Placebo-blinded study of morphine sulfate sustained-release tablets and immediate-release morphine sulfate solution in outpatients with chronic pain due to advanced cancer

Effectiveness of epidural morphine for the treatment of cancer pain in patients with gastrointestinal neoplasm-a systematic review

One-third of cancer pain patients do not experience adequate pain relief using analgesic ladder by the World Health Organization. Interventional procedures, such as epidural morphine, have been considered. This study aimed to review the literature comparing the effects of epidural administration of morphine with the oral route. This systematic review included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted with patients with gastrointestinal neoplasm. A search was conducted on PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL databases to identify studies published up to May 2023. The retrieved study was evaluated using the Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool and qualitatively synthesized. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach (Prospero: CRD42021264728). Only one RCT, a crossover trial, was included in this systematic review. The study was conducted with ten participants (one withdrawal) and reported a statistically significant difference between both subcutaneous and epidural morphine solutions and oral morphine. The adverse events were not described. The included study presents some concerns of bias and low certainty of evidence on the effectiveness and security of epidural morphine administration. The available literature does not suffice to elucidate whether morphine administration via the epidural route is more effective than other routes. Further RCTs are necessary to improve the level of evidence on the effectiveness and risk-benefit of epidural morphine in the management of cancer pain in gastrointestinal neoplasm patients.

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.

Balancing opioid analgesia with the risk of nonmedical opioid use in patients with cancer

The current opioid crisis has brought renewed attention and scrutiny to opioid prescriptions. When patients receiving opioid therapy for pain engage in nonmedical opioid use (NMOU) or diversion, untoward consequences can occur. New evidence suggests that patients with cancer might be at a higher risk of NMOU than was previously thought, but clinical evidence still supports the use of opioid analgesics as the gold standard to treat cancer-related pain, creating a dilemma in patient management. Clinicians are encouraged to adopt a universal precautions approach to patients with cancer receiving opioids, which includes screening all patients; discussing the risks, benefits, adverse effects and alternatives of opioid therapy; and providing education on safe use, storage and disposal. Use of urine drug tests, prescription drug monitoring programmes and close observation of behaviours related to opioid use help to ensure treatment adherence, detect NMOU and support therapeutic decision-making. These measures can optimize the risk-benefit ratio while supporting safe opioid use. In this Review, we examine the role of opioids in cancer pain, the risk of substance use disorder and methods to achieve the right balance between the two in order to ensure safe opioid use.

Palliative Performance Scale (PPS): A New Tool

The Palliative Performance Scale (PPS), a modification of the Karnofsky Performance Scale, is presented as a new tool for measurement of physical status in palliative care. Its initial uses in Victoria include communication, analysis of home nursing care workload, profiling admissions and discharges to the hospice unit, and, possibly, prognostication. We assessed 119 patients at home, of whom 87 (73%) had a PPS rating between 40% and 70%. Of 213 patients admitted to the hospice unit, 175 (83%) were PPS 20%-50% on admission. The average period until death for 129 patients who died on the unit was 1.88 days at 10% PPS upon admission, 2.62 days at 20%, 6.70 days at 30%, 10.30 days at 40%, 13.87 days at 50%. Only two patients at 60% or higher died in the unit. The PPS may become a basis for comparing drug costs at home and for studying the effects of treatments (e.g. hypodermoclysis) at various levels of physical performance. Validity and reliability testing are currently being undertaken.

Efficacy of a new once daily hydromorphone formulation in comparison with twice daily administration in chronic pain: a randomized, double-blind, cross-over study

