Search

Sara Alfieri,1,* Cinzia Brunelli,2,* Claudia Borreani,1 Giuseppe Capri,3 Martina Angi,4 Giulia V Bianchi,3 Silvia Lo Dico,2 Pierangelo Spada,5 Viviana Fusetti,2,6 Ernesto Zecca,2 Augusto Caraceni2,7 1Clinical Psychology Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy; 2Palliative Care, Pain Therapy and Rehabilitation Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy; 3Medical Oncology 1, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy; 4General Oncology Surgery 4, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy; 5Nursing, Technicians and Rehabilitation Management Service (SITRA), Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy; 6Biomedicine and Prevention Department, University of Rome “Tor Vergata”, Rome, Italy; 7Department of Clinical and Community Sciences, Università degli Studi, Milan, Italy*These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Cinzia Brunelli, Palliative Care, Pain Therapy and Rehabilitation Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Via Venezian 1, Milan, 20133, Italy, Tel +39 0223903179, Email cinzia.brunelli@istitutotumori.mi.itBackground: The multidisciplinary approach is considered “best practice” in oncology. Multidisciplinary Teamwork (MDTW) can be broadly classified into Multidisciplinary Team Meetings (MDTM) and Multidisciplinary Cancer Clinics (MDCC; involving also patients), yet both models are heterogeneously implemented.Purpose: This study aims at describing the different MDTW implemented models in a Comprehensive Cancer Center.Methods: All clinical unit directors of the hospital were contacted to identify any MDTW activities the personnel of the unit were involved in. Structured interviews were carried out to collect MDTWs information, ie, type (MDTM vs MDCC), team composition, aims, disease phase, use of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). Descriptive analyses and Social Network Analysis (SNA) were performed.Results: Among 38 structured interviews, 25 concerned MDTMs and 13 in MDCCs. Responders were mainly surgeons (35%) and oncologists (29%), 35% of them were team leaders. Teams were mostly composed of physicians only (64% in MDTMs, 69% in MDCCs). Case managers (8% and 31%), palliative care specialists (12% and 23%) and psychologists (20% and 31%) were involved to a lesser extent, mainly when dealing with advanced disease. MDTWs were mainly aimed at integrating the skills of the different specialists (respectively 72% for MDTMs and 64% for MDCCs) and offering the best overall patient care pathway (64%, 61.5%). MDTWs were directed at patients in both diagnostic (72%, 61.5%) and locally advanced/metastatic (32%, 38.4%) disease. PROMs were seldom used (24%, 23%). SNA shows a similar density in the two MDTWs, but in the MDCCs two nodes remain isolated (pathologists and radiologists).Conclusion: Despite a high number of MDTWs for advanced/metastatic disease, there is limited involvement of palliative care specialists, psychologists, and nurses.Keywords: case conferences, multidisciplinary cancer conferences, multidisciplinary visits, oncology, tumor board, tumor conferences

