High Dose Transdermal Buprenorphine for Moderate to Severe Pain in Spanish Pain Centres-A Retrospective Multicenter Safety and Efficacy Study

Buprenorphine Pharmacodynamics: A Bridge to Understanding Buprenorphine Clinical Benefits

Buprenorphine is an agonist at the mu opioid receptor (MOR) and antagonist at the kappa (KOR) and delta (DOR) receptors and a nociceptin receptor (NOR) ligand. Buprenorphine has a relatively low intrinsic efficacy for G-proteins and a long brain and MOR dwell time. Buprenorphine ceiling on respiratory depression has theoretically been related multiple factors such as low intrinsic efficacy at MOR, binding to six-transmembrane MOR and interactions in MOR/NOR heterodimers. Buprenorphine reduces analgesic tolerance by acting as a delta opioid receptor (DOR) antagonist. As a kappa opioid receptor (KOR) antagonist, buprenorphine reduces craving associated with addiction. Buprenorphine is a model opioid for the ordinal bifunctional analogs BU10038, BU08028 which have been shown to be potent analgesics in non-human primates without reinforcing effects and little to no respiratory depression.

Long-term administration of high doses of transdermal buprenorphine in cancer patients with severe neuropathic pain

Background

Buprenorphine is often administered by the transdermal route (transdermal buprenorphine [TB]) in cancer patients with severe neuropathic pain. However, high doses of TB of 140 µg/h are rarely used.

Patients and methods

Three cancer patients with severe neuropathic Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) pain scores of 8–10 who were successfully treated with high doses of TB up to 140 µg/h along with other opioids and adjuvant analgesics.

Results

TB was administered for a long period of follow-up (9 months to 4 years, including 34–261 days of treatment with the dose of 140 µg/h), which allowed achievement of satisfactory analgesia (NRS 3–5) and good treatment tolerance. In all three patients, TB dose was gradually titrated from 35 to 140 µg/h, and all patients used morphine at least for some time for breakthrough and background pain management along with adjuvant analgesics. Two patients continued the treatment with TB until the end of life, and one patient is still receiving the treatment.

Conclusion

TB at doses of up to 140 µg/h in cancer patients with severe neuropathic pain seems to be effective and safe in combination with other opioids and with adjuvant analgesics, and may significantly improve patients’ quality of life. Clinical studies may explore higher than maximal 140 µg/h TB doses recommended by a manufacturer, and also in combination with other opioids and adjuvant analgesics.

Retrospective analysis of 4 years of clinical experience with transdermal buprenorphine (Transtec®) in post-traumatic pain

SUMMARY: 

Aims: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of transdermal buprenorphine (BTDS) in the treatment of post-traumatic pain in a working population. Patients & methods: Retrospective case series of patients with severe post-traumatic pain treated with BTDS between 2008 and 2012. Results: 57 patients were evaluated: 38 men, 19 women (mean age 43 years); patients with burns (n = 22), skin degloving (14), open dislocations (eight), traumatic nerve lesions (six), spinal cord injury (four) and limb amputations (three). 25, 12 and 20 patients experienced neuropathic pain, nociceptive pain or neuropathic/nociceptive pain, respectively. The mean baseline DN4 questionnaire and pain intensity scores were 4.8±2.3 and 7.4±1.5, respectively. The mean duration of pain before BTDS use was 24.4 months (>3 months in 65% of patients). Total patient-years of BTDS treatment were 73. After 14.7±14.9 months of BTDS treatment, mean pain intensity was reduced by 4.2±2.2 points, 38 patients (66.7%) had ≥50% pain relief, 69% reported functional improvement, especially in gait ability (25) and activities of daily life (14), and 46 patients (80.7%) had improved sleep quality. The starting dose of BTDS was 4.4–17.5 μg/h; maintenance dose was 8.8–70 μg/h. At the start of BTDS treatment, all patients used a total of 187 concomitant analgesics daily, 72% of which were stopped during treatment with BTDS; the number of patients that could be managed exclusively with BTDS and rescue analgesia increased to 31%. 13 patients (22%) presented nausea, eight constipation, six local skin reactions, three vomiting and somnolence, and two patients experienced dizziness. Four patients (6.9%) stopped BTDS due to adverse reactions. Conclusions: BTDS is an effective and safe alternative for the treatment of patients with severe post-traumatic pain, reducing the intensity of pain and improving functional capacity and quality of sleep.

