A clinical study on the use of codeine, oxycodone, dextropropoxyphene, buprenorphine, and pentazocine in cancer pain

An international open-label randomised trial comparing a two-step approach versus the standard three-step approach of the WHO analgesic ladder in patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

Worldwide, cancer pain management follows the World Health Organization (WHO) three-step analgesic ladder. Using weak opioids (e.g. codeine) at step 2 is debatable with low-dose strong opioids being potentially better, particularly in low- and middle-income countries where weak opioids are expensive. We wanted to assess the efficiency, safety and cost of omitting step 2 of the WHO ladder.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We carried out an international, open-label, randomised (1 : 1) parallel group trial. Eligible patients had cancer, pain ≥4/10 on a 0-10 numerical rating scale, required at least step 1 (paracetamol) of the WHO ladder and were randomised to the control arm (weak opioid, step 2 of the WHO ladder) or the experimental arm (strong opioid, step 3). Primary outcome was time to stable pain control (3 consecutive days with pain ≤3). Secondary outcomes included distress, opioid-related side-effects and costs. The primary outcome analysis was by intention to treat and the follow-up was for 20 days.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty-three patients were randomised (76 control, 77 experimental). There was no statistically significant difference in time to stable pain control between the arms, P = 0.667 (log-rank test). The adjusted hazard ratio for the control arm was 1.03 (95% confidence interval 0.72-1.49). In the control arm, 38 patients (53%) needed to change to a strong opioid due to ineffective analgesia. The median time to change was day 6 (interquartile range 4-11). Compared to the control arm, patients in the experimental arm had less nausea (P = 0.009) and costs were less.

CONCLUSION

This trial provides some evidence that the two-step approach is an alternative option for cancer pain management.

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.

A Clinical Note on Sublingual Buprenorphine

This column provides reports that situate and synthesize current developments, issues, innovative clinical procedures, therapeutic methods and promising novel methods of delivery in the related fields of palliative care.

Enhancement of Dissolution and Skin Permeability of Pentazocine by Proniosomes and Niosomal Gel

Proniosomes (PN) are the dry water-soluble carrier systems that may enhance the oral bioavailability, stability, and topical permeability of therapeutic agents. The low solubility and low oral bioavailability due to extensive first pass metabolism make Pentazocine as an ideal candidate for oral and topical sustained release delivery. The present study was aimed to formulate the PNs by quick slurry method that are converted to niosomes (liquid dispersion) by hydration, and subsequently formulated to semisolid niosomal gel. The PNs were found in spherical shape in the SEM and stable in the physicochemical and thermal analysis (FTIR, TGA, and XRD). The quick slurry method produced high recovery (> 80% yield) and better flow properties (θ = 28.1-37.4°). After hydration, the niosomes exhibited desirable entrapment efficiency (44.45-76.23%), size (4.98-21.3 μm), and zeta potential (- 9.81 to - 21.53 mV). The in vitro drug release (T_100%) was extended to more than three half-lives (2-4 h) and showed good fit to Fickian diffusion indicated by Korsmeyer-Peppas model (n = 0.136-0.365 and R² = 0.9747-0.9954). The permeation of niosomal gel was significantly enhanced across rabbit skin compared to the pure drug-derived gel. Therefore, the PNs are found promising candidates for oral as dissolution enhancement and sustained release for oral and topical delivery of pentazocine for the management of 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 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.

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.

Buprenorphine for Cancer Pain

Buprenorphine (BUP) is a semisynthetic derivative of the opium alkaloid thebaine found in the poppy Papaver somniferum. Its chemical structure contains the morphine structure but differs by having a cyclopropylmethyl group. Buprenorphine is a potent µ opioid agonist. Buprenorphine undergoes extensive first-pass metabolism in the liver and gut. The development of a transdermal BUP formulation in 2001 led to its evaluation in cancer pain. This article provides the practitioner with an update on the current role of BUP in cancer care. It highlights data suggesting effectiveness in various types of cancer pain. The article reviews pharmacology, routes of administration, adverse effects, drug interactions, and cost considerations.

