Comparison of the antinociceptive profiles of morphine and oxycodone in two models of inflammatory and osteoarthritic pain in rat.

Oxycodone and morphine are two opioid drugs commonly used for the treatment of moderate to severe pain. However, their use in the management of noncancer pain remains a controversial issue and, in this respect, the evidence on their effectiveness and safety, particularly in osteoarthritis, is being questioned. In order to analyse their analgesic profile, two different pain models in rats were used: the formalin-induced inflammatory pain and the monosodium iodoacetate (MIA)-induced knee osteoarthritic pain. Drugs were administered systemically (i.p.) and their antinociceptive effect and potency were assessed. In the formalin test, both morphine and oxycodone produced a dose-dependent antinociceptive effect, but oxycodone outdid morphine in terms of effectiveness and potency (nearly two times) in the early (acute nociceptive) as in the late phase (inflammatory). In the osteoarthritis model, both drugs reduced movement-evoked pain (knee-bend test), mechanical allodynia (von Frey test) and heat hyperalgesia (Plantar test). Pretreatment with naloxone and naloxone methiodide reduced morphine and oxycodone effects. Peripheral mu-opioid receptors play a crucial role in the antinociceptive effect of both drugs on movement-evoked pain and heat hyperalgesia, but not on tactile allodynia. The main finding of our study is that oxycodone has a better antinociceptive profile in the inflammatory and osteoarthritic pain, being more effective than morphine at 14 days post-MIA injection (phase with neuropathic pain); it overcame the morphine effect by improving the movement-induced pain, tactile allodynia and heat hyperalgesia. Therefore, oxycodone could be an interesting option to treat patients suffering from knee osteoarthritis when opioids are required.

A survey of perceptions, attitudes, knowledge and practices of medical oncologists about cancer pain management in Spain

Purpose: To monitor oncologists’ perspective on cancer pain management. Methods: An anonymized survey was conducted in two waves. First, over a convenience sample of oncologists known to be particularly concerned with the management of pain. Second, using a random sample of oncologists. Results: In total, 73 and 82 oncologists participated in the first and second wave, respectively. Many oncologists reported to have good knowledge of analgesic drugs (95.9%), the mechanism of action of opioids (79.5%), and good skills to manage opioid-related bowel dysfunction (76.7%). Appropriate adjustment of background medication to manage breakthrough pain was reported by 95.5% of oncologists. Additionally, 87.7% (68.3% in the second wave, p = 0.035) of oncologists reported suitable opioid titration practices, and 90.4% reported to use co-adjuvant medications for neuropathic pain confidently. On the other hand, just 9.6% of oncologists participated in multidisciplinary pain management teams, and merely 30.3 and 27.1% reported to routinely collaborate with the Pain Clinics or involve other staff, respectively. Only 26.4% of the oncologists of the second wave gave priority to pain pathophysiology to decide therapies, and up to 75.6% reported difficulties in treating neuropathic pain. Significantly less oncologists of the second wave (82.9 vs. 94.5%, p = 0.001) used opioid rotation routinely. Conclusions: Unlike in previous surveys, medical oncologists reported in general good knowledge and few perceived limitations and barriers for pain management. However, multi-disciplinary management and collaboration with other specialists are still uncommon. Oncologists’ commitment to optimize pain management seems important to improve and maintain good practices

No disponible

A survey of perceptions, attitudes, knowledge and practices of medical oncologists about cancer pain management in Spain.

PURPOSE: To monitor oncologists' perspective on cancer pain management. METHODS: An anonymized survey was conducted in two waves. First, over a convenience sample of oncologists known to be particularly concerned with the management of pain. Second, using a random sample of oncologists. RESULTS: In total, 73 and 82 oncologists participated in the first and second wave, respectively. Many oncologists reported to have good knowledge of analgesic drugs (95.9%), the mechanism of action of opioids (79.5%), and good skills to manage opioid-related bowel dysfunction (76.7%). Appropriate adjustment of background medication to manage breakthrough pain was reported by 95.5% of oncologists. Additionally, 87.7% (68.3% in the second wave, p = 0.035) of oncologists reported suitable opioid titration practices, and 90.4% reported to use co-adjuvant medications for neuropathic pain confidently. On the other hand, just 9.6% of oncologists participated in multidisciplinary pain management teams, and merely 30.3 and 27.1% reported to routinely collaborate with the Pain Clinics or involve other staff, respectively. Only 26.4% of the oncologists of the second wave gave priority to pain pathophysiology to decide therapies, and up to 75.6% reported difficulties in treating neuropathic pain. Significantly less oncologists of the second wave (82.9 vs. 94.5%, p = 0.001) used opioid rotation routinely. CONCLUSIONS: Unlike in previous surveys, medical oncologists reported in general good knowledge and few perceived limitations and barriers for pain management. However, multi-disciplinary management and collaboration with other specialists are still uncommon. Oncologists' commitment to optimize pain management seems important to improve and maintain good practices.