Systematic review of adverse events of buprenorphine patch versus fentanyl patch in patients with chronic moderate-to-severe pain

SUMMARY This systematic review compares convenience of administration, adverse events and tolerability of buprenorphine patch with fentanyl patch in patients with chronic pain. Methods of quantitative and qualitative research were combined. Seventeen databases were searched up to December 2010. A total of 49 unique trials (56 publications) were included. Patients regarded the use of patches, both transdermal buprenorphine and fentanyl, as easy and convenient. Compared with buprenorphine patch, fentanyl can cause more cases of constipation and could lead to a higher number of serious adverse events. There were no differences between buprenorphine patch and fentanyl patch regarding dizziness, somnolence, nausea and treatment discontinuation. Overall, transdermal administration of buprenorphine and fentanyl can be seen as an alternative pathway for delivering these drugs. Use of transdermal buprenorphine might be favorable in certain groups of patients, such as renally impaired, elderly and immunosuppressed patients.

Transdermal buprenorphine for postoperative pain control in gynecological surgery: a prospective randomized study

OBJECTIVE

Although numerous methods are available for postoperative pain (POP) management, new approaches are constantly being investigated. This feasibility study assessed the buprenorphine transdermal therapeutic system (Bup-TTS) for the treatment of POP after gynecological open surgery.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Forty-five patients were prospectively randomized to different Bup-TTS dosages (17.5, 35, or 52.5 μg/h). Patients were blinded with regard to patch dose.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Efficacy was evaluated in terms of rescue boluses (intravenous morphine 2 mg in the first six postoperative hours, intravenous ketorolac 30 mg thereafter) required to achieve a static and dynamic Numerical Rating Scale (sNRS and dNRS) score ≤4. Side effects were evaluated from patch application (12 hours before surgery) until the 72nd postoperative hour. Patient satisfaction regarding POP management was assessed via anonymous questionnaire.

RESULTS

All Bup-TTS groups required additional postoperative analgesia, particularly in the first postoperative hour. No between-group differences in sNRS/dNRS values were recorded at emergence from anesthesia. A significant inverse correlation occurred between Bup-TTS dosage and use of morphine (p = 0.04), ketorolac (p = 0.04) or both rescues (p = 0.02). Postoperative nausea/vomiting occurred in 3.1% of assessments, with no between-group differences and a significant correlation with morphine amount (p = 0.01). No serious side effects occurred. Despite no between-group difference, patient satisfaction was inversely correlated with the number of rescue doses (p < 0.001). Study limitations include the small sample size, the absence of a control group treated with a more conventional technique for POP relief, the focus on selected patients at low perioperative risk and the presence of slightly different types of open surgery (hysterectomy vs myomectomy only).

CONCLUSION

Bup-TTS efficacy was directly proportional to its dosage, although additional analgesia was required, particularly in the first postoperative hour. Moreover, the consumption of morphine and ketorolac was inversely correlated to the Bup-TTS dosage. Increasing Bup-TTS doses were not associated with an increased incidence of side effects. Bup-TTS appears a safe and feasible approach for moderate POP management; further larger studies are warranted.

Transdermal buprenorphine for the treatment of moderate to severe chronic pain: results from a large multicenter, non-interventional post-marketing study in Poland

