Double-blind evaluation of analgesic efficacy of orally administered diclofenac, nefopam, and acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) plus codeine in chronic cancer pain

Optimal opioid treatment requires a consensual approach

This phase III multicenter randomized double-blind placebo-controlled comparative study evaluated the efficacy and safety of diclofenac sodium patches for the treatment of cancer pain. The study consisted of a 2-week to 4-week open-label dose-titration phase and a 4-week double-blind phase. In the double-blind phase, patients who were expected to continue treatment of cancer pain with nonopioid analgesics alone were randomized to the diclofenac sodium patch or placebo group. Once-daily diclofenac sodium patches were started at 150 mg/day (2 patches) and could be increased up to 225 mg/day (3 patches). The primary efficacy endpoint was the time to insufficient analgesic response. Statistical analysis of the double-blind phase included data from 120 patients of the diclofenac sodium patch group and 118 patients of the placebo group. Time to insufficient analgesic response was significantly longer with diclofenac sodium patches than with placebo (P = 0.0016). The hazard ratio for insufficient response for diclofenac sodium patch vs placebo was 0.459 (95% confidence interval, 0.275-0.768). Regarding sleep quality during the double-blind phase, the proportion of patients with “very good sleep” or “good sleep” in the diclofenac sodium patch and placebo groups was 90.8% and 88.1% at the start of the double-blind phase and 81.4% and 78.6% at the final assessment, respectively. The incidence of adverse events was 60.8% (73/120) in the diclofenac sodium patch group and 60.2% (71/118) in the placebo group. Once-daily diclofenac sodium patches are effective in treating cancer pain and are well tolerated.

Revision of Pharmacological Treatment Recommendations for Cancer Pain: Clinical Guidelines from the Japanese Society of Palliative Medicine

Background: Pain is one of the most common symptoms in cancer patients. The Japanese Society for Palliative Medicine (JSPM) first published its clinical guidelines for the management of cancer pain in 2010. Since then, more research on cancer pain management has been reported, and new drugs have become available in Japan. Thus, the JSPM has now revised the clinical guidelines using a validated methodology. Methods: This guideline was developed through a systematic review, discussion, and the Delphi method, following a formal guideline development process. Results: Thirty-five recommendations were created: 19 for the pharmacological management of cancer pain, 6 for the management of opioid-induced adverse effects, and 10 for pharmacological treatment procedures. Due to the lack of evidence that directly addressed our clinical questions, most of the recommendations had to be based on consensus among committee members and other guidelines. Discussion: It is critical to continue to build high-quality evidence in cancer pain management, and revise these guidelines accordingly.

A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, comparative study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of newly developed diclofenac patches in patients with cancer pain

ABSTRACT

This phase III multicenter randomized double-blind placebo-controlled comparative study evaluated the efficacy and safety of diclofenac sodium patches for the treatment of cancer pain. The study consisted of a 2-week to 4-week open-label dose-titration phase and a 4-week double-blind phase. In the double-blind phase, patients who were expected to continue treatment of cancer pain with nonopioid analgesics alone were randomized to the diclofenac sodium patch or placebo group. Once-daily diclofenac sodium patches were started at 150 mg/day (2 patches) and could be increased up to 225 mg/day (3 patches). The primary efficacy endpoint was the time to insufficient analgesic response. Statistical analysis of the double-blind phase included data from 120 patients of the diclofenac sodium patch group and 118 patients of the placebo group. Time to insufficient analgesic response was significantly longer with diclofenac sodium patches than with placebo (P = 0.0016). The hazard ratio for insufficient response for diclofenac sodium patch vs placebo was 0.459 (95% confidence interval, 0.275-0.768). Regarding sleep quality during the double-blind phase, the proportion of patients with "very good sleep" or "good sleep" in the diclofenac sodium patch and placebo groups was 90.8% and 88.1% at the start of the double-blind phase and 81.4% and 78.6% at the final assessment, respectively. The incidence of adverse events was 60.8% (73/120) in the diclofenac sodium patch group and 60.2% (71/118) in the placebo group. Once-daily diclofenac sodium patches are effective in treating cancer pain and are well tolerated.

Analgesic efficacy of nefopam for cancer pain: a randomized controlled study

Background: Nefopam is a non-opioid, non-steroidal, central acting drug used effectively for postoperative pain. The efficacy of nefopam for cancer pain remains unclear. We aimed to evaluate the analgesic efficacy of nefopam for cancer pain in a randomized controlled trial. Methods: Patients with moderate to severe cancer pain (n=40) were randomly divided into two groups. The nefopam group (n=20) received three 20 mg doses of nefopam every 8 hours. The placebo group (n=20) received normal saline. Intravenous patient-controlled analgesia with morphine was given for breakthrough pain for 48 hours. The primary outcome was significant pain reduction. Secondary outcomes were morphine consumption over 48 hours and incidence of side effects. Results: The nefopam group showed pain reduction at 12 hours (65% of patients), 24 hours (80%), 36 hours (85%), and 48 hours (65%). The placebo group showed pain reduction at 12 hours (70%), 24 hours (75%), 36 hours (80%), and 48 hours (60%). However, there were no statistically significant differences between the groups (p>0.05). The median dosage of morphine consumption in 48 hours was lower in the nefopam group (25.5 mg) compared with the placebo group (37 mg), but this was not statistically significant (p=0.499). There were no statistically significant differences in blood pressure and heart rate between the groups. Side effects in both groups were comparable. Conclusions: At dosage of 60 mg in 24 hours, nefopam did not provide significant pain reduction in moderate to severe cancer pain patients. However, there was a trend of reduced opioid consumption. Further studies with larger sample sizes, longer duration, or higher doses of nefopam are warranted. Registration: Thai Clinical Trail Registry (TCTR) ID TCTR20181016001; registered on 12 October 2018.

Resolving Issues About Efficacy and Safety of Low-Dose Codeine in Combination Analgesic Drugs: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this systematic review is to reflect on assumptions in relation to codeine use in combination with other analgesics.

METHODS

MEDLINE was searched according to the predetermined keywords and criteria. Only English language studies were taken into consideration and the outcome data of the final studies were extracted by two reviewers independently from each other and were checked by the third reviewer. Additionally, the available codeine-related Individual Case Safety Reports (ICSRs) retrieved from EudraVigilance were reviewed.

