PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

F De Conno

Publications and source records attributed to F De Conno.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
PubMed1998

Megestrol acetate for anorexia in patients with far-advanced cancer: a double-blind controlled clinical trial.

The aim of this study was to evaluate a low-dose regimen of megestrol acetate (MA; 320 mg/day) on appetite in advanced cancer patients. Out-patients with far-advanced non-hormone responsive tumours and loss of appetite were randomised in a phase III trial, with two consecutive phases: a 14-day double-blind placebo controlled phase (phase A) and a 76-day open phase (phase B). During phase A, patients were treated with MA, two 160 mg tablets/day, or placebo. In phase B, the MA dose was titrated to clinical response in both groups. Appetite, food intake, body weight, performance status, mood and quality of life were evaluated with standardised measures; patients' global judgement about treatment efficacy was also requested. Of 42 patients entering the study, 33 (17 MA and 16 placebo) were evaluable for efficacy. The appetite score improved significantly with MA after 7 days (P = 0.0023), and this effect was still significant at 14 days (P = 0.0064). Patients judged the treatment with MA effective in 88.2% of cases (14th day), whilst placebo was considered effective by 25% (P = 0.0003). None of the other measures showed significant changes during treatment. The remarkable effect on appetite evident after 7 days, without serious side-effects, shows that MA can produce significant subjective effects at a low-dose even in patients with far-advanced disease.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1998

Equianalgesic dose/ratio between methadone and other opioid agonists in cancer pain: comparison of two clinical experiences.

BACKGROUND: Oral methadone is considered to be a valid opioid analgesic alternative to morphine and hydromorphone in treating cancer pain. However, the use of methadone could be complicated by the limited knowledge of the equianalgesic dose/ratio with the other analgesic opioids when switching in tolerant patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In two Palliative Care Units, data collected regarding 88 advanced cancer patients with pain switched from different opioids to oral methadone were reviewed and compared with the aim of determining the equianalgesic dose ratio in relation to the dose of opioid previously administered. RESULTS: The results of this retrospective study suggest that: (1) methadone is much more potent than previously described in literature, (2) the dose ratio between hydromorphone and methadone is higher than as suggested by equianalgesic tables, and (3) the ratio correlates with total opioid dose administered before switching. CONCLUSIONS: The fact that methadone ratio is different according to the opioid dose used previously should be taken into careful consideration by the clinician in order to avoid severe toxicity or death during switchover. Prospective studies should be carried out in order to better define our findings.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed1998

Side effects of morphine administration in cancer patients.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines, oral morphine is the first choice drug for treating moderate to severe cancer-related pain. The fear of the side effects caused by this drug and the scarce information about prevention and management of these effects are the main reasons for the underuse of morphine. The aim of this paper is to provide a review of the literature on the side effects most frequently present both in the titration phase and during chronic administration of oral morphine and to describe the appropriate treatment.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed1998

Switching from morphine to oral methadone in treating cancer pain: what is the equianalgesic dose ratio?

PURPOSE: To define the dose ratio between morphine and methadone in relation to the previous morphine dose and the number of days needed to achieve the same level of analgesia in a group of patients with advanced cancer with pain who switched from morphine to oral methadone. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional prospective study of 38 consecutive cancer patients who switched from morphine to oral methadone was performed. The intensity of pain before, during, and after the switching period was assessed through a four-point verbal Likert scale. The relationship between previous morphine dose and the final equianalgesic methadone dose, dose ratio between morphine and methadone, and the number of days required to achieve equianalgesia have been examined by means of Pearson's correlation coefficient, scatter plots, and Cuzick's test for trend respectively. RESULTS: Before the switch, the median oral equivalent daily dose of morphine was 145 mg/d; after the switch, the median equianalgesic oral methadone dose was 21 mg/d. A median time of 3 days (range, 1 to 7 days) was necessary to achieve the equianalgesia with oral methadone; the lower the preswitching morphine dose, the fewer days necessary to achieve equianalgesia with oral methadone (P < .001). Dose ratios ranged from 2.5:1 to 14.3:1 (median, 7.75:1), which indicated that, in most cases, the dose ratio was much higher than that suggested by the published equianalgesic tables. A strong linear positive relationship between morphine and methadone equianalgesic doses was obtained (Pearson's correlation coefficient, 0.91). The dose ratio increased with the increase of the previous morphine dose with a much higher increase at low morphine doses. CONCLUSION: The results of our study confirm that methadone is a potent opioid, more potent than believed. Caution is recommended when switching from any opioid to methadone, especially in patients who are tolerant to high doses of opioids.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed1997

Pain due to epidural tumor in cancer patients. Report of two cases and differential diagnosis.

