The use of controlled-release oxycodone for the treatment of chronic cancer pain: a randomized, double-blind study

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.

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.

Efficacy and safety of sustained-release oxycodone compared with immediate-release morphine for pain titration in cancer patients: A multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial (SOCIAL)

BACKGROUND

The study aims to investigate the effect and safety of sustained-release oxycodone hydrochloride as background dose on pain titration in patients with moderate-to-severe cancer pain.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Adult patients scheduled with a regular strong opioid for cancer-related pain were recruited and randomly assigned to sustained-release oxycodone group (tablets, 12 hourly) and immediate-release morphine group (5 mg initially, hourly). All patients were hourly reassessed for efficacy and dose titration.

RESULTS

The primary end point was the number of titration cycles required to achieve adequate pain relief (numerical rating scale, NRS ≤ 3). Secondary end points included the proportion of patients achieving adequate pain relief during each cycle, potential predictive factors for titration performance, and side effects. Ninety (94.7%) patients in oxycodone group and 78 (86.7%) patients in morphine group achieved adequate pain control during 1 to 4 cycles of titration. Patients in oxycodone group reached adequate pain control within the first 2 cycles of titration, which was significantly shorter than morphine group wherein the number of titration cycles ranged from 1 to 4 (P = .034). Oxycodone prescription significantly increased the response rate of patients to morphine titration during the first cycle of titration (P = .010). The initial NRS score and oxycodone administration were significantly associated with titration performance. The mild or moderate adverse effects were similar in 2 groups, while severe adverse effects were only identified in morphine group (P = .001).

CONCLUSION

Use of background sustained-release oxycodone is more efficient and better tolerated on dose titration than immediate-release morphine.

Efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of oxycodone for cancer-related pain in adults: an updated Cochrane systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of oxycodone for cancer pain in adults METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, Embase, SCI, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, BIOSIS, PsycINFO and four trials registries to November 2016.

RESULTS

We included 23 randomised controlled trials with 2144 patients analysed for efficacy and 2363 for safety. Meta-analyses showed no significant differences between controlled-release (CR) and immediate-release oxycodone in pain intensity or adverse events but did show significantly better pain relief after treatment with CR morphine compared with CR oxycodone. However, sensitivity analysis did not corroborate this result. Meta-analyses of the adverse events showed a significantly lower risk of hallucinations after treatment with CR oxycodone compared with CR morphine, but no other differences. 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 in pain relief or adverse events. The quality of this evidence base was limited by the high/unclear risk of bias of the studies and the low event rates for many outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Oxycodone offers similar levels of pain relief and adverse events to other strong opioids. However, hallucinations occurred less 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 oxycodone can be used first line as an alternative to morphine. However, because it is cheaper, morphine generally remains the first-line opioid of choice.

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.

Oxycodone for cancer-related pain

BACKGROUND

Many patients with cancer experience moderate to severe pain that requires treatment with strong opioids, of which oxycodone and morphine are examples. Strong opioids are, however, not effective for pain in all patients, nor are they well-tolerated by all patients. The aim of this review was to assess whether oxycodone is associated with better pain relief and tolerability than other analgesic options for patients with cancer pain.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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), PsycINFO (Ovid) and PubMed to March 2014. We also searched Clinicaltrials.gov, metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT), EU Clinical Trials Register and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We checked the bibliographic references of relevant identified studies and contacted the authors of the included studies to find additional trials not identified by the electronic searches. No language, date or publication status restrictions were applied to the search.

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.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted study data (study design, participant details, interventions and outcomes) and independently assessed the quality of the included studies according to standard Cochrane methodology. Where possible, we meta-analysed the pain intensity data using the generic inverse variance method, otherwise these data were summarised narratively along with the adverse event and patient preference data. The overall quality of the evidence for each outcome was assessed according to the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 studies which enrolled/randomised 1390 patients with 1110 of these analysed for efficacy and 1170 for safety. The studies examined a number of different drug comparisons. Four studies compared controlled release (CR) oxycodone to immediate release (IR) oxycodone and pooled analysis of three of these studies showed that the effects of CR and IR oxycodone on pain intensity after treatment were similar (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.1, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.06 to 0.26; low quality evidence). This was in line with the finding that none of the included studies reported differences in pain intensity between the treatment groups. Three of the four studies also found similar results for treatment acceptability and adverse events in the IR and CR groups; but one study reported that, compared to IR oxycodone, CR oxycodone was associated with significantly fewer adverse events.Six studies compared CR oxycodone to CR morphine and pooled analysis of five of these studies indicated that pain intensity did not differ significantly between the treatments (SMD 0.14, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.32; low quality evidence). There were no marked differences in adverse event rates, treatment acceptability or quality of life ratings.The remaining seven studies either compared oxycodone in various formulations or compared oxycodone to different alternative opioids. None of them 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 risk of bias of the studies and by small sample sizes for many outcomes. Random sequence generation and allocation concealment were under-reported, and the results were substantially compromised by attrition with data missing from more than 20% of the enrolled/randomised patients for efficacy and from more than 15% for safety.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the data included within this review suggest that oxycodone offers similar levels of pain relief and adverse events to other strong opioids including morphine, which is commonly considered the gold standard strong opioid. Our conclusions are consistent with other recent 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 will be justified. This means that for clinical purposes oxycodone or morphine can be used as first line oral opioids for relief of cancer pain.