RESULTS

Sixteen placebo-controlled studies that involved 3378 subjects suffering from acute pain were analyzed for the efficacy of low-dose codeine (≤ 30 mg) combination products. Twelve of them found low-dose codeine combinations more efficient in relieving pain than the assigned comparator. According to 20 randomized clinical trials which included at least one dose of codeine (from 30 to 240 mg daily), the vast majority of reported side-effects were mild or moderate in severity. A total of 20 ICSRs for dependence were identified in the EudraVigilance database with codeine as a suspect drug for the 10-year time period for the European region.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose codeine combinations are effective after a single application in treating acute pain. Codeine in doses ≤ 30 mg and higher was considered safe since only mild to moderate side-effects were observed. There is no indication in the available sources which clearly links low doses of codeine to substance use disorder in non-dependent subjects.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and pain in cancer patients: a systematic review and reappraisal of the evidence

BACKGROUND

Emerging data highlights the potential role of cyclooxygenase (COX) inhibitors in the primary prevention of malignancy, reducing metastatic spread and improving overall mortality. Despite nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) forming a key component of the WHO analgesic ladder, their use in cancer pain management remains relatively low. This review re-appraises the current evidence regarding the efficacy of COX inhibitors as analgesics in cancer pain, providing a succinct resource to aid clinicians' decision making when determining treatment strategies.

METHODS

Medline® and Embase® databases were searched for publications up to November 2018. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and double-blind controlled studies considering the use of NSAIDs for management of cancer-related pain in adults were included. Animal studies, case reports, and retrospective observational data were excluded.

RESULTS

Thirty studies investigating the use of NSAIDs in cancer pain management were identified. There is a lack of high-quality evidence regarding the analgesic efficacy of NSAIDs in cancer pain, with short study durations and heterogeneity in outcome measures limiting the ability to draw meaningful conclusions.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the renewed interest in these cost-effective, well-established medications in cancer treatment outcomes, there is a paucity of data from the past 15 yr regarding their efficacy in cancer pain management. However, when analgesic strategies in the cancer population are being formulated, it is important that the potential benefits of this class of drug are considered. Further work investigating the role of NSAIDs in cancer pain management is undoubtedly warranted.

Systematic review and meta-analysis on non-opioid analgesics in palliative medicine

Non-opioid analgesics are widely used for pain relief in palliative medicine. However, there is a lack of evidence-based recommendations addressing the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of non-opioids in this field. A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis on current evidence can provide a basis for sound recommendations in clinical practice. A database search for controlled trials on the use of non-opioids in adult palliative patients was performed in Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and EMBASE from inception to 18 February 2018. Endpoints were pain intensity, opioid-sparing effects, safety, and quality of life. Studies with similar patients, interventions, and outcomes were included in the meta-analyses. Our systematic search was able to only identify studies dealing with cancer pain. Of 5991 retrieved studies, 43 could be included (n = 2925 patients). There was no convincing evidence for satisfactory pain relief by acetaminophen alone or in combination with strong opioids. We found substantial evidence of moderate quality for a satisfactory pain relief in cancer by non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), flupirtine, and dipyrone compared with placebo or other analgesics. There was no evidence for a superiority of one specific non-opioid. There was moderate quality of evidence for a similar pain reduction by NSAIDs in the usual dosage range compared with up to 15 mg of morphine or opioids of equianalgesic potency. The combination of NSAID and step III opioids showed a beneficial effect, without a decreased tolerability. There is scarce evidence concerning the combination of NSAIDs with weak opioids. There are no randomized-controlled studies on the use of non-opioids in a wide range of end-stage diseases except for cancer. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, flupirtine, and dipyrone can be recommended for the treatment of cancer pain either alone or in combination with strong opioids. The use of acetaminophen in the palliative setting cannot be recommended. Studies are not available for long-term use. There is a lack of evidence regarding pain treatment by non-opioids in specific cancer entities.

Diclofenac induced apoptosis via altering PI3K/Akt/MAPK signaling axis in HCT 116 more efficiently compared to SW480 colon cancer cells

Diclofenac is a preferential cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitor (COX-2) and member of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Inflammation is one of the main reason of poor prognosis of colon cancer cases; thereby NSAIDs are potential therapeutic agents in colon cancer therapy. In this study, our aim to understand the potential molecular targets of diclofenac, which may propose new therapeutic targets in HCT 116 (wt p53) and SW480 (mutant p53R273H) colon cancer cells. For this purpose, we identified different response against diclofenac treatment through expression profiles of PI3K/Akt/MAPK signaling axis. Our hypothesis was diclofenac-mediated apoptosis is associated with inhibition of PI3K/Akt/MAPK signaling axis. We found that sub-cytotoxic concentration of diclofenac (400 µM) promoted further apoptosis in HCT 116 cells compared to SW480 colon cancer cells. Diclofenac triggered dephosphorylation of PTEN, PDK, Akt, which led to inhibition of PI3K/Akt survival axis in HCT 116 colon cancer cells. However, diclofenac showed lesser effect in SW480 colon cancer cells. In addition, diclofenac further activated p44/42, p38 and SAPK/JNK in HCT 116 cells compared to SW480 cells.