The cases of two patients with inguinal pain as the only symptom of a T12 metastatic lesion is reported. The patterns of pain referrals from tumor lesions to the spine, epidural space, and spinal cord are reviewed. Focal back pain and pain reported in a distal distribution can both be associated with epidural or cord disease. The differential diagnosis of back pain in patients with cancer can be difficult but may be crucial in differentiating important neurological complications of systemic neoplasms.

Adenocarcinoma↗
PubMed1997

[Treatment of pain in oncology].

Basic guidelines for cancer pain treatment can be found in many different handbooks published in the last years. Particularly those of the World Health Organisation published in 1986 and revised in 1996, furnish useful indication for cancer pain treatment. The authors therefore focused on resuming the most recent development in this field. In the research regarding alternative routes of administration of opioids in alternative to the oral route, the rectal administration of morphine and methadone and the transdermal route for fentanyl have proved to be efficacious. The subcutaneous route (for morphine) as well as the intravenous, peridural and subaracnoid routes, being known for some time are not taken in consideration in this paper. Various studies suggest that alternative routes are necessary in 53-70% of patients in their last days or months of live. The most frequent causes for the need to stop oral administration are dysphagia, nausea, and uncontrollable vomiting, bowel obstruction, malabsorption, cognitive failure, coma, and pain syndromes requiring anaesthetics which need be administered via the spinal route. Among the drugs, tramadol seems to be effective in the control of moderate pain. Tramadol is a centrally acting analgesic drug; it has an agonist effect on mu 1 receptors of opioids and acts also by inhibiting the re-uptake of noradrenaline and serotonine which activates descending monoaminergic inhibitory pathways. Recent clinical studies revealed that pamidronate has an analgesic effect in pain due to bone metastasis. Pamidronate is part of the biphosphonates, which are active on bone metabolism and are usually being used for the treatment of hypercalcaemia in cancer. The authors also describe briefly the indication of ketamin in association with morphine for the treatment of neuropathic pain.

Administration, Cutaneous↗
PubMed1996

Effect of home care on the place of death of advanced cancer patients.

This study presents a prospective evaluation of the home care programme for patients with advanced cancer at the National Cancer Institute of Milan. Demographic, psychosocial and physical variables were evaluated. The Therapy Impact Questionnaire was used for symptom and quality of life assessment. The association of clinical and demographic variables with the place of death was investigated, considering that the aim of the home care programme is to follow up patients until death in their houses. Eighty-six per cent (86%) of patients died at home and 14% in hospitals. Multivariate analysis showed that only a higher degree of family support was associated with home death. Several changes in symptoms and quality of life items scores were seen, pain improved while physical debility and cognitive functions worsened throughout the home care duration to death. High intensity pain and dyspnoea were still present in, respectively, 23.8 and 15.3% of patients in the last week of life. Psychological distress was high at the end of life and did not seem to be affected by treatment. Home care is a feasible alternative for implementing palliative care in a selected population of patients with advanced cancer. Palliation of physical symptoms is more easily achieved than the control of psychological suffering. Family and economical issues implied by home care models should be part of the discussion in implementing palliative care for advanced cancer patients.

Aged↗
PubMed1996

Guidelines on artificial nutrition versus hydration in terminal cancer patients. European Association for Palliative Care.

Whether a terminally ill cancer patient should be actively fed or simply hydrated through subcutaneous or intravenous infusion of isotonic fluids is a matter of ongoing controversy among clinicians involved in the care of these patients. Under the auspices of the European Association for Palliative Care, a committee of experts developed guidelines to help clinicians make a reasonable decision on what type of nutritional support should be provided on a case-by-case basis. It was acknowledged that part of the controversy related to the definition of the terminal cancer patient, since this is a heterogeneous group of patients with different needs, expectations, and potential for a medical intervention. A major difficulty is the prediction of life expectancy and the patient's likely response to vigorous nutritional support. In an attempt to reach a decision on the type of treatment support (artificial nutrition vs. hydration) which would best meet the needs and expectations of the patient, we propose a three-step process: Step 1: define the eight key elements necessary to reach a decision; Step II: make the decision; and Step III: reevaluate the patient and the proposed treatment at specified intervals. Step I involves assessing the patient concerning the following: 1) oncological/clinical condition; 2) symptoms; 3) expected length of survival; 4) hydration and nutritional status; 5) spontaneous or voluntary nutrient intake; 6) psychological profile; 7) gut function and potential route of administration; and 8) need for special services based on type of nutritional support prescribed. Step II involves the overall assessment of pros and cons, based on information determined in Step I, in order to reach an appropriate decision based on a well-defined end point (i.e., improvement of quality of life; maintaining patient survival; attaining rehydration). Step III involves the periodic reevaluation of the decision made in Step II based on the proposed goal and the attained result.