Impact of morphine, fentanyl, oxycodone or codeine on patient consciousness, appetite and thirst when used to treat cancer pain

BACKGROUND

There is increasing focus on providing high quality care for people at the end of life, irrespective of disease or cause, and in all settings. In the last ten years the use of care pathways to aid those treating patients at the end of life has become common worldwide. The use of the Liverpool Care Pathway in the UK has been criticised. In England the LCP was the subject of an independent review, commissioned by a Health Minister. The Neuberger Review acknowledged that the LCP was based on the sound ethical principles that provide the basis of good quality care for patients and families when implemented properly. It also found that the LCP often was not implemented properly, and had instead become a barrier to good care; it made over 40 recommendations, including education and training, research and development, access to specialist palliative care services, and the need to ensure care and compassion for all dying patients. In July 2013, the Department of Health released a statement that stated the use of the LCP should be "phased out over the next 6-12 months and replaced with an individual approach to end of life care for each patient".The impact of opioids was a particular concern because of their potential influence on consciousness, appetite and thirst in people near the end of life. There was concern that impaired patient consciousness may lead to an earlier death, and that effects of opioids on appetite and thirst may result in unnecessary suffering. This rapid review, commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research, used standard Cochrane methodology to examine adverse effects of morphine, fentanyl, oxycodone, and codeine in cancer pain studies as a close approximation to possible effects in the dying patient.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the impact of opioid treatment on patient consciousness, appetite and thirst in randomised controlled trials of morphine, fentanyl, oxycodone or codeine for treating cancer pain.

SEARCH METHODS

We assessed adverse event data reported in studies included in current Cochrane reviews of opioids for cancer pain: specifically morphine, fentanyl, oxycodone, and codeine.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised studies using multiple doses of four opioid drugs (morphine, fentanyl, oxycodone, and codeine) in cancer pain. These were taken from four existing or ongoing Cochrane reviews. Participants were adults aged 18 and over. We included only full journal publication articles.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality. The primary outcomes sought were numbers of participants experiencing adverse events of reduced consciousness, appetite, and thirst. Secondary outcomes were possible surrogate measures of the primary outcomes: delirium, dizziness, hallucinations, mood change and somnolence relating to patient consciousness, and nausea, vomiting, constipation, diarrhoea, dyspepsia, dysphagia, anorexia, asthenia, dehydration, or dry mouth relating to appetite or thirst.Comparative measures of harm were known to be unlikely, and we therefore calculated the proportion of participants experiencing each of the adverse events of interest with each opioid, and for all four opioid drugs combined.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 77 studies with 5619 randomised participants. There was potential bias in most studies, with small size being the most common; individual treatment groups had fewer than 50 participants in 60 studies. Participants were relatively young, with mean age in the studies typically between 50 and 70 years. Multiple major problems with adverse event reporting were found, including failing to report adverse events in all participants who received medication, all adverse events experienced, how adverse events were collected, and not defining adverse event terminology or whether a reporting system was used.Direct measures of patient consciousness, patient appetite, or thirst were not apparent. For opioids used to treat cancer pain adverse event incidence rates were 25% for constipation, 23% for somnolence, 21% for nausea, 17% for dry mouth, and 13% for vomiting, anorexia, and dizziness. Asthenia, diarrhoea, insomnia, mood change, hallucinations and dehydration occurred at incidence rates of 5% and below.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no direct evidence that opioids affected patient consciousness, appetite or thirst when used to treat cancer pain. However, somnolence, dry mouth, and anorexia were common adverse events in people with cancer pain treated with morphine, fentanyl, oxycodone, or codeine.We are aware that there is an important literature concerning the problems that exist with adverse event measurement, reporting, and attribution. Together with the known complications concerning concomitant medication, data collection and reporting, and nomenclature, this means that these adverse events cannot always be attributed unequivocally to the use of opioids, and so they provide only a broad picture of adverse events with opioids in cancer pain. The research agenda includes developing definitions for adverse events that have a spectrum of severity or importance, and the development of appropriate measurement tools for recording such events to aid clinical practice and clinical research.