Objective Efficacy and safety of a novel multiple-unit hydromorphone once daily (HOD) was compared to an established hydromorphone twice daily (HTD) regimen in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic pain. Design and methods The results from a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, cross-over trial in patients (n = 37) with chronic malignant or non-malignant pain are reported. The primary efficacy parameter was current pain on 0-100 mm VAS assessed four times daily and prior to intake of rescue medication (immediate-release hydromorphone) throughout the last 5 days with each treatment (after an 8 day build-up period to avoid carry-over effects). Total daily dose of hydromorphone (TDD: 8-32 mg/day) was kept stable during the double-blind treatment phase. Results The difference observed in mean current pain (-0.92 mm VAS) over the 5 day assessment period between HOD and HTD (28.44 mm vs. 29.36 mm VAS) was found to lack clinical relevance, as the 95% CI (-4.10 to 2.28 mm VAS) did not exceed the prespecified limit for non-inferiority of 9 mm VAS. Results from the full analysis set were consistent with per protocol data confirming robustness, as did the data for 12 h recalled pain assessed at 08:00 h and 20:00 h, showing no significant differences between once and twice daily medication. Both treatments produced effective and stable pain control with only minor day-to-day and intra-day fluctuations. Switching between treatments was suitable, considering both efficacy and safety, as no relevant or significant differences in adverse events were seen (25.0% HOD, 24.3% HTD). Most frequently typical side-effects of opioid therapy were observed, such as nausea, vomiting and headache. Conclusion Although this study was of short duration and included a limited number of patients, the results confirm that the new HOD is as effective and safe as the established HTD.

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.

Clinical evaluation of the first oxycodone once daily prolonged release tablet in moderate to severe chronic pain: a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, cross-over, non-inferiority study to investigate efficacy and safety in comparison with an established oxycodone twice daily prolonged release tablet

OBJECTIVE

The first oxycodone once daily (OOD) has been developed and after successful pharmacokinetic characterization, therapeutic efficacy and safety were compared to an established oxycodone twice daily (OTD: Oxygesic/OxyContin, Mundipharma).

DESIGN AND METHODS

A randomized, double-blind, multicenter, cross-over, non-inferiority study was conducted in patients (n = 68) with chronic malignant or non-malignant pain. The new OOD was compared to OTD at identical total daily doses (TDD: 40-120 mg/day) employing intensive, five times daily current pain (0-100 mm visual analog scale, VAS) and twice daily 12 h recalled pain assessments as well as safety parameters such as nausea and sedation (VAS) over 5 days for each treatment (after a 5 day run-in phase).

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in analgesic potency detected between the two treatments based on 95% CI for difference in the daily mean current pain (-2.09 mm VAS) over 5 days, determined as -5.09 to 0.91 mm VAS. A difference ≤12 mm VAS indicated non-inferiority of OOD, i.e. lack of clinically relevant difference in analgesia. Intake of rescue medication had no effect on study results as evaluated by ANCOVA. The difference in adverse events (AEs) between the two treatments did not reach significance, as 19.1% and 23.5% of patients experienced treatment-related AEs while on OOD and OTD, respectively. Advantages for OOD regarding consistency of analgesia (i.e. use of rescue medication, current and recalled pain) and sedation did not reach statistical significance in this limited study population.

CONCLUSION

Despite the small number of patients and short study duration, the results support the conclusion that new OOD is (at least) equivalent to established OTD regarding safety and efficacy.

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.

How are palliative care cancer populations characterized in randomized controlled trials? A literature review

CONTEXT

The difficulties in defining a palliative care patient accentuate the need to provide stringent descriptions of the patient population in palliative care research.

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a systematic literature review with the aim of identifying which key variables have been used to describe adult palliative care cancer populations in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

The data sources used were MEDLINE (1950 to January 25, 2010) and Embase (1980 to January 25, 2010), limited to RCTs in adult cancer patients with incurable disease. Forty-three variables were systematically extracted from the eligible articles.

RESULTS

The review includes 336 articles reporting RCTs in palliative care cancer patients. Age (98%), gender (90%), cancer diagnosis (89%), performance status (45%), and survival (45%) were the most frequently reported variables. A large number of other variables were much less frequently reported.

CONCLUSION

A substantial variation exists in how palliative care cancer populations are described in RCTs. Few variables are consistently registered and reported. There is a clear need to standardize the reporting. The results from this work will serve as the basis for an international Delphi process with the aim of reaching consensus on a minimum set of descriptors to characterize a palliative care cancer population.

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.

