Attitudes of Hospice Providers Regarding Intrathecal Targeted Drug Delivery for Patients With Cancer

Abstract

Pain is one of the most commonly experienced and feared symptoms faced by patients with a serious illness. For these patients, intrathecal drug delivery systems (IDDSs) provide greater potency and/or few systemic side effects. However, despite these benefits, the integration and management of IDDS for patients receiving hospice care has not been previous studied. An electronic, 18-question survey was sent to 200 hospice practitioners (physicians, nurse practitioners and nurses) in the state of Minnesota to explore their experience, confidence, and the perceived barriers to caring for patients with IDDS while being cared for on hospice. Providers were identified though mailing lists from the Minnesota Network of Hospice and Palliative Care organization. The survey was administered by the Mayo Clinic Survey Research Center with institutional review board approval. Slightly more than 50% of respondents have ever cared for a patient with an intrathecal pump. If a patient had a pump in place, only 28% of providers expressed confidence in managing their pain. Additionally, only 3 of 10 respondents felt that adjusting an intrathecal pump should be the first option when a patient with an IDDS in place had increased pain. Indeed, the vast majority (over 80%) of respondents preferred the use of systemic therapies for primary pain management. Access to IDDS vendors for changes/refills in the home is identified as another barrier with over 50% of respondents either unaware of an available vendor or reporting no vendor available. There are numerous self-reported barriers to ongoing use of IDDS with patients receiving hospice care.

Keywords

intrathecal targeted drug delivery intrathecal drug delivery system cancer pain palliative pain hospice pain hospice survey pain pump

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Zech

Ground

Lynch

Hertel

Lehmann

. Validation of World Health Organization guidelines for cancer pain relief: a 10-year prospective study. Pain. 1995;63(1):65–76.

Hallenbeck

Palliative care in the final days of life: they were expecting it at any time. JAMA. 2005;293(18):2265–2271.

Miguel

. Interventional treatment of cancer pain: the fourth step in the World Health Organization analgesic ladder? Cancer Control. 2000;7(2):149–156.

Vargas-Schaffer

. Is the WHO analgesic ladder still valid? Twenty-four years of experience. Can Fam Physician. 2010;56(6):514–517.

Onofrio

Yaksh

Arnold

. Continuous low-dose intrathecal morphine administration in the treatment of chronic pain of malignant origin. Mayo Clin Proc. 1981;56(8):516–520.

Shields

Aclan

. Chemical stability of admixtures of combining ziconotide with fentanyl or sufentanil during simulated intrathecal administration. 2008;12(5):463–466.

Ummenhofer

Arends

Shen

Bernards

. Comparative spinal distribution and clearance kinetics of intrathecally administered morphine, fentanyl, alfentanil, and sufentanil. Anesthesiology. 2000;92(3):739–753.

Pope

Deer

Bruel

Falowski

. Clinical uses of intrathecal therapy and its placement in the pain care algorithm. Pain Pract. 2016;16(8):1092–1106.

Smith

Staats

Deer

, et al. Randomized clinical trial of an implantable drug delivery system compared with comprehensive medical management for refractory cancer pain: impact on pain, drug-related toxicity, and survival. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(19):4040–4049.

10.

Smith

Coyne

Staats

, et al. An implantable drug delivery system (IDDS) for refractory cancer pain provides sustained pain control, less drug-related toxicity, and possibly better survival compared with comprehensive medical management (CMM). Ann Oncol. 2005;16(5):822–833.

11.

Linklater

Leng

Tiernan

Lee

Chambers

. Pain management services in palliative care: a national survey. Palliat Med. 2002;16(5):435–439.

12.

Paice

Williams

. Intraspinal drugs for pain. In: McGuire

Yarbro

, eds. Cancer Pain Management. 2nd ed. Columbia, Missouri: University of Missouri-Columbia. Burlington, MA: Jones & Barglett; 1995:131–158.

13.

Kay

Husbands

Antrobus

Munday

. Provision for advanced pain management techniques in adult palliative care: a national survey of anaesthetic pain specialists. Palliat Med. 2007;21(4):279–284.

14.

Greco

, et al. Quality of cancer pain management: an update of a systematic review of undertreatment of patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(36):4149–4154.

15.

Anghelescu

Guo

Morgan

, et al. Pain outcomes after celiac plexus block in children and young adults with cancer. J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol. 2018. doi:10.1089/jayao.2018.0035.

16.

Ahmed

Mohamed

. Superior hypogastric plexus combined with ganglion impar neurolytic blocks for pelvic and/or perineal cancer pain relief. Pain Physician. 2015;18(1):49–56.

17.

Candido

Kusper

Knezevic

. New cancer pain treatment options. Curr Pain Headaches Rep. 2017;21(2):1–12.

18.

Deer

Pope

Hayek

, et al. The Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference (PACC): recommendations on intrathecal drug infusion systems best practices and guidelines. Neuromodulation. 2017;20(2):96–132.

19.

Brogan

Winter

Abiodun

Safarpour

. A cost utilization analysis of intrathecal therapy for refractory cancer pain: identifying factors associated with cost benefit. Pain Medicine. 2013;14(4):478–486.

20.

Brogan

Winter

Okifuji

. Prospective observational study of patient-controlled intrathecal analgesia: impact on cancer-associated symptoms, breakthrough pain control, and patient satisfaction. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2015;40(4):369–375.

21.

Stearns

Boortz-Marx

Du Pen

, et al. Intrathecal drug delivery for the management of cancer pain. J Support Oncol. 2005;3(6):399–408.