Pain management of cancer patients with transdermal fentanyl: a study of 1828 step I, II, & III transfers

Cancer Pain Treatment Strategies in Patients with Cancer

Management of cancer pain is challenging. Despite the poor evidence, opioid therapy still remains the cornerstone for the management of cancer-related pain. Opioids should be given according to the clinical presentation in the different stages of disease. There is no drug of choice, as most opioids are effective. Thus, the choice should be based on the individual characteristics of patients. Optimization of opioid therapy may allow individual treatment according to the patient's characteristics and pain syndromes, providing timely alternatives in the different stages of disease. While most patients respond to an appropriate treatment associated with a comprehensive assessment and symptom control, a high level of experience and knowledge is necessary in determining conditions to maximize the analgesic response, eventually adding adjuvants in some specific circumstances. Alternative opioids may improve the balance between analgesia and adverse effects in the presence of a poor response to the first opioid in a large number of patients. Finally, a selected population can benefit from some interventional procedures.

Effects of Good Pain Management (GPM) ward program on patterns of care and pain control in patients with cancer pain in Taiwan

BACKGROUND

The undertreatment of cancer pain is a global issue although many international guidelines and various studies bloom to explore the approaches in pain management. However, there is no standard care for cancer pain in routine practices. To set up a standardized procedure for improving cancer pain management in Taiwan, the Good Pain Management (GPM) program is explored to provide treatments following the US National Cancer Care Network (NCCN) Adult Cancer Pain Guideline.

METHOD

Patients diagnosed with moderate-to-severe cancer pain were eligible and randomized into the GPM or control arm and observed the first 48 h to evaluate the effects of pain management between 2 arms. Pain control, adequacy of treatments, patient satisfaction, and quality of life (QoL) of eligible patients were analyzed. Ad hoc analyses based on the pain medication category were also conducted.

RESULT

Fifty-one patients were enrolled, with 26 and 25 assigned to the GPM and control arms, respectively. Significant differences among the GPM and control arms were found including a greater decrease in the mean numerical rating scale (NRS) score in the GPM arm (- 4.6 vs. - 2.8), a lower proportion of moderate-to-severe pain in the GPM arm (23.2% vs. 39.8%), and a higher pain management index (PMI) score in the GPM arm (0.64 points vs. 0.33 points) (all p < 0.05). Ad hoc analyses revealed that the patient subgroups using strong opioids showed better patient satisfaction in GPM arm when compared with the same subgroup in the control arm.

CONCLUSION

In summary, our study demonstrated that the implementation of a standardized pain assessment and management approach (GPM ward program) showed significant improvements on pain relief, decreased the portion of moderate-to-severe cancer pain, and increased patient satisfaction in the 1st 48 h after admission. The implementation of the GPM approach in the cancer ward may provide sooner and better improvement of cancer pain management for patients who suffered moderate-to-severe cancer pain.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT03155516).

Effectiveness of the World Health Organization cancer pain relief guidelines: an integrative review

Inadequate cancer pain relief has been documented extensively across historical records. In response, in 1986, the World Health Organization (WHO) developed guidelines for cancer pain treatment. The purpose of this paper is to disseminate the results of a comprehensive, integrative review of studies that evaluate the effectiveness of the WHO guidelines. Studies were included if they: 1) identified patients treated with the guidelines, 2) evaluated self-reported pain, 3) identified instruments used, 4) provided data documenting pain relief, and 5) were written in English. Studies were coded for duration of treatment, definition of pain relief, instruments used, findings related to pain intensity or relief, and whether measures were used other than the WHO analgesic ladder. Twenty-five studies published since 1987 met the inclusion criteria. Evidence indicates 20%-100% of patients with cancer pain can be provided pain relief with the use of the WHO guidelines - while considering their status of treatment or end-of-life care. Due to multiple limitations in included studies, analysis was limited to descriptions. Future research to examine the effectiveness of the WHO guidelines needs to consider recommendations to facilitate study comparisons by standardizing outcome measures. Recent studies have reported that patients with cancer experience pain at moderate or greater levels. The WHO guidelines reflect the knowledge and effectual methods to relieve most cancer pain, but the guidelines are not being adequately employed. Part of the explanation for the lack of adoption of the WHO guidelines is that they may be considered outdated by many because they are not specific to the pharmacological and interventional options used in contemporary pain management practices. The conundrum of updating the WHO guidelines is to encompass the latest pharmacological and interventional innovations while maintaining its original simplicity.