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 morphine for cancer pain

BACKGROUND

This is the third updated version of a Cochrane review first published in Issue 4, 2003 of The Cochrane Library and first updated in 2007. Morphine has been used for many years to relieve pain. Oral morphine in either immediate release or modified release form remains the analgesic of choice for moderate or severe cancer pain.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of oral morphine in relieving cancer pain, and to assess the incidence and severity of adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 9); MEDLINE (1966 to October 2015); and EMBASE (1974 to October 2015). We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov (1 October 2015).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using placebo or active comparators reporting on the analgesic effect of oral morphine in adults and children with cancer pain. We excluded trials with fewer than 10 participants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One review author extracted data, which were checked by another review author. There were insufficient comparable data for meta-analysis to be undertaken or to produce numbers needed to treat (NNTs) for the analgesic effect. We extracted any available data on the number or proportion of participants with 'no worse than mild pain' or treatment success (very satisfied, or very good or excellent on patient global impression scales).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified seven new studies in this update. We excluded six, and one study is ongoing so also not included in this update. This review contains a total of 62 included studies, with 4241 participants. Thirty-six studies used a cross-over design ranging from one to 15 days, with the greatest number (11) for seven days for each arm of the trial. Overall we judged the included studies to be at high risk of bias because the methods of randomisation and allocation concealment were poorly reported. The primary outcomes for this review were participant-reported pain and pain relief.Fifteen studies compared oral morphine modified release (Mm/r) preparations with morphine immediate release (MIR). Fourteen studies compared Mm/r in different strengths; six of these included 24-hour modified release products. Fifteen studies compared Mm/r with other opioids. Six studies compared MIR with other opioids. Two studies compared oral Mm/r with rectal Mm/r. Three studies compared MIR with MIR by a different route of administration. Two studies compared Mm/r with Mm/r at different times and two compared MIR with MIR given at a different time. One study was found comparing each of the following: Mm/r tablet with Mm/r suspension; Mm/r with non-opioids; MIR with non-opioids; and oral morphine with epidural morphine.In the previous update, a standard of 'no worse than mild pain' was set, equivalent to a score of 30/100 mm or less on a visual analogue pain intensity scale (VAS), or the equivalent in other pain scales. Eighteen studies achieved this level of pain relief on average, and no study reported that good levels of pain relief were not attained. Where results were reported for individual participants in 17 studies, 'no worse than mild pain' was achieved by 96% of participants (362/377), and an outcome equivalent to treatment success in 63% (400/638).Morphine is an effective analgesic for cancer pain. Pain relief did not differ between Mm/r and MIR. Modified release versions of morphine were effective for 12- or 24-hour dosing depending on the formulation. Daily doses in studies ranged from 25 mg to 2000 mg with an average of between 100 mg and 250 mg. Dose titration was undertaken with both instant release and modified release products. A small number of participants did not achieve adequate analgesia with morphine. Adverse events were common, predictable, and approximately 6% of participants discontinued treatment with morphine because of intolerable adverse events.The quality of the evidence is generally poor. Studies are old, often small, and were largely carried out for registration purposes and therefore were only designed to show equivalence between different formulations.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The conclusions have not changed for this update. The effectiveness of oral morphine has stood the test of time, but the randomised trial literature for morphine is small given the importance of this medicine. Most trials recruited fewer than 100 participants and did not provide appropriate data for meta-analysis. Only a few reported how many people had good pain relief, but where it was reported, over 90% had no worse than mild pain within a reasonably short time period. The review demonstrates the wide dose range of morphine used in studies, and that a small percentage of participants are unable to tolerate oral morphine. The review also shows the wide range of study designs, and inconsistency in cross-over designs. Trial design was frequently based on titration of morphine or comparator to achieve adequate analgesia, then crossing participants over in cross-over design studies. It was not clear if these trials were sufficiently powered to detect any clinical differences between formulations or comparator drugs. New studies added to the review for the previous update reinforced the view that it is possible to use modified release morphine to titrate to analgesic effect. There is qualitative evidence that oral morphine has much the same efficacy as other available opioids.

WITHDRAWN: NSAIDS or paracetamol, alone or combined with opioids, for cancer pain

This review is out of date, although it is correct at the date of publication. The review may be misleading as new studies could alter the original conclusions. All previous versions of the review can be found in the ‘Other versions’ tab. A new author team intends to develop four new reviews on this topic, which will serve to update and supersede this review. The new reviews will cover paracetamol, paracetamol plus opioids, NSAIDs, and NSAIDs plus opioids, for cancer pain. For more information, contact the PaPaS Review Group.

The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.

Codeine, alone and with paracetamol (acetaminophen), for cancer pain

BACKGROUND

Pain is very common in patients with cancer. Opioid analgesics, including codeine, play a significant role in major guidelines on the management of cancer pain, particularly for mild to moderate pain. Codeine is widely available and inexpensive, which may make it a good choice, especially in low-resource settings. Its use is controversial, in part because codeine is not effective in a minority of patients who cannot convert it to its active metabolite (morphine), and also because of concerns about potential abuse, and safety in children.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and safety of codeine used alone or in combination with paracetamol for relieving cancer pain.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 2), MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to 5 March 2014, supplemented by searches of clinical trial registries and screening of the reference lists of the identified studies and reviews in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought randomised, double-blind, controlled trials using single or multiple doses of codeine, with or without paracetamol, for the treatment of cancer pain. Trials could have either parallel or cross-over design, with at least 10 participants per treatment group. Studies in children or adults reporting on any type, grade, and stage of cancer were eligible. We accepted any formulation, dosage regimen, and route of administration of codeine, and both placebo and active controls.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently read the titles and abstracts of all studies identified by the searches and excluded those that clearly did not meet the inclusion criteria. For the remaining studies, two authors read the full manuscripts and assessed them for inclusion. We resolved discrepancies between review authors by discussion. Included studies were described qualitatively, since no meta-analysis was possible because of the small amount of data identified, and clinical and methodological between-study heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 studies including 721 participants with cancer pain due to diverse types of malignancy. All studies were performed on adults; there were no studies on children. The included studies were of adequate methodological quality, but all except for one were judged to be at a high risk of bias because of small study size, and six because of methods used to deal with missing data or high withdrawal rates. Three studies used a parallel group design; the remainder were cross-over trials in which there was an adequate washout period, but only one reported results for treatment periods separately.Twelve studies used codeine as a single agent and three combined it with paracetamol. Ten studies included a placebo arm, and 14 included one or more of 16 different active drug comparators or compared different routes of administration. Most studies investigated the effect of a single dose of medication, while five used treatment periods of one, seven or 21 days. Most studies used codeine at doses of 30 mg to 120 mg.There were insufficient data for any pooled analysis. Only two studies reported our preferred responder outcome of 'participants with at least 50% reduction in pain' and two reported 'participants with no worse than mild pain'. Eleven studies reported treatment group mean measures of pain intensity or pain relief; overall for these outcome measures, codeine or codeine plus paracetamol was numerically superior to placebo and equivalent to the active comparators.Adverse event reporting was poor: only two studies reported the number of participants with any adverse event specified by treatment group and only one reported the number of participants with any serious adverse event. In multiple-dose studies nausea, vomiting and constipation were common, with somnolence and dizziness frequent in the 21-day study. Withdrawal from the studies, where reported, was less than 10% except in two studies. There were three deaths, in all cases due to the underlying cancer.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We identified only a small amount of data in studies that were both randomised and double-blind. Studies were small, of short duration, and most had significant shortcomings in reporting. The available evidence indicates that codeine is more effective against cancer pain than placebo, but with increased risk of nausea, vomiting, and constipation. Uncertainty remains as to the magnitude and time-course of the analgesic effect and the safety and tolerability in longer-term use. There were no data for children.

