Search

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]

Introduction: Intractable and persistent cough is experienced by more than a third of patients with advanced cancer, with a significant negative impact on quality of life. Pharmacological treatment has been of little help in some patients. Limited evidence suggests novel agents such as paroxetine may reduce cough severity. This retrospective study aimed to assess effectiveness and tolerability of paroxetine for the treatment of intractable cough in patients with cancer. Methods: Single-centre medical record review of paroxetine use in patients with advanced malignancy and cough treated at an Australia tertiary referral cancer centre between 1 October 2012 and 1 October 2017. Data relating to cough type and severity, response and adverse events were extracted from medical records. Cough type was described as non-productive dry cough, productive chesty cough or cough exhibiting both non-productive and productive features (mixed cough). Results: Overall, 24/34 patients (71%) experienced a major or moderate reduction in their cough severity after treatment with paroxetine. Nearly half (47%) described a major improvement and a quarter (24%) moderate improvement. Of the 34 patients, nearly half had a lung primary cancer (16/34, 47%) and nearly all (17/18) of those without lung cancer had lung metastases from another primary cancer. Patients with dry cough reported greater benefit from paroxetine. Of the 56% (19/34) of patients with non-productive dry cough, 80% (15/19) reported an improvement in symptoms post paroxetine. The remaining 15 patients, 44% of the group, presented with either a productive chesty cough (9/34, 27%) or mixed cough (6/34, 18%). Of these patients, 60% (9/15) reported an improvement in symptoms. Two thirds of patients were commenced on paroxetine 10 mg (22/34, 65%), with the remainder starting at 20 mg (14/34, 35%). Conclusion: Paroxetine may be an effective, novel, off-label treatment for intractable and persistent cough in patients with advanced cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Intravenous lidocaine is effective in treating pain. Limited studies have assessed the effectiveness and safety of subcutaneous lidocaine infusions. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of patients with cancer who received subcutaneous lidocaine infusions for pain. Patient characteristics, pain scores and opioid doses before and after lidocaine, and details of infusions were recorded. We identified three time periods of interest. T0 is defined as the 24-hour period immediately before commencing lidocaine treatment. T1 is defined as the 24-hour period before lidocaine was ceased. T2 is defined as the first 24-hour period after lidocaine was ceased. In addition, the overall impression of the effectiveness of lidocaine was subjectively evaluated by the authors. Results: Twenty patients (13M;7F) received lidocaine. Two patients received it twice, totaling 22 episodes. The median lidocaine dose was 0.67 mg/kg/h with the median duration being 5.5 days. The median worst pain score at T0 and T1 was 8.5 and 5.5, respectively. The difference in the mean pain scores was 3.2 95% CI (2.1, 4.4; p < 0.001). In 15/22 episodes (68%), patients experienced a decrease in pain scores of more than 2. The median morphine oral equivalent (MOE) daily doses at T0, T1, and T2 were 425, 362.5, and 275 mg, respectively. The difference in the mean MOE between T0 and T1 was −126 (95% CI [−281, 28]; p = 0.13). The difference in the mean MOE between T0 and T2 was −207 (95% CI [−370, −44]; p = 0.025). Lidocaine was subjectively deemed effective in 10/22 episodes (45%). There were no documented adverse events attributed to lidocaine. Univariate analyses did not identify any subgroups likely to benefit from lidocaine. Conclusion: Subcutaneous lidocaine infusions may be used safely in cancer pain management and is effective in some patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]