How to evaluate the effect of pain treatments in cancer patients: Results from a longitudinal outcomes and endpoint Italian cohort study

The Complex Balance between Analgesic Efficacy, Change of Dose and Safety Profile Over Time, in Cancer Patients Treated with Opioids: Providing the Clinicians with an Evaluation Tool

Background: Scanty data exist on the integration between the analgesic effect of opioids, dose changes, and adverse events in cancer patients. Methods: To provide further information on this issue, we analysed data on 498 advanced-stage cancer patients treated with strong opioids. At baseline and three visits (at days 7, 14, and 21), pain intensity, oral morphine-equivalent daily dose, and the prevalence of major adverse events were measured. The proportion of responders (pain intensity decrease ≥30% from baseline) and non-responders, as well as of patients with low or high dose escalation, was calculated. Results: Pain intensity strongly decreased from baseline (pain intensity difference −4.0 at day 7 and −4.2 at day 21) in responders, while it was quite stable in non-responders (pain intensity difference −0.8 at day 7 and −0.9 at day 21). In low dose escalation patients (82.4% at final visit), daily dose changed from 52.3 to 65.3 mg; in high dose escalation patients (17.6%), it varied from 94.1 to 146.7 mg. Among responders, high dose escalation patients experienced significantly more frequent adverse events compared to low or high dose escalation patients, while no differences were observed in non-responders. Conclusions: The response to opioids results from the combination of three clinical aspects, which are strongly interrelated. These results provide some thoughts to help clinical evaluations and therapeutic decisions regarding opioid use.

Lack of Efficacy: When Opioids Do Not Achieve Analgesia from the Beginning of Treatment in Cancer Patients

Introduction

Opioids are often used to relieve moderate to severe pain, but their analgesic response may vary. We focused on the absolute lack of analgesic response immediately after beginning opioid treatment, quantifying the proportion of patients with unchanged or worse pain on day 3 (defined as early non-responders (ENRs)) and day 7.

Methods

This is a post-hoc analysis from a randomized controlled trial involving 498 cancer patients with pain, starting to receive WHO step III opioids. On days 1, 3 and 7 pain intensity (PI) was measured.

Results

On day 3, 68 (13.7%) patients were ENRs, 53 no change and 15 greater PI compared to baseline. The relationships between pain and clinical characteristics showed no significant differences between ENRs and Early responders (ERs), except for PI at baseline, which was significantly lower in ENRs. ENRs on day 3 were re-assessed on day 7 to explore the patterns of analgesic response: 31.7% of patients remained NRs, 48.3% had become responders, and 20.0% were poor responders. Adverse drug reactions were similar in ERs and ENRs at each visit.

Discussion

The complete lack of early response to opioids in cancer patients is clinically important and more frequent than expected. Better definition of the mechanism will allow better pain management in cancer and non-cancer patients.

Oral prolonged-release Oxycodone-Naloxone: analgesic response, safety profile, and factors influencing the response in advanced cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Oxycodone-Naloxone (OXN) aims to reduce opioid-related constipation while being successfully analgesic.

METHODS

We evaluated the analgesic response, prevalence, and severity of side effects in 176 cancer patients with moderate to severe pain and treated with OXN. Patients were followed for 28 days and evaluated every seven. Pain intensity, changes of therapy, and adverse drug reactions were recorded at each visit. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of responders (≥30% reduction of pain intensity from baseline to final) and final average pain score ≤4 on a 0-10 scale.

RESULTS

Average and worst pain intensity, and breakthrough pain (BTP) prevalence decreased over time and 81.3% of patients were responders. The starting daily dose of OXN was raised from 25.1±13.0 mg to 44.1±29.9 mg, and dose escalation >5%/day was observed in 19.4% of patients; 40.8-46.2% and 11.0-17.0% experienced any and severe grade of constipation during the follow-up visit, respectively. Digestive system tumor, thyroid endocrinopathies, psychological irritability, and BTP increased the risk of analgesic non-response.

