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

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.

Aloe Vera-Containing Matrix in Transdermal Fentanyl Therapy Improves Adhesion, Skin Tolerance and Quality of Life: Results of a German Multicenter Study with a New Fentanyl Patch

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain represents a significant and costly healthcare problem especially in the older patient. Transdermal opioid therapy is easy to apply and ensures constant supply of active ingredients. However, skin irritation, poor adhesion and systemic side effects complicate transdermal pain therapy.

METHODS

In the Relief study, comprising 54 centers, all in Germany, 252 patients were recruited and data about the general care situation as well as the characteristics, effects and side effects of the Aloe vera fentanyl patch were collected. 92 patients had a prior treatment with fentanyl patch without Aloe vera, allowing a comparative analysis.

RESULTS

Compared to patches without Aloe vera, the new fentanyl patch showed better adhesion. Systemic and local tolerance and pain reduction were also significantly better. Patients also reported improvements in side effects and central parameters of quality of life. The data regarding the care situation in Germany showed remarkably low use of coanalgetics and laxatives in pain patients.

DISCUSSION

Aloe vera in transdermal pain treatment improves adhesion and local tolerance of the patch. Pain control and quality of life were also improved. Regional care data concerning cotreatment in pain therapy from this study indicate a lack of penetration of existing guidelines in general practitioners' pain therapy.

Novel Opioid Analgesics for the Development of Transdermal Opioid Patches That Possess Morphine-Like Pharmacological Profiles Rather Than Fentanyl: Possible Opioid Switching Alternatives Among Patch Formula

Transdermal fentanyl is widely used in the treatment of severe pain because of convenience, safety, and stable blood concentrations. Nevertheless, patients often develop tolerance to fentanyl, necessitating the use of other opioids; transdermal buprenorphine patch is widely used as an analgesic agent, though available formulation does not provide comparable analgesic effect as transdermal fentanyl patch. Opioids bind to the opioid receptor (OR) to activate both G protein–mediated and β-arrestin–mediated pathways. We synthesized morphine-related compounds with high transdermal absorbability (N1 and N2) and evaluated their OR activities pharmacologically in comparison with fentanyl and morphine.

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.

Safety, Tolerability, and Dose Proportionality of a Novel Transdermal Fentanyl Matrix Patch and Bioequivalence With a Matrix Fentanyl Patch: Two Phase 1 Single-Center Open-Label, Randomized Crossover Studies in Healthy Japanese Volunteers

Two open‐label, single‐dose, randomized crossover studies were conducted in healthy Japanesemen to (1) assess dose proportionality of 5 doses (1.38, 2.75, 5.5, 8.25, and 11.0 mg) of Lafenta, a novel matrix‐type transdermal fentanyl patch with a rate‐controlling membrane; and (2) compare patch bioequivalence (11.0 mg) with a commercially available reference patch (Durotep MT Patch [16.8 mg]). Pharmacokinetics, adhesion performance, residual fentanyl, and safety parameters were assessed. Increases in mean AUC_0‐t and C_max after application of the test patch were dose proportional. The test patch (11.0 mg) was bioequivalent to the 16.8‐mg reference patch in terms of mean AUC_0‐inf, AUC_0‐t, and C_max. Residual fentanyl levels 72 hours postapplication were lower in the test than in the reference patch. Differences in adhesion performance between the test and the reference patch did not affect delivery efficacy and reliability of the novel matrix patch. Safety findings were in line with previous experiences with fentanyl. Both studies showed low variation in fentanyl exposure and delivery via the test patch. The test patch provided equivalent fentanyl exposure at a lower dose than the reference patch formulation with lower variability and the potential to lower medicinal waste.

Opioid-Induced Constipation and Bowel Dysfunction: A Clinical Guideline

OBJECTIVE

To formulate timely evidence-based guidelines for the management of opioid-induced bowel dysfunction.

SETTING

Constipation is a major untoward effect of opioids. Increasing prescription of opioids has correlated to increased incidence of opioid-induced constipation. However, the inhibitory effects of opioids are not confined to the colon, but also affect higher segments of the gastrointestinal tract, leading to the coining of the term "opioid-induced bowel dysfunction."

METHODS

A literature search was conducted using Medline, EMBASE, and EMBASE Classic, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Predefined search terms and inclusion/exclusion criteria were used to identify and categorize relevant papers. A series of statements were formulated and justified by a comment, then labeled with the degree of agreement and their level of evidence as judged by the Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT) system.