Prevalence and characteristics of breakthrough pain in patients with head and neck cancer: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Approximately one half to two thirds of patients with cancer-related pain experience breakthrough pain (BTP) in their daily activities.

OBJECTIVE

This is the first report to determine the prevalence and characteristics of BTP experienced by patients with head and neck cancer.

METHODS

This was a prospective cross-sectional study conducted in patients with head and neck cancer on stable doses of opioid (morphine) for at least 1 week. This study was designed as a cross-sectional study using a series of breakthrough pain questionnaires (BPQ).

RESULTS

Prevalence of BTP in our study was 48% (average of 3.85 episodes per day) of which more than 50% of episodes were of gradual onset but with severe intensity. Incident pain was predominate (50%) followed by spontaneous (25%) and end of dose failure (20%) and in 5% the nature of pain was unknown or mixed. Unlike other studies the onset of BTP in this present study with head and neck cancer was more gradual and lasted longer than 30 minutes.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with head and neck cancer do suffer a lot because of the high incidence of BTP (48%). The majority of patients suffering from BTP are not satisfied at all with the measures taken for their BTP. The majority of patients in India have head and neck cancer; we must approach this matter as a challenge and new technique and therapy should be introduced for the benefit of these patients.

Depression assessment and classification in palliative cancer patients: a systematic literature review

The objective of this study was to review the literature on depression in palliative cancer care in order to identify which assessment methods and classification systems have been used in studies of depression. Extensive electronic database searches in PubMed, CancerLit, CINAHL, PsychINFO, EMBASE and AgeLine as well as hand search were carried out. In the 202 included papers, 106 different assessment methods were used. Sixty-five of these were only used once. All together, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) was the most commonly used assessment method. However, there were regional differences and while the HADS dominated in Europe it was quite seldom used in Canada or in the USA. Few prevalence and intervention studies used assessment methods with an explicit reference to a diagnostic system. There were in total few case definitions of depression. Among these, the classifications were in general based on cut-off scores (77%) and not according to diagnostic systems. The full range of the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria was seldom assessed, i.e. less than one-third of the assessments in the review took into account the duration of symptoms and 18% assessed consequences and impact upon patient functioning. A diversity of assessment methods had been used. Few studies classified depression by referring to a diagnostic system or by using cut-off scores. Evidently, there is a need for a consensus on how to assess and conceptualize depression and related conditions in palliative care.

A Comparative Study of 2 Sustained-Release Morphine Preparations for Pain in Advanced Cancer

Purpose: Several sustained-release morphine (SRM) formulations are available internationally. This study compared 2 such products available in the United States, SR1 and SR2.

Patients and Methods: In an open-label study, patients with advanced cancer pain were randomized to receive SR1 or SR2 every 12 hours around-the-clock (ATC) for 5 days, with immediate release (IR) liquid morphine for rescue dosing (RD). Efficacy, safety, and patient acceptability were determined.

Results: A total of 32 patients were evaluable for efficacy and toxicity. Pain scores, RD dosage, RD frequency over 5 days, RD within 3 hours before and after the scheduled SRM, and 8 of the 11 evaluated side effects were higher in the SR1 group. At presumed morphine steady state (day 3), pain scores (P = .05), RD dosage (P = .07), RD frequency (P = .07), and number of RD ±3 hours from scheduled SRM dose (P = .05) were consistently greater in the SR1 group (despite a higher median morphine dose in that group). There was a clinically important and directionally consistent trend that favored SR2, although not all were statistically significant. Patient preference favored SR2 (P < .05). Neither group had difficulty swallowing SR1 or SR2.

Conclusions: This is the first study that directly compared two 12-hour SRM formulations. The data suggested, by multiple clinically important measures, that SR2 may provide superior analgesic efficacy and less toxicity compared to SR1. It also supports the concept that it cannot be assumed that different SR formulations of a given opioid are clinically equivalent. A larger study is needed to confirm our findings.

