Tramadol with or without paracetamol (acetaminophen) for cancer pain

The Effectiveness of Tramadol in Pain Relief in Chronic Diseases: A Review Based on Clinical Trials

Tramadol is a synthetic opioid with a central effect from the aminocyclohexanol group, which has two main mechanisms of action, including as a weak agonist of opioid receptors and as a norepinephrine and serotonin reuptake inhibitor. The present study presents a review based on clinical trials designed in 2023. In July 2023, six international databases, including Medline/PubMed, ProQuest, Scopus, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and ISI (Web of Science), were searched and 58 articles were included in the study. The results of most studies showed that tramadol can be used as an analgesic drug, although in some studies it was shown that tramadol is not therapeutically superior in reducing pain compared to other treatments. Also, complications related to this treatment have been reported in some studies. Physicians should consider these factors to prevent drug toxicity, poor pain relief, use disorder in patients, and unpredictable complications. It should be noted that there is not enough evidence to support the long-term effectiveness of tramadol, but this argument also extends to nonopioid and other types of opioid analgesics, and the lack of long-term trials is due to regulatory and ethical issues. Although opioids can cause addiction when used for a long time, tramadol has a reasonable safety profile. According to the patient's condition and the clinical judgment of the medical professional, tramadol can be prescribed for patients, but the consequences of its use must be considered and a personalized treatment algorithm should be selected if the benefits outweigh the risks of the drug.

Opioid analgesics for nociceptive cancer pain: A comprehensive review

Pain is one of the most burdensome symptoms in people with cancer, and opioid analgesics are considered the mainstay of cancer pain management. For this review, the authors evaluated the efficacy and toxicities of opioid analgesics compared with placebo, other opioids, nonopioid analgesics, and nonpharmacologic treatments for background cancer pain (continuous and relatively constant pain present at rest), and breakthrough cancer pain (transient exacerbation of pain despite stable and adequately controlled background pain). They found a paucity of placebo-controlled trials for background cancer pain, although tapentadol or codeine may be more efficacious than placebo (moderate-certainty to low-certainty evidence). Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs including aspirin, piroxicam, diclofenac, ketorolac, and the antidepressant medicine imipramine, may be at least as efficacious as opioids for moderate-to-severe background cancer pain. For breakthrough cancer pain, oral transmucosal, buccal, sublingual, or intranasal fentanyl preparations were identified as more efficacious than placebo but were more commonly associated with toxicities, including constipation and nausea. Despite being recommended worldwide for the treatment of cancer pain, morphine was generally not superior to other opioids, nor did it have a more favorable toxicity profile. The interpretation of study results, however, was complicated by the heterogeneity in the study populations evaluated. Given the limited quality and quantity of research, there is a need to reappraise the clinical utility of opioids in people with cancer pain, particularly those who are not at the end of life, and to further explore the effects of opioids on immune system function and quality of life in these individuals.

Tramadol for chronic pain in adults: protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain in adults is a frequent clinical symptom with a significant impact on patient well-being. Therefore, sufficient pain management is of utmost importance. While tramadol is a commonly used pain medication, the quality of evidence supporting its use has been questioned considering the observed adverse events. Our objective will be to assess the benefits and harms of tramadol compared with placebo or no intervention for chronic pain.

METHODS/DESIGN

We will conduct a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis to assess the beneficial and harmful effects of tramadol in any dose, formulation, or duration. We will accept placebo or no intervention as control interventions. We will include adult participants with any type of chronic pain, including cancer-related pain. We will systematically search the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, and BIOSIS for relevant literature. We will follow the recommendations by Cochrane and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. The risk of systematic errors ('bias') and random errors ('play of chance') will be assessed. The certainty of evidence will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

DISCUSSION

Although tramadol is often being used to manage chronic pain conditions, the beneficial and harmful effects of this intervention are unknown. The present review will systematically assess the current evidence on the benefits and harms of tramadol versus placebo or no intervention to inform clinical practice and future research.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019140334.

Xeroderma pigmentosum: case report

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to describe the disease and treatment and to alert health professionals for the identification of signs and symptoms and the need for an early diagnosis in patients with xeroderma pigmentosum (XP).

CASE DESCRIPTION

An 8-year-old male patient was referred to the Joana de Gusmão Hospital (HIJG) in 2021 for evaluation and specialized care. Previously, the child was followed in his place of origin by oncologic and palliative care, where he was submitted to surgeries and chemotherapy. He was admitted to the HIJG using vismodegib, acitrein, tramadol, and solar protective measures. On physical examination, there were tumors and disseminated macular verrucous and ulcerated lesions. The imaging examination showed solid and expansive lesions on the face, and atelectasis and fibroscarring changes in the lung. The histopathological report proved the existence of melanocanthoma, carcinoma, and pyogenic granuloma. After the evaluation of the case, no surgery, chemotherapy, or radiotherapy was performed. It was decided to maintain the palliative treatment and to continue the use of tramadol for pain, and vismodegib and acitretin were used to control carcinomas and prophylactic measures.

