STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional, multi-center survey study. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to investigate the pain status, pain management methods, and pain experience after treatment among patients suffering from chronic non-cancer pain due to spinal disease. SUMMARY OF LITERATURE REVIEW: No thorough investigation of the current status of chronic non-cancer pain management in patients with spinal disease has recently been reported. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We surveyed 330 patients with chronic non-cancer pain who visited spine clinics in Korea. RESULTS: Prior to treatment, 86.7% of the patients had severe pain and 99.4% of the patients had taken oral analgesics for pain control. After treatment, the percent of patients with severe pain was reduced to 42.1%, and 52.4% of patients responded that they experienced intermittent pain. End of dose failure was experienced by 29.1% of patients, and 41.7% of patients experienced pain again 3–6 hours after taking analgesics. Furthermore, 8.2% of patients experienced breakthrough pain, and 29.1% of patients experienced pain that interfered with sleeping. CONCLUSIONS: Many patients with chronic pain reported experiencing pain due to end of dose failure after medication. As the causes of chronic pain are complex, appropriate analgesics should be considered and selected for effective pain management.
Analgesics ; Breakthrough Pain ; Chronic Pain ; Humans ; Korea ; Pain Management ; Spinal Diseases ; Spine

PURPOSE: Although cancer pain is prevalent, under-treatment still remains a problem. Knowledge of and compliance with guidelines for management of cancer pain were analyzed for exploration of physician-related barriers to cancer pain management. In addition, physicians' knowledge and its correlation with cancer pain control were audited. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From July 8 to December 2, 2010, a nationwide survey of house staff enquired about their knowledge of cancer pain control guidelines, and the medical records of patients under their care were analyzed. RESULTS: In total, 180 physicians participated in the study. Their average score for knowledge was 14.6 (range, 7 to 19; maximum possible, 20). When the knowledge score was divided into low, medium, and high scores, patients receiving care from physicians with high levels of knowledge tended to have better cancer pain control (p<0.001). Of the total patients with severe pain, 19.5% were not prescribed strong opioids, and 40% were not prescribed any medication for breakthrough pain. CONCLUSION: Physicians' knowledge of guidelines for control of cancer pain showed an association with improvement of pain management. Overall adherence to the guidelines was lacking. Continuous interventions such as education and audits regarding cancer pain control guidelines for physician are needed.
Analgesics ; Analgesics, Opioid ; Breakthrough Pain ; Compliance* ; Education ; Humans ; Internship and Residency ; Medical Records ; Pain Management*

PURPOSE: This is a retrospective study that investigated cancer patients' complaints of moderate or severe pain to analyze pain characteristics, pain relief interventions and their effects. METHODS: This is a retrospective study that investigated cancer patients' complaints of moderate or severe pain to analyze pain characteristics, pain relief interventions and their effects. RESULTS: The most frequent region of pain was the abdomen. The most frequent factor that exacerbated pain was movement. The most frequent pain alleviating factor was administration of analgesics. The most frequent pain type was breakthrough pain, and the most frequent non-pharmaceutical intervention for pain control was heat therapy. Among all, analgesics were routinely prescribed for 52.2% of the participants. Morphine sulfate was the most frequently used analgesic while Gabapentin was the most frequently used non-narcotic analgesic. At the time of discharge, 82.5% of the participants marked their pain intensity as 3 points or lower. CONCLUSION: For cancer patients complaining of moderate or severe pain, it is important to actively control pain from the beginning of admission. Thus, it is necessary to educate not only cancer patients using narcotic analgesic for pain control and their families but nurses about the effects and side-effects of drugs. Moreover, patients and their families need to learn how to assess and record pain at home to collect data that can be referred for future treatment.
Abdomen ; Analgesics ; Breakthrough Pain ; Hot Temperature ; Humans ; Morphine ; Pain Management ; Retrospective Studies

PURPOSE: Adequate control of breakthrough pain is essential for patients with cancer. Managing breakthrough pain mainly depends on understanding the concept of breakthrough pain and the proper usage of rescue medication by physicians. This study aims to assess the attitudes and practice patterns of palliative physicians in managing breakthrough pain for patients in Korea. METHODS: This study was based on data from the 2014 breakthrough cancer pain survey conducted by the Korean Society for Hospice and Palliative Care. One hundred physicians participated in the online survey. Among total 33 self-reported questionnaires, twelve items were selected in this analysis. RESULTS: Rapid onset of action is the main influencing factor in selecting rescue opioids. Oral oxycodone (65%) and parenteral morphine (27%) are commonly used. A few physicians (3%) prefer to use transmucosal fentanyl. The percentage of physicians prescribing oral oxycodone due to its rapid onset of action is just 21.5%, whereas the percentage of physicians using parenteral morphine is 81.5%. Two thirds of respondents (66%) answered that breakthrough pain is not well controlled with rescue medications. CONCLUSION: There is a gap between the needs of physicians in terms of the perceived difficulties of managing breakthrough cancer pain and their practice patterns selecting rescue medications.
Analgesics, Opioid ; Breakthrough Pain ; Fentanyl ; Hospices ; Humans ; Korea* ; Morphine ; Oxycodone ; Palliative Care ; Surveys and Questionnaires

