Randomized evaluation of controlled-release codeine and placebo in chronic cancer pain

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.

Regular dosing compared with as-needed dosing of opioids for management of chronic cancer pain: systematic review and meta-analysis

Opioids are the recommended form of analgesia for patients with persistent cancer pain, and regular dosing "by the clock" is advocated in many international guidelines on cancer pain management. The development of sustained-release opioid preparations has made regular dosing easier for patients. However, patients report that the intensity and impact of their cancer pain varies considerably day to day, and many try to find a trade-off between acceptable pain control and impact of cognitive (and other) adverse effects on daily activities. In acute care settings, (eg, postoperative) as-needed dosing and other opioid-sparing approaches have resulted in better patient outcomes compared with regular dosing. The aim of this study was to determine whether regular dosing of opioids was superior to as-needed dosing for persistent cancer pain. We systematically searched for randomised controlled trials that directly compared pain outcomes from regular dosing of opioids with as-needed dosing in adult cancer patients. We identified 4347 records, 25 randomised controlled trials meet the inclusion criteria, 9 were included in the review, and 7 of these included in meta-analysis. We found no clear evidence demonstrating superiority of regular dosing of opioids compared with as-needed dosing in persistent cancer pain, and regular dosing was associated with significantly higher total opioid doses. There was, however, a paucity of trials directly answering this question, and low-quality evidence limits the conclusions that can be drawn. It is clear that further high-quality clinical trials are needed to answer this question and to guide clinical practice.

Codeine, alone and with paracetamol (acetaminophen), for cancer pain

BACKGROUND

Pain is very common in patients with cancer. Opioid analgesics, including codeine, play a significant role in major guidelines on the management of cancer pain, particularly for mild to moderate pain. Codeine is widely available and inexpensive, which may make it a good choice, especially in low-resource settings. Its use is controversial, in part because codeine is not effective in a minority of patients who cannot convert it to its active metabolite (morphine), and also because of concerns about potential abuse, and safety in children.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and safety of codeine used alone or in combination with paracetamol for relieving cancer pain.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 2), MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to 5 March 2014, supplemented by searches of clinical trial registries and screening of the reference lists of the identified studies and reviews in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought randomised, double-blind, controlled trials using single or multiple doses of codeine, with or without paracetamol, for the treatment of cancer pain. Trials could have either parallel or cross-over design, with at least 10 participants per treatment group. Studies in children or adults reporting on any type, grade, and stage of cancer were eligible. We accepted any formulation, dosage regimen, and route of administration of codeine, and both placebo and active controls.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently read the titles and abstracts of all studies identified by the searches and excluded those that clearly did not meet the inclusion criteria. For the remaining studies, two authors read the full manuscripts and assessed them for inclusion. We resolved discrepancies between review authors by discussion. Included studies were described qualitatively, since no meta-analysis was possible because of the small amount of data identified, and clinical and methodological between-study heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 studies including 721 participants with cancer pain due to diverse types of malignancy. All studies were performed on adults; there were no studies on children. The included studies were of adequate methodological quality, but all except for one were judged to be at a high risk of bias because of small study size, and six because of methods used to deal with missing data or high withdrawal rates. Three studies used a parallel group design; the remainder were cross-over trials in which there was an adequate washout period, but only one reported results for treatment periods separately.Twelve studies used codeine as a single agent and three combined it with paracetamol. Ten studies included a placebo arm, and 14 included one or more of 16 different active drug comparators or compared different routes of administration. Most studies investigated the effect of a single dose of medication, while five used treatment periods of one, seven or 21 days. Most studies used codeine at doses of 30 mg to 120 mg.There were insufficient data for any pooled analysis. Only two studies reported our preferred responder outcome of 'participants with at least 50% reduction in pain' and two reported 'participants with no worse than mild pain'. Eleven studies reported treatment group mean measures of pain intensity or pain relief; overall for these outcome measures, codeine or codeine plus paracetamol was numerically superior to placebo and equivalent to the active comparators.Adverse event reporting was poor: only two studies reported the number of participants with any adverse event specified by treatment group and only one reported the number of participants with any serious adverse event. In multiple-dose studies nausea, vomiting and constipation were common, with somnolence and dizziness frequent in the 21-day study. Withdrawal from the studies, where reported, was less than 10% except in two studies. There were three deaths, in all cases due to the underlying cancer.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We identified only a small amount of data in studies that were both randomised and double-blind. Studies were small, of short duration, and most had significant shortcomings in reporting. The available evidence indicates that codeine is more effective against cancer pain than placebo, but with increased risk of nausea, vomiting, and constipation. Uncertainty remains as to the magnitude and time-course of the analgesic effect and the safety and tolerability in longer-term use. There were no data for children.

