-
CA: a Cancer Journal For Clinicians Nov 2022Patients with advanced cancer generate 4 million visits annually to emergency departments (EDs) and other dedicated, high-acuity oncology urgent care centers. Because of... (Review)
Review
Patients with advanced cancer generate 4 million visits annually to emergency departments (EDs) and other dedicated, high-acuity oncology urgent care centers. Because of both the increasing complexity of systemic treatments overall and the higher rates of active therapy in the geriatric population, many patients experiencing acute decompensations are frail and acutely ill. This article comprehensively reviews the spectrum of oncologic emergencies and urgencies typically encountered in acute care settings. Presentation, underlying etiology, and up-to-date clinical pathways are discussed. Criteria for either a safe discharge to home or a transition of care to the inpatient oncology hospitalist team are emphasized. This review extends beyond familiar conditions such as febrile neutropenia, hypercalcemia, tumor lysis syndrome, malignant spinal cord compression, mechanical bowel obstruction, and breakthrough pain crises to include a broader spectrum of topics encompassing the syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion, venous thromboembolism and malignant effusions, as well as chemotherapy-induced mucositis, cardiomyopathy, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Emergent and urgent complications associated with targeted therapeutics, including small molecules, naked and drug-conjugated monoclonal antibodies, as well as immune checkpoint inhibitors and chimeric antigen receptor T-cells, are summarized. Finally, strategies for facilitating same-day direct admission to hospice from the ED are discussed. This article not only can serve as a point-of-care reference for the ED physician but also can assist outpatient oncologists as well as inpatient hospitalists in coordinating care around the ED visit.
Topics: Aged; Humans; Emergencies; Medical Oncology; Neoplasms; Nausea; Hypercalcemia
PubMed: 35653456
DOI: 10.3322/caac.21727 -
Cancers Apr 2019More than half of patients affected by cancer experience pain of moderate-to-severe intensity, often in multiple sites, and of different etiologies and underlying... (Review)
Review
More than half of patients affected by cancer experience pain of moderate-to-severe intensity, often in multiple sites, and of different etiologies and underlying mechanisms. The heterogeneity of pain mechanisms is expressed with the fluctuating nature of cancer pain intensity and clinical characteristics. Traditional ways of classifying pain in the cancer population include distinguishing pain etiology, clinical characteristics related to pain and the patient, pathophysiology, and the use of already validated classification systems. Concepts like breakthrough, nociceptive, neuropathic, and mixed pain are very important in the assessment of pain in this population of patients. When dealing with patients affected by cancer pain it is also very important to be familiar to the characteristics of specific pain syndromes that are usually encountered. In this article we review methods presently applied for classifying cancer pain highlighting the importance of an accurate clinical evaluation in providing adequate analgesia to patients.
PubMed: 30974857
DOI: 10.3390/cancers11040510 -
Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy =... Dec 2022Patients diagnosed with cancer often experience pain during their treatment course, making it difficult to care for themselves and continue with their activities of... (Review)
Review
Patients diagnosed with cancer often experience pain during their treatment course, making it difficult to care for themselves and continue with their activities of daily living. When cancer is found at later stages, the pain can become severe and constant; reducing their quality of life and significantly affecting mental and physical well-being. Despite opioids being known to provide adequate analgesia for higher pain levels, they are often the reason for under-dosing because of their adverse effects and concern for addiction. There are also patients who do not respond well to opioids because of genetic anomalies or personal preference. Therefore, there is a need for novel non-opioid cancer pain treatments. There are many new cancer pain treatments that are emerging. This manuscript discusses cancer pain, risk factors, epidemiology, guidelines for the treatment of cancer pain, personalization of cancer pain therapy, breakthrough pain, cancer-induced peripheral neuropathy, established cancer pain treatment options, and novel emerging cancer pain treatment options.
