Search

Background: Evidence for the use of short-term daily parenteral parecoxib for refractory or uncontrolled non-surgical cancer pain is limited. This study aimed to characterise the real-world off-label use and report on clinical experiences in an Australian cancer cohort. Methods: Eligible patients received at least one dose of parecoxib of an intended three-day course between October 2015 and December 2018. Data were collected to characterise the parecoxib treatment cohort (cancer diagnosis, metastases, sites and types of pain and prior analgesia). Parecoxib-related adverse events, pain scores (worst and median), and concurrent opioid use were assessed at 24 h pre (T0) and 24 (T1), 48 (T2), 72 (T3) and 96 h (T4) post first parecoxib dose. Results: Sixty-five patients (39 males and 26 females) and 68 courses of parecoxib (three patients treated twice) were included in analyses: metastatic disease (86%), bone pain (54%) and taking ≥3 classes of analgesic medications (69%). Pain types varied (46% non-specific, 22% neuropathic and 32% other). Most (94%) received parecoxib by subcutaneous administration. Following parecoxib, median 24-h pain scores and worst pain scores improved for 59% (40/68) and 50% (34/68) of patients, respectively. In the first 24 h (T0 to T1), median (4 vs. 2, p < 0.01) and worst (6 vs. 5, p < 0.01) pain scores were reduced and sustained to T4 (4 vs. 2.5, p = 0.01). Breakthrough analgesia requirements reduced for 63% (43/68) of patients, while total concurrent opioid use remained constant. Mean/median oral morphine equivalence for T0 vs. T1 was 111 mg/75 mg vs. 162 mg/90 mg, (p > 0.8). Two patients ceased parecoxib due to renal/liver function abnormalities and two experienced mild injection-site reactions. Conclusions: In this real-world study, parecoxib was utilised as adjunctive therapy in a select patient cohort to contribute to reduced pain scores with no new safety signals. Prospective randomised studies in larger cohorts would improve understanding of the effects of parecoxib. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Access to medicinal cannabis is a timely and important issue in cancer care. Recent legislative changes in Australia have increased access to medicinal cannabis, but the views of people with cancer on this topic are poorly understood. The aim of this study was to explore the prevalence of the use of and attitudes towards medicinal cannabis among people with cancer. Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed using an anonymous, 15-item study-specific paper-based survey. The survey was administered over a 2-week period in August 2017 in the waiting rooms of a specialist cancer hospital. Results: In all, 339 patients completed the survey (mean (± s.d.) age 59 ± 15 years; 52% male). Fourteen respondents (4%) were currently using cannabis medicinally. Only one of these respondents had a prescription for their cannabis product. Most respondents would consider using a medicinal cannabis product if recommended by their doctor (n = 271; 80%). Conclusion: This study is the first of its kind to survey the use of and attitudes towards medicinal cannabis in a broad sample of Australian people with cancer. Few respondents were currently using cannabis for medicinal purposes, but an overwhelming majority were in favour of increasing access and would consider using a prescribed product. What is known about the topic?: Cannabis may have a wide variety of medicinal uses, particularly in the cancer setting. Currently, people with cancer in Victoria have limited access to medicinal cannabis despite recent legislative changes. What does this paper add?: In a general sample of people with cancer, few were using cannabis for medicinal purposes, but most were in favour of widening access and would consider using a product their doctor prescribed. What are the implications for practitioners?: Despite supporting access, patients indicated that the recommendations of doctors and increasing the evidence base are necessary requirements to their use of medicinal cannabis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory analgesics (NSAIDs) are useful in cancer pain but the specific use of subcutaneous parecoxib has not been previously reported. Objective: This pilot study aimed to establish the efficacy and side effect profile of short-term sequential single daily dose subcutaneous parecoxib sodium in patients with severe cancer bone pain. Methods: Nineteen hospitalized patients with advanced cancer and uncontrolled malignant bone pain (9 males, 10 females) received 24 courses of one, two, or three days sequential therapy with 'off-label' daily subcutaneous parecoxib. All patients were receiving opioid therapy; the median baseline daily oral equivalent dose (OED) of morphine was 180 mg. Pain was assessed at baseline, 24 hours, 48 hours, and 72 hours. Pain scores as assessed on an 11-point numeric pain rating scale (NPRS), any side effects including subcutaneous site reactions, as well as patient satisfaction rating with analgesia were recorded. A clinically significant decrease in pain scores was defined as a reduction of two or more points on the NPRS. Results: Median pain score of all patient treatments decreased from 7 to 4.5 at 24 hours ( p<0.001) and 4.0 at 48 hours. A response was seen in 17 (71%) of the 24 treatments at 24 hours. There was no difference between median negative change in pain scores in 19 (79%) treatments where pain was either strongly movement related, or in 22 (94%) treatments where local bone tenderness was more pronounced. No major side effects were observed during treatment. One patient died from pulmonary embolism after cessation of concurrent prophylactic low molecular weight heparin prior to staging liver biopsy. Subcutaneous site reactions occurred in 2 (8%) treatments and were mild and self limiting. Conclusions: Short-term daily subcutaneous parecoxib injection was effective for malignant bone pain when added to existing analgesic therapy and was well tolerated. Further research is warranted into the short-term use of parecoxib in hospitalized patients with intractable malignant bone pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Increasing demand for palliative care unit (PCU) admissions has led to a stronger focus on discharge planning. This has resulted in shorter inpatient length of stays (LOS), and stable patients not requiring specialist palliative care services being referred for placement in residential aged care facilities (RACFs). The process of placement is time-consuming and can be distressing to patients and families, so RACF placement should only be proposed in patients whose prognosis is relatively good (i.e., weeks to months). Objective: Our aim was to identify the outcomes of palliative care inpatients referred for residential aged care placement. Methods: A retrospective chart audit was conducted. The patients' outcomes (discharge or death and survival time) were recorded and analyzed using SPSS statistical software. Subjects were 100 consecutive inpatients from a 30-bed PCU who had been referred for RACF placement. Results: Of the 100 patients referred for RACF placement 73 of 100 (73%) patients had a malignant diagnosis, whereas 27 (27%) had a noncancer diagnosis. Thirty-eight (38%) patients died before discharge, including 33 of 73 (45%) patients with cancer and 5 of 27 (13%) patients with nonmalignant conditions. In particular, 12 of 17 (71%) patients with metastatic non-small cell lung (NCSLC) cancer died before or soon after discharge. Conclusion: Over one-third of all patients died before discharge to an RACF could take place. The rate of death before discharge was higher among patients who had cancer. Patients suffering from NCSLC need to be more carefully selected for placement as only one-third of these patients survived to discharge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A letter to the editor is presented in which the author questions whether the occurrence of conjunctivitis in palliative inpatients indicate possible death.