Dosing considerations with transdermal formulations of fentanyl and buprenorphine for the treatment of cancer pain

Opioids continue to be first-line pharmacotherapy for patients suffering from cancer pain. Unfortunately, subtherapeutic dosage prescribing of pain medications remains common, and many cancer patients continue to suffer and experience diminished quality of life. A large variety of therapeutic options are available for cancer pain patients. Analgesic pharmacotherapy is based on the patient’s self-report of pain intensity and should be tailored to meet the requirements of each individual. Most, if not all, cancer pain patients will ultimately require modifications in their opioid pharmacotherapy. When changes in a patient’s medication regimen are needed, adequate pain control is best maintained through appropriate dosage conversion, scheduling immediate release medication for withdrawal prevention, and providing as needed dosing for breakthrough pain. Transdermal opioids are noninvasive, cause less constipation and sedation when compared to oral opioids, and may improve patient compliance. A relative potency of 100:1 is recommended when converting the patient from oral morphine to transdermal fentanyl. Based on the limited data available, there is significant interpatient variability with transdermal buprenorphine and equipotency recommendations from oral morphine of 75:1–110:1 have been suggested. Cancer patients may require larger transdermal buprenorphine doses to control their pain and may respond better to a more aggressive 75–100:1 potency ratio. This review outlines the prescribing of transdermal fentanyl and transdermal buprenorphine including how to safely and effectively convert to and use them for those with cancer pain.

Systematic review of adverse events of buprenorphine patch versus fentanyl patch in patients with chronic moderate-to-severe pain

SUMMARY This systematic review compares convenience of administration, adverse events and tolerability of buprenorphine patch with fentanyl patch in patients with chronic pain. Methods of quantitative and qualitative research were combined. Seventeen databases were searched up to December 2010. A total of 49 unique trials (56 publications) were included. Patients regarded the use of patches, both transdermal buprenorphine and fentanyl, as easy and convenient. Compared with buprenorphine patch, fentanyl can cause more cases of constipation and could lead to a higher number of serious adverse events. There were no differences between buprenorphine patch and fentanyl patch regarding dizziness, somnolence, nausea and treatment discontinuation. Overall, transdermal administration of buprenorphine and fentanyl can be seen as an alternative pathway for delivering these drugs. Use of transdermal buprenorphine might be favorable in certain groups of patients, such as renally impaired, elderly and immunosuppressed patients.

Preferences of caregivers and patients regarding opioid analgesic use in terminal care

CONTEXT

Patients and caregivers participate in decision-taking, and their views should be considered in the preparation of Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs). We involved them in the development of a CPG on the safe use of major opioids.

OBJECTIVE

To identify the values and preferences of patients and caregivers on the use of opioids and the desired outcomes, to investigate motives for the acceptance/rejection of opioid therapy, and to evaluate their beliefs and information about these drugs.

METHODS

A qualitative study was conducted using semi-structured interviews in an Andalusian population of terminal patients and caregivers (N = 42). Study variables included the role, diagnosis, and adherence to treatment. Content and validity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Less than one-third of participants recognized the term opioid. Among these, false beliefs were held related to the addictive nature of these drugs, their exclusive use in terminal cases and at the end of life, and their association with premature death. The information received was very general: it was known that they are "useful for pain," and some were informed about the administration route, composition, and habituation. Participation in decision making was usually limited to reporting symptoms to the physician.