Topics: Humans; Cancer Pain; Quality of Life; Activities of Daily Living; Analgesics, Opioid; Pain; Neoplasms
PubMed: 36272265
DOI: 10.1016/j.biopha.2022.113871 -
The Journal of Pain Dec 2014Fentanyl, introduced more than 50 years ago, has become the most often used opioid for intraoperative analgesia. Since the early 1990s the fentanyl patch has been...
Fentanyl, introduced more than 50 years ago, has become the most often used opioid for intraoperative analgesia. Since the early 1990s the fentanyl patch has been available for management of chronic pain of all forms of cancer as well as the persistent, intense pain from many noncancerous maladies. More than a half dozen rapid-onset transmucosal fentanyl preparations have been developed, approved, launched, and popularized for "breakthrough" pain syndromes in the past 20 years. The purpose of this article is to describe why this opioid has become so important in the treatment of pain in modern clinical practice. The data indicate that fentanyl's popularity has occurred because it has minimal cardiovascular effects, does not result in increases in plasma histamine, is relatively short in onset of action and duration of effect, is easy and inexpensive to synthesize and prepare for the marketplace, and is now familiar to clinicians working in pain and perioperative medicine throughout the world.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Fentanyl; Humans
PubMed: 25441689
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpain.2014.08.010 -
Neuropharmacology Sep 2023This Special Issue of Neuropharmacology on psychedelics provides a timely and comprehensive update on progress following the previous Neuropharmacology Special Issue...
This Special Issue of Neuropharmacology on psychedelics provides a timely and comprehensive update on progress following the previous Neuropharmacology Special Issue "Psychedelics: New Doors, Altered Perceptions". Remarkable advances have been made in basic and clinical research on psychedelics in the five years since 2018. It is partly based on the seminar series focused on psilocybin organized by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), USA from April to June 2021, the "NIH Psilocybin Research Speaker Series". Participants were world leading experts, including scientists, medical practitioners, clinical psychologists and oncologists, and attendees from additional disciplines of patient advocacy, law, government science policy and regulatory policy. To provide a global perspective, their contributions are complemented with reviews by some of the world's most eminent scientists in the field. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted two breakthrough therapy designations for psilocybin in treatment resistant depression (TRD) in 2018 and major depressive disorder (MDD) in 2019, as well as for MDMA for the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in 2017. Clinical trials are in progress to assess the therapeutic value of psilocybin in MDD and TRD, and in other indications such as cancer-related anxiety and depression, anorexia, PTSD, substance use disorders and various types of chronic pain. The contributors' insights should assist basic and applied science for transition of psychedelics from bench to potential mainstream therapies. The implications are global, because FDA approval of these new medicines will increase international interest and efforts.
Topics: Humans; Hallucinogens; Psilocybin; Depressive Disorder, Major; Substance-Related Disorders; Anxiety
PubMed: 37247807
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2023.109610 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2022Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a serious and potentially life-threatening condition that causes acute attacks of swelling, pain and reduced quality of life. People with... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a serious and potentially life-threatening condition that causes acute attacks of swelling, pain and reduced quality of life. People with Type I HAE (approximately 80% of all HAE cases) have insufficient amounts of C1 esterase inhibitor (C1-INH) protein; people with Type II HAE (approximately 20% of all cases) may have normal C1-INH concentrations, but, due to genetic mutations, these do not function properly. A few people, predominantly females, experience HAE despite having normal C1-INH levels and C1-INH function (rare Type III HAE). Several new drugs have been developed to treat acute attacks and prevent recurrence of attacks. There is currently no systematic review and meta-analysis that included all preventive medications for HAE.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of interventions for the long-term prevention of HAE attacks in people with Type I, Type II or Type III HAE.