COMMENTS

The XP is a rare disease of autosomal recessive inheritance whose mechanism comes from failure in the DNA repair by exposure to ultraviolet rays, resulting in lesions on the skin and mucous membranes. They start as sunburns and can progress to melanosis, areas with altered pigmentation, premature aging, poikiloderma, and areas of high risk for neoplasms.

SeDeM tool-driven full factorial design for osmotic drug delivery of tramadol HCl: Formulation development, physicochemical evaluation, and in-silico PBPK modeling for predictive pharmacokinetic evaluation using GastroPlus™

The study is based on using SeDeM expert system in developing controlled-release tramadol HCl osmotic tablets and its in-silico physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling for in-vivo pharmacokinetic evaluation. A Quality by Design (QbD) based approach in developing SeDEM-driven full factorial osmotic drug delivery was applied. A 2⁴ Full-factorial design was used to make the trial formulations of tramadol HCl osmotic tablets using NaCl as osmogen, Methocel K4M as rate controlling polymer, and avicel pH 101 as diluent. The preformulation characteristics of formulations (F1-F16) were determined by applying SeDeM Expert Tool. The formulation was optimized followed by in-vivo predictive pharmacokinetic assessment using PBPK “ACAT” model of GastroPlus™. The FTIR results showed no interaction among the ingredients. The index of good compressibility (ICG) values of all trial formulation blends were ≥5, suggesting direct compression is the best-suited method. Formulation F3 and F4 were optimized based on drug release at 2, 10, and 16 h with a zero-order kinetic release (r² = 0.992 and 0.994). The SEM images confirmed micropores formation on the surface of the osmotic tablet after complete drug release. F3 and F4 were also stable (shelf life 29.41 and 23.46 months). The in vivo simulation of the pharmacokinetics of the PBPK in-silico model revealed excellent relative bioavailability of F3 and F4 with reference to tramadol HCl 50 mg IR formulations. The SeDeM expert tool was best utilized to evaluate the compression characteristics of selected formulation excipients and their blends for direct compression method in designing once-daily osmotically controlled-release tramadol HCl tablets. The in-silico GastroPlus™ PBPK modeling provided a thorough pharmacokinetic assessment of the optimized formulation as an alternative to tramadol HCl in vivo studies.

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.

Tapentadol Versus Tramadol: A Narrative and Comparative Review of Their Pharmacological, Efficacy and Safety Profiles in Adult Patients

We conducted a narrative review of the literature to compare the pharmacological, efficacy and safety profiles of tapentadol and tramadol, and to assess the clinical interest of tapentadol in adult patients. Tapentadol and tramadol share a mixed mechanism of action, including both mu-agonist and monoaminergic properties. Tapentadol is approximately two to three times more potent than tramadol and two to three times less potent than morphine. It has no identified analgesically active metabolite and is not significantly metabolised by cytochrome P450 enzymes, thus overcoming some limitations of tramadol, including the potential for pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions and interindividual variability due to genetic polymorphisms of cytochrome P450 enzymes. The toxicity profiles of tramadol and tapentadol are similar; however tapentadol is likely to result in less exposure to serotoninergic adverse effects (nausea, vomiting, hypoglycaemia) but cause more opioid adverse effects (constipation, respiratory depression, abuse) than tramadol. The safety of tapentadol in real-world conditions remains poorly documented, particularly in at-risk patient subgroups and also in the ability to assess the risk associated with its residual serotonergic activity (serotonin syndrome, seizures). Because of an earlier market introduction, more real-world safety data are available for tramadol, including data from at-risk patient subgroups. The level of evidence on the efficacy of both tramadol and tapentadol for the treatment of chronic pain is globally low. The trials published to date show overall that tapentadol does not provide a clinically significant analgesic improvement compared to existing treatments, for which the safety profile is much better known. In conclusion, tapentadol is not a first-line opioid but represents an additional analgesic in the therapeutic choices, which some patients may benefit from after careful examination of their clinical situation, co-morbidities and co-medications.

Palliative Care and the Management of Common Distressing Symptoms in Advanced Cancer: Pain, Breathlessness, Nausea and Vomiting, and Fatigue

Good symptom management in oncology is associated with improved patient and family quality of life, greater treatment compliance, and may even offer survival advantages. With population growth and aging, the proportion of patients with multiple symptoms-both related and unrelated to their cancer-is anticipated to increase, supporting calls for a more routine and integrated approach to symptom management. This article presents a summary of the literature for the use of symptom assessment tools and reviews the management of four common and distressing symptoms commonly experienced by people with advanced cancer: pain, breathlessness, nausea and vomiting, and fatigue. We also discuss the role of palliative care in supporting a holistic approach to symptom management throughout the cancer trajectory.

