Hydromorphone for cancer pain

Comprehensive Analysis of Strong Opioid Side Effects in Palliative Care Using the SIDER Database

Background/Objectives: There exist multiple opioid-based treatments in palliative care, each with distinct side effect profiles. When adverse events occur, switching opioids can help maintain effective pain management. However, owing to limited clinical evidence, no comprehensive guidelines exist for opioid switching. This study employed the Side Effect Resource (SIDER) database, which aggregates adverse event data from clinical trials and package inserts, to analyze the side effects of five commonly used "strong opioids" in palliative care in Japan, namely morphine, fentanyl, oxycodone, hydromorphone, and tapentadol. Methods: Data on the names and incidence of adverse events for each opioid were extracted from SIDER 4.1, developed by the Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine. Cluster analysis and principal component analysis were performed to interpret the data. Results: The key side effects of opioids were nausea, vomiting, constipation, and drowsiness. Fentanyl was more frequently associated with nausea and vomiting but less frequently with constipation and drowsiness. Tapentadol caused nausea relatively more frequently and constipation less frequently. Oxycodone was prominently linked to drowsiness, whereas morphine was frequently associated with constipation and drowsiness. Hydromorphone was associated with higher rates of constipation and vomiting but lower incidences of nausea and drowsiness. Conclusions: All side effects characterizing the opioids were related to μ-opioid receptor stimulation, although the present study findings highlight differences in the frequency of specific side effects among the opioids. These results provide objective insights that can guide opioid switching in response to adverse effects.

Optimizing anesthesia strategies to NSCLC patients in VATS procedures: Insights from drug requirements and patient recovery patterns

Understanding the intricate relationship between cancer clinicopathological features and anesthetics dosage is crucial for optimizing patient outcomes and safety during surgery. This retrospective study investigates this relationship in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) undergoing video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS). A comprehensive analysis of medical records was undertaken for NSCLC patients who underwent VATS with intravenous compound inhalation general anesthesia. Patients were categorized based on histological, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and epidural anesthesia factors. Statistical analysis was performed to compare the differences between the groups. The results revealed compelling insights. Specifically, patients with lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) undergoing VATS exhibited higher dosages of rocuronium bromide and midazolam during general anesthesia, coupled with a shorter post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) stay compared to those with squamous cell carcinoma (sqCL). Furthermore, chemotherapy patients undergoing VATS demonstrated diminished requirements for phenylephrine and remifentanil in contrast to their non-chemotherapy counterparts. Similarly, radiotherapy patients undergoing VATS demonstrated a decreased necessity for rocuronium bromide compared to non-radiotherapy patients. Notably, patients who received epidural anesthesia in combination with general anesthesia manifested reduced hydromorphone requirements and prolonged hospital stays compared to those subjected to general anesthesia alone. In conclusion, the findings from this study indicate several important observations in diverse patient groups undergoing VATS. The higher dosages of rocuronium bromide and midazolam in LUAD patients point to potential differences in drug requirements among varying lung cancer types. Additionally, the observed shorter PACU stay in LUAD patients suggests a potentially expedited recovery process. The reduced anesthetic requirements of phenylephrine and remifentanilin chemotherapy patients indicate distinct responses to anesthesia and pain management. Radiotherapy patients requiring lower doses of rocuronium bromide imply a potential impact of prior radiotherapy on muscle relaxation. Finally, the combination of epidural anesthesia with general anesthesia resulted in reduced hydromorphone requirements and longer hospital stays, suggesting the potential benefits of this combined approach in terms of pain management and postoperative recovery. These findings highlight the importance of tailoring anesthesia strategies for specific patient populations to optimize outcomes in VATS procedures.