Flaminia Coluzzi,1,2 Domenico Alvaro,3 Augusto Tommaso Caraceni,4 Walter Gianni,5 Franco Marinangeli,6 Giuseppe Massazza,7 Carmine Pinto,8 Giustino Varrassi,9 Fabio Lugoboni10 1Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences and Biotechnologies, Sapienza University of Rome, Latina, LT, Italy; 2Anesthesiology, Intensive Care, and Pain Medicine Unit, Sant’Andrea University Hospital, Rome, RM, Italy; 3Department of Translational and Precision Medicine, Gastroenterology Division, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, RM, Italy; 4Palliative Care, Pain Therapy, and Rehabilitation Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, MI, Italy; 5Department of Internal Medicine and Geriatric Medicine, University Hospital Policlinico Umberto I, Rome, RM, Italy; 6Department of Anesthesiology, Pain Medicine, and Palliative care, University of L’Aquila, L’Aquila, AQ, Italy; 7Division of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin and “Città della Salute e della Scienza” University Hospital, Torino, TO, Italy; 8Medical Oncology Unit, Clinical Cancer Center, AUSL-IRCCS of Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, RE, Italy; 9Fondazione Paolo Procacci, Rome, RM, Italy; 10Department of Medicine, Addiction Unit, University Hospital of Verona, Verona, VR, ItalyCorrespondence: Flaminia ColuzziDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences and Biotechnologies, Sapienza University of Rome, Polo Pontino, Latina, Corso della Repubblica 79, Latina, LT, 04100, ItalyTel +39 06 33775673Email flaminia.coluzzi@uniroma1.itBackground: Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) remains an important clinical obstacle despite the availability of several guidelines and pharmacological options for its management. Here, we surveyed common practices and perceptions about OIC among physicians who prescribe opioids in Italy.Methods: The online survey included 26 questions about OIC. Responses were analyzed descriptively and aggregated by physician specialty.Results: A total of 501 physicians completed the survey. Most respondents (67%) did not feel adequately educated about OIC despite general consensus regarding interest in the topic. Overall, 62– 75% of physicians regularly evaluated intestinal function or OIC symptoms in patients receiving opioid therapy. The most common method for assessment was patient diary; few physicians used a validated instrument such as the Rome IV criteria. Psychiatrists and addiction specialists showed the lowest interest and poorest practices. Most respondents (78%) preferred macrogol prophylaxis followed by macrogol plus another laxative for first-line treatment of OIC symptoms. Peripheral-acting mu opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORAs) were not widely used among physicians; 61% had never prescribed a PAMORA for OIC.Conclusion: Our findings reveal important differences in clinical practice for OIC across physician specialties. Additional formative efforts are necessary to improve awareness about best practices in OIC.Keywords: chronic pain, opioid, opioid-induced constipation, peripherally acting mu opioid receptor antagonist

Stefano De Santis,1 Maria Domenica Simone,2 Sebastiano Mercadante,3 Rocco Domenico Mediati,4 Renato Vellucci,4 Paolo Marchetti,5 Giuseppe Tonini,6 Arturo Cuomo,7 Augusto Caraceni,8 Silvia Natoli,9 Grazia Armento,6 Livio Blasi,10 Massimo Mammucari11 On behalf of the IOPS-MS Study Group1Palliative Care and Oncologic Pain Service, S. Camillo-Forlanini Hospital, Rome, Italy; 2Hematology and BMT Unit, S. Camillo-Forlanini Hospital, Rome, Italy; 3Anesthesia and Intensive Care & Pain Relief and Supportive Care, La Maddalena, Palermo, Italy; 4Palliative Care and Pain Therapy Unit, Careggi Hospital, Florence, Italy; 5Molecular and Clinical Medicine Medical Oncology, La Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy; 6Department of Medical Oncology, Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome, Rome, Italy; 7Anesthesiology, Resuscitation, and Pain Therapy Department, National Cancer Institute, IRCCS Foundation, Naples, Italy; 8Palliative Care, Pain Therapy and Rehabilitation, National Cancer Institute, IRCCS Foundation, Milan, Italy; 9Department of Clinical Science and Translational Medicine – University of Rome Tor Vergata and Department of Emergency, Admission and Critical Area – Policlinic of Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy; 10Medical Oncology Unit, ARNAS Ospedale Civico Di Cristina Benfratelli, Palermo, Italy; 11Primary Care Unit, ASL RM1, Rome, 00165, ItalyCorrespondence: Stefano De Santis Email sdesantis@scamilloforlanini.rm.itBackground: International guidelines recommend moderate-to-severe cancer pain to be treated with strong opioids. However, pain management remains an unsolved matter, at least in the demanding oncology and palliative care setting. Although cancer pain consists of multiple components, which interact in complex ways where combination therapy can better intercept multiple pain characteristics, few studies have used a non-opioid/opioid association to exploit possible synergistic actions. Even the efforts of a recent approach emphasizing appropriate pain assessment and accurate classification to obtain personalized pain management have not produced a satisfactory analgesic strategy.Objective: This analysis was intended to evaluate the effectiveness of the immediate release fixed combination of oxycodone/acetaminophen (OxyIR/Par) for the treatment of moderate-to-severe intensity background pain used alone or in combination with other strong opioids in cancer patients with breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP). This is a secondary analysis of a wider observational, prospective, multicenter study [Italian Oncologic Pain multiSetting Multicentric Survey (IOPS-MS)] performed on 179 patients treated with opioids for cancer pain who received the fixed combination of oxycodone/acetaminophen (OxyIR/Par) for the treatment of background pain (BGP).Results: Cancer patients with breakthrough cancer pain and controlled BGP (Background Pain) were classified according to the presence of analgesic therapy with tablets of fixed combination OxyIR/Par alone (group A, n=120) or tablets of fixed combination OxyIR/Par combined with other strong opioids (group B, n=59). Clinical features of group A were different to group B: higher mean Karnofsky Performance Status Index 70.3% (95% CI=67.2– 73.5; median=70, CI=60– 80) vs 58.3 (95% CI=53.4– 63.2; median=50, CI=45– 70) (P< 0.001), and mainly group A patients were treated in an ambulatory setting (55.0% group A vs 33.9% group B) (p< 0.001). Both groups had managed BGP with similar mean dosages (group A: 12.0, CI=10.5– 13.4; group B: 13.1, CI=11.0– 15.1) and frequencies of OxyIR/Par alone for group A and in association to other opioids for group B, but Breakthrough cancer Pain (BTcP) exhibited different characteristics in the two groups, showing a lower mean intensity numerical rating scale (NRS) of 7.5 (95% CI=7.2– 7.7; median=7, CI=7– 8 group A) vs 7.9 (95% CI=7.6, 8.2; median= 8, CI=7– 9 group B) (P=0.04) and a higher percentage of patients had a faster onset, defined as the maximum intensity reached in less than 10 minutes, 81.7% (N=98) in group A vs 59.3% (n=35) in group B (P=0.002).Conclusion: This is the first analysis about the efficacy of an immediate-release fixed combination of OxyIR/Par in the real world for moderate-to-severe background cancer pain and breakthrough cancer pain. The oral fixed combination OxyIR/Par provided an adequate level of analgesia for moderate–severe background cancer pain, in a different cohort of cancer patients with different performance status, both in ambulatory and palliative settings. The low dosage of fixed combination OxyIR/Par was effective alone or in association with other opioids.Keywords: analgesia, combination of oxycodone/acetaminophen, cancer pain, breakthrough cancer pain