SEARCH METHODS
We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 3 August 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials in children or adults with HAE that used medications to prevent HAE attacks. The comparators could be placebo or active comparator, or both; approved and experimental drug trials were eligible for inclusion. There were no restrictions on dose, frequency or intensity of treatment. The minimum length of four weeks of treatment was required for inclusion; this criterion excluded the acute treatment of HAE attacks.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. HAE attacks (number of attacks per person, per population) and change in number of HAE attacks; 2. mortality and 3. serious adverse events (e.g. hepatic dysfunction, hepatic toxicity and deleterious changes in blood tests). Our secondary outcomes were 4. quality of life; 5. severity of breakthrough attacks; 6. disability and 7. adverse events (e.g. weight gain, mild psychological changes and body hair). We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 15 studies (912 participants) that met the inclusion criteria. The studies included people with Type I and II HAE. The studies investigated avoralstat, berotralstat, subcutaneous C1-INH, plasma-derived C1-INH, nanofiltered C1-INH, recombinant human C1-INH, danazol, and lanadelumab for the prevention of HAE attacks. We did not find any studies on the use of tranexamic acid for prevention of HAE attacks. All drugs except avoralstat reduced the number of HAE attacks compared with placebo. For breakthrough attacks that occurred despite prophylactic treatment, intravenous and subcutaneous forms of C1-INH and lanadelumab reduced attack severity. It is not known whether other drugs have a similar effect, as the severity of breakthrough attacks in people taking drugs other than C1-INH and lanadelumab was not reported. For quality of life, avoralstat, berotralstat, C1-INH (all forms) and lanadelumab increased quality of life compared with placebo; there were no data for danazol. Four studies reported on changes in disability during treatment with C1-INH, berotralstat and lanadelumab; all three drugs decreased disability compared with placebo. Adverse events, including serious adverse events, did not occur at a rate higher than placebo. However, serious adverse event data and other adverse event data were not available for danazol, which prevented us from drawing conclusions about the absolute or relative safety of this drug. No deaths were reported in the included studies. The analysis was limited by the small number of studies, the small number of participants in each study and the lack of data on older drugs, therefore the certainty of the evidence is low. Given the rarity of HAE, it is not surprising that drugs were rarely directly compared, which does not allow conclusions on the comparative efficacy of the various drugs for people with HAE. Finally, we did not identify any studies that included people with Type III HAE. Therefore, we cannot draw any conclusions about the efficacy or safety of any drug in people with this form of HAE.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The available data suggest that berotralstat, C1-INH (subcutaneous, plasma-derived, nanofiltered and recombinant), danazol and lanadelumab are effective in lowering the risk or incidence (or both) of HAE attacks. In addition, C1-INH and lanadelumab decrease the severity of breakthrough attacks (data for other drugs were not available). Avoralstat, berotralstat, C1-INH (all forms) and lanadelumab increase quality of life and do not increase the risk of adverse events, including serious adverse events. It is possible that danazol, subcutaneous C1-INH and recombinant human C1-INH are more effective than berotralstat and lanadelumab in reducing the risk of breakthrough attacks, but the small number of studies and the small size of the studies means that the certainty of the evidence is low. This and the lack of head-to-head trials prevented us from drawing firm conclusions on the relative efficacy of the drugs.