The 50% effective dose of hydromorphone and morphine for epidural analgesia in the hemorrhoidectomy: a double-blind, sequential dose-finding study

BACKGROUND

Although previous studies have showed that epidural morphine can be used as a complement to local anesthetics for analgesia after postcesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia, there is little known about the analgesic dosage of epidural morphine and hydromorphone for hemorrhoidectomy. Therefore, we conducted this study to examine the potency ratio of hydromorphone to epidural morphine as well as effective analgesic dose for 50% patients (ED50) undergoing elective hemorrhoidectomy.

METHODS

80 patients under elective hemorrhoidectomy with combined spinal and epidural anesthesia(CSEA) in department of anesthesia, Dongguan Tungwah hospital. To assess the ED50, patients were treated with epidural morphine or epidural hydromorphone randomly using a biased coin method-determined dose with a sequential allocation procedure. Following surgery, standardized multimodal analgesia was administered to all patients. A pain response score of ≤ 3 (on a scale of 0-10) was determined to be the effective dose after 24 h following CSEA. The ED50 in both groups were determined using the probit regression and isotonic regression method. We also measured pain intensity by patient interview using a 10 point verbal numeric rating scale prospectively at 6, 12 and 24 h after CSEA, and adverse effects were also noted.

RESULTS

The ED50 was 0.350 mg (95% CI, 0.259-0.376 mg) in hydromorphone group and 1.129 mg (95% CI, 0.903-1.187 mg) in morphine group, respectively, estimated by isotonic regression method. Regression analysis with the probit, the ED50 of epidural hydromorphone was 0.366 mg (95% CI, 0.276-0.388 mg) and epidural morphine was 1.138 mg (95% CI, 0.910-1.201 mg). Exploratory findings showed that there was no difference between the most frequent dosages of epidural hydromorphone or epidural morphine in the occurrence of nausea, vomiting and pruritus. When administered with epidural opioids at ED50 doses or higher, 97.5% (39/40) of epidural morphine patients and 97.5% (39/40) epidural hydromorphone of patients were satisfied with their analgesia.

CONCLUSION

Effective hemorrhoidectomy analgesia requires a 3:1 ratio of epidural morphine to epidural hydromorphone. Both drugs provide excellent patient satisfaction.

High-dose opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: an overview of Cochrane Reviews

BACKGROUND

This overview was originally published in 2017, and is being updated in 2022.  Chronic pain is typically described as pain on most days for at least three months. Chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) is any chronic pain that is not due to a malignancy. Chronic non-cancer pain in adults is a common and complex clinical issue, for which opioids are prescribed by some physicians for pain management. There are concerns that the use of high doses of opioids for CNCP lacks evidence of effectiveness, and may increase the risk of adverse events.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the evidence from Cochrane Reviews and overviews regarding the efficacy and safety of high-dose opioids (defined as 200 mg morphine equivalent or more per day) for CNCP.

METHODS

We identified Cochrane Reviews and overviews by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in The Cochrane Library. The date of the last search was 21 July 2022. Two overview authors independently assessed the search results. We planned to analyse data on any opioid agent used at a high dose for two weeks or more for the treatment of CNCP in adults.

MAIN RESULTS

We did not identify any reviews or overviews that met the inclusion criteria. The excluded reviews largely reflected low doses or titrated doses, where all doses were analysed as a single group; we were unable to extract any data for high-dose use only.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is a critical lack of high-quality evidence, in the form of Cochrane Reviews, about how well high-dose opioids work for the management of CNCP in adults, and regarding the presence and severity of adverse events.  No evidence-based argument can be made on the use of high-dose opioids, i.e. 200 mg morphine equivalent or more daily, in clinical practice. Considering that high-dose opioids have been, and are still being used in clinical practice to treat CNCP, knowing about the efficacy and safety of these higher doses is imperative.

Safety and efficacy of intravenous hydromorphone patient-controlled analgesia versus intramuscular pethidine in acute pancreatitis: An open-label, randomized controlled trial

Background: Hydromorphone patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) provides satisfactory postoperative pain therapy, but its effect has not been assessed in acute pancreatitis (AP).

Aim: To assess the safety and efficacy of intravenous hydromorphone PCA for pain relief in AP.