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.

Review of oral oxymorphone in the management of pain

Chronic cancer and nonmalignant pain (CNMP) is a common and major health problem afflicting approximately 40 million persons in the US. Most cancer patients, and many patients with CNMP, require opioid analgesics to obtain adequate pain relief. Oral oxymorphone is a new formulation of an existing parenteral opioid that has become available for the treatment of significant pain: acute postoperative, chronic arthritis, chronic low back, and chronic cancer pain. Oxymorphone is a typical mu-opioid agonist that is effective in both immediate- and extended-release (IR and ER) formulations. Oxymorphone is more lipid soluble than morphine, resulting in a rapid onset of action when given in tablet formulation, with a duration of action of approximately 4-6 hours in IR and 12 hours in ER preparations. Oxymorphone provides excellent pain relief for significant pain, with typical opioid side effects that are usually mild or moderate in intensity. Multiple double-blind, prospective, placebo-controlled clinical trials have demonstrated the clinical efficacy and safety of this new oral opioid preparation. Oral oxymorphone is an effective opioid that provides a new therapeutic option for the physician.

A randomized, double-blind, 8-week crossover study of once-daily controlled-release tramadol versus immediate-release tramadol taken as needed for chronic noncancer pain

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of controlled-release (CR) tramadol and immediate-release (IR) tramadol in patients with moderate or greater intensity chronic noncancer pain.

METHODS

A total of 122 patients underwent washout from all opioids 2 to 7 days before randomization to 1 of 2 groups: active CR tramadol 200 mg every morning plus placebo IR tramadol 50 mg every 4 to 6 hours PRN rescue, or placebo CR tramadol 200 mg every morning plus active IR tramadol 50 mg every 4 to 6 hours PRN rescue. After 2 weeks, the doses were increased to CR tramadol 400 mg or placebo and IR tramadol 100 mg every 4 to 6 hours PRN or placebo, as rescue. After 4 weeks in the first phase, patients crossed over to the alternative treatment for another 4 weeks. Pain intensity (100-mm visual analog scale [VAS] and 5-point ordinal scales) was assessed twice daily in diaries. Pain intensity, Pain and Disability Index (PDI; 0-10 ordinal scale), Pain and Sleep Questionnaire (100-mm VAS), and analgesic effectiveness (7-point ordinal scale) were assessed at biweekly clinic visits.

RESULTS

Sixty-five patients (35 men, 30 women) completed the study. Mean (SD) age was 56.5 (12.7) years; mean (SD) weight was 82.0 (18.5) kg. Daily diary pain intensity (mean [SD]) was significantly lower in the CR tramadol group than in the IR tramadol group in the last 2 weeks of each phase (completers: VAS, 29.9 [20.5] vs 36.2 [20.4] mm, P < 0.001; ordinal scale, 1.41 [0.7] vs 1.64 [0.6], P < 0.001; intent-to-treat [ITT] population: VAS, 32.5 [22.9] vs 38.6 [21.2] mm, P < 0.003; ordinal scale, 1.50 [0.8] vs 1.72 [0.7], P < 0.002). The overall pain intensity scores from the daily diary were also significantly better with CR tramadol for both the completers and ITT. Similar results were obtained on the biweekly VAS pain intensity questionnaire. No differences were found between treatments in total PDI or overall Pain and Sleep scores in either population. For the completers, both patients and investigators rated effectiveness higher for CR tramadol than for IR tramadol (P < 0.004 and P < 0.008 for patients and investigators, respectively).

CONCLUSION

This study reports significant improvement in pain intensity with CR tramadol as compared with IR tramadol.