Fluid Therapy↗
PubMed1996

Clinical experience with oral methadone administration in the treatment of pain in 196 advanced cancer patients.

PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to describe the analgesia, side effects, and dosage and the causes of suspension of treatment in a large sample of advanced cancer patients with pain after treatment with oral methadone from 7 to 90 days. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a retrospective study, data collected for 196 advanced cancer outpatients with moderate to severe pain treated at 8-hour intervals with oral methadone in solution form from February 1993 to February 1995 were analyzed at baseline (time 0) and then at 7, 15, 30, 45, 60, and 90 days. The following parameters were assessed: Karnofsky Performance Status, intensity of pain (using the Integrated Pain Score [IPS], intensity of pain, insomnia, drowsiness, confusion, dry mouth, nausea, vomiting, constipation, and dyspnea (using the Therapy Impact Questionnaire [TIQ], mean daily dose of drug administered, and reasons for withdrawal from study. The period when pain was reduced by > or = 35% with respect to baseline was evaluated with the Palliation Index. The association of the degree of palliation of pain with the age of the patients, tumor site, analgesic treatment taken at baseline, and daily mean dose of methadone administered during the follow-up period was analyzed by means of the Kruskal-Wallis test. RESULTS: A reduction in pain intensity with respect to baseline occurred at each analysis time, and in 55.1% of the patients the reduction during the follow-up period was > or = 35% according to the Palliation Index. The mean dose of oral methadone ranged from 14 mg at day 7 to 23.65 mg at day 90. There was an overall worsening of the other symptoms, but a high percentage of the patients reported an amelioration of insomnia with respect to baseline. There was a statistically significant association (P < .0001) between the Palliation Index and the analgesic therapy administered at baseline. Only 11.2% of the patients withdrew from the study due to analgesic inefficacy and 6.6% due to methadone-related side effects (10 patients with drowsiness and three with severe constipation. CONCLUSION: Oral methadone administered every 8 hours was shown to be an appropriate analgesic therapy in the treatment of advanced cancer-related pain. The worsening of the other symptoms under study can be considered linked to the progression of the disease, and in fact, only a small percentage of the patients reported methadone-related side effects that warranted suspension of treatment. We consider oral methadone to be a useful analgesic therapy, and it should be considered in clinical practice for the treatment of cancer pain.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed1995

Propofol in terminal care.

In advanced cancer patients close to death, delirium, multifocal myoclonus, and restlessness may occur. Multi-organ failure and related metabolic changes are mostly responsible for these symptoms. A pharmacologic approach to manage the delirium is necessary in the majority of cases. Benzodiazepines, neuroleptics, and barbiturates are the most common drugs used. In the case reported, propofol administered at very low doses provided good control of neuropsychiatric symptoms. After a loading dose of 20 mg, an infusion of 50-70 mg per hr was started. The patient died peacefully after 8 hr of propofol infusion, without requiring opioids. Propofol seems to be a promising drug in treating the terminal agitated state that can be associated with the dying process.

Delirium↗
PubMed1995

Rectal methadone in cancer patients with pain. A preliminary clinical and pharmacokinetic study.

BACKGROUND: Cancer pain can be treated in most cases with oral analgesics. However, during their clinical history, 53% to 70% of patients will need alternative routes of opioid administration. The rectal administration of opioids is a simple alternative route for many patients. There are no data in the literature regarding the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of rectal methadone. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We evaluated the analgesia, tolerability and absorption profile of methadone hydrochloride in six opioid-naive cancer patients with pain. A blood sample was collected before administration of a single dose of drug (10 mg) and then again after fixed times. At these fixed times the patients were asked about pain, nausea and drowsiness by means of a visual analogue scale of 0-100 mm (VAS). RESULTS: Pain relief was statistically significant as early as 30 minutes and up to eight hours after methadone administration. None of the patients reported significant side effects. The pharmacokinetics of rectal methadone showed rapid and extensive distribution phases followed by a slow elimination phase. CONCLUSIONS: Rectal methadone can be considered an effective analgesic therapy for patients with cancer pain for whom oral and/or parenteral opioids are not indicated or available.

Administration, Rectal↗