Transdermal Buprenorphine Patches Applied in a 4-Day Regimen Versus a 3-Day Regimen: A Single-Site, Phase III, Randomized, Open-Label, Crossover Comparison

Buprenorphine for Chronic Pain Management: a Narrative Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of this review is to educate healthcare professionals regarding buprenorphine for the use of opioid use disorder (OUD) as well as for chronic pain management. This review provides physicians and practitioners with updated information regarding the distinct characteristics and intricacies of prescribing buprenorphine.

RECENT FINDINGS

Buprenorphine is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for acute pain, chronic pain, opioid use disorder (OUD), and opioid dependence. When compared to most other opioids, buprenorphine offers superior patient tolerability, an excellent half-life, and minimal respiratory depression. Buprenorphine does have notable side effects as well as pharmacokinetic properties that require special attention, especially if patients require future surgical interventions. Many physicians are not trained to initiate or manage patients on buprenorphine. However, buprenorphine offers a potentially safer alternative for medication management for patients who require chronic opioid therapy for pain or have OUD. This review provides updated information on buprenorphine for both chronic pain and OUD.

Buprenorphine buccal film for chronic pain management

Buprenorphine is a Schedule III opioid with unique pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties that contribute to effective analgesia and fewer safety risks than other opioids. This review article focuses on the buccal film formulation, which is preferable to other buprenorphine formulations on the basis of bioavailability, safety and efficacy. The clinical studies reviewed here confirm that buprenorphine buccal film offers effective and continuous pain relief that is generally well tolerated, with no cases of respiratory depression reported in any of the studies. On the basis of these clinical data and individual patient risk/benefit assessments, clinicians should consider utilizing buprenorphine buccal film as a first-line opioid treatment for chronic pain over other buprenorphine formulations or other opioids.

Safety And Efficacy Of The Unique Opioid Buprenorphine For The Treatment Of Chronic Pain

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain is associated with decreased quality of life and is one of the most common reasons adults seek medical care, making treatment imperative for many aspects of patient well-being. Chronic pain management typically involves the use of Schedule II full μ-opioid receptor agonists for pain relief; however, the increasing prevalence of opioid addiction is a national crisis that is impacting public health and social and economic welfare. Buprenorphine is a Schedule III partial μ-opioid receptor agonist that is an equally effective but potentially safer treatment option for chronic pain than full μ-opioid receptor agonists. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the clinical efficacy and safety of the transdermal and buccal formulations of buprenorphine, which are approved by the Food and Drug Administration for chronic pain, compared with that of extended-release full μ-opioid receptor agonists.

METHODS

Controlled or randomized controlled clinical trial information was retrieved from EMBASE, Medline, and PubMed using the search terms "buprenorphine" AND "chronic" AND "pain."

RESULTS

A total of 33 clinical studies were ultimately used in this review, including 29 (88%) on transdermal buprenorphine and 4 (12%) on buprenorphine buccal film. Although the measure of pain intensity varied among studies, each of these 33 trials demonstrated efficacy for buprenorphine in pain relief. A total of 28 studies also assessed safety, with each concluding that buprenorphine was generally well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Comparison of current clinical data along with results of responder and safety analyses support the use of buprenorphine over full μ-opioid receptor agonists for effective preferential treatment of chronic pain; however, head-to-head clinical studies are warranted.

Transdermal buprenorphine for moderate chronic noncancer pain syndromes

Introduction: Chronic noncancer pain has remained a challenging clinical problem. Opioid analgesics are effective, but they are known to be associated with opioid use disorder and potentially treatment-limiting side effects. Buprenorphine is a Schedule III synthetic opioid in the USA with a chemical structure similar to that of morphine but with a longer duration of action, greater potency, and other unique pharmacological attributes. Its role in treatment of chronic noncancer pain may be broader than currently thought.Areas covered: The pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, clinical efficacy, and safety profile of transdermal buprenorphine in moderate chronic noncancer pain syndromes patients will be discussed.Expert commentary: Buprenorphine offers effective analgesia in the form of a Schedule III drug (rather than Schedule II such as oxycodone or morphine) and transdermal buprenorphine is a convenient, accepted, around-the-clock pain reliever. Its lower potential for abuse should make it a more desirable pain reliever but many payers do not reimburse buprenorphine, driving prescribers and their patients to generic versions of the riskier Schedule II oral opioids such as oxycodone and morphine.