CONCLUSION

These patients and caregivers demonstrated a preference for pain alleviation by opioid treatment and gave negative assessments on adverse digestive effects that can cause this treatment to be abandoned. They expressed interest in receiving more information and in participating in therapeutic decision making, and they reported erroneous beliefs and a lack of information about the effects of these drugs.

Meta-analysis of cultural differences in Western and Asian patient-perceived barriers to managing cancer pain

PURPOSE

barriers to managing cancer pain contribute to cancer patients' reluctance to report pain and use prescribed analgesics, resulting in inadequate pain control. Patients' perceived barriers to managing cancer pain may be influenced by culture. This meta-analysis compared differences in Western and Asian patient-perceived barriers to managing cancer pain.

METHODS

the literature was systematically reviewed to compare pain barriers in Western and Asian cancer patients in 22 studies that used Ward's Barrier Questionnaire. Differences in weighted barrier scores were compared by meta-regression analysis.

RESULTS

Asian cancer patients had higher barrier scores than Western patients, except for barriers of 'good patient', 'side effects', 'distract physician', 'fear of injections', and 'addiction'. Meta-regression analysis indicated that Asian patients' perceived pain barriers differed significantly from those of Western patients for disease progression (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 1.32; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.80, 1.84, p < 0.0001), tolerance (WMD = 1.63; 95% CI 0.91, 2.36, p < 0.0001), fatalism (WMD = 0.89; 95% CI 0.28, 1.52, p = 0.004), and total score (WMD = 0.82; 95% CI 0.36, 1.28, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Asian patients' perceived barriers to managing cancer pain were significantly higher than those for Western patients (especially for concerns about disease progression, tolerance, and fatalism). Asian cancer patients need to be assessed and carefully treated for perceived barriers to optimize cancer pain management.

Low doses of transdermal fentanyl in opioid-naive patients with cancer pain

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect and tolerability of low doses of transdermal (TD) fentanyl patches in opioid-naive patients with cancer pain.

METHODS

This was a nonrandomized, open-label, uncontrolled study in fifty consecutive opioid-naive patients with advanced cancer and moderate pain. TD fentanyl was initiated at a dose of 12 µg/h. Doses were then adjusted according to the clinical response. Pain intensity, opioid-related adverse effects, TD fentanyl doses, and quality of life were monitored over 4 weeks. The time to dose stabilization and indexes of dose escalation were also calculated.

RESULTS

Thirty-one patients completed all 4 weeks of the study. Pain control was achieved within a mean of 1.7 days after the start of TS fentanyl therapy. Significant differences in TD fentanyl doses were observed during the study period (P = 0.03). Mean doses were doubled 4 weeks after starting the treatment. The level of adverse effects was acceptable in most patients and only a minority of patients discontinued the treatment (13.8%).

CONCLUSION

Low doses of TD fentanyl were well tolerated and effective. Observations from this study suggest that randomized, controlled, double-blind studies of TD fentanyl 12 µg/h in opioid-naive patients with cancer pain may be warranted.

Management of cancer pain

In the last decades, studies validating the WHO analgesic ladder have been shown to have methodological limitations and different problems are unresolved due to a lack of controlled studies on this subject. These problems include a better definition of the role of NSAIDs, the prolonged use of NSAIDs in cancer pain, and the utility of step 2. Moreover, the indications for using different strong opioids and alternate routes of administration to improve pain relief in difficult pain situations are not well established. The proportion of patients who do not benefit from these treatments remain unclear, and how the opioid response may be improved with the use of adjuvants is also uncertain. This review will offer an update on these problems and the existing therapeutic opportunities.

