Jackson, K., Ashby, M., Howell, D., Petersen, J., Brumley, D., Good, P., … Woodruff, R. (2010). The effectiveness and adverse effects profile of \"burst\" ketamine in refractory cancer pain: The VCOG PM 1-00 study. Journal of Palliative Care, 26(3), 176-183.
To assess the efficacy and adverse effects of a ketamine burst protocol for pain relief in patients with refractory pain
Patients received IV ketamine at three dose levels (100, 300, and 500 mg per 24 hours) over 3–5 days in inpatient palliative care settings. All other medications remained, and benzodiazepines or haloperidol could be used to minimize adverse psychotomimetic events. Maintenance doses of 24 opioids and breakthrough pain opioid dosing could be reduced as appropriate for pain control. Data were collected on pain scores and total opioid intake during ketamine infusions and for 48 hours post infusion.
This was a multisite study conducted in an inpatient setting in Australia.
This was an open-label, prospective study.
Patients were assessed based on the European Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, National Cancer Institute (NCI) Common Toxicity Criteria, and a pain verbal rating scale (which was not described).
Findings suggest that use of a ketamine burst infusion may be helpful for pain relief in some patients with cancer-related refractory pain.
In patients with pain that is not effectively controlled by other means, approaches such as ketamine infusions may have some benefit. More research in ketamine use is warranted. Although some patients responded and had a duration of effect as long as three months, 50% of patients did not respond as defined. Use of this approach requires hospitalization with continuous infusion and monitoring.
Jackson, E., Kelley, M., McNeil, P., Meyer, E., Schlegel, L., & Eaton, M. (2008). Does therapeutic touch help reduce pain and anxiety in patients with cancer? Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing, 12, 113–120.
To examine research about the effectiveness of therapeutic touch in decreasing the pain and anxiety of patients with cancer
The authors report that research relating to therapeutic touch indicates that the therapy helps to reduce pain and anxiety; however, the evidence that the research provides is very weak. Few studies showed statistically significant results, and several studies did not directly measure either variable. The rating scale used does not take sample size into account. As a result, a study rated level II included only 20 patients. Even with this rating scale, most studies analyzed were of low quality. Although the purpose of this study was to summarize the research, the authors incorporated opinion and review articles that were in support of therapeutic touch.
The evidence to support the efficacy of therapeutic touch, as a means of reducing the pain and anxiety of patients with cancer, is weak because the research about this topic is of low quality. Many investigators believe that therapeutic touch and related interventions are promising for patients with cancer and that the interventions pose little risk. Delivering these interventions requires training, however. Some authors have noted that, compared to inexperienced practitioners, experienced practitioners achieve more significant results. Therapeutic touch is something to consider as an adjunctive treatment for the pain and anxiety of patients with cancer. However, therapeutic touch must be administered by a trained and experienced practitioner. Well-designed and appropriately powered research of the efficacy of therapeutic touch is warranted.
Iwersen, L.F., Sperandio, F.F., Toriy, A.M., Palu, M., & Medeiros da Luz, C. (2017). Evidence-based practice in the management of lower limb lymphedema after gynecological cancer. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice, 33, 1–8.
STUDY PURPOSE: To examine the current amount and quality of evidence for the standard treatment of lower limb lymphedema (LLL) after treatment for gynecologic cancers
TYPE OF STUDY: Systematic review
PHASE OF CARE: Late effects and survivorship
The evidence was weak (IIIC) but did show an overall decreased volume of limb(s) after CDT.
Despite the accepted and common recommendation to use CDT for LLL treatment, few studies support this in an evidence-based environment.
The value of this review is that it highlights the limited evidence and research attempted, to date, for standard LLL treatment. More research is needed in this area, particularly randomized, clinical trials. Hopefully, this encourages nurses to initiate research to better support evidence-based practice and interventions for women with LLL.
Iwase, S., Kawaguchi, T., Yotsumoto, D., Doi, T., Miyara, K., Odagiri, H., . . . Yamaguchi, T. (2016). Efficacy and safety of an amino acid jelly containing coenzyme Q10 and L-carnitine in controlling fatigue in breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy: A multi-institutional, randomized, exploratory trial (JORTC-CAM01). Supportive Care in Cancer, 24, 637–646.
To investigate the effectiveness of a dietary supplement amino acid jelly containing coenzyme Q10 and L-carnitine in controlling fatigue in patients with breast cancer
A dietary supplement containing branched chain amino acids coenzyme Q10 and L-carnitine was given orally once daily for 21 days at a dose of 125 g. Patients in the control group received usual care. Study assessments were conducted on day 1 and day 22, and fatigue was measured on days 8 and 15.
Fatigue initially increased from baseline to day 8 and then declined in both groups. The mean change in worst level of fatigue was greater with the intervention (p = 0.005). The mean reduction in current level of fatigue was greater with the intervention (p = 0.0009). No differences existed between groups in average feeling of fatigue or anxiety and depression scores.