A Phase I study of the pharmacokinetics, safety and tolerability of a novel tocopheryl phosphate mixture/oxymorphone transdermal patch system

AIM

Characterize the pharmacokinetic profile and tolerability of two tocopheryl phosphate mixture/oxymorphone patch formulations in healthy subjects, and the active metabolite (6-OH-oxymorphone).

MATERIALS & METHODS

Fifteen participants received a single application of oxymorphone patches +/- capsaicin for 72 h and were crossed-over for another 72 h.

RESULTS

Plasma oxymorphone was detected approximately 7 h and 6-OH-oxymorphone after approximately 18-19 h postapplication of both formulations, respectively. For oxymorphone, median t_max was 24 h, and C_max/C_min ratio was approximately 2.4. The most frequently reported treatment-related adverse event was application site reaction, mainly with capsaicin formulation.

CONCLUSION

Tocopheryl phosphate mixture/oxymorphone transdermal patches can successfully deliver therapeutic amounts of oxymorphone in a sustained manner over 72 h and are well tolerated. ANZCTR registration number: ACTRN12614000613606.

[Pharmacological aspects of pain research in Germany]

In spite of several approved analgesics, the therapy of pain still constitutes a challenge due to the fact that the drugs do not exert sufficient efficacy or are associated with severe side effects. Therefore, the development of new and improved painkillers is still of great importance. A number of highly qualified scientists in Germany are investigating signal transduction pathways in pain, effectivity of new drugs and the so far incompletely investigated mechanisms of well-known analgesics in preclinical and clinical studies. The highlights of pharmacological pain research in Germany are summarized in this article.

Buprenorphine for treating cancer pain

BACKGROUND

Many patients with cancer experience moderate to severe pain that requires treatment with strong analgesics. Buprenorphine, fentanyl and morphine are examples of strong opioids used for cancer pain relief. However, strong opioids are ineffective as pain treatment in all patients and are not well-tolerated by all patients. The aim of this Cochrane review is to assess whether buprenorphine is associated with superior, inferior or equal pain relief and tolerability compared to other analgesic options for patients with cancer pain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of buprenorphine for pain in adults and children with cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library) issue 12 or 12 2014, MEDLINE (via OVID) 1948 to 20 January 2015, EMBASE (via OVID) 1980 to 20 January 2015, ISI Web of Science (SCI-EXPANDED & CPCI-S) to 20 January 2015, ISI BIOSIS 1969 to 20 January 2015. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov/; metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (http://www.controlled-trials.com/mrct/), the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal (http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/) and the Proceedings of the Congress of the European Federation of International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP; via European Journal of Pain Supplements) on 16 February 2015. We checked the bibliographic references of identified studies as well as relevant studies and systematic reviews to find additional trials not identified by the electronic searches. We contacted authors of included studies for other relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials, with parallel-group or crossover design, comparing buprenorphine (any formulation and any route of administration) with placebo or an active drug (including buprenorphine) for cancer background pain in adults and children.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data pertaining to study design, participant details (including age, cancer characteristics, previous analgesic medication and setting), interventions (including details about titration) and outcomes, and independently assessed the quality of the included studies according to standard Cochrane methodology. As it was not feasible to meta-analyse the data, we summarised the results narratively. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