An exploratory, large-scale study of pain and quality of life outcomes in cancer patients with moderate or severe pain, and variables predicting improvement.

BACKGROUND: There have been few large-scale, real world studies in Spain to assess change in pain and quality of life (QOL) outcomes in cancer patients with moderate to severe pain. This study aimed to assess changes on both outcomes after 3 months of usual care and to investigate factors associated with change in QoL. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Large, multi-centre, observational study in patients with lung, head and neck, colorectal or breast cancer experiencing a first episode of moderate to severe pain while attending one of the participating centres. QoL was assessed using the EuroQol-5D questionnaire and pain using the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI). Instruments were administered at baseline and after 3 months of follow up. Multivariate analyses were used to assess the impact of treatment factors, demographic and clinical variables, pain and other symptoms on QoL scores. RESULTS: 1711 patients were included for analysis. After 3 months of usual care, a significant improvement was observed in pain and QoL in all four cancer groups (p<0.001). Effect sizes were medium to large on the BPI and EQ-5D Index and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Improvements were seen on the majority of EQ-5D dimensions in all patient groups, though breast cancer patients showed the largest gains. Poorer baseline performance status (ECOG) and the presence of anxiety/depression were associated with significantly poorer QOL outcomes. Improvements in BPI pain scores were associated with improved QoL. CONCLUSION: In the four cancer types studied, pain and QoL outcomes improved considerably after 3 months of usual care. Improvements in pain made a substantial contribution to QoL gains whilst the presence of anxiety and depression and poor baseline performance status significantly constrained improvement.

Prevalence of Burnout Among Pain Medicine Physicians and Its Potential Effect upon Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Oncologic Pain or Chronic Pain of Nononcologic Origin.

Objective: To evaluate the prevalence of burnout among physicians treating patients with chronic pain and to assess the potential relationships between the presence of burnout and patients' clinical outcomes such as pain relief, satisfaction with pain control, and quality of life. Design: An observational, prospective, and noncomparative study. Setting: Pain medicine clinics. Subjects: Physicians from medical departments involved in the management of chronic pain. Patients aged ≥18 years who exhibited moderate chronic pain lasting at least three months. Methods: Physicians were evaluated with the Maslach Burnout Inventory-Human Services Survey (MBI-HSS). Patients were evaluated with the Charlson Comorbidity Index, the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-SF), the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D), and ad hoc instruments for evaluating satisfaction with pain control, the extent to which the treatment met patients' expectations, and subjective impressions of improvement. Results: Of the 301 physician participants, 22 (7.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.9 to 10.8) met the criteria of burnout. Burnout was higher among physicians from pain units, while none of the 35 primary care physicians reported burnout. The presence of burnout was positively associated with patients' pain relief (odds ratio [OR] = 1.423, 95% CI = 1.090 to 1.858) but not with satisfaction with pain control or quality of life. Of the remaining independent variables, being treated by pain unit physicians was significantly associated with worse pain relief (OR = 0.592, 95% CI = 0.507 to 0.691), lower satisfaction (ß = -0.680, 95% CI = -0.834 to -0.525), and worse quality of life (ß = -4.047, 95% CI = -5.509 to -2.585) compared with being treated by physicians from other specialties (e.g., traumatologists, oncologists, etc.). Conclusions: Our study shows a lack of negative or clinically relevant (as shown by the negligible to small effect sizes) impact of burnout on patient-reported outcomes (namely, pain relief, satisfaction, and quality of life) in patients with chronic pain who are treated by pain medicine physicians.