4.4 Article

Current management of breakthrough cancer pain according to physicians from pain units in Spain

期刊

CLINICAL & TRANSLATIONAL ONCOLOGY
卷 21, 期 9, 页码 1168-1176

出版社

SPRINGER INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHING AG
DOI: 10.1007/s12094-019-02044-8

关键词

Breakthrough cancer pain; Pain units; Consensus; Opioids

类别

资金

  1. Grupo de trabajo de dolor oncologico of the SED (Sociedad Espanola de Dolor)
  2. Takeda pharmaceutics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PurposeCurrent evidence suggests the need to improve the management of breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP). For this reason, we aimed to assess the opinion of a panel of experts composed exclusively of physicians from pain units, who play a major role in BTcP diagnosis and treatment, regarding the key aspects of BTcP management.MethodsAn ad hoc questionnaire was developed to collect real-world data on the management of BTcP. The questionnaire had 5 parts: (a) organizational aspects of pain units (n=12), (b) definition and diagnosis (n=3), (c) screening (n=3), (d) treatment (n=8), and (e) follow-up (n=7).ResultsA total of 89 pain-unit physicians from 13 different Spanish regions were polled. Most of them agreed on the traditional definition of BTcP (78.9%) and the key features of BTcP (92.1%). However, only 30.3% of participants used the Davies' algorithm for BTcP diagnosis. Respondents preferred to prescribe rapid-onset opioids [mean 77.0% (SD 26.7%)], and most recommended transmucosal fentanyl formulations as the first option for BTcP. There was also considerable agreement (77.5%) on the need for early follow-up (48-72h) after treatment initiation. Finally, 65.2% of participants believed that more than 10% of their patients underused rapid-onset opioids.ConclusionsThere was broad agreement among pain experts on many important areas of BTcP management, except for the diagnostic method. Pain-unit physicians suggest that rapid-onset opioids may be underused by BTcP patients in Spain, an important issue that need to be evaluated in future studies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据