In this Cochrane review we identified 19 relevant studies including a total of 1421 patients that examined 16 different intervention comparisons.Of the studies that compared buprenorphine to another drug, 11 studies performed comparative analyses between the randomised groups, and five studies found that buprenorphine was superior to the comparison treatment. Three studies found no differences between buprenorphine and the comparison drug, while another three studies found treatment with buprenorphine to be inferior to the alternative treatment in terms of the side effects profile or patients preference/acceptability.Of the studies that compared different doses or formulations/routes of administration of buprenorphine, pain intensity ratings did not differ significantly between intramuscular buprenorphine and buprenorphine suppository. However, the average severity of dizziness, nausea, vomiting and adverse events as a total were all significantly higher in the intramuscular group relatively to the suppository group (one study).Sublingual buprenorphine was associated with faster onset of pain relief compared to subdermal buprenorphine, with similar duration analgesia and no significant differences in adverse event rates reported between the treatments (one study).In terms of transdermal buprenorphine, two studies found it superior to placebo, whereas a third study found no difference between placebo and different doses of transdermal buprenorphine.The studies that examined different doses of transdermal buprenorphine did not report a clear dose-response relationship.The quality of this evidence base was limited by under-reporting of most bias assessment items (e.g., the patient selection items), by small sample sizes in several included studies, by attrition (with data missing from 8.2% of the enrolled/randomised patients for efficacy and from 14.6% for safety) and by limited or no reporting of the expected outcomes in a number of cases. The evidence for all the outcomes was very low quality.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available evidence, it is difficult to say where buprenorphine fits in the treatment of cancer pain with strong opioids. However, it might be considered to rank as a fourth-line option compared to the more standard therapies of morphine, oxycodone and fentanyl, and even there it would only be suitable for some patients. However, palliative care patients are often heterogeneous and complex, so having a number of analgesics available that can be given differently increases patient and prescriber choice. In particular, the sublingual and injectable routes seemed to have a more definable analgesic effect, whereas the transdermal route studies left more questions.

Buprenorphine for treating cancer pain

BACKGROUND

Many patients with cancer experience moderate to severe pain that requires treatment with strong analgesics. Buprenorphine, fentanyl and morphine are examples of strong opioids used for cancer pain relief. However, strong opioids are ineffective as pain treatment in all patients and are not well-tolerated by all patients. The aim of this Cochrane review is to assess whether buprenorphine is associated with superior, inferior or equal pain relief and tolerability compared to other analgesic options for patients with cancer pain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of buprenorphine for pain in adults and children with cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library) issue 12 or 12 2014, MEDLINE (via OVID) 1948 to 20 January 2015, EMBASE (via OVID) 1980 to 20 January 2015, ISI Web of Science (SCI-EXPANDED & CPCI-S) to 20 January 2015, ISI BIOSIS 1969 to 20 January 2015. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov/; metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (http://www.controlled-trials.com/mrct/), the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal (http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/) and the Proceedings of the Congress of the European Federation of International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP; via European Journal of Pain Supplements) on 16 February 2015. We checked the bibliographic references of identified studies as well as relevant studies and systematic reviews to find additional trials not identified by the electronic searches. We contacted authors of included studies for other relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials, with parallel-group or crossover design, comparing buprenorphine (any formulation and any route of administration) with placebo or an active drug (including buprenorphine) for cancer background pain in adults and children.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data pertaining to study design, participant details (including age, cancer characteristics, previous analgesic medication and setting), interventions (including details about titration) and outcomes, and independently assessed the quality of the included studies according to standard Cochrane methodology. As it was not feasible to meta-analyse the data, we summarised the results narratively. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

