Comparison of TTS-fentanyl with sustained-release oral morphine in the treatment of patients not using opioids for mild-to-moderate pain

Transdermal Opioids and the Quality of Life of the Cancer Patient: A Systematic Literature Review

OBJECTIVE

This systematic literature review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of transdermal opioids in managing cancer pain and their impact on the quality of life (QoL) of patients.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic literature review conducted following the PRISMA protocol, focusing on randomized clinical trials found in the Lilacs, Embase, PubMed, and SciELO databases over the last 20 years.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

We included randomized clinical trials, published in English, Portuguese, or Spanish, which assessed the impact of transdermal opioids on the QoL. Data extraction was facilitated using the Rayyan app.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Six articles meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria were analyzed. These studies covered a population ranging from 24 to 422 cancer patients experiencing moderate to severe pain. The risk of bias was assessed in each study, generally being categorized as uncertain or high.

RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE

The findings indicate that the analgesic effectiveness and side effects of transdermal formulations (specifically buprenorphine and fentanyl) for managing moderate to severe cancer pain are comparable to, or in some cases superior to, those of oral opioids traditionally employed.

CONCLUSIONS

Transdermal therapy was suggested to have several advantages over oral opioid therapy in enhancing cancer patients' QoL. These benefits span various dimensions, including pain management, physical functioning, mental health, vitality, overall patient improvement, anger/aversion, strength/activity, general QoL, cognitive and emotional functions, fatigue, and insomnia.

Opioid analgesics for nociceptive cancer pain: A comprehensive review

Pain is one of the most burdensome symptoms in people with cancer, and opioid analgesics are considered the mainstay of cancer pain management. For this review, the authors evaluated the efficacy and toxicities of opioid analgesics compared with placebo, other opioids, nonopioid analgesics, and nonpharmacologic treatments for background cancer pain (continuous and relatively constant pain present at rest), and breakthrough cancer pain (transient exacerbation of pain despite stable and adequately controlled background pain). They found a paucity of placebo-controlled trials for background cancer pain, although tapentadol or codeine may be more efficacious than placebo (moderate-certainty to low-certainty evidence). Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs including aspirin, piroxicam, diclofenac, ketorolac, and the antidepressant medicine imipramine, may be at least as efficacious as opioids for moderate-to-severe background cancer pain. For breakthrough cancer pain, oral transmucosal, buccal, sublingual, or intranasal fentanyl preparations were identified as more efficacious than placebo but were more commonly associated with toxicities, including constipation and nausea. Despite being recommended worldwide for the treatment of cancer pain, morphine was generally not superior to other opioids, nor did it have a more favorable toxicity profile. The interpretation of study results, however, was complicated by the heterogeneity in the study populations evaluated. Given the limited quality and quantity of research, there is a need to reappraise the clinical utility of opioids in people with cancer pain, particularly those who are not at the end of life, and to further explore the effects of opioids on immune system function and quality of life in these individuals.

Cancer Pain Treatment Strategies in Patients with Cancer

Management of cancer pain is challenging. Despite the poor evidence, opioid therapy still remains the cornerstone for the management of cancer-related pain. Opioids should be given according to the clinical presentation in the different stages of disease. There is no drug of choice, as most opioids are effective. Thus, the choice should be based on the individual characteristics of patients. Optimization of opioid therapy may allow individual treatment according to the patient's characteristics and pain syndromes, providing timely alternatives in the different stages of disease. While most patients respond to an appropriate treatment associated with a comprehensive assessment and symptom control, a high level of experience and knowledge is necessary in determining conditions to maximize the analgesic response, eventually adding adjuvants in some specific circumstances. Alternative opioids may improve the balance between analgesia and adverse effects in the presence of a poor response to the first opioid in a large number of patients. Finally, a selected population can benefit from some interventional procedures.

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.

Trends in the Prescription of Strong Opioids for Chronic Non-Cancer Pain in Primary Care in Catalonia: Opicat-Padris-Project

In chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP), evidence of the effectiveness of strong opioids (SO) is very limited. Despite this, their use is increasingly common. To examine SO prescriptions, we designed a descriptive, longitudinal, retrospective population-based study, including patients aged ≥15 years prescribed SO for ≥3 months continuously in 2013–2017 for CNCP in primary care in Catalonia. Of the 22,691 patients included, 17,509 (77.2%) were women, 10,585 (46.6%) were aged >80 years, and most had incomes of <€18,000 per year. The most common diagnoses were musculoskeletal diseases and psychiatric disorders. There was a predominance of transdermal fentanyl in the defined daily dose (DDD) per thousand inhabitants/day, with the greatest increase for tapentadol (312% increase). There was an increase of 66.89% in total DDD per thousand inhabitants/day for SO between 2013 (0.737) and 2017 (1.230). The mean daily oral morphine equivalent dose/day dispensed for all drugs was 83.09 mg. Transdermal fentanyl and immediate transmucosal release were the largest cost components. In conclusion, there was a sustained increase in the prescription of SO for CNCP, at high doses, and in mainly elderly patients, predominantly low-income women. The new SO are displacing other drugs.

To what extent are we confident that tapentadol induces less constipation and other side effects than the other opioids in chronic pain patients? a confidence evaluation in network meta-analysis

Background

A confidence evaluation helps to make informed decisions about the results of meta-analyses. The goal of this work is to perform a confidence evaluation of results of a network meta-analysis (NMA) on the digestive side effects of tapentadol in patients with chronic pain.

Methods

An updated search in PubMed/Medline and Web of Science search until March 2020 was done to perform pairwise meta-analyses with NMA using random-effect models and confidence in network meta-analysis (CiNeMA) for the confidence analysis.

Results

Twenty-five studies were included in the final analyses. Pairwise and indirect comparisons showed a reduced risk of constipation with tapentadol compared to oxycodone. The confidence evaluation did not raise any concerns in terms of confidence for the oxycodone versus tapentadol comparisons. The oxycodone-naloxone versus tapentadol comparisons showed some concerns, particularly in terms of imprecision and incoherence. Regarding the overall risk of any side effects, the confidence evaluation showed a major concern regarding imprecision, but not for the comparison between tapentadol and oxycodone. However, this comparison showed a major heterogeneity.

Discussion and conclusions

A confidence evaluation in meta-analysis on the effect of tapentadol compared to other opioids in chronic pain showed possible imprecision, heterogeneity and/or incoherence. However, with a high level of confidence, tapentadol was associated with a lower incidence of constipation than oxycodone. Confidence analyses can help to get more information from meta-analyses.

Efficacy and Safety of Fentanyl Citrate Patch, Including a Low-Dose 0.5 mg Formulation, in Opioid-Naïve Patients with Cancer Pain

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The use of transdermal fentanyl for opioid-naïve patients is restricted, however, transdermal fentanyl is a useful opioid analgesic for patients in whom oral administration is difficult or for those with renal failure. In this study, the efficacy and safety of fentanyl citrate patches was evaluated in opioid-naïve patients suffering from cancer pain.

