Current partner codePEPTIDESDE
NCT07733427·Not applicable·INTERVENTIONAL

Evaluating the Effectiveness of AIT in the Treatment of Pain Related to Pancreatic Cancer

Status

Not yet recruiting

Phase

Not applicable

Enrollment

40

Locations

3

Results

Not posted

Publications

9

Study summary

What the protocol is testing.

The aim of this clinical trial is to assess the effectiveness of intratracheal analgesia on pain intensity in cancer patients, from the start of treatment up to 3 months. It will also investigate the safety of this technique. The main questions it seeks to answer are as follows: What is the impact on the use of opioid analgesics, and can this be measured? What is the quality of life? What is the quality of sleep, and can this be assessed? How does the patient's weight change? Is the patient satisfied? What is the patient's overall survival? The researchers will assess the equivalent daily dose of morphine (mg/day) between enrolment and follow-up visits, as well as the number of patients requiring an escalation of analgesic treatment. Overall quality of life score measured using the ESAS questionnaire between enrolment and follow-up visits; satisfaction assessed using a numerical satisfaction scale (0-10); sleep quality assessed using the ISI questionnaire; and the tolerability and safety of the technique assessed by monitoring adverse events. Eligible participants: Following implantation of the intrathecal pump, participants will have scheduled consultations at day 30, then at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months, with questionnaires to be completed.

Interventions

Treatment arms and agents.

DEVICE

Intrathecal catheter connected to an implantable pump

Epidural puncture (AL injection), followed by a lumbar puncture and collection of cerebrospinal fluid. Positioning of the catheter behind the spinal cord at the desired metameric level for the pancreas (T5-T7), and positioning of the pump in the flank or buttock.

DRUG

Administration of medication, including analgesics, via an intrathecal catheter connected to an implantable pump or via periodic injections

Medications are administered via an intrathecal catheter connected to an implantable pump or via periodic injections; the patient is admitted to hospital with morphine (IV, PO, transdermal) discontinued on entry to the unit (the same applies to methadone). Depending on the condition of the patient's abdominal skin (stoma, multiple injections, etc.) and any foreseeable technical difficulties during MRI scanning (in the left or right lateral positions), the procedure is performed under fluoroscopy, with appropriate antibiotic prophylaxis, under local anaesthesia, epidural anaesthesia and light sedation. Product used, dosage and frequency: Opioids: μ and δ receptors: Morphine sulphate: 50 mg/ml Ca++ channels: ziconotide: initial dose 0.5 µg/day Sodium channels: 1% ropivacaine As with a patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) system: Continuous infusion + bolus or sequential boluses Patient education on the use of the pump during their hospital stay.

Timeline

From registration to results.

  1. First posted

    Jul 29, 2026

  2. Study start

    Jun 2026

  3. Primary completion

    Mar 2027

  4. Study completion

    Dec 2027

  5. Results posted

    Not reported

  6. Registry updated

    Jul 31, 2026

Outcomes

What the study measures.

Primary outcomes

Change in Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) - Pain Subscore

Time frame · Telephone call between Week 1 and Week 12, and questionnaires at Day 30, 3 months, 6 months, 9 months and 12 months

Change in pain intensity score measured by the ESAS subscale from baseline to follow-up visits. Unit of Measure: Score on a scale (0 to 10) Scale Range (Minimum and Maximum Values): 0 to 10 Direction of Scores: Higher scores mean a worse outcome (greater pain intensity).

Secondary outcomes

Change in Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) Overall Quality of Life Score

Time frame · Telephone call between Week 1 and Week 12, and questionnaires at Day 30, 3 months, 6 months, 9 months and 12 months

Change in overall score as measured by the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) from baseline to follow-up visits. Unit of Measure: Score on a scale (ESAS Score) Scale Range (Minimum and Maximum Values): 0 to 10 Direction of Scores: Higher scores mean a worse outcome (greater pain intensity).

Proportion of Patients Requiring Pain Treatment Escalation

Time frame · Telephone call between Week 1 and Week 12, and questionnaires at Day 30, 3 months, 6 months, 9 months and 12 months

Number of patients requiring an increase or escalation in pain management treatment during follow-up. Unit of Measure: Number of participants (or Percentage)

Change in Daily Morphine Equivalent Dose (MED)

Time frame · Telephone call between Week 1 and Week 12, and questionnaires at Day 30, 3 months, 6 months, 9 months and 12 months

Change in daily opioid dose from baseline to follow-up visits. Unit of Measure: mg/day

Change in Sleep Quality Score Insomnia Severity Index (ISI)

Time frame · Telephone call between Week 1 and Week 12, and questionnaires at Day 30, 3 months, 6 months, 9 months and 12 months

Change in insomnia severity measured by the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) questionnaire from baseline to follow-up visits. Scale Range (Minimum and Maximum Values): 0 to 28 (Derived from summing the 7 individual items, each scored on a 0 to 4 scale evaluating sleep onset, maintenance, early morning awakening, satisfaction, daytime interference, noticeability, and distress) Direction of Scores: Higher score 4 means a worse outcome (greater insomnia severity and impaired quality of life) Unit of Measure: Score on a scale (ISI Score)