In this Cochrane review we identified 19 relevant studies including a total of 1421 patients that examined 16 different intervention comparisons.Of the studies that compared buprenorphine to another drug, 11 studies performed comparative analyses between the randomised groups, and five studies found that buprenorphine was superior to the comparison treatment. Three studies found no differences between buprenorphine and the comparison drug, while another three studies found treatment with buprenorphine to be inferior to the alternative treatment in terms of the side effects profile or patients preference/acceptability.Of the studies that compared different doses or formulations/routes of administration of buprenorphine, pain intensity ratings did not differ significantly between intramuscular buprenorphine and buprenorphine suppository. However, the average severity of dizziness, nausea, vomiting and adverse events as a total were all significantly higher in the intramuscular group relatively to the suppository group (one study).Sublingual buprenorphine was associated with faster onset of pain relief compared to subdermal buprenorphine, with similar duration analgesia and no significant differences in adverse event rates reported between the treatments (one study).In terms of transdermal buprenorphine, two studies found it superior to placebo, whereas a third study found no difference between placebo and different doses of transdermal buprenorphine.The studies that examined different doses of transdermal buprenorphine did not report a clear dose-response relationship.The quality of this evidence base was limited by under-reporting of most bias assessment items (e.g., the patient selection items), by small sample sizes in several included studies, by attrition (with data missing from 8.2% of the enrolled/randomised patients for efficacy and from 14.6% for safety) and by limited or no reporting of the expected outcomes in a number of cases. The evidence for all the outcomes was very low quality.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available evidence, it is difficult to say where buprenorphine fits in the treatment of cancer pain with strong opioids. However, it might be considered to rank as a fourth-line option compared to the more standard therapies of morphine, oxycodone and fentanyl, and even there it would only be suitable for some patients. However, palliative care patients are often heterogeneous and complex, so having a number of analgesics available that can be given differently increases patient and prescriber choice. In particular, the sublingual and injectable routes seemed to have a more definable analgesic effect, whereas the transdermal route studies left more questions.

A meta-analysis of efficacy and tolerability of buprenorphine for the relief of cancer pain

This study aimed to synthesize available evidence on the analgesic efficacy of buprenorphine in treating cancer pain and related adverse effects. We searched electronic databases for randomized controlled trials, assessing the efficacy of buprenorphine, regardless of delivery system. The primary endpoints were patient-reported 'pain intensity' and 'pain relief'. Statistical heterogeneity among included studies was assessed with the I (2) test. The summary relative risk (RR) and 95% CI were derived, if two or more studies reported the similar outcome. Sixteen RCTs (n = 1329) with buprenorphine were included: 8 transdermal (TD), 5 sublingual (SL), 2 intramuscular injection (IM) and 1 subcutaneous infusion (SC) studies; with both SL and IM routes being assessed in one study. Only a few studies reported the same outcome in a similar way, creating difficulty for pooling of the outcome data. Many studies had a high risk of bias. In 2 studies (n = 241), the 'global impression change' was significantly different between TD buprenorphine and the combined placebo and morphine (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.14-1.59; I (2): 42%); the 'number-needed-to-treat' (NNT) was 4.9 (95% CI: 3.1-10.9). In 2 studies (n = 331), 'requirement for rescue SL buprenorphine' was comparable between TD buprenorphine and placebo (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.71-2.18; I (2) : 40%). In 2 studies (n = 141), 'incidence of nausea' was less in TD buprenorphine (RR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.2-0.71, I (2): 0%, NNT: 9.3, 5.6-28.5). Due to the small number of participants in a small number of studies, the results of the present review provide insufficient evidence to position adequately the use of buprenorphine in treatment of cancer pain. Large multicenter RCTs that compare TD buprenorphine with standard analgesic treatment is needed to position TD buprenorphine in the therapeutic armamentarium of cancer pain treatment.

End-of-dose pain in chronic pain: does it vary with the use of different long-acting opioids?