METHODS

An open-label uncontrolled study was conducted in opioid-naïve patients with cancer pain unable to be controlled by non-opioid analgesics. Fentanyl citrate patches starting at a low dose (0.5 mg/patch, corresponding to 6.25 μg/h fentanyl delivered) were applied once/day for up to 14 days. The analgesic effect was assessed every day from the visual analogue scale pain score and the number of doses of rescue medication. When improvement of the analgesic effect was "significant" or "moderate" at a certain dose for three consecutive days, the patient was classified as a "responder" and was considered to have "completed" the study.

RESULTS

A fentanyl citrate patch was administered to 208 of 209 enrolled patients. In the full-analysis set, 87.0% of the patients were "responders" (95% confidence interval 81.7-91.3%). In 148 patients, the optimum dose was low (0.5 mg in 99, and 1 mg in 49), with patients finishing the study on days 4-8. Following dose escalation to 4 mg, respiratory depression occurred in one patient; however, this was considered a mild adverse event.

CONCLUSION

A low-dose fentanyl citrate patch was effective in the management of cancer pain in opioid-naïve patients and was well tolerated.

STUDY REGISTRATION

JPRN-JapicCTI-173717.

Efficacy and Safety of Fentanyl Compared With Morphine among Adult Patients with Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Background:

Cancer pain is experienced by numerous patients; thus, the main pain-relieving opioid analgesics, fentanyl and morphine, are of great importance. However, their analgesic efficacy and safety are different among individuals and are still controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of fentanyl and morphine among patients with cancer.

Methods:

We performed a meta-analysis by searching PubMed and the Cochrane Library up to 01 April 2019. The search terms were fentanyl, morphine, opioids and cancer pain. All randomised controlled trials comparing fentanyl and morphine were included in the analysis.

Results:

Overall, the initial search identified 2970 published studies; among them, 9 studies were included in the efficacy analysis and 8 studies were included in the safety analysis. The oral morphine versus oral transmucosal fentanyl subgroup analysis showed a mean difference(MD)=0.47[Confidence interval(CI):0.35-0.58] with an overall effect, Z=8.10, P<.00001. The outcome of the oral morphine versus nasal/transdermal fentanyl subgroup indicated a MD=0.20[CI:0.3-0.37] with an overall effect, Z=2.24 and P=.02.

For the oral morphine versus buccal/sublingual fentanyl subgroup, the analysis revealed a MD=1.80[CI:1.35-2.25] with an overall effect, Z=7.87 and P<.00001.

The oral morphine versus other forms of fentanyl subgroup showed a MD=0.70[95%CI:0.34-1.06] with the test for the overall effect, Z=3.81 and P=.0001.

Constipation, drowsiness, confusion and dry mouth were more common in the morphine group than in the fentanyl group, with a risk ratio=0.60[CI:0.37-0.97]; 0.93[CI:0.69-1.25]; 0.85[CI:0.23-3.13] and 0.54[CI:0.05-6.43], respectively.

Conclusions:

Compared with oral morphine, fentanyl is safer and more effective. Moreover, fentanyl presents fewer side effects than morphine, especially constipation, drowsiness, confusion and dry mouth.

Opioid addiction, diversion, and abuse in chronic and cancer pain

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The primary cause of overdose death in the United States is related to pharmaceutical opioids. A few particular populations that struggle with adverse outcomes related to opioid abuse are those in palliative care, those with chronic pain, and those receiving pain treatments secondary to cancer or chemotherapy.

RECENT FINDINGS

There have been massive efforts to decrease the use of opioid abuse in patient care in a gestalt manner, but palliative care provides unique challenges in applying these reduction tactics used by other specialties.

SUMMARY

We explore behavioral interventions, provider education, alternative pain management techniques, postmarketing surveillance, and abuse-deterrent formulas as emerging methods to counteract opioid abuse in these populations.

Transdermal Fentanyl as A Front-Line Approach to Moderate-Severe Pain: A meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Objective: The safety of transdermal fentanyl (TF) in comparison with slow-release oral morphine (SROM) in moderate-severe pain was assessed. Design: A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify all randomized trials comparing TF and SROM in moderate-severe pain. Overall safety was the primary end point. Trials enrolling both cancer and non-cancer patients were included in the analysis. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Mantel-Haenszel test; a random effects model was used for the pooled analysis. Cumulative and distinctive analyses for cancer and non-cancer pain were performed whenever the outcome was reported in at least two trials. Results: Five trials met the inclusion criteria. A significant advantage of TF was documented for constipation, laxative use, and urinary retention. TF was preferred by cancer and non-cancer patients. A difference in favour of SROM was documented for nausea, diarrhea, and sweating in cancer and non-cancer patients. No differences were observed for the other items considered. Conclusions: TF and SROM seem to have a different side effects profile, and TF seems to be preferred by patients. The hierarchical approach traditionally recommended by the main scientific societies (oral morphine and then TF) could be replaced by a front-line approach based on patients’ characteristics and needs.

Satisfaction with pain management and impact of pain on quality of life in cancer patients

AIM

To evaluate the prevalence of pain in cancer outpatients in Taiwan and to investigate the impact of pain on quality of life (QoL) and patient satisfaction. Results were compared to those of a similarly designed study conducted in 2008 to identify trends.

METHODS

Adult patients with cancer treated as outpatients in hospitals throughout Taiwan were recruited. Pain intensity and the extent to which pain interfered with QoL were self-reported using a modified version of the Brief Pain Inventory. Patients also indicated their level of satisfaction with their physician, as well as with their pain control.

RESULTS

A total of 2652 patients were enrolled from 16 sites. Of these, 1167 (44.0%) patients reported experiencing pain during the previous week. Prevalence and severity of pain were highest in patients with progressive disease. A higher pain severity score was significantly associated with greater interference in both physical and psychological functions. Overall, 86.0% of all participants expressed satisfaction with their physician and 84.8% were satisfied with their pain control; satisfaction rates were associated with pain severity. Compared with the findings from the 2008 study, pain prevalence was notably lower and patient satisfaction was significantly greater in the current study.

CONCLUSIONS

Prevalence and severity of pain were associated with disease stage. Pain interference on QoL correlated significantly with pain severity. Treatment of pain in cancer patients in Taiwan seems to have improved from 2008 to 2014, possibly attributable to new cancer pain treatment guidelines and the wider availability of novel analgesic therapies.

