Most Relevant Neuropathic Pain Treatment and Chronic Low Back Pain Management Guidelines: A Change Pain Latin America Advisory Panel Consensus.

Objective: Chronic pain conditions profoundly affect the daily living of a significant number of people and are a major economic and social burden, particularly in developing countries. The Change Pain Latin America (CPLA) advisory panel aimed to identify the most appropriate guidelines for the treatment of neuropathic pain (NP) and chronic low back pain (CLBP) for use across Latin America. Methods: Published systematic reviews or practice guidelines were identified by a systematic search of PubMed, the Guidelines Clearinghouse, and Google. Articles were screened by an independent reviewer, and potential candidate guidelines were selected for more in-depth review. A shortlist of suitable guidelines was selected and critically evaluated by the CPLA advisory panel. Results: Searches identified 674 and 604 guideline articles for NP and CLBP, respectively. Of these, 14 guidelines were shortlisted for consensus consideration, with the following final selections made: "Recommendations for the pharmacological management of neuropathic pain from the Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group in 2015-pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis.""Diagnosis and treatment of low back pain: A joint clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society" (2007). Conclusions: The selected guidelines were endorsed by all members of the CPLA advisory board as the best fit for use across Latin America. In addition, regional considerations were discussed and recorded. We have included this expert local insight and advice to enhance the implementation of each guideline across all Latin American countries.

The role of tramadol in pain management in Latin America: a report by the Change Pain Latin America Advisory Panel.

OBJECTIVE: Change Pain Latin America (CPLA) was created to enhance chronic pain understanding and develop pain management improving strategies in this region. During its seventh meeting (August 2016), the main objective was to discuss tramadol's role in treating pain in Latin America. Furthermore, potential pain management consequences were considered, if tramadol was to become more stringently controlled. METHODS: Key topics discussed were: main indications for prescribing tramadol, its pharmacological characteristics, safety and tolerability, effects of restrictions on its availability and use, and consequent impact on pain care quality. RESULTS: The experts agreed that tramadol is used to treat a wide spectrum of non-oncological pain conditions (e.g. post-surgical, musculoskeletal, post-traumatic, neuropathic, fibromyalgia), as well as cancer pain. Its relevance when treating special patient groups (e.g. the elderly) is recognized. The main reasons for tramadol's high significance as a treatment option are: its broad efficacy, an inconspicuous safety profile and its availability, considering that access to strong analgesics - mainly controlled drugs (classical opioids) - is highly restricted in some countries. The CPLA also agreed that tramadol is well tolerated, without the safety issues associated with long-term nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use, with fewer opioid-like side effects than classical opioids and lower abuse risk. CONCLUSIONS: In Latin America, tramadol is a valuable and frequently used medication for treating moderate to severe pain. More stringent regulations would have significant impact on its availability, especially for outpatients. This could cause regression to older and frequently inadequate pain management methods, resulting in unnecessary suffering for many Latin American patients.

Use of Opioids in Latin America: The Need of an Evidence-Based Change.

OBJECTIVE: The subject of this publication has been focused on local considerations for facilitating regional best practice, including identifying and uniformly adopting the most relevant international guidelines on opioid use (OU) in chronic pain management. DESIGN AND SETTING: The Change Pain Latin America (CPLA) Advisory Panel conducted a comprehensive, robust, and critical analysis of published national and international reviews and guidelines of OU, considering those most appropriate for Latin America. METHODS: A PubMed search was conducted using the terms "opioid," "chronic," and "pain" and then refined using the filters "practice guidelines" and "within the last 5 years" (2007-2012). Once the publications were identified, they were selected using five key criteria: "Evidence based," "Comprehensive," "From a well-recognized source," "Current publications," and "Based on best practice" and then critically analyzed considering 10 key criteria for determining the most relevant guidelines to be applied in Latin America. RESULTS: The initial PubMed search identified 177 reviews and guidelines, which was reduced to 16 articles using the five preliminary criteria. After a secondary analysis according to the 10 key criteria specific to OU in Latin America, 10 publications were selected for critical review and discussion. CONCLUSIONS: The CPLA advisory panel considered the "Safe and effective use of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain" (published in 2010 by the NOUGG of Canada) to be valid, relevant to Latin America, practical, evidence-based, concise, unambiguous, and sufficiently educational to provide clear instruction on OU and pain management and, thus, recommended for uniform adoption across the Latin America region.

Medicina paliativa: una respuesta para el paciente con cáncer avanzado / Palliative medicine: an answer for patients with advanced stage cancer

El cáncer avanzado representa un desafío para los equipos de salud, considerando que epidemiológicamente el problema del cáncer muestra un crecimineto sostenido en el mundo. Esto crea una necesidad creciente de manejo de los problemas biofísicos y psicosociales asociados, bajo una forma integral e interdisciplinaria característica de la Medicina Paliativa. El control del dolor es el primer objetivo de este cuidado. Las recomendaciones de la OMS desde hace 20 años promueve el uso de una terapia en escalera de 3 peldaños combinando AINEs, opioides débiles o potentes y coadyuvantes. El uso de los opioides siempre ha estado obstaculizado por confusiones entre los conceptos de tolerancia, dependencia y adicción. Otros métodos intervencionales han aportado algunas alternativas para el control del dolor de los pacientes. Además del dolor los pacientes con cáncer avanzado experimentan muchos otros síntomas que requieren el enfoque integral de la Medicina Paliativa para intentar mejorar la calidad de vida. Actualmente existe suficiente evidencia científica y experiencia clínica para validar la Medicina paliativa en los programas de Cáncer de distintos países del mundo.