CONCLUSIONS

OXN had strong analgesic effect in moderate to severe cancer pain patients: the safety profile is in line with the common adverse effects of opioids and severe constipation was uncommon. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

A comparison between the administration of oral prolonged-release oxycodone-naloxone and transdermal fentanyl in patients with moderate-to-severe cancer pain: a propensity score analysis

BACKGROUND

Opioids are the most important pharmacological treatment for moderate-to-severe cancer pain, but side effects limit their use. Transdermal fentanyl (TDF) and oral prolonged-release oxycodone-naloxone (OXN-PR) are effective in controlling chronic pain, with less constipation compared to other opioids. However, TDF and OXN-PR have never been directly compared.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Cancer patients with moderate-to-severe chronic pain were consecutively enrolled in two prospective 28-day trials, received either TDF or OXN-PR, and were assessed at baseline and after 7, 14, 21, and 28 days. The primary endpoint was 28-day analgesic response rate (average pain intensity decrease ≥30% from baseline). Other outcome measures included opioid daily dose changes over time; need for adjuvant analgesics; number of switches; premature discontinuation; presence and severity of constipation; and other adverse drug reactions. To compare the efficacy and the safety of TDF and OXN-PR, we used the propensity score analysis to adjust for heterogeneity between the two patient groups.

RESULTS

Three hundred ten out of 336 patients originally treated (119 TDF and 191 OXN-PR) were included in the comparative analysis. The amount of responders was comparable after TDF (75.3%) and OXN-PR administration (82.9%, not significant [NS]). The final opioid daily dose expressed as morphine equivalent was 113.6 mg for TDF and 44.5 mg for OXN-PR (p<0.0001). A daily opioid dose escalation >5% was less common after OXN-PR (19.3%) than after TDS administration (37.9%, p<0.0001). Opioid switches and discontinuation were similar in both groups. Severe constipation in the two groups was comparable (32.6% after TDF vs 24.7% after OXN-PR, NS). Nausea, vomiting, and dry mouth were significantly less frequent in the OXN-PR group than in the TDF group.

CONCLUSION

Despite a similar analgesic activity in moderate-to-severe cancer pain, OXN-PR is characterized by lower daily dosages, less need for drug escalation, and fewer side effects compared to TDF.

Fentanyl Sublingual Tablets Versus Subcutaneous Morphine for the Management of Severe Cancer Pain Episodes in Patients Receiving Opioid Treatment: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Noninferiority Trial

Purpose

Fentanyl sublingual tablets (FST) are a potentially useful alternative to parenteral opioids such as subcutaneous morphine (SCM) to treat severe cancer pain episodes. No direct comparison between FST and SCM is available. The aim of this study was to test noninferiority of FST versus SCM during the first 30 min postadministration.

Methods

Patients receiving stable opioid therapy and experiencing a severe pain episode were randomly assigned to either 100 µg FST or 5 mg SCM in a double-blind, double-dummy trial. Average pain intensity (PI) assessed on a 0 to 10 numerical rating scale at 10, 20, and 30 min postadministration was the main end point. Analysis of covariance, adjusted by baseline PI, was the main analysis. The noninferiority margin (NIm) for the between-group difference was set at −0.6, that is, equal to one third of the minimum clinically important PI difference of two points.

Results

A total of 114 patients were randomly assigned to either FST (n = 58) or SCM (n = 56). One patient (in the FST group) withdrew consent before drug administration and was excluded from analysis. Baseline mean PIs were 7.5 in both groups; mean average PIs assessed at 10, 20, and 30 min postadministration were 5.0 and 4.5 for FST and SCM, respectively, with the 95% CI of the between-group difference including the NIm (−0.49; 95% CI, −1.10 to 0.09). Patients taking FST received a second drug dose after 30 min more frequently than did patients taking SCM (51% v 37%, respectively; risk difference, −13%; 95% CI, −30% to 3%). Both treatments were well tolerated, with average follow-up adverse event scores below the response of “A Little.” Ninety-three percent of patients preferred the sublingual administration.

Conclusion

This trial did not show noninferiority of FST versus SCM within the chosen NIm. Both treatments were safe, and patients preferred the sublingual route of administration. FST provides analgesia with modest to moderate increased risk of lower efficacy compared with SCM.

Are strong opioids equally effective and safe in the treatment of chronic cancer pain? A multicenter randomized phase IV 'real life' trial on the variability of response to opioids

BACKGROUND

Guidelines tend to consider morphine and morphine-like opioids comparable and interchangeable in the treatment of chronic cancer pain, but individual responses can vary. This study compared the analgesic efficacy, changes of therapy and safety profile over time of four strong opioids given for cancer pain.