Contribution of oxycodone and its metabolites to the overall analgesic effect after oxycodone administration

OBJECTIVE

Oxycodone (OC) is an opioid which exerts its analgesic effect through µ-receptors in the brain. It is metabolized through CYP450 enzymes and some of the metabolites show pharmacological activity. The aim of this investigation is to research the contribution of the metabolites of OC to its overall analgesic effect. A further aim was to elucidate the role of drug-drug interactions and CYP2D6 polymorphism.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The authors performed a literature search to identify published information on: blood concentrations of OC and metabolites, protein binding, blood-brain-barrier behavior and opioid receptor affinity. The authors then calculated the contribution of OC and metabolites to the overall analgesic effect.

RESULTS

OC itself is responsible for 83.02 and 94.76% of the analgesic effect during p.o. and i.v. administration, respectively. Oxymorphone (OM), which has a much higher affinity for the µ-receptor, only plays a minor role (15.77 and 4.52% for p.o. and i.v., respectively). Although the CYP2D6 genotype modulates OM pharmacokinetics, OC remains the major contributor to the overall analgesic effect.

CONCLUSION

This article's calculations demonstrate that OC itself is responsible for the analgesic effect. Although OM and noroxymorphone have much higher µ-receptor affinity than the parent drug, the metabolite concentrations at the site of action are very low. This suggests that there is a minimal analgesic effect from these metabolites.

Oxycodone controlled release in cancer pain management

Oral opioids are the treatment of choice for chronic cancer pain. Morphine is the strong opioid of choice for the treatment of moderate to severe cancer pain according to guidelines from the World Health Organization (WHO). This recommendation by the WHO was derived from availability, familiarity to clinicians, established effectiveness, simplicity of administration, and relative inexpensive cost. It was not based on proven therapeutic superiority over other options. Patients who experience inadequate pain relief or intolerable side effects with one opioid may often be successfully treated with another agent or with the same agent administered by a different route. Opioid rotation, or switching to an alternative opioid, helps some patients achieve better pain control with fewer associated adverse effects. Oxycodone is a μ-opioid receptor specific ligand, with clear agonist properties. It is an active potent opioid, which is in part a κ-receptor agonist. Like morphine and other pure agonists, there is no known ceiling to the analgesic effects of oxycodone. The active metabolites of oxycodone (eg, oxymorphone) could be important in oxycodone-mediated analgesia. The main pharmacokinetic difference between oxycodone and morphine is in oral bioavailability. The bioavailability of oxycodone is >60% and the bioavailability of morphine is 20%. Controlled-release oxycodone is absorbed in a bi-exponential fashion. There is a rapid phase with a mean half-life of 37 min, accounting for 38% of the dose, and a slow phase with a half-life of 6.2 h, which accounts for the residual 62%. Oxycodone elimination is impaired by renal failure because there are both an increased volume of distribution and reduced clearance. A lot of studies prove that the efficacy of controlled-release oxycodone in cancer-pain control is at least the same as morphine, immediate-release oxycodone and hydromorphone. Its toxicity profile seems better than that of morphine. There are actually several illustrations of a lower incidence of side-effects in the central nervous system. It is therefore possible to conclude that oxycodone represents a valid alternative to morphine in the management of moderate to severe cancer pain, also as first-line treatment.

A systematic review of oxycodone in the management of cancer pain

BACKGROUND

Oxycodone is often used as an opioid analgesic for moderate to severe cancer-related pain, but its use varies across Europe. This systematic literature review forms the basis of guidelines for oxycodone use within the European Palliative Care Research Collaborative opioid guidelines project conducted on behalf of the European Association for Palliative Care.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to identify and assess the quality of evidence for the use of oxycodone for cancer pain in adults.

