Use of Essential Medicines for Pain Relief and Palliative Care: A Global Consensus Process.

IF 3.2 2区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Tania Pastrana, Liliana De Lima, Deborah Dudgeon, Anna Voeuk, Ebtesam Ahmed, Lukas Radbruch
{"title":"Use of Essential Medicines for Pain Relief and Palliative Care: A Global Consensus Process.","authors":"Tania Pastrana, Liliana De Lima, Deborah Dudgeon, Anna Voeuk, Ebtesam Ahmed, Lukas Radbruch","doi":"10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2024.10.024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>The WHO Model List of Essential Medicines includes 24 medications under the section Medicines for Pain and Palliative Care (EML). The Lancet Commission on Pain and Palliative Care developed the Lancet Essential Package (LEP), including 35 medications designed to alleviate serious health-related suffering worldwide.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aims to provide recommendations on the appropriate use of essential of medicines in palliative care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The global palliative care community was invited to submit guidelines, of which 19/22 were selected. Data was extracted on initial dose, frequency, and maximum daily dose for medications in the LEP and in the WHO EML. For medications where guidance was not available or information differed, a 2-round Delphi process was conducted with 70 experts across regions and income levels. Consensus was set to ≥70% agreement.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Consensus in the guidelines was identified for 24 medications on three parameters. Open questions (mostly on maximum daily dose) were included in the Delphi. 63 experts from 49 countries responded (RR = 90%). No consensus was achieved for the maximum daily dose for nine medications. Significant disparities in medication availability were noted between high-income and low/middle-income countries.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We were able to partly achieve our goal, with limited evidence and a wide range of clinical practice described by the experts. This highlights an important gap in critical information which affects mostly the provision of palliative care at the primary care. Both limited availability and lack of training on the adequate use of essential medications may affect how clinicians manage symptoms, possibly relying on personal experience or trial and error, rather than evidence-based information.</p>","PeriodicalId":16634,"journal":{"name":"Journal of pain and symptom management","volume":" ","pages":"53-64"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of pain and symptom management","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2024.10.024","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Context: The WHO Model List of Essential Medicines includes 24 medications under the section Medicines for Pain and Palliative Care (EML). The Lancet Commission on Pain and Palliative Care developed the Lancet Essential Package (LEP), including 35 medications designed to alleviate serious health-related suffering worldwide.

Objectives: This study aims to provide recommendations on the appropriate use of essential of medicines in palliative care.

Methods: The global palliative care community was invited to submit guidelines, of which 19/22 were selected. Data was extracted on initial dose, frequency, and maximum daily dose for medications in the LEP and in the WHO EML. For medications where guidance was not available or information differed, a 2-round Delphi process was conducted with 70 experts across regions and income levels. Consensus was set to ≥70% agreement.

Results: Consensus in the guidelines was identified for 24 medications on three parameters. Open questions (mostly on maximum daily dose) were included in the Delphi. 63 experts from 49 countries responded (RR = 90%). No consensus was achieved for the maximum daily dose for nine medications. Significant disparities in medication availability were noted between high-income and low/middle-income countries.

Conclusion: We were able to partly achieve our goal, with limited evidence and a wide range of clinical practice described by the experts. This highlights an important gap in critical information which affects mostly the provision of palliative care at the primary care. Both limited availability and lack of training on the adequate use of essential medications may affect how clinicians manage symptoms, possibly relying on personal experience or trial and error, rather than evidence-based information.

使用基本药物缓解疼痛和姑息治疗:全球共识进程。
背景:世卫组织基本药物示范清单中的疼痛和姑息治疗药物(EML)部分包括 24 种药物。柳叶刀疼痛与姑息关怀委员会制定了柳叶刀基本药物包(LEP),其中包括 35 种药物,旨在减轻全球范围内与健康相关的严重痛苦:方法:邀请全球姑息关怀团体提交指南,从中选出 19/22 份。研究提取了 LEP 和世界卫生组织 EML 中药物的初始剂量、使用频率和最大日剂量数据。对于没有指南或信息不一致的药物,与不同地区和收入水平的 70 位专家进行了两轮德尔菲程序。结果:结果:在指南中就 24 种药物的三个参数达成了共识。德尔菲法中包括开放性问题(主要涉及每日最大剂量)。来自 49 个国家的 63 位专家做出了回应(RR=90%)。九种药物的每日最大剂量未达成共识。高收入国家和中低收入国家在药物供应方面存在显著差异:尽管专家们提供的证据有限且临床实践范围广泛,但我们还是部分实现了目标。这凸显了关键信息方面的一个重要缺口,它主要影响到在基层医疗机构提供姑息关怀服务。基本药物的有限供应和缺乏适当使用基本药物的培训可能会影响临床医生处理症状的方式,可能会依赖于个人经验或反复试验,而不是以证据为基础的信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
6.40%
发文量
821
审稿时长
26 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Pain and Symptom Management is an internationally respected, peer-reviewed journal and serves an interdisciplinary audience of professionals by providing a forum for the publication of the latest clinical research and best practices related to the relief of illness burden among patients afflicted with serious or life-threatening illness.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信