Advanced stage cancer represents a challenge for medical teams if we consider that from an epidemiologic perspective, the number of cancer patients has been increasing steadily all over the world. This lead to a greater need to manage the associated biophysical and psychosocial issues using the integral and multidisciplinary approach of Palliative Medicine. Pain control is the primary objective in the field of care. The HWO has been promoting for the last 20 yearsthe use of a three step therapy using a combination of AINEs, weak or strong opiates and soothing agents. The use of opiates has always encountered difficulties because the meaning of words such as tolerance, dependency and adiction has always been confused. Other intervention methods have provided some alternatives to pain control. In addition to pain cancer patients at an advanced stage have many other symptoms that require the integral approach of Palliative Medicine to improve the quality of their lives. There is at present enough scientific evidence and clinical experience to validate Palliative Medicine in Cancer programs in many countries of the world.

Effects of parenteral hydration in terminally ill cancer patients: a preliminary study.

PURPOSE: Most patients with cancer develop decreased oral intake and dehydration before death. This study aimed to determine the effect of parenteral hydration on overall symptom control in terminally ill cancer patients with dehydration. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with clinical evidence of mild to moderate dehydration and a liquid oral intake less than 1,000 mL/day were randomly assigned to receive either parenteral hydration with 1,000 mL (treatment group) or placebo with 100 mL normal saline administered over 4 hours for 2 days. Patients were evaluated for target symptoms (hallucinations, myoclonus, fatigue, and sedation), global well-being, and overall benefit. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients randomly assigned to the treatment group had improvement in 53 (73%) of their 73 target symptoms versus 33 (49%) of 67 target symptoms in the placebo group (n=22; P = .005). Fifteen (83%) of 18 and 15 (83%) of 18 patients had improved myoclonus and sedation after hydration versus eight (47%) of 17 and five (33%) of 15 patients after placebo (P = .035 and P = .005, respectively). There were no significant differences of improvement in hallucinations or fatigue between groups. When blinded to treatment, patients (17 [63%] of 77) and investigators (20 [74%] of 27) perceived hydration as effective compared with placebo in nine (41%) of 22 patients (P = .78) and 12 (54%) of 22 investigators (P = .15), respectively. The intensity of pain and swelling at the injection site were not significantly different between groups. CONCLUSION: Parenteral hydration decreased symptoms of dehydration in terminally ill cancer patients who had decreased fluid intake. Hydration was well tolerated, and a placebo effect was observed. Studies with larger samples and a longer follow-up period are justified.

Dexamethasone in addition to metoclopramide for chronic nausea in patients with advanced cancer: a randomized controlled trial.

Chronic nausea occurs in most patients with advanced cancer. This study was done to assess the antiemetic effects of dexamethasone in patients with chronic nausea refractory to metoclopramide. Secondary outcomes included appetite, fatigue, and pain. Fifty-one patients who had nausea (> or = 3/10 on a 0-10 scale) for > or = 2 weeks despite 48 hours of oral metoclopramide therapy (40-60 mg/day) were enrolled. Patients received 20 mg/day dexamethasone (DM) orally (n = 25) or placebo (n = 26) for severe nausea in addition to metoclopramide (60 mg/day orally). At baseline the mean nausea intensity ratings in the DM and placebo groups were 8.0 and 7.4. At Day 8 they were 2.1 and 2.0, respectively. At Day 3 and Day 8, the mean difference in nausea intensity for the DM and placebo groups was 4.5 and 2.9 (P = 0.16) and 5.9 and 5.7 (P = 0.85), respectively. Improvement in appetite and fatigue were observed on Day 3 and Day 8 in both groups as compared with the baseline. Pain, vomiting, well-being, and quality of life remained unchanged in both groups at both times. We conclude that DM was not superior to placebo in the management of chronic nausea in our patients with advanced cancer.

Methadone versus morphine as a first-line strong opioid for cancer pain: a randomized, double-blind study.

PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness and side effects of methadone and morphine as first-line treatment with opioids for cancer pain. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients in international palliative care clinics with pain requiring initiation of strong opioids were randomly assigned to receive methadone (7.5 mg orally every 12 hours and 5 mg every 4 hours as needed) or morphine (15 mg sustained release every 12 hours and 5 mg every 4 hours as needed). The study duration was 4 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 103 patients were randomly assigned to treatment (49 in the methadone group and 54 in the morphine group). The groups had similar baseline scores for pain, sedation, nausea, confusion, and constipation. Patients receiving methadone had more opioid-related drop-outs (11 of 49; 22%) than those receiving morphine (three of 54; 6%; P =.019). The opioid escalation index at days 14 and 28 was similar between the two groups. More than three fourths of patients in each group reported a 20% or more reduction in pain intensity by day 8. The proportion of patients with a 20% or more improvement in pain at 4 weeks in the methadone group was 0.49 (95% CI, 0.34 to 0.64) and was similar in the morphine group (0.56; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.70). The rates of patient-reported global benefit were nearly identical to the pain response rates and did not differ between the treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Methadone did not produce superior analgesic efficiency or overall tolerability at 4 weeks compared with morphine as a first-line strong opioid for the treatment of cancer pain.