Oral morphine for cancer pain

BACKGROUND

This is the second updated version of a Cochrane review first published in Issue 4, 2003 of The Cochrane Library and first updated in 2007. Morphine has been used for many years to relieve pain. Oral morphine in either immediate release or modified release form remains the analgesic of choice for moderate or severe cancer pain.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of oral morphine in relieving cancer pain, and assess the incidence and severity of adverse effects.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases: Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Group Trials Register (June 2013); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 5, May); MEDLINE (1966 to June 2013); and EMBASE (1974 to June 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using placebo or active comparators reporting on the analgesic effect of oral morphine in adults and children with cancer pain. Trials with fewer than ten participants were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One review author extracted data, which were checked by another review author. There were insufficient comparable data for meta-analysis to be undertaken or to produce numbers needed to treat (NNTs) for the analgesic effect. We extracted any available data on the number or proportion of participants with 'no worse than mild pain' or treatment success (very satisfied, or very good or excellent on patient global impression scales).

MAIN RESULTS

Ten new studies (638 participants) were identified for this update, bringing the total of included studies to 62, with 4241 participants. Thirty-six studies used a cross-over design ranging from one to 15 days, with the greatest number (11) for seven days for each arm of the trial.Fifteen studies compared oral morphine modified release (Mm/r) preparations with morphine immediate release (MIR). Fourteen studies compared Mm/r in different strengths; six of these included 24-hour modified release products. Fifteen studies compared Mm/r with other opioids. Six studies compared MIR with other opioids. Two studies compared oral Mm/r with rectal Mm/r. Three studies compared MIR with MIR by a different route of administration. Two studies compared Mm/r with Mm/r at different times and two compared MIR with MIR given at a different time. One study was found comparing each of the following: Mm/r tablet with Mm/r suspension; Mm/r with non-opioids; MIR with non-opioids; and oral morphine with epidural morphine.In this update a standard of 'no worse than mild pain' was set equivalent to a score of 30/100 mm or less on a visual analogue pain intensity scale (VAS), or the equivalent in other pain scales. Eighteen studies achieved this level of pain relief on average, and no study reported that good levels of pain relief were not attained. Where results were reported for individual participants in 17 studies, 'no worse than mild pain' was achieved by 96% of participants (362/377), and an outcome equivalent to treatment success in 63% (400/638).Morphine is an effective analgesic for cancer pain. Pain relief did not differ between Mm/r and MIR. Modified release versions of morphine were effective for 12- or 24-hour dosing depending on the formulation. Daily doses in studies ranged from 25 mg to 2000 mg with an average of between 100 mg and 250 mg. Dose titration was undertaken with both instant release and modified release products. A small number of participants did not achieve adequate analgesia with morphine. Adverse effects were common and approximately 6% of participants discontinued treatment because of intolerable adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effectiveness of oral morphine has stood the test of time, but the randomised trial literature for morphine is small given the importance of this medicine. Most trials recruited fewer than 100 participants and did not provide appropriate data for meta-analysis. Only a few reported how many people had good pain relief, but where it was reported, over 90% had no worse than mild pain within a reasonably short time period. The review demonstrates the wide dose range of morphine used in studies, and that a small percentage of participants are unable to tolerate oral morphine. The review also shows the wide range of study designs, and inconsistency in cross-over designs. Trial design was frequently based on titration of morphine or comparator to achieve adequate analgesia, then crossing participants over in cross-over design studies. It was not clear if these trials are sufficiently powered to detect any clinical differences between formulations or comparator drugs. New studies added to the review reinforce the view that it is possible to use modified release morphine to titrate to analgesic effect. There is qualitative evidence that oral morphine has much the same efficacy as other available opioids.

Examination of the interaction between peripheral lumiracoxib and opioids on the 1% formalin test in rats

It has been shown that the association of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) with opioid analgesic agents can increase their antinociceptive activity, allowing the use of lower doses and thus limiting side effects. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to examine the possible pharmacological interaction between lumiracoxib and codeine or nalbuphine at the local peripheral level in the rat using the 1% formalin test and isobolographic analysis. Lumiracoxib, codeine, nalbuphine or fixed-dose ratios lumiracoxib-codeine or lumiracoxib-nalbuphine combinations were administrated locally in the formalin-injured paw and the antinociceptive effect was evaluated using the 1% formalin test. All treatments produced a dose-dependent antinociceptive effect. ED(40) values were estimated for the individual drugs and an isobologram was constructed. The derived theoretical ED(40)'s for the lumiracoxib-codeine and lumiracoxib-nalbuphine combinations were 423.4+/-31.3 microg/paw and 310.9+/-24.2 microg/paw, respectively, being significantly higher than the actually observed experimental ED(40) values, 233.2+/-30.9 microg/paw and 132.7+/-11.6 microg/paw, respectively. These results correspond to a synergistic interaction between lumiracoxib and opioids at the local peripheral level, potency being about two times higher with regard to that expected from the addition of the effects of the individual drugs. Data suggest that low doses of the lumiracoxib-opioids combination can interact synergistically at the peripheral level and therefore this drug association may represent a therapeutic advantage for the clinical treatment of inflammatory pain.

Management of opioid-induced nausea and vomiting in cancer patients: systematic review and evidence-based recommendations

The objectives were to review the existing literature on management of opioid-induced nausea and vomiting in cancer patients and summarize the findings into evidence-based recommendations. Systematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were performed, using free text and MeSH/EMTREE search terms. The searches were limited to articles published in English from each database set-up date to 31 July 2009. Reference lists and relevant international conference proceedings were hand-searched. Fifty-five studies were identified, providing data on 5741 patients. The studies were classified into: (A) studies in which treatment of nausea/vomiting was the primary outcome (a total of 18 studies, of which eight studies specifically addressed opioid-induced emesis); and (B) studies in which nausea/vomiting were secondary or tertiary outcomes (37 studies). The existing evidence had several limitations, there was a lack of consistency and the overall quality was grade D. By applying the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) system, three weak recommendations were formulated. The current evidence is too limited to give evidence-based recommendations for the use of antiemetics for opioid-induced nausea or vomiting in cancer patients. The evidence suggests that nausea and vomiting in cancer patients receiving an opioid might be reduced by changing the opioid or opioid administration route. The evidence was also too limited to prioritize between symptomatic treatment and adjustment of the opioid treatment.