Ethical Considerations in End-of-Life Care and Research

The goal of good palliative care is to relieve suffering and to improve quality of life. However, it is clear that access to palliative care is inconsistent. At least in part, these deficiencies exist because of a lack of solid evidence on which to base clinical decisions. Therefore, there is an urgent need for research that can define the standard of care and can increase access to quality care. This paper discusses six ethical aspects of end-of-life research that investigators and clinicians should consider in designing and conducting palliative care research. These include: (1) whether a study is research or quality improvement; (2) the study's potential benefits to future patients; (3) the study's potential benefits to subjects; (4) the study's risks to subjects; (5) subjects' decision-making capacity; and (6) the voluntariness of subjects' choices to participate in research.

The Role of Opioids in Cancer Pain Management

Opioids remain an important cornerstone in the treatment of cancer pain. Effective analgesia is obtained in the majority of cancer pain patients with the application of fairly straightforward algorithms using opioids as the main therapy. Many rational treatment algorithms exist. In this tutorial we will describe the role of opioids in the treatment of cancer pain, including a brief overview of cancer pain syndromes, essential aspects of opioid therapy, opioid pharmacology, opioid rotation, properties of the individual opioids, and management of common side effects of opioids.

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.

Establishing the dosage equivalency of oxymorphone extended release and oxycodone controlled release in patients with cancer pain: a randomized controlled study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the analgesic efficacy and safety of oxymorphone extended release (ER) and oxycodone controlled release (CR) in patients with moderate to severe cancer pain.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This randomized, multicenter, double-blind, 2-period crossover study included adult outpatients (>or= 18 years of age) with moderate or severe cancer pain who were first titrated for 3-10 days with open-label oxymorphone or oxycodone to achieve a stable dose that provided and other efficacy parameters were comparable for adequate analgesia with tolerable adverse events and no requirement for more than 2 doses of rescue medication per day. The subsequent double-blind treatment phase was a 7- to 10-day period of oxycodone CR or oxymorphone ER treatment followed by crossing over to the alternate medication for another 7-10 days. During the treatment phase, up to 2 doses per day of morphine sulfate 15-mg tablets were allowed as rescue.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Assessments included the Brief Pain Inventory, global evaluations, Karnofsky performance status, and clinical laboratory evaluations (serum chemistry profile, complete blood count, urinalysis). Efficacy variables were analyzed using a mixed-effects model with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.

RESULTS

Forty-seven patients entered the titration/stabilization phase, 44 received at least 1 dose of study drug, 42 completed the first double-blind phase, and 40 completed the second double-blind phase. Mean pain intensity scores the 2 groups. The mean daily dosage of oxycodone CR (91.9 mg) was twice that of oxymorphone ER (45.9 mg), an equianalgesic dose ratio of 2:1. Rescue medication use was low in both groups (approximately 1 tablet of morphine sulfate 15 mg/day). No significant differences in opioid adverse events were observed between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Adult patients with cancer who were taking oxycodone CR were readily converted to oxymorphone ER and required half the milligram dose to stabilize their pain. Within 72 h, most patients achieved a stable dose that provided adequate relief with similar opioid adverse events.

Synergistic effects between codeine and diclofenac after local, spinal and systemic administration

This study was designed to evaluate the extent of the antinociceptive interaction between codeine and diclofenac at the local, spinal and systemic level. The effects of individual and fixed-ratio combinations of locally, spinally or orally given codeine and diclofenac were assayed using the formalin test in rats. Isobolographic analysis was employed to characterize the synergism produced by the combinations. Codeine, diclofenac and fixed-ratio codeine-diclofenac combinations produced a dose-dependent antinociceptive effect when administered locally, spinally or systemically. ED(30) values were estimated for the individual drugs and isobolograms were constructed. Theoretical ED(30) values for the combination estimated from the isobolograms were 422.2+/-50.5 microg/paw, 138.5+/-9.2 microg/rat, and 9.3+/-1.1 mg/kg for the local, spinal and oral routes, respectively. These values were significantly higher than the actually observed ED(30) values which were 211.1+/-13.6 microg/paw, 45.9+/-3.9 microg/rat, and 2.5+/-0.2 mg/kg, indicating a synergistic interaction. Systemic administration resulted in the highest increase in potency, being about fourfold, while spinal and local administration increased potency in two- and threefold, respectively. The fact that the highest synergism was observed after systemic administration suggests that the interaction is occurring at several anatomical sites. The results support the clinical use of this combination in pain management.

