A validation study of the WHO analgesic ladder: a two-step vs three-step strategy
- 927 Downloads
Goals of work
The aims of the present study were to verify whether an innovative therapeutic strategy for the treatment of mild-moderate chronic cancer pain, passing directly from step I to step III of the WHO analgesic ladder, is more effective than the traditional three-step strategy and to evaluate the tolerability and therapeutic index in both strategies.
Patients aged 18 years or older with multiple viscera or bone metastases or with locally advanced disease were randomized. Pain intensity was assessed using a 0–10 numerical rating scale based on four questions selected from the validated Italian version of the Brief Pain Inventory. Treatment-specific variables and other symptoms were recorded at baseline up to a maximum follow-up of 90 days per patient.
Fifty-four patients were randomized onto the study, and pain intensity was assessed over a period of 2,649 days. The innovative treatment presented a statistically significant advantage over the traditional strategy in terms of the percentage of days with worst pain ≥5 (22.8 vs 28.6%, p<0.001) and ≥7 (8.6 vs 11.2%, p=0.023). Grades 3 and 4 anorexia and constipation were more frequently reported in the innovative strategy arm, although prophylactic laxative therapy was used less in this setting.
Our preliminary data would seem to suggest that a direct move to the third step of the WHO analgesic ladder is feasible and could reduce some pain scores but also requires careful management of side effects.
KeywordsCancer pain Analgesic ladder WHO guidelines Opioids Pain assessment
- 1.American Pain Society Quality of Care Committee (1995) Quality improvement guidelines for the treatment of acute pain and cancer pain. JAMA 274:1874–1880Google Scholar
- 2.Ashby MA, Fleming BG, Brooksbank M et al (1992) Description of a mechanistic approach to pain management in advanced cancer. Preliminary report. Pain 51:153–161Google Scholar
- 3.Bonica JJ (1990) Cancer pain. In: Bonica JJ (ed) The management of pain, 2nd edn. Lea & Febiger, Philadelphia, PAGoogle Scholar
- 4.Brooks DJ, Gamble W, Ahmedzai S (1995) A regional survey of opioid use by patients receiving specialist palliative care. Palliat Med 9:229–238Google Scholar
- 5.Cherny NI, Portenoy RK (1994) Practical issues in the management of cancer pain. In: Wall PD, Melzach R (eds) Textbook of pain. Churchill Livingstone, London, UK, pp 1437–1468Google Scholar
- 7.Du Pen SL, Du Pen AR, Polissar N et al (1999) Implementing guidelines for cancer pain management: results of a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Clin Oncol 17:361–370Google Scholar
- 8.Eisemberg E, Berkey CS, Carr DB et al (1994) Efficacy and safety of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs for cancer pain: a meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol 12:2756–2765Google Scholar
- 9.Freynhagen R, Zenz M, Strumpf M (1994) WHO step II: clinical reality or a didactic instrument? Schmerz 8:210–215Google Scholar
- 11.ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline (1998) Statistical principles for clinical trials. The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, London, pp 22–24Google Scholar
- 13.Kumar KS, Rajagopal MR, Naseema AM (2000) Intravenous morphine for emergency treatment of cancer pain. Palliat Med 14:183–188Google Scholar
- 14.Laudico AV (1995) Cancer pain relief: a primary health care issue in the Philippines. Cancer Pain Release 8:1–4Google Scholar
- 15.Marinangeli F, Ciccozzi A, Leonardis M et al (2004) Use of strong opioids in advanced cancer pain: a randomized trial. J Pain Symptom Manage 27:409–416Google Scholar
- 16.Mercadante S, Salvaggio L, Dardanoni G et al (1998) Dextropropoxyphene versus morphine in opioid-naive cancer patients with pain. J Pain Symptom Manage 15:76–81Google Scholar
- 17.Meuser T, Pietruck C, Radbruch L, Stute P, Lehmann KA, Grond S (2001) Symptoms during cancer pain treatment following WHO-guidelines: a longitudinal follow-up study of symptom prevalence, severity and etiology. Pain 93:247–257Google Scholar
- 18.Minotti V, de Angelis V, Rigetti E et al (1998) Double blind evaluation of short-term analgesic efficacy of orally administered diclofenac, diclofenac plus codeine, and diclofenac plus imipramina in chronic cancer pain. Pain 74:133–137Google Scholar
- 19.Porta-Sales J, Gòmez-Batiste X, Tuca-Rodriguez A, Madrid-Juan F, Espinosa-Rojas J, Trelis-Navarro J (2003) WHO analgesic ladder-or lift? Eur J Palliat Care 10:105–109Google Scholar
- 20.Regnard CFB, Tempest S (1992) A guide to symptom relief in advanced cancer. Haigh and Hochland, Manchester, UKGoogle Scholar
- 21.SAS/SAT (1990) User’s Guide, version 8.02. SAS Institute, Cary, NCGoogle Scholar
- 23.Stjernswärd J, Teoh N (1990) The scope of the cancer pain problem. In: Foley KM, Bonica JJ, Ventafridda V, Callaway MV (eds) Advances in pain research and therapy. Raven Press, New York, NY, pp 7–12Google Scholar
- 25.Vielvoye-Kerkmcer APE, Mattern C, Vitendaal MP (2000) Transdermal fentanyl in opioid-naive cancer pain patients: an open trial using transdermal fentanyl for the treatment of chronic cancer pain in opioid-naive patients and a group using codeine. J Pain Symptom Manage 19:185–192Google Scholar
- 26.World Health Organization (1986) Cancer pain relief. World Health Organization, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
- 27.World Health Organization (1990) Cancer pain relief and palliative care: report of a WHO expert committee. Technical report series 804. World Health Organization, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
- 28.World Health Organization (1996) Cancer pain relief: with a guide to opioid availability. World Health Organization, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar