Effects of opioid rotation in chronic pain patients: ORTIBARN study

Oxycodone/naloxone versus tapentadol in real-world chronic non-cancer pain management: an observational and pharmacogenetic study

Tapentadol (TAP) and oxycodone/naloxone (OXN) potentially offer an improved opioid tolerability. However, real-world studies in chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) remain scarce. Our aim was to compare effectiveness and security in daily pain practice, together with the influence of pharmacogenetic markers. An observational study was developed with ambulatory test cases under TAP (n = 194) or OXN (n = 175) prescription with controls (prescribed with other opioids (control), n = 216) CNCP patients. Pain intensity and relief, quality of life, morphine equivalent daily doses (MEDD), concomitant analgesic drugs, adverse events (AEs), hospital frequentation and genetic variants of OPRM1 (rs1799971, A118G) and COMT (rs4680, G472A) genes, were analysed. Test CNCP cases evidenced a significantly higher pain relief predictable due to pain intensity and quality of life (R² = 0.3), in front of controls. Here, OXN achieved the greatest pain relief under a 28% higher MEDD, 8–13% higher use of pregabalin and duloxetine, and 23% more prescription change due to pain, compared to TAP. Whilst, TAP yielded a better tolerability due the lower number of 4 [0–6] AEs/patient, in front of OXN. Furthermore, OXN COMT-AA homozygotes evidenced higher rates of erythema and vomiting, especially in females. CNCP real-world patients achieved higher pain relief than other traditional opioids with a better tolerability for TAP. Further research is necessary to clarify the potential influence of COMT and sex on OXN side-effects.

Oral Pain in the Cancer Patient

Oral pain due to cancer and associated treatments is common. The prevalence and severity of oral cancer is high. Painful oral mucositis develops in head and neck cancer patients following surgery and associated radiation therapy and/or chemotherapy. In addition, oral pain, including pain from mucositis, occurs in patients receiving chemotherapy for cancers of the hematopoietic system and cancers at other anatomic sites. Despite pain management practices that include high-dose opioid analgesics, patients rarely obtain relief from either head and neck cancer pain or mucositis pain. Because oral pain in cancer patients is likely due to both nociceptive and neuropathic mechanisms, effective management of pain requires treatments for both processes. As knowledge of the pathophysiology of oral pain in cancer patients increases, new approaches for the prevention and management are anticipated. This article focuses on the emerging evidence that supports the molecular mechanisms and the unique oral micro-neuroanatomy that in combination produce the severe oral pain experienced by cancer patients. In addition, this article summarizes the current state of clinical management of oral mucositis pain.

Increased frequency of urine drug testing in chronic opioid therapy: rationale for strategies for enhancing patient adherence and safety

OBJECTIVE

To determine the average amount of time required to detect opioid aberrancy based upon varying frequencies of urine drug testing (UDT) in a community-based, tertiary care pain management center.

SUBJECTS

This study was a retrospective analysis of 513 consecutive patients enrolled in a medication management program, receiving chronic opioid therapy between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2018.

METHODS

Data were extracted from medical records including age at start of the study period, sex, ethnicity, marital status, and smoking status. UDT was performed at each prescribing visit via semi-quantitative immunoassay, and at the discretion of the clinician, a sample was sent for external confirmation using gas chromatography or mass spectrometry testing to clarify questions of inconsistency with patients' reports or prescribed medications. For purposes of the study, "opioid aberrancy" was defined through inconsistent UDT.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifteen patients (22.4%) had at least one inconsistent UDT during the study period, and 160 (2.8%) of all UDTs were inconsistent. At this rate of inconsistency, it was determined that with monthly screening, it would require up to 36 months to detect a single aberrancy, and semi-annual testing would require as long as 216 months to detect an aberrancy.

CONCLUSIONS

More frequent UDT can be helpful in terms of earlier detection of opioid aberrancy. This has significant implications for helping avoid misuse, overdose, and potential diversion. Furthermore, early detection will ideally result in earlier implementation of treatment of the emotional and behavioral factors causing aberrancy. Such early intervention is more likely to be successful in terms of reducing substance misuse in a chronic pain population, providing a higher degree of patient adherence and safety, as well as producing superior overall patient outcomes. Finally, economic benefits may include substantial savings through avoidance of the necessity for drug rehabilitation and the empirically established higher costs of treating opioid misuse comorbidities.

Opioid Rotation in Cancer Pain Treatment

BACKGROUND

Rotating several different WHO level III opioid drugs is a therapeutic option for patients with chronic cancer-related pain who suffer from inadequate analgesia and/or intolerable side effects. The evidence favoring opioid rotation is controversial, and the current guidelines in Germany and other countries contain only weak recommendations for it.

METHODS

This review is based on pertinent publications retrieved by a systematic review of the literature on opioid rotation for adult patients with chronic cancerrelated pain who are regularly taking WHO level III opioids by the oral or trans - dermal route.

