Serum concentrations of opioids when comparing two switching strategies to methadone for cancer pain

Pharmacological data science perspective on fatal incidents of morphine treatment

Morphine prescribed for analgesia has caused drug-related deaths at an estimated incidence of 0.3% to 4%. Morphine has pharmacological properties that make it particularly difficult to assess the causality of morphine administration with a patient's death, such as its slow transfer between plasma and central nervous sites of action and the existence of the active metabolite morphine-6-glucuronide with opioid agonistic effects, Furthermore, there is no well-defined toxic dose or plasma/blood concentration for morphine. Dosing is often adjusted for adequate pain relief. Here, we summarize reported deaths associated with morphine therapy, including associated morphine exposure and modulating patient factors such as pharmacogenetics, concomitant medications, or comorbidities. In addition, we systematically analyzed published numerical information on the stability of concentrations of morphine and its relevant metabolites in biological samples collected postmortem. A medicolegal case is presented in which the causality of morphine administration with death was in dispute and pharmacokinetic modeling was applied to infer the administered dose. The results of this analytical review suggest that (i) inference from postmortem blood concentrations to the morphine dose administered has low validity and (ii) causality between a patient's death and the morphine dose administered remains a highly context-dependent and collaborative assessment among experts from different medical specialties.

Methadone switching for refractory cancer pain

BACKGROUND

Methadone is commonly considered an alternative opioid treatment for refractory cancer pain. This study aims to investigate the efficacy, safety, and cost of methadone in the treatment of refractory cancer pain.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted in patients who used methadone for refractory cancer pain from April 2016 to December 2020 at a cancer specialized hospital. Pain control, evaluated via pain score and breakthrough pain frequency, and adverse events of methadone were compared with analgesic regimens prior to methadone administration. The factors potentially affecting the switching outcome were analyzed via multivariate analysis. Moreover, the cost of pain control was estimated.

RESULTS

Ninety patients received methadone for poor pain control (74.4%), intolerable adverse events (10.0%), or both (15.6%) after prior opioid treatments. Sixty-four patients (71.1%) were successfully switched to methadone with median pain score significantly decreased from 4.0 to 2.0 (p < 0.001) and median daily frequency of breakthrough pain from 3.0 to 0.0 (p < 0.001) at a maintained median conversion ratio of 6.3 [interquartile range (IQR): 4.0-10.0] to prior opioid treatment. Similar adverse event profiles of constipation, nausea, vomiting, and dizziness were observed between methadone and prior opioid regimens. The median daily cost of analgesic regimens was significantly reduced from $19.5 (IQR: 12.3-46.2) to $10.8 (IQR: 7.1-18.7) (p < 0.01) after switching to methadone. The 3-day switch method significantly improved the rate of successful switching compared with the stop and go method (odds ratio = 3.37, 95% CI: 1.30-8.76, p = 0.013).

CONCLUSION

Methadone is an effective, safe, and cost-saving treatment for patients with refractory cancer pain.

Oxycodone for cancer-related pain

BACKGROUND

Many people with cancer experience moderate to severe pain that requires treatment with strong opioids, such as oxycodone and morphine. Strong opioids are, however, not effective for pain in all people, neither are they well tolerated by all people. The aim of this review was to assess whether oxycodone is associated with better pain relief and tolerability than other analgesic options for adults with cancer pain. This is an updated Cochrane review previously published in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of oxycodone by any route of administration for pain in adults with cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Science Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (ISI Web of Science), BIOSIS (ISI), and PsycINFO (Ovid) to November 2021. We also searched four trial registries, checked the bibliographic references of relevant studies, and contacted the authors of the included studies. We applied no language, date, or publication status restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (parallel-group or cross-over) comparing oxycodone (any formulation or route of administration) with placebo or an active drug (including oxycodone) for cancer background pain in adults by examining pain intensity/relief, adverse events, quality of life, and participant preference.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently sifted the search, extracted data and assessed the included studies using standard Cochrane methodology. We meta-analysed pain intensity data using the generic inverse variance method, and pain relief and adverse events using the Mantel-Haenszel method, or summarised these data narratively along with the quality of life and participant preference data. We assessed the overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