A large percentage of patients with chronic pain on around-the-clock (ATC) opioids may experience increased pain occurring at the end of a scheduled dose, also known as end-of-dose pain. Despite the significant prevalence and impact of end-of-dose pain in patients using extended-release (ER) opioids, there are no detailed analyses examining how the frequency of end-of-dose pain is linked to the formulations of long-acting opioids. Consequently, we performed a systematic review to evaluate how many published studies on patients with chronic cancer or noncancer pain identified end-of-dose pain. As only a few studies mentioned end-of-dose pain explicitly, we used breakthrough pain (BTP) as a surrogate parameter. We determined if any opioid formulation had a greater association with the frequency of BTP, the use of rescue medication for BTP, and the frequency of end-of-dose pain. Of the 39 studies entered in the final analysis, 14 studies across different formulations showed that ER opioids were effective in the prevention of BTP. The opioids most frequently studied were hydromorphone (26%), followed by morphine (23%), and transdermal buprenorphine (23%). Only 5% of the studies used immediate-release preparations. Overall, most studies showed that patients using ER preparations experienced fewer episodes of BTP compared with patients on placebo or an active comparator. This could reflect the favorable duration of action of these opioids compared with short-acting formulations. Future studies should examine the incidence of end-of-dose pain and use of rescue medicine in a longitudinal manner in patients with chronic pain taking short- vs. long-acting ATC opioids.

Safety and efficacy of transdermal buprenorphine for the relief of cancer pain

PURPOSE

This study aimed to synthesize the available evidence on the efficacy and safety of transdermal (TD) buprenorphine.

METHODS

We searched studies in electronic databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of TD buprenorphine comparing with placebo or other comparator drug in relieving cancer pain were included. The primary end points are patient-reported pain intensity and pain relief. For dichotomous data, the summary relative risk (RR) and its 95 % confidence interval (CI) were derived using random-effect model in view of heterogeneity testing.

RESULTS

Eight clinical trials (n = 909) were included in the analysis. Only a few studies reported the same outcome in similar way, which created difficulty in the pooling of outcome data. Two studies (n = 288) assessed 'responders' and showed a significant difference between TD buprenorphine and placebo in all three doses of TD buprenorphine, 35.5, 52.5, or 70 μg/h (RR 1.74, 95 % CI 1.31-2.32; I (2) 0 %); the numbers-needed-to-treat was 5.8 (3.9-11). Two studies (n = 331) showed a comparable requirement for rescue SL buprenorphine between TD buprenorphine and placebo (RR 1.25, 95 % CI 0.84-1.88; I (2) 0 %). The preferred outcome measure '50 % pain relief' was not reported in any included studies. On the basis of summary quality, further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate.

CONCLUSION

Transdermal buprenorphine has an increasing role for the relief of cancer pain. Further research in this field is needed. Multicentre studies in this field using a common protocol and strict supervision will be more practicable.

Opioids compared to placebo or other treatments for chronic low-back pain

BACKGROUND

The use of opioids in the long-term management of chronic low-back pain (CLBP) has increased dramatically. Despite this trend, the benefits and risks of these medications remain unclear. This review is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2007.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of opioids in adults with CLBP.

SEARCH METHODS

We electronically searched the Cochrane Back Review Group's Specialized Register, CENTRAL, CINAHL and PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and EMBASE from January 2006 to October 2012. We checked the reference lists of these trials and other relevant systematic reviews for potential trials for inclusion.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the use of opioids (as monotherapy or in combination with other therapies) in adults with CLBP that were at least four weeks in duration. We included trials that compared non-injectable opioids to placebo or other treatments. We excluded trials that compared different opioids only.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data onto a pre-designed form. We pooled results using Review Manager (RevMan) 5.2. We reported on pain and function outcomes using standardized mean difference (SMD) or risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). We used absolute risk difference (RD) with 95% CI to report adverse effects.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 trials (5540 participants). Tramadol was examined in five trials (1378 participants); it was found to be better than placebo for pain (SMD -0.55, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.44; low quality evidence) and function (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.07; moderate quality evidence). Transdermal buprenorphine (two trials, 653 participants) may make little difference for pain (SMD -2.47, 95%CI -2.69 to -2.25; very low quality evidence), but no difference compared to placebo for function (SMD -0.14, 95%CI -0.53 to 0.25; very low quality evidence). Strong opioids (morphine, hydromorphone, oxycodone, oxymorphone, and tapentadol), examined in six trials (1887 participants), were better than placebo for pain (SMD -0.43, 95%CI -0.52 to -0.33; moderate quality evidence) and function (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.15; moderate quality evidence). One trial (1583 participants) demonstrated that tramadol may make little difference compared to celecoxib (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.90; very low quality evidence) for pain relief. Two trials (272 participants) found no difference between opioids and antidepressants for either pain (SMD 0.21, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.45; very low quality evidence), or function (SMD -0.11, 95% -0.63 to 0.42; very low quality evidence). The included trials in this review had high drop-out rates, were of short duration, and had limited interpretability of functional improvement. They did not report any serious adverse effects, risks (addiction or overdose), or complications (sleep apnea, opioid-induced hyperalgesia, hypogonadism). In general, the effect sizes were medium for pain and small for function.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is some evidence (very low to moderate quality) for short-term efficacy (for both pain and function) of opioids to treat CLBP compared to placebo. The very few trials that compared opioids to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or antidepressants did not show any differences regarding pain and function. The initiation of a trial of opioids for long-term management should be done with extreme caution, especially after a comprehensive assessment of potential risks. There are no placebo-RCTs supporting the effectiveness and safety of long-term opioid therapy for treatment of CLBP.