RESULTS

From a list of 10,832 potentially relevant studies, 33 citations were identified for review. Screening the reference lists of the pertinent papers identified additional publications. Current definitions, prevalence, and mechanism of opioid-induced bowel dysfunction were reviewed, and a treatment algorithm and statements regarding patient management were developed to provide guidance on clinical best practice in the management of patients with opioid-induced constipation and opioid-induced bowel dysfunction.

CONCLUSIONS

In recent years, more insight has been gained in the pathophysiology of this "entity"; new treatment approaches have been developed, but guidelines on clinical best practice are still lacking. Current knowledge is insufficient regarding management of the opioid side effects on the upper gastrointestinal tract, but recommendations can be derived from what we know at present.

Transdermal buprenorphine and fentanyl patches in cancer pain: a network systematic review

Treatment of cancer pain is generally based on the three-step World Health Organization (WHO) pain relief ladder, which utilizes a sequential approach with drugs of increasing potency. Goals of pain management include optimization of analgesia, optimization of activities of daily living, minimization of adverse effects, and avoidance of aberrant drug taking. In addition, it is recommended that analgesic regimens are individualized and simplified to help ensure patient compliance and should provide the least invasive, easiest, and safest route of opioid administration to ensure adequate analgesia. Buprenorphine and fentanyl are two opioids available for the relief of moderate-to-severe cancer pain. Available clinical data regarding the transdermal (TD) formulations of these opioids and the extent to which they fulfill the recommendations mentioned earlier are systematically reviewed, with the aim of providing additional information for oncologists and pain specialists regarding their comparative use. Due to lack of studies directly comparing TD buprenorphine with TD fentanyl, data comparing these with other step-3 opioids are also evaluated in a network fashion.

The efficacy of low-dose transdermal fentanyl in opioid-naïve cancer patients with moderate-to-severe pain

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Little is known about the efficacy of low-dose transdermal fentanyl (TDF) patches in opioid-naïve patients with moderate-to-severe cancer pain.

METHODS

This study had an open-label, prospective design, and was conducted between April 2007 and February 2009 in seven tertiary cancer hospitals; 98 patients were enrolled. TDF was started using a low-dose formulation (12.5 µg/hr), and the dose was adjusted according to the clinical situation of individual patients. Pain intensity, the TDF doses used, and adverse events (AEs) were monitored over 4 weeks. Data were analyzed using the intent-to-treat and per-protocol principles.

RESULTS

Of the 98 patients enrolled, 64 (65%) completed the study. The median pain intensity decreased from 6.0 to 3.0 (p < 0.001) at the follow-up visit. The efficacy of low-dose TDF on pain relief was consistent across groups separated according to gender (p < 0.001), age (p < 0.001), metastasis (p < 0.001), previous treatment (p < 0.001), and baseline pain intensity (p < 0.001). The decrease in pain intensity was significantly greater in the severe group compared with the moderate group (mean ± SD, 5.10 ± 2.48 vs. 2.48 ± 1.56; p < 0.001). TDF dose (27.8 µg/hr vs. 24.8 µg/hr, p = 0.423) and the mean treatment time (7.5 days vs. 7.9 days, p = 0.740) required for pain control were not different between the two pain-intensity groups. Patients had AEs of only mild or moderate intensity; among these, nausea (38%) was the most common, followed by vomiting (22%) and somnolence (22%).

CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose TDF was an effective treatment for patients with cancer pain of moderate-to-severe intensity. Further randomized trials assessing the efficacy of TDF for severe pain and/or optimal starting doses are warranted.

Opioid switch from low dose of oral oxycodone to transdermal fentanyl matrix patch for patients with stable thoracic malignancy-related pain

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness and safety of switch from oral oxycodone to fentanyl patch is little known. Here, we investigated if early phase opioid switch from low dose of oral oxycodone to transdermal fentanyl matrix patch provided any benefits for patients with thoracic malignancy and stable cancer-related pain.