For this update, we identified 19 new studies (1836 participants) for inclusion. In total, we included 42 studies which enrolled/randomised 4485 participants, with 3945 of these analysed for efficacy and 4176 for safety. The studies examined a number of different drug comparisons. Controlled-release (CR; typically taken every 12 hours) oxycodone versus immediate-release (IR; taken every 4-6 hours) oxycodone Pooled analysis of three of the four studies comparing CR oxycodone to IR oxycodone suggest that there is little to no difference between CR and IR oxycodone in pain intensity (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.1 to 0.34; n = 319; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on adverse events, including constipation (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.13), drowsiness/somnolence (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.54), nausea (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.28), and vomiting (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.15) (very low-certainty evidence). There were no data available for quality of life or participant preference, however, three studies suggested that treatment acceptability may be similar between groups (low-certainty evidence). CR oxycodone versus CR morphine The majority of the 24 studies comparing CR oxycodone to CR morphine reported either pain intensity (continuous variable), pain relief (dichotomous variable), or both. Pooled analysis indicated that pain intensity may be lower (better) after treatment with CR morphine than CR oxycodone (SMD 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.27; n = 882 in 7 studies; low-certainty evidence). This SMD is equivalent to a difference of 0.27 points on the Brief Pain Inventory scale (0-10 numerical rating scale), which is not clinically significant. Pooled analyses also suggested that there may be little to no difference in the proportion of participants achieving complete or significant pain relief (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.10; n = 1249 in 13 studies; low-certainty evidence). The RR for constipation (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.86) may be lower after treatment with CR oxycodone than after CR morphine. Pooled analyses showed that, for most of the adverse events, the CIs were wide, including no effect as well as potential benefit and harm: drowsiness/somnolence (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.05), nausea (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.12), and vomiting (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.04) (low or very low-certainty evidence). No data were available for quality of life. The evidence is very uncertain about the treatment effects on treatment acceptability and participant preference. Other comparisons The remaining studies either compared oxycodone in various formulations or compared oxycodone to different alternative opioids. None found any clear superiority or inferiority of oxycodone for cancer pain, neither as an analgesic agent nor in terms of adverse event rates and treatment acceptability. The certainty of this evidence base was limited by the high or unclear risk of bias of the studies and by imprecision due to low or very low event rates or participant numbers for many outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The conclusions have not changed since the previous version of this review (in 2017). We found low-certainty evidence that there may be little to no difference in pain intensity, pain relief and adverse events between oxycodone and other strong opioids including morphine, commonly considered the gold standard strong opioid. Although we identified a benefit for pain relief in favour of CR morphine over CR oxycodone, this was not clinically significant and did not persist following sensitivity analysis and so we do not consider this important. However, we found that constipation and hallucinations occurred less often with CR oxycodone than with CR morphine; but the certainty of this evidence was either very low or the finding did not persist following sensitivity analysis, so these findings should be treated with utmost caution. Our conclusions are consistent with other reviews and suggest that, while the reliability of the evidence base is low, given the absence of important differences within this analysis, it seems unlikely that larger head-to-head studies of oxycodone versus morphine are justified, although well-designed trials comparing oxycodone to other strong analgesics may well be useful. For clinical purposes, oxycodone or morphine can be used as first-line oral opioids for relief of cancer pain in adults.