Combination therapy with transdermal buprenorphine and pregabalin for chronic low back pain

SUMMARY 

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of combined transdermal buprenorphine and pregabalin in chronic low back pain.

PATIENTS & METHODS

A total of 45 patients with chronic low back pain were recruited into the study. For an initial 3-week period, all patients received transdermal buprenorphine 35 µg/h. After 3 weeks of only transdermal buprenorphine 35 µg/h, patients were randomized (single-blind) to receive transdermal buprenorphine 35 µg/h plus pregabalin 300 mg/day (group A) or transdermal buprenorphine 35 µg/h plus placebo (group B), and were observed for a further 3-week period. Efficacy parameters were weekly mean Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores, the Pain Rating Index (PRI) of the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), the Present Pain Index (PPI) of the SF-MPQ and sleep interference. We also evaluated the use of rescue medication (paracetamol [acetaminophen]) and the presence of adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 44 patients were evaluated for efficacy and safety parameters. Pain relief, as assessed by VAS, PPI and PRI, improved significantly (p < 0.05) in all patients after the first week of treatment with only transdermal buprenorphine. Following randomization, only patients in group A showed further reductions in the mean VAS, PPI and PRI scores. Moreover, patients in group A had a lower consumption of rescue medication than those in group B. There was a low incidence of mild adverse events in both group A and group B, with no serious adverse events in either group.

CONCLUSION

Pregabalin 300 mg/day as an add-on to transdermal buprenorphine 35 µg/h led to significant pain reduction and a significant reduction of interference with sleep quality in patients with chronic low back pain.

The opiate analgesic buprenorphine decreases proliferation of adult hippocampal neuroblasts and increases survival of their progeny

Although opiate drugs of abuse have been shown to decrease adult hippocampal neurogenesis, the impact of opiate analgesics has not been tested. North American regulatory boards governing the ethical treatment of experimental animals require the administration of analgesics, such as buprenorphine, following minor surgical interventions. Here, we show that two commonly used post-operative buprenorphine dosing regimes significantly inhibit the proliferation of doublecortin-positive neuroblasts but not other hippocampal stem and progenitor cell populations in adult mice. Buprenorphine, administered in schedules of three 0.05 mg/kg subcutaneous injections over a single day or seven 0.05 mg/kg injections over a 3-day period decreased the number of actively proliferating 5-iodo-2'-deoxyuridine-labeled doublecortin-positive cells for up to 6 days after opiate withdrawal. The minimal (three injection), but not standard (seven injection), analgesic paradigm also reduced basal indices of hippocampal progenitor cell apoptosis and enhanced survival of newly born cells for up to 28 days. Taken together, these data provide the first evidence that the routine administration of opiate analgesics has transient but long-lasting effects on neurogenesis and further emphasize that analgesic dosage and schedule should be reported and considered when interpreting the magnitude of neural stem and progenitor cell activation in response to in vivo intervention.

