Patient and physician satisfaction with analgesic treatment in Southeast Asia (SEA): Findings from the analgesic treatment for cancer pain in Southeast Asia (ACE) study.

Authors

Hanlim Moon

Hanlim Moon

Mundipharma Pte Ltd, Singapore, Singapore

Hanlim Moon , Dang Huy Quoc Thinh , Wimonrat Sriraj , Marzida Binti Mansor , Kian Hian Tan , Suhana Yusak , Johan Kurnianda , Yen Phi Nguyen , Annielyn Beryl Ong-Cornel , Yacine Hadjiat , Francis Javier

Organizations

Mundipharma Pte Ltd, Singapore, Singapore, Ho Chi Minh City Oncology Hospital, Ho Chi Minh, Viet Nam, Khon Kaen University, Srinagarind Hospital, Khon Kaen, Thailand, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore, National Cancer Institute, Putrajaya, Malaysia, Sardjito Hospital, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, National Cancer Hospital, Hanoi, Viet Nam, Veterans Memorial Medical Center, Quezon City, Philippines, St. Luke’s Medical Center, Quezon City, Philippines

Research Funding

Pharmaceutical/Biotech Company

Background: Adequate dosing of analgesics is important for optimum cancer pain control & quality of life (QoL). To understand current attitudes toward analgesic treatment for cancer pain in SEA, the ACE study explored patient & physician satisfaction with pain control in 6 SEA countries. Methods: This cross-sectional observational study included 465 adult outpatients prescribed analgesics for cancer pain for ≥1 month in Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, & Vietnam. Pain intensity, sleep disturbance, QoL, satisfaction with pain control, & physicians’ assessment of adequacy of analgesics were recorded via questionnaires. Current analgesic doses prescribed were extracted from medical records. Results: Most patients (84%) had stage 3 or 4 cancer. While 91% were prescribed opioids, mean reported pain intensity was 4.1 (0/no pain, 10/worst possible pain) & most had problems with sleep (55%) & QoL (problems with pain/discomfort [82%], usual activities [66%] & anxiety/depression [56%]). 60% of patients were satisfied with their pain control status & 30% found it acceptable. Physicians more often reported dissatisfaction with patients’ pain control status compared with patients (21% vs 10%). Patient-physician concordance in satisfaction with pain control was low (weighted Kappa 0.36; 95% CI 0.30-0.43). More than 1 in 4 physicians (29%) assessed prescribed analgesics to be “inadequate” for pain control. Median daily dose prescribed in oral morphine equivalents was 30 mg for both morphine & tramadol. Of the SEA countries included, prescribed doses of opioids were generally lower in Indonesia & higher in Vietnam. Conclusions: The results highlight the complexity of managing cancer pain in SEA. Despite unrelieved pain, sleep disturbance & QoL issues, many patients still reported satisfaction with pain control. Notably, physicians expressed dissatisfaction more frequently than patients. These findings suggest a need for all-round pain status assessment (including pain intensity, sleep disturbance, QoL) & improved patient-physician communication about analgesic treatment expectations, pain control & adverse effects.

Disclaimer

This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org

Abstract Details

Meeting

2017 ASCO Annual Meeting

Session Type

Publication Only

Session Title

Publication Only: Patient and Survivor Care

Track

Patient and Survivor Care

Sub Track

Palliative Care and Symptom Management

Citation

J Clin Oncol 35, 2017 (suppl; abstr e21698)

DOI

10.1200/JCO.2017.35.15_suppl.e21698

Abstract #

e21698

Abstract Disclosures

Similar Abstracts

Abstract

2022 ASCO Quality Care Symposium

Smartphone pain app for assessment of radiation-induced oral mucositis pain.

First Author: Aditya V. Shreenivas

First Author: Ramila Shilpakar

First Author: Min Jung Geum

Abstract

2020 ASCO Virtual Scientific Program

Using oral morphine-equivalent values to track the analgesic effect of treatments in clinical trials.

First Author: Stephen A Raymond