Population Pharmacokinetics of Methadone after Oral Administration in Japanese Patients with Cancer-Related Pain

Methadone tablets were approved for use in Japan in March 2013. The metabolism of methadone is complex and executed mainly by the cytochromes, CYP3A4 and CYP2B6. The aim of this study was to evaluate the pharmacokinetics of methadone upon oral administration in Japanese patients who experienced cancer-related pain. The concentration of the drug in blood samples was measured in 25 patients undergoing methadone therapy, and the factors leading to variations were investigated. A population pharmacokinetic analysis was evaluated using the Phoenix® NLME^TM software. Based on this, the ALBI (albumin-bilirubin) score was identified as a significant factor that could be used to assess variations in the serum concentration of methadone, which was then incorporated into the following final model formula: clearance (L/h) = 5.38 × (ALBI score/-2.139)^1.88. The results of these pharmacokinetic parameters suggested that, in clinical use, the dose of methadone should be reduced if liver function declined in patients with cancer-related pain.

Switching Ratio from Parenteral to Oral Methadone 1:1.2 Is Safer Compared with Ratio 1:2 in Patients with Controlled Cancer Pain: A Multicenter Randomized-Controlled Trial (RATIOMTD-010810)

Background: The most commonly used switching ratio from parenteral to oral methadone is 1:2. Methadone is highly bioavailable and a lower ratio might result in similar analgesia with less toxicity. Objective: To compare success and side effects with two ratios from parenteral to oral methadone: 1:2 versus 1:1.2 in hospitalized patients with cancer pain. Design: A multicenter double-blind randomized clinical trial. Settings/Particiants: Inpatients with well-controlled cancer pain with parenteral methadone requiring rotation to the oral route. Measurements: Outcomes included pain intensity (Brief Inventory Pain), opioid toxicity (Common Toxicology Criteria for Adverse Events), and methadone dose. Success was defined as no toxicity with good pain control at 72 hours. Results: Thirty-nine of forty-four randomized patients were evaluable: 21 in ratio 1:2 and 18 in ratio 1:1.2. Seventy-one percent male. Median age 65 years. No significant differences in basal clinical characteristics between both groups. Median methadone dose pre/post switching was 24.5 mg ±13.5 and 49 mg ±27.3 for ratio 1:2, versus 23.3 mg ±9.4 (p: not significant) and 28 mg ±11.3 (p < 0.01) for ratio 1:1.2. Pain was well controlled without differences between both ratios. Drowsiness at day +1 (p < 0.017) and myoclonus at day +3 (p < 0.019) were more prevalent in group 1:2. Success was observed in 12 patients in ratio 1:2 versus 18 in ratio 1:1.2 (p < 0.001). Methadone side effects were observed in 12 patients in ratio 1:2 (mainly neurotoxicity symptoms) versus 2 in ratio 1:1.2 (p < 0.005). Conclusion: Ratio 1:1.2 when changing from parenteral to oral methadone resulted in lower toxicity and no difference in analgesia. More conservative dose adjustment during methadone route change should be considered. European Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT No. 2010-024092-39).

Long-term low-dose morphine for patients with moderate cancer pain is predominant factor effecting clinically meaningful pain reduction

PURPOSE

Patients with cancer often experience pain that affects their daily activities and quality of life. The analgesic ladder recommended by the World Health Organization has proved insufficient for many, and its scientific basis has been questioned. This retrospective study investigated factors related to adherence to long-term opioid therapy for patients with moderate cancer pain, including an evaluation of low-dose morphine relative to tramadol.

METHODS

Clinical data were collected of patients with moderate cancer pain (n = 353) who received either low-dose morphine or tramadol and were followed for ≥ 27 weeks. Factors related to regime adherence were investigated, including the analgesia type, cancer therapy (antitumor therapy or palliative care), pain type (nociceptive, neuropathic, or mixed), and living distance to the hospital. Factors related to clinically meaningful pain reduction (≥ 30% reduction in pain from baseline) were also investigated.

