Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Edoardo Arcuri

Publications and source records attributed to Edoardo Arcuri.

17 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Opioids in pain management of blood-related malignancies.

Opioids are basic analgesics used in the treatment of moderate to severe pain in patients affected by blood-related malignancies. They should be sequentially administered according to the World Health Organisation scale for cancer pain. Initial treatment and titration with opioids should be based on immediate-release preparations, to be administered at appropriate intervals in order to relieve pain and to satisfy the individual opioid requirement. Once a relatively good pain control has been achieved, a slow release formulation at equivalent doses can be given. Most patients can be adequately managed using oral formulation opioids. However, a small group, such as those presenting severe mucositis or requiring a rapid pain relief, should be managed by intravenous continuous infusion and/or by a patient-controlled analgesia system; while for patients in the community, there are distinct advantages to using the subcutaneous route. Other available routes of administration for opioids, can be used in selected circumstances, including rectal, transdermal, epidural, intrathecal and intramuscular. The invasive neuraxial route has a very limited role in patients with haematological malignancies, given the high risk of infection and bleeding. Through a close observation and a careful management, opioid-related side effects can be effectively prevented and treated. This article reviews the principles of opioid therapy and how opioids can be adapted for patients with pain due to haematological malignancies.

Analgesia, Patient-Controlled↗
PubMed2006

Low morphine doses in opioid-naive cancer patients with pain.

Cancer pain can be managed in most patients through the use of the analgesic ladder proposed by the World Health Organization. Recent studies have proposed to skip the second "rung" of the ladder by using a so-called "strong" opioid for moderate pain. However, usual doses of strong opioids commonly prescribed for the third rung of the analgesic ladder may pose several problems in terms of tolerability in opioid-naive patients. The aim of this multicenter study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of very low doses of morphine in advanced cancer patients no longer responsive to nonopioid analgesics. A sample of 110 consecutive opioid-naive patients with moderate-to-severe pain were given oral morphine at a starting dose of 15 mg/day (10 mg in those older than 70 years). Doses were then titrated according to the clinical situation. Pain intensity, morphine doses, symptom intensity, quality of life, and the requirement for dose escalation were monitored for a period of 4 weeks. The treatment was effective and well tolerated by most patients, who were able to maintain relatively low doses for the subsequent weeks (mean dose 45 mg at Week 4). Only 12 patients dropped out due to poor response or other reasons. The use of very low doses of morphine proved to be a reliable method in titrating opioid-naive advanced cancer patients who were also able to maintain their dose, in a 4-week period, below the dose level commonly used when prescribing strong opioids.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Randomized double-blind, double-dummy crossover clinical trial of oral tramadol versus rectal tramadol administration in opioid-naive cancer patients with pain.

Tramadol is commonly used as second step drug of the analgesic ladder. In circumstances where the oral route is unavailable, rectal administration of opioids might be a simple alternative. The aim of this study was to compare the analgesic activity and tolerability of tramadol by oral and rectal administration in a double-blind, double-dummy crossover trial. The study included 60 cancer patients with cancer pain no longer responsive to non-opioid drugs. Each patient initially received oral tramadol 50 mg (drops), followed by tramadol sustained release 100 mg orally, and placebo rectally, or tramadol 100 mg rectally and placebo orally, twice a day, in a randomized sequence, on each of 3 days. Patients were allowed to take 50 mg of oral tramadol by drops as needed (four doses per day, to a maximum of 400 mg/day, including the basal dose given by the oral or rectal route). Pain intensity and relief and symptom scores were recorded every day and at the end of each phase of the crossover. The mean age of the patients was 66.1 years (SD 13.5 years); 36 were female, and 44 completed both periods. Patients dropped out due to adverse effects (15 patients) and refusal (1 patient). No differences in the use of rescue dose of oral tramadol were observed between the groups. No differences in pain intensity and relief scores, or in other symptoms between the two treatments were observed. No differences in treatment efficacy as judged by the clinician (P=0.73), in patient compliance (P=0.35), or in patient satisfaction regarding treatment (P<0.35) were found. No differences in adverse effects were found between the two treatments (25.5%, 13 patients, and 20.4%, 11 patients, with oral and rectal treatment, respectively). The proportion of preferences favored oral administration for both physicians (P=0.0002) and patients (P=0.002). Rectal administration of tramadol appears a reliable, noninvasive alternative method of pain control for patients no longer responsive to non-opioid analgesics, unable to take oral tramadol.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed2005

Alternative treatments of breakthrough pain in patients receiving spinal analgesics for cancer pain.