Umberto Maria Musazzi,1 Paolo Rocco,1 Cinzia Brunelli,2,3 Luisa Bisaglia,4 Augusto Caraceni,2,3 Paola Minghetti1 1Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy; 2Palliative Care, Pain Therapy and Rehabilitation Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Dei Tumori, Milano, Italy; 3European Palliative Care Research Centre (PRC), Department of Cancer Research and Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway; 4Department of Statistical Sciences, University of Padua, Padua, Italy Purpose: In Italy, where the adoption of opioid analgesics in pain management has been historically poor, an increase in opioids consumption occurred between 2000 and 2015. The aim of this study is to assess, through specific time series analyses for trend changes, the impact of different intervening factors – such as the availability of new drugs, the observance of clinical guidelines, changes in prescription regulations, and in reimbursement policies – on opioids sales to community pharmacies in Italy, focusing on the time period 2000–2010. Materials and methods: Five opioids were considered: codeine, tramadol, buprenorphine, morphine, and fentanyl. The analysis is based on sales data collected at wholesale distributors. For each one of the five drugs, time series of the number of Defined Daily Doses per thousand inhabitants per day in the period 2000–2010 were analyzed, and an estimation of breakpoints was performed using segmented linear regression. Results: Drug sales underwent a sharp increase in 2000–2010, although on different scales. Segmented regression analysis highlighted different potential breakpoints, corresponding to either a significant change in value and/or in slope. Sales of the five opioids were affected by at least one relevant event, often due to a synergy of regulatory, marketing, and technological factors. The effect of reimbursement changes has proved important. Conclusion: Between 2000 and 2010, regulatory, technological, and reimbursement changes significantly influenced opioid sales to community pharmacies in Italy. The sales of relatively new drug products seem to be less influenced by changes in reimbursement and regulatory policies than that of more established products, suggesting that physicians are more comfortable with “old” drugs, since their clinical use is supported by established clinical guidelines and protocols. Keywords: opioids sales, community pharmacy, reimbursement policy, legislation changes, breakpoint estimation

Abstract Background Incurable cancer is a major contributor to societal suffering and disability, and palliative rehabilitation is recommended to be integrated within and between cancer services at all healthcare levels. However, little knowledge exists on how integration of palliative rehabilitation in cancer is understood and achieved in clinical practice. INSPIRE (Integrated short-term palliative rehabilitation to improve quality of life and equitable care access in incurable cancer) is a large European-funded project that aims to promote quality of life through a novel rehabilitation model for people disabled by advanced cancer. Aim To compare the existing integration of palliative rehabilitation in cancer within official documents and in clinical practice across five European countries including United Kingdom, France, Denmark, Norway, and Italy. Methods Mixed methods study with a concurrent research design, comprising a document analysis (N = 23), stakeholder interviews (N = 22), and an online survey (N = 225). Data from each sub-study were analysed separately before results were merged. Results There was limited integration of palliative rehabilitation in cancer in official documents and in clinical practice, though some indicators of integration, including participation in multidisciplinary teams and adherence to standardised pathways, were identified in the survey. Notably, integration of palliative rehabilitation in cancer in clinical practice was observed within limited organisations in secondary healthcare systems, without widespread adoption. Although palliative rehabilitation in cancer as a concept was sparingly used by stakeholders, they recognised the need for a comprehensive approach including multidisciplinary teams that aligns with the individual patient’s needs and goals. Moreover, the ambiguous distinction between the terms ‘palliative rehabilitation’ and ‘palliative care’, insufficient funding, lack of well-defined care pathways and competence gaps among healthcare professionals represented barriers to integration of palliative rehabilitation in cancer into clinical practice. Conclusion Integration of palliative rehabilitation in cancer was limited in the five EU partnership countries investigated. Clarifying the concept of palliative rehabilitation, including adoption of the concept into official documents and delineating it from palliative care, is essential for more successful integration. This can possibly be achieved by addressing the barriers identified and fostering close collaboration across disciplines.

Background & Aims: Long-term albumin (LTA) is currently standard of care for patients with decompensated cirrhosis in many Italian hepatology centres. In this real-life study, we aimed to describe patient, logistical and treatment-related characteristics in daily clinical practice and to identify predictors of response. Methods: We performed a multicentre, retrospective, observational study in patients with cirrhosis and ascites receiving LTA between 01/2016 and 02/2022 and followed until death, TIPS (transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt) placement, transplantation or 02/2023. Results: A total of 312 patients, the majority with alcohol-related cirrhosis, were included. At baseline, median Child-Pugh, MELD, and MELD-Na were 8, 15, and 18, respectively. Ascites was grade 2 in 55% of patients, grade 3 in 35% and refractory in 27%, while 47% had received large volume paracentesis in the previous 6 months. Median LTA was 10 months with a median dose of 40 g/week. Ascites resolved to grade 0-1 in 34% of patients within the first 3 months and 56% by the end of treatment. Predictors of ascites resolution were age (p = 0.007), baseline grade of ascites (p = 0.007), no paracentesis in the previous 6 months (p = 0.001), aetiological treatment in the past 12 months or during LTA (p = 0.005), weekly albumin dose (p = 0.014) and serum albumin concentration of 40 g/L after 1 month of treatment (p = 0.017). Of the 83 patients with refractory ascites at inclusion, 26% had grade 0/1 ascites at the last observation. No severe albumin-related side-effects were reported and only 1% discontinued for logistical reasons. Conclusions: LTA is feasible as an outpatient treatment for the management of ascites. In the current study, ascites resolved in more than half of patients receiving LTA on top of diuretics, including in some with refractory ascites. Predictors of response to LTA provide useful information for tailoring treatment. Impact and implications:: The ANSWER randomised-controlled trial has shown that long-term albumin treatment (LTA) is an effective approach for the management of patients with cirrhosis and ascites. This observational study provides novel information on target patients, modalities and length of treatment, predictors of ascites resolution, stopping criteria, and clinical trajectories of patients on treatment. LTA is a feasible option in the daily clinical practice for the management of ascites when given on top of diuretics. Rather than an alternative therapy, LTA should be integrated with the other treatment options already available for patients with difficult-to-treat ascites. The predictive factors of response identified in the present study can help physicians to individualise LTA and optimise the decision-making process.