Progress in understanding mechanisms of opioid-induced gastrointestinal adverse effects and respiratory depression

Opioids evoke analgesia through activation of opioid receptors (predominantly the μ opioid receptor) in the central nervous system. Opioid receptors are abundant in multiple regions of the central nervous system and the peripheral nervous system including enteric neurons. Opioid-related adverse effects such as constipation, nausea, and vomiting pose challenges for compliance and continuation of the therapy for chronic pain management. In the post-operative setting opioid-induced depression of respiration can be fatal. These critical limitations warrant a better understanding of their underpinning cellular and molecular mechanisms to inform the design of novel opioid analgesic molecules that are devoid of these unwanted side-effects. Research efforts on opioid receptor signalling in the past decade suggest that differential signalling pathways and downstream molecules preferentially mediate distinct pharmacological effects. Additionally, interaction among opioid receptors and, between opioid receptor and non-opioid receptors to form signalling complexes shows that opioid-induced receptor signalling is potentially more complicated than previously thought. This complexity provides an opportunity to identify and probe relationships between selective signalling pathway specificity and in vivo production of opioid-related adverse effects. In this review, we focus on current knowledge of the mechanisms thought to transduce opioid-induced gastrointestinal adverse effects (constipation, nausea, vomiting) and respiratory depression.

Transdermal buprenorphine and fentanyl patches in cancer pain: a network systematic review

Treatment of cancer pain is generally based on the three-step World Health Organization (WHO) pain relief ladder, which utilizes a sequential approach with drugs of increasing potency. Goals of pain management include optimization of analgesia, optimization of activities of daily living, minimization of adverse effects, and avoidance of aberrant drug taking. In addition, it is recommended that analgesic regimens are individualized and simplified to help ensure patient compliance and should provide the least invasive, easiest, and safest route of opioid administration to ensure adequate analgesia. Buprenorphine and fentanyl are two opioids available for the relief of moderate-to-severe cancer pain. Available clinical data regarding the transdermal (TD) formulations of these opioids and the extent to which they fulfill the recommendations mentioned earlier are systematically reviewed, with the aim of providing additional information for oncologists and pain specialists regarding their comparative use. Due to lack of studies directly comparing TD buprenorphine with TD fentanyl, data comparing these with other step-3 opioids are also evaluated in a network fashion.

Tolerability of Opioid Analgesia for Chronic Pain: A Network Meta-Analysis

Aim of this study was to study the tolerability of opioid analgesia by performing a network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) which investigated effectiveness of opioids for the management of chronic pain. Research articles reporting outcomes of RCT/s comparing 2 or more opioid analgesics for the management of chronic pain were obtained by database search. Bayesian NMAs were performed to combine direct comparisons between treatments with that of indirect simulated evidence. Study endpoints were: incidence of adverse events, incidence of constipation, trial withdrawal rate, and patient satisfaction with treatment. Outcomes were also compared with conventional meta-analyses. Thirty-two studies investigating 10 opioid drugs fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Tapentadol treatment was top-ranking owing to lower incidence of overall adverse events, constipation, and least trial withdrawal rate. Tapentadol was followed by oxycodone-naloxone combination in providing better tolerability and less trial withdrawal rate. Patient satisfaction was found to be higher with oxycodone-naloxone followed by fentanyl and tapentadol. These results were in agreement with those achieved with conventional meta-analyses. Tapentadol and oxycodone-naloxone are found to exhibit better tolerability characteristics in comparison with other opioid drugs for the management of chronic pain and are associated with low trial withdrawal rate and better patient satisfaction.

[Incidence of constipation in patients with outpatient opioid therapy]

BACKGROUND

Constipation is a common complication in patients with opioid therapy. Additionally, patient-related risk factors also contribute to the development of constipation and these factors have to be integrated into an individualized treatment plan.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the incidence of constipation in patients with opioid therapy in an outpatient setting and to analyze the risk factors that contribute to the development of constipation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This retrospective cohort study was conducted in two university affiliated outpatient departments at the Charité hospital in Berlin. The trial included all consecutively treated patients with opioid therapy of at least 4 weeks duration. The study was conducted from January 2013 to August 2013. Constipation was defined according to the Rome III criteria.

RESULTS

Out of 1166 screened patients, altogether 171 patients were included with a median duration of opioid therapy of 5 years. The most common diagnoses were back pain, musculoskeletal pain and neuropathic pain. In 14% of the treated patients symptoms of constipation were detected and another 35% needed laxatives for symptom control resulting in an overall incidence of constipation of 49%. The remaining 51% of the patients did not use any laxatives and did not experience symptoms of constipation. Age and dosing of opioid therapy significantly increased the risk of consipation but duration of opioid therapy was not related to the incidence of constipation.

DISCUSSION

The incidence of constipation in this population remains high although a relevant number of patients were intermittently free of symptoms without using laxatives. An individualized therapy plan and patient education seem to be important elements to control opioid-associated constipation.

The use of rotation to fentanyl in cancer-related pain

Pain is commonly diagnosed with respect to cancer and heart diseases, being a major symptom in most neoplastic diseases. Uncontrolled pain leads to a decrease in the quality of life and an increase in the morbidity of the patient. Opioids represent the best analgetic supportive therapy and are frequently used in patients suffering from cancer and experiencing a high level of pain. Opioid treatment starts with a gradual titration of the dose until the minimum effective dose and the maximum tolerated dose are determined. Opioid rotation refers to the switch from one opioid to another in order to get a better response to analgetic therapy and reduce side effects. Fentanyl therapy is recommended to be continued during chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or in the case of surgical intervention. Rotation to fentanyl patches is an efficient and elegant solution for cancer patients, with reduced side effects. Opioid rotation, especially to fentanyl, was shown to increase the quality of life in patients with malignant disease. Finally, rotation to fentanyl is also advantageous from an economic point of view.

Are newer, more expensive pharmacotherapy options associated with superior symptom control compared to less costly agents used in a collaborative practice setting?