Heterogeneity of chronic pain

Chronic pain is a widespread public health issue that has many effects on physical, emotional and cognitive functions. An estimated 10-55% of all adults are thought to have chronic pain. Chronic pain is a multifactorial condition, caused by the complex interplay of nociceptive, neuropathic or mixed pathogenic mechanisms. Chronic pain is associated with specific and non-specific medical conditions such as cancer, HIV/AIDS, rheumatoid arthritis, fibromyalgia, osteoarthritis, low back pain or spinal stenosis and is broadly categorized as cancer pain and non-cancer pain. Evaluation of chronic pain requires a clear understanding of the nature of the pain and its underlying pathophysiology. Adequate assessment of pain, using validated tools, is an essential prerequisite of successful pain management. Unidimensional scales are useful for the measurement of pain intensity, while multidimensional scales measure both pain intensity and the extent to which pain interferes with life activity and emotional functioning. Patients should be reassessed and followed up in order to monitor progress and measure improvements in pain.

A randomized, double-blind, double-dummy comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of low-dose transdermal buprenorphine (BuTrans seven-day patches) with buprenorphine sublingual tablets (Temgesic) in patients with osteoarthritis pain

CONTEXT

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a common cause of chronic pain, particularly in the older population. Modern approaches to the management of OA pain recommend tailoring treatment to the individual. This study examines treatment options for OA pain in the form of low-dose transdermal and sublingual opioid analgesia.

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this trial were to compare the efficacy and tolerability of seven-day, low-dose transdermal buprenorphine patches (BuTrans, Napp Pharmaceuticals Limited UK) with sublingual buprenorphine (Temgesic, Schering-Plough Limited UK) in patients with moderate to severe pain caused by OA of the hip(s) and/or knee(s), and to establish analgesic equivalence of the two products.

METHODS

Two hundred forty-six patients with OA pain in the hip(s) and/or knee(s) were enrolled in this randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study; 110 completed the study. Patients were randomized to receive transdermal buprenorphine patches (5, 10, and 20 microg/hour) or sublingual buprenorphine (200 and 400 microg tablets). Their medication was titrated to pain control and they were treated for up to seven weeks. The main outcome measures were pain intensity (primary outcome), sleep disturbance, quality of life, and safety assessments.

RESULTS

Patients' Box Scale-11 pain scores decreased between entry and assessment in both treatment groups. During the 28-day assessment period, the estimated mean treatment differences (95% confidence intervals) were 0.00 (-0.68,0.69), -0.11 (-0.85,0.63), and -0.13 (-0.95,0.68), for the morning, midday, and evening scores, respectively. All the confidence intervals were within the prespecified limits for equivalence (-1.5, 1.5). Use of escape medication was low. In both treatment groups, sleep disturbance caused by pain decreased between entry and assessment. Patients' quality of life improved during the study. Significantly fewer patients receiving the transdermal buprenorphine patches reported nausea (P=0.035), dizziness (P=0.026), and vomiting (P=0.039).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, seven-day, low-dose transdermal buprenorphine patches are as effective as sublingual buprenorphine, with a better tolerability profile.

Pain therapy

Cancer-related pain is a major issue of healthcare systems worldwide. The reported incidence, considering all stages of the disease, is 51%, which can increase to 74% in the advanced and terminal stages. For advanced cancer, pain is moderate to severe in about 40-50% and very severe or excruciating in 25-30% of cases. Pain is both a sensation and an emotional experience. Pain is always subjective; and may be affected by emotional, social and spiritual components thus it has been defined as "total pain". From a pathophysiological point of view, pain can be classified as nociceptive (somatic and visceral), neuropathic (central, peripheral, sympathetic) idiopathic or psychogenic. A proper pain assessment is fundamental for an effective and individualised treatment. In 1986 the World Health Organisation (WHO) published analgesic guidelines for the treatment of cancer pain based on a three-step ladder and practical recommendations. These guidelines serve as an algorithm for a sequential pharmacological approach to treatment according to the intensity of pain as reported by the patient. The WHO analgesic ladder remains the clinical model for pain therapy. Its clinical application should be employed only after a complete and comprehensive assessment and evaluation based on the needs of each patient. When applying the WHO guidelines, up to 90% of patients can find relief regardless of the settings of care, social and/or cultural environment. This is the standard treatment on a type C basis. Only when such an approach is ineffective are interventions such as spinal administration of opioid analgesics or neuroinvasive procedures recommended.