Indian Society for Study of Pain, Cancer Pain Special Interest Group Guidelines on Pharmacological Management of Cancer Pain (Part I)

The Indian Society for Study of Pain (ISSP), Cancer Pain Special Interest Group guidelines on pharmacological management of cancer pain in adults provides a structured, step-wise approach which will help to improve the management of cancer pain and to provide the patients with a minimally acceptable quality of life. The guidelines have been developed based on the available literature and evidence, to suit the needs, patient population, and situations in India. A questionnaire based on the key elements of each sub drafts addressing certain inconclusive areas where evidence was lacking, was made available on the ISSP website, and circulated by E-mail to all the ISSP and Indian Association of Palliative Care (IAPC) members. We recommend that analgesics for cancer pain management should follow the World Health Organization three-step analgesic ladder appropriate for the severity of pain. The use of paracetamol and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs alone or in combination with opioids for mild-to-moderate pain should be used. For mild-to-moderate pain, weak opioids such as tramadol, tapentadol, and codeine can be given in combination with nonopioid analgesics. We recommend morphine as the opioid of first choice for moderate-to-severe cancer pain.

Use of Tramadol for Management of Opioid Use Disorders: Rationale and Recommendations

Opioids are one of the most common illicit psychoactive substances being used in India. In fact, opioid use disorders are the most common disorder presenting to the substance use disorder treatment centers across the country. Effective and evidence-based interventions are available for management of opioid use disorders. However, the treatment for opioid use disorders remains difficult to access for most of those in need in India. The current article presents the literature on the use of tramadol for the management of opioid use disorders. It also makes recommendations on the use of tramadol for the management of opioid use disorders. Tramadol offers a viable alternative to the existing options for the management of opioid use disorders. It has been found effective when used for this indication. It offers certain major advantages such as easy and wide availability and low abuse liability. It offers a good option to expand the treatment services for opioid use disorders across the country.

Differences in Pain Intensity of Tumors Spread to the Anterior versus Anterolateral/Lateral Portions of the Vertebral Body Based on CT Scans

We investigated whether the intensity of cancer pain differs for malignant tumors that have spread to anterior or anterolateral/lateral portions of the vertebral body. We hypothesize that tumor spread to the anterolateral/lateral vertebral body elicits more serious pain due to increased irritation of the spinal nerve. The selection criteria were as follows: (1) advanced or metastatic solid tumor; (2) radicular pain without extremity weakness; (3) malignant lesions anteriorly, anterolaterally, or laterally located at the vertebral body either spread locoregionally or over a greater distance via metastasis based on CT scan diagnosis; and (4) patient needs to use opioids for pain relief. Severe spinal pain intensity was defined as spinal pain for which patients required either strong opioids or spinal irradiation for relief. Eighty-six patients were enrolled in the study. Bone lesions were mainly osteolytic. Thirty-nine tumors spread to the vertebral body in the anterior direction, and 47 in the anterolateral/lateral direction. Severe pain intensity related to vertebral body lesions was due to anterolateral/lateral spread, primary sites of nonurothelial carcinoma, metastatic vertebral lesions, multiple lesions within a vertebrum, and location within the cervical-thoracic spine. In conclusion, patients with tumor spread to the anterolateral/lateral portion of vertebrae bodies based on CT scan diagnosis experienced severe cancer pain. These patients needed strong opioids or palliative spinal irradiation for pain relief.

Current management of breakthrough cancer pain according to physicians from pain units in Spain

PURPOSE

Current evidence suggests the need to improve the management of breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP). For this reason, we aimed to assess the opinion of a panel of experts composed exclusively of physicians from pain units, who play a major role in BTcP diagnosis and treatment, regarding the key aspects of BTcP management.

METHODS

An ad hoc questionnaire was developed to collect real-world data on the management of BTcP. The questionnaire had 5 parts: (a) organizational aspects of pain units (n = 12), (b) definition and diagnosis (n = 3), (c) screening (n = 3), (d) treatment (n = 8), and (e) follow-up (n = 7).

RESULTS

A total of 89 pain-unit physicians from 13 different Spanish regions were polled. Most of them agreed on the traditional definition of BTcP (78.9%) and the key features of BTcP (92.1%). However, only 30.3% of participants used the Davies' algorithm for BTcP diagnosis. Respondents preferred to prescribe rapid-onset opioids [mean 77.0% (SD 26.7%)], and most recommended transmucosal fentanyl formulations as the first option for BTcP. There was also considerable agreement (77.5%) on the need for early follow-up (48-72 h) after treatment initiation. Finally, 65.2% of participants believed that more than 10% of their patients underused rapid-onset opioids.

CONCLUSIONS

There was broad agreement among pain experts on many important areas of BTcP management, except for the diagnostic method. Pain-unit physicians suggest that rapid-onset opioids may be underused by BTcP patients in Spain, an important issue that need to be evaluated in future studies.

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.