Patients' willingness to participate in symptom-related and disease-modifying research: results of a research screening initiative in a palliative care clinic

BACKGROUND

The growth of cancer symptom management research has been limited by challenges of slow recruitment and under-enrollment. One potential solution to this problem is the use of screening questions that identify patients who are interested in participating in research. The goal of this study was to evaluate this strategy in patients with cancer.

METHODS

Two screening questions (for symptom management research and disease-modifying research) were integrated into the intake process of the palliative care clinic of an urban Veteran's Administration medical center. A chart review was conducted to extract patients' reported willingness to be recruited for research, explanations for their responses, demographic data, Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale Global Distress Index (GDI) subscale scores, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score.

RESULTS

Charts were reviewed for the first 100 patients seen for a palliative care clinic visit, 86 of whom had cancer. Patients were less likely to be interested in symptom-related research than in disease-modifying research (32 of 86 [37%] vs. 46 of 86 [54%]; sign test, P = 0.009). Patients' interest in each type of research was associated moderately (kappa = 0.41; P < 0.001). Independent predictors of interest in symptom management research included younger age, white race, and a lower GDI symptom distress score. Independent predictors of interest in disease-modifying research included only younger age and white race.

CONCLUSIONS

Screening questions may be useful in identifying patients who are willing to be recruited for research. However, further study is needed to evaluate this process in other populations, as well as to determine whether screening questions introduce selection bias in the recruitment process.

Obtaining informed consent for cancer pain research: do patients with advanced cancer and patients with chronic pain have different concerns?

To explore the factors that patients with malignant and nonmalignant pain consider when deciding whether to enroll in pain research studies, determine whether their views are different, and determine whether willingness to enroll in research is associated with pain severity, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 80 patients (cancer pain: n = 40; chronic nonmalignant pain: n = 40). The risks and potential benefits that were important to patients with cancer were the same as those that were important to patients with chronic pain. Willingness to enroll in research was associated with pain severity (Spearman rho = 0.33; P = 0.041) in patients with chronic pain, but not in patients with cancer pain. Patients with cancer pain do not have different concerns than chronic pain patients do. Although chronic pain patients' willingness to enroll in research was related to pain severity and a desire for better pain management, cancer patients' willingness to enroll was not.

Beyond Informed Consent: The Ethical Design of Pain Research

In the wake of the rapid development of medical research over the past 50 years, investigators, clinicians, and ethicists have raised numerous concerns about the ethical conduct of research. Perhaps the single most important protective mechanism to emerge from the fray has been the requirement of informed consent. Certainly it has the longest history. However, even though informed consent has become the most widely recognized mechanism of protecting human subjects in research, there are limits to what the informed consent process can accomplish. Another, and more far-reaching, way to protect human subjects involved in research is to ensure that the study design is as consistent as possible with patients' preferences and goals. That is, pain investigators have a significant opportunity to improve the ethical rigor of their work by designing a study that offers a subject what is a reasonable balance of risks and benefits. This article suggests some specific ways in which investigators may design research that is more consistent with patient preferences. We describe several aspects of the ethical design of clinical pain research that appear to be important to patients, including the potential benefits for subjects, the benefits for future patients, the risks and burdens of research participation, and the voluntariness of a subject's choice whether to enroll. We conclude by discussing ways in which the ethical design of research might make the informed consent process more robust.

Obtaining informed consent for clinical pain research: patients' concerns and information needs

Investigators who conduct clinical pain research are required to obtain voluntary informed consent from patients. However, little is known about what information patients expect when they decide whether to enroll in such studies. It is important that investigators understand these information needs so they can effectively and clearly describe the research risks and potential benefits that matter to potential subjects. By understanding these needs for information, investigators may also be better able to anticipate patients' concerns and to recruit subjects more efficiently. This study was designed to define information needs that patients have when they decide whether to participate in clinical pain research. This paper describes these information needs, and identifies clinical and demographic variables associated with specific needs.

Are special ethical guidelines needed for palliative care research?