METHODS

The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MedLine, EMBASE and CINAHL were systematically searched in addition to hand searching of relevant journals. Studies were included if they reported a clinical outcome relevant to the use of oxycodone in adult patients with moderate to severe cancer pain. Any form and route of oxycodone was included except intrathecal. No direct comparator was required for inclusion and studies were excluded if patients had previously switched from another strong opioid because of intolerable adverse effects or poor efficacy. This is a narrative systematic review, using the GRADE approach to assess the quality of studies and to formulate guidelines.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine original studies were identified including a meta-analysis and 14 randomized controlled trials. The identified meta-analysis included three trials comparing oxycodone to morphine and one comparing oxycodone to hydromorphone. Four other randomized trials compared oxycodone with other opioids. The remaining randomized controlled trials compared different routes of administration or formulations of oxycodone. No additional studies that would have been suitable for addition to the meta-analysis were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence from the included trials of a significant difference in analgesia or adverse effects between oxycodone and morphine or hydromorphone. The evidence was graded as high quality on the basis of a well-conducted meta-analysis, with no limitations likely to affect the outcome, in addition to consistency in the results of the other studies. The research was conducted using participants relevant to cancer and palliative care populations. Oxycodone can be recommended as an alternative to morphine or hydromorphone for cancer-related pain.

Role of oxycodone and oxycodone/naloxone in cancer pain management

Oxycodone is a valued opioid analgesic, which may be administered either as the first strong opioid or when other strong opioids are ineffective. In case of insufficient analgesia and/or intense adverse effects such as sedation, hallucinations and nausea/vomiting a switch from another opioid to oxycodone might be beneficial. Oxycodone is administered to opioid-naive patients with severe pain and to patients who were unsuccessfully treated with weak opioids, namely tramadol, codeine and dihydrocodeine. Oxycodone effective analgesia may be attributed to its affinity to μ and possibly κ opioid receptors, rapid penetration through the blood-brain barrier and higher concentrations in brain than in plasma. Oxycodone displays high bioavailability after oral administration and may be better than morphine in patients with renal impairment due to the decreased production of active metabolites. Recently an oral controlled-release oxycodone formulation was introduced in Poland. Another new product that was launched recently is a combination of prolonged-release oxycodone with prolonged-release naloxone (oxycodone/naloxone tablets). The aim of this review is to outline the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties, drug interactions, dosing rules, adverse effects, equianalgesic dose ratio with other opioids and clinical studies of oxycodone in patients with cancer pain. The potential role of oxycodone/naloxone in chronic pain management and its impact on the bowel function is also discussed.

Effect of the inhibition of CYP3A4 or CYP2D6 on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of oxycodone

PURPOSE

The main metabolic pathways of oxycodone, a potent opioid analgetic, are N-demethylation (CYP3A4) to inactive noroxycodone and O-demethylation (CYP2D6) to active oxymorphone. We performed a three-way, placebo-controlled, double-blind cross-over study to assess the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic consequences of drug interactions with oxycodone.

METHODS

The 12 participants (CYP2D6 extensive metabolizers) were pre-treated with placebo, ketoconazole or paroxetine before oral oxycodone ingestion (0.2 mg/kg).

RESULTS

Pre-treatment with ketoconazole increased the AUC for oxycodone 2- to 3-fold compared with placebo or paroxetine. In combination with placebo, oxycodone induced the expected decrease in pupil diameter. This decrease was accentuated in the presence of ketoconazole, but blunted by paroxetine. In comparison to pre-treatment with placebo, ketoconazole increased nausea, drowsiness, and pruritus associated with oxycodone. In contrast, the effect of pre-treatment with paroxetine on the above-mentioned adverse events was not different from that of placebo. Ketoconazole increased the analgetic effect of oxycodone, whereas paroxetine was not different from placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Inhibition of CYP3A4 by ketoconazole increases the exposure and some pharmacodynamic effects of oxycodone. Paroxetine pretreatment inhibits CYP2D6 without inducing relevant changes in oxycodone exposure, and partially blunts the pharmacodynamic effects of oxycodone due to intrinsic pharmacological activities. Pharmacodynamic changes associated with CYP3A4 inhibition may be clinically important in patients treated with oxycodone.

Oxycodone controlled-release as first-choice therapy for moderate-to-severe cancer pain in Italian patients: results of an open-label, multicentre, observational study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Cancer pain affects patients at all stages of the disease and there are clear guidelines for its management. Morphine is considered the first-choice strong opioid in the treatment of moderate-to-severe pain; however, numerous studies have shown that oxycodone controlled-release (CR) has a similar efficacy and safety profile. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of oxycodone CR as a first-line strong opioid for the treatment of moderate-to-severe pain in Italian cancer patients.

METHODS

This was a prospective, open-label, multicentre, observational trial carried out at 15 locations across Italy. Patients with a referral for cancer-related pain of > or =5 on a 10-point numerical rating scale were enrolled. Patients were treated with oral oxycodone CR and monitored for 21 days. Dosage was individualized for each patient and up-titrated until effective pain control was achieved. Pain, adverse events and quality-of-life scores were assessed throughout the study.