METHODS

This open-label two-centered prospective study enrolled patients with thoracic malignancy suffering persistent malignancy-related pain with numeric rating scale of pain intensity ≤ 3 which had been controlled by oral oxycodone ≤ 20 mg/day. Eligible patients switched from oral oxycodone to 12.5 μg/h of transdermal fentanyl matrix patch. The dose was allowed to be titrated upwards every 3 day by 25-50%, except for the first increase from 12.5 μg/hr to 25 μg/hr,until achieving adequate pain control. The data on patients' global assessment scores measured on a five-step scale, an 11-point numeric rating scale of pain intensity, the severity of adverse effects using a four-point categorical rating scale, and the Epworth sleepiness scale questionnaire were collected for 15 days.

RESULTS

Forty-nine eligible patients were analyzed. Overall patients' satisfaction score significantly improved from day 1 (2.7 ± 0.9) to day 15 (2.3 ± 0.9) (p < 0.05), and 90% and 78% of patients remained to receive the minimum dose of fentanyl patch on day 8 and 15 from the opioid switch. There was a significant difference in sleepiness throughout the study period, though no difference was detected in pain intensity and other adverse effects.

CONCLUSION

Transdermal fentanyl matrix patch is an alternative analgesic option for a stable cancer pain in patients with thoracic malignancies.

Pain in the cancer patient: different pain characteristics CHANGE pharmacological treatment requirements

Twenty years ago, the main barriers to successful cancer pain management were poor assessment by physicians, and patients' reluctance to report pain and take opioids. Those barriers are almost exactly the same today. Cancer pain remains under-treated; in Europe, almost three-quarters of cancer patients experience pain, and almost a quarter of those with moderate to severe pain do not receive any analgesic medication. Yet it has been suggested that pain management could be improved simply by ensuring that every consultation includes the patient's rating of pain, that the physician pays attention to this rating, and a plan is agreed to increase analgesia when it is inadequate. After outlining current concepts of carcinogenesis in some detail, this paper describes different methods of classifying and diagnosing cancer pain and the extent of current under-treatment. Key points are made regarding cancer pain management. Firstly, the pain may be caused by multiple different mechanisms and therapy should reflect those underlying mechanisms - rather than being simply based on pain intensity as recommended by the WHO three-step ladder. Secondly, a multidisciplinary approach is required which combines both pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment, such as psychotherapy, exercise therapy and electrostimulation. The choice of analgesic agent and its route of administration are considered, along with various interventional procedures and the requirements of palliative care. Special attention is paid to the treatment of breakthrough pain (particularly with fast-acting fentanyl formulations, which have pharmacokinetic profiles that closely match those of breakthrough pain episodes) and chemotherapy-induced neuropathic pain, which affects around one third of patients who receive chemotherapy. Finally, the point is made that medical education should place a greater emphasis on pain therapy, both at undergraduate and postgraduate level.

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.

How are palliative care cancer populations characterized in randomized controlled trials? A literature review

CONTEXT

The difficulties in defining a palliative care patient accentuate the need to provide stringent descriptions of the patient population in palliative care research.

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a systematic literature review with the aim of identifying which key variables have been used to describe adult palliative care cancer populations in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

The data sources used were MEDLINE (1950 to January 25, 2010) and Embase (1980 to January 25, 2010), limited to RCTs in adult cancer patients with incurable disease. Forty-three variables were systematically extracted from the eligible articles.

RESULTS

The review includes 336 articles reporting RCTs in palliative care cancer patients. Age (98%), gender (90%), cancer diagnosis (89%), performance status (45%), and survival (45%) were the most frequently reported variables. A large number of other variables were much less frequently reported.

CONCLUSION

A substantial variation exists in how palliative care cancer populations are described in RCTs. Few variables are consistently registered and reported. There is a clear need to standardize the reporting. The results from this work will serve as the basis for an international Delphi process with the aim of reaching consensus on a minimum set of descriptors to characterize a palliative care cancer population.

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.

Transdermal fentanyl for cancer pain

BACKGROUND

Opioid drugs have been used for many years to relieve pain. Transdermal fentanyl offers one option for delivering and maintaining pain relief in patients with moderate or severe cancer pain.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the analgesic efficacy of transdermal fentanyl for relief of cancer pain, and to assess the adverse events associated with the use of transdermal fentanyl for relief of cancer pain.

