Efficacy and safety of sublingual fentanyl orally disintegrating tablet at doses determined by titration for the treatment of breakthrough pain in Japanese cancer patients: a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase III trial

Compliance with the breakthrough cancer pain European guidelines and impact on patients' quality of life: an observational prospective study

Introduction

This study aimed to assess the percentage of patients treated according to the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) 2018 guidelines for breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP) and the impact of guidelines adherence on patients' quality of life (QoL).

Methods

Adult opioid-tolerant patients diagnosed with BTcP and locally advanced or recurrent metastatic cancer with a life expectancy of >3 months prospectively were included. Patients were followed up for 28 days.

Results

Of 127 patients included, 37 were excluded due to the impossibility to establish adherence to the ESMO guidelines. Among the evaluable patients [51.1% female; with mean (SD) age of 66.4 (11.8) years], all were adherent. BTcP was diagnosed by the Association for Palliative Medicine algorithm in 47.8% of patients and by clinical experience in 52.2% of patients. The mean number of daily BTcP episodes ranged between 1 and 8, with a mean (95% CI) severity of 7.3 (7.0; 7.6) at week 0 and 6.2 (5.8; 6.6) at week 4. Time to maximum pain intensity was 3-15 min in 52.2% of patients, and BTcP lasted 30-60 min in 14.4% of patients at week 0 and 4.4% of patients at week 4. Mean (95% CI) treatment effectiveness was 6.6 (6.1; 7.1) at week 0 and 7.4 (7.0; 7.8) at week 4. Median (Q1-Q3) patients' global impression of clinical condition was 4.0 (4.0-4.0) at week 0 and 3.0 (2.0-3.0) at week 4.

Conclusion

A clear BTcP assessment and strict follow-up could be crucial to guidelines adherence and for patient's QoL.

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.

Current management of cancer pain in Italy: Expert opinion paper

Introduction

Chronic pain and breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP) have a high prevalence in all cancer types and cancer stages, combined with a significant physical, psychological, and economic burden. Despite efforts to improve appropriate management of cancer pain, a poor assessment and guilty undertreatment are still reported in many countries. The purpose of this expert opinion paper is to contribute to reduce and clarify these issues with a multidisciplinary perspective in order to share virtuous paths of care.

Methods

Common questions about cancer pain assessment and treatment were submitted to a multidisciplinary pool of Italian clinicians and the results were subsequently discussed and compared with the findings of the published literature.

Conclusion

Despite a dedicated law in Italy and effective treatments available, a low percentage of specialists assess pain and BTcP, defining the intensity with validated tools. Moreover, in accordance with the findings of the literature in many countries, the undertreatment of cancer pain is still prevalent. A multidisciplinary approach, more training programs for clinicians, personalised therapy drug formulations, and virtuous care pathways will be essential to improve cancer pain management.

Breakthrough Cancer Pain: A Systematic Review of Pharmacologic Management

BACKGROUND

Breakthrough cancer pain (BtCP), defined as a transient exacerbation of pain that occurs in conjunction with well-controlled background pain, is a common and burdensome problem in patients with cancer.
.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this systematic review is to identify evidence-based pharmacologic modalities for adequate management of BtCP. 
.

METHODS

PubMed and CINAHL® databases were searched to identify literature regarding pharmacologic strategies for BtCP published from January 2006 to June 2016. These studies were then synthesized by the Oncology Nursing Society Putting Evidence Into Practice pain team. 
.

FINDINGS

Forty-four studies provide evidence for the use of opioids for the management of BtCP. Transmucosal immediate-release fentanyl (TIRF) was found to have the most evidence for BtCP. Five studies and guidelines also suggest that oral opioids (not including TIRF products) be dosed proportionally to baseline opioids at 10%-20% of the 24-hour, around-the-clock dose.

Rapid acting fentanyl formulations in breakthrough pain in cancer. Drug selection by means of the System of Objectified Judgement Analysis

Drug selection of rapid acting fentanyl formulations in the treatment of breakthrough pain in patients with cancer is performed by the System of Objectified Judgement Analysis method. All seven available formulations were included in the analysis. The following selection criteria were used: number of available strengths, variability in the rate of absorption, interactions, clinical efficacy, side effects, ease of administration and documentation. No direct double-blind comparative studies between two or more formulations were identified and the clinical documentation of all formulations is limited. The most distinguishing criterion was ease of use. This led to slightly higher scores for Abstral, Instanyl and PecFent than for the other formulations. The pros and cons of each formulation should be discussed with the patient, and the most suitable formulation selected for each individual patient.

Comparing the effectiveness of intranasal fentanyl spray with oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate in breakthrough pain

BACKGROUND

Breakthrough cancer pain (BTCP) is complex and severe, affecting quality of life and increasing hospitalisation. BTCP has a rapid onset that requires fast acting medication with minimal side effects.

AIM

This article compares the effectiveness of intranasal fentanyl spray (INFS) and oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate (OTFC) and their alleviation of BTCP within 10 minutes of administration.

METHOD

The article considers pharmacokinetic and bioavailability studies demonstrating the efficacy of the route of administration, time-based effects of pain relief as well as patient preference.

CONCLUSION

The data collected indicates that INFS is more effective than OTFC for BTCP.

Transmucosal Immediate-Release Fentanyl for Breakthrough Cancer Pain: Opportunities and Challenges for Use in Palliative Care

Opioids are used to treat breakthrough cancer pain (BTCP) and can be classified by relative duration and onset of action. Regulatory approvals of numerous transmucosal immediate-release fentanyl (TIRF) formulations provide alternative options to palliative care-trained providers in the management of BTCP. TIRFs have been formulated as a sublingual tablet, sublingual spray, intranasal spray, pectin-based nasal spray, buccal tablet, and buccal soluble film. Differences exist between TIRFs regarding formulation design and dosing to treat BTCP. Opportunities for use include palliation of BTCP in head and neck cancer and/or radiation-induced mucositis. The purpose of this review is to discuss TIRF formulation and dosing, pharmacokinetics, clinical efficacy, patient acceptability, and safety/tolerability. In addition, barriers to TIRF utilization will be discussed.