Combination drug therapy for chronic pain: a call for more clinical studies

Chronic pain is a debilitating clinical condition associated with a variety of disease entities including diabetic neuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, low back pathology, fibromyalgia, and neurological disorders. For many general practitioners and specialists, managing chronic pain has become a daunting challenge. As a modality of multidisciplinary chronic pain management, medications are often prescribed in combinations, an approach referred to as combination drug therapy (CDT). However, many medications for pain therapy, including antidepressants and opioid analgesics, have significant side effects that can compound when used in combination and impact the effectiveness of CDT. To date, clinical practice of CDT for chronic pain has been based largely on clinical experiences. In this article, we will focus on (1) the scientific basis and rationales for CDT, (2) current clinical data on CDT, and (3) the need for more clinical studies to establish a framework for the use of CDT.

PERSPECTIVE

More preclinical, clinical, and translational studies are needed to improve the efficacy of combination drug therapy that is an integral part of a comprehensive approach to the management of chronic pain.

Synergistic effect of the interaction between naproxen and citral on inflammation in rats

The combination of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs with herbs having analgesic effects can increase their antinociceptive activity and limit their side effects. The aim of the present study was to examine the effects on inflammation and gastric injury in rats resulting from the interaction between naproxen and citral. Naproxen, citral, or fixed-dose naproxen-citral combinations were administered orally and their anti-inflammation (carrageenan-induced paw edema) and gastric damage were assessed in rats. The pharmacological interaction type was evaluated by the isobolographic analysis. Naproxen, citral, or combinations of naproxen and citral produced anti-inflammatory effects. The sole administration of naproxen produced significant gastric damage, but this effect was not obtained with either citral or combinations. ED(30) values were estimated for the individual drugs, and isobolograms were constructed. The derived theoretical ED(30) for the anti-inflammatory effect was 504.4 mg/kg; this was significantly higher than the observed experimental value (190.6 mg/kg). These results indicate that a synergistic interaction underlies the anti-inflammatory effect. The data suggests that the naproxen-citral combination can interact and to produce minor gastric damage and may have therapeutic advantages for the clinical treatment of inflammation.

Translational medicine: cancer pain mechanisms and management

Cancer-induced bone pain (CIBP) is a major clinical problem with up to 85% of patients with bony metastases having pain, often associated with anxiety and depression, reduced performance status, and a poor quality of life. Malignant bone disease creates a chronic pain state through sensitization and synaptic plasticity within the spinal cord that amplifies nociceptive signals and their transmission to the brain. Fifty per cent of patients are expected to gain adequate analgesia from palliative radiotherapy within 4-6 weeks of treatment. Opioid analgesia does make a useful contribution to the management of CIBP, especially in terms of suppressing tonic background pain. However, CIBP remains a clinical challenge because the spontaneous and movement-related components are more difficult to treat with opioids and commonly used analgesic drugs, without unacceptable side-effects. Recently developed laboratory models of CIBP, which show congruency with the clinical syndrome, are contributing to an improved understanding of the neurobiology of CIBP. This chronic pain syndrome appears to be unique and distinct from other chronic pain states, such as inflammatory or neuropathic pain. This has clear implications for treatment and development of future therapies. A translational medicine approach, using a highly iterative process between the clinic and the laboratory, may allow improved understanding of the underlying mechanisms of CIBP to be rapidly translated into real clinical benefits in terms of improved pain management.

Oral morphine for cancer pain

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of a previous Cochrane review first published in Issue 4, 2003 of The Cochrane Library. Morphine has been used for many years to relieve pain. Oral morphine in either immediate release or modified release form remains the analgesic of choice for moderate or severe cancer pain.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of oral morphine in relieving cancer pain and to assess the incidence and severity of adverse effects.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The following databases were searched: Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Group Trials Register (December 2006); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2006, Issue 4); MEDLINE (1966 to December 2006); and EMBASE (1974 to December 2006).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting on the analgesic effect of oral morphine in adults and children with cancer pain. Any comparator trials were considered. Trials with fewer than ten participants were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One review author extracted data, which was checked by the other review author. There were insufficient comparable data for meta-analysis to be undertaken or to produce numbers-needed-to-treat (NNT) for the analgesic effect.

MAIN RESULTS

In this update, nine new studies with 688 participants were added. Fifty-four studies (3749 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Fifteen studies compared oral modified release morphine (Mm/r) preparations with immediate release morphine (MIR). Twelve studies compared Mm/r in different strengths, five of these included 24-hour modified release products. Thirteen studies compared Mm/r with other opioids. Six studies compared MIR with other opioids. Two studies compared oral Mm/r with rectal Mm/r. Two studies compared MIR with MIR by a different route of administration. One study was found comparing each of the following: Mm/r tablet with Mm/r suspension; Mm/r with non-opioids; MIR with non-opioids; and oral morphine with epidural morphine. Morphine was shown to be an effective analgesic. Pain relief did not differ between Mm/r and MIR. Modified release versions of morphine were effective for 12 or 24-hour dosing depending on the formulation. Daily doses in studies ranged from 25 mg to 2000 mg with an average of between 100 mg and 250 mg. Dose titration were undertaken with both instant release and modified release products. Adverse effects were common but only 4% of patients discontinued treatment because of intolerable adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The randomised trial literature for morphine is small given the importance of this medicine. Most trials recruited fewer than 100 participants and did not provide appropriate data for meta-analysis. Trial design was frequently based on titration of morphine or comparator to achieve adequate analgesia, then crossing participants over in crossover design studies. It was not clear if these trials are sufficiently powered to detect any clinical differences between formulations or comparator drugs. Studies added to the review reinforce the view that it is possible to use modified release morphine to titrate to analgesic effect. There is qualitative evidence for effectiveness of oral morphine which compares well to other available opioids. There is limited evidence to suggest that transmucosal fentanyl provides more rapid pain relief for breakthrough pain compared to morphine.

