Effect of neurolytic celiac plexus block on pain relief, quality of life, and survival in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer: a randomized controlled trial. A randomised clinical trial of the effect of informed consent on the analgesic activity of placebo and naproxen in cancer pain. A double blind randomized study of oral clodronate in the treatment of bone metastases from tumors poorly responsive to chemotherapy. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs as the first step in cancer pain therapy: double-blind, within-patient study comparing nine drugs. Determining the effectiveness of a clinical-practice intervention in improving the control of pain in outpatients with cancer. The comparative analgesic efficacy of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug for painful osteoarthritis. A study of manufacturer-supported trials of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the treatment of arthritis. A randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, crossover trial comparing the safety and efficacy of oral sustained-release hydromorphone with immediate-release hydromorphone in patients with cancer pain. Canadian Palliative Care Clinical Trials Group. Efficacy and safety of avocado/soybean unsaponifiables in the treatment of symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee and hip. A prospective, multicenter, three-month, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.
Pancreatic cancer is an aggressive tumor associated with high mortality. Optimal pain control may improve quality of life (QOL) for these patients.
                To test the hypothesis that neurolytic celiac plexus block (NCPB) vs opioids alone improves pain relief, QOL, and survival in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer.
                Double-blind, randomized clinical trial conducted at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. Enrolled (October 1997 and January 2001) were 100 eligible patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer experiencing pain. Patients were followed up for at least 1 year or until death.
                Patients were randomly assigned to receive either NCPB or systemic analgesic therapy alone with a sham injection. All patients could receive additional opioids managed by a clinician blinded to the treatment assignment.
                Pain intensity (0-10 numerical rating scale), QOL, opioid consumption and related adverse effects, and survival time were assessed weekly by a blinded observer.
                Mean (SD) baseline pain was 4.4 (1.7) for NCPB vs 4.1 (1.8) for opioids alone. The first week after randomization, pain intensity and QOL scores were improved (pain intensity, P< or =.01 for both groups; QOL, P<.001 for both groups), with a larger decrease in pain for the NCPB group (P =.005). From repeated measures analysis, pain was also lower for NCPB over time (P =.01). However, opioid consumption (P =.93), frequency of opioid adverse effects (all P>.10), and QOL (P =.46) were not significantly different between groups. In the first 6 weeks, fewer NCPB patients reported moderate or severe pain (pain intensity rating of > or =5/10) vs opioid-only patients (14% vs 40%, P =.005). At 1 year, 16% of NCPB patients and 6% of opioid-only patients were alive. However, survival did not differ significantly between groups (P =.26, proportional hazards regression).
                Although NCPB improves pain relief in patients with pancreatic cancer vs optimized systemic analgesic therapy alone, it does not affect QOL or survival. To determine whether informed consent in a therapeutic trial modifies the analgesic effect of naproxen and placebo, we conducted a prospective, randomised, single dose, placebo-controlled trial. Patients were randomly selected to receive or not information concerning the study. All patients included were then given a single dose of naproxen and placebo according to a crossover, double-blind design. Forty-nine patients with mild or moderate cancer pain which did not need narcotic analgesics entered the study. Twenty-five received both treatments without any information and constituted the uninformed group. Twenty-four had a complete information about the trial; six refused to participate. The 18 others constituted the informed-consent group. Visual analogue scales of pain before and 30, 60, 120 and 180 min after the intake of naproxen and placebo were recorded. As an analgesic, naproxen was more effective than placebo in both groups of patients (p = 0.001). For naproxen as well as for placebo, the analgesic effect was better in the informed-consent group compared to the uninformed group (p = 0.012). The difference in therapeutic activity between naproxen and placebo was moderately higher in the uninformed patients (p = 0.08). We concluded that, in contrast with parallel studies, giving information in a crossover, placebo-controlled trial may increase the apparent efficacy of both the tested agent and the placebo, and decrease the perceived difference the two. Bisphosphonates are used in oncology as a means of decreasing complications due to bone metastases, in association with anticancer treatment, especially in patients with breast cancer, prostate cancer and myeloma. Little is known about the effects of bisphosphonates on bone metastases from other tumors and in particular from tumors for which no effective treatment is available. We conducted a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial of oral clodronate in patients with bone metastases from tumors poorly responsive to chemotherapy, with the aims of evaluating the effects of this drug on symptoms control and bone metastases evolution. Sixty-six patients with poorly responsive tumors such as non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), bladder cancer, gastrointestinal cancers, kidney cancer, melanoma and metastatic carcinoma of unknown origin entered the study. Patients were randomized to receive either clodronate 1,600 mg/day for one year or identical placebo-containing tablets. Various parameters such as Karnofsky performance status, pain score (measured by a visual-analogue scale) and analgesic requirement were recorded at monthly intervals. Of the 66 patients enrolled, 9 were observed for one month or less; 7 were followed for two months; only 50 patients were followed for more than 2 months and could be adequately evaluated. At 3 months both clodronate and placebo-treated patients had a decrease in Karnofsky performance status, with the decrease being more evident in the placebo group. Mean pain scores showed an increase of pain in patients receiving placebo and a decrease of pain in patients receiving clodronate, although the difference failed to be statistically significant. Analgesics requirement increased in both groups, but significantly more in patients receiving placebo (p = 0.042), in whom increase in opioid requirements was particularly evident. Toxicity was low, with occasional gastroenteric discomfort in both groups. The main problem of this study was the difficulty in recruiting an adequate number of patients and following them for a sufficient period of time: general conditions rapidly deteriorated in many patients, and approximately 25% of the 66 enrolled were not considered evaluable; few patients survived for the length of the study, one year. This might partly account for the lack of significance of some of the parameters under study. With these limits, oral clodronate demonstrated some efficacy in symptom control and in reducing the need for analgesics. The efficacy and tolerability of acetylsalicylic acid, paracetamol, diclofenac, ibuprofen, indomethacin, pirprofen, sulindac, naproxen and suprofen were compared in the treatment of cancer pain. In a double-blind, within-patient randomized study, each drug was given for 1 week to eight patients and for another week to a further eight patients. A total of 65 patients were effectively treated; only 48 completed week 1 and 41 completed week 2. Naproxen, diclofenac and indomethacin were highly effective in pain relief (tested by means of a 100 mm visual analogue scale) and were relatively well tolerated. It is concluded that these non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs can be considered as first choice in the treatment of cancer pain. To determine the effectiveness of a clinical-practice intervention in improving the control of pain in outpatients with cancer.
                Between July 5 and September 30, 1995, a randomized, controlled trial of 510 cancer outpatients and 13 oncologists was conducted at 23 clinics in Indiana. All the patients completed assessments of their pain, their pain regimens, and the degrees of relief received; they were surveyed again by mail four weeks after their clinic visits. The intervention group's clinical charts contained a summary of the completed pain scales; the oncologists who treated these patients were instructed to review the summary sheet prior to an evaluation. This summary was not available for the oncologists treating the patients in the control group. Each patient's pain management index (PMI) was calculated: the patient's pain medication level was rated on a scale of 0 to 3; the patients's pain level was rated on a scale of 0 to 3 and then subtracted from the first rating. A negative PMI was interpreted as representing insufficient treatment. Data were analyzed with several statistical tests.
                In all, only 320 patients who reported cancer-related pain were used in the analysis: 160 to 260 in the control group and 160 of 250 in the intervention group. The groups were similar with respect to demographics, cancer sites, and performance status. A significant difference (p = .0162) in the physicians' prescription patterns was found. In the control group, prescriptions for 86% of the patients did not change, with no decrease in analgesic prescriptions; for 14% of the patients analgesic prescriptions increased. In the intervention group, analgesic prescriptions changed for 25% of the patients, decreasing for 5% and increasing for 20%. A decrease in the incidence of pain described as more than life's usual aches and pains was found for the intervention group (p = .05). No significant difference was found between the groups for the patients undertreated for pain, as measured by PMIs.
                Although analgesic regimens were altered significantly when the physicians understood more about the patient's pain, cancer pain management remains a complex problem. Future studies should focus on the long-term systematic incorporation of simple pain-assessment tools into daily outpatient oncology practices as well as on innovative ways to address other aspects of managing cancer pain. Thirty-six non-hospitalized subjects with chronic pain from OA of the knee participated in an evaluation of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and naproxen, an NSAID. All pre-experiment treatment was withdrawn. Each subject experienced in some order three 3-week treatment phases: NSAID plus placebo TENS; TENS plus placebo drug; and double placebo. A broad range of pain measures was used, including daily diary ratings, and four-times-per-day ratings entered into a small electronic data logger (the PIPER) worn by the subject. A substantial placebo response occurred across all conditions, which may have masked treatment differences. Broad comparisons across subjects, combining the four main measures of pain, found no significant differences among the three experimental treatments. Analysis of diary and PIPER data for individuals suggested that, in a small minority of subjects, the NSAID plus placebo TENS combination may be more effective than double placebo. The PIPER ratings seemed to tap aspects of the pain experience different from those captured by conventional measures, suggesting the value of very frequent pain assessments, such as those entered by a subject into the PIPER, in the study of chronic pain. To study the relation between reported drug performance in published trials and support of the trials by the manufacturer of the drug under evaluation, we studied a sample of trials of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) used in the treatment of arthritis.