The dietary supplement tested here may have some benefit in controlling fatigue among patients with breast cancer during chemotherapy.
These findings suggest that a dietary supplement of branched chain amino acids coenzyme Q10 and L-carnitine may be helpful for the management of fatigue. Further research is needed to confirm this potential.
Ito, S., Tsukiyama, I., Ando, M., Katakami, M., Hamanaka, R., Kosaka, K., . . . Kubo, A. (2015). Therapeutic and preventive antiemetic effect of aprepitant in Japanese patients with thoracic malignancies who truly need it. Supportive Care in Cancer, 23, 905–912.
To evaluate whether all patients undergoing highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) need an NK1 and to evaluate the effects of aprepitant on patients who experience chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in the first course of therapy
Patients received standard antiemetics consisting of IV granisetron on day 1 and dexamethasone on days 1–3 when given highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Patients who needed aprepitant experienced CINV and received aprepitant prophylactically for the subsequent courses of chemotherapy. Other agents for rescue antiemesis were allowed. Pharmacists visited patients on days 1–6 to assist them with completing diaries to record symptoms.
Eighteen patients (23%) needed aprepitant after the first course of chemotherapy. Those receiving HEC who needed aprepitant experienced a significant improvement in the prevention of CINV (p = 0.018) and had less need for rescue medications (p = 0.001). Those receiving MEC also experienced an improvement in CINV after the use of aprepitant, although the difference was not statistically significant. Most improvement was seen in the delayed phase. Though vomiting was reduced, no significant improvement in nausea was observed. About 50% of patients required rescue antiemetics with the first course of chemotherapy.
Not all patients receiving HEC or MEC need an NK1 to prevent CINV. Aprepitant was effective in preventing vomiting in patients who had CINV during the first course of chemotherapy.
The findings suggest that all patients may not need NK1s for complete control of CINV; however, no evidence predicts which patients will or will not experience CINV without an NK1. Current guidelines recommend triplet antiemetics for HEC. Further work to identify the factors that would predict the patients who need NK1s would be helpful to potentially provide control of CINV without the high cost of NK1s.
Ito, Y., Karayama, M., Inui, N., Kuroishi, S., Nakano, H., Nakamura, Y., ... Chida, K. (2014). Aprepitant in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer receiving carboplatin-based chemotherapy. Lung Cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 84(3), 259–264.
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of triple antiemetic therapy with aprepitant, a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, and dexamethasone compared to standard therapy with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone
Chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving a carboplatin-based therapy were randomized to standard antiemetic regimens of a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist plus dexamethasone or a triple antiemetic regimen of a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and aprepitant.
Multi-center, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, phase-II trial
Daily questionnaire regarding the frequency of vomiting and scoring of nausea during five days. Physicians recorded any additional antiemetic therapies used during the study period.
The aprepitant group had a better overall complete response (CR) of 80% (95% CI 69%–88%); the control group had a CR rate of 67% (95% CI 55%–77%). The difference is not significant. Rescue antiemetics were given to 15% of the aprepitant group and 28% of the control group. Adding aprepitant to patients receiving carboplatin/pemetrexed (with or without bevacizumab) had an overall CR of 84% in the aprepitant group versus 57% in the control group and a 87% CR in the aprepitant group versus 59% in the control group in the delayed phase of chemotherapy. The aprepitant group had a reduced need for rescue antiemetics compared to the control group (16% versus 36%, p = 0.04). Adding aprepitant to patients receiving carboplatin/paclitaxel did not reduce the use of rescue antiemetics.
Triple antiemetic therapy did not demonstrate a significant improvement in CR and decrease in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting events in the overall and delayed phases of therapy when compared to standard use of 5-HT3 and dexamethasone as an antiemetic regimen in patients with stage IIIB–IV NSCLC being treated with carboplatin-based chemotherapy (considered moderately emetogenic chemotherapy). The addition of aprepitant to the regimen of carboplatin/pemetrexed (with or without bevacizumab) improved the overall response rate and delayed phase response in addition to decreasing use of rescue antiemetics.
There may be benefit to adding aprepitant to antiemetic regimens for patients with NSCLC being treated with carboplatin/pemetrexed. This benefit was not demonstrated when aprepitant was added to carboplatin/paclitaxel regimens.
Ithimakin, S., Runglodvatana, K., Nimmannit, A., Akewanlop, C., Srimuninnimit, V., Keerativitayanan, N., . . . Laocharoenkeat, A. (2012). Randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial of ondansetron plus dexamethasone with or without metoclopramide as antiemetic prophylaxis in patients receiving high-dose cisplatin in medical practice. Supportive Care in Cancer, 20, 849-855.