Current knowledge of buprenorphine and its unique pharmacological profile

Despite the increasing clinical use of transdermal buprenorphine, questions have persisted about the possibility of a ceiling effect for analgesia, its combination with other μ-opioid agonists, and the reversibility of side effects. In October 2008, a consensus group of experts met to review recent research into the pharmacology and clinical use of buprenorphine. The objective was to achieve consensus on the conclusions to be drawn from this work. It was agreed that buprenorphine clearly behaves as a full μ-opioid agonist for analgesia in clinical practice, with no ceiling effect, but that there is a ceiling effect for respiratory depression, reducing the likelihood of this potentially fatal adverse event. This is entirely consistent with receptor theory. In addition, the effects of buprenorphine can be completely reversed by naloxone. No problems are encountered when switching to and from buprenorphine and other opioids, or in combining them. Buprenorphine exhibits a pronounced antihyperalgesic effect that might indicate potential advantages in the treatment of neuropathic pain. Other beneficial properties are the compound's favorable safety profile, particularly in elderly patients and those with renal impairment, and its lack of effect on sex hormones and the immune system. The expert group agreed that these properties, as well as proven efficacy in severe pain and favorable tolerability, mean that buprenorphine can be considered a safe and effective option for treating chronic cancer and noncancer pain.

Managing severe cancer pain: the role of transdermal buprenorphine: a systematic review

Pain is a frequent and important symptom in cancer patients. Among the available strong opioids, transdermal buprenorphine has been licensed in Europe since 2002, and results from a few clinical studies suggest that it may be a good alternative to the other oral or transdermal opioids. To assess the best available evidence on its efficacy and safety, we carried out a systematic literature review with the aim of pooling relevant studies. We identified 19 eligible papers describing 12 clinical studies (6 randomized controlled trials and 6 observational prospective studies), including a total of about 5000 cancer patients. Given the poor quality of reports and the heterogeneity of methods and outcomes, pooling was not feasible as the type of data was not appropriate for combining the results statistically. A meta-analysis based on individual data is ongoing in the context of the Cochrane Collaboration. In conclusion, although the narrative appraisal of each study suggests a positive risk benefit profile, well designed and statistically powered controlled clinical trials are needed to confirm this preliminary evidence.

Transdermal buprenorphine - a critical appraisal of its role in pain management

This paper reviews the current clinical data for the role of transdermal buprenorphine (BUP TDS) in the treatment of diverse acute and chronic pain syndromes. Literature searches were carried out using PubMed (1988 to June 2009). The published findings seem to support hypotheses regarding the rather unique analgesic mechanisms of buprenorphine as compared with pure μ-opioids like morphine and fentanyl. However, the exact mechanism of this analgesic efficacy still remains largely unknown despite recent advances in preclinical pharmacological studies. Such assessments have demonstrated the sustained antihyperalgesic effect of buprenorphine in diverse animal pain models. These findings are supported in a growing number of clinical studies of oral, intrathecal, intravenous, and Bup TDS. This review paper focuses almost entirely on the clinical experience concerning the transdermal administration of buprenorphine, although preclinical aspects are also addressed in order to provide a complete picture of the unique pharmacological properties of this analgesic drug. Mounting evidence indicates the appropriateness of Bup TDS in the treatment of diverse acute and chronic pain syndromes which have been less or not responsive to other opioids. Additionally, BUP TDS seems to hold great promise for other difficult-to-treat (pain) conditions, such as patients in the intensive care setting. However, its use is somewhat tempered by the occurrence of local skin reactions which have been shown to be often therapy resistant. Further studies are certainly warranted to identify even more precisely the clinical syndromes that are most sensitive to buprenorphine treatment, and to compare buprenorphine to other opioids in head-to-head trials of acute and chronic pain conditions.