Change in Body Weight

Time frame · Telephone call between Week 1 and Week 12, and questionnaires at Day 30, 3 months, 6 months, 9 months and 12 months

Change in body weight from baseline to follow-up visits. Unit of Measure: Kilograms (kg)

Patient Satisfaction Clinical Global Impressions Scale (typically either CGI-Severity or CGI-Improvement)

Time frame · Telephone call between Week 1 and Week 12, and questionnaires at Day 30, 3 months, 6 months, 9 months and 12 months

Overall patient satisfaction Clinical Global Impressions (typically either CGI-Severity or CGI-Improvement) rated on a numerical scale. Unit of Measure: Score on a scale Scale Range (Minimum and Maximum Values): 1 to 7 Direction of Scores: Higher scores mean a worse outcome (e.g., greater illness severity or worsening condition).

Incidence of Adverse Events Related to Intratracheal Analgesia

Time frame · Telephone call between Week 1 and Week 12, and questionnaires at Day 30, 3 months, 6 months, 9 months and 12 months

Number of participants experiencing at least one adverse event related to the intratracheal analgesia technique. Unit of Measure: Number of participants

Incidence of Serious Adverse Events (SAEs)

Time frame · Telephone call between Week 1 and Week 12, and questionnaires at Day 30, 3 months, 6 months, 9 months and 12 months

Number of participants experiencing a serious adverse event during the study period. Unit of Measure: Number of participants

Eligibility

Who can take part.

Minimum age
20 Years
Maximum age
Not reported
Sex
ALL
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion Criteria: Subject aged over 20 years * Patient with histologically confirmed pancreatic carcinoma * Chronic cancer-related pain that is inadequately controlled by standard treatment or for whom analgesics are contraindicated. * EMO \< 120 mg/day Patients experiencing side effects: sedation, vomiting, constipation, or an allergy to morphine. * Signed informed consent * Participants affiliated with or eligible for a social security scheme * Agree to complete the various study questionnaires Exclusion Criteria: Patients under the age of 20. * Contraindications to intratracheal analgesia * Acute respiratory infection * Uncontrolled coagulation disorder * Pregnancy or breastfeeding * Unable to comply with medical follow-up for the study. * Adults who are legally protected, under guardianship or under a conservatorship

Study locations

3 registered sites.

France. Showing up to 24 locations stored in the fast local snapshot.

Benkessou

Paris, France

Bizet Clinic

Paris, France

Clinique Bizet

Paris, France

Publications

Results and literature.

PMID 35183448Park J, Park EY, Han SS, Park HM, Lee M, Lee SA, Kim SW, Kim DH, Park SJ. Randomized controlled study comparing the analgesic effects of intravenous patient-controlled analgesia and patient-controlled epidural analgesia after open major surgery for pancreatobiliary cancer. HPB (Oxford). 2022 Aug;24(8):1238-1244. doi: 10.1016/j.hpb.2022.01.013. Epub 2022 Feb 3.PMID 28025375Bruel BM, Burton AW. Intrathecal Therapy for Cancer-Related Pain. Pain Med. 2016 Dec;17(12):2404-2421. doi: 10.1093/pm/pnw060. Epub 2016 Apr 28.PMID 18054150Cohen SP, Dragovich A. Intrathecal analgesia. Anesthesiol Clin. 2007 Dec;25(4):863-82, viii. doi: 10.1016/j.anclin.2007.07.001.PMID 18443642Smith HS, Deer TR, Staats PS, Singh V, Sehgal N, Cordner H. Intrathecal drug delivery. Pain Physician. 2008 Mar;11(2 Suppl):S89-S104.PMID 25638694Rizvi S, Kumar K. History and present state of targeted intrathecal drug delivery. Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2015;19(2):474. doi: 10.1007/s11916-014-0474-8.PMID 10642496Haan S, Kortylewski M, Behrmann I, Muller-Esterl W, Heinrich PC, Schaper F. Cytoplasmic STAT proteins associate prior to activation. Biochem J. 2000 Feb 1;345 Pt 3(Pt 3):417-21.PMID 29543644Carvajal G, Dupoiron D, Seegers V, Lebrec N, Bore F, Dubois PY, Leblanc D, Delorme T, Jubier-Hamon S. Intrathecal Drug Delivery Systems for Refractory Pancreatic Cancer Pain: Observational Follow-up Study Over an 11-Year Period in a Comprehensive Cancer Center. Anesth Analg. 2018 Jun;126(6):2038-2046. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000002903.PMID 14612485Bruera E, Kim HN. Cancer pain. JAMA. 2003 Nov 12;290(18):2476-9. doi: 10.1001/jama.290.18.2476. No abstract available.PMID 10488677Caraceni A, Portenoy RK; a working group of the IASP Task Force on Cancer Pain. An international survey of cancer pain characteristics and syndromes. IASP Task Force on Cancer Pain. International Association for the Study of Pain. Pain. 1999 Sep;82(3):263-274. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3959(99)00073-1.

Primary links

Continue at the source.

Related trials

More studies on Ziconotide.

Related PeptideStat pages

Put the record in context.

Research pages describe evidence. Vendor pages, where available, describe independently tracked research-product listings and are not clinical recommendations.