Evaluation of analgesic effect and safety of fentanyl transdermal patch for cancer pain as the first line

BACKGROUND

Initial treatment with morphine followed by fentanyl transdermal patch is the standard in Japan, since even the smallest patch (2.5 mg) could deliver too high an initial dose for Japanese patients. We evaluated the analgesic effect and safety of using the fentanyl transdermal patch as a first-line strong opioid for cancer pain that is resistant to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

For 20 hospitalized patients with cancer pain that could not be controlled by NSAIDs, the fentanyl transdermal patch (1.25 mg; half of a 2.5-mg patch) was administered as a first-line strong opioid. We used rescue medications depending on the degree of pain, and the dose of fentanyl transdermal patch was adjusted every 3 days. To evaluate analgesic efficacy of the patch, the degree of pain was assessed twice a day, in the morning and at night, using a face rating scale. The formulation and dose of morphine used during observation period were recorded. The safety of treatment was evaluated by measuring vital signs once a day, and the severity of side effects were evaluated. Any abnormal findings in blood and urine test were recorded.

RESULTS

The median pain score before administration of fentanyl transdermal patch was 3 + or - 0.58 and was decreased to 2 + or - 0.71 on day 9 of administration. The mean dose of fentanyl transdermal patch on day 9 of administration was 2.31 + or - 1.34 mg, and the mean dose of morphine as rescue therapy was 4.62 + or - 7.76 mg. No clinically significant changes in vital signs were observed. No severe adverse events were present when the dose of the fentanyl transdermal patch was 1.25 mg, but two patients experienced dizziness when the dose was increased from 2.5 to 5 mg. No abnormal laboratory data appeared during the administration.

CONCLUSION

The use of 1.25-mg fentanyl transdermal patch (50% of a 2.5-mg patch) seems to be safe and efficient as a first-line strong opioid. The use of 3.75-mg fentanyl transdermal patch may be necessary since adverse events including nausea and sleepiness are likely to occur by increasing from 2.5 to 5 mg.

The use of transdermal fentanyl in cancer pain--a compliance study of outpatients in Taiwan

The aim of this study is to investigate cancer patients' response and side effects associated with transdermal therapeutic fentanyl (TTS-F), whose pain was hardly controlled by nonweak/weak opioids in Taiwan. From 2005 to 2006, 822 outpatients received TTS-F to collect pain assessment forms and diaries for 4 weeks. Most (78.7%) patients were initially prescribed 25 microg/h TTS-F. Doses were adjusted weekly at clinicians' discretion, according to pain assessment and side effects. Patients receiving 50 microg/h, 75 microg/h, and > 75 microg/h TTS-F had increased from 17.5% to 32.1%, 1.8% to 3.4%, and 1.9% to 2.2%, respectively, by week 2; further small increases were found in weeks 3 and 4. Pain palliation improved from 60.6% during week 1 to 78.6% at week 4. The common adverse effects were nausea/vomiting. Patient's compliance was >90%. This study found that the TTS-F is effective and well tolerated.

Frequency of long-acting opioid analgesic initiation in opioid-naïve nursing home residents

A U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warning against morbidity and death associated with the initiation of transdermal fentanyl in previously opioid-naïve patients has been issued. Additional warnings against opioid-naïve initiation are included in the package inserts for several other long-acting opioids (LAOs). Frail, older nursing home (NH) residents with renal and hepatic insufficiency have increased risk of adverse reactions from initiation of LAOs. Little is known about the frequency of opioid-naïve LAO initiation among NH residents. To ascertain the frequency of LAO initiation among residents residing in Rhode Island NHs, an analysis of 2004-2005 Rhode Island Medicaid pharmacy claims data linked to the Minimum Data Set was conducted. Of the 591 Medicaid residents who initiated therapy with an LAO, 232 (39.3%) were opioid naïve. Furthermore, naïve initiation was more frequent among those with advanced age and those with cognitive impairment. In an exploratory multivariable logistic regression model, opioid-naïve LAO initiation was associated with a diagnosis of Alzheimer's dementia and chewing difficulties. Opioid-naïve residents were also more likely to initiate on fentanyl relative to other LAOs (60.3% vs. 46.4%) and to use higher initial dosages. Given the significance of the FDA warning, including a "black box" warning with transdermal fentanyl, this rate of naïve LAO initiation warrants efforts to further study the prescribing of opioids in NH residents.