Pain therapy

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

Assessment and management of breakthrough pain in cancer patients: current approaches and emerging research

Cancer pain is highly prevalent and often severe. Fortunately, most cancer pain can be readily managed, with up to 90% of patients responding well to standard interventions. However, breakthrough cancer pain-brief flares of severe pain superimposed on baseline pain-is common, difficult to manage, and often negatively impacts patients' quality of life. Breakthrough cancer pain is traditionally managed with oral, immediate-release opioids. However, because of its sudden onset and severity, oral opioids often fall short of providing adequate control. Research into novel approaches to pain management has identified several innovative strategies for this difficult cancer pain problem. We describe current approaches to assess, define, characterize, and treat breakthrough cancer pain, and summarize recent clinical research on novel agents, novel routes of drug delivery, and other advances in its management.

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

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

Oral morphine for cancer pain

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of a previous Cochrane review first published in Issue 4, 2003 of The Cochrane Library. 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 effects.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The following databases were searched: Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Group Trials Register (December 2006); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2006, Issue 4); MEDLINE (1966 to December 2006); and EMBASE (1974 to December 2006).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting on the analgesic effect of oral morphine in adults and children with cancer pain. Any comparator trials were considered. Trials with fewer than ten participants were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One review author extracted data, which was checked by the other review author. There were insufficient comparable data for meta-analysis to be undertaken or to produce numbers-needed-to-treat (NNT) for the analgesic effect.

MAIN RESULTS

In this update, nine new studies with 688 participants were added. Fifty-four studies (3749 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Fifteen studies compared oral modified release morphine (Mm/r) preparations with immediate release morphine (MIR). Twelve studies compared Mm/r in different strengths, five of these included 24-hour modified release products. Thirteen studies compared Mm/r with other opioids. Six studies compared MIR with other opioids. Two studies compared oral Mm/r with rectal Mm/r. Two studies compared MIR with MIR by a different route of administration. 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. Morphine was shown to be an effective analgesic. 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 were undertaken with both instant release and modified release products. Adverse effects were common but only 4% of patients discontinued treatment because of intolerable adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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. Trial design was frequently based on titration of morphine or comparator to achieve adequate analgesia, then crossing participants over in crossover design studies. It was not clear if these trials are sufficiently powered to detect any clinical differences between formulations or comparator drugs. 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 for effectiveness of oral morphine which compares well to other available opioids. There is limited evidence to suggest that transmucosal fentanyl provides more rapid pain relief for breakthrough pain compared to morphine.

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

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

Management of cancer pain

There are four basic approaches to cancer pain control: modify the source of pain, alter central perception of pain, modulate transmission of pain to the central nervous system, and block transmission of pain to the central nervous system. Systemic pharmacologic management aimed at the first three of these approaches is the cornerstone of the treatment of most cancer patients with moderate to severe pain. Optimal pharmacologic management of cancer pain requires selection of the appropriate analgesic drug; prescription of the appropriate dose; administration of the analgesic by the appropriate route; scheduling of the appropriate dosing interval; prevention of persistent pain and relief of breakthrough pain; aggressive titration of the dose of the analgesic; prevention, anticipation, and management of analgesic side effects; consideration of sequential trials of opioid analgesics; and use of appropriate co-analgesic drugs for specific pain syndromes. Most clinicians should be able to control most of the pain in most of their cancer patients. Collaboration with pain and hospice/palliative care experts should help the rest. No cancer patient should live or die with unrelieved pain.

Designing pain research from the patient's perspective: what trial end points are important to patients with chronic pain?

OBJECTIVES

The goals of this study were to define the endpoints of pain research that are important to patients with chronic pain and to identify clinical and demographic variables that are associated with patients' choices of endpoints.

PATIENTS & SETTING

Interviews were completed with 40 patients seen at the anesthesia pain clinic of an urban tertiary care medical center.

DESIGN

Each patient was presented with 4 brief (3-4 sentences) fixed information vignettes describing studies in which new medications would be evaluated. For each, patients were asked to describe how the medication being studied might offer an improvement over their current therapy.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Measures included structured qualitative analysis of responses, the Brief Pain Inventory, and Global Distress Index of the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale.

