Multicenter clinical study for evaluation of efficacy and safety of transdermal fentanyl matrix patch in treatment of moderate to severe cancer pain in 474 chinese cancer patients

Comparaison of Efficacy and Safety of Fentanyl Transdermal Patch with Oral Ketorolac for Pain Management in Dry Socket: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Objectives

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of transdermal Fentanyl patch with oral Ketorolac for pain management in dry socket patients.

Study design

Sixty patients who were diagnosed with dry socket (VAS > 40 mm) were recruited in this prospective randomized controlled trial. Patients were divided into two groups. Group1 (n = 30) Transdermal Fentanyl patch (25mcg/hr) was given and in Group 2 (n = 30) Ketorolac 10 mg Oral tablet was prescribed for pain management. The primary endpoint was the mean pain scores within 72 h evaluated by visual analog scale (VAS). Secondary measures included the safety and tolerability, amount of rescue medication (analgesic and antiemetic) and effectiveness of treatment interventions by Brief Pain Inventory Questionnaire (BPI).

Results

The mean VAS pain scores were significantly less in group 1 (Fentanyl) as compared to group 2 (ketorolac) on all follow-up days. Significant difference was noted in the mean amount of rescue analgesic medication. It was 2.16 + 1.53 in group 1 and 8.50 + 3.98 in group 2. Side effects were seen in both the groups. Nausea (46%) and vomiting (43%) were reported in group 1 while headache (36.6%) and epigastric pain (53.3%) in group 2.

Conclusions

Thus, transdermal Fentanyl was better in pain control than Ketorolac with less need for rescue analgesic medication in dry socket.

Consensus-Based Guidance on Opioid Management in Individuals With Advanced Cancer-Related Pain and Opioid Misuse or Use Disorder

Importance

Opioid misuse and opioid use disorder (OUD) are important comorbidities in people with advanced cancer and cancer-related pain, but there is a lack of consensus on treatment.

Objective

To develop consensus among palliative care and addiction specialists on the appropriateness of various opioid management strategies in individuals with advanced cancer-related pain and opioid misuse or OUD.

Design, Setting, and Participants

For this qualitative study, using ExpertLens, an online platform and methodology for conducting modified Delphi panels, between August and October 2020, we conducted 2 modified Delphi panels to understand the perspectives of palliative and addiction clinicians on 3 common clinical scenarios varying by prognosis (weeks to months vs months to years). Of the 129 invited palliative or addiction medicine specialists, 120 participated in at least 1 round. A total of 84 participated in all 3 rounds.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Consensus was investigated for 3 clinical scenarios: (1) a patient with a history of an untreated opioid use disorder, (2) a patient taking more opioid than prescribed, and (3) a patient using nonprescribed benzodiazepines.

Results

Participants were mostly women (47 [62%]), White (94 (78 [65%]), and held MD/DO degrees (115 [96%]). For a patient with untreated OUD, regardless of prognosis, it was deemed appropriate to begin treatment with buprenorphine/naloxone and inappropriate to refer to a methadone clinic. Beginning split-dose methadone was deemed appropriate for patients with shorter prognoses and of uncertain appropriateness for those with longer prognoses. Beginning a full opioid agonist was deemed of uncertain appropriateness for those with a short prognosis and inappropriate for those with a longer prognosis. Regardless of prognosis, for a patient with no medical history of OUD taking more opioids than prescribed, it was deemed appropriate to increase monitoring, inappropriate to taper opioids, and of uncertain appropriateness to increase the patient's opioids or transition to buprenorphine/naloxone. For a patient with a urine drug test positive for non-prescribed benzodiazepines, regardless of prognosis, it was deemed appropriate to increase monitoring, inappropriate to taper opioids and prescribe buprenorphine/naloxone.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this qualitative study provide urgently needed consensus-based guidance for clinicians and highlight critical research and policy gaps.

Management of cancer pain: 1. Wider implications of orthodox analgesics

In this review, the first of two parts, we first provide an overview of the orthodox analgesics used commonly against cancer pain. Then, we examine in more detail the emerging evidence for the potential impact of analgesic use on cancer risk and disease progression. Increasing findings suggest that long-term use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, particularly aspirin, may reduce cancer occurrence. However, acetaminophen may raise the risk of some hematological malignancies. Drugs acting upon receptors of gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) and GABA “mimetics” (eg, gabapentin) appear generally safe for cancer patients, but there is some evidence of potential carcinogenicity. Some barbiturates appear to slightly raise cancer risks and can affect cancer cell behavior in vitro. For cannabis, studies suggest an increased risk of squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue, larynx, and possibly lung. Morphine may stimulate human microvascular endothelial cell proliferation and angiogenesis; it is not clear whether this might cause harm or produce benefit. The opioid, fentanyl, may promote growth in some tumor cell lines. Opium itself is an emerging risk factor for gastric adenocarcinoma and possibly cancers of the esophagus, bladder, larynx, and lung. It is concluded that analgesics currently prescribed for cancer pain can significantly affect the cancer process itself. More futuristically, several ion channels are being targeted with novel analgesics, but many of these are also involved in primary and/or secondary tumorigenesis. Further studies are needed to elucidate possible cellular and molecular effects of orthodox analgesics and their possible long-term impact, both positive and negative, and thus enable the best possible clinical gain for cancer patients.