RESULTS

Patients taking tramadol, receiving antitumor therapy, experiencing neuropathic pain, and living far from the hospital were more likely to change analgesic strategy compared with, respectively, patients receiving low-dose morphine, palliative care, experiencing nociceptive pain, and living nearby. Factors that increased the likelihood of adherence to the analgesic regime were also associated with the likelihood of clinically meaningful pain reduction. Among adverse effects, a significantly higher percentage of patients experienced constipation in the tramadol group compared with those given morphine.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with moderate cancer pain, long-term low-dose morphine was safe and more effective than tramadol for clinically meaningful pain reduction, and patients were less likely to change the analgesic strategy.

Oxycodone for cancer-related pain

BACKGROUND

Many people with cancer experience moderate to severe pain that requires treatment with strong opioids, such as oxycodone and morphine. Strong opioids are, however, not effective for pain in all people, neither are they well-tolerated by all people. The aim of this review was to assess whether oxycodone is associated with better pain relief and tolerability than other analgesic options for adults with cancer pain. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in 2015, Issue 2 on oxycodone for cancer-related pain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of oxycodone by any route of administration for pain in adults with cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Science Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (ISI Web of Science), BIOSIS (ISI), and PsycINFO (Ovid) to November 2016. We also searched four trial registries, checked the bibliographic references of relevant studies, and contacted the authors of the included studies. We applied no language, date, or publication status restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (parallel group or cross-over) comparing oxycodone (any formulation or route of administration) with placebo or an active drug (including oxycodone) for cancer background pain in adults by examining pain intensity/relief, adverse events, quality of life, and participant preference.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the included studies using standard Cochrane methodology. We meta-analysed pain intensity data using the generic inverse variance method, and adverse events using the Mantel-Haenszel method, or summarised these data narratively along with the quality of life and participant preference data. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

For this update, we identified six new studies (1258 participants) for inclusion. In total, we included 23 studies which enrolled/randomised 2648 participants, with 2144 of these analysed for efficacy and 2363 for safety. The studies examined a number of different drug comparisons.Pooled analysis of three of the four studies comparing controlled-release (CR) oxycodone to immediate-release (IR) oxycodone showed that the ability of CR and IR oxycodone to provide pain relief were similar (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.1, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.06 to 0.26; low quality evidence). Pooled analyses of adverse events showed no significant differences between CR and IR oxycodone for asthenia (risk ratio (RR) 0.58, 95% CI 0.2 to 1.68), confusion (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.2 to 3.02), constipation (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.13), dizziness/lightheadedness (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.37), drowsiness/somnolence (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.54), dry mouth (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.75), insomnia (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.31 to 3.53), nausea (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.28), nervousness (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.2 to 1.64), pruritus (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.65 to 3.25), vomiting (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.15), and discontinuation due to adverse events (RR 0.6, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.22). The quality of the evidence was very low for all these adverse events. Three of the four studies found similar results for treatment acceptability.Pooled analysis of seven of the nine studies comparing CR oxycodone to CR morphine indicated that pain relief was significantly better after treatment with CR morphine than CR oxycodone (SMD 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.27; low quality evidence). However, sensitivity analysis did not corroborate this result (SMD 0.12, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.26).Pooled analyses of adverse events showed no significant differences between CR oxycodone and CR morphine for confusion (RR 1.01 95% CI 0.78 to 1.31), constipation (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.16), dizziness/lightheadedness (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.76), drowsiness/somnolence (RR 0.9, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.08), dry mouth (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.8 to 1.26), dysuria (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.26), nausea (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.26), pruritus (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.29), vomiting (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.29), and discontinuation due to adverse events (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.6). However, the RR for hallucinations was significantly lower after treatment with CR oxycodone compared to CR morphine (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.97). The quality of the evidence was very low for all these adverse events. There were no marked differences in treatment acceptability or quality of life ratings.The remaining studies either compared oxycodone in various formulations or compared oxycodone to different alternative opioids. None found any clear superiority or inferiority of oxycodone for cancer pain, neither as an analgesic agent nor in terms of adverse event rates and treatment acceptability.The quality of this evidence base was limited by the high or unclear risk of bias of the studies and by imprecision due to low or very low event rates or participant numbers for many outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The conclusions have not changed since the previous version of this review. The data suggest that oxycodone offers similar levels of pain relief and overall adverse events to other strong opioids including morphine. Although we identified a clinically insignificant benefit on pain relief in favour of CR morphine over CR oxycodone, this did not persist following sensitivity analysis and so we do not consider this important. However, in this updated analysis, we found that hallucinations occurred less often with CR oxycodone than with CR morphine, but the quality of this evidence was very low so this finding should be treated with utmost caution. Our conclusions are consistent with other reviews and suggest that while the reliability of the evidence base is low, given the absence of important differences within this analysis it seems unlikely that larger head to head studies of oxycodone versus morphine are justified, although well-designed trials comparing oxycodone to other strong analgesics may well be useful. For clinical purposes, oxycodone or morphine can be used as first-line oral opioids for relief of cancer pain in adults.