Topics: Adult; Child; Female; Humans; Male; Angioedemas, Hereditary; Quality of Life; Danazol; Complement C1 Inhibitor Protein; Administration, Intravenous; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36326435
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013403.pub2 -
Advances in Therapy Jul 2021The prescribing and use of opioid analgesics is increasing in Italy owing to a profusion in the number and types of opioid analgesic products available, and the... (Review)
Review
The prescribing and use of opioid analgesics is increasing in Italy owing to a profusion in the number and types of opioid analgesic products available, and the increasing prevalence of conditions associated with severe pain, the latter being related to population aging. Herein we provide the expert opinion of an Italian multidisciplinary panel on the management of opioid-induced constipation (OIC) and bowel dysfunction. OIC and opioid-induced bowel dysfunction are well-recognised unwanted effects of treatment with opioid analgesics that can profoundly affect quality of life. OIC can be due to additional factors such as reduced mobility, a low-fibre diet, comorbidities, and concomitant medications. Fixed-dose combinations of opioids with mu (μ) opioid receptor antagonists, such as oxycodone/naloxone, have become available, but have limited utility in clinical practice because the individual components cannot be independently titrated, creating a risk of breakthrough pain as the dose is increased. A comprehensive prevention and management strategy for OIC should include interventions that aim to improve fibre and fluid intake, increase mobility or exercise, and restore bowel function without compromising pain control. Recommended first-line pharmacological treatment of OIC is with an osmotic laxative (preferably polyethylene glycol [macrogol]), or a stimulant laxative such as an anthraquinone. A second laxative with a complementary mechanism of action should be added in the event of an inadequate response. Second-line treatment with a peripherally acting μ opioid receptor antagonist (PAMORA), such as methylnaltrexone, naloxegol or naldemedine, should be considered in patients with OIC that has not responded to combination laxative treatment. Prokinetics or intestinal secretagogues, such as lubiprostone, may be appropriate in the third-line setting, but their use in OIC is off-label in Italy, and should therefore be restricted to settings such as specialist centres and clinical trials.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Constipation; Expert Testimony; Humans; Italy; Narcotic Antagonists; Opioid-Induced Constipation; Quality of Life; Receptors, Opioid, mu
PubMed: 34086265
DOI: 10.1007/s12325-021-01766-y -
Annals of Oncology : Official Journal... Oct 2018
Topics: Adult; Analgesics, Opioid; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Breakthrough Pain; Cancer Pain; Cancer Survivors; Europe; Humans; Medical Oncology; Neoplasm Staging; Neoplasms; Pain Management; Pain Measurement; Pain, Procedural; Prevalence; Societies, Medical; Terminal Care; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30052758
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdy152 -
Anaesthesia Dec 2020The programmed intermittent epidural bolus technique has shown superiority to continuous epidural infusion techniques, with or without patient-controlled epidural... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Randomized Controlled Trial
The programmed intermittent epidural bolus technique has shown superiority to continuous epidural infusion techniques, with or without patient-controlled epidural analgesia for pain relief, reduced motor block and patient satisfaction. Many institutions still use patient-controlled epidural analgesia without a background infusion, and a comparative study between programmed intermittent epidural bolus and patient-controlled epidural analgesia without a background infusion has not yet been performed. We performed a randomised, two-centre, double-blind, controlled trial of these two techniques. The primary outcome was the incidence of breakthrough pain requiring a top-up dose by an anaesthetist. Secondary outcomes included: motor block; pain scores; patient satisfaction; local anaesthetic consumption; and obstetric and neonatal outcomes. We recruited 130 nulliparous women who received initial spinal analgesia, and then epidural analgesia was initiated and maintained with either programmed intermittent epidural bolus or patient-controlled epidural analgesia using ropivacaine 0.12% with sufentanil 0.75 µg·ml . The programmed intermittent epidural bolus group had a programmed bolus of 10 ml every hour, with on-demand patient-controlled epidural analgesia boluses of 5 ml with a 20 min lockout, and the patient-controlled epidural analgesia group had a 5 ml bolus with a 12 min lockout interval; the potential maximum volume per hour was the same in both groups. The patients in the programmed intermittent epidural bolus group had less frequent breakthrough pain compared with the patient-controlled epidural analgesia group, 7 (10.9%) vs. 38 (62.3%; p < 0.0001), respectively. There was a significant difference in motor block (modified Bromage score ≤ 4) frequency between groups, programmed intermittent epidural bolus group 1 (1.6%) vs. patient-controlled epidural analgesia group 8 (13.1%); p = 0.015. The programmed intermittent epidural bolus group had greater local anaesthetic consumption with fewer patient-controlled epidural analgesia boluses. Patient satisfaction scores and obstetric or neonatal outcomes were not different between groups. In conclusion, we found that a programmed intermittent epidural bolus technique using 10 ml programmed boluses and 5 ml patient-controlled epidural analgesia boluses was superior to a patient-controlled epidural analgesia technique using 5 ml boluses and no background infusion.
Topics: Adult; Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesia, Obstetrical; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Double-Blind Method; Female; Humans; Pregnancy
PubMed: 32530518
DOI: 10.1111/anae.15149