RESULTS

Patients described a total of 20 endpoints. Individually, patients cited between 2 and 9 endpoints each (mean 4.9, standard deviation 1.7). Of these, the most commonly cited were decrease pain, decrease opioid dose, decrease frequency of scheduled dose, increased ability to function, decrease frequency of breakthrough dose, and improve sleep. Patients with severe pain cited more endpoints than did those with mild or moderate pain (mean 5.5 vs. 4.3; Rank sum test p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that empirical research can provide data to guide the choice of endpoints in clinical studies of pain interventions.

Effectiveness and safety of oral extended-release oxymorphone for the treatment of cancer pain: a pilot study

GOALS OF WORK

Inadequate analgesia and/or unmanageable adverse events frequently result in the need to rotate patients with cancer pain to a different opioid. The availability of a novel oral extended-release (ER) formulation of oxymorphone provides clinicians with another treatment option. In this study, we assessed the analgesic effectiveness and safety of the new oral ER formulation of oxymorphone following treatment with controlled-release (CR) morphine sulfate or oxycodone.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Adults with moderate to severe cancer pain were stabilized for > or =3 days on morphine CR or oxycodone CR, and then treated for 7 days at their stabilized dose. Drug selection was based upon patients' previous use or investigator preference. Patients were then crossed over for 7 days of treatment at an estimated equianalgesic dosage of oxymorphone ER. Pain was assessed using a visual analog scale, and adverse events were recorded.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 86 patients entered open-label treatment. Of 34 patients assigned to morphine CR and 52 assigned to oxycodone CR, 21 (61.8%) and 42 (80.8%) completed stabilization and began treatment with oxymorphone ER, respectively; 59 of 63 (93.7%) completed treatment with oxymorphone. There were no significant differences in daily pain intensity scores between oxymorphone ER and comparators (paired t -test). Rescue medication use, expressed as the percent of the daily dose of scheduled opioid, was greater during morphine CR treatment than after crossover to oxymorphone ER (25.2% vs 13.3%; P <0.05, Wilcoxon's test). The tolerability/safety profiles (e.g., nausea, drowsiness, somnolence) were similar for all opioids.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer patients stabilized on morphine CR or oxycodone CR were safely and rapidly converted to a lower milligram dose of oxymorphone ER that provided adequate pain relief with comparable tolerability. These results justify additional trials with oxymorphone ER.

Oral morphine for cancer pain

BACKGROUND

Morphine has been used to relieve pain for many years. Oral morphine in either immediate release or sustained 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. To assess the incidence and severity of adverse effects.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The following databases were searched: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2002; the trials register of the Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care group (February 2002); MEDLINE 1966 to December 2002; EMBASE 1988 to December 2002; and the Oxford Pain Relief database 1950 to 1994.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Published randomised controlled trials (full reports) reporting on the analgesic effect of oral morphine in adults and children with cancer pain. Any comparator trials were considered. Trials with fewer than 10 subjects were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One reviewer extracted data, and the findings were checked by two other reviewers. There were insufficient comparable data for meta-analysis to be undertaken, or to produce numbers-needed-to-treat (NNT) for the analgesic effect.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty five studies (3061 subjects) met the inclusion criteria. Fourteen studies compared oral sustained release morphine (MSR) preparations with immediate release morphine (MIR). Eight studies compared MSR and MSR in different strengths. Nine studies compared MSR with other opioids. Five studies compared MIR with other opioids. Two studies compared oral MSR with rectal MSR. One study was found comparing each of the following: MSR tablet with MSR suspension; MSR with MSR at different dose frequencies; MSR with non-opioids; MIR with non-opioids; oral morphine with epidural morphine; and MIR with MIR by a different route of administration. Morphine was shown to be an effective analgesic. Pain relief did not differ between MSR and MIR. Sustained release versions of morphine were effective for 12 or 24 hour dosing depending on the formulation. Adverse effects were common but only 4% of patients discontinued treatment because of intolerable adverse effects.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

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. Trial design was frequently based on titration of morphine or comparator to achieve adequate analgesia, then crossing subjects over in crossover design studies. It is not clear if these trials are sufficiently powered to detect any clinical differences between formulations or comparator drugs.

