AIM: To investigate the attitudes and perceptions of morphine use in cancer pain in advanced cancer patients and their caregivers and to examine the influence of caregivers' attitudes and perceptions on patients' acceptance of morphine.
DESIGN: Qualitative study involving semi-structured individual interviews transcribed verbatim and analyzed thematically.
SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: A total of 18 adult opioid-naïve patients with advanced cancer and 13 caregivers (n = 31) were recruited at a private tertiary hospital via convenience sampling.
RESULTS: Attitudes and perceptions of morphine were influenced by previous experiences. Prevalent themes were similar in both groups, including perceptions that morphine was a strong analgesic that reduced suffering, but associated with end-stage illness and dependence. Most participants were open to future morphine use for comfort and effective pain control. Trust in doctors' recommendations was also an important factor. However, many preferred morphine as a last resort because of concerns about side effects and dependence, and the perception that morphine was only used at the terminal stage. Caregivers' attitudes toward morphine did not affect patients' acceptance of morphine use.
CONCLUSION: Most participants were open to future morphine use despite negative perceptions as they prioritized optimal pain control and reduction of suffering. Focused education programs addressing morphine misperceptions might increase patient and caregiver acceptance of opioid analgesics and improve cancer pain control.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six electronic databases (Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, CINHAL, CENTRAL, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts) reference lists of retrieved articles and relevant websites were searched for randomized controlled trials published in the English language involving adults with chronic pain. Studies were included if one of the intervention arms had received pharmacist-led medication review independently or as part of a multidisciplinary intervention. Risk of bias was assessed for all the included studies.
RESULTS: The search strategy yielded 583 unique articles including 5 randomized controlled trials. Compared with control, meta-analysis showed that participants in the intervention group had: a 0.8-point reduction in pain intensity on a 0 to 10 numerical rating scale at 3 months [95% confidence interval (CI), -1.28 to -0.36] and a 0.7-point reduction (95% CI, -1.19 to -0.20) at 6 months; a 4.84 point (95% CI, -7.38 to -2.29) and -3.82 point (95% CI, -6.49 to -1.14) improvement in physical functioning on a 0- to 68-point function subscale of Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index at 3 and 6 months, respectively; and a significant improvement in patient satisfaction equivalent to a "small to moderate effect."
DISCUSSION: Pharmacist-led medication review reduces pain intensity and improves physical functioning and patient satisfaction. However, the clinical significance of these findings remain uncertain due to small effect size and nature of reported data within clinical trials that limits recommendation of wider clinical role of pharmacist in chronic pain management.
METHOD: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1996 to Feb 2019) and MEDLINE (1966 to Feb 2019) were searched, including the related randomised control trials and reviewed articles to find unpublished trials or trials not obtained via electronic searches. Inclusion criteria for the studies included comparing recovery time, recording clinician satisfaction, and assessing the adverse effects of ketofol.
RESULTS: Eleven trials consisting of a total of 1274 patients met our criteria and were included in this meta-analysis. Five trials compared ketofol with a single agent, while six trials compared ketofol with combined agents. While comparing between ketofol and a single agent (either ketamine or propofol), ketofol showed significant effect on recovery time (MD: -9.88, 95% CI: - 14.30 to - 5.46; P = 0.0003; I2 = 92%). However, no significant difference was observed while comparing ketofol with combined agents (RR: 0.75, 95% CI: - 6.24 to 7.74; P < 0.001; I2 = 98%). During single-agent comparison, ketofol showed no significant differences in terms of clinician satisfaction (RR: 2.86, 95% CI: 0.64 to 12.69; P = 0.001; I2 = 90%), airway obstruction (RR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.35 to 11.48; P = 0.81; I2 = 0%), apnoea (RR: 0.9, 95% CI: 0.33 to 2.44; P = 0.88; I2 = 0%), desaturation (RR: 1.11, 95% CI: 0.64 to 1.94; P = 0.28; I2 = 21%), nausea (RR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.91 to 1.41; P = 0.2; I2 = 38%), and vomiting (RR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.25 to 1.61; P = 0.18; I2 = 42%). During comparison with combined agents, ketofol was more effective in reducing hypotension (RR: 4.2, 95% CI: 0.2 to 0.85; P = 0.76; I2 = 0%), but no differences were observed in terms of bradycardia (RR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.14 to 03.63; P = 0.09; I2 = 53%), desaturation (RR: 1.9, 95% CI: 0.15 to 23.6; P = 0.11; I2 = 61%), and respiratory depression (RR: 1.98, 95% CI: 0.18 to 21.94; P = 0.12; I2 = 59%).
CONCLUSION: There is low certainty of evidence that ketofol improves recovery time and moderate certainty of evidence that it reduces the frequency of hypotension. There was no significant difference in terms of other adverse effects when compared to other either single or combined agents.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019127278 .
DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional survey was carried out in rural and urban areas in a state in Malaysia. Secondary schools were randomly selected and used as sampling units.
PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged ≥18 years old were invited to answer a self-administered questionnaire on pain experienced over the previous 6 months. Out of 9300 questionnaires distributed, 5206 were returned and 150 participants who did not fall into the 3 ethnic groups were excluded, yielding a total of 5056 questionnaires for analysis. 58.2% (n=2926) were women. 50% (n=2512) were Malays, 41.4% (n=2079) were Chinese and 8.6% (n=434) were Indians.
RESULTS: 21.1% (n=1069) had knee pain during the previous 6 months. More Indians (31.8%) experienced knee pain compared with Malays (24.3%) and Chinese (15%) (p<0.001). The odds of Indian women reporting knee pain was twofold higher compared with Malay women. There was a rising trend in the prevalence of knee pain with increasing age (p<0.001). The association between age and knee pain appeared to be stronger in women than men. 68.1% of Indians used analgesia for knee pain while 75.4% of Malays and 52.1% of Chinese did so (p<0.001). The most common analgesic used for knee pain across all groups was topical medicated oil (43.7%).
CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of knee pain in adults was more common in Indian women and older women age groups and Chinese men had the lowest prevalence of knee pain. Further studies should investigate the reasons for these differences.
METHODS: We recruited 33 (age range from 21 to 72 years) adult patients with a body mass index of 30 kg/m2 and above, who were scheduled for non-cardiac surgeries. Intravenous oxycodone was administered after induction of general anesthesia and blood samples were collected up to 24 h after oxycodone administration. Plasma concentrations of oxycodone were assayed using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry and 253 concentration-time points were used for pharmacokinetic analysis using nonlinear mixed-effects modeling.
RESULTS: Intravenous oxycodone pharmacokinetics were well described by a two-compartment open model. The estimated total clearance and central volume of distribution of oxycodone are 28.5 l/h per 70 kg and 56.4 l per 70 kg, respectively. Total body weight was identified as a significant covariate of the clearance and central volume of distribution. Dosing simulations based on the final model demonstrate that a starting dose of 0.10 mg/kg of intravenous oxycodone is adequate to achieve a target plasma concentration and repeated doses of 0.02 mg/kg may be administered at 1.5-h intervals to maintain a plasma concentration within an effective analgesic range.
CONCLUSIONS: A population pharmacokinetic model using total body weight as a covariate supports the administration of 0.10 mg/kg of intravenous oxycodone as a starting dose and repeated doses of 0.02 mg/kg at 1.5-h intervals to maintain targeted plasma concentrations for analgesia in the obese adult population.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled prospective study, we enrolled 40 children undergoing tonsillectomy. Anesthetic care was standardized. Intraoperative analgesia was provided with remifentanil 0.5 microg x kg(-1) followed by an infusion of 0.25 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1). Group I (ketamine, n = 20) received a bolus dose of ketamine 0.5 mg x kg(-1) followed by a continuous infusion of 2 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1) before start of surgery. The infusion was stopped when surgery ended. Group II (placebo, n=20) received normal saline in the same manner. Pain was assessed postoperatively using the Children's Hospital Eastern Ontario Pain Scale (CHEOPS; range of scores 4 13), and total morphine consumption was recorded in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU). Patients were transferred to the ward and morphine was administered via a patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) device and analgesia was recorded using a visual analogue scale (VAS) (0 - 10).
RESULTS: Intraoperative remifentanil consumption was not different between the ketamine group (0.29+/-0.09 microg x kg x min(-1) ) and the control group (0.24+/-0.07 microg x kg x min(-1)). There were no significant differences between CHEOPS scores and VAS score between the two groups. The total mean morphine consumption in the ward was not significantly different between the two groups: 376.5 +/-91.6 microg x kg(-1) with ketamine and 384.4+/-97.3 microg x kg(-1) with placebo. The time-to-first analgesic requirement was also similar in both groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Small-dose ketamine did not decrease postoperative pain after tonsillectomy in children when added to a continuous intraoperative remifentanil infusion.
AIMS: To investigate the effect of intraperitoneal administration of ondansetron for postoperative pain management as an adjuvant to intravenous acetaminophen in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
METHODS: Patients scheduled for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomized into two groups (n = 25 each) to receive either intraperitoneal ondansetron or saline injected in the gall bladder bed at the end of the procedure. The primary outcome was the difference in pain from baseline to 24-h post-operative assessed by comparing the area under the curve of visual analog score between the two groups.
RESULTS: The derived area under response curve of visual analog scores in the ondansetron group (735.8 ± 418.3) was 33.97% lower than (p = 0.005) that calculated for the control group (1114.4 ± 423.9). The need for rescue analgesia was significantly lower in the ondansetron (16%) versus in the control group (54.17%) (p = 0.005), indicating better pain control. The correlation between the time for unassisted mobilization and the area under response curve of visual analog scores signified the positive analgesic influence of ondansetron (rs =0.315, p = 0.028). The frequency of nausea and vomiting was significantly lower in patients who received ondansetron than that reported in the control group (p = 0.023 (8 h), and 0.016 (24 h) respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: The added positive impact of ondansetron on postoperative pain control alongside its anti-emetic effect made it a unique novel option for patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.