SEARCH METHODS

The following databases were searched: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 4 of 12); MEDLINE (1966 to May 2013); EMBASE (1974 to May 2013; CANCERLIT (PubMED) (November 2012); and ClinicalTrials.gov (May 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using placebo or active comparators reporting on the analgesic effect of transdermal fentanyl in adults and children with cancer pain. Studies with fewer than 10 participants were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted independently by two review authors. We extracted any available data on the number or proportion of patients with 'no worse than mild pain' or treatment success (very satisfied, or very good or excellent on patient global impression scales), together with information about adverse events and withdrawals.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified nine studies meeting the inclusion criteria, including a Turkish study that is awaiting formal translation. There were 1244 participants randomised in classically designed RCTs, of whom 1197 had evaluable data, and 138 patients enrolled in an enriched enrolment, randomised withdrawal (EERW) trial. Overall, 600 participants were treated with transdermal fentanyl patches, 382 with various formulations of morphine, 36 with methadone, and 221 with paracetamol plus codeine. There were major sources of potential bias, including lack of blinding, small size, high levels of attrition, and inconsistent reporting.We could not compare data in a meaningful analysis regarding adverse events such as nausea, abdominal pain, gastrointestinal bleeding, and confusion. These events may have been attributable to the underlying disease process.There were insufficient comparable data for meta-analysis to be undertaken or to produce numbers needed to treat (NNT) for the analgesic effect. In seven studies with 461 participants reporting pain intensity results after about two weeks, the mean or median pain scores were on the borderline of mild and moderate pain. Most participants would have had no worse than mild pain on treatment. Another reported that 77% of participants using transdermal fentanyl had an undefined successful outcome. Fewer participants experienced constipation with transdermal fentanyl (28%) than with oral morphine (46%), giving a risk ratio of 0.61 (95% CI 0.47 to 0.78); the NNT to prevent constipation was 5.5 (95% CI 3.8 to 10).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The randomised trial literature for effectiveness of transdermal fentanyl is limited, but it is an important medicine. Most studies recruited fewer than 100 participants and did not provide data appropriate for meta-analysis. Only a few reported how many patients had good pain relief but, where data were reported, a majority had no worse than mild pain within a reasonably short time period. The evidence pointed to a useful and significant reduction in complaints about constipation for transdermal fentanyl compared with oral morphine.

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

OBJECTIVE

Although a new matrix formulation fentanyl has been used throughout the world for cancer pain management, few data about its efficacy and clinical outcomes associated with its use in Chinese patients have been obtained. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of the new system in Chinese patients with moderate to severe cancer pain.

METHODS

A total of 474 patients with moderate to severe cancer pain were enrolled in this study and were treated with the new transdermal fentanyl matrix patch (TDF) up to 2 weeks. All the patients were asked to record pain intensity, side effects, quality of life (QOL), adherence and global satisfaction. The initial dose of fentanyl was 25 μg/h titrated with opioid or according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. Transdermal fentanyl was changed every three days.

RESULTS

After 2 weeks. The mean pain intensity of the 459 evaluated patients decreased significantly from 5.63±1.26 to 2.03±1.46 (P<0.0001). The total remission rate was 91.29%, of which moderate remission rate 53.16%, obvious remission rate 25.49% and complete remission rate 12.64%. The rate of adverse events was 33.75%, 18.78% of which were moderate and 3.80% were severe. The most frequent adverse events were constipation and nausea. No fatal events were observed. The quality of life was remarkably improved after the treatment (P<0.0001).

CONCLUSION

The new TDF is effective and safe in treating patients with moderate to severe cancer pain, and can significantly improve the quality of life.

Analgesic effect of switching from oral opioids to a once-a-day fentanyl citrate transdermal patch in patients with lung cancer

A new once-a-day fentanyl citrate transdermal patch was developed in Japan. We retrospectively investigated analgesic and adverse effects of this drug in 24 patients with lung cancer. All patients were started on this patch by switching from an oral opioid. The mean pain score before switching was 2.45 (0-5); 48 hours after switching, 15 of the 24 patients showed a decreased pain score and the mean score (2.00) was significantly lower than that before switching. Of the 16 patients who had adverse effects of oral opioids, 7 patients showed improvement in their symptoms after switching. Two patients showed adverse effects of the drug but their symptoms were mild, and no patient required dose decrease. This new transdermal patch could be a useful treatment option for cancer pain.

Pharmacist Documentation of Fentanyl Patch Orders in an Academic Medical Center

Purpose

The fentanyl transdermal patch label carries a boxed warning indicating that it should only be used in opioid-tolerant patients. Both prescribers and pharmacists must adhere to these recommendations to ensure safe use of the patches. Our goal was to determine the fentanyl patch documentation rate at our institution and evaluate the quality of documentation, and to make recommendations for improvement if appropriate to ensure patient safety.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective data analysis to determine pharmacist adherence rate to medical center documentation practices for fentanyl patch orders at UC San Diego Medical Center between July 2009 and July 2010.