Innovative approaches to care may be necessary to provide the most effective symptom management to hospice patients. One approach is prescribing newer pharmacotherapy options with the potential to improve symptom management in hospice. Such therapies are sometimes prescribed outside of Food and Drug Administration indications and are typically more costly than older agents usedfor the same symptoms. Another approach is the collaborative practice (CP) care model, whereby clinical pharmacists are given prescriptive authority according to evidence-based protocols and algorithms within boundaries approved by a physician. The agents typically included in CPprotocols are those with wide therapeutic indices and with substantial evidence to support their use. The purpose of this study was to examine both approaches to management ofpain, insomnia, and nausea, comparing symptom scores for those patients who received noncollaborative drug therapies (transdermal fentanyl, zolpidem, and ondansetron) to those who received agents under CP (oral sustained-release opioids, temazepam, andprochlorperazine). The object of the study was to investigate outcomes associated with newer drug therapy options as compared to older agents for the management of pain, insomnia, and nausea. A secondary goal is to compare symptom outcomes for patients receiving pharmaceutical care under CP and non-CP models. The study design was retrospective with a cohort. A total of 50 patients were randomly selected for each cohort of the pain and insomnia study arms. Only 45 patients prescribed oral ondansetron met inclusion criteriafor the nausea group; 45 patients prescribed prochlorperazine were randomly selected as the comparator group. Patients were compared on their degree of response to the prescribed therapy. Response was classified as complete, partial, no improvement from baseline, worsened, or unknown. A complete response was defined as the symptom score improving to a 0 of 10, regardless of the previous value documented. A partial response was defined as any improvement in score that did not result in a 0 of 10. No improvement from baseline reflected a lack of overall change in score throughout the series of data points collected. A worsened response was any score found to be higher than the score documented at the time of dispense. The unknown category reflects any set of scores that had an “NIA” documented at the time of medication dispense or when documented for both attempts subsequent to dispensing the medication. A complete response was present in 14 of 50 (24 percent) of the patients prescribed fentanyl as compared with 12 of 50 (28 percent) of those prescribed oral therapy (p = .82). Responses defined as partial, no improvement over baseline, worsened, and unknown were also comparable between the two cohorts. A complete response was seen in 26 patients prescribed temazepam (52 percent), whereas only 11 (22 percent) of patients initially prescribed zolpidem achieved the same response (p = .003 7). Both groups had a similar distribution of partial, no improvement over baseline, and worsened responses. For the nausea arm of the study, a difference was found in the number of complete responses, favoring prochlorperazine (22 of 45, 48.9 percent for prochlorperazine, 12 of 45, 26.7 percent for ondansetron, p =. 0504), as well as an increased number of worse responses seen with ondansetron patients (p = .0513); however, neither difference was statistically significant. Newer pharmacotherapy options for the management of pain, insomnia, and nausea were not found to be superior when compared to older agents prescribed under CR

Oral morphine for cancer pain

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Definition, diagnosis and treatment strategies for opioid-induced bowel dysfunction–Recommendations of the Nordic Working Group

Background and aims

Opioid-induced bowel dysfunction (OIBD) is an increasing problem due to the common use of opioids for pain worldwide. It manifests with different symptoms, such as dry mouth, gastro-oesophageal reflux, vomiting, bloating, abdominal pain, anorexia, hard stools, constipation and incomplete evacuation. Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is one of its many symptoms and probably the most prevalent. The current review describes the pathophysiology, clinical implications and treatment of OIBD.

Methods

The Nordic Working Group was formed to provide input for Scandinavian specialists in multiple, relevant areas. Seven main topics with associated statements were defined. The working plan provided a structured format for systematic reviews and included instructions on how to evaluate the level of evidence according to the GRADE guidelines. The quality of evidence supporting the different statements was rated as high, moderate or low. At a second meeting, the group discussed and voted on each section with recommendations (weak and strong) for the statements.

Results

The literature review supported the fact that opioid receptors are expressed throughout the gastrointestinal tract. When blocked by exogenous opioids, there are changes in motility, secretion and absorption of fluids, and sphincter function that are reflected in clinical symptoms. The group supported a recent consensus statement for OIC, which takes into account the change in bowel habits for at least one week rather than focusing on the frequency of bowel movements. Many patients with pain receive opioid therapy and concomitant constipation is associated with increased morbidity and utilization of healthcare resources. Opioid treatment for acute postoperative pain will prolong the postoperative ileus and should also be considered in this context. There are no available tools to assess OIBD, but many rating scales have been developed to assess constipation, and a few specifically address OIC. A clinical treatment strategy for OIBD/OIC was proposed and presented in a flowchart. First-line treatment of OIC is conventional laxatives, lifestyle changes, tapering the opioid dosage and alternative analgesics. Whilst opioid rotation may also improve symptoms, these remain unalleviated in a substantial proportion of patients. Should conventional treatment fail, mechanism-based treatment with opioid antagonists should be considered, and they show advantages over laxatives. It should not be overlooked that many reasons for constipation other than OIBD exist, which should be taken into consideration in the individual patient.

Conclusion and implications

It is the belief of this Nordic Working Group that increased awareness of adverse effects and OIBD, particularly OIC, will lead to better pain treatment in patients on opioid therapy. Subsequently, optimised therapy will improve quality of life and, from a socio-economic perspective, may also reduce costs associated with hospitalisation, sick leave and early retirement in these patients.

Are strong opioids equally effective and safe in the treatment of chronic cancer pain? A multicenter randomized phase IV 'real life' trial on the variability of response to opioids

BACKGROUND

Guidelines tend to consider morphine and morphine-like opioids comparable and interchangeable in the treatment of chronic cancer pain, but individual responses can vary. This study compared the analgesic efficacy, changes of therapy and safety profile over time of four strong opioids given for cancer pain.

PATIENT AND METHODS

In this four-arm multicenter, randomized, comparative, of superiority, phase IV trial, oncological patients with moderate to severe pain requiring WHO step III opioids were randomly assigned to receive oral morphine or oxycodone or transdermal fentanyl or buprenorphine for 28 days. At each visit, pain intensity, modifications of therapy and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were recorded. The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of nonresponders, meaning patients with worse or unchanged average pain intensity (API) between the first and last visit, measured on a 0-10 numerical rating scale. (NCT01809106).

RESULTS

Forty-four centers participated in the trial and recruited 520 patients. Worst pain intensity and API decreased over 4 weeks with no significant differences between drugs. Nonresponders ranged from 11.5% (morphine) to 14.4% (buprenorphine). Appreciable changes were made in the treatment schedules over time. Each group required increases in the daily dose, from 32.7% (morphine) to 121.2% (transdermal fentanyl). Patients requiring adjuvant analgesics ranged from 68.9% (morphine) to 81.6% (oxycodone), switches varied from 22.1% (morphine) to 12% (oxycodone), discontinuation of treatment from 27% ( morphine) to 14.5% (fentanyl). ADRs were similar except for effects on the nervous system, which significantly prevailed with morphine.

CONCLUSION

The main findings were the similarity in pain control, response rates and main adverse reactions among opioids. Changes in therapy schedules were notable over time. A considerable proportion of patients were nonresponders or poor responders.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01809106 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01809106?term=cerp&rank=2).

The efficacy of low-dose transdermal fentanyl in opioid-naïve cancer patients with moderate-to-severe pain

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Little is known about the efficacy of low-dose transdermal fentanyl (TDF) patches in opioid-naïve patients with moderate-to-severe cancer pain.

METHODS

This study had an open-label, prospective design, and was conducted between April 2007 and February 2009 in seven tertiary cancer hospitals; 98 patients were enrolled. TDF was started using a low-dose formulation (12.5 µg/hr), and the dose was adjusted according to the clinical situation of individual patients. Pain intensity, the TDF doses used, and adverse events (AEs) were monitored over 4 weeks. Data were analyzed using the intent-to-treat and per-protocol principles.