Methods: This open-label trial included AP patients admitted within 72 h of symptom onset, aged 18–70 years old, and with Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain intensity ≥5. They were randomized to receive intravenous hydromorphone PCA (0.05 mg/h with 0.2 mg on-demand) or intramuscular pethidine (50 mg as required) for three consecutive days. Intramuscular dezocine (5 mg on demand) was the rescue analgesia. The primary outcome was the change of VAS score recorded every 4 h for 3 days. Interim analysis was conducted by an Independent Data and Safety Monitoring Committee (IDSMC).

Results: From 26 July 2019 to 15 January 2020, 77 patients were eligible for the intention-to-treat analysis in the interim analysis (39 in the hydromorphone group and 38 in the pethidine group). Baseline parameters were comparable between groups. No difference in VAS between the two groups was found. Hydromorphone PCA was associated with higher moderately severe to severe cases (82.1% vs. 55.3%, p = 0.011), acute peripancreatic fluid collections (53.9% vs. 28.9%, p = 0.027), more cumulative opioid consumption (median 46.7 vs. 5 mg, p < 0.001), higher analgesia costs (median 85.5 vs. 0.5 $, p < 0.001) and hospitalization costs (median 3,778 vs. 2,273 $, p = 0.007), and more adverse events (20.5% vs. 2.6%, p = 0.087). The per-protocol analysis did not change the results. Although a sample size of 122 patients was planned, the IDSMC halted further recruitment as disease worsening or worse clinical outcomes between the groups in the interim analysis.

Conclusion: Hydromorphone PCA was not superior to pethidine in relieving pain in AP patients and might have worse clinical outcomes. Therefore, its use is not recommended.

Clinical Trial Registration: Chictr.org.cn. ChiCTR1900025971

A Critical Review of the Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Opioid Medications Used in Avian Patients

Opioid drugs are used to manage moderate to severe pain in mammals and avian species. In dosing opioids for a particular species, it is optimal to use dosing regimens based on pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamics studies conducted in the same species as variability in the physiology among different species may result in differences in drug pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Unfortunately, dosing regimens are typically extrapolated from closely related avian species or even mammals, which is unideal. Therefore, this critical review aims to collate and evaluate the dosing regimens of selected opioids: tramadol, hydromorphone, buprenorphine, butorphanol, and fentanyl, in avian species and its related safety, efficacy and pharmacokinetic data. Our review found specific dosing regimens not described in the Exotic Animal Formulary for tramadol used in Indian Peafowl (Pavo cristatus), Muscovy Duck (Cairina moschata) and Hispaniolan Parrot (Amazona ventralis); hydromorphone used in Orange-winged Parrot (Amazona amazonica); buprenorphine used in Cockatiel (Nymphicus hollandicus), American Kestrel (Falco sparverius) and Grey Parrot (Psittacus erithacus); and butorphanol used in Hispaniolan Parrot (Amazona ventralis), Broiler Chicken and Indian Peafowl (Pavo cristatus). Cockatiel appeared to not experience analgesic effects for hydromorphone and buprenorphine, and American Kestrel exhibited sex-dependent responses to opioids. The selected opioids were observed to be generally safe, with adverse effects being dose-dependent.

Multifarious Targets and Recent Developments in the Therapeutics for the Management of Bone Cancer Pain