Patients who experience a poor response to different systemic opioid trials (oral and intravenous) are candidates for spinal treatment. Breakthrough pain occurring in this group of patients is challenging for physicians. This phenomenon has never been described in this context and the treatment is quite difficult, as patients already demonstrated a poor response to systemic opioids. We report a preliminary experience of alternative methods, including the intrathecal injection of local anesthetic boluses as needed, or alternatively, the use of sublingual ketamine. Twelve consecutive patients with advanced cancer and pain were selected for intrathecal treatment after receiving different trials with systemic opioids. During intrathecal therapy, pain flares not responding to high doses of intravenous morphine were treated with intrathecal boluses of local anesthetics titrated to achieve the best balance between analgesia and adverse effects, or with sublingual ketamine (25 mg), according to their preference. Pain and symptoms were recorded for each episode of breakthrough pain during hospital admission. Effective pain control was achieved in all the episodes treated within 10 minutes with either method, without relevant complications. A mean volume of 0.6 mL of levobupivacaine (LB) 0.25% (1.5 mg) was effective within a few minutes and was well tolerated in patients receiving a continuous intrathecal infusion of a combination of morphine and LB in different doses. Similarly, ketamine in doses of 25 mg sublingually was effective and relatively well tolerated. Despite the difficult clinical situation of these patients, these approaches controlled almost all breakthrough pain events previously unresponsive to relatively high doses of intravenous opioids. These intensive treatments should be reserved for a very selected population and initiated in an appropriate setting with frequent monitoring facilities and skilled nursing.

Administration, Sublingual↗
PubMed2004

Gabapentin for neuropathic cancer pain: a randomized controlled trial from the Gabapentin Cancer Pain Study Group.

PURPOSE: To determine the analgesic effect of the addition of gabapentin to opioids in the management of neuropathic cancer pain. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred twenty-one consecutive patients with neuropathic pain due to cancer, partially controlled with systemic opioids, participated in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-design, 10-day trial from August 1999 to May 2002. Gabapentin was titrated from 600 mg/d to 1,800 mg/d in addition to stable opioid dose. Extra opioid doses were available as needed. Zero to 10 numerical scale was used to rate average daily pain. The average pain score over the whole follow-up period was used as main outcome measure. Secondary outcome measures were: intensity of burning pain, shooting/lancinating pain, dysesthesias (also scored on 0 to 10 numerical scale), number of daily episodes of lancinating pain, presence of allodynia, and daily extra doses of opioid analgesics. RESULTS: Overall, 79 patients received gabapentin and 58 (73%) completed the study; 41 patients received placebo and 31 (76%) completed the study. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) on the intent-to-treat population showed a significant difference of average pain intensity between gabapentin (pain score, 4.6) and placebo group (pain score, 5.4; P =.0250). Among secondary outcome measures, dysesthesia score showed a statistically significant difference (P =.0077; ANCOVA on modified intent-to-treat population = 115 patients with at least 3 days of pain assessments). Reasons for withdrawing patients from the trial were adverse events in six patients (7.6%) receiving gabapentin and in three patients receiving placebo (7.3%). CONCLUSION: Gabapentin is effective in improving analgesia in patients with neuropathic cancer pain already treated with opioids.

Acetates↗
PubMed2004

Opioids and renal function.