Going beyond efficacy: strategies for cancer pain management

Despite great advances in the fields of pain management and palliative care, pain directly or indirectly associated with a cancer diagnosis remains significantly undertreated. The present paper reviews the current standard for cancer pain management and highlights new treatments and targeted interventional techniques.

Buprenorphine in cancer pain

Buprenorphine is a broad spectrum, highly lipophilic, and long-acting partial mu opioid receptor agonist that is noncross tolerant to other opioids. Buprenorphine can be given by several routes. Metabolism is through CYP3A4 and CYP2C8 and by conjugases. Constipation and sexual dysfunction appear to be less with buprenorphine than with other opioids. The recent development of a polymer matrix patch delivery system for buprenorphine prevents "dose dumping" and facilitates pain management in those unable to take oral analgesics. Sublingual buprenorphine has been combined with naloxone to prevent illicit conversion to parenteral administration. Buprenorphine has been used extensively to control cancer pain. In certain clinical situations, buprenorphine may have particular advantages over other opioids.

Simultaneous determination of oxycodone and its major metabolite, noroxycodone, in human plasma by high-performance liquid chromatography

Oxycodone (14-hydroxy-7,8-dihydrocodeinone) is a potent opioid receptor agonist. In the present study, a liquid-liquid extraction-based reversed-phase HPLC method with UV detection was validated and applied for the analysis of oxycodone and its major metabolite, noroxycodone, in human plasma. The analytes were separated using a mobile phase, consisting of acetonitrile and phosphate buffer (8:92, v/v) at a flow rate of 1 mL/min, and UV detection at 205 nm. The retention times for oxycodone, noroxycodone and codein (internal standard) were 14.7, 13.8 and 10.2 min, respectively. The validated quantitation range of the method was 2-100 ng/mL for oxycodone and 10-100 ng/mL for noroxycodone. The developed procedure was applied to assess the pharmacokinetics of oxycodone and its metabolite following administration of a single 20 mg oral dose of oxycodone hydrochloride to one healthy male volunteer.

QUANTITATIVE CONTRIBUTION OF CYP2D6 AND CYP3A TO OXYCODONE METABOLISM IN HUMAN LIVER AND INTESTINAL MICROSOMES

Oxycodone undergoes N-demethylation to noroxycodone and O-demethylation to oxymorphone. The cytochrome P450 (P450) isoforms capable of mediating the oxidation of oxycodone to oxymorphone and noroxycodone were identified using a panel of recombinant human P450s. CYP3A4 and CYP3A5 displayed the highest activity for oxycodone N-demethylation; intrinsic clearance for CYP3A5 was slightly higher than that for CYP3A4. CYP2D6 had the highest activity for O-demethylation. Multienzyme, Michaelis-Menten kinetics were observed for both oxidative reactions in microsomes prepared from five human livers. Inhibition with ketoconazole showed that CYP3A is the high affinity enzyme for oxycodone N-demethylation; ketoconazole inhibited >90% of noroxycodone formation at low substrate concentrations. CYP3A-mediated noroxycodone formation exhibited a mean K(m) of 600 +/- 119 microM and a V(max) that ranged from 716 to 14523 pmol/mg/min. Contribution from the low affinity enzyme(s) did not exceed 8% of total intrinsic clearance for N-demethylation. Quinidine inhibition showed that CYP2D6 is the high affinity enzyme for O-demethylation with a mean K(m) of 130 +/- 33 microM and a V(max) that ranged from 89 to 356 pmol/mg/min. Activity of the low affinity enzyme(s) accounted for 10 to 26% of total intrinsic clearance for O-demethylation. On average, the total intrinsic clearance for noroxycodone formation was 8 times greater than that for oxymorphone formation across the five liver microsomal preparations (10.5 microl/min/mg versus 1.5 microl/min/mg). Experiments with human intestinal mucosal microsomes indicated lower N-demethylation activity (20-50%) compared with liver microsomes and negligible O-demethylation activity, which predict a minimal contribution of intestinal mucosa in the first-pass oxidative metabolism of oxycodone.

