to evaluate all articles reporting on BP-ONJ prevalence. PubMed search terms were: bisphosphonat, diphosphonate, osteonecrosis, prevalence and incidence.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In the RS, data from 81 of 161 patients could be obtained; four patients (4.9%) developed BP-ONJ. In the CSS, 16 of 78 patients (20.5%) developed BP-ONJ. All patients with BP-ONJ had received zoledronate; 12 of these had had additional bisphosphonates. All except one had an additional trigger factor (tooth extraction [n = 14], dental surgical procedure [n = 2], sharp mylohyoid ridge [n = 3]).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The prevalence of BP-ONJ may have been underestimated to date. The oral examination of all patients in this CSS might explain the higher prevalence, since even early asymptomatic stages of BP-ONJ and previously unnoticed symptomatic BP-ONJ were recorded. Since nearly all patients with BP-ONJ had an additional trigger factor, oral hygiene and dental care might help to reduce BP-ONJ incidence.</p

A proposed systems approach to the evaluation of integrated palliative care

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>There is increasing global interest in regional palliative care networks (PCN) to integrate care, creating systems that are more cost-effective and responsive in multi-agency settings. Networks are particularly relevant where different professional skill sets are required to serve the broad spectrum of end-of-life needs. We propose a comprehensive framework for evaluating PCNs, focusing on the nature and extent of inter-professional collaboration, community readiness, and client-centred care.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In the absence of an overarching structure for examining PCNs, a framework was developed based on previous models of health system evaluation, explicit theory, and the research literature relevant to PCN functioning. This research evidence was used to substantiate the choice of model factors.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The proposed framework takes a systems approach with system structure, process of care, and patient outcomes levels of consideration. Each factor represented makes an independent contribution to the description and assessment of the network.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Realizing palliative patients' needs for complex packages of treatment and social support, in a seamless, cost-effective manner, are major drivers of the impetus for network-integrated care. The framework proposed is a first step to guide evaluation to inform the development of appropriate strategies to further promote collaboration within the PCN and, ultimately, optimal palliative care that meets patients' needs and expectations.</p