RESULTS

Of the 98 patients enrolled, 64 (65%) completed the study. The median pain intensity decreased from 6.0 to 3.0 (p < 0.001) at the follow-up visit. The efficacy of low-dose TDF on pain relief was consistent across groups separated according to gender (p < 0.001), age (p < 0.001), metastasis (p < 0.001), previous treatment (p < 0.001), and baseline pain intensity (p < 0.001). The decrease in pain intensity was significantly greater in the severe group compared with the moderate group (mean ± SD, 5.10 ± 2.48 vs. 2.48 ± 1.56; p < 0.001). TDF dose (27.8 µg/hr vs. 24.8 µg/hr, p = 0.423) and the mean treatment time (7.5 days vs. 7.9 days, p = 0.740) required for pain control were not different between the two pain-intensity groups. Patients had AEs of only mild or moderate intensity; among these, nausea (38%) was the most common, followed by vomiting (22%) and somnolence (22%).

CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose TDF was an effective treatment for patients with cancer pain of moderate-to-severe intensity. Further randomized trials assessing the efficacy of TDF for severe pain and/or optimal starting doses are warranted.

Assessing the response to opioids in cancer patients: a methodological proposal and the results

PURPOSE

The efficacy of treatment with opioids in cancer pain is variable. To evaluate this variability, we (1) applied two parameters, changes in pain intensity (PI) and opioid daily doses (DDs), to distinguish different responses to opioids. The need to switch to another opioid was recorded. We then (2) evaluated the distribution of the responses depending on these parameters, alone and taken together, in cancer patients with pain.

METHODS

The cutoffs between positive and negative responses related to PI and DD were defined on the basis of the literature. For PI, responders were patients who obtained simultaneously a decrease of 30% or more and a final score ≤4 points (numerical rating scale 0 to 10). For DD changes, we applied the opioid escalation index percentage, a positive response corresponding to a dose increase ≤5%. These criteria were applied to 201 cancer patients treated with WHO step III "strong" opioids for 21 days. The results were mainly analyzed case by case.

RESULTS

Of the patients, 63.7% obtained a positive analgesic response and 80.1% a dose-related positive response. Combining the parameters, the response was double positive in 55.2% of cases, double negative in 11.4%, a good analgesic response with a large dose escalation in 8.5%, and no pain relief with a stable dose in 24.9%. Switches were made 21 times, 15 because of the lack of analgesia.

CONCLUSIONS

Different degrees of response to opioids were observed, PI and DD changes both contributing. Only over half the patients had a full positive response.

Toward a systematic approach to opioid rotation

Patients requiring chronic opioid therapy may not respond to or tolerate the first opioid prescribed to them, necessitating rotation to another opioid. They may also require dose increases for a number of reasons, including worsening disease and increased pain. Dose escalation to restore analgesia using the primary opioid may lead to increased adverse events. In these patients, rotation to a different opioid at a lower-than-equivalent dose may be sufficient to maintain adequate tolerability and analgesia. In published trials and case series, opioid rotation is performed either using a predetermined substitute opioid with fixed conversion methods, or in a manner that appears to be no more systematic than trial and error. In clinical practice, opioid rotation must be performed with consideration of individual patient characteristics, comorbidities (eg, concurrent psychiatric, pulmonary, renal, or hepatic illness), and concurrent medications, using flexible dosing protocols that take into account incomplete opioid cross-tolerance. References cited in this review were identified via a search of PubMed covering all English language publications up to May 21, 2013 pertaining to opioid rotation, excluding narrative reviews, letters, and expert opinion. The search yielded a total of 129 articles, 92 of which were judged to provide relevant information and subsequently included in this review. Through a review of this literature and from the authors’ empiric experience, this review provides practical information on performing opioid rotation in clinical practice.

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.

Transdermal fentanyl for pain due to chemoradiotherapy-induced oral mucositis in nasopharyngeal cancer patients: evaluating efficacy, safety, and improvement in quality of life

This study evaluated the efficacy, safety, and quality of life (QoL) measure of transdermal fentanyl (TDF) for moderate-to-severe pain due to oral mucositis caused by chemoradiotherapy in patients with advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). Patients with NPC who experienced moderate-to-severe oral mucosal pain during chemoradiotherapy (n=78) received TDF for pain relief. Pain relief and QoL were compared before and after treatment. The mean numeric rating scale score was reduced from 7.41±0.96 before treatment to 5.54±0.86, 3.27±0.73, 2.88±0.62, and 2.82±0.68 on days 1, 4, 7, and 10, respectively, after treatment (P<0.001). Karnofsky performance status and SPAASMS (Score for pain, Physical activity levels, Additional pain medication, Additional physician/emergency room visits, Sleep, Mood, and Side effects) scores showed significant improvement after treatment, indicating an improved QoL of patients (both P<0.001). The most common adverse reactions were nausea and vomiting (10.26%). No serious life-threatening adverse events and no symptoms of drug withdrawal were observed. TDF is effective, safe, and improves QoL in treating pain due to oral mucositis caused by chemoradiotherapy in NPC patients.

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 fentanyl for cancer pain

BACKGROUND

Opioid drugs have been used for many years to relieve pain. Transdermal fentanyl offers one option for delivering and maintaining pain relief in patients with moderate or severe cancer pain.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the analgesic efficacy of transdermal fentanyl for relief of cancer pain, and to assess the adverse events associated with the use of transdermal fentanyl for relief of cancer pain.

SEARCH METHODS

The following databases were searched: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 4 of 12); MEDLINE (1966 to May 2013); EMBASE (1974 to May 2013; CANCERLIT (PubMED) (November 2012); and ClinicalTrials.gov (May 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted independently by two review authors. We extracted any available data on the number or proportion of patients with 'no worse than mild pain' or treatment success (very satisfied, or very good or excellent on patient global impression scales), together with information about adverse events and withdrawals.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified nine studies meeting the inclusion criteria, including a Turkish study that is awaiting formal translation. There were 1244 participants randomised in classically designed RCTs, of whom 1197 had evaluable data, and 138 patients enrolled in an enriched enrolment, randomised withdrawal (EERW) trial. Overall, 600 participants were treated with transdermal fentanyl patches, 382 with various formulations of morphine, 36 with methadone, and 221 with paracetamol plus codeine. There were major sources of potential bias, including lack of blinding, small size, high levels of attrition, and inconsistent reporting.We could not compare data in a meaningful analysis regarding adverse events such as nausea, abdominal pain, gastrointestinal bleeding, and confusion. These events may have been attributable to the underlying disease process.There were insufficient comparable data for meta-analysis to be undertaken or to produce numbers needed to treat (NNT) for the analgesic effect. In seven studies with 461 participants reporting pain intensity results after about two weeks, the mean or median pain scores were on the borderline of mild and moderate pain. Most participants would have had no worse than mild pain on treatment. Another reported that 77% of participants using transdermal fentanyl had an undefined successful outcome. Fewer participants experienced constipation with transdermal fentanyl (28%) than with oral morphine (46%), giving a risk ratio of 0.61 (95% CI 0.47 to 0.78); the NNT to prevent constipation was 5.5 (95% CI 3.8 to 10).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The randomised trial literature for effectiveness of transdermal fentanyl is limited, but it is an important medicine. Most studies recruited fewer than 100 participants and did not provide data appropriate for meta-analysis. Only a few reported how many patients had good pain relief but, where data were reported, a majority had no worse than mild pain within a reasonably short time period. The evidence pointed to a useful and significant reduction in complaints about constipation for transdermal fentanyl compared with oral morphine.