NSAIDS or paracetamol, alone or combined with opioids, for cancer pain

BACKGROUND

NSAIDs are widely applied to treat cancer pain and are frequently combined with opioids in combination preparations for this purpose. However, it is unclear which agent is most clinically efficacious for relieving cancer-related pain, or even what may be the additional benefit of combining an NSAID with an opioid in this setting.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of NSAIDs, alone or combined with opioids, for the treatment of cancer pain.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 2, 2002), MEDLINE (January 1966 to March 2003), EMBASE (January 1980 to December 2001), LILACS (January 1984 to December 2001) and reference list of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials that compared NSAID versus placebo; NSAID versus NSAID; NSAID versus NSAID plus opioid; opioid versus opioid plus NSAID; or NSAID versus opioid.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information. Adverse event information was collected from trials. Where there was disagreement between reviewers, the opinion of an additional reviewer was sought to resolve the issue.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-two trials involving 3084 patients were included. Clinical heterogeneity of study methods and outcomes precluded meta-analyses and only supported a qualitative systematic review. Seven of eight papers that compared NSAID with placebo demonstrated superior efficacy of NSAID with no difference in side effects. Thirteen papers compared one NSAID with another; four reported increased efficacy of one NSAID over another. Four different studies found that one NSAID had fewer side effects than one or more others. Twenty-three studies compared NSAIDs and opioids in combination or alone with NSAID/opioid combinations. Thirteen out of 14 studies found no difference, or low clinical difference, when combining an NSAID plus an opioid versus either drug alone. Comparisons between various NSAID/opioid combinations were inconclusive. Nine studies assessed the association between dose and efficacy and safety. Four papers demonstrated increased efficacy with increased dose, but no dose-dependent increase in side effects within the dose ranges studied. Study duration ranged from single dose studies performed over six hours to crossover studies lasting six weeks; however the majority of studies were of less than seven days duration.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based upon limited data, NSAIDs appear to be more effective than placebo for cancer pain; clear evidence to support superior safety or efficacy of one NSAID over another is lacking; and trials of combinations of an NSAID with an opioid have disclosed either no difference (4 out of 14 papers), a statistically insignificant trend towards superiority (1 out of 14 papers), or at most a slight but statistically significant advantage (9 out of 14 papers), compared with either single entity. The short duration of studies undermines generalization of their findings on efficacy and safety of NSAIDs for cancer pain.

Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs, Alone or Combined With Opioids, for Cancer Pain

Purpose

To assess the safety and efficacy of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), alone or combined with opioids, for the treatment of cancer pain.

Patients and Methods

Forty-two trials involving 3,084 patients met inclusion criteria: eight compared NSAID with placebo; 13 compared one NSAID with another; 23 compared NSAID with opioid, NSAID or opioid versus NSAID plus opioid combinations, or NSAID plus opioid combinations versus NSAID plus opioid combinations; and nine studies assessed the effect of increasing NSAID dose.

Results

Sixteen studies lasted 1 week or longer and 11 evaluated a single dose. Seven of eight trials demonstrated superior efficacy of single doses of NSAID compared with placebo. Only four of 13 studies reported increased efficacy of one NSAID compared with another; four other studies found that one NSAID had fewer side effects than one or more others. Thirteen of 14 studies found no difference, or minimal clinical difference, when comparing an NSAID plus opioid combination versus either drug alone. Comparisons between various NSAID plus opioid combinations were inconclusive. Four studies demonstrated increased efficacy with increased NSAID dose, without dose-dependent increases in side effects.

Conclusion

Heterogeneity of study methods and outcomes precluded meta-analyses. Short duration of studies undermines generalization of findings on efficacy and safety. On the basis of limited data, NSAIDs appear to be more effective than placebo for cancer pain; clear evidence to support superior safety or efficacy of one NSAID compared with another is lacking; and trials of combinations of an NSAID with an opioid have disclosed either no significant difference, or at most a slight but statistically significant advantage, compared with either single entity.

The pathophysiology of cancer-induced bone pain: current understanding

Cancer-induced bone pain (CIBP) is a common clinical problem. Although treatment has been revolutionised in the past 10 years with the introduction of bisphosphonates, pain arising spontaneously or from movement, remains a leading cause of unresolved pain in many patients. Until recently little was understood about the peripheral and central mechanisms of bone pain. Insight into the mechanisms of osteoblast and osteoclast activation, via receptor activator for nuclear factor KB (RANK) dependent and independent mechanisms and a re-evaluation of primary afferent terminals within bone have led to a suggestion that CIBP may be a mixture of inflammatory and neuropathic stimuli. The recently published animal model of localised but progressive bone destruction has allowed greater insight into the peripheral and dorsal horn pathophysiology, which hitherto was precluded. Immunocytochemical markers of neurotransmitters and receptors indicate that CIBP has unique characteristics, unlike neuropathy or inflammation. Evidence for an increased excitability within the dorsal horn, and especially Lamina I, and possible mechanisms underlying this unique pain state will be discussed.

Double-blind evaluation of short-term analgesic efficacy of orally administered dexketoprofen trometamol and ketorolac in bone cancer pain

The analgesic efficacy and safety of dexketoprofen trometamol (the active enantiomer of the racemic compound ketoprofen) (25mg q.i.d.) vs. ketorolac (10mg q.i.d.) was assessed in 115 patients with bone cancer pain included in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel group study. A level of >/=40 mm on the 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS) and >/=10 in the pain rating index were required for inclusion. At the end of treatment on day 7 (+1 day), mean values of VAS were 32+/-24 mm for dexketoprofen and 40+/-30 mm for ketorolac (P=0.12) but the pain rating index was significantly lower in patients given dexketoprofen (8.5+/-2.3 vs. 9.7+/-2.9, P=0.04). Moreover, most of the patients reached a pain intensity difference from baseline >/=20 mm (75% of patients for dexketoprofen and 65% of patients for ketorolac). Around half of patients in both treatments had a pain intensity <30 mm on VAS at the end of treatment (55% for dexketoprofen and 47% for ketorolac). In the overall assessment of efficacy, a higher percentage of both patients and physicians rated dexketoprofen as 'quite effective' or 'very effective' compared to ketorolac. The percentage of patients withdrawn from the study for any reason as well as for insufficient therapeutic effect or due to adverse events was lower in the dexketoprofen group than in the ketorolac group. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 16% of patients given dexketoprofen and in 24% given ketorolac. Serious adverse events occurred in 3.5% of patients from both groups but only one case of gastrointestinal hemorrhage was considered related to ketorolac. We conclude that dexketoprofen trometamol 25 mg q.i.d. oral route is a good analgesic therapy in the treatment of bone cancer pain, comparable to ketorolac 10 mg q.i.d., with a good tolerability profile.