Abstract Background Numerical rating scales (NRS), and verbal rating scales (VRS) showed to be reliable and valid tools for subjective cancer pain measurement, but no one of them consistently proved to be superior to the other. Aim of the present study is to compare NRS and VRS performance in assessing breakthrough or episodic pain (BP-EP) exacerbations. Methods In a cross sectional multicentre study carried out on a sample of 240 advanced cancer patients with pain, background pain and BP-EP intensity in the last 24 hours were measured using both a 6-point VRS and a 0-10 NRS. In order to evaluate the reproducibility of the two scales, a subsample of 60 patients was randomly selected and the questionnaire was administered for a second time three to four hours later. The proportion of "inconsistent" (background pain intensity higher than or equal to peak pain intensity) evaluations was calculated to compare the two scales capability in discriminating between background and peak pain intensity and Cohen's K was calculated to compare their reproducibility. Results NRS revealed higher discriminatory capability than VRS in distinguishing between background and peak pain intensity with a lower proportion of patients giving inconsistent evaluations (14% vs. 25%). NRS also showed higher reproducibility when measuring pain exacerbations (Cohen's K of 0.86 for NRS vs. 0.53 for VRS) while the reproducibility of the two scales in evaluating background pain was similar (Cohen's K of 0.80 vs. 0.77). Conclusions Our results suggest that, in the measurement of cancer pain exacerbations, patients use NRS more appropriately than VRS and as such NRS should be preferred to VRS in this patient's population.

Abstract Background Management of pain related to advanced or metastatic cancer, although the availability of several pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions and the existence of well-known guidelines and protocols, is often difficult and inadequate. Evidence of the relative effectiveness of current options for treating cancer pain from comparative randomized studies is scanty. Methods In the context of a wider project, a multicenter, open label, prospective Outcome Research study will be launched in Italy in 2006 to investigate the epidemiology of cancer pain and of its treatments, the quality of analgesic-drug therapy and the effectiveness of alternative analgesic strategies in a large, prospective, unselected cohort of cancer patients using the state-of-the art of patient-reported-outcomes. About 100 Italian centers will recruit 2500 patients with advanced/progressive/metastatic cancer with pain (related to the cancer disease) requiring analgesic treatments. Each center is expected to recruit 25 consecutive and eligible patients during the study inception period. Approximately two months will be allowed for subject recruitment and enrollment. Subject evaluation and follow-up will be for 3 months. The effect on outcomes of various therapeutic analgesic options administered by physicians, given the observational approach where patients are not assigned at random to different treatments, will be compared using the propensity score approach, allowing the adjustment for treatment selection bias. Later, after the launch of the observational study and on the basis of results, in specific subsamples of patients and in select centers of the network, a Randomized Controlled Trial will be carried out to formally compare the efficacy of alternative analgesic strategies, with particular emphasis on oral morphine (as comparator) and buprenorphine patch (as experimental arm). Results from the outcome (cohort) and experimental (Randomized Controlled Trial) studies will ensure both the external and internal validity.

With the increasing rate of infections caused by multidrug‐resistant organisms (MDRO), selecting appropriate empiric antibiotics has become challenging. We aimed to develop and externally validate a model for predicting the risk of MDRO infections in patients with cirrhosis. Methods: We included patients with cirrhosis and bacterial infections from two prospective studies: a transcontinental study was used for model development and internal validation (n = 1302), and a study from Argentina and Uruguay was used for external validation (n = 472). All predictors were measured at the time of infection. Both culture‐positive and culture‐negative infections were included. The model was developed using logistic regression with backward stepwise predictor selection. We externally validated the optimism‐adjusted model using calibration and discrimination statistics and evaluated its clinical utility. Results: The prevalence of MDRO infections was 19% and 22% in the development and external validation datasets, respectively. The model's predictors were sex, prior antibiotic use, type and site of infection, MELD‐Na, use of vasopressors, acute‐on‐chronic liver failure, and interaction terms. Upon external validation, the calibration slope was 77 (95% CI.48–1.05), and the area under the ROC curve was.68 (95% CI.61–.73). The application of the model significantly changed the post‐test probability of having an MDRO infection, identifying patients with nosocomial infection at very low risk (8%) and patients with community‐acquired infections at significant risk (36%). Conclusion: This model achieved adequate performance and could be used to improve the selection of empiric antibiotics, aligning with other antibiotic stewardship program strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]