Cobrotoxin-containing analgesic compound to treat chronic moderate to severe cancer pain: results from a randomized, double-blind, cross-over study and from an open-label study

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.

Therapeutic Potential of Peptides Derived from Animal Venoms: Current Views and Emerging Drugs for Diabetes

The therapeutic potential of venom-derived drugs is evident today. Currently, several significant drugs are FDA approved for human use that descend directly from animal venom products, with others having undergone, or progressing through, clinical trials. In addition, there is growing awareness of the important cosmeceutical application of venom-derived products. The success of venom-derived compounds is linked to their increased bioactivity, specificity and stability when compared to synthetically engineered compounds. This review highlights advancements in venom-derived compounds for the treatment of diabetes and related disorders. Exendin-4, originating from the saliva of Gila monster lizard, represents proof-of-concept for this drug discovery pathway in diabetes. More recent evidence emphasises the potential of venom-derived compounds from bees, cone snails, sea anemones, scorpions, snakes and spiders to effectively manage glycaemic control. Such compounds could represent exciting exploitable scaffolds for future drug discovery in diabetes, as well as providing tools to allow for a better understanding of cell signalling pathways linked to insulin secretion and metabolism.

A Case Series of Snake Venom Pharmacopuncture for Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy: A Retrospective Observational Study

Objective

This case series aims to report the efficacy and the safety of using snake venom pharmacopuncture (SVP) for chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN).

Methods

Three heterogeneous cancer (1 endometrium, 1 cervix, and 1 prostate cancer) patients were referred to the East-West Cancer Center (EWCC), Dunsan Korean Medicine Hospital of Daejeon University, from August 02, 2017, to September 15, 2017, for treatment with SVP, and they were treated with SVP 4 times, 6 times, and 8 times, respectively. During the treatment period, the efficacy of SVP therapy was assessed by using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) and the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), and the stability was evaluated by using blood tests. Following each session, all patients were examined closely for any allergenic responses or adverse effects.

Results

All patients showed noticeable improvements of their NRS and CTCAE scores. Except for bleeding and bruising at the SVP injection site, no major side effects were noted. One of the patients reported mild chilling and a sore throat after receiving the second treatment; those symptoms went away after a few hours. No hematologic toxicity, hepatotoxicity, or nephrotoxicity was found on the blood test.

Conclusion

The results of this research suggest positive potential benefits of using SVP for treating patients with CIPN. Also, the excellent safety results of SVP seen in this research should lead to larger clinical trials aimed at developing SVP into a potential intervention for managing patients with the symptoms of CIPN.

Anti-Inflammatory and Immune Regulatory Actions of Naja naja atra Venom

Naja naja atra venom (NNAV) is composed of various proteins, peptides, and enzymes with different biological and pharmacological functions. A number of previous studies have reported that NNAV exerts potent analgesic effects on various animal models of pain. The clinical studies using whole venom or active components have confirmed that NNAV is an effective and safe medicine for treatment of chronic pain. Furthermore, recent studies have demonstrated that NNAV has anti-inflammatory and immune regulatory actions in vitro and in vivo. In this review article, we summarize recent studies of NNAV and its components on inflammation and immunity. The main new findings in NNAV research show that it may enhance innate and humoral immune responses while suppressing T lymphocytes-mediated cellular immunity, thus suggesting that NNAV and its active components may have therapeutic values in the treatment of inflammatory and autoimmune diseases.