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the use of a buprenorphine transdermal patch (Transtec*) in routine clinical practice, including dosage, indications, efficacy and tolerability.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This prospective, open-label, non-comparative, non-interventional, post-marketing study was performed in Poland by 339 investigators in a range of clinical practice settings. Patients with chronic moderate to severe cancer pain, or chronic severe non-cancer pain that was insufficiently controlled by non-opioids, were prescribed buprenorphine transdermal patch 35, 52.5 or 70 μg/hour (changed twice weekly), and followed up for 3 months. Additional analgesia, and adjuvant/supportive treatments were allowed at the discretion of the physician.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The study enrolled 4030 patients, with a mean age of 62.8 years. Most patients had cancer-related pain (80.7%). Non-cancer pain was generally musculoskeletal or neuropathic. A starting dose of 35, 52.5 or 70 μg/hour was used in 73.4%, 21.5%, and 4.8% of patients, respectively. Buprenorphine dose was increased in 44.7% of patients during the observation, generally from 35 to 52.5 μg/hour. Mean pain intensity (using a 100 mm visual analogue scale) decreased by 73.5% from 62.3 mm at baseline to 16.5 mm after 3 months. Most patients rated pain relief as 'very good' (41.4%) or 'good' (44.5%). Sleep quality also improved. 48.1% of patients needed no additional analgesics during buprenorphine treatment. Most patients (96%) rated the buprenorphine transdermal patch as 'very easy' or 'easy' to change. The most common treatment-related reasons for discontinuation were lack of analgesic effect (3.3% of patients) and adverse drug reactions (ADRs, 0.8%). ADRs, all non-serious, occurred in 34 patients (0.8%), most commonly local skin reactions or vomiting. At study end, it was planned to continue treatment with transdermal buprenorphine in 70.1% of patients. The main limitations related to the observational study design, balanced by advantages gained from the 'real life' exploration of transdermal buprenorphine use.

CONCLUSIONS

In routine Polish clinical practice, transdermal buprenorphine was effective and generally well-tolerated in patients with chronic moderate to severe cancer pain or chronic severe non-malignant pain insufficiently controlled by non-opioids.

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.

The role of transdermal buprenorphine in the treatment of cancer pain: an expert panel consensus

BACKGROUND

The semi-synthetic opioid, buprenorphine, has the general structure of morphine but differs from it in significant ways, both pharmacologically and clinically. A number of long-term studies have shown effective, long-lasting analgesia in moderate to severe cancer and non-cancer pain, including neuropathic pain, with a low incidence of constipation, nausea, dizziness and tiredness. The treatment of moderate to severe chronic pain has improved as a result of the development of new methods of administration of this substance, particularly the introduction of the transdermal drug delivery system, which offers a number of advantages over the usual oral and parenteral routes.

SCOPE

A panel of experts specialising in palliative care and pain treatment was convened in November 2007 to discuss their clinical experiences with transdermal buprenorphine and other analgesics. The aim was to provide practical guidance on the treatment of cancer pain with transdermal buprenorphine, particularly when there is a need for increasing pain relief leading to high and increasing doses. A literature search on the use of transdermal buprenorphine was carried out for the panel meeting (based on a search of PubMed to November 2007 - since updated by an additional search for the period to February 2009) and a number of case histories were presented and discussed. This commentary article presents this evidence and the consensus findings of the expert panel.

FINDINGS

The Panel reached consensus that transdermal buprenorphine was a valuable treatment for chronic cancer pain, including its neuropathic components. A number of general recommendations were made. Large-scale, randomised clinical studies are needed to provide product comparisons on the use of analgesics in the treatment of neuropathic pain although it was recognised that such studies may not be practicable. Data on the treatment of acute and chronic pain should be kept separate in general. Physicians should be made more aware of the problem of hyperalgesic effects of some opioids in long term use. Buprenorphine in contrast has been described to exert an antihyperalgesic effect. The development of analgesic tolerance with some opioids in long term use and the lack of it with buprenorphine requires further studies. The registered dose range of 35-140 microg/h was considered adequate to achieve sufficient pain relief in most patients although some members of the panel presented data showing that increases beyond this dose range provided improved pain relief if slow titration is used. However, it was generally felt that more evidence was needed before this could become generally acceptable.

CONCLUSION

The consensus was that transdermal buprenorphine has a valuable role to play in the treatment of chronic cancer pain because of its efficacy and good safety and tolerability profile, including a low risk of respiratory depression, a lack of immunosuppression and a lack of accumulation in patients with impaired renal function.