no abstract available

Purpose
Anxiety is a major component of breathlessness and is often palliated with benzodiazepines. Midazolam is a short-acting water-soluble benzodiazepine with a rapid onset of action and short half-life. Intranasal midazolam had been shown to be of marked clinical benefit in an uncontrolled pilot study for the control of dyspnoea. A blinded randomised controlled study was therefore undertaken across four Australasian palliative care services.

Methods
All participants received six numbered study nasal spray (SNS) bottles, three of which contained midazolam and three placebo. They were instructed to use one SNS bottle on each day they were breathless, for 6 days within 2 weeks. Dyspnoea scores were recorded before and at set time intervals following the first use of each SNS bottle.

Results
Across all SNS bottles, the maximum change of 2.1 on an 11-point numerical rating scale was seen at 60 min. There was no difference in dyspnoea score between the two arms. Approximately 50 % of participants in each arm had a positive response (i.e. ≥2 point change in dyspnoea score from baseline). Anxiety scores at baseline were low. The most common adverse event was local nasal reactions.

Conclusion
Intranasal midazolam had no clinical benefit over intranasal placebo for the control of dyspnoea. The low level of anxiety at baseline and dose of active drug delivered may have been important factors. Many participants found the SNS bottles to be a challenging mode of drug delivery. This study confirms the importance of placebo-controlled trials for defining best clinical practise.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to assess the efficacy of oral Vitamin C as an opioid-sparing agent when used in conjunction with opioids and standard adjuvant therapy in the management of chronic cancer pain.

Methods: An open-label pilot study of patients ≥18 years of age with chronic pain secondary to cancer and/or its treatment and a Brief Pain Inventory average pain score of ≥3/10. In addition to opioid analgesia, patients received 1 g of vitamin C twice daily over 3 days (total daily dose of 2 g). Patients’ usual medications, including breakthrough medications, were continued throughout the study period. The primary endpoint was total daily opioid use during vitamin C administration compared with that immediately prior to study.

Results: Thirty-four patients were enrolled in the study. Seven failed to complete the trial. Across the 17 evaluable patients, the median daily opioid consumption was 360 mg oral morphine equivalents (OME) on the days prior to vitamin C and 390 mg when administered with vitamin C.

Conclusion: This study failed to demonstrate any clinically significant benefit from vitamin C in conjunction with opioids in cancer-related pain and does not provide support for embarking on a larger randomised trial to determine efficacy.

Purpose Pain is the most common symptom in cancer patients. Standard pain treatment according to the WHO three-step analgesic ladder provides effective pain management in approximately 70–90 % of cancer patients. Refractory pain is defined as not responding to “standard” treatments. Interventional analgesic techniques can be used in an attempt to control refractory pain in patients in whom conventional analgesic strategies fail to provide effective pain relief or are intolerable due to severe adverse effects. This systematic review aims to provide the latest evidence on interventional refractory pain management in cancer patients.
Methods Systematic literature search in Cochrane, EMBASE and PubMed including reviews and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised controlled trials in the absence of reviews.
Results Neuraxial analgesia may play a role in refractory cancer pain management. Paravertebral blocks decrease the incidence of persistent post-surgical pain after breast cancer. Coeliac plexus blocks improve pain scores in refractory pancreatic cancer pain for up to 4 weeks after the intervention with fewer burdensome side effects as compared to opioids. Cordotomy has mainly been studied in mesothelioma, and the case series suggest possible benefit for pain at the expense of a relatively high risk of side effects.
Conclusions Overall, very few RCTs have been conducted on interventional pain techniques. In reality, it is very difficult to undertake large controlled trials for a number of reasons. Therefore, today’s best evidence for practice may be from large case series of comparable patients with careful response and toxicity evaluation and follow-up.

no abstract available

Objective The aim of the present study was to estimate the potential healthcare cost savings associated with reduced prescribing of subcutaneous ketamine for the treatment of chronic cancer pain after publication of the Palliative Care Clinical Studies Collaborative (PaCCSC) ketamine randomised controlled trial (RCT), to provide further reasons to modify ketamine prescribing practice in this setting.

Methods Potential cost savings in this setting were estimated from a health system perspective using a 1-year impact model. The model was populated with estimates derived using an epidemiological approach informed by morbidity and prevalence data, the PaCCSC feasibility study, ketamine RCT and national ketamine utilisation survey results, as well as clinical opinion.

Results The total estimated annual hospitalisation costs associated with subcutaneous ketamine prescribing were A$3 899 600 (2605 bed-days). A 17% reduction in ketamine prescribing lowered hospitalisation costs to A$3 236 668 (2162 bed-days), a reduction of A$662 932 (443 bed-days) because of reduced in-patient stays associated with ketamine toxicity and prescribing process.

Conclusions The findings from the modelled impact analysis suggest that dissemination of the PaCCSC ketamine RCT results may have saved the Australian healthcare system approximately A$663 000 in annual hospitalisation costs and freed up 443 in-patient bed-days, although there was high uncertainty within the study. Wider dissemination over time and targeted, local de-adoption strategies could result in further savings.

no abstract available

no abstract available

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: To assess the effects of corticosteroids on nausea and vomiting not related to chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or surgery in adult cancer patients.

Background
One of the most feared symptoms associated with cancer is pain. Opioids remain the mainstay of pain treatment but corticosteroids are often used concurrently as co- or adjuvant analgesics. Due to their anti-inflammatory mechanism of action, corticosteroids are said to provide effective analgesia for pain associated with inflammation and in the management of cancer-related complications such as brain metastasis and spinal cord compression. However, corticosteroids have a wide range of adverse effects that are dose and time dependent.

Objectives
To evaluate the efficacy of corticosteroids in treating cancer-related pain in adults.  Search methods
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2014, Issue 4),MEDLINE (OVID) (1966 to 29 September 2014), EMBASE (OVID) (1970 to 29 September 2014), CINAHL (1982 to 29 September 2014), Science Citation Index (Web of Science) (1899 to 29 September 2014) and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (Web of Science) (1990 to 29 September 2014).

Selection criteria
Any randomised or prospective controlled trial that included patients over 18 years with cancer-related pain were eligible for the review. Corticosteroids were compared to placebo or usual treatment and/or supportive care. Data collection and analysis All review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used arithmetic means and standard deviations for each outcome to report the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI).

Main results
Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria, enrolling 1926 participants. The trial size varied from 20 to 598 patients. Most studies compared corticosteroids, particularly dexamethasone, to standard therapy. We included six studies with data at one week in the metaanalysis for pain intensity; no data were available at that time point for the remaining studies. Corticosteroid therapy resulted in less pain (measured on a scale of 0 to 10 with a lower score indicating less pain) compared to control at one week (MD 0.84 lower pain, 95% CI 1.38 to 0.30 lower; low quality evidence). Adverse events were poorly documented. Factors limiting statistical analysis included the lack of standardised measurements of pain and the use of different agents, dosages, comparisons and routes of drug delivery. Subgroup analysis according to type of cancer was not possible. The quality of this evidence was limited by the risk of bias of the studies and small sample size. The results were also compromised by attrition, with data missing for the enrolled patients.

Authors’ conclusions
The evidence for the efficacy of corticosteroids for pain control in cancer patients is weak. Significant pain relief was noted in some studies, albeit only for a short period of time. This could be important for patients with poor clinical status. Further trials, with increased numbers of participants, are needed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of corticosteroids for the management cancer pain in adults, and to establish an ideal dose, duration of therapy and route of administration.