UNLABELLED: Opioids, both endogenous and exogenous, have a strong influence on the renal function through different mechanisms, producing changes in the renal excretion of water and sodium. Several studies have demonstrated that opioids influence renal function, according to the agonist profile used. Mu, kappa, and delta agonists produce different renal effects, although the mechanisms remain unclear. Experimental data have given the input for a possible therapeutic role of kappa agonists for some specific conditions, for example, in treating water retention or hyponatremia occurring in patients who have hepatic cirrhosis with ascites. On the other hand, changes in renal function might strongly condition the use of opioids in the clinical setting, and the knowledge of the relationship between opioids and renal function is mandatory for a tailored approach to accommodate the individual responses in terms of pain intensity, tolerance, and adverse effects experienced by these groups of patients. The influence of renal function when using different opioids in the clinical setting is reviewed, as well as problems related to transplantation, renal damage induced by opioid addiction, and problems related to the use of opioid antagonists in such conditions. PERSPECTIVE: Endogenous opioids exert physiologic effects on renal function, and the use of opioids may have an influence on renal activity. Renal impairment has a serious impact on the clearance of most opioids used in the clinical setting. Biochemical and clinical monitoring is mandatory to prevent serious complications.

Analgesics, Opioid↗
PubMed2004

Pain syndromes in haematological malignancies: an overview.

Several pain syndromes, which may be related to the diagnostic procedures, to the treatments, or to disease itself, may be recorded during the disease course of most haematological malignancies. So far, the painful complication occurring in this setting has been poorly investigated. Pain arising from skeletal and bone marrow (BM) involvement represents the most frequent disease-related painful states observed in this setting, while patients undergoing treatments with curative intent, such as BM transplantation, usually experienced painful stomatitis. Additionally, more than one pathologic process may coexist simultaneously in one patient and the pathophysiology of pain and hypersensitivity may change over time. An accurate diagnostic assessment and the identification of the underlying pathogenetic mechanism may dictate the treatment approach. For most patients in pain, the World Health Organisation's three-step analgesic scale provides adequate relief with oral options. Pain left unrelieved may induce an aberrant peripheral activity and central functional alterations, generating chronic neuropathic pain. In the aim to summarize the current knowledge on this topic, the pertinent literature and the current guidelines for the pain management were reviewed by a group of haematologists, experienced in palliative care and by a skilled algologist, involved as consultant in this clinical setting.

Analgesia↗
PubMed2003

Long-term central venous catheterization via persistent left superior vena cava: a case report.

We report a case of a cancer patient who displayed a persistent left superior vena cava (PLSVC) after implantation of a central venous catheter (Port-a-Cath), as revealed by angiography. This anomaly is rather rare (0.3% of healthy individuals), and the few studies on the long-term maintenance of an implant in situ are not very informative. Nevertheless, based on the acceptable venous caliber and the patient's serious clinical situation, we decided to leave the catheter in place and perform infusional chemotherapy and supportive therapy with careful and continuous control. The patient died after 8 months of this therapy. No complications attributable to the catheter were observed. We think that the risk is acceptable in similar conditions.

Antineoplastic Agents↗
PubMed2003

Celiac plexus block for pancreatic cancer pain: factors influencing pain, symptoms and quality of life.

Neurolytic celiac plexus block (NCPB) is claimed to be an effective method of pain control for pancreatic cancer pain. However, the factors that may influence long-term analgesia, adverse effects, and quality of life after performing NCPB have never been determined. In a prospective multicenter study, 22 patients who underwent NCPB were followed until death. Numerous parameters other than pain and symptom intensity were evaluated, including age, gender, initial site of cancer, sites of pain, possible peritoneal involvement, technique, and oncologic interventions. Indices were calculated to determine the opioid consumption ratio (EAS) and the trend of opioid escalation (OEI). NCPB was effective in reducing opioid consumption and gastrointestinal adverse effects for at least 4 weeks. In the last four weeks prior to death, there was the typical trend of increasing symptom intensity common to the terminal cancer population. None of the factors studied influenced the analgesic effectiveness of NPCB. NPCB, performed by skilled clinicians, regardless of the technique chosen, is a safe and useful means that should be considered as an adjuvant to common analgesic regimens at any stage, as it may allow the reduction of the visceral component of pancreatic pain that may prevail in certain phases of the illness. The analgesic and symptomatic effect of NCPB is presumably advantageous for about four weeks. A possible factor interfering with long-term outcome includes the capacity of cancer to involve the celiac axis, which can distort the anatomy and prevent neurolytic spread, or modify the pain mechanisms. Outcomes are strongly based on individual variation.

Analgesics, Opioid↗
PubMed2003

Hyperalgesia: an emerging iatrogenic syndrome.

