Article

The pharmacologic management of cancer pain.

Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin 53792, USA.
Journal of Palliative Medicine (Impact Factor: 2.06). 01/2008; 10(6):1369-94. DOI: 10.1089/jpm.2007.9842
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The under treatment of cancer pain is still a major issue in both oncology and palliative medicine. The initial availability of opioids is seen as an important philosophical step forward in the pharmacological treatment of cancer pain, one for which there continues to be considerable barriers within regulatory and medical domains. Knowledge of the key pharmacological properties of the multiple opioids available will assist in both improved analgesia and side effects. Understanding the mechanisms of pain is important in terms of treatment, especially in terms of the choice of co-analgesic agents. Much of the work obtained from the study of cancer patients is applicable to the non cancer populations, as is work performed in non cancer patients with neuropathic pain.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: James F Cleary, Sep 03, 2014
0 Followers
 · 
70 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Opioids are frequently prescribed for moderate to severe pain. A side effect of opioid usage is the inhibition of gastrointestinal (GI) motility, known as opioid-induced bowel dysfunction (OBD). OBD is typically treated prophylactically with laxatives and/or acid suppressants. The present study describes the prevalence of outpatient opioid dispensing, opioid patient demographics, and concomitant dispensing of opioids and GI medications in the Quebec Public Prescription Drug Insurance Plan in 2005. Using a retrospective cohort design, opioid dispensings were identified using claims and reimbursement data. Laxative and acid suppressant dispensings were also identified. Concurrent use was defined as having at least one 'GI medication-exposed day' overlapping an 'opioid-exposed day'. More than 11% of the drug plan population was dispensed an opioid in 2005, and dispensings increased with age. Approximately two-thirds of patients who received an opioid were given codeine. Approximately one-third of opioid patients were concomitantly dispensed a GI medication, yet only 2% were dispensed a laxative. Although the GI side effects of opioids are well known, these side effects appear to increase with age and duration of opioid use. Opioid-related side effects, particularly OBD, should be effectively managed so as not to lead to the cessation of opioid therapy.
    Pain research & management: the journal of the Canadian Pain Society = journal de la societe canadienne pour le traitement de la douleur 01/2008; 13(5):395-400. · 1.39 Impact Factor
  • Journal of Palliative Medicine 01/2008; 11(1):82-3. DOI:10.1089/jpm.2008.9993 · 2.06 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Cancer pain is common, occurring in up to 60% of patients and opioid conversion may be required for effective pain management. Conversion from one opioid to another can be problematic due to differences in equianalgesic ratios found in established resources. This study explores the implications of using various published equianalgesic ratios when converting to a common opioid unit. This secondary analysis includes 105 advanced cancer patients who reported use of transdermal fentanyl, long-acting oxycodone, or oral methadone. Common clinically used equianalgesic ratios were identified and utilized to calculate a parenteral morphine equivalent for each of the selected agents. When the equianalgesic ratios were applied to each drug, there were substantial differences in the calculated morphine equivalent for transdermal fentanyl (2-fold difference) and methadone (100-fold difference). The calculated difference for oxycodone was lower, with a 1.5-fold difference. This study demonstrates large variability in opioid conversions based on the use of common equianalgesic ratios for transdermal fentanyl, long-acting oxycodone, and methadone. These findings have important clinical and research implications. First, this study substantiates the use of these ratios as only guidelines for treatment. Second, it supports the need for well-designed, rigorous studies to evaluate opioid conversions. Third, this study demonstrates the need for a standard reporting system of opioid equianalgesic ratios employed in clinical trials.
    Journal of Pain & Palliative Care Pharmacotherapy 01/2008; 22(4):282-90. DOI:10.1080/15360280802537241