RESULTS

390 patients (174 females and 216 males) with a mean age of 66 +/- 11 years were evaluated. The average daily dose ranged from 22.84 on day 1 to 40 mg/day on day 21. Pain intensity (assessed on a 10-point numerical rating scale) decreased significantly within 1 day of treatment commencement (p = 0.00001) and continued to decrease throughout the study period (from a mean 7.22 at baseline to a mean 2.11 points on day 21). Adverse events were mild to moderate in intensity and consisted of common opioid-related events. Ten patients (2.6%) discontinued the study because of adverse events and four (1%) because of uncontrolled pain. All aspects of activities of daily life assessed were improved by study end.

CONCLUSIONS

Oxycodone CR is efficacious and well tolerated as a first-line strong opioid for the treatment of moderate-to-severe cancer-related pain in Italian patients.

Opioids and the management of chronic severe pain in the elderly: consensus statement of an International Expert Panel with focus on the six clinically most often used World Health Organization Step III opioids (buprenorphine, fentanyl, hydromorphone, methadone, morphine, oxycodone)

SUMMARY OF CONSENSUS: 1. The use of opioids in cancer pain: The criteria for selecting analgesics for pain treatment in the elderly include, but are not limited to, overall efficacy, overall side-effect profile, onset of action, drug interactions, abuse potential, and practical issues, such as cost and availability of the drug, as well as the severity and type of pain (nociceptive, acute/chronic, etc.). At any given time, the order of choice in the decision-making process can change. This consensus is based on evidence-based literature (extended data are not included and chronic, extended-release opioids are not covered). There are various driving factors relating to prescribing medication, including availability of the compound and cost, which may, at times, be the main driving factor. The transdermal formulation of buprenorphine is available in most European countries, particularly those with high opioid usage, with the exception of France; however, the availability of the sublingual formulation of buprenorphine in Europe is limited, as it is marketed in only a few countries, including Germany and Belgium. The opioid patch is experimental at present in U.S.A. and the sublingual formulation has dispensing restrictions, therefore, its use is limited. It is evident that the population pyramid is upturned. Globally, there is going to be an older population that needs to be cared for in the future. This older population has expectations in life, in that a retiree is no longer an individual who decreases their lifestyle activities. The "baby-boomers" in their 60s and 70s are "baby zoomers"; they want to have a functional active lifestyle. They are willing to make trade-offs regarding treatment choices and understand that they may experience pain, providing that can have increased quality of life and functionality. Therefore, comorbidities--including cancer and noncancer pain, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and postherpetic neuralgia--and patient functional status need to be taken carefully into account when addressing pain in the elderly. World Health Organization step III opioids are the mainstay of pain treatment for cancer patients and morphine has been the most commonly used for decades. In general, high level evidence data (Ib or IIb) exist, although many studies have included only few patients. Based on these studies, all opioids are considered effective in cancer pain management (although parts of cancer pain are not or only partially opioid sensitive), but no well-designed specific studies in the elderly cancer patient are available. Of the 2 opioids that are available in transdermal formulation--fentanyl and buprenorphine--fentanyl is the most investigated, but based on the published data both seem to be effective, with low toxicity and good tolerability profiles, especially at low doses. 2. The use of opioids in noncancer-related pain: Evidence is growing that opioids are efficacious in noncancer pain (treatment data mostly level Ib or IIb), but need individual dose titration and consideration of the respective tolerability profiles. Again no specific studies in the elderly have been performed, but it can be concluded that opioids have shown efficacy in noncancer pain, which is often due to diseases typical for an elderly population. When it is not clear which drugs and which regimes are superior in terms of maintaining analgesic efficacy, the appropriate drug should be chosen based on safety and tolerability considerations. Evidence-based medicine, which has been incorporated into best clinical practice guidelines, should serve as a foundation for the decision-making processes in patient care; however, in practice, the art of medicine is realized when we individualize care to the patient. This strikes a balance between the evidence-based medicine and anecdotal experience. Factual recommendations and expert opinion both have a value when applying guidelines in clinical practice. 3. The use of opioids in neuropathic pain: The role of opioids in neuropathic pain has been under debate in the past but is nowadays more and more accepted; however, higher opioid doses are often needed for neuropathic pain than for nociceptive pain. Most of the treatment data are level II or III, and suggest that incorporation of opioids earlier on might be beneficial. Buprenorphine shows a distinct benefit in improving neuropathic pain symptoms, which is considered a result of its specific pharmacological profile. 4. The use of opioids in elderly patients with impaired hepatic and renal function: Functional impairment of excretory organs is common in the elderly, especially with respect to renal function. For all opioids except buprenorphine, half-life of the active drug and metabolites is increased in the elderly and in patients with renal dysfunction. It is, therefore, recommended that--except for buprenorphine--doses be reduced, a longer time interval be used between doses, and creatinine clearance be monitored. Thus, buprenorphine appears to be the top-line choice for opioid treatment in the elderly. 5. Opioids and respiratory depression: Respiratory depression is a significant threat for opioid-treated patients with underlying pulmonary condition or receiving concomitant central nervous system (CNS) drugs associated with hypoventilation. Not all opioids show equal effects on respiratory depression: buprenorphine is the only opioid demonstrating a ceiling for respiratory depression when used without other CNS depressants. The different features of opioids regarding respiratory effects should be considered when treating patients at risk for respiratory problems, therefore careful dosing must be maintained. 6. Opioids and immunosuppression: Age is related to a gradual decline in the immune system: immunosenescence, which is associated with increased morbidity and mortality from infectious diseases, autoimmune diseases, and cancer, and decreased efficacy of immunotherapy, such as vaccination. The clinical relevance of the immunosuppressant effects of opioids in the elderly is not fully understood, and pain itself may also cause immunosuppression. Providing adequate analgesia can be achieved without significant adverse events, opioids with minimal immunosuppressive characteristics should be used in the elderly. The immunosuppressive effects of most opioids are poorly described and this is one of the problems in assessing true effect of the opioid spectrum, but there is some indication that higher doses of opioids correlate with increased immunosuppressant effects. Taking into consideration all the very limited available evidence from preclinical and clinical work, buprenorphine can be recommended, while morphine and fentanyl cannot. 7. Safety and tolerability profile of opioids: The adverse event profile varies greatly between opioids. As the consequences of adverse events in the elderly can be serious, agents should be used that have a good tolerability profile (especially regarding CNS and gastrointestinal effects) and that are as safe as possible in overdose especially regarding effects on respiration. Slow dose titration helps to reduce the incidence of typical initial adverse events such as nausea and vomiting. Sustained release preparations, including transdermal formulations, increase patient compliance.