An open-label, 1-year extension study of the long-term safety and efficacy of once-daily OROS(R) hydromorphone in patients with chronic cancer pain

Background

Opioid analgesics have proven efficacy in the short-term management of chronic cancer pain, but data on their long-term use is more limited. OROS^® hydromorphone is a controlled-release formulation of oral hydromorphone that may be particularly well suited to long-term management of chronic cancer pain because it provides stable plasma concentrations and consistent analgesia with convenient once-daily dosing. The objective of this study (DO-118X) was to characterise the pain control achieved with long-term repeated dosing of OROS^® hydromorphone in patients with chronic cancer pain.

Methods

In this multicentre, phase III, open-label, single treatment, 1-year extension study, OROS^® hydromorphone was administered to 68 patients with moderate-to-severe chronic cancer pain, who had successfully completed a short-term equivalence study, and whose pain was controlled with a stable dose of medication (≥ 8 mg OROS^® hydromorphone or equivalent controlled-release morphine). Patients were started on the dose of OROS^® hydromorphone equivalent to the opioid dose on which they achieved dose-stable pain control in the equivalence study; dose adjustments were made as necessary and breakthrough pain medication was permitted. Efficacy was assessed with the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and patient and investigator global evaluations of treatment effectiveness. No formal statistical analysis was done.

Results

The mean (standard deviation) duration of exposure to study medication was 139 (129.9) days and the mean (standard deviation) average daily consumption of OROS^® hydromorphone was 43.7 (28.14) mg/day. All scores were maintained at a mild to moderate severity throughout the study; however, BPI scores for pain at its worst, pain at its least, pain on average, pain right now, and pain relief were slightly worsened at end point compared with baseline. Mean BPI pain interference with daily activities and patient and investigator global evaluation scores also remained generally stable. Treatment effectiveness was rated as fair to good throughout the study. The most frequently reported adverse events were nausea (n = 24, 35.3%), constipation (n = 22, 32.4%), and vomiting (n = 15, 22.1%).

Conclusion

The results of this extension study suggest that long-term repeated dosing with once-daily OROS^® hydromorphone can be beneficial in the continuing management of persistent, moderate-to-severe cancer pain.

Problems faced by relatives caring for cancer patients at home

The care of patients suffering from advanced cancer is not limited in the hospital setting. It continues at home where the burden of care is borne by specific individuals. The aim of the present study was to survey and record the various problems faced by those who care for cancer patients at home. The study was conducted in our hospital during the summer of 2007. All participants completed, during a personal interview, a questionnaire which covered pathologic, social, psychological, spiritual/religious and financial problems. Seventy-six carers returned fully completed questionnaires. The most frequent problems reported were: anxiety regarding the patient's future (61.8%), troublesome symptoms such as pain (54%), increased economic burden-financial difficulty (51.3%), problems with patient's feeding (50%), unhappiness or depression (48,7%), emotional upset (47.4%), worsening of the patient's behaviour and personality (38.2%), difficulty of establishing a positive attitude regarding their current status (34.2%), transport to hospital (32.9%), assistance from the wider family circle (25%). Taking care of cancer patients at home creates several problems among carers. Many of them remain undetected. The acknowledgement and recognition of these problems by health-care professionals might contribute to finding solutions in order to assist the difficult task of these individuals.