BACKGROUND/AIMS: OROS hydromorphone is a synthetic opioid agent. While clinical studies have tested its effectiveness at controlling cancer-associated pain in patients who have received other strong opioids, no clinical studies have tested its effectiveness at managing cancer pain in strong opioid-naive patients. We performed the present study to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of OROS hydromorphone in strong opioid-naive cancer patients. METHODS: We administered OROS hydromorphone to patients who had not received strong opioids during the previous month. The starting dose was 8 mg/day. The dose was increased every 2 days in patients who experienced more than four episodes of breakthrough pain per day (more than four times in patients being treated with short-acting opioids). We evaluated the efficacy, safety and tolerability of ORS hydromorphone. We also evaluated patient satisfaction and investigators' global assessments. RESULTS: We enrolled 23 patients to the study. The decrease in the numeric rating scale (NRS) was 59%. NRS variation had decreased markedly during the previous 24 h. All patients achieved stable pain control. The side effects were similar to those of other strong opioids. In total, 26% of patients were very satisfied with the treatment and 47% satisfied, and 74% of the investigators deemed OROS hydromorphone to be very effective or effective at controlling cancer pain. CONCLUSIONS: OROS hydromorphone is an osmotically driven, controlled-release preparation that is very effective and safe when administered once daily to strong opioid-naive cancer patients.
Analgesics, Opioid ; Breakthrough Pain ; Delayed-Action Preparations ; Electrolytes ; Humans ; Hydromorphone ; Patient Satisfaction ; Prospective Studies ; Research Personnel

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of hydromorphone-OROS (HM-OROS) in reducing sleep disturbance and relieving cancer pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred twenty cancer patients with pain (numeric rating scale [NRS] > or = 4) and sleep disturbance (NRS > or = 4) were evaluated. The initial HM-OROS dosing was based on previous opioid dose (HM-OROS:oral morphine=1:5). Dose adjustment of the study drug was permitted at the investigator\'s discretion. Pain intensity, number of breakthrough pain episodes, and quality of sleep were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 120 patients received at least one dose of HM-OROS; 74 of them completed the final assessment. Compared to the previous opioids, HM-OROS reduced the average pain NRS from 5.3 to 4.1 (p < 0.01), worst pain NRS from 6.7 to 5.4 (p < 0.01), sleep disturbance NRS from 5.9 to 4.1 (p < 0.01), incidence of breakthrough pain at night from 2.63 to 1.53 times (p < 0.001), and immediate-release opioids use for the management of breakthrough pain from 0.83 to 0.39 times per night (p = 0.001). Of the 74 patients who completed the treatment, 83.7% indicated that they preferred HM-OROS to the previous medication. The adverse events (AEs) were somnolence, asthenia, constipation, dizziness, and nausea. CONCLUSION: HM-OROS was efficacious in reducing cancer pain and associated sleep disturbances. The AEs were manageable.
Analgesics, Opioid ; Asthenia ; Breakthrough Pain ; Constipation ; Dizziness ; Humans ; Incidence ; Nausea ; Prospective Studies*

BACKGROUND: Programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) techniques are a new area of interest for maintaining labor analgesia due to the potential to decrease motor block and improve labor analgesia. This study compares continuous epidural infusion (CEI) to 2 PIEB regimens for labor analgesia. METHODS: One hundred fifty patients undergoing scheduled induction of labor at term gestation having epidural labor analgesia were randomized to receive an epidural analgesia regimen of bupivacaine 0.125% with fentanyl 2 μg/ml at either PIEB 5 ml every 30 min (Group 5q30), PIEB 10 ml every 60 min (Group 10q60), or 10 ml/h continuous infusion (Group continuous epidural infusion [CEI]). The primary outcome is the pain scores throughout labor. Secondary outcomes include degree of motor block, dermatomal sensory levels, the number of physician-administered boluses, and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: While the average pain scores throughout labor did not differ significantly between groups, fewer patients in group 10q60 received physician-administered boluses for breakthrough pain (34.9% in 10q60 vs. 61.0% in 5q30 and 61.9% in CEI, P = 0.022). Dermatomal sensory levels, degree of motor block, and patient satisfaction did not differ significantly between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that high volume PIEB regimens for labor analgesia decrease breakthrough pain and physician-administered boluses.
Analgesia ; Analgesia, Epidural ; Breakthrough Pain ; Bupivacaine ; Fentanyl ; Humans ; Patient Satisfaction ; Pregnancy ; Prospective Studies

