Search

There is no recommendation in Europe for the use of ketamine in patients with chronic pain. The heterogeneity of practice highlights the need to seek the advice of experts in order to establish a national consensus. This Delphi survey aimed to reach a national consensus on the use of ketamine in chronic pain in Pain clinics.A collaborative four-round internet-based questionnaire was used. It was created after literature search on ketamine administration in chronic pain and included about 96 items. It discussed utility and advantages, adverse events and deleterious aspects, methods of administration, concomitant treatments and assessment of results.Twenty-eight experts completed all rounds of the survey with a total of 81.3% items reaching a consensual answer. Neuropathic pain represents the first indication to use ketamine, followed, with a good to moderate utility, by other situations (fibromyalgia, complex regional pain syndrome, central neuropathic pain, peripheral neuropathic pain, nociceptive pain, sensitization, opioid withdrawal, palliative care, depression). Experts agreed on the rare occurrence of adverse events. Concerning routes of administration, intravenous infusion with doses of 0.5-0.9 mg/kg/d for 4 days of treatment is preferred. Place of care is hospital, as in- or out-patient, with a quarterly administration of ketamine. Finally, ketamine effectiveness is assessed 1 month after infusion, and experts encourage combination with non-pharmacological treatment.This Delphi survey established a consensus of pain specialists on the use of ketamine in refractory chronic pain, thus providing a basis for future comparative trials.This Delphi survey in chronic pain reached agreement on four main aspects: (1) Priority to treat neuropathic pain with evaluation of effectiveness at 1 month; (2) No deleterious effects in the majority of listed diseases/situations with the absence or3% of suggested adverse events; (3) 0.5-0.9 mg/kg/d IV infusion; (4) Combination with non-pharmacological treatment.

Denis Dupoiron,1 Sabrina Jubier-Hamon,1 Valerie Seegers,2 Florent Bienfait,1 Yves Marie Pluchon,3 Nathalie Lebrec,1 Virginie Jaoul,1 Thierry Delorme1 1Département Anesthésie – Douleur, Institut de Cancérologie de l’Ouest, Angers, France; 2Département de biométrie, Institut de Cancérologie de l’Ouest, Angers, France; 3Centre d’étude et de traitement de la douleur (CETD), Centre hospitalier départemental Vendée, La Roche-sur-Yon, FranceCorrespondence: Denis DupoironDépartement Anesthésie – Douleur, Institut de Cancérologie de l’Ouest, Angers, France, Tel +33 2 41 35 28 73, Email denis.dupoiron@ico.unicancer.frPurpose: Data supporting the use of high-concentration capsaicin patches (HCCPs) in breast cancer (BC) patients and BC survivors (BCSs) with peripheral neuropathic pain (PNP) are limited. This observational study evaluated the effectiveness and safety of HCCP applications in BCSs/BC patients with PNP.Patients and Methods: Data from all patients treated with HCCP in the pain department of a French comprehensive cancer centre were collected from 01-Jan-2014 to 14-Oct-2020. Independent pain specialists completed the Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGIC) for each included patient based on data extracted from patient’s electronic medical record compiled by the treating pain specialist after each HCCP application.Results: Patients (N=279; mean age: 59.2 years; previous history of PNP medication: 54.5%) received on average 4.1 repeated HCCP applications (1141 HCCP applications); 68.8% received HCCP as an add-on to systemic therapy and 27.9% as first-line therapy. PNP was most frequently caused by surgery (62.4%) followed by chemotherapy (11.8%) and radiotherapy (6.5%). A complete or important analgesic effect was reported at least once by 82.3% of patients. A 6.0% reported no effect at all. For post-surgical PNP existing for < 12 months and > 10 years an important or complete effect was observed for 70.7% and 56.0% of applications. For chemotherapy- or radiotherapy-induced PNP, this important or complete effect was observed for 52.7% and 52.3% of applications, respectively. HCCP application was associated with site reactions in 54.4% of patients (mainly burning sensation or pain, 45.9%, or erythema, 30.8%) and high blood pressure in 7.2%.Conclusion: This real-world chart review provides important effectiveness and safety information to clinicians when considering topical options to treat PNP in BCSs/BC patients.Keywords: breast cancer, capsaicin, chronic pain, effectiveness, peripheral neuropathic pain, safety, topical administration