Bone cancer pain (BCP) is a distinct pain state showing characteristics of both neuropathic and inflammatory pain. On average, almost 46% of cancer patients exhibit BCP with numbers flaring up to as high as 76% for terminally ill patients. Patients suffering from BCP experience a compromised quality of life, and the unavailability of effective therapeutics makes this a more devastating condition. In every individual cancer patient, the pain is driven by different mechanisms at different sites. The mechanisms behind the manifestation of BCP are very complex and poorly understood, which creates a substantial barrier to drug development. Nevertheless, some of the key mechanisms involved have been identified and are being explored further to develop targeted molecules. Developing a multitarget approach might be beneficial in this case as the underlying mechanism is not fixed and usually a number of these pathways are simultaneously dysregulated. In this review, we have discussed the role of recently identified novel modulators and mechanisms involved in the development of BCP. They include ion channels and receptors involved in sensing alteration of temperature and acidic microenvironment, immune system activation, sodium channels, endothelins, protease-activated receptors, neurotrophins, motor proteins mediated trafficking of glutamate receptor, and some bone-specific mechanisms. Apart from this, we have also discussed some of the novel approaches under preclinical and clinical development for the treatment of bone cancer pain.

The Development of a Macromolecular Analgesic for Arthritic Pain

The addictive potential of clinically used opioids as a result of their direct action on the dopaminergic reward system in the brain has limited their application. In an attempt to reduce negative side effects as well as to improve the overall effectiveness of these analgesics, we have designed, synthesized, and evaluated an N-(2-hydroxypropyl)methacrylamide (HPMA)-based macromolecular prodrug of hydromorphone (HMP), a commonly used opioid. To this end, P-HMP was synthesized via RAFT polymerization and a subsequent polymer analogous reaction. Its interaction with inflammatory cells in arthritic joints was evaluated in vitro using a RAW 264.7 cell culture, and subsequent confocal microscopy analysis confirmed that P-HMP could be internalized by the cells via endocytosis. In vivo imaging studies indicated that the prodrug can passively target the arthritic joint after systemic administration in a rodent model of monoarticular adjuvant-induced arthritis (MAA). The inflammatory pain-alleviating properties of the prodrug were assessed in MAA rats using the incapacitance test and were observed to be similar to dose-equivalent HMP. Analgesia through mechanisms at the spinal cord level was further measured using the tail flick test, and it was determined that the prodrug significantly reduced spinal cord analgesia versus free HMP, further validating the peripheral restriction of the macromolecular prodrug. Immunohistochemical analysis of cellular uptake of the P-HMP within the MAA knee joint proved the internalization of the prodrug by phagocytic synoviocytes, colocalized with HMP's target receptor as well as with pain-modulating ion channels. Therefore, it can be concluded that the novel inflammation-targeting polymeric prodrug of HMP (P-HMP) has the potential to be developed as an effective and safe analgesic agent for musculoskeletal pain.

Preclinical and Clinical Pharmacology of Hydrocodone for Chronic Pain: A Mini Review

Hydrocodone is one of the most prescribed oral analgesic drugs and it is one of the most abused drugs in general population. It is a mu-opioid agonist predominantly metabolized to the O-demethylated product hydromorphone and to the N-demethylated product norhydrocodone. The purpose of the study is to summarize the preclinical and clinical characteristics of hydrocodone. Pharmacokinetic aspect (terminal half-life, maximum serum concentration, and time to maximum serum concentration) of hydrocodone and the influence of metabolic genetic polymorphism in analgesic response to hydrocodone are also illustrated and commented. Literature on experimental preclinical pharmacology investigating analgesic activity in laboratory animals is furtherly discussed. Moreover, the authors discuss and comment on the updated data regarding safety profile and effectiveness of hydrocodone in the treatment of chronic pain. A bibliographic research was carried out (from February 01, 2018 to August 28, 2018) independently by two researchers (blinded to the authors and initially on results) in the major scientific databases and research engines of peer-reviewed literature on life sciences and biomedical topics, starting from January 1990 to August 2018. Analysis of results of clinical studies suggests that abuse-deterrent extended-release (ER) hydrocodone formulations can be effective and they are well tolerated in the treatment of chronic low back pain. Weaker is the evidence of the analgesic effectiveness of ER hydrocodone on other chronic pain syndromes and non-cancer non-neuropathic chronic pain. In these conditions, hydrocodone showed to have positive effects in non-controlled open studies and needs to be further studied to assess the real strength of results.