Pain therapy

Cancer-related pain is a major issue of healthcare systems worldwide. The reported incidence, considering all stages of the disease, is 51%, which can increase to 74% in the advanced and terminal stages. For advanced cancer, pain is moderate to severe in about 40-50% and very severe or excruciating in 25-30% of cases. Pain is both a sensation and an emotional experience. Pain is always subjective; and may be affected by emotional, social and spiritual components thus it has been defined as "total pain". From a pathophysiological point of view, pain can be classified as nociceptive (somatic and visceral), neuropathic (central, peripheral, sympathetic) idiopathic or psychogenic. A proper pain assessment is fundamental for an effective and individualised treatment. In 1986 the World Health Organisation (WHO) published analgesic guidelines for the treatment of cancer pain based on a three-step ladder and practical recommendations. These guidelines serve as an algorithm for a sequential pharmacological approach to treatment according to the intensity of pain as reported by the patient. The WHO analgesic ladder remains the clinical model for pain therapy. Its clinical application should be employed only after a complete and comprehensive assessment and evaluation based on the needs of each patient. When applying the WHO guidelines, up to 90% of patients can find relief regardless of the settings of care, social and/or cultural environment. This is the standard treatment on a type C basis. Only when such an approach is ineffective are interventions such as spinal administration of opioid analgesics or neuroinvasive procedures recommended.

A randomized, open, parallel group, multicenter trial to investigate analgesic efficacy and safety of a new transdermal fentanyl patch compared to standard opioid treatment in cancer pain

A new 72-hour transdermal fentanyl matrix patch has been designed, which has a 35%-50% reduction of the absolute fentanyl content compared with other currently available transdermal fentanyl patches that are using the matrix technology. The new patch has previously been shown to be pharmacokinetically bioequivalent to the marketed fentanyl patch. To determine noninferiority in efficacy in cancer patients and to compare safety, a clinical trial comparing the new fentanyl patch with standard oral or transdermal opioid treatment was planned. The design was an open, parallel group, multicenter trial, in which 220 patients were randomized to receive either the fentanyl patch or standard opioid treatment for 30 days. The primary efficacy variable, pain intensity (PI) on a 0-10-point numerical rating scale, was recorded once daily. The primary endpoint was the relative area under the curve of PI expressed as a percentage of the maximum possible PI area under the curve. Any adverse events were recorded; four tolerability endpoints, constipation, nausea, daytime drowsiness, and sleeping disturbances, were assessed daily. Noninferiority was shown; the upper 95% confidence interval limits of the mean difference in relative PI area under the curve between the fentanyl patch and standard opioid treatment were less than 10% for both the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations. Scores for the tolerability endpoints were similar in the treatment groups. The new fentanyl matrix patch with a lower drug load was found noninferior and as safe as established standard oral and transdermal opioid treatment.

Evaluation of a standardized internet-based and telephone-based patient monitoring system for pain therapy with transdermal fentanyl

The aim of the present observational 4-week study was to document the feasibility and utility of telephone-based or Internet-based pain monitoring in patients with chronic cancer or noncancer pain, such as nociceptive or neuropathic pain, using transdermal fentanyl. Pain intensity, treatment tolerability, activities of daily living, quality of life, and patient and physician satisfaction were evaluated in 60 (60% women, 42% opioid-naive) chronic pain patients who were switched from oral pain therapy to transdermal fentanyl therapy because of persisting severe pain. When the total dataset of all patient entries was analyzed, treatment with transdermal fentanyl led to decreases in maximal and mean pain scores as reported by the patients (-14% and -19%, respectively, last observation carried forward vs. baseline). Pain reduction was more pronounced in opioid-naive than in opioid-experienced patients (-35% and -25% vs. baseline, respectively; P=0.03). Overall, impairment of daily activities was reduced by 23% with transdermal fentanyl. No effect was observed with regard to quality of life and use of rescue pain medication. Transdermal fentanyl was generally well tolerated. Most patients (60%) preferred the telephone-based to the Internet-based or Internet combined with telephone questionnaires. Patient preference was driven by age, whereby younger patients tended to prefer the Internet and older patients the telephone (mean age, 45 and 54 y, respectively; difference n.s.). Internet-based and telephone-based monitoring of the efficacy and tolerability of opioid treatment for chronic pain was feasible in daily practice and generally well accepted by patients and physicians. Future research will determine the relative contribution of these 2 new options for patient-physician interaction and delineate their role in improving chronic pain control.