Tramadol with or without paracetamol (acetaminophen) for cancer pain

BACKGROUND

Tramadol is an opioid analgesic licensed for use in moderate to severe pain. It is considered as a low risk for abuse, so control regulations are not as stringent as for 'strong' opioids such as morphine. It has a potential role as a step 2 option of the World Health Organization (WHO) analgesic ladder.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and adverse effects of tramadol with or without paracetamol (acetaminophen) for cancer-related pain.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases using a wide range of search terms: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We also searched three clinical trials registry databases. The date of the last search was 2 November 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected studies that were randomised, with placebo or active controls, or both, and included a minimum of 10 participants per treatment arm. We were interested particularly in blinded studies, but also included open studies.We excluded non-randomised studies, studies of experimental pain, case reports, and clinical observations.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data using a standard form and checked for agreement before entry into Review Manager 5. We included information about the number of participants treated and demographic details, type of cancer, drug and dosing regimen, study design (placebo or active control) and methods, study duration and follow-up, analgesic outcome measures and results, withdrawals, and adverse events. We collated multiple reports of the same study, so that each study, rather than each report, was the unit of interest in the review. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.The main outcomes of interest for benefit were pain reduction of 30% or greater and 50% or greater from baseline, participants with pain no worse than mild, and participants feeling much improved or very much improved.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 studies (12 reports) with 958 adult participants. All the studies enrolled participants with chronic malignant tumour-related pain who were experiencing pain intensities described as moderate to severe, with most experiencing at least 4/10 with current treatment. The mean ages were 59 to 70 years, with participants aged between 24 and 87 years. Study length ranged from one day to six months. Five studies used a cross-over design. Tramadol doses ranged from 50 mg as single dose to 600 mg per day; doses of 300 mg per day to 400 mg per day were most common.Nine studies were at high risk of bias for one to four criteria (only one high risk of bias for size). We judged all the results to be very low quality evidence because of widespread lack of blinding of outcome assessment, inadequately described sequence generation, allocation concealment, and small numbers of participants and events. Important outcomes were poorly reported. There were eight different active comparators and one comparison with placebo. There was little information available for any comparison and no firm conclusions could be drawn for any outcome.Single comparisons of oral tramadol with codeine plus paracetamol, of dihydrocodeine, and of rectal versus oral tramadol provided no data for key outcomes. One study used tramadol combined with paracetamol; four participants received this intervention. One study compared tramadol with flupirtine - a drug that is no longer available. One study compared tramadol with placebo and a combination of cobrotoxin, tramadol, and ibuprofen, but the dosing schedule poorly explained.Two studies (191 participants) compared tramadol with buprenorphine. One study (131 participants) reported a similar proportion of no or mild pain at 14 days.Three studies (300 participants) compared tramadol with morphine. Only one study, combining tramadol, tramadol plus paracetamol, and paracetamol plus codeine as a single weak-opioid group reported results. Weak opioid produced reduction in pain of at least 30% from baseline in 55/117 (47%) participants, compared with 91/110 (82%) participants with morphine. Weak opioid produced reduction in pain of at least 50% in 49/117 (42%) participants, compared with 83/110 (75%) participants with morphine.There was no useful information for any other outcome of benefit or harm.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is limited, very low quality, evidence from randomised controlled trials that tramadol produced pain relief in some adults with pain due to cancer and no evidence at all for children. There is very low quality evidence that it is not as effective as morphine. This review does not provide a reliable indication of the likely effect. The likelihood that the effect will be substantially different is very high. The place of tramadol in managing cancer pain and its role as step 2 of the WHO analgesic ladder is unclear.

Neuropathic cancer pain: What we are dealing with? How to manage it?

Cancer pain is a serious health problem, and imposes a great burden on the lives of patients and their families. Pain can be associated with delay in treatment, denial of treatment, or failure of treatment. If the pain is not treated properly it may impair the quality of life. Neuropathic cancer pain (NCP) is one of the most complex phenomena among cancer pain syndromes. NCP may result from direct damage to nerves due to acute diagnostic/therapeutic interventions. Chronic NCP is the result of treatment complications or malignancy itself. Although the reason for pain is different in NCP and noncancer neuropathic pain, the pathophysiologic mechanisms are similar. Data regarding neuropathic pain are primarily obtained from neuropathic pain studies. Evidence pertaining to NCP is limited. NCP due to chemotherapeutic toxicity is a major problem for physicians. In the past two decades, there have been efforts to standardize NCP treatment in order to provide better medical service. Opioids are the mainstay of cancer pain treatment; however, a new group of therapeutics called coanalgesic drugs has been introduced to pain treatment. These coanalgesics include gabapentinoids (gabapentin, pregabalin), antidepressants (tricyclic antidepressants, duloxetine, and venlafaxine), corticosteroids, bisphosphonates, N-methyl-D-aspartate antagonists, and cannabinoids. Pain can be encountered throughout every step of cancer treatment, and thus all practicing oncologists must be capable of assessing pain, know the possible underlying pathophysiology, and manage it appropriately. The purpose of this review is to discuss neuropathic pain and NCP in detail, the relevance of this topic, clinical features, possible pathology, and treatments of NCP.