Pain Therapy Guided by Purpose and Perspective in Light of the Opioid Epidemic

Prescription opioid misuse is an ongoing and escalating epidemic. Although these pharmacological agents are highly effective analgesics prescribed for different types of pain, opioids also induce euphoria, leading to increasing diversion and misuse. Opioid use and related mortalities have developed in spite of initial claims that OxyContin, one of the first opioids prescribed in the USA, was not addictive in the presence of pain. These claims allayed the fears of clinicians and contributed to an increase in the number of prescriptions, quantity of drugs manufactured, and the unforeseen diversion of these drugs for non-medical uses. Understanding the history of opioid drug development, the widespread marketing campaign for opioids, the immense financial incentive behind the treatment of pain, and vulnerable socioeconomic and physical demographics for opioid misuse give perspective on the current epidemic as an American-born problem that has expanded to global significance. In light of the current worldwide opioid epidemic, it is imperative that novel opioids are developed to treat pain without inducing the euphoria that fosters physical dependence and addiction. We describe insights from preclinical findings on the properties of opioid drugs that offer insights into improving abuse-deterrent formulations. One finding is that the ability of some agonists to activate one pathway over another, or agonist bias, can predict whether several novel opioid compounds bear promise in treating pain without causing reward among other off-target effects. In addition, we outline how the pharmacokinetic profile of each opioid contributes to their potential for misuse and discuss the emergence of mixed agonists as a promising pipeline of opioid-based analgesics. These insights from preclinical findings can be used to more effectively identify opioids that treat pain without causing physical dependence and subsequent opioid abuse.

SEOM clinical guideline for treatment of cancer pain (2017)

Pain is a highly prevalent symptom in patients with cancer. Despite therapeutic advances and well-accepted treatment guidelines, a percentage of patients with pain are under-treated. Currently, it has been recognized that several barriers in pain management still exist and, in addition, there are new challenges surrounding complex subtypes of pain, such as breakthrough and neuropathic pain, requiring further reviews and recommendations. This is an update of the guide our society previously published and represents the continued commitment of SEOM to move forward and improve supportive care of cancer patients.

High-dose opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: an overview of Cochrane Reviews

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain is typically described as pain on most days for at least three months. Chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) is any chronic pain that is not due to a malignancy. Chronic non-cancer pain in adults is a common and complex clinical issue where opioids are routinely used for pain management. There are concerns that the use of high doses of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain lacks evidence of effectiveness and may increase the risk of adverse events.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the evidence from Cochrane Reviews and Overviews regarding the efficacy and safety of high-dose opioids (here defined as 200 mg morphine equivalent or more per day) for chronic non-cancer pain.

METHODS

We identified Cochrane Reviews and Overviews through a search of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (The Cochrane Library). The date of the last search was 18 April 2017. Two review authors independently assessed the search results. We planned to analyse data on any opioid agent used at high dose for two weeks or more for the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain in adults.

MAIN RESULTS

We did not identify any reviews or overviews meeting the inclusion criteria. The excluded reviews largely reflected low doses or titrated doses where all doses were analysed as a single group; no data for high dose only could be extracted.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is a critical lack of high-quality evidence regarding how well high-dose opioids work for the management of chronic non-cancer pain in adults, and regarding the presence and severity of adverse events. No evidence-based argument can be made on the use of high-dose opioids, i.e. 200 mg morphine equivalent or more daily, in clinical practice. Trials typically used doses below our cut-off; we need to know the efficacy and harm of higher doses, which are often used in clinical practice.

Oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for cancer pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Pain is a common symptom with cancer, and 30% to 50% of all people with cancer will experience moderate to severe pain that can have a major negative impact on their quality of life. Non-opioid drugs are commonly used to treat cancer pain, and are recommended for this purpose in the World Health Organization (WHO) cancer pain treatment ladder, either alone or in combination with opioids.A previous Cochrane review that examined the evidence for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or paracetamol, alone or combined with opioids, for cancer pain was withdrawn in 2015 because it was out of date; the date of the last search was 2005. This review, and another on paracetamol, updates the evidence.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of oral NSAIDs for cancer pain in adults, and the adverse events reported during their use in clinical trials.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase from inception to April 2017, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, and two online study registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, single-blind, or open-label studies of five days' duration or longer, comparing any oral NSAID alone with placebo or another NSAID, or a combination of NSAID plus opioid with the same dose of the opioid alone, for cancer pain of any pain intensity. The minimum study size was 25 participants per treatment arm at the initial randomisation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality and potential bias. We did not carry out any pooled analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven studies satisfied inclusion criteria, lasting one week or longer; 949 participants with mostly moderate or severe pain were randomised initially, but fewer completed treatment or had results of treatment. Eight studies were double-blind, two single-blind, and one open-label. None had a placebo only control; eight compared different NSAIDs, three an NSAID with opioid or opioid combination, and one both. None compared an NSAID plus opioid with the same dose of opioid alone. Most studies were at high risk of bias for blinding, incomplete outcome data, or small size; none was unequivocally at low risk of bias.It was not possible to compare NSAIDs as a group with another treatment, or one NSAID with another NSAID. Results for all NSAIDs are reported as a randomised cohort. We judged results for all outcomes as very low-quality evidence.None of the studies reported our primary outcomes of participants with pain reduction of at least 50%, and at least 30%, from baseline; participants with Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) of much improved or very much improved (or equivalent wording). With NSAID, initially moderate or severe pain was reduced to no worse than mild pain after one or two weeks in four studies (415 participants in total), with a range of estimates between 26% and 51% in individual studies.Adverse event and withdrawal reporting was inconsistent. Two serious adverse events were reported with NSAIDs, and 22 deaths, but these were not clearly related to any pain treatment. Common adverse events were thirst/dry mouth (15%), loss of appetite (14%), somnolence (11%), and dyspepsia (11%). Withdrawals were common, mostly because of lack of efficacy (24%) or adverse events (5%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no high-quality evidence to support or refute the use of NSAIDs alone or in combination with opioids for the three steps of the three-step WHO cancer pain ladder. There is very low-quality evidence that some people with moderate or severe cancer pain can obtain substantial levels of benefit within one or two weeks.

Oral paracetamol (acetaminophen) for cancer pain

BACKGROUND

Pain is a common symptom with cancer, and 30% to 50% of all people with cancer will experience moderate to severe pain that can have a major negative impact on their quality of life. Non-opioid drugs are commonly used to treat mild to moderate cancer pain, and are recommended for this purpose in the WHO cancer pain treatment ladder, either alone or in combination with opioids.A previous Cochrane review that examined the evidence for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or paracetamol, alone or combined with opioids, for cancer pain was withdrawn in 2015 because it was out of date; the date of the last search was 2005. This review, and another on NSAIDs, updates the evidence.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of oral paracetamol (acetaminophen) for cancer pain in adults and children, and the adverse events reported during its use in clinical trials.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase from inception to March 2017, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, and two online study registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, studies of five days' duration or longer, comparing paracetamol alone with placebo, or paracetamol in combination with an opioid compared with the same dose of the opioid alone, for cancer pain of any intensity. Single-blind and open studies were also eligible for inclusion. The minimum study size was 25 participants per treatment arm at the initial randomisation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality and potential bias. We did not carry out any pooled analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