Pain treatment and outcomes for patients with advanced cancer who receive follow-up care at home

BACKGROUND

A small sample size, a high rate of exclusions, inadequate follow-up in different settings, and a lack of comparison with previous levels of analgesia have recently been reported to be the principal limitations of the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines regarding cancer pain.

METHODS

A total of 3678 consecutive patients with advanced cancer referred to a home palliative care program were enrolled in an open prospective study over a 9-year period, from June 1988 to June 1997, to determine the effectiveness, safety, and feasibility of implementing the WHO guidelines. Age, gender, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, pain mechanism at referral, pain and symptom intensity, and doses and days of drug administration during the course of the treatment were recorded at regular intervals.

RESULTS

Therapy was required for 70.3% of patients for a mean duration of 64 days. The mean duration periods of the 3 steps were 18, 27, and 19 days, respectively. At referral, most patients received inadequate treatment. In the last week of life, 16%, 49%, and 35% of patients were taking nonopioid drugs, moderate opioids, and strong opioids, respectively. A significant improvement in pain and symptom intensity was achieved after referral. Symptom intensity worsened in the last week of life. A minority of patients (2.65%) underwent invasive procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that a managed home care system enables patients to receive adequate pain treatment, according to WHO guidelines, in the comfort of their own homes.

Pain and Symptom Management in Palliative Care

BACKGROUND: Pain, dyspnea, and anorexia are common symptoms experienced by patients with cancer and often are poorly managed. METHODS: The incidence and causes of these symptoms are described, as well as factors that exacerbate or ameliorate their impact. RESULTS: Pharmacologic management of cancer pain is based on the use of a sequential "ladder" that incorporates nonopioid, opioid, and adjuvant drugs, depending on the severity of the pain. This approach usually is effective. Other symptoms of advanced disease may be more difficult to control. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to an adequate pain-control strategy will significantly enhance palliation of pain in patients with cancer.

The dose-response relationship of controlled-release codeine (Codeine Contin) in chronic cancer pain

The improved pain control provided by regular dosing of opioid analgesics in patients with severe cancer pain has been well established. However, the treatment of mild-to-moderate cancer pain is often limited to "as needed" dosing with fixed combinations of codeine or oxycodone plus a nonopioid analgesic, which do not allow optimal titration of the individual components. This randomized double-blind study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of controlled-release codeine (Codeine Contin) in patients with cancer pain, and to estimate its dose equivalence to a standard combination of acetaminophen plus codeine. Twenty-four patients with at least moderate cancer pain were randomized to Codeine Contin 100, 200, or 300 mg every 12 hr or acetaminophen plus codeine (600 mg/60 mg) every 6 hr. On days 1 and 4 of dosing, pain intensity and pain relief were assessed hourly for 12 hr. The sum of pain intensity differences (SPID) from baseline and the total pain relief (TOTPAR) scores demonstrated a dose-response relationship for Codeine Contin on days 1 and 4 that was statistically significant on day 1 and suggested greater analgesic efficacy on day 4, compared with day 1. Codeine Contin 150 mg every 12 hr was estimated to be equianalgesic to acetaminophen plus codeine (600 mg/60 mg) given every 6 hr. Because a similar equivalence was also demonstrated from analysis of adverse event data, it is concluded that Codeine Contin 150 mg produces analgesia and a side-effect profile similar to a 40% lower dose of codeine provided by the combination.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)