RESULTS

9 individual studies involving a total of 725 patients were included in the analysis, and 3 previous systematic reviews of studies involving a total of 2296 patients were also analyzed. Morphine, oxycodone, fentanyl, hydromorphone, and buprenorphine were used as first-line opioid drugs, and hydromorphone, bupre - norphine, tapentadol, fentanyl, morphine, oxymorphone, and methadone were used as second-line opioid drugs. In all of the studies, pain control was achieved for 14 days after each rotation. In most of them, the dose of the new drug introduced in each rotation needed to be increased above the dose initially calculated from a rotation ratio, with the exception of rotations to methadone. The frequency of side effects was only rarely lessened, but patients largely considered the result of opioid rotation to be positive. No particular opioid drug was found to be best.

CONCLUSION

Opioid rotation can improve analgesia and patient satisfaction. The success of opioid rotation appears to depend on the magnitude of the initial dose, among other factors. Tables of equianalgesic doses should be considered no more than a rough guide for determining the dose of the new drug. Rotations to methadone should be carried out under clinical supervision in experienced hands.

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.

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.

Efficacy and safety of sublingual fentanyl orally disintegrating tablets in patients with breakthrough pain: multicentre prospective study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of sublingual fentanyl oral disintegrating tablets (sublingual fentanyl ODT) for the treatment of breakthrough pain (BTP), cancer or non-cancer related, in terms of relief of pain intensity, adverse events (AEs) and patient satisfaction, and to further examine the clinical and epidemiological profile of patients with BTP in a clinical setting.

METHODS

A multicentre, prospective, open-label study was conducted in 19 pain units from Catalonia hospitals (Spain) over a 1-month period. Opioid-tolerant adult patients experiencing episodes of BTP intensity >5 on a visual analogue scale (VAS) during the 12-24 h before screening or AEs related to their previous rescue medication for BTP received sublingual fentanyl ODT in the course of routine clinical practice and completed a 30-day study period consisting of five assessment points: days 0 (baseline), 3, 7, 15 and 30. The efficacy was assessed by collecting pain intensity and pain relief data at baseline and at each assessment. AEs were recorded by investigators throughout the study during clinic visits and telephone follow-ups. For all patients, titration was begun with an initial dose of 100 μg. No more than two doses were allowed to treat an episode and patients might wait at least 4 h before treating another BTP episode with sublingual fentanyl ODT. The dose was increased by 100 μg multiples up to 400 μg as needed; and by 200 μg multiples up from 400 to 800 μg, the maximum titration step.

RESULTS

A total of 182 patients were enrolled and 177 (97.2 %) completed the study: 37 had breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP) and 145 had breakthrough non-cancer pain (BTncP). The mean pain intensity showed a statistically significant improvement at the first assessment point and at all assessments thereafter (p < 0.0001). At the end of the study, the time lag between administration and first effect of sublingual fentanyl ODT was ≤10 min in 69.0 % (60 % BTcP and 71.2 % BTncP). The number of daily BTP episodes decreased in both groups, but it was statistically significant in BTcP. 114 patients (62.64 %) experienced AEs during the study. AEs recorded included nausea, vomiting, somnolence and constipation, and seven (4.49 %) were considered severe. No death or discontinuation was considered related to AEs.

CONCLUSION

Sublingual fentanyl ODT provided rapid and consistent relief from BTP, both in cancer and non-cancer patients. It was well-tolerated and well-accepted by patients in routine clinical practice.

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

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

Oral complications of cancer and cancer therapy: from cancer treatment to survivorship

Answer questions and earn CME/CNE Oral complications resulting from cancer and cancer therapies cause acute and late toxicities that may be underreported, underrecognized, and undertreated. Recent advances in cancer treatment have led to changes in the incidence, nature, and severity of oral complications. As the number of survivors increases, it is becoming increasingly recognized that the aggressive management of oral toxicities is needed to ensure optimal long-term oral health and general well-being. Advances in care have had an impact on previously recognized oral complications and are leading to newly recognized adverse effects. Here, the authors briefly review advances in cancer therapy, including recent advances in surgery, oral care, radiation therapy, hematopoietic cell transplantation, and medical oncology; describe how these advances affect oral health; and discuss the frequent and/or severe oral health complications associated with cancer and cancer treatment and their effect upon long-term health. Although some of the acute oral toxicities of cancer therapies may be reduced, they remain essentially unavoidable. The significant impact of long-term complications requires increased awareness and recognition to promote prevention and appropriate intervention. It is therefore important for the primary oncologist to be aware of these complications so that appropriate measures can be implemented in a timely manner. Prevention and management is best provided via multidisciplinary health care teams, which must be integrated and communicate effectively in order to provide the best patient care in a coordinated manner at the appropriate time.