Three studies in adults satisfied the inclusion criteria, lasting up to one week; 122 participants were randomised initially, and 95 completed treatment. We found no studies in children. One study was parallel-group, and two had a cross-over design. All used paracetamol as an add-on to established treatment with strong opioids (median daily morphine equivalent doses of 60 mg, 70 mg, and 225 mg, with some participants taking several hundred mg of oral morphine equivalents daily). Other non-paracetamol medication included non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), tricyclic antidepressants, or neuroleptics. All studies were at high risk of bias for incomplete outcome data and small size; none was unequivocally at low risk of bias.None of the studies reported any of our primary outcomes: participants with pain reduction of at least 50%, and at least 30%, from baseline; participants with pain no worse than mild at the end of the treatment period; participants with Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) of much improved or very much improved (or equivalent wording). What pain reports there were indicated no difference between paracetamol and placebo when added to another treatment. There was no convincing evidence of paracetamol being different from placebo with regards to quality of life, use of rescue medication, or participant satisfaction or preference. Measures of harm (serious adverse events, other adverse events, and withdrawal due to lack of efficacy) were inconsistently reported and provided no clear evidence of difference.Our GRADE assessment of evidence quality was very low for all outcomes, because studies were at high risk of bias from several sources.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no high-quality evidence to support or refute the use of paracetamol alone or in combination with opioids for the first two steps of the three-step WHO cancer pain ladder. It is not clear whether any additional analgesic benefit of paracetamol could be detected in the available studies, in view of the doses of opioids used.

Opioids for cancer pain - an overview of Cochrane reviews

BACKGROUND

Pain is a common symptom with cancer, and 30% to 50% of all people with cancer will experience moderate to severe pain that can have a major negative impact on their quality of life. Opioid (morphine-like) drugs are commonly used to treat moderate or severe cancer pain, and are recommended for this purpose in the World Health Organization (WHO) pain treatment ladder. The most commonly-used opioid drugs are buprenorphine, codeine, fentanyl, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, methadone, morphine, oxycodone, tramadol, and tapentadol.

OBJECTIVES

To provide an overview of the analgesic efficacy of opioids in cancer pain, and to report on adverse events associated with their use.

METHODS

We identified systematic reviews examining any opioid for cancer pain published to 4 May 2017 in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in the Cochrane Library. The primary outcomes were no or mild pain within 14 days of starting treatment, withdrawals due to adverse events, and serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine reviews with 152 included studies and 13,524 participants, but because some studies appeared in more than one review the number of unique studies and participants was smaller than this. Most participants had moderate or severe pain associated with a range of different types of cancer. Studies in the reviews typically compared one type of opioid or formulation with either a different formulation of the same opioid, or a different opioid; few included a placebo control. Typically the reviews titrated dose to effect, a balance between pain relief and adverse events. Various routes of administration of opioids were considered in the reviews; oral with most opioids, but transdermal administration with fentanyl, and buprenorphine. No review included studies of subcutaneous opioid administration. Pain outcomes reported were varied and inconsistent. The average size of included studies varied considerably between reviews: studies of older opioids, such as codeine, morphine, and methadone, had low average study sizes while those involving newer drugs tended to have larger study sizes.Six reviews reported a GRADE assessment (buprenorphine, codeine, hydromorphone, methadone, oxycodone, and tramadol), but not necessarily for all comparisons or outcomes. No comparative analyses were possible because there was no consistent placebo or active control. Cohort outcomes for opioids are therefore reported, as absolute numbers or percentages, or both.Reviews on buprenorphine, codeine with or without paracetamol, hydromorphone, methadone, tramadol with or without paracetamol, tapentadol, and oxycodone did not have information about the primary outcome of mild or no pain at 14 days, although that on oxycodone indicated that average pain scores were within that range. Two reviews, on oral morphine and transdermal fentanyl, reported that 96% of 850 participants achieved that goal.Adverse event withdrawal was reported by five reviews, at rates of between 6% and 19%. Participants with at least one adverse event were reported by three reviews, at rates of between 11% and 77%.Our GRADE assessment of evidence quality was very low for all outcomes, because many studies in the reviews were at high risk of bias from several sources, including small study size.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The amount and quality of evidence around the use of opioids for treating cancer pain is disappointingly low, although the evidence we have indicates that around 19 out of 20 people with moderate or severe pain who are given opioids and can tolerate them should have that pain reduced to mild or no pain within 14 days. This accords with the clinical experience in treating many people with cancer pain, but overstates to some extent the effectiveness found for the WHO pain ladder. Most people will experience adverse events, and help may be needed to manage the more common undesirable adverse effects such as constipation and nausea. Perhaps between 1 in 10 and 2 in 10 people treated with opioids will find these adverse events intolerable, leading to a change in treatment.

