Search

Purpose: To monitor oncologists' perspective on cancer pain management., Methods: An anonymized survey was conducted in two waves. First, over a convenience sample of oncologists known to be particularly concerned with the management of pain. Second, using a random sample of oncologists., Results: In total, 73 and 82 oncologists participated in the first and second wave, respectively. Many oncologists reported to have good knowledge of analgesic drugs (95.9%), the mechanism of action of opioids (79.5%), and good skills to manage opioid-related bowel dysfunction (76.7%). Appropriate adjustment of background medication to manage breakthrough pain was reported by 95.5% of oncologists. Additionally, 87.7% (68.3% in the second wave, p = 0.035) of oncologists reported suitable opioid titration practices, and 90.4% reported to use co-adjuvant medications for neuropathic pain confidently. On the other hand, just 9.6% of oncologists participated in multidisciplinary pain management teams, and merely 30.3 and 27.1% reported to routinely collaborate with the Pain Clinics or involve other staff, respectively. Only 26.4% of the oncologists of the second wave gave priority to pain pathophysiology to decide therapies, and up to 75.6% reported difficulties in treating neuropathic pain. Significantly less oncologists of the second wave (82.9 vs. 94.5%, p = 0.001) used opioid rotation routinely., Conclusions: Unlike in previous surveys, medical oncologists reported in general good knowledge and few perceived limitations and barriers for pain management. However, multi-disciplinary management and collaboration with other specialists are still uncommon. Oncologists' commitment to optimize pain management seems important to improve and maintain good practices.

Objectives: To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of zoledronic acid in prostate cancer patients with bone metastases at the hormone-sensitive (HS) and hormone-independent (HI) stages., Materials and Methods: A nationwide, observational, prospective, open and multi-centre trial was devised, with a total of 218 male patients diagnosed with prostate cancer at the HS stage (36%) or HI stage (64%) who were administered zoledronic acid (4 mg/IV/month for 6 months) in addition to their specific oncological treatment. Effectiveness was assessed by the following means: 1) Assessment of the improvement in pain and mobility; 2) Incidence and time to onset of skeletal-related events (SREs) and 3) Analysis of bone markers. Tolerability was assessed by means of registering the number and type of adverse effects. A satisfaction survey was carried out amongst the patients after the end of the trial., Results: Out of the 218 patients, 170 (78%) were evaluable for effectiveness. A decrease in pain ratings at rest and during movement was observed in all patients, whether in the HS or HI groups (p < 0.0001). Improved mobility was observed likewise (p = 0.005), as was quality of life. The global incidence of skeletal events was 11.2%, with a time to onset of SREs of 10.7 months. There were no significant differences observed between HS vs. HI patients. Osteolysis markers (N-telopeptide) decreased significantly with the treatment across both the HS and HI groups. For safety reasons. 212 patients were evaluable (97.2%). The incidence of adverse drug reactions was 16% (34/212) and was found to be significantly higher in HS patients (22.4%) compared with HI patients (11.9%). Overall, the tolerability of zoledronic acid was good, with no significant morbidity in either group (HS and HI). 66% of the patients reported feeling satisfied or very satisfied., Conclusions: Zoledronic acid proved effective in the relief of pain, improving mobility and quality of life as well as reducing or delaying the occurrence of skeletal-related events in prostate cancer patients presenting metastatic bone disease, regardless of the phase, whether HS or HI, they found themselves in. Tolerability and patient satisfaction were rates as good.

A narrative systematic medical literature review on prevalence of neuropathic pain (NP) in Spain from 1990 to 2004 was conducted. The average number of publications was 3 per year. Prevalence data varied depending on studied population, definition of pain/pathology and time of pain evolution. The most commonly studied pathologies included: mononeuropathies and polyneuropathies: 42%, multiple sclerosis: 35% and entrapment neuropathies: 16%. Some episodes of NP were left untreated. One third of patients with back pain receiving analgesic treatment still had high intensity pain. Future studies on the prevalence of NP should use work definitions and criteria reached by consensus. An awareness of the clinical presentation of NP and an appropriate and early treatment could minimize its clinical, working and health care implications. NP is a diverse and highly prevalent condition in Spain. Efforts should be conducted towards the achievement of diagnostic criteria consensus and higher rates of analgesic success.

