Ketamine in chronic pain: A Delphi survey.

BACKGROUND: There is no recommendation in Europe for the use of ketamine in patients with chronic pain. The heterogeneity of practice highlights the need to seek the advice of experts in order to establish a national consensus. This Delphi survey aimed to reach a national consensus on the use of ketamine in chronic pain in Pain clinics. METHODS: A collaborative four-round internet-based questionnaire was used. It was created after literature search on ketamine administration in chronic pain and included about 96 items. It discussed utility and advantages, adverse events and deleterious aspects, methods of administration, concomitant treatments and assessment of results. RESULTS: Twenty-eight experts completed all rounds of the survey with a total of 81.3% items reaching a consensual answer. Neuropathic pain represents the first indication to use ketamine, followed, with a good to moderate utility, by other situations (fibromyalgia, complex regional pain syndrome, central neuropathic pain, peripheral neuropathic pain, nociceptive pain, sensitization, opioid withdrawal, palliative care, depression). Experts agreed on the rare occurrence of adverse events. Concerning routes of administration, intravenous infusion with doses of 0.5-0.9 mg/kg/d for 4 days of treatment is preferred. Place of care is hospital, as in- or out-patient, with a quarterly administration of ketamine. Finally, ketamine effectiveness is assessed 1 month after infusion, and experts encourage combination with non-pharmacological treatment. CONCLUSIONS: This Delphi survey established a consensus of pain specialists on the use of ketamine in refractory chronic pain, thus providing a basis for future comparative trials. SIGNIFICANCE: This Delphi survey in chronic pain reached agreement on four main aspects: (1) Priority to treat neuropathic pain with evaluation of effectiveness at 1 month; (2) No deleterious effects in the majority of listed diseases/situations with the absence or <3% of suggested adverse events; (3) 0.5-0.9 mg/kg/d IV infusion; (4) Combination with non-pharmacological treatment.

Cancer Pain and Patient Education: Strategy, Implementation, Difficulties and Opportunities of EFFADOL, a Regional Collaborative Programme.

While pain remains a burden for many cancer patients, their active involvement in dealing with it through therapeutic patient education (TPE) has proved effective in overcoming hurdles to pain management. This article describes how a regional TPE programme devoted to cancer pain was set up, as well as the difficulties and opportunities encountered during its implementation. Ten nurse-doctor pairs from the chronic pain units of Lower Normandy, after being trained in TPE, designed and built the EFFADOL (Ensemble Faire Face A la DOuLeur [Cope together with pain]) programme. They collaboratively developed the pedagogical, evaluation and communication tools used in the programme. After the educational diagnosis step, patients are able to follow three sessions in order to acquire the following skills: (1) understanding the different types of pain, (2) understanding pain treatments and their adverse reactions and (3) optimally managing pain on a daily basis. Patients can ask a relative to join the sessions and can choose their preferred modality (individual and/or collective sessions). Programme implementation and the importance of communicating with oncologists and independent health professionals are discussed. The programme, which is available to patients close to home, meets their needs as previously assessed through a regional prospective survey. Difficulties to include patients and opportunities to address them are identified. The programme's limitations mainly concern its organization, structure and communication issues. The main challenge remains the overhaul of care practices and the role of the caregiver to allow patient autonomy.

A supportive care dedicated hospitalization ward in comprehensive cancer center.

INTRODUCTION: Supportive care development has created new needs in patients' care pathway. In order to anticipate, evaluate, and take care of patients' needs, a supportive care dedicated hospitalization ward was created in late 2016 in our comprehensive cancer center, including 15 beds (11 for week care and 4 for day care). We aimed to assess the activity of this supportive care ward in 2018. METHODS: Data were extracted from weekly activity reports of supportive care ward and retrospectively analyzed. Those reports are automatically generated from hospitalization scheduling software. RESULTS: In week care ward, 627 stays were recorded. Occupancy rate was 88%. Mean stay duration was 3.01 days. Main indications for week stay were pain evaluation and management (47.4%) and nutritional management (31.7%). In day care ward, 1191 stays were registered. Turnover rate was 1.18 patients/bed/day. Main indications for day stay were pain management (41.6%) and comprehensive geriatric assessment in oncology (22.8%). CONCLUSION: The 2018 supportive care ward evaluation showed its viability in comprehensive cancer center. The main activity was based on pain and nutritional management.