Oxycodone: a pharmacological and clinical review

Oxycodone is a semi-synthetic opioid with an agonist activity on mu, kappa and delta receptors. Equivalence with regard to morphine is 1:2. Its effect commences one hour after administration and lasts for 12 h in the controlled-release formulation. Plasma halflife is 3-5 h (half that of morphine) and stable plasma levels are reached within 24 h (2-7 days for morphine). Oral bioavailability ranges from 60 to 87%, and plasma protein binding is 45%. Most of the drug is metabolised in the liver, while the rest is excreted by the kidney along with its metabolites. The two main metabolites are oxymorphone--which is also a very potent analgesic--and noroxycodone, a weak analgesic. Oxycodone metabolism is more predictable than that of morphine, and therefore titration is easier. Oxycodone has the same mechanism of action as other opioids: binding to a receptor, inhibition of adenylyl-cyclase and hyperpolarisation of neurons, and decreased excitability. These mechanisms also play a part in the onset of dependence and tolerance. The clinical efficacy of oxycodone is similar to that of morphine, with a ratio of 1/1.5-2 for the treatment of cancer pain. Long-term administration may be associated with less toxicity in comparison with morphine. In the future, both opioids could be used simultaneously at low doses to reduce toxicity. It does not appear that there are any differences between immediate and slow-release oxycodone, except their half-life is 3-4 h, and 12 h, respectively. In Spain, controlled-release oxycodone (OxyContin) is marketed as 10-, 20-, 40- or 80-mg tablets for b.i.d. administration. Tablets must be taken whole and must not be broken, chewed or crushed. There is no food interference. The initial dose is 10 mg b.i.d. for new treatments and no dose reduction is needed in the elderly or in cases of moderate hepatic or renal failure. Immediate-release oxycodone (OxyNorm) is also available in capsules and oral solution. Side effects are those common to opioids: mainly nausea, constipation and drowsiness. Vomiting, pruritus and dizziness are less common. The intensity of these side effects tends to decrease over the course of time. Oxycodone causes somewhat less nausea, hallucinations and pruritus than morphine.

Efficacy and Tolerability of Oxycodone Hydrochloride Controlled-Release Tablets in Moderate to Severe Cancer Pain

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Oxycodone is a semisynthetic opioid analgesic drug classed as a strong opioid. The controlled-release oxycodone tablet formulation (OCRT) was approved in China in 2004 for management of moderate to severe cancer pain. Few data about the efficacy of OCRT and clinical outcomes in Chinese patients taking this drug are available. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of this drug for relief of moderate to severe cancer pain in Chinese patients.