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of adding metoclopramide to the standard ondansetron and dexamethasone antiemetic regimen for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) among patients receiving cisplatin-based therapy
Patients were randomized (stratified by gender and age group) to a treatment or control group. All patients received ondansetron and dexamethasone prior to cisplatin and on the four subsequent days (days 2-5). Patients received either 20 mg of metoclopramide or placebo orally four times daily on days 2-5. Rescue treatment (including metoclopramide) was allowed based on the decision of the primary physician. On day 2, blinded data collectors documented the first emetic episode and frequency of emesis, severity of nausea and vomiting, side effects, and rescue antiemetic medications. On day 5, patients reported satisfaction of emetic treatment and quality of life.
The study was conducted at a single site, inpatient setting in Thailand.
All patients were in active antitumor treatment.
This was a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study.
No antiemetic benefit was found by adding metoclopramide to the standard ondansetron and dexamethasone regimen during cisplatin-based therapy; however, results are difficult to interpret because of a significant number of control patients receiving metoclopramide prior to the start of the study.
A high number of patients in the placebo group developed anticipatory vomiting prior to the start of treatment, which illustrates the importance of performing thorough assessments prior to the start of chemotherapy and providing education prior to the start of the next course of chemotherapy.
Israel, F.J., Parker, G., Charles, M., & Reymond, L. (2010). Lack of benefit from paracetamol (acetaminophen) for palliative cancer patients requiring high-dose strong opioids: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 39, 548–554.
To investigate potential analgesic benefits of 4 g paracetamol daily for palliative patients with cancer requiring high-dose opioids
Patients received usual medications plus 4 g paracetamol or placebo for five days each in random order. Primary outcome, effect on pain, was assessed using daily diaries, including a numeric rating scale ranging from 0 (no pain) to 10 (unbearable pain) and recording numbers of breakthrough analgesics. Patients also indicated in which part of the study their pain was better controlled.
The study used a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover design.
There were no significant order or treatment-by-the-order interaction effects for any variable. There were no significant differences in pain when assessed with placebo compared with paracetamol. No change approached clinically significant levels, with a mean difference in rated pain of 0.16, and mean difference of 0.42 for a number of breakthrough medications. Fifteen patients were undecided whether paracetamol improved pain.
Data from this study do not support the common practice of adding regular paracetamol (acetaminophen) daily to high-dose opioids to enhance pain control in the palliative setting.
The study had a small sample, with less than 30 participants.
There is a growing body of evidence suggesting that some patients do not receive any additional benefit from adding paracetamol or acetaminophen to strong or high-dose opioids. Pain management interventions should be individualized. Unwarranted exposure to potential side effects/toxicities and costs should be avoided when possible by eliminating paracetamol or acetaminophen in those individuals in whom no benefit has been demonstrated.
Ismail, M.A., Kamal, A.M., Ghobashy, S., Al Baz, A.G., & Roshdy, M. (2015). Comparison of pain control during Trus guided biopsies between basal peri-prostatic local infiltration anesthesia versus combined topical anal lignocaine ointment and local infiltration anesthesia. Journal of the Egyptian Society of Parasitology, 45, 285–289.
To compare two techniques for pain relief with transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided biopsies
Patients undergoing prostate biopsies were randomized to receive either local infiltration anesthesia alone or a combination of local anesthesia and lignocaine 5% ointment to the anal rind, canal, and anterior rectal wall. Patients were asked to rate pain during insertion, during infiltration, and after biopsy.
Randomized trial
Patients who received a combination of local and topical anesthesia reported significantly less pain (p = 0.005) at all stages of the procedure.
The combination of a local anesthetic infusion with a topical anesthetic may provide better pain control during biopsy.
The combination of anesthetic infiltration and a local topical anesthetic may reduce pain during biopsy.
Ishizuka, M., Nagata, H., Takagi, K., & Kubota, K. (2013). Needleless closed system does not reduce central venous catheter-related bloodstream infection: A retrospective study. International Surgery, 98, 88–93.
To determine whether a needleless closed system (NCS) is superior to the Luer cap system (LCS) in regards to the prevention of catheter-related bloodstream infection.
This was a retrospective study comparing the length of time from central venous catheter (CVC) insertion to the development of central-line associated blood stream infection (CLABSI) using LCS and then switching to NCS.
Retrospective analysis
The authors measured the time interval from CVC insertion to the development of CLABSI and compared a group of patients using LCS to a group using NCS. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines were used to define and diagnose CLABSI.
Using the Kaplan-Meier estimate and the log-rank test, the authors found that there was no significant difference between the LCS group and the NCS group in the time interval from CVC insertion to onset of CLABSI. Similarly, there was no significant difference in the incidence of CLABSI (p = 0.3), blood culture positivity (p = 0.836), and CVC tip positivity (p = 0.116) between the two groups.
There was no significant difference between the two groups in regard to blood culture positivity, CVC tip culture positivity, or the incidence of CLABSI. NCS did not demonstrate superiority in terms of prevention of CLABSI.
Although they were not shown to reduce CLABSI, NCSs are still recommended as a means of preventing needle-stick injuries.