Oral morphine for cancer pain

BACKGROUND

Morphine has been used to relieve pain for many years. Oral morphine in either immediate release or sustained release form remains the analgesic of choice for moderate or severe cancer pain.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of oral morphine in relieving cancer pain. To assess the incidence and severity of adverse effects.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The following databases were searched: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2002; the trials register of the Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care group (February 2002); MEDLINE 1966 to December 2002; EMBASE 1988 to December 2002; and the Oxford Pain Relief database 1950 to 1994.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Published randomised controlled trials (full reports) reporting on the analgesic effect of oral morphine in adults and children with cancer pain. Any comparator trials were considered. Trials with fewer than 10 subjects were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One reviewer extracted data, and the findings were checked by two other reviewers. There were insufficient comparable data for meta-analysis to be undertaken, or to produce numbers-needed-to-treat (NNT) for the analgesic effect.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty five studies (3061 subjects) met the inclusion criteria. Fourteen studies compared oral sustained release morphine (MSR) preparations with immediate release morphine (MIR). Eight studies compared MSR and MSR in different strengths. Nine studies compared MSR with other opioids. Five studies compared MIR with other opioids. Two studies compared oral MSR with rectal MSR. One study was found comparing each of the following: MSR tablet with MSR suspension; MSR with MSR at different dose frequencies; MSR with non-opioids; MIR with non-opioids; oral morphine with epidural morphine; and MIR with MIR by a different route of administration. Morphine was shown to be an effective analgesic. Pain relief did not differ between MSR and MIR. Sustained release versions of morphine were effective for 12 or 24 hour dosing depending on the formulation. Adverse effects were common but only 4% of patients discontinued treatment because of intolerable adverse effects.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

The randomised trial literature for morphine is small given the importance of this medicine. Most trials recruited fewer than 100 participants, and did not provide appropriate data for meta-analysis. Trial design was frequently based on titration of morphine or comparator to achieve adequate analgesia, then crossing subjects over in crossover design studies. It is not clear if these trials are sufficiently powered to detect any clinical differences between formulations or comparator drugs.

Strategies for the treatment of cancer pain in the new millennium

As was the case in the era before us, in the new millennium we will continue to see an abundance of patients experiencing cancer-related pain for different reasons. Although much needless pain and suffering still affects many of those with cancer, we are presented with a medical dichotomy. With the analgesic drugs available today, and the relatively simple and effective guidelines to treat cancer pain published and disseminated by the World Health Organization, why do people with cancer continue to experience pain? As we search for the answer, the horizon may hold promising new drugs, 'old drugs' with new interest and applications, and new strategies for the field of pain therapy. Possibilities include the isolation and development of analgesics or analgesic combinations that may minimise the adverse effects which are often associated with the current therapeutic class of opioid analgesics. In addition, current research points to promising results identifying the N-methyl D-aspartate non-opioid receptor as a likely component of neuropathic pain. Drugs such as gabapentin, the mechanism of action of which is not well known, have found favour within the clinical community for their analgesic properties and good tolerability. Methadone, in a phase of resurgence, has garnered the attention of the clinical community because of its unique receptor activity and pharmacoeconomic benefits. A number of clinical studies have demonstrated that methadone has a valuable role in treating cancer pain. Perhaps, an unbalanced focus on the risks of inappropriate use, rather than the benefits, should not compromise or distract from the use of methadone as an alternative to morphine. Studies are on going to assess the potential role of methadone in treating neuropathic pain. Drugs such as cannabinoids, although currently applicable for patients with anorexia, nausea and/or vomiting, may offer benefits to patients experiencing pain. Other opportunities exist with such compounds as alpha2-adrenergic agonists, nicotine, lidocaine and ketamine. New strategies such as the switching opioids and/or their route of administration may offer improved analgesia with fewer adverse effects, thus providing therapeutic alternatives for the clinical community. In addition, there is interest in the co-administration of opioids that act on different receptors. For instance, oxycodone appears to be a kappa opioid receptor agonist and may offer enhanced analgesia when combined with morphine.

The use of anti-inflammatory drugs in cancer pain

The role of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in cancer pain has been well established in the treatment of mild pain and also alone or in association with opioids for the treatment of moderate to severe pain. Acutely, NSAIDs may be more than mild analgesics, and may provide additional analgesia when combined with opioids. However, NSAIDs have ceiling effects and there is no therapeutic gain from increasing dosages beyond those recommended. As there is no clearly superior NSAID, the choice should be based on experience and the toxicity profile that probably relates to the COX-1:COX-2 ratio. Among the older drugs, ibuprofen seems to have these properties.Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs have been shown to have an opioid-sparing effect. Although the value of a simple narcotic-sparing effect may be questioned in cancer pain treatment, the use of NSAIDs may be useful when the increase in opioid dosage determine the occurrence of opioid toxicity. Like opioids, NSAIDs should not be considered analgesics for a specific type or cause of pain. There is a lack of evidence for any difference between different routes of NSAIDs administration. The long-term toxicity of NSAIDs in cancer pain is poorly defined due to a lack of studies. A variety of strategies have been used in an attempt to reduce the risks associated with NSAID therapy. Those NSAIDs that are weak COX-1 inhibitors may be preferred. In addition, concomitant administration of misoprostol is recommended in patients at increased risk for upper gastrointestinal complications.

[Aspirin against cancer]

PURPOSE

That aspirin as an anti-aggregative and anti-inflammatory compound might prevent tumor spread is an old concept that is still not of clinical relevance. To date, aspirin has been shown in several epidemiologic studies to be linked with a reduction of colorectal cancer incidence, as well as the incidence of lung and breast cancer. In this issue, we have summarized the mechanisms that support this hypothesis, and we have analysed the main clinical studies.

RESULTS

Only case-control studies and most of the prospective cohort studies showed a reduction of colorectal cancer incidence in regular aspirin users. Nevertheless, the minimum effective doses of aspirin and the duration of therapy remain unclear. To date, only one prospective randomized trial has evaluated the influence of aspirin in the prevention of colorectal cancer. Despite the inclusion of 22,000 subjects and a five-year follow-up, aspirin failed to show any protection. The mechanism of the potential role of aspirin in preventing cancer, primarily supposed to rely on the antiprostaglandin effect, is now under debate. Few studies have evaluated the prevention of other cancers, such as breast or lung cancers, by aspirin. Data remain too sparse to allow any conclusion.