Safety and efficacy of transdermal fentanyl in patients with cancer pain: phase IV, Turkish oncology group trial

We have performed a prospective evaluation of the efficacy, safety and convenience of the transdermal therapeutic system - fentanyl (TTS-F) in Turkish cancer patients when it was newly available in Turkey. Ninety-nine patients with historically confirmed malignancy and pain entered the study; the mean age was 55.1 (16-58) years. The study duration was 28 days. Transdermal therapeutic system - fentanyl was used in opioid-naïve or pre-treated patients. Most patients reported a decrease in pain severity. Use of rescue medication decreased from day 4 to day 28. The majority of patients rated patch convenience of use as excellent. A total of 22.2% of patients experienced adverse events that were either probably related or very likely to be related to the study drug. The majority of the adverse events mentioned were related to the digestive system. Eighteen serious adverse events were reported by 13 patients. Six events were doubtfully related, and 12 events were not related to the study drug. Four patients died during the trial. None of these deaths was attributed to the study drug. In conclusion, the trial showed that TTS-F is easily managed, effective and will help to enable the appropriate opioid administration to patients who are suffering from cancer pain in Turkey.

Exploring the relationships between depression, hopelessness, cognitive status, pain, and spirituality in patients with advanced cancer

The growing interest in the psychological morbidity of patients with cancer has been the major reason for conducting this study. The measurements used were the Beck Depression Inventory, the Beck Hopelessness Scale, the Mini Mental State Examination, the Greek Brief Pain Inventory, and the Spiritual Involvement and Beliefs Scale. The analysis was conducted in 82 patients with advanced cancer. Significant associations were found between pain interference in "mood" and in "enjoyment of life" and hopelessness, as well as between worse pain and pain interference items with depression and cognitive status. Significant correlations were found between hopelessness, depression, and cognitive condition. These findings demonstrate the physical, psychological, and cognitive aspects of patients with cancer.

Opioid titration in cancer pain: a critical review

Initiation of therapy with strong opioids is a challenging phase to obtain the maximum benefit and to gain the patient's compliance. The approach could be different, depending on the clinical situation and type of opioid regimen. Substantially, the need to titrate the dose of strong opioids emerges in different conditions: (a) in opioid-naive patients who require an opioid treatment; (b) in patients no longer responsive to weaker drugs requiring strong opioids; (c) in patients already receiving strong opioids requiring higher doses because of an increase in pain intensity or a new acute pain problem; (d) in patients who are severely suffering and need an intensive as well as rapid intervention, due to previous persistent undertreatment. Whilst there is a vast literature confirming the effectiveness of most opioid drugs for the treatment of chronic pain, there is a lack of information regarding opioid titration. This review assesses the principal titration methods and outcomes regarding the different opioid drugs and their modalities of administration, in different clinical contexts.

Transdermal opioids for cancer pain

Patients with moderate to severe malignancy-related pain frequently require the use of opioid pharmacotherapy. Unfortunately, many cancer patients continue to be prescribed subtherapeutic doses of pain medications resulting in undo suffering and diminished quality of life. The choice of analgesic pharmacotherapy should be individualized and based on the intensity and etiology of pain reported by the patient. Health care providers must be able to readily quantify the relative analgesic potency when converting from one opioid to another or from one route of administration to another. Transdermal fentanyl is effective and well tolerated pharmacotherapy for the cancer pain patients. However, clinicians need to be cognizant that the U.S./U.K. manufacturer's recommendations for equilalagesic dosing of transdermal fentanyl may result in initial doses that produce subtherapeutic levels and unrelieved pain in some patients. A more aggressive dosing algorithm for transdermal fentanyl using a 2:1 (mg/day of oral morphine: mcg/hr of transdermal fentanyl) conversion ratio that considers both a review of the literature and clinical experience should help clinicians individualize cancer pain pharmacotherapy. Transdermal buprenorphine is now being prescribed in Europe and Australia for chronic and cancer pain management. Buprenorphine's mixed agonist/antagonist activity, dosage ceiling, and high affinity to the opiate receptor limits its use to those patients who do not already require large daily doses of opioids. Thus, buprenorphine may not be an appropriate medication for some patients with advanced unremitting cancer pain.

