New England Geriatric Research, Education and Clinical Center and Division of Palliative Care, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California, USA.
Cancer. 2023 Dec 15;129(24):3978-3986. doi: 10.1002/cncr.34921. Epub 2023 Sep 11.
Clinicians treating cancer-related pain with opioids regularly encounter nonmedical stimulant use (i.e., methamphetamine, cocaine), yet there is little evidence-based management guidance. The aim of the study is to identify expert consensus on opioid management strategies for an individual with advanced cancer and cancer-related pain with nonmedical stimulant use according to prognosis.
The authors conducted two modified Delphi panels with palliative care and addiction experts. In Panel A, the patient's prognosis was weeks to months and in Panel B the prognosis was months to years. Experts reviewed, rated, and commented on the case using a 9-point Likert scale from 1 (very inappropriate) to 9 (very appropriate) and explained their responses. The authors applied the three-step analytical approach outlined in the RAND/UCLA to determine consensus and level of clinical appropriateness of management strategies. To better conceptualize the quantitative results, they thematically analyzed and coded participant comments.
Consensus was achieved for all management strategies. The 120 Experts were mostly women (47 [62%]), White (94 [78%]), and physicians (115 [96%]). For a patient with cancer-related and nonmedical stimulant use, regardless of prognosis, it was deemed appropriate to continue opioids, increase monitoring, and avoid opioid tapering. Buprenorphine/naloxone transition was inappropriate for a patient with a short prognosis and of uncertain appropriateness for a patient with a longer prognosis.
Study findings provide urgently needed consensus-based guidance for clinicians managing cancer-related pain in the context of stimulant use and highlight a critical need to develop management strategies to address stimulant use disorder in people with cancer.
Among palliative care and addiction experts, regardless of prognosis, it was deemed appropriate to continue opioids, increase monitoring, and avoid opioid tapering in the context of cancer-related pain and nonmedical stimulant use. Buprenorphine/naloxone transition as a harm reduction measure was inappropriate for a patient with a short prognosis and of uncertain appropriateness for a patient with a longer prognosis.
治疗癌症相关疼痛的临床医生经常遇到非医疗性兴奋剂使用(即冰毒、可卡因),但几乎没有基于证据的管理指导。本研究的目的是根据预后情况,确定专家对晚期癌症和癌症相关疼痛伴有非医疗性兴奋剂使用患者的阿片类药物管理策略的共识。
作者对姑息治疗和成瘾专家进行了两次改良 Delphi 小组研究。在小组 A 中,患者的预后为数周至数月,在小组 B 中,患者的预后为数月至数年。专家使用 9 分李克特量表(1 表示非常不合适,9 表示非常合适)对病例进行回顾、评分和评论,并解释他们的回答。作者应用 RAND/UCLA 概述的三步分析方法来确定管理策略的共识和临床适宜性水平。为了更好地理解定量结果,他们对参与者的评论进行了主题分析和编码。
所有管理策略都达成了共识。120 名专家主要为女性(47 [62%])、白人(94 [78%])和医生(115 [96%])。对于癌症相关和非医疗性兴奋剂使用的患者,无论预后如何,继续使用阿片类药物、增加监测和避免阿片类药物减量都是合适的。对于预后较短的患者,转换丁丙诺啡/纳洛酮不合适,对于预后较长的患者,转换丁丙诺啡/纳洛酮的适当性不确定。
研究结果为临床医生在兴奋剂使用的背景下管理癌症相关疼痛提供了急需的基于共识的指导,并强调了迫切需要制定管理策略来解决癌症患者的兴奋剂使用障碍。
在姑息治疗和成瘾专家中,无论预后如何,在癌症相关疼痛和非医疗性兴奋剂使用的情况下,继续使用阿片类药物、增加监测和避免阿片类药物减量被认为是合适的。丁丙诺啡/纳洛酮转换作为一种减少伤害的措施,对于预后较短的患者是不合适的,对于预后较长的患者则是适当性不确定的。