CONCLUSION

The role of aspirin in the prevention of colorectal cancer still needs further studies, such as a prospective randomized study, which should be conducted in a high-risk population.

Double-blind evaluation of short-term analgesic efficacy of orally administered diclofenac, diclofenac plus codeine, and diclofenac plus imipramine in chronic cancer pain

A prospective double-blind randomized trial was conducted on 184 cancer patients with moderate to severe chronic pain to evaluate the analgesic efficacy and tolerability of diclofenac alone (50 mg q.i.d.) or in combination with a weak opioid (codeine 40 mg q.i.d.), or with an anti-depressant (imipramine, 10 or 25 mg t.i.d.). All demographic and clinical characteristics including cancer type, presence of bone metastases, baseline pain severity, neuropathic and nociceptive pain, and depressive state, were well balanced between the three treatment groups. The main analysis of the study was on the VAS scores at visit 2 (day 4). The mean VAS values for both associations imipramine plus diclofenac and codeine plus diclofenac were similar to the association placebo plus diclofenac. Patients on imipramine plus diclofenac and on placebo plus diclofenac were withdrawn mainly for inadequate efficacy, while patients on codeine plus diclofenac discontinued equally for inadequate efficacy or adverse events. In conclusion, in a short-term evaluation the addition of a tricyclic anti-depressant or a weak opioid to diclofenac did not provide further analgesia with respect to diclofenac administration alone.

Opioid-sparing effect of diclofenac in cancer pain

This study investigated the opioid-sparing effect of diclofenac using patient-controlled analgesia with oral methadone. Fifteen patients with advanced cancer participated. After achieving adequate analgesia with regular dosing of oral methadone (T1), patient-controlled analgesia with methadone was administered for 3 days (T2). Intramuscular diclofenac 75 mg twice daily was then added to this regimen for 3 days (T3). Compared to T2 values, methadone dose was significantly reduced at T2 and T2, and pain report (recorded on a visual analogue scale) was significantly reduced at T3. A reduction in methadone plasma concentration was also observed at T2 and T3, although it did not attain statistical significance. Significant decreases in the intensity of several symptoms other than pain were also found at T2 and T3. Diclofenac appears to have a relevant opioid-sparing effect when using patient-controlled analgesia with oral methadone.

Use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in cancer

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used in cancer, yet they are also responsible for many, often serious, adverse effects. This review examines the various mechanisms through which NSAIDs work. It looks at the experience built up in using NSAIDs in cancer pain in general, but then particularly examines whether the evidence available supports the claim often made that these drugs have a specific role in relief of pain from bony metastases. Criteria for choosing one NSAID over another, including adverse effect profiles, efficacy and tolerability, are considered, as are methods for improving the safe use of these drugs.

Modulation of nitric oxide effects by flurbiprofen enantiomers and nefopam and its relation to antinociception

We have examined the interactions of the analgesics, R- and S-flurbiprofen and nefopam, with nitric oxide (NO) in several experimental systems. Phenylephrine-precontracted rat aortic strips with intact endothelium were relaxed by R- and S-flurbiprofen and nefopam in a concentration-dependent manner. Removal of endothelium, inhibition of guanylate cyclase, inhibition of NO biosynthesis and inactivation of NO significantly reduced these relaxations. R- and S-flurbiprofen as well as nefopam enhanced the inhibition of platelet aggregation caused by rat peritoneal neutrophils or 3-morpholinosydnonimine. The antinociceptive effects of R- and S-flurbiprofen in the mouse writhing test as well as those of nefopam in the hot plate test were not significantly affected by administration of NO synthase inhibitors. We conclude that the increase in the biological activity of NO by R- and S-flurbiprofen and nefopam does not play a major role in the antinociceptive activity of the drugs, but might contribute to acute hypotension, a side-effect occasionally seen with flurbiprofen and nefopam.

Comparison of piroxicam and acetylsalicylic acid for pain in head and neck cancers: a double-blind study

This double-blind, placebo controlled study compared the analgesic efficacy of piroxicam with acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) in patients having continuous pain with advanced head and neck cancers. They were randomly divided into two groups of 25 patients each; 36 of these 50 patients completed the study. After four days of treatment, there was a significant reduction in a modified numerical rating scale (NRS) of pain in the piroxicam group as well as in the ASA group. There was a concomitant increase in the hours of sleep in the piroxicam group and in the ASA group. The decrease in NRS and the increase in sleeping hours was not statistically significantly different between the two groups. Patients receiving piroxicam had a low incidence of upper gastrointestinal side-effects compared with those receiving ASA. The results of this study suggest that piroxicam can be used as first line treatment in place of ASA in patients with head and neck cancers suffering from moderate to severe pain. The advantages are less frequent dosing, better patient compliance and few side-effects.

Morphine-sparing effect of diclofenac in cancer pain

The effectiveness of diclofenac 50 mg t.i.d. as additive treatment to parenteral patient-controlled administration therapy (PCAT) with morphine in cancer pain has been investigated in a double-blind study. In the fifteen patients who completed the study, morphine i.v. was titrated to optimal pain relief over 5 days. The mean total morphine consumption was significantly reduced during diclofenac administration (82.8 mg morphine per day) compared to placebo (95.0 mg morphine per day). The reduction in mean morphine consumption during active treatment with diclofenac was independent of the initial dose of self-titrated morphine. Pain, self-assessed according to VAS, tended to be lower during the diclofenac period, although the difference did not reach statistical significance. No adverse events were recorded among the 15 patients who completed the study. The present findings show that a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agent, such as diclofenac, has a morphine-sparing effect in morphine-treated patients with cancer pain.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs as the first step in cancer pain therapy: double-blind, within-patient study comparing nine drugs

The efficacy and tolerability of acetylsalicylic acid, paracetamol, diclofenac, ibuprofen, indomethacin, pirprofen, sulindac, naproxen and suprofen were compared in the treatment of cancer pain. In a double-blind, within-patient randomized study, each drug was given for 1 week to eight patients and for another week to a further eight patients. A total of 65 patients were effectively treated; only 48 completed week 1 and 41 completed week 2. Naproxen, diclofenac and indomethacin were highly effective in pain relief (tested by means of a 100 mm visual analogue scale) and were relatively well tolerated. It is concluded that these non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs can be considered as first choice in the treatment of cancer pain.