Oral morphine for cancer pain

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Systematic review of efficacy and safety of buprenorphine versus fentanyl or morphine in patients with chronic moderate to severe pain

OBJECTIVE

To systematically assess efficacy and safety of buprenorphine patch versus fentanyl patch in patients with chronic moderate to severe pain.

METHODS

Fifteen databases were searched up to December 2010. Randomised and quasi-randomised trials assessing the efficacy in patients with chronic pain were included. Quantitative methods for data synthesis were used and two network meta-analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Fourteen unique trials (17 publications) were included. No head-to-head randomised trials of buprenorphine patch compared with fentanyl patch were identified. Therefore, less robust evidence from indirect comparisons was used. Results from a network meta-analysis of non-enriched designs (eight trials), using trials versus placebo and trials versus morphine for indirect comparisons, indicated that transdermal fentanyl, in comparison with transdermal buprenorphine, showed significantly more nausea (odds ratio [OR] 4.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07 to 20.39), a significantly higher number of treatment discontinuations due to adverse events (OR 5.94, 95% CI 1.78 to 19.87), and non-significant differences on all other outcomes, including pain measures. In comparison with morphine, transdermal buprenorphine had a significantly higher decrease of pain intensity (MD [mean difference] -16.20, 95% CI -28.92 to -3.48) while morphine caused more cases of constipation (OR 7.50, 95% CI 1.45 to 38.85) and a significantly higher number of treatment discontinuations due to adverse events (OR 5.80, 95% CI 1.68 to 20.11). All other outcomes showed non-significant differences between transdermal buprenorphine and morphine. The results were similar when also including six trials using enriched designs with the exception of more cases of vomiting for fentanyl (OR 17.32, 95% CI 4.43 to 67.71) and morphine (OR 15.85, 95% CI 3.92 to 64.13) compared to buprenorphine.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings indicate comparability of transdermal buprenorphine and transdermal fentanyl for pain measures with significantly fewer adverse events (nausea and treatment discontinuation due to adverse events) caused by transdermal buprenorphine.

Systematic review of tapentadol in chronic severe pain

AIM

A systematic review of chronic pain treatment with strong opioids (step 3 WHO pain ladder) and a comparison to a new drug recently approved for the treatment of severe chronic pain in Europe, tapentadol (Palexia, Nucynta*), were performed.

METHODS

Thirteen electronic databases were searched as well as a number of other sources from 1980 up to November 2010 for relevant randomized controlled clinical trials in chronic moderate and severe pain investigating at least one step 3 opioid. Chronic pain could be nociceptive or neuropathic, malignant or non-malignant, all systemic administrations were considered as well as trials of different lengths. Two separate analyses were performed, one only for trials which reported (at least as sub-groups) the outcome in patients with severe pain, the other including both moderate and severe pain conditions. With the exception of the direct comparison between tapentadol, oxycodone and placebo, indirect comparisons were performed based on a network analysis. Trials with an enriched or an enriched withdrawal design were excluded. Primary (pain intensity) and a number of secondary endpoints were evaluated, including pain relief (30% and 50%), patient global impression of change, quality of life, quality of sleep, discontinuations, as well as serious adverse events and selected adverse events.

RESULTS

Only 10 trials were eligible for analysis of patients with severe pain (eight investigating tapentadol and two trials comparing buprenorphine patch vs placebo). For moderate and severe pain, 42 relevant trials were identified and indirect comparisons with transdermal buprenorphine, transdermal fentanyl, hydromorphone, morphine, and oxymorphone were performed. This report focuses on the network analysis. Tapentadol showed statistically favourable results over oxycodone for pain intensity, 30% and 50% pain relief, patient global impression of change (PGIC), and quality of life. Furthermore, some of the most important adverse events of chronic opioid treatment were significantly less frequent with tapentadol as compared to oxycodone, i.e. constipation, nausea, and vomiting; discontinuations due to these adverse events were found significantly reduced with tapentadol. Similar results were obtained for the network analysis, i.e. tapentadol was superior for the primary outcome (pain intensity) to hydromorphone and morphine, whereas fentanyl and oxymorphone showed trends in favour of these treatments. Significantly less frequent gastrointestinal adverse events of tapentadol were observed in comparison with fentanyl, hydromorphone, morphine, and oxymorphone, apparently leading to significantly reduced treatment discontinuations (for any reason).

CONCLUSIONS

Taken together, the benefit-risk ratio of tapentadol appears to be improved compared to step 3 opioids.

Is oral morphine still the first choice opioid for moderate to severe cancer pain? A systematic review within the European Palliative Care Research Collaborative guidelines project

The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the evidence that oral morphine can be recommended as the first choice opioid in the treatment of moderate to severe cancer pain in updating the European Association for Palliative Care opioid recommendations. A systematic literature review was performed to update the 2007 Cochrane review 'Oral morphine for cancer pain'. The literature search was conducted on MedLine, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. The search strategy, limited in time (from 1 July 2006 to 31 October 2009), was aimed to be as extensive as possible using both text words and MeSH/EMTREE terms; a hand search of the reference lists of identified papers was also performed. Randomized clinical trials, containing data on efficacy and/or side effects of morphine, were identified. Among the papers retrieved from the cited databases and the Cochrane review, 17 eligible studies, for a total of 2053 patients, and a meta-analysis were selected. These studies do not add significant information to the previous Cochrane review confirming the limitation of efficacy and tolerability data on opioid-naïve and non-selected populations of cancer patients treated with morphine and suggesting that oral morphine, oxycodone and hydromorphone have similar efficacy and toxicity in this patient population.

Systematic review of the role of alternative application routes for opioid treatment for moderate to severe cancer pain: an EPCRC opioid guidelines project

The European Palliative Care Research Collaboration is updating the EAPC recommendations on opioids in cancer pain management. A systematic literature search on Medline on the use of alternative routes for opioid application identified 242 papers, with 72 publications included in the final evaluation. Two or more alternative routes of opioid application were compared in 18 papers with a total of 674 patients. The best evidence base was available for the subcutaneous route. A comparison of subcutaneous and intravenous routes found no differences, confirming both routes as feasible, effective and safe. Efficacy and safety of the rectal route was comparable to the parenteral route. The side effect profile seemed to be very similar for the subcutaneous, intravenous, rectal or transdermal routes. Local side effects were reported for rectal application as well as for subcutaneous and transdermal administration. In conclusion, the systematic review found good evidence that subcutaneous administration of morphine or other opioids is an effective alternative for cancer patients if oral treatment is not possible. However, for a number of patients intravenous, rectal or transdermal therapy will offer a good alternative to the subcutaneous route. The review found no significant differences in efficacy or side effects between the alternative application routes.