                All randomized control trials of NSAIDs published between September 1987 and May 1990 identified by MEDLINE were reviewed. If an article met the following criteria (n = 61), it was selected: trials involving adult patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis (n = 180), use of nonsalicylate NSAIDs marketed in the United States (n = 101), randomized control trial (n = 81), duration of the trial 4 or more days (n = 78), and use of an efficacy outcome measure (n = 61). Reviewers, "blinded" to manufacturer status, evaluated the narrative interpretation of results and extracted numeric data on efficacy and toxicity. Manufacturer-associated trials were defined as those that acknowledged an association with a pharmaceutical manufacturer. Because of the scarcity of non-manufacturer-associated trials (n = 9), we report only on the manufacturer-associated articles.
                Fifty-two publications (85.2%) representing 56 trials were associated with a manufacturer. The manufacturer-associated drug was reported as comparable with (71.4%) or superior to (28.6%) the comparison drug in all 56 trials. These narrative claims of superiority were usually justified with trial data. Of the trials identifying one drug as less toxic (n = 22), the manufacturer-associated drug's safety was reported as superior to the comparison drug in 86.4% of cases. Justification for the narrative interpretation of the trial findings regarding less toxicity was provided in only 12 (54.5%) of 22 trials.
                The manufacturer-associated NSAID is almost always reported as being equal or superior in efficacy and toxicity to the comparison drug. These claims of superiority, especially in regard to side effect profiles, are often not supported by trial data. These data raise concerns about selective publication or biased interpretation of results in manufacturer-associated trials. To evaluate the safety and efficacy of a new slow-release preparation of hydromorphone (SRH) in the treatment of cancer pain.
                Ninety-five adult patients from three Canadian Palliative Care Centers with no evidence of mental impairment received treatment for cancer pain with an oral opioid analgesic. After informed consent was obtained, patients underwent titration to a stable dose of immediate-release hydromorphone (IRH) for 48 hours, and were then randomized to receive IRH or SRH for 5 days in a double-blind basis. During day 6, a crossover took place, and patients received the alternate drug for 5 days. Pain intensity was assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS) and ordinal scale (OS). Side effects were assessed using VAS. Patients and investigators made a blinded global rating of efficacy a blinded final choice between SRH and IRH.
                In 75 assessable patients, pain intensity of the VAS and OS were (mean +/- SD) 27 +/- 21 and 1.3 +/- 0.6 on IRH, versus 29 +/- 21 (P = .13) and 1.3 +/- 0.6 (P = .19) on SRH, respectively. The total number of extra doses of opioids, global rating, and final blinded choice by both patients and investigators were not significantly different between IRH and SRH. Differences in side effects were not significant.
                Our findings suggest that SRH is as safe and effective as IRH in the treatment of cancer pain. One of the objectives of symptomatic slow-acting drugs for osteoarthritis is to reduce the need for drugs with a less favorable safety profile, mainly analgesics and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). We conducted a three-month, prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial to evaluate the efficacy of avocado/soybean unsaponifiables in terms of NSAID use reduction. Patients with primary femorotibial or hip osteoarthritis (OA) (ACR criteria and Kellgren-Lawrence radiological stage IB, II, or III) of at least six months' duration with regular pain for more than three months requiring therapy with NSAID (visual analog scale score > or = 25 mm and Lequesne's index on therapy > or = 4) were given one capsule per day of avocado/soybean unsaponifiables or a placebo for three months. During the first 45 days, patients in both groups were also given one of seven predefined NSAIDs. The primary efficacy criteria was the rate of patients taking back a NSAID and the delay before re-intake. Secondary efficacy criteria were the total dose of NSAID, overall ratings by the patient and by the physician, the visual analog scale pain score and the functional index. Of the 164 included patients, 163 were evaluable, 80 in the active drug group and 83 in the placebo group. Mean age was 62.9 +/- 8.8 years. The diagnosis was femorotibial OA in 101 patients and hip OA in 62. Data were collected on day 45 in 153 patients (77 on the active drug and 76 on the placebo). The number of patients who took back NSAID therapy was significantly smaller in the group treated by avocado/soybean unsaponifiables (33; 43.4%) than in the placebo group (53; 69.7%) (P < 0.001). Also, beyond day 54, the time spent off NSAID therapy was shorter in the placebo group. The functional index showed a significantly greater improvement in the active drug group (-2.3 +/- 2.6) than in the placebo group (-1.0 +/- 2.6) (P < 0.01). Pain scores over time were similar in the two groups. Overall patient ratings were significantly better in the active drug group (P < 0.01). Safety was oggd in both groups. After six weeks, avocado/soybean unsaponifiables reduced the need for NSAID in patients with lower limb OA.
Based upon limited data, NSAIDs appear to be more effective than placebo for cancer pain; clear evidence to support superior safety or efficacy of one NSAID over another is lacking; and trials of combinations of an NSAID with an opioid have disclosed either no difference (4 out of 14 papers), a statistically insignificant trend towards superiority (1 out of 14 papers), or at most a slight but statistically significant advantage (9 out of 14 papers), compared with either single entity. The short duration of studies undermines generalization of their findings on efficacy and safety of NSAIDs for cancer pain.