Endogenous opiates and behavior: 2013

This paper is the thirty-sixth consecutive installment of the annual review of research concerning the endogenous opioid system. It summarizes papers published during 2013 that studied the behavioral effects of molecular, pharmacological and genetic manipulation of opioid peptides, opioid receptors, opioid agonists and opioid antagonists. The particular topics that continue to be covered include the molecular-biochemical effects and neurochemical localization studies of endogenous opioids and their receptors related to behavior, and the roles of these opioid peptides and receptors in pain and analgesia; stress and social status; tolerance and dependence; learning and memory; eating and drinking; alcohol and drugs of abuse; sexual activity and hormones, pregnancy, development and endocrinology; mental illness and mood; seizures and neurologic disorders; electrical-related activity and neurophysiology; general activity and locomotion; gastrointestinal, renal and hepatic functions; cardiovascular responses; respiration and thermoregulation; and immunological responses.

Managing cancer pain at the end of life with multiple strong opioids: a population-based retrospective cohort study in primary care

BACKGROUND

End-of-life cancer patients commonly receive more than one type of strong opioid. The three-step analgesic ladder framework of the World Health Organisation (WHO) provides no guidance on multiple opioid prescribing and there is little epidemiological data available to inform practice. This study aims to investigate the time trend of such cases and the associated factors.

METHODS

Strong opioid prescribing in the last three months of life of cancer patients were extracted from the General Practice Research Database (GPRD). The outcome variable was the number of different types of prescribed non-rescue doses of opioids (1 vs 2-4, referred to as a complex case). Associated factors were evaluated using prevalence ratios (PR) derived from multivariate log-binomial model, adjusting for clustering effects and potential confounding variables.

RESULTS

Overall, 26.4% (95% CI: 25.6-27.1%) of 13,427 cancer patients (lung 41.7%, colorectal 19.1%, breast 18.6%, prostate 15.5%, head and neck 5.0%) were complex cases. Complex cases increased steadily over the study period (1.02% annually, 95%CI: 0.42-1.61%, p = 0.048) but with a small dip (7.5% reduction, 95%CI: -0.03 to 17.8%) around the period of the Shipman case, a British primary care doctor who murdered his patients with opioids. The dip significantly affected the correlation of the complex cases with persistent increasing background opioid prescribing (weighted correlation coefficients pre-, post-Shipman periods: 0.98(95%CI: 0.67-1.00), p = 0.011; 0.14 (95%CI: -0.85 to 0.91), p = 0.85). Multivariate adjusted analysis showed that the complex cases were predominantly associated with year of death (PRs vs 2000: 1.05-1.65), not other demographic and clinical factors except colorectal cancer (PR vs lung cancer: 1.24, 95%CI: 1.12-1.37).

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that prescribing behaviour, rather than patient factors, plays an important role in multiple opioid prescribing at the end of life; highlighting the need for training and education that goes beyond the well-recognised WHO approach for clinical practitioners.