Results

A total of 296 adult fentanyl patch orders were prescribed during the study period. Sixty-four of these orders were new initiations and 232 orders were continued from outpatient regimens. Overall, pharmacist documentation rate, without regard to completeness of notation, was 97.0%, with no difference between new and continuing orders. Evaluation of the quality of documentation showed that the most important factor lacking in the majority of documentations was duration of previous opioid therapy.

Conclusion

Examination of fentanyl patch documentation data suggests that the existing pharmacy notation system can be improved. We believe that a revised documentation template that includes source of information, chronic pain indication, opioid regimen, duration, daily oral morphine equivalent, pain assessment, and final patch plan will help to ensure the safety of prescribed patches and completeness of documentation. These findings can be used to develop policies and procedures to achieve complete adherence to transdermal fentanyl's boxed warning at any institution.

Systematic review of tapentadol in chronic severe pain

AIM

A systematic review of chronic pain treatment with strong opioids (step 3 WHO pain ladder) and a comparison to a new drug recently approved for the treatment of severe chronic pain in Europe, tapentadol (Palexia, Nucynta*), were performed.

METHODS

Thirteen electronic databases were searched as well as a number of other sources from 1980 up to November 2010 for relevant randomized controlled clinical trials in chronic moderate and severe pain investigating at least one step 3 opioid. Chronic pain could be nociceptive or neuropathic, malignant or non-malignant, all systemic administrations were considered as well as trials of different lengths. Two separate analyses were performed, one only for trials which reported (at least as sub-groups) the outcome in patients with severe pain, the other including both moderate and severe pain conditions. With the exception of the direct comparison between tapentadol, oxycodone and placebo, indirect comparisons were performed based on a network analysis. Trials with an enriched or an enriched withdrawal design were excluded. Primary (pain intensity) and a number of secondary endpoints were evaluated, including pain relief (30% and 50%), patient global impression of change, quality of life, quality of sleep, discontinuations, as well as serious adverse events and selected adverse events.

RESULTS

Only 10 trials were eligible for analysis of patients with severe pain (eight investigating tapentadol and two trials comparing buprenorphine patch vs placebo). For moderate and severe pain, 42 relevant trials were identified and indirect comparisons with transdermal buprenorphine, transdermal fentanyl, hydromorphone, morphine, and oxymorphone were performed. This report focuses on the network analysis. Tapentadol showed statistically favourable results over oxycodone for pain intensity, 30% and 50% pain relief, patient global impression of change (PGIC), and quality of life. Furthermore, some of the most important adverse events of chronic opioid treatment were significantly less frequent with tapentadol as compared to oxycodone, i.e. constipation, nausea, and vomiting; discontinuations due to these adverse events were found significantly reduced with tapentadol. Similar results were obtained for the network analysis, i.e. tapentadol was superior for the primary outcome (pain intensity) to hydromorphone and morphine, whereas fentanyl and oxymorphone showed trends in favour of these treatments. Significantly less frequent gastrointestinal adverse events of tapentadol were observed in comparison with fentanyl, hydromorphone, morphine, and oxymorphone, apparently leading to significantly reduced treatment discontinuations (for any reason).

CONCLUSIONS

Taken together, the benefit-risk ratio of tapentadol appears to be improved compared to step 3 opioids.

Is oral morphine still the first choice opioid for moderate to severe cancer pain? A systematic review within the European Palliative Care Research Collaborative guidelines project

The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the evidence that oral morphine can be recommended as the first choice opioid in the treatment of moderate to severe cancer pain in updating the European Association for Palliative Care opioid recommendations. A systematic literature review was performed to update the 2007 Cochrane review 'Oral morphine for cancer pain'. The literature search was conducted on MedLine, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. The search strategy, limited in time (from 1 July 2006 to 31 October 2009), was aimed to be as extensive as possible using both text words and MeSH/EMTREE terms; a hand search of the reference lists of identified papers was also performed. Randomized clinical trials, containing data on efficacy and/or side effects of morphine, were identified. Among the papers retrieved from the cited databases and the Cochrane review, 17 eligible studies, for a total of 2053 patients, and a meta-analysis were selected. These studies do not add significant information to the previous Cochrane review confirming the limitation of efficacy and tolerability data on opioid-naïve and non-selected populations of cancer patients treated with morphine and suggesting that oral morphine, oxycodone and hydromorphone have similar efficacy and toxicity in this patient population.