METHODS

This was a prospective, open-label, multicentre clinical trial carried out in ten hospitals in Zhejiang Province, China. Patients with cancer pain with a score > or =4 (numerical rating scale) were enrolled. They received oral OCRT at an initial dosage of 5mg every 12 hours for patients scoring 4-6 and 10mg every 12 hours for patients scoring > or =7. Doses were then titrated on an individual basis. Onset of analgesic action, pain score and quality-of-life (QOL) scores - including items measuring family understanding and support, sleep, mental state, appetite, fatigue, and activities of daily life - were evaluated. Adverse effects were also documented.

RESULTS

216 patients (126 males and 90 females) aged 22-84 years were enrolled. The total mean OCRT dosage was 445.2 +/- 361.6mg (range 130-2320mg). The daily dosages of the vast majority of cases (89%) were between 10mg and 30mg. Onset of analgesic action occurred within 1 hour in 198 cases (91.7%) following administration of OCRT. 82.4% of cases were titrated to a steady dosage level within 2 days following administration of the first dose of medication. Pain score decreased significantly (p < 0.01) from 7.1 +/- 1.2 at baseline to 2.3 +/- 1.2 one week after starting medication and 1.8 +/- 0.9 four weeks after starting medication. Scores on all six QOL items increased significantly (p < 0.01) compared with baseline but showed varying rates of improvement. Adverse events included constipation, nausea, vomiting, drowsiness and dysuria. These were noted most frequently in the first week (25.5% of patients) and lessened over time. No severe adverse events were noted.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that OCRT is well tolerated and effective in controlling moderate to severe cancer pain in Chinese patients.

Controlled clinical trials in cancer pain. How controlled should they be? A qualitative systematic review

This qualitative systematic review of the clinical methodology used in randomised, controlled trials of oral opioids (morphine, hydromorphone, oxycodone) for cancer pain underlines the difficulties of good pain research in palliative care. The current literature lacks placebo-controlled superiority trials. Recommendations for future research are discussed.

Therapie chronischer Schmerzen mit oralem retardiertem Oxycodon

Oral controlled-release oxycodone has been available for the treatment of chronic pain in Germany since 1998. Controlled trials have shown good clinical efficacy and tolerability. This survey reports results from six open prospective multicenter trials. In these trials 4196 patients suffering from cancer pain and non-cancer-related pain with inadequate pain relief were treated with oral controlled-release oxycodone for 3-4 weeks. Only a few participating physicians were pain specialists. A total of 356 patients suffering from pain of the musculoskeletal system and receiving oxycodone therapy were monitored for 6 months. Exclusion from the studies was due mainly to inadequate analgesia, side effects, and noncompliance. The efficacy of oxycodone was rated to be better than moderate by most of the patients, quality of life parameters increased significantly, and patient satisfaction was high. The treatment with oral controlled-release oxycodone was a safe and effective option even when used by nonspecialized physicians.

Pharmacological treatments for persistent non-malignant pain in older persons

Persistent non-malignant pain is common, often neglected and under-treated among older persons. Some older adults do not complain because they consider chronic pain to be a characteristic of normal aging. Physicians have concerns regarding adverse effects of pharmacological treatment. The model of the World Health Organization for treatment of cancer pain is generally accepted and also recommended for persistent non-cancer pain. Furthermore, non-pharmacological treatment should complement drug treatment whenever possible. An initial assessment and possible treatment of underlying causes of pain are pertinent. Modern pharmacological pain management is based on non-opioid and opioid analgesics. NSAIDs are among the most widely prescribed class of drugs in the world. The new cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors such as celecoxib and rofecoxib offer an alternative for the treatment of mild-to-moderate pain in patients with a history of gastric ulcers or bleeding. Paracetamol (acetaminophen) is being used widely for the management of mild pain across all age groups as it has moderate adverse effects at therapeutic dosages. For moderate pain, a combination of non-opioid analgesics and opioid analgesics with moderate pain relief properties (e.g. oxycodone, codeine, tramadol and tilidine/naloxone) is recommended. For severe pain, a combination of non-opioid analgesics and opioid analgesics with strong pain relief properties (e.g. morphine, codeine) is recommended. The least toxic means of achieving systemic pain relief should be used. For continuous pain, sustained-release analgesic preparations are recommended. Drugs should be given on a fixed time schedule, and possible adverse effects and interactions should be carefully monitored. Adjuvant drugs, such as antidepressants or anticonvulsants, can be very effective especially in the treatment of certain types of pain, such as in diabetic neuropathy. Effective pain management should result in decreased pain, increased function and improvement in mood and sleep.