Introduction: Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is often painful and can arise during or after the end of oncological treatments. They are mostly induced by platinum salts, taxanes, and immunotherapies. Their incidence is estimated between 19 and 85%. They can require a chemotherapy dose reduction or early termination. The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) recommends high-concentration capsaicin patch (HCCP) in second line for the treatment of painful CIPN. This treatment induces a significative pain relief but only shown by low-powered studies. The objective of this study was to evaluate efficacy and tolerability of HCCP applications in CIPN. Methods: This monocentric observational retrospective real-world-data study of the CERCAN cohort took place in the Western Cancer Institute’s Anaesthesiology and Pain Department at Angers, France. Independent pain physicians completed the CGIC (Clinician Global Impression of Change) for each patient who benefited from HCCP applications for painful CIPN starting from 1 January 2014 to 22 December 2021, based on the collected data after every patch application. Results: A total of 57 patients (80.7% women) was treated with HCCP for painful CIPN, and 184 applications were realized, consisting of 296 sessions. CGIC found an important or complete pain relief for 61 applications (33.2%, corresponding to 43.9% patients). We found less efficacy for platinum-salts-induced CIPN compared to others (p = 0.0238). The efficacy was significatively higher for repeated applications when HCCP was used in second line compared to third line (p = 0.018). The efficacy of HCCP was significatively higher starting the third application (p = 0.0334). HCCPs were mainly responsible for local adverse events found in 66.6% patients (65.1% burning or painful sensation, 21.1% erythema). Conclusion: HCCP applications in painful CIPN induce an important pain relief with a global satisfying tolerability.

Resume Depuis plusieurs annees l’analgesie intrathecale se developpe en France. Cette technique est recommandee en cancerologie par la Societe francaise d’etude et de traitement de la douleur (SFETD) depuis 2013. Il nous a semble pertinent d’evaluer son developpement a travers ce travail qui presente un etat des lieux en 2017 de l’utilisation actuelle de l’analgesie intrathecale sur le territoire des Pays de la Loire et de la Bretagne. Celui-ci a ete realise avec l’aide du Reseau de la douleur de l’ouest (REDO) par l’intermediaire d’une enquete en ligne articulee en six parties : l’identification de l’etablissement, les indications, le circuit, la prescription, la preparation et enfin le mode d’administration. Sur les 29 etablissements cibles, 26 ont participe a l’enquete parmi lesquels 16 ont repondu que leurs patients pouvaient beneficier de cette technique dans leur structure. Cette etude a permis de mettre en evidence l’interet de l’analgesie intrathecale dans la prise en charge des douleurs chroniques refractaires mais egalement les difficultes rencontrees pour sa mise en œuvre ainsi que des axes d’amelioration pour l’avenir.

BACKGROUND Intrathecal drug delivery is widely used for intractable cancer pain treatment. A combination of drugs with morphine and bupivacaine is recommended in first line therapy. In France, we use ropivacaine 10 mg/mL instead of bupivacaine 5 mg/mL, the only concentration available. Bupivacaine 40 mg/mL has been available in France only since July 2020 under temporary authorization of use. OBJECTIVES The main objective of the study was to evaluate the safety, efficacy by pain assessment, to analyze drug dosage changes, to report adverse events (AEs) and conversion ratios switching from ropivacaine to bupivacaine. Secondary objective was to evaluate costs differences. MATERIALS AND METHODS We conducted this retrospective follow-up monocentric study within the Institut de Cancerologie de l'Ouest (ICO) Pain Department in Angers, France. We included 14 patients aged 18 years and above, implanted with an Intrathecal Drug Delivery Systems (IDDS) for cancer pain treatment and followed up at ICO from July 2020 to February 2021 after switching from ropivacaine to bupivacaine. We used a continuous infusion mode and Bolus could be added through Personal Therapy Manager (PTM). RESULTS The median conversion ratio between ropivacaine and bupivacaine was 0.68 (0.65; 0.69) and resulted in no significant change in numeric rating scale evaluation (p = 0.10). We observed moderate and rapidly reversible AEs such as clinical hypotension (29%) and motor block after bolus (21%). The estimated median hospital cost per day was significantly lower (p = 0.05) for the bupivacaine refills than for the last ropivacaine pump refill, decreasing from US$ 61.7 (49.6; 70.5) to US$ 50.4 (45.9; 60.4). The median reimbursement per day from the National Health Insurance (NHI) was three times lower for bupivacaine pump refill when compared to the last ropivacaine pump refill (p