Recent studies have made it clear that there are substantial opportunities to improve end-of-life care. Doing so will require solid evidence on which to base clinical and policy decisions and this, in turn, will require a focused research effort. However, research that involves patients near the end of life creates numerous ethical challenges. Moreover, the inclusion of dying patients in research may make many providers uncomfortable. In short, there seems to be something ethically unique, and uniquely challenging, about palliative care research. This paper considers 4 arguments for this unique status: 1) dying patients are especially vulnerable; 2) adequate informed consent may be difficult to obtain; 3) balancing research and clinical roles is particularly difficult; and 4) the risks and benefits of palliative research are difficult to assess. We conclude that the first three of these arguments are weak, and that special guidelines are not needed. We suggest, however, that the fourth argument may have some merit, and should be the focus of discussion among investigators, providers, and patients.

A clinical evaluation of transdermal therapeutic system fentanyl for the treatment of cancer pain

Fentanyl has been incorporated into a transdermal therapeutic system (TTS) containing a rate-limiting membrane that provides constant release of the opioid. TTS fentanyl provides continuous opioid delivery for up to 72 hr without the need for special equipment. After Institutional Review Board approval, 53 patients with cancer pain requiring 45 mg or more of oral morphine daily were admitted into an open-label, prospective, multicenter evaluation of TTS fentanyl for the relief of pain. After a 1-week stabilization on oral morphine, patients were transferred from morphine to an appropriate dose of TTS-fentanyl (25, 50, 75, or 100 micrograms/hr) administered as a transdermal patch every 3 days. TTS fentanyl was titrated to pain relief, and patients were followed up for as long as 3 months. Pain relief and the side effects of the medications were assessed daily. Twenty-six men and 27 women with a mean (+/- SD) age of 61 (+/- 12) years entered the study; 23 patients completed the full 84-day study. The mean duration of TTS fentanyl use was 58 +/- 32 days. The mean (+/- SEM) daily morphine dose during the last 2 days of stabilization was 189 (+/- 20) mg, and the mean initial fentanyl patch dose was 58 (+/- 6) micrograms/hr. The mean daily morphine dose taken "as needed" for breakthrough pain at study completion was 35 mg. The mean final fentanyl dosage at study completion was 169 (+/- 29) micrograms/hr. Pain relief was rated as good or excellent by 82% of patients during the treatment period. When asked to compare pain relief during the first month of TTS-fentanyl use to that provided by their last analgesic before study entry, 63% preferred TTS fentanyl. Side effects considered related to the fentanyl patch were nausea (13%), vomiting (8%), skin rash (8%), and drowsiness (4%). Thirty percent of patients reported adverse experiences related to the fentanyl patch, and 17% had to be discontinued from the study. We conclude that TTS fentanyl administered every 3 days for the treatment of cancer pain is effective, safe, and well tolerated by most patients.

New approaches to pain control in patients with cancer

Pain affects most patients with malignant disease, and the prevalence of severe pain increases in the advanced stages of the condition. One in 5 patients with cancer has uncontrolled pain, even after 10 years of the use of the World Health Organization programme for cancer pain control and its 'three-step ladder' for the rational use of analgesics including morphine. Morphine has long been the 'gold standard' for the treatment of severe cancer pain. However, its side-effects, particularly sedation, cognitive impairment and myoclonus at high doses, have provoked the use of 'opioid rotation' to alternatives such as methadone and hydromorphone. The new 72-h transdermal patch for fentanyl also offers advantages of reduced side-effects and increased convenience over oral morphine. Intravenous strontium-89 and bisphosphonate therapy are effective for both short- and long-term control of metastatic bone pain. The spinal N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor is important in modulating the plasticity of the central nervous system and in aggravating chronic pain through the phenomenon of 'wind-up'. The NMDA antagonist ketamine, an anaesthetic, can be used at low doses for the management of refractory and neuropathic pains. Among adjuvant drugs, ketorolac has emerged as a potent non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug. Palliative care is gaining acceptance as a new discipline in healthcare. Its strategic role is being reviewed as an adjunct to cancer therapy at all stages and its use is no longer confined to the terminal phase of disease after curative treatment has failed. Pain control and other aspects of symptom control are, therefore, viewed as an integral part of cancer management.