"Burst" ketamine for refractory cancer pain: an open-label audit of 39 patients

The results of a novel approach to the use of ketamine in refractory cancer pain are reported. In this prospective, multicenter, unblinded, open-label audit, 39 patients (with a total of 43 pains) received a short duration (3 to 5 days) ketamine infusion. The initial dose of 100 mg/24 hr was escalated if required to 300 mg/24 hr and then to a maximum dose of 500 mg/24hr. The overall response rate was 29/43 (67%). Analysis of results according to pain mechanisms showed that 15/17 somatic and 14/23 neuropathic pains responded. In 5 patients who appeared to respond, it is possible that another concurrent intervention may have contributed in whole or part for the pain relief observed. After cessation of ketamine, 24/29 maintained good pain control, with a maximum documented duration of eight weeks. However, 5 of the initial 29 responders experienced a recurrence of pain within 24 hours, and ketamine was recommenced. Of these, 2 underwent another intervention for pain control while 3 continued on ketamine until their deaths between two and four weeks later. Twelve patients reported adverse psychomimetic effects, with the incidence rising with increasing dose. Four of these were non-responders and the ketamine was stopped. Eight were responders, and in 3 the adverse effects were rendered acceptable with dose reduction; the other 5 rejected a dose reduction. The results reported suggest the need for further investigation of the place of ketamine in cancer pain management.

Can a controlled-release oral dose form of oxycodone be used as readily as an immediate-release form for the purpose of titrating to stable pain control?

Two separate trials compared controlled-release (CR) oral oxycodone (administered every 12 hours) with immediate-release (IR) oxycodone (4 times a day) to determine whether patients with chronic pain could be titrated to stable pain control as readily with the CR as with the IR formulation. In one study, 48 patients with cancer pain were randomized to open-label titration with either CR or IR oxycodone (maximum dose, 400 mg/day) for a period of up to 21 days. In a study of similar design, 57 patients with low back pain were titrated with either CR or IR oxycodone (maximum dose, 80 mg/day) for a period of up to 10 days. The majority of patients in both studies were converted to oxycodone from other opioid analgesics. Results of both studies showed no difference between CR and IR oxycodone with respect to both the percentage of patients achieving stable pain control, the time to achieve stable pain control, and the degree of pain control achieved. Among cancer patients, 85% achieved stable analgesia, 92% with the CR formulation and 79% with the IR formulation. Among noncancer patients, 91% achieved stable pain control, 87% with the CR formulation and 96% with the IR formulation. The most commonly reported adverse effects in both studies were similar for the two formulations and were those anticipated with opioids: nausea, vomiting, constipation, somnolence, dizziness, and pruritus. Nausea and vomiting were the most frequently cited reasons for treatment discontinuations. These studies suggest that dose titration can be accomplished as readily with oral CR oxycodone as with IR oxycodone in patients with chronic, moderate to severe pain.

Use of quality-of-life outcome assessments in current cancer clinical trials

During the past decade, the importance of integrating quality of life with other indicators of efficacy in cancer clinical trials has been emphasized. This article reviews quality-of-life assessment in clinical trial reports. All empirical studies using patient ratings published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology from 1992 to 1996 were identified. Of these, 59 articles (4%) included quality-of-life assessment, most frequently measured by self-report questionnaires. Most articles reported clinical trials of symptom management or treatment. Future research needs to specify relationships between quality of life, toxicity, and survival. Continued development of this field requires more frequent inclusion of quality of life in clinical studies.

