Background: The major growth of mobile technologies in the recent years has led to the development of medical-monitoring applications, particularly on smartphones. Aim: The aim of this study was to review the use of m-health in the monitoring of patients with chronic pathologies in order to consider what could be adapted for palliative care patients at home. Design: A systematic review of the English and French literature was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses criteria. Date Sources: The review screened the following databases: PUBMED, SCOPUS, COCHRANE, SCIENCE DIRECT, SUDOC, and EM-Premium, screening studies published between 2008 and 2018. The selection of articles was done by the main investigator. All studies concerning the use of m-Health apps for patients with chronic diseases were included. Results: From the 337 selected publications, 8 systematic reviews and 14 original studies were included. The main uses of m-Health apps were biological and clinical monitoring (particularly concerning the symptoms) in 75% of the applications, disease self-management in 64% of the applications, and therapeutic patient education in 50% of the applications, with remote monitoring. Conclusions: The development of an m-Health application could become a complementary monitoring tool during palliative care. However, it seems important to question the impact of technique in the professional–patient relationship and avoid the pitfalls of standardizing palliative care and reducing the patient to a “sick” health technician. A future step would then be to define which health-care professional would be in charge of this “m-monitoring.”

Purpose: Data supporting the use of high-concentration capsaicin patches (HCCPs) in breast cancer (BC) patients and BC survivors (BCSs) with peripheral neuropathic pain (PNP) are limited. This observational study evaluated the effectiveness and safety of HCCP applications in BCSs/BC patients with PNP. Patients and Methods: Data from all patients treated with HCCP in the pain department of a French comprehensive cancer centre were collected from 01-Jan-2014 to 14-Oct-2020. Independent pain specialists completed the Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGIC) for each included patient based on data extracted from patient’s electronic medical record compiled by the treating pain specialist after each HCCP application. Results: Patients (N=279; mean age: 59.2 years; previous history of PNP medication: 54.5%) received on average 4.1 repeated HCCP applications (1141 HCCP applications); 68.8% received HCCP as an add-on to systemic therapy and 27.9% as first-line therapy. PNP was most frequently caused by surgery (62.4%) followed by chemotherapy (11.8%) and radiotherapy (6.5%). A complete or important analgesic effect was reported at least once by 82.3% of patients. A 6.0% reported no effect at all. For post-surgical PNP existing for < 12 months and > 10 years an important or complete effect was observed for 70.7% and 56.0% of applications. For chemotherapy- or radiotherapy-induced PNP, this important or complete effect was observed for 52.7% and 52.3% of applications, respectively. HCCP application was associated with site reactions in 54.4% of patients (mainly burning sensation or pain, 45.9%, or erythema, 30.8%) and high blood pressure in 7.2%. Conclusion: This real-world chart review provides important effectiveness and safety information to clinicians when considering topical options to treat PNP in BCSs/BC patients.

Introduction: Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is often painful and can arise during or after the end of oncological treatments. They are mostly induced by platinum salts, taxanes, and immunotherapies. Their incidence is estimated between 19 and 85%. They can require a chemotherapy dose reduction or early termination. The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) recommends high-concentration capsaicin patch (HCCP) in second line for the treatment of painful CIPN. This treatment induces a significative pain relief but only shown by low-powered studies. The objective of this study was to evaluate efficacy and tolerability of HCCP applications in CIPN. Methods: This monocentric observational retrospective real-world-data study of the CERCAN cohort took place in the Western Cancer Institute’s Anaesthesiology and Pain Department at Angers, France. Independent pain physicians completed the CGIC (Clinician Global Impression of Change) for each patient who benefited from HCCP applications for painful CIPN starting from 1 January 2014 to 22 December 2021, based on the collected data after every patch application. Results: A total of 57 patients (80.7% women) was treated with HCCP for painful CIPN, and 184 applications were realized, consisting of 296 sessions. CGIC found an important or complete pain relief for 61 applications (33.2%, corresponding to 43.9% patients). We found less efficacy for platinum-salts-induced CIPN compared to others (p = 0.0238). The efficacy was significatively higher for repeated applications when HCCP was used in second line compared to third line (p = 0.018). The efficacy of HCCP was significatively higher starting the third application (p = 0.0334). HCCPs were mainly responsible for local adverse events found in 66.6% patients (65.1% burning or painful sensation, 21.1% erythema). Conclusion: HCCP applications in painful CIPN induce an important pain relief with a global satisfying tolerability.

Background/Objectives: CAPTRANE evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of high-concentration capsaicin patch (HCCP) vs. oral pregabalin for the treatment of postsurgical neuropathic pain (PSNP) following breast cancer surgery. The study was designed with the aim of demonstrating noninferiority of one HCCP against daily pregabalin. Methods: This was a multicenter, randomized, parallel-arm, open-label study conducted across nine centers in France. The primary endpoint was a change from baseline in the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) score after 2 months. Results: Recruitment challenges resulted in the randomization of 140 patients (versus 644 planned); the per-protocol population comprised 107 patients (HCCP: n = 65; pregabalin: n = 42). Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. In the per-protocol analysis, the mean (standard deviation) change versus baseline in NPRS score was −1.926 (2.554) with HCCP and −1.634 (2.498) with pregabalin. The prespecified analysis showed that HCCP was not inferior to pregabalin: the lower bound of the 90% confidence interval for the between-arm difference was −0.889 and the upper bound was +0.260 (i.e., below the predefined clinical threshold of +0.4). Patient-reported outcomes showed no statistically significant differences between treatments. The painful area size decreased significantly more with HCCP. Tolerability profiles differed, with HCCP mostly causing application-site reactions. While >50% of patients switched from pregabalin to HCCP, none switched from HCCP to pregabalin. Conclusions: This comparative study in PSNP post breast cancer surgery, evaluating a single treatment of HCCP, shows a noninferior reduction in pain intensity, a superior reduction in painful area size, and a patient preference for HCCP compared with pregabalin. Despite limitations, it contributes valuable initial data for PSNP management in breast cancer care.