Can morphine still be considered to be the standard for treating chronic pain? A systematic review including pair-wise and network meta-analyses

OBJECTIVE

For chronic pain treatment many health care authorities consider morphine to be the reference standard for strategic decisions in pain therapy. Although morphine's effectiveness is clear and its cost is low, it's unclear whether morphine should remain the first choice or reference treatment.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We performed a systematic review to evaluate the evidence available to support the position of morphine as the reference standard for step III opioids based on efficacy and tolerability outcomes.

RESULTS

The search yielded 5,675 titles and 56 studies were included. Considerable heterogeneity precluded pair-wise meta-analysis on change of pain intensity and no difference between morphine and other opioids were found for tolerability outcomes. The network meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference in change of pain intensity between morphine and oxycodone, methadone and oxymorphone. Compared to morphine, patients using buprenorphine are more likely to discontinue treatment due to lack of effect (OR 2.32, 95% CI 1.37 to 3.95). Patients using methadone are more likely to discontinue due to adverse events (OR 3.09, 95% CI 1.14 to 8.36), whereas this risk is decreased for patients using fentanyl (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.50) or buprenorphine (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.53). The most important limitation of this review is that the included studies are heterogeneous with regard to study population and intervention, which may affect the pooled effect estimates. The main strength is that we only included parallel RCTs, the strongest design for intervention studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The current evidence is moderate, both in respect to the number of directly comparative studies and in the quality of reporting of these studies. No clear superiority in efficacy and tolerability of morphine over other opioids was found in pair-wise and network analyses. Based on these results, a justification for the placement of morphine as the reference standard for the treatment of severe chronic pain cannot be supported.

Transdermal opioids for cancer pain

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Cancer patients with moderate-to-severe pain require opioids for analgesia. Whereas early guidelines recommend oral morphine as the 'drug of choice', newer synthetic opioids can be given by a reliable and effective nonoral transdermal route. We examine the mode of action of transdermal patches and we review the evidence on two drugs, which are currently available in this formulation - buprenorphine and fentanyl - covering physicochemical characteristics and pharmacokinetics of the patches, clinical efficacy data and adverse effects.

RECENT FINDINGS

Both buprenorphine and fentanyl possess ideal characteristics for transdermal delivery, being small molecules with high lipophilicity. Studies of buprenorphine patches show benefits but there is poor randomized controlled trial evidence comparing them with oral opioids. Fentanyl patches have been used for longer and have a larger body of evidence supporting their use, with data to suggest improved pain relief and reduced opioid side effects compared with sustained release oral morphine. Patients who have used both oral morphine and transdermal fentanyl express a preference for the patch drug.

SUMMARY

Transdermal buprenorphine and fentanyl are now established for moderate-to-severe cancer pain. There is still a need for further comparative studies with other opioids, especially for buprenorphine.

Transdermal Opioids for Cancer Pain Management

The prevalence of pain in cancer is up to 90%, more than 45% of this can be adequately managed using the World Health Organisation three step analgesic ladder.Transdermal opioids are safe, effective, and produce significantly fewer side effects than oral morphine when used for moderate to severe cancer pain.Transdermal buprenorphine has a lower incidence of systemic side effects than transdermal fentanyl and it is indicated for use in cancer patients with neuropathic pain and renal dysfunction.Transdermal opioids require a long lag period for dose stabilisation and elimination, hence are unsuitable for acute or unstable pain, and may result in prolonged side effects.Transdermal analgesics reduce the need for frequent dosing, clock watching and are more convenient for patients, physicians and carers, hence increasing treatment compliance.

