Article Text
PDF
Abstract
Objectives Insufficient quality evidence exists to support or refute the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in the management of cancer pain. We aimed to determine the most clinically pragmatic design of a future randominsed controlled trial (RCT), based on how NSAIDs are currently used and perceived efficacy.
Methods An online survey was distributed to members of the Association for Palliative Medicine of Great Britain and Ireland examining NSAID use, indications and perceived efficacy, as well as duration of respondents’ experience in palliative medicine.
Results 23% of 968 members responded. A placebo-controlled trial of NSAIDs as a strong opioid adjunct in cancer-related bone pain was considered the most clinically pragmatic design. Concerning current practice, oral administration was the preferential route (79.4%), dosed regularly (79.5%). Selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors and non-selective COX-2 inhibitors were considered similarly effective by 45% in cancer pain; ibuprofen being the first line oral NSAID of choice (42.6%). Treatment efficacy is generally determined within 1 week (94.3%). On a Likert scale, most physicians consider NSAIDs improve cancer pain either ‘sometimes’ (57.7%) or ‘often’ (40%). Years of specialist palliative care experience did not affect perception of efficacy (p=0.353).
Conclusions A randomised controlled trial of NSAIDs as opioid adjuncts for cancer-related bone pain would be the most pragmatic design supported by palliative care clinicians to benefit clinical practice.
- cancer
- pain
- symptoms and symptom management
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Contributors AP: concept, design of survey, distribution, analysis/ interpretation of data and write up of paper. MRM: analysis/ interpretation of data. MIB: concept, design of survey, analysis/ interpretation of data and critically revised the final article. All authors approved the final version.
Funding As an academic clinical fellow, AJP was supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The authors would also like to acknowledge the staff at the University of Leeds and the Association of Palliative Medicine for their help and support with this study.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.