Introduction: The objective of this study is to investigate analgesic effectiveness and safety of venlafaxine extended release in chronic pain of any etiology., Methods: Six month, observational, open study, carried out in two pain units. Initially, a daily dose of 75 mg of venlafaxine extended release was administered, increasing it to 150 mg, following clinical criteria. Treatment response was measured using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), rest and mobilization, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HAD) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) and an adverse event sheet to record adverse events occurring during the study., Results: The study was carried out in a 50 patient sample with a mean age of 57.1 +/- 1.8 years, with chronic pain. A total of 85-90 % of the patients was maintained with a daily dose of 75 mg of venlafaxine extended release. This produced a gradual reduction of the VAS scores at rest (significant reduction of 5.2 +/- 1.1 to 2.7 +/- 1.5 points; (p<0.0005) and mobilization (significant reduction of 5.5 +/- 0.8 to 3.1 +- 1.6 points; p<0.0005). Pain relief increased progressively. Regarding physical activity measured by the ECOG scale, there was a reduction of the percentage of patients and increase of outpatients. Tolerability to venlafaxine was "excellent", "very good" or "good" for 72% of the patients., Conclusions: Extended release venlafaxine can be an effective and well-tolerated treatment in patients with chronic pain of any etiology, although it must be investigated in depth.

The analgesic efficacy and safety of dexketoprofen trometamol (the active enantiomer of the racemic compound ketoprofen) (25mg q.i.d.) vs. ketorolac (10mg q.i.d.) was assessed in 115 patients with bone cancer pain included in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel group study. A level of >/=40 mm on the 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS) and >/=10 in the pain rating index were required for inclusion. At the end of treatment on day 7 (+1 day), mean values of VAS were 32+/-24 mm for dexketoprofen and 40+/-30 mm for ketorolac (P=0.12) but the pain rating index was significantly lower in patients given dexketoprofen (8.5+/-2.3 vs. 9.7+/-2.9, P=0.04). Moreover, most of the patients reached a pain intensity difference from baseline >/=20 mm (75% of patients for dexketoprofen and 65% of patients for ketorolac). Around half of patients in both treatments had a pain intensity <30 mm on VAS at the end of treatment (55% for dexketoprofen and 47% for ketorolac). In the overall assessment of efficacy, a higher percentage of both patients and physicians rated dexketoprofen as 'quite effective' or 'very effective' compared to ketorolac. The percentage of patients withdrawn from the study for any reason as well as for insufficient therapeutic effect or due to adverse events was lower in the dexketoprofen group than in the ketorolac group. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 16% of patients given dexketoprofen and in 24% given ketorolac. Serious adverse events occurred in 3.5% of patients from both groups but only one case of gastrointestinal hemorrhage was considered related to ketorolac. We conclude that dexketoprofen trometamol 25 mg q.i.d. oral route is a good analgesic therapy in the treatment of bone cancer pain, comparable to ketorolac 10 mg q.i.d., with a good tolerability profile.

Background and Objective: Our goal was to validate the Spanish version of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) questionnaire used to measure the intensity of oncological pain and its impact on activities of daily living in patients with cancer., Patients and Method: Patients with oncological pain were consecutively included in the study. These patients filled up the Spanish version of the BPI questionnaire (CBD) and the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist (RCSL) during the inclusion visit and again after 3-5 days (patients with clinically stable oncological pain) or after one month (patients with unstable oncological pain)., Results: 126 patients were assessed; 85.1% of them had suffered some episode of irruptive pain 24 hours prior to their inclusion in the study. 86.5% of patients fully completed the questionnaire. The CBD showed mild to moderate correlations with the patients perception of pain severity and with the presence of tumor dissemination. The <> dimension of the RCSL displayed the highest correlation with the dimensions of the BPI (<> and <>). The internal consistency and the test-retest reliability between dimensions were good (0.87 and 0.89) and low to moderate (0.53 and 0.77), respectively. The CBD questionnaire was found to be a tool capable of detecting changes in pain intensity. The changes observed in the two CBD dimensions between study visits fairly reflected the patients perceived changes in pain intensity., Conclusions: The Spanish version of BPI is valid for measuring the intensity of oncological pain and its impact on activities of daily living in conditions of usual clinical practice.

In a double-blind, randomised and parallel clinical trial, two oral doses of dipyrone (1 and 2 g) administered every 8 h were compared with 10 mg of oral morphine given every 4 h for the relief of chronic cancer pain. A total of 121 patients with cancer pain without gastric involvement participated in a 7-day treatment course and were allocated to receive either dipyrone 1 g (n = 41), dipyrone 2 g (n = 38) or morphine (n = 42). Drug efficacy was analysed according to the degree of pain relief using a 100-mm visual analogue scale, and the number of patients who decided to increase the dose of the analgesic drug on day 4. The analgesic effect of dipyrone, 2 g every 8 h, was similar to that of morphine. The efficacy of both schedules was significantly greater than that of dipyrone, 1 g every 8 h. Dipyrone at either 1 or 2 g doses tended to be better tolerated than morphine, although the differences were not statistically significant.