PATIENT AND METHODS

In this four-arm multicenter, randomized, comparative, of superiority, phase IV trial, oncological patients with moderate to severe pain requiring WHO step III opioids were randomly assigned to receive oral morphine or oxycodone or transdermal fentanyl or buprenorphine for 28 days. At each visit, pain intensity, modifications of therapy and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were recorded. The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of nonresponders, meaning patients with worse or unchanged average pain intensity (API) between the first and last visit, measured on a 0-10 numerical rating scale. (NCT01809106).

RESULTS

Forty-four centers participated in the trial and recruited 520 patients. Worst pain intensity and API decreased over 4 weeks with no significant differences between drugs. Nonresponders ranged from 11.5% (morphine) to 14.4% (buprenorphine). Appreciable changes were made in the treatment schedules over time. Each group required increases in the daily dose, from 32.7% (morphine) to 121.2% (transdermal fentanyl). Patients requiring adjuvant analgesics ranged from 68.9% (morphine) to 81.6% (oxycodone), switches varied from 22.1% (morphine) to 12% (oxycodone), discontinuation of treatment from 27% ( morphine) to 14.5% (fentanyl). ADRs were similar except for effects on the nervous system, which significantly prevailed with morphine.

CONCLUSION

The main findings were the similarity in pain control, response rates and main adverse reactions among opioids. Changes in therapy schedules were notable over time. A considerable proportion of patients were nonresponders or poor responders.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01809106 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01809106?term=cerp&rank=2).

Efficacy and tolerability of oral oxycodone and oxycodone/naloxone combination in opioid-naïve cancer patients: a propensity analysis

Background

World Health Organization step III opioids are required to relieve moderate-to-severe cancer pain; constipation is one of the most frequent opioid-induced side effects. A fixed combination, prolonged-release oxycodone/naloxone (OXN), was developed with the aim of reducing opioid-related gastrointestinal side effects. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of prolonged-release oxycodone (OXY) alone to OXN in opioid-naïve cancer patients with moderate-to-severe pain.

Methods

Propensity analysis was utilized in this observational study, which evaluated the efficacy, safety, and quality of life.

Results

Out of the 210 patients recruited, 146 were matched using propensity scores and included in the comparative analysis. In both groups, pain intensity decreased by ≈3 points after 60 days, indicating comparable analgesic efficacy. Responder rates were similar between groups. Analgesia was achieved and maintained with similarly low and stable dosages over time (12.0–20.4 mg/d for OXY and 11.5–22.0 mg/d for OXN). Bowel Function Index (BFI) and laxative use per week improved from baseline at 30 days and 60 days in OXN recipients (−16, P<0.0001 and −3.5, P=0.02, respectively); BFI worsened in the OXY group. The overall incidence of drug-related adverse events was 28.9% in the OXY group and 8.2% in the OXN group (P<0.01); nausea and vomiting were two to five times less frequent with OXN. Quality of life improved to a significantly greater extent in patients receiving OXN compared to OXY (increase in Short Form-36 physical component score of 7.1 points vs 3.2 points, respectively; P<0.001).

Conclusion

In patients with chronic cancer pain, OXN provided analgesic effectiveness that is similar to OXY, with early and sustained benefits in tolerability. The relationship between responsiveness to OXN and clinical characteristics is currently being investigated.

Assessing the response to opioids in cancer patients: a methodological proposal and the results

PURPOSE

The efficacy of treatment with opioids in cancer pain is variable. To evaluate this variability, we (1) applied two parameters, changes in pain intensity (PI) and opioid daily doses (DDs), to distinguish different responses to opioids. The need to switch to another opioid was recorded. We then (2) evaluated the distribution of the responses depending on these parameters, alone and taken together, in cancer patients with pain.

METHODS

The cutoffs between positive and negative responses related to PI and DD were defined on the basis of the literature. For PI, responders were patients who obtained simultaneously a decrease of 30% or more and a final score ≤4 points (numerical rating scale 0 to 10). For DD changes, we applied the opioid escalation index percentage, a positive response corresponding to a dose increase ≤5%. These criteria were applied to 201 cancer patients treated with WHO step III "strong" opioids for 21 days. The results were mainly analyzed case by case.

RESULTS

Of the patients, 63.7% obtained a positive analgesic response and 80.1% a dose-related positive response. Combining the parameters, the response was double positive in 55.2% of cases, double negative in 11.4%, a good analgesic response with a large dose escalation in 8.5%, and no pain relief with a stable dose in 24.9%. Switches were made 21 times, 15 because of the lack of analgesia.

CONCLUSIONS

Different degrees of response to opioids were observed, PI and DD changes both contributing. Only over half the patients had a full positive response.