Tramadol with or without paracetamol (acetaminophen) for cancer pain

BACKGROUND

Tramadol is an opioid analgesic licensed for use in moderate to severe pain. It is considered as a low risk for abuse, so control regulations are not as stringent as for 'strong' opioids such as morphine. It has a potential role as a step 2 option of the World Health Organization (WHO) analgesic ladder.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and adverse effects of tramadol with or without paracetamol (acetaminophen) for cancer-related pain.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases using a wide range of search terms: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We also searched three clinical trials registry databases. The date of the last search was 2 November 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected studies that were randomised, with placebo or active controls, or both, and included a minimum of 10 participants per treatment arm. We were interested particularly in blinded studies, but also included open studies.We excluded non-randomised studies, studies of experimental pain, case reports, and clinical observations.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data using a standard form and checked for agreement before entry into Review Manager 5. We included information about the number of participants treated and demographic details, type of cancer, drug and dosing regimen, study design (placebo or active control) and methods, study duration and follow-up, analgesic outcome measures and results, withdrawals, and adverse events. We collated multiple reports of the same study, so that each study, rather than each report, was the unit of interest in the review. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.The main outcomes of interest for benefit were pain reduction of 30% or greater and 50% or greater from baseline, participants with pain no worse than mild, and participants feeling much improved or very much improved.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 studies (12 reports) with 958 adult participants. All the studies enrolled participants with chronic malignant tumour-related pain who were experiencing pain intensities described as moderate to severe, with most experiencing at least 4/10 with current treatment. The mean ages were 59 to 70 years, with participants aged between 24 and 87 years. Study length ranged from one day to six months. Five studies used a cross-over design. Tramadol doses ranged from 50 mg as single dose to 600 mg per day; doses of 300 mg per day to 400 mg per day were most common.Nine studies were at high risk of bias for one to four criteria (only one high risk of bias for size). We judged all the results to be very low quality evidence because of widespread lack of blinding of outcome assessment, inadequately described sequence generation, allocation concealment, and small numbers of participants and events. Important outcomes were poorly reported. There were eight different active comparators and one comparison with placebo. There was little information available for any comparison and no firm conclusions could be drawn for any outcome.Single comparisons of oral tramadol with codeine plus paracetamol, of dihydrocodeine, and of rectal versus oral tramadol provided no data for key outcomes. One study used tramadol combined with paracetamol; four participants received this intervention. One study compared tramadol with flupirtine - a drug that is no longer available. One study compared tramadol with placebo and a combination of cobrotoxin, tramadol, and ibuprofen, but the dosing schedule poorly explained.Two studies (191 participants) compared tramadol with buprenorphine. One study (131 participants) reported a similar proportion of no or mild pain at 14 days.Three studies (300 participants) compared tramadol with morphine. Only one study, combining tramadol, tramadol plus paracetamol, and paracetamol plus codeine as a single weak-opioid group reported results. Weak opioid produced reduction in pain of at least 30% from baseline in 55/117 (47%) participants, compared with 91/110 (82%) participants with morphine. Weak opioid produced reduction in pain of at least 50% in 49/117 (42%) participants, compared with 83/110 (75%) participants with morphine.There was no useful information for any other outcome of benefit or harm.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is limited, very low quality, evidence from randomised controlled trials that tramadol produced pain relief in some adults with pain due to cancer and no evidence at all for children. There is very low quality evidence that it is not as effective as morphine. This review does not provide a reliable indication of the likely effect. The likelihood that the effect will be substantially different is very high. The place of tramadol in managing cancer pain and its role as step 2 of the WHO analgesic ladder is unclear.