Fixed combination of oxycodone with naloxone: a new way to prevent and treat opioid-induced constipation

Morphine and other opioids increase tone and reduce propulsive motility in several segments of the gut, enhance absorption of fluids, and inhibit secretion. This opioid-induced bowel dysfunction may present as infrequent stools, hard stools, difficult defecation, bloating, and sense of incomplete emptying of the bowels, but also dry mouth, gastroesophageal reflux, epigastric fullness, and abdominal cramping. It afflicts about one-third of patients on opioid treatment. Lifestyle measures, such as regular toilet visits, physical activity, and fiber-rich diet, are very unlikely to be successful. Laxatives, such as bisacodyl, sodium picosulfate, sennosides, macrogols, and prucalopride, may relieve opioid-induced constipation (OIC) in a proportion of patients only. A new approach to counteract OIC is the coadministration of an opioid antagonist devoid of the potential to penetrate the brain. In the EU, an oxycodonenaloxone combination has been approved for this purpose. Both components are included in an oral extended-release preparation. Following its release, naloxone acts locally on the gut and antagonizes the inhibitory effect of the opioid. After being absorbed in parallel with oxycodone, naloxone is rapidly and completely inactivated by a high first-pass effect in the liver. In a 2:1 dose ratio it may improve OIC without interfering with the analgesic effect.

The role of transdermal fentanyl patches in the effective management of cancer pain

Transdermal fentanyl patches first became available in the early 1990s and provided an innovative treatment for the management of cancer pain. Since then, they have become a familiar and convenient method for providing analgesia for patients with stable levels of cancer pain. Transdermal delivery is more complex than oral administration and some specific factors need to be taken into consideration for the patches to be used appropriately and to their best advantage. This article will review the use of transdermal fentanyl, looking at their place in the overall therapy plan, the use of appropriate adjunctive prescribing and some specific practical and safety issues.

[Management of transdermal therapeutics in perioperative care]

OBJECTIVE

To provide guidance on perioperative management of most frequently encountered transdermal therapeutics in anaesthesiology: nicotine, fentanyl, nitroglycerin, scopolamine and estradiol.

DATA SOURCES

A review of the last decade literature was carried out on the Pubmed database using the following keywords (transcutaneous or percutaneous or transdermal or transdermic or skin or dermal) and (drug delivery systems or therapeutic systems or drug administration) grouped under the Mesh terms cutaneous administration, perioperative care, surgery, pharmacokinetics, nicotine, fentanyl, nitroglycerin, scopolamine, estradiol.

STUDY SELECTION

Original articles, general articles reviews, guidelines, letters to the editor and case reports have been selected.

DATA EXTRACTION

Articles were analyzed for each transdermal treatment in terms of pharmacokinetics as well as anaesthetics and surgical interactions.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Transdermal nicotine must be removed before anaesthesia of patients with coronary disease or with high risk of inhalation and in case of reconstructive surgery. Transdermal fentanyl must be maintained during the perioperative period and associated with preventive treatments of hyperalgesia. Transdermal administration of fentanyl by iontophoresis is a promising system for postoperative analgesia. Transdermal nitroglycerin must be maintained before scheduled surgery of a coronary patient. Transdermal scopolamine must be removed the day before surgery because of its side effects. It could have an interest in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting, but its therapeutic method remain to be defined. Transdermal estradiol can be maintained during the perioperative period.

CONCLUSION

The management of transdermal therapeutics in peri operative care can be adapted for each treatment and for each patient by knowing pharmacokinetics as well as anaesthetics and surgical interactions. In emergency situations, the actions to be taken do not generally differ, but one must be aware that the effects of trandermal treatments do not disappear immediately when removed, due to their pharmacokinetics properties.

Transdermal matrix fentanyl membrane patch (matrifen): in severe cancer-related chronic pain

The matrix fentanyl membrane patch is a new transdermal patch designed with a reduced drug load compared with established reservoir and matrix fentanyl patches. The drug is contained within a silicone matrix with a rate-controlling membrane designed to maintain constant serum fentanyl concentrations over the 72-hour application period. The matrix fentanyl membrane patch was equivalent to the reservoir fentanyl patch in terms of transdermal delivery of fentanyl, as demonstrated after both single (100 microg/h) and multiple (50 microg/h) applications by the peak serum fentanyl concentration and the area under the serum concentration-time curve over 72 hours. In a randomized, nonblind, multicentre trial, the transdermal matrix fentanyl membrane patch was noninferior to standard opioid therapy (transdermal reservoir or matrix fentanyl patch or an oral opioid) in terms of analgesic efficacy over 30 days in patients with cancer-related chronic pain requiring long-term opioid use. The transdermal matrix fentanyl membrane patch was as well tolerated as standard opioid therapy; patient-rated tolerability scores for constipation, nausea, daytime drowsiness and sleep disturbance were similar between treatments.