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the factors influencing the rescue medication decisions for breakthrough cancer patients and evaluate treatments using the factors. METHODS: Based on the results of an online survey conducted by the Korean Society of Hospice and Palliative Care from September 2014 through December 2014, we assessed the level of agreement on nine factors influencing rescue medication preference. The same factors were used to evaluate oral transmucosal fentanyl lozenge, oral oxycodone and intravenous morphine. RESULTS: Agreed by 77 physicians, a rapid onset of action was the most important factor for their decision of rescue medication. Other important factors were easy administration, strong efficacy, predictable efficacy and less adverse effects. Participants agreed that intravenous morphine produced a rapid onset of action and strong and predictable efficacy and cited difficulty of administration and adverse effects as negative factors. Oral oxycodone was desirable in terms of easy administration and less adverse effects. However, its onset of action was slower than intravenous morphine. While many agreed to easy administration of oral transmucosal fentanyl lozenge, the level of agreement was low for strength and predictability of its efficacy, long-term durability and sleep improvement. CONCLUSION: Rapid onset of action is one of the important factors that influence physicians' selection of rescue medication. Physicians' assessment of rescue medication differed by medication.
Analgesics, Opioid ; Breakthrough Pain ; Fentanyl ; Hospices ; Humans ; Morphine ; Oxycodone ; Palliative Care

Extended-release osmotic extended-release oral delivery system (OROS) hydromorphone is a strong synthetic opioid designed to maintain a constant blood concentration by once daily dosing. The objective of this observational study was to investigate the clinical usefulness of OROS hydromorphone in patients with cancer pain of moderate to severe intensity. Patients with cancer pain who required strong opioids were administered with OROS hydromorphone for 4 weeks. We assessed changes in pain intensity using a numerical rating scale (NRS) as well as levels of sleep disturbance, breakthrough pain, end-of-dose failure, patient satisfaction, and overall assessment of drug effectiveness based on investigator evaluation. Of the 648 enrolled patients, 553 patients were included in the full analysis set. The mean pain intensity was significantly decreased from the NRS value of 5.07 ± 1.99 to 2.75 ± 1.94 (mean % change of 42.13 ± 46.53, P < 0.001). The degree of sleep disturbance significantly improved (mean NRS change of 1.61 ± 2.57, P < 0.001), and the incidence of breakthrough pain was significantly decreased (mean NRS change of 1.22 ± 2.30, P < 0.001). The experience of end-of-dose failure also significantly decreased from 4.60 ± 1.75 to 3.93 ± 1.70, P = 0.007). The patient satisfaction rate was 72.7%, and 72.9% of investigators evaluated the study drug as effective. OROS hydromorphone was an effective and tolerable agent for cancer pain management. It effectively lowered pain intensity as well as improved sleep disturbance, breakthrough pain, and end-of-dose failure (Identifier: NCT 01273454).
Analgesics, Opioid ; Breakthrough Pain ; Chronic Pain ; Humans ; Hydromorphone* ; Incidence ; Observational Study ; Pain Management ; Patient Satisfaction ; Research Personnel

BACKGROUND: Because liver transplantation (LT) essentially accompanies the deterioration, total absence, and recovery of hepatic function, and donor hepatectomy (DH) is performed in otherwise healthy individuals, we planned to compare the postoperative pain in patients undergoing LT, DH, and a major hepatectomy (MH) for a tumor. METHODS: Postoperatively, all patients were permitted to administer patient-controlled fentanyl with a standard dosing regimen. Breakthrough pain was treated with a 25microgram fentanyl bolus. Verbal rating scale (VRS) pain scores at rest (static) and during coughing (dynamic), total fentanyl consumption, and side effects were assessed at 2, 4, 6, 12, 24, and 48 h postoperatively. RESULTS: Thirty patients (11, 10, and 9 in the MH, DH, and LT groups, respectively) were included in the study. The LT group showed a lower static pain VRS score 2, 4, 6, and 12 h postoperatively, and a lower dynamic pain VRS score 12, 24, and 48 h postoperatively than the MH group. Total fentanyl consumption was significantly less in the LT group than the other two groups throughout the study period. Postoperative nausea and vomiting were reduced significantly in the LT group than in the other two groups. No significant differences in postoperative fentanyl requirement, or static and dynamic pain, existed between the MH and DH groups. CONCLUSIONS: LT patients experienced less static pain during the early postoperative period and less dynamic pain during the late postoperative period than MH patients. DH patients had similar pain intensity and postoperative fentanyl requirements to the MH patients.
Breakthrough Pain ; Cough ; Fentanyl ; Hepatectomy ; Humans ; Liver ; Liver Transplantation ; Pain, Postoperative ; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting ; Postoperative Period ; Tissue Donors