Transdermal opioids as front line treatment of moderate to severe cancer pain: a systemic review

BACKGROUND

To assess the role of transdermal opioids as a front-line approach to moderate to severe cancer pain.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed by two authors. An analysis of the level of evidence and risk/benefit ratio was performed for all of the selected trials. A combined analysis of the included studies to assess the level of evidence, risk/benefit ratio and strength of the recommendations was performed to determine the place of transdermal opioids in the treatment of cancer when compared with oral morphine.

RESULTS

Thirteen papers were included in the analysis. The level of evidence was considered low for transdermal opioids (without distinction between transdermal fentanyl and transdermal buprenorphine) or transdermal fentanyl, and very low for transdermal buprenorphine. The risk/benefit ratio was considered uncertain for both transdermal opioids (fentanyl and buprenorphine) considered together and transdermal fentanyl or buprenorphine alone. The strength of the final recommendations (using the GRADE system) was weak negative for transdermal opioids (transdermal fentanyl plus transdermal buprenorphine) and transdermal fentanyl, and strong negative for transdermal buprenorphine.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of slow release oral morphine probably remains the preferred approach for these patients, with the use of transdermal opioids to be reserved for selected patients.

Can morphine still be considered to be the standard for treating chronic pain? A systematic review including pair-wise and network meta-analyses

OBJECTIVE

For chronic pain treatment many health care authorities consider morphine to be the reference standard for strategic decisions in pain therapy. Although morphine's effectiveness is clear and its cost is low, it's unclear whether morphine should remain the first choice or reference treatment.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We performed a systematic review to evaluate the evidence available to support the position of morphine as the reference standard for step III opioids based on efficacy and tolerability outcomes.

RESULTS

The search yielded 5,675 titles and 56 studies were included. Considerable heterogeneity precluded pair-wise meta-analysis on change of pain intensity and no difference between morphine and other opioids were found for tolerability outcomes. The network meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference in change of pain intensity between morphine and oxycodone, methadone and oxymorphone. Compared to morphine, patients using buprenorphine are more likely to discontinue treatment due to lack of effect (OR 2.32, 95% CI 1.37 to 3.95). Patients using methadone are more likely to discontinue due to adverse events (OR 3.09, 95% CI 1.14 to 8.36), whereas this risk is decreased for patients using fentanyl (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.50) or buprenorphine (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.53). The most important limitation of this review is that the included studies are heterogeneous with regard to study population and intervention, which may affect the pooled effect estimates. The main strength is that we only included parallel RCTs, the strongest design for intervention studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The current evidence is moderate, both in respect to the number of directly comparative studies and in the quality of reporting of these studies. No clear superiority in efficacy and tolerability of morphine over other opioids was found in pair-wise and network analyses. Based on these results, a justification for the placement of morphine as the reference standard for the treatment of severe chronic pain cannot be supported.

Pharmacoeconomic impact of adverse events of long-term opioid treatment for the management of persistent pain

Opioids are the most powerful analgesic drugs currently available and consequently form an essential part of the treatment options for malignant and non-malignant chronic pain. However, the benefits of these medications can be offset by gastrointestinal adverse events such as nausea, vomiting and constipation, as well as adverse events affecting the CNS. These occur relatively frequently in patients receiving long-term opioids for pain relief and are a cause of additional patient suffering and reduced work and social functioning, measured as reductions in quality-of-life outcomes. Consequently, adverse events are often the cause of treatment non-compliance or discontinuation (non-persistence). A literature search was conducted using BIOSIS Previews, EMBASE, Cochrane Collaboration and MEDLINE databases to identify references with specific relevance to the measurement of health outcomes related to adverse events of long-term opioid treatment of chronic pain. The results of this search highlighted that clinical interventions required to manage adverse events associated with opioids, and to provide alternative methods of pain control, both incur direct costs. These are largely driven by the cost of medical consults and drug supplies. Indirect costs are generated from work absences and reduced social functioning. Estimated preference ratings, providing an insight into the trade-off between effective pain control and adverse events, have shown that utility decrements associated with an increase in adverse-event severity were similar in size to those caused by a shift from well controlled to poorly controlled pain. Given the rising prevalence of chronic pain conditions (affecting one in five adult Europeans), the direct and indirect costs incurred from the management of adverse events with long-term opioids are likely to be multiplied, contributing to the socioeconomic burden of chronic pain. For this reason, the adverse-event profile of opioid-based analgesics should be improved to achieve more efficient long-term pain control.

Low doses of transdermal fentanyl in opioid-naive patients with cancer pain

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect and tolerability of low doses of transdermal (TD) fentanyl patches in opioid-naive patients with cancer pain.

METHODS

This was a nonrandomized, open-label, uncontrolled study in fifty consecutive opioid-naive patients with advanced cancer and moderate pain. TD fentanyl was initiated at a dose of 12 µg/h. Doses were then adjusted according to the clinical response. Pain intensity, opioid-related adverse effects, TD fentanyl doses, and quality of life were monitored over 4 weeks. The time to dose stabilization and indexes of dose escalation were also calculated.

RESULTS

Thirty-one patients completed all 4 weeks of the study. Pain control was achieved within a mean of 1.7 days after the start of TS fentanyl therapy. Significant differences in TD fentanyl doses were observed during the study period (P = 0.03). Mean doses were doubled 4 weeks after starting the treatment. The level of adverse effects was acceptable in most patients and only a minority of patients discontinued the treatment (13.8%).

CONCLUSION

Low doses of TD fentanyl were well tolerated and effective. Observations from this study suggest that randomized, controlled, double-blind studies of TD fentanyl 12 µg/h in opioid-naive patients with cancer pain may be warranted.

Pharmacoeconomic impact of adverse events of long-term opioid treatment for the management of persistent pain

Opioids are the most powerful analgesic drugs currently available and consequently form an essential part of the treatment options for malignant and non-malignant chronic pain. However, the benefits of these medications can be offset by gastrointestinal adverse events such as nausea, vomiting and constipation, as well as adverse events affecting the CNS. These occur relatively frequently in patients receiving long-term opioids for pain relief and are a cause of additional patient suffering and reduced work and social functioning, measured as reductions in quality-of-life outcomes. Consequently, adverse events are often the cause of treatment non-compliance or discontinuation (non-persistence). A literature search was conducted using BIOSIS Previews, EMBASE, Cochrane Collaboration and MEDLINE databases to identify references with specific relevance to the measurement of health outcomes related to adverse events of long-term opioid treatment of chronic pain. The results of this search highlighted that clinical interventions required to manage adverse events associated with opioids, and to provide alternative methods of pain control, both incur direct costs. These are largely driven by the cost of medical consults and drug supplies. Indirect costs are generated from work absences and reduced social functioning. Estimated preference ratings, providing an insight into the trade-off between effective pain control and adverse events, have shown that utility decrements associated with an increase in adverse-event severity were similar in size to those caused by a shift from well controlled to poorly controlled pain. Given the rising prevalence of chronic pain conditions (affecting one in five adult Europeans), the direct and indirect costs incurred from the management of adverse events with long-term opioids are likely to be multiplied, contributing to the socioeconomic burden of chronic pain. For this reason, the adverse-event profile of opioid-based analgesics should be improved to achieve more efficient long-term pain control.