Comparison of a once-a-day sustained-release morphine formulation with standard oral morphine treatment for cancer pain

Kadian/Kapanol (K) is a capsule formulation of morphine designed for 12- or 24-hourly dosing. This double-blind study compared the efficacy and safety of K every 24 hr to K every 12 hr and MS Contin tablets (MSC) every 12 hr. One hundred fifty-two patients with cancer pain were titrated to adequate analgesia with immediate-release morphine (IRM) solution. Stabilized patients were randonized to one of the three treatments for 7 +/- 1 days. Rescue medication was IRM tablets. Efficacy and safety were assessed by time to first remedication and total dose of rescue medication, pain scores, global assessments, and incidence of morphine-related side effects. Fifty-four patients were treated with K every 24 hr. 45 with K every 12 hr. and 53 with MSC every 12 hr. Mean age was 61 years and mean total daily dose of morphine was 138 mg. Forty-six percent of the K every 24 hr patients, 51% of the K every 12 hr patients, and 55% of the MSC every 12 hr patients required rescue medication on the final day. Time to remedication was 16.0 hr for K every 24 hr, 9.1 hr for K every 12 hr and 8.7 hr for MSC every 12 hr (P = 0.0010). Patient global assessment significantly favored K every 24 hr over MSC every 12 hr (P = 0.018). There were no statistically significant differences among the treatments for any morphine-related side effects when adjusted for baseline. K had efficacy and safety profiles similar to MSC every 12 hr but had the advantage of 12- or 24-hourly administration.

Assessment of knowledge about cancer pain management by physicians in training

This survey assessed the knowledge of physicians in training about the pharmacology of opioid analgesics and the benefits of palliative radiation therapy in the management of cancer pain. Eighty-one trainees at the Washington University Medical Center completed a questionnaire that addressed the palliative care of a hypothetical patient with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. The questions addressed were 1) opioid selection, 2) conversion of parenteral to oral morphine, 3) management of opioid toxicities, 4) opioid addiction, and 5) efficacy of radiation therapy. The results demonstrated that few physicians in training were familiar with the stepwise progression of analgesic selection outlined in the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines. When asked to convert a parenteral dose of morphine to an equivalent dose of a controlled-release preparation, 75% calculated a dose that was less than one-third the correct dose; only four (5%) calculated the dose correctly. Trainees were familiar with the management of opioid toxicities. They were unfamiliar with the palliative benefits of radiation therapy. Although 41% recognized that complete relief of pain could be achieved in 50%-60% of patients, most (70%) predicted that maximum pain relief would be seen within the first month, and 98% predicted maximum benefit by 12 weeks. Although cancer pain management has been highlighted in the lay and medical literature, physicians in training still demonstrate deficiencies in their knowledge about the pharmacology and bioequivalency of the opioid and the benefits of radiation therapy. Published guidelines for the management of cancer pain need to be disseminated to all medical personnel caring for patients with cancer.

Pain and Symptom Management in Palliative Care

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

Atypical absorption of morphine sulphate through oral mucosa: an unusual case of acute opioid poisoning

An unusual case of probable opioid poisoning due to atypical absorption of morphine sulphate through the oral mucosa is reported. A patient with advanced laryngeal cancer, who was unable to swallow, became stuporous, bradypneic, and cyanotic and had pinpoint pupils 1 hour after taking a controlled-release tablet of morphine sulphate 30 mg. Intravenous naloxone 0.4 mg induced prompt reversal of the clinical picture. The tablet of morphine, in advanced stage of decomposition, was found in the patient's mouth, the mucosa of which was inflamed and extensively ulcerated because of the long-standing stagnation of food residuals. Usually morphine is not amenable to transmucosal absorption, because of its low lipid solubility. In this case, the retention of the tablet of morphine in the mouth and the breakdown of oral mucosa integrity could have provoked a quick transmucosal absorption of the drug, with by-pass of hepatic first-pass metabolism. This may have induced a peak in drug concentration much higher than that usually resulting from the enteric absorption of controlled-release tablets of morphine.

Pharmacological management of pain and infection in the surgical oncology patient

Surgical oncology patients are often high-risk patients that require careful perioperative management for a successful outcome. Prophylactic antibiotics are needed to prevent infection in tissues compromised by disease, radiation, or chemotherapy. Pain control is needed to prevent the stress response to surgery from worsening the outcome and to aid in the maintenance of patient comfort.