Low morphine doses in opioid-naive cancer patients with pain

Cancer pain can be managed in most patients through the use of the analgesic ladder proposed by the World Health Organization. Recent studies have proposed to skip the second "rung" of the ladder by using a so-called "strong" opioid for moderate pain. However, usual doses of strong opioids commonly prescribed for the third rung of the analgesic ladder may pose several problems in terms of tolerability in opioid-naive patients. The aim of this multicenter study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of very low doses of morphine in advanced cancer patients no longer responsive to nonopioid analgesics. A sample of 110 consecutive opioid-naive patients with moderate-to-severe pain were given oral morphine at a starting dose of 15 mg/day (10 mg in those older than 70 years). Doses were then titrated according to the clinical situation. Pain intensity, morphine doses, symptom intensity, quality of life, and the requirement for dose escalation were monitored for a period of 4 weeks. The treatment was effective and well tolerated by most patients, who were able to maintain relatively low doses for the subsequent weeks (mean dose 45 mg at Week 4). Only 12 patients dropped out due to poor response or other reasons. The use of very low doses of morphine proved to be a reliable method in titrating opioid-naive advanced cancer patients who were also able to maintain their dose, in a 4-week period, below the dose level commonly used when prescribing strong opioids.

Endogenous opiates and behavior: 2004

This paper is the 27th consecutive installment of the annual review of research concerning the endogenous opioid system, now spanning over 30 years of research. It summarizes papers published during 2004 that studied the behavioral effects of molecular, pharmacological and genetic manipulation of opioid peptides, opioid receptors, opioid agonists and opioid antagonists. The particular topics that continue to be covered include the molecular-biochemical effects and neurochemical localization studies of endogenous opioids and their receptors related to behavior, and the roles of these opioid peptides and receptors in pain and analgesia; stress and social status; tolerance and dependence; learning and memory; eating and drinking; alcohol and drugs of abuse; sexual activity and hormones, pregnancy, development and endocrinology; mental illness and mood; seizures and neurologic disorders; electrical-related activity and neurophysiology; general activity and locomotion; gastrointestinal, renal and hepatic functions; cardiovascular responses; respiration and thermoregulation; and immunological responses.

Switching from reservoir to matrix systems for the transdermal delivery of fentanyl: a prospective, multicenter pilot study in outpatients with chronic pain

Matrix systems for transdermal fentanyl will replace the reservoir systems in Europe. In an industry-independent, prospective, multicenter pilot study, 46 outpatients with chronic pain were asked to assess pain intensity, sleep interference, adverse events, and multiple secondary parameters during administration of the last reservoir and the first two matrix patches. There was no difference in pain intensity, sleep interference, and the rate of adverse events between both systems. Self assessment on a 6-step numeric rating scale (1 = very good, 6 = insufficient) comparing the two systems (reservoir vs. matrix) showed that skin compatibility (2.6 vs. 1.5), adhesive properties (3.2 vs. 1.8), wearability/comfort (2.8 vs. 1.5), and general satisfaction (2.5 vs. 1.8) improved significantly with the new matrix technology. At study endpoint, 91% of patients preferred the matrix system for future use. The new fentanyl matrix system is characterized by a high level of general satisfaction, ease of use, patient acceptance, and improved skin compatibility. Reservoir and matrix systems appear to have comparable efficacy and safety so that outpatients can be switched directly from the reservoir to the matrix system without difficulties and new dose titration.