Transdermal Opioids for Cancer Pain Management

The prevalence of pain in cancer is up to 90%, more than 45% of this can be adequately managed using the World Health Organisation three step analgesic ladder.Transdermal opioids are safe, effective, and produce significantly fewer side effects than oral morphine when used for moderate to severe cancer pain.Transdermal buprenorphine has a lower incidence of systemic side effects than transdermal fentanyl and it is indicated for use in cancer patients with neuropathic pain and renal dysfunction.Transdermal opioids require a long lag period for dose stabilisation and elimination, hence are unsuitable for acute or unstable pain, and may result in prolonged side effects.Transdermal analgesics reduce the need for frequent dosing, clock watching and are more convenient for patients, physicians and carers, hence increasing treatment compliance.

Evaluation of analgesic effect and safety of fentanyl transdermal patch for cancer pain as the first line

BACKGROUND

Initial treatment with morphine followed by fentanyl transdermal patch is the standard in Japan, since even the smallest patch (2.5 mg) could deliver too high an initial dose for Japanese patients. We evaluated the analgesic effect and safety of using the fentanyl transdermal patch as a first-line strong opioid for cancer pain that is resistant to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

For 20 hospitalized patients with cancer pain that could not be controlled by NSAIDs, the fentanyl transdermal patch (1.25 mg; half of a 2.5-mg patch) was administered as a first-line strong opioid. We used rescue medications depending on the degree of pain, and the dose of fentanyl transdermal patch was adjusted every 3 days. To evaluate analgesic efficacy of the patch, the degree of pain was assessed twice a day, in the morning and at night, using a face rating scale. The formulation and dose of morphine used during observation period were recorded. The safety of treatment was evaluated by measuring vital signs once a day, and the severity of side effects were evaluated. Any abnormal findings in blood and urine test were recorded.

RESULTS

The median pain score before administration of fentanyl transdermal patch was 3 + or - 0.58 and was decreased to 2 + or - 0.71 on day 9 of administration. The mean dose of fentanyl transdermal patch on day 9 of administration was 2.31 + or - 1.34 mg, and the mean dose of morphine as rescue therapy was 4.62 + or - 7.76 mg. No clinically significant changes in vital signs were observed. No severe adverse events were present when the dose of the fentanyl transdermal patch was 1.25 mg, but two patients experienced dizziness when the dose was increased from 2.5 to 5 mg. No abnormal laboratory data appeared during the administration.

CONCLUSION

The use of 1.25-mg fentanyl transdermal patch (50% of a 2.5-mg patch) seems to be safe and efficient as a first-line strong opioid. The use of 3.75-mg fentanyl transdermal patch may be necessary since adverse events including nausea and sleepiness are likely to occur by increasing from 2.5 to 5 mg.

The use of transdermal fentanyl in cancer pain--a compliance study of outpatients in Taiwan

The aim of this study is to investigate cancer patients' response and side effects associated with transdermal therapeutic fentanyl (TTS-F), whose pain was hardly controlled by nonweak/weak opioids in Taiwan. From 2005 to 2006, 822 outpatients received TTS-F to collect pain assessment forms and diaries for 4 weeks. Most (78.7%) patients were initially prescribed 25 microg/h TTS-F. Doses were adjusted weekly at clinicians' discretion, according to pain assessment and side effects. Patients receiving 50 microg/h, 75 microg/h, and > 75 microg/h TTS-F had increased from 17.5% to 32.1%, 1.8% to 3.4%, and 1.9% to 2.2%, respectively, by week 2; further small increases were found in weeks 3 and 4. Pain palliation improved from 60.6% during week 1 to 78.6% at week 4. The common adverse effects were nausea/vomiting. Patient's compliance was >90%. This study found that the TTS-F is effective and well tolerated.

A randomized, open, parallel group, multicenter trial to investigate analgesic efficacy and safety of a new transdermal fentanyl patch compared to standard opioid treatment in cancer pain

A new 72-hour transdermal fentanyl matrix patch has been designed, which has a 35%-50% reduction of the absolute fentanyl content compared with other currently available transdermal fentanyl patches that are using the matrix technology. The new patch has previously been shown to be pharmacokinetically bioequivalent to the marketed fentanyl patch. To determine noninferiority in efficacy in cancer patients and to compare safety, a clinical trial comparing the new fentanyl patch with standard oral or transdermal opioid treatment was planned. The design was an open, parallel group, multicenter trial, in which 220 patients were randomized to receive either the fentanyl patch or standard opioid treatment for 30 days. The primary efficacy variable, pain intensity (PI) on a 0-10-point numerical rating scale, was recorded once daily. The primary endpoint was the relative area under the curve of PI expressed as a percentage of the maximum possible PI area under the curve. Any adverse events were recorded; four tolerability endpoints, constipation, nausea, daytime drowsiness, and sleeping disturbances, were assessed daily. Noninferiority was shown; the upper 95% confidence interval limits of the mean difference in relative PI area under the curve between the fentanyl patch and standard opioid treatment were less than 10% for both the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations. Scores for the tolerability endpoints were similar in the treatment groups. The new fentanyl matrix patch with a lower drug load was found noninferior and as safe as established standard oral and transdermal opioid treatment.

Pain management, including intrathecal pumps

Even when managed according to guidelines, approximately 14% of cancer patients have unrelieved pain or unacceptable side effects, and there is good evidence that patients still are not receiving optimal therapy. Implantable drug delivery systems (IDDS) administer small amounts of drugs directly to the spinal cord and reduce systemic narcotic exposure by a factor of 300 to one. In a large randomized trial of 202 patients with pain scores of 7.5 or higher, despite 200 mg or more of morphine or equivalent narcotics, IDDS gave better clinical success than comprehensive medical management (84.5% vs 70.8%, P=0.05). Pain scores were reduced by 52% versus 39%, drug toxicity scores were reduced by 50% versus 17%, and IDDS patients lived longer. Even the most refractory pain patients--those failed by a month of comprehensive medical management by experts--when subsequently provided with IDDS, had a 27% reduction in pain scores and a 50% reduction in drug side effects. Given multiple positive small cohort studies and a positive high-power randomized trial, IDDS should be considered as the best treatment for this population.