Clinical reports suggest that opioids, intended to abolish pain, can unexpectedly produce hyperalgesia. This paradoxical effect may be mechanistically related to tolerance induced by increasing doses of opioids. Two case reports illustrate a syndrome characterized by increasing pain pursued by escalating opioid doses, which results in a worsening of the clinical picture. Several experimental data may help explain the course of this challenging clinical condition. In escalating opioid doses rapidly, a risk of opioid-induced hyperalgesia should be recognized, as higher doses of opioids may stimulate rather than inhibit the central nervous system by different mechanisms. Alternative procedures should be taken into consideration to break this cycle, should it occur. More data are needed to detect this condition, as currently no diagnostic information on specific markers, clinical or biochemical, exists.

Analgesics, Opioid↗
PubMed2002

[A project for a hospital without pain].

The hospital has often been a place where converging bureaucracy, badly constructed buildings and medical disattention constituted a fertile ground for a growingly inattentive and dehumanising medicine. In Italy the D. M. 20/9/2000 points the attention on the managing of pain in the hospital. It is a radical renewal of the attitude towards pain, involving professional categories working in the hospital, patients and healthy population.

History, 20th Century↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Amitriptyline in neuropathic cancer pain in patients on morphine therapy: a randomized placebo-controlled, double-blind crossover study.

AIMS AND BACKGROUND: Amitriptyline is the most common analgesic adjuvant used in cancer patients with neuropathic pain, even though no specific studies have demonstrated a benefit. A randomized placebo-controlled, double-blind crossover study was designed to evidence the effects of amitriptyline in patients with neuropathic cancer pain. METHODS: Sixteen advanced cancer patients with neuropathic pain on systemic morphine therapy, no longer receiving oncologic treatment, presenting moderate pain (about 4 or more, but less than 7, on a numerical scale of 0-10) in the last week, and given a stable morphine dose in the last 2 days were admitted to the study. During the first week of study, patients were administered 25 mg of amitriptyline or equivalent drops of placebo at night for 3 days and 50 mg for the following 4 days. Doses for patients aged more than 65 years were 15 mg (first 3 days) and 30 mg (3 days after). After a week, a crossover took place for the second week, with the other treatment at an inverse sequence. Opioid consumption, pain intensity, symptoms and adverse effects, mood, sleep, patient's preference, quality of life before starting the study, the first week after and the second week after were recorded. RESULTS: No significant benefits in analgesia were found in the global pain intensity of the previous week of treatment, the least pain intensity or the pain evaluated just after a week of treatment, at the moment of the visit, when amitriptyline was compared with placebo. A significant difference was evidenced for the worst pain (P < 0.035). No differences in opioid doses during the period of study were found. Drowsiness, confusion and dry mouth were significantly more intense with amitriptyline than with placebo (P < 0.036, 0.003, and 0.034, respectively). There were no substantial differences between the two treatments in Spitzer's quality of life score and for each item. No differences in patients' preference for the two treatment periods were found. The analgesic effects of amitriptyline were slight and associated with adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: In light of the results obtained in the study, the extensive use of the drug for cancer pain should be questioned.

Aged↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Hyperalgesia and opioid switching.

Opioids, intended to abolish pain, can unexpectedly produce hyperalgesia, particularly during rapid opioid escalation. Opioid switching could be a therapeutic option in a condition of opioid-induced tolerance or hyperalgesia, but conversion ratios between opioids are difficult to apply in this context and require strict surveillance and expertise. This situation is challenging, because the rapid escalation of opioid doses, possibly due to the development of opioid-induced tolerance, can cause hyperalgesia. To avoid this adverse effect, clinicians need to refine their assessment of pain treatment and consider opioid switching. The authors present a case report in which switching from fentanyl to methadone was effective in a patient who developed hyperalgesia as a consequence of a rapid opioid escalation. Regardless of the expected clinical improvement of opioid switching using lower doses of the second opioid, the final dose of the second opioid was exaggeratedly low, probably as a consequence of the disappearance of hyperalgesia induced by the first opioid. The results of this case and others like it may help practitioners develop a meaningful approach during opioid escalation, possibly anticipating the need for opioid switching or other alternative measures for patients with uncontrolled cancer pain.

Analgesics, Opioid↗