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.

Responsible prescribing of opioids for the management of chronic pain

The management of patients with chronic pain is a common clinical challenge. Indeed, chronic pain is often inadequately controlled in patients with cancer and in those with non-cancer chronic pain. Because of the complex nature of chronic pain, successful long-term treatment is more difficult than for acute pain. Most often acute pain is nociceptive, whereas chronic pain can be nociceptive (i.e., in response to noxious stimuli), neuropathic (i.e., initiated by a primary lesion or dysfunction in the nervous system) or mixed in origin. Opioids are the current standard of care for the treatment of moderate or severe nociceptive pain. Opioids mediate their actions by binding and activating receptors both in the peripheral nervous system and those that are found in inhibitory pain circuits that descend from the midbrain to the spinal cord dorsal horn. Opioid agonists exert a number of physiological responses including analgesia, which increases with increasing doses. The use of opioids to manage pain in patients with cancer is well accepted. The WHO step-wise algorithm for analgesic therapy based on pain severity reserves the use of opioid therapy for moderate and severe pain. The WHO algorithm has proven to be highly effective for the management of cancer pain. However, the use of opioids to treat patients with chronic non-cancer pain is controversial because of concerns about efficacy and safety, and the possibility of addiction or abuse. The results of clinical surveys and retrospective case series involving patients with non-cancer chronic pain have been inconsistent in regard to resolving these controversial issues. The oral route of drug administration is most appropriate for patients receiving opioids; although rectal, transdermal and parenteral routes of administration are used in specific situations. For continuous chronic pain, opioids should be administered around-the-clock and several long-acting formulations are available that require administration only once or twice daily. Opioid doses should be titrated according to agent-specific schedules to maximise pain relief and maintain tolerability. Adverse effects include constipation, nausea and vomiting, sedation, cognitive impairment and respiratory depression. Tolerance to the analgesic and adverse effects as well as physical dependence, which causes withdrawal symptoms upon discontinuance, may occur with opioid use. Estimates of addiction rates among patients with chronic non-cancer pain range from 3.2 to 18.9%. Successful pain treatment and symptom management is an attainable goal for the majority of patients with chronic pain. Further controlled clinical trials are needed to define the role of opioid therapy in chronic non-cancer pain, and to establish criteria for patient selection and specific treatment algorithms.

Safety and efficacy of controlled-release oxycodone: a systematic literature review

Prescriptions for controlled-release oxycodone, a narcotic analgesic, recently contributed to a dramatic increase in pharmacy costs for a large private insurance company. To determine whether this agent offered clinical benefits over other available drugs that would justify its significantly greater cost, a systematic review of 16 clinical trials was undertaken. The review suggested that immediate-release and controlled-release preparations of oxycodone have similar efficacy and comparable side effect profiles. Controlled-release oxycodone has the advantage of less frequent dosing than immediate-release oxycodone; however, other agents may be dosed infrequently at much lower costs. For patients requiring a controlled-release opioid treatment, controlled-release morphine and methadone should be considered because they appear to be as effective as oxycodone and cost considerably less. Controlled-release oxycodone may be appropriate for some patients, particularly if they cannot tolerate other controlled-release or long-acting opioid analgesics.

Opioid formulations: tailoring to the needs in chronic pain

Opioids are one of the standard therapies used in the management of chronic pain. They were first widely adopted for the treatment of chronic pain associated with cancer and are now considered important in the alleviation of non-cancer and neuropathic pain. Around-the-clock (ATC) medication has been found to be an effective approach in treating chronic pain. Guidelines issued by the American Pain Society (1999) note that in most cases the preferred route of administering opioids is oral, because of convenience, flexibility, and relative steadiness of the opioid concentrations in the blood. The advantages of ATC therapy and oral medication are some of the reasons for the development of controlled-release, oral formulations of opioids (e.g. morphine, oxycodone, hydromorphone, and hydrocodone). The reduced dosing frequency makes the oral medication more convenient for patients, making it easier for them to comply with the dosing regimen. ATC therapeutic coverage and the possible increased compliance afforded by controlled-release formulations can make opioids even more effective in managing chronic pain.

The management of pain in the oncology patient

The treatment of cancer pain is improving, but pain remains a significant problem. Although better analgesics with greater efficacy and fewer side effects are needed, the most significant problem regarding the appropriate management of cancer pain remains a lack of knowledge among physicians treating cancer patients. Cancer management should be undertaken within a palliative care model, in which autonomy and respect for individuals and their families guides all aspects of care.