Search

This paper reviewed the 2002 guidelines established by the National Federation of Cancer Centres. A group of experts nominated by the 3 French Societies involved in the treatment of cancer pain (AFSOS, SFAP, SFETD), established new guidelines ratios for morphine switching and/or changing of route of administration, in patients for whom either pain was not adequatly managed or adverse effects were unbearable. After a rapid reminder of the pharmacokinetics and metabolism properties of morphine, experts explained why the theory of opioid rotation (oxycodone, hydromorphone, fentanyl, methadone, tapentadol) using fixed equianalgesic ratios is not any more appropriate for a secure clinical practice. In the light of recent publications enhancing our knowledge on the efficacy of new drug switching ratios and for changing the route of administration of morphine, the group of experts recommended to use reconsidered switching ratios favoring security upon efficacy, to minimize overdosing and adverse effects. Consequently, after the new conversion ratio (using slow release opioids) was applied, a second titration should be done by means of normal release rescue formulations for breakthrough pain episodes. A smartphone App. OpioConvert

Goal This study aims to assess the quality of the cancer pain management in Palliative care unit.The method used was the targeted clinical audit. The audit grid was built according to the recommendations of the pilot Committee, and tested until the final version with 19 items was obtained. In this retrospective study, 60 consecutive patients were studied on 2 periods of time. The first one (T1) shows the gap between the patient's chart and the expected standard, and proposes corrective measures. The second one (T2) re-assesses, using the same items list, the efficacy of these measures.After the corrective measures, the patients' medical record documentation was significantly improved at T2 for: neuropathic pain assessment improved, from 3% (T1) to 67% (T2) (P0.001), so did pain assessment during the titration, from 6.7% (T1) to 90% (T2) (P0.001). The overdoses symptoms assessment improved from 17% at T1 to 93% at T2, (P=0.002) and breakthrough pain evaluation improved from 3% at T1 to 73% at T2, (P0.001). The pain reassessment after the rescue doses improved from 10% at T1 to 73% at T2 (P0.001). The other points improved but not significantly.The quality of the pain cancer management was improved during the audit, but some points (patient education and in patient medical record documentation) can be improved. We need to continue to implement the improvement measures in our unit.

Diagnostic or therapeutic procedures can lead to breakthrough pain. Thanks to a wise choice of analgesic medication started in due time, this type of pain can be avoided or decreased. The therapeutic options of this preventive approach are presented according to the expected breakthrough pain type and intensity. Specific situations are presented through case discussions. The main pharmacokinetic information needed to prescribe the right analgesic at the right time is summarized in a convenient table. When associated to non-pharmacological measures such as empathy, patient positioning and high quality procedures, preventive analgesia provides patients the best possible relief from breakthrough pain.