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

E-cigarettes may serve as a gateway to conventional cigarettes and other addictive drugs

Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are devices that allow the user to inhale nicotine in a vapor, and are primarily marketed as a means of quitting smoking and a less harmful replacement for traditional cigarette smoking. However, further research is needed to determine if vaping nicotine via e-cigarettes can be effective. Conversely, nicotine has been considered a gateway drug to alcohol and other addictive drugs and e-cigarettes containing nicotine may have the same effects. Previous reports have shown that e-cigarette use may open the gate for the use of other drugs including conventional cigarettes, cannabis, opioids, etc. The increasing prevalence of e-cigarettes, particularly among youth and adolescents in the last decade have led to an increase in the dual use of e-cigarettes with alcohol, cannabis, and other illicit drug use like heroin and 3-4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA). The advent of e-cigarettes as a device to self-administer addictive agents such as cocaine and synthetic cathinones may bring about additional adverse health effects associated with their concurrent use. This review aims to briefly describe e-cigarettes and their different generations, and their co-use with other addictive drugs as well as the use of the device as a tool to self-administer addictive drugs, such as cocaine, etc.

Transdermal fentanyl patch versus standard analgesia in postoperative oral submucous fibrosis patients: a triple blinded, randomised control trial

Severe pain experienced by patients with oral submucous fibrosis (OSMF) compromises their physiotherapy and negatively affects the surgical outcome and the patient's compliance. The main aim of this study was to develop a protocol for pain control in the management of OSMF postoperatively. This was a prospective, parallel with active control, double-arm, triple-blinded, randomised control trial (RCT) with 48 OSMF patients, randomised into two groups - Group A (control, n = 25): received non-opioid analgesics (NSAIDs) and Group B (cases, n = 23): received transdermal fentanyl patches (TFP). Pain and interincisal opening were measured on postoperative days 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 15, and on the1^st and 3^rd postoperative months. Quality of Life (QoL) was assessed preoperatively, on the 15^th day postoperatively, and 3^rd month postoperatively, and compliance was documented postoperatively on the 9^th day. The transdermal fentanyl patch was found to have statistically significantly more effect in controlling severe pain during active mouth opening exercises, and thus significantly increased the patients' compliance. Although there was increased mouth opening and QoL in the fentanyl group, the differences were statistically insignificant. Our study recommends the use of TFP for better pain control and compliance in postoperative OSMF patients.

Influence of aprepitant and localization of the patch on fentanyl exposure in patients with cancer using transdermal fentanyl

Background and Objectives

The cutaneous fentanyl patch is widely used to treat continuous pain in patients with cancer. Its use is hampered by a high inter- and intrapatient pharmacokinetic variability. Factors that influence this pharmacokinetic variability are largely unclear. The aim of these studies was to test if common patient variables, i) the use of the moderate CYP3A4 inhibitor aprepitant and ii) the localization of the fentanyl patch (upper arm versus thorax) influence systemic exposure to fentanyl in patients with cancer using a transdermal fentanyl patch.

Results

The AUC_{0-6 h} of fentanyl was 7.1% (95% CI: -28% to +19%) lower if patients concurrently used aprepitant, compared to the period when patients used fentanyl only. The AUC_{0-4 h} of fentanyl was 7.4% (95% CI: -22% to +49%) higher when the cutaneous fentanyl patch was applied to the upper arm compared to application at the thorax.

Conclusions

Neither the concurrent use of aprepitant, nor the localization of the fentanyl patch showed a statistically significant influence on fentanyl pharmacokinetics.

Methods

We performed two prospective cross-over pharmacokinetic intervention studies. Both studies had two eight-day study periods. At day 8 of each study period blood samples were collected for pharmacokinetic analysis. In each study 14 evaluable patients were included.

Characteristics and Treatment of Breakthrought Pain (BTcP) in Palliative Care

INTRODUCTION

This research was to follow characteristics of breakthrough pain caused by cancer (BTcP) and other most common sympthoms (ESAS) at patients in advanced stage of cancer disease in palliative care.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Prospective study included 433 patients which were treated in Palliative Care Centre in UKC Tuzla, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Group 1 was consisted of 353 patients whose basal cancer pain of intensity 4-7 NRS was treated weak opiates (basal analgetic- fixed combination of tramadol/paracetamol (37.5 mg/325 mg) in initial dose 3x1tbl for pain intensity 4, to 4x2tbl (for pain intensity 7). In Group 2 (80 patients) basal pain of intensity 8-10 was treated strong opiates as basal analgetic (oral morphine and transdermal fentanil). If the previous day were 2 or more breakthrough pain that required ''rescue dose'' of analgetics (tramadol 50-100 mg orally in group 1 ie. Oral morphine 8-12 mg in the group 2), the dose of basal analgetic was increased.

RESULTS

The total number of reported breakthrough pain in all 433 patients for 10 days of treatment was 3 369 (0.78 BTcP /per patient/day), where at Group 1 patients showed significantly lower BTcP (0.56 BTcP/patient/day). The average intensity of BTcP was 5.91 where in the Group1 was 4.51 while in the Group 2 8.04. 582 (17.28%) was rated grade 7, of which 539 were successfully coupled by strong and 43 (7.39%) successfully coupled by weak opiates. From 556 BTcP who were rated with 8, 540 of them were coupled strong and only 16 successfully coupled by weak opiates. 1967 (58.39 %) of breakthrough pain has occured in the evening hours (18-06 h), while 1402 (41.62%) BTCP occured during day hours (06-18h). Most (1290 or 38.29%) of breakthrough pain lasted less than 10 minutes, 882 (26.18%) between 16 and 20 minutes, 752 (22.32%) between 11 and 15 minutes, 407 (12.8%) between 21 and 30 minutes and 38 (1.13%) lasted longer than 20 minutes.

CONCLUSION

Duriong our study, we noted a relatively large number of breakthrough pain with lower intensity (3-6) in patients treated with weak opiates, which are also adversely affected patients satisfaction with pain treatment and required additional doses of analgetics. In the small percentage is possible the breakthrough pain of stronger intensity (7-8) treat by maximum doses of weak opiates.

Safety concerns with long-term opioid use

INTRODUCTION

The benefits of opioid therapy must be balanced by any adverse effects. In recent years, prescription opioids have been increasingly prescribed, but have also been associated with increased abuse, overdose and death.

AREAS COVERED

This review will categorize the common risks of opioid administration. Recognized adverse effects of opioid therapy include constipation, tolerance, endocrinopathies, sleep disorders, cognitive effects, respiratory depression, overdose and addiction. Studies have shown that there is increased risk of overdose and death with higher daily opioid doses, particularly above a morphine equivalent oral daily dose of 100 milligrams. Extended-release/long acting (ER/LA) opioid formulations may be beneficial for the compliant patient, yet may expose a higher risk for abuse if used inappropriately since each tablet carries a larger dose of medication.

EXPERT OPINION

Prospective, controlled one-year trials are needed to establish the efficacy and safety profile of chronic opioid therapy. In addition to the well known side effects of chronic opioid therapy, the influence and serious effect of opioids on sleep and central sleep apnea is only recently being investigated. The lowest possible daily opioid must be used to manage chronic pain, and all clinicians should be cautious in the use of daily morphine equivalent doses above 50-100 milligrams.

Oral morphine for cancer pain

BACKGROUND

This is the third updated version of a Cochrane review first published in Issue 4, 2003 of The Cochrane Library and first updated in 2007. Morphine has been used for many years to relieve pain. Oral morphine in either immediate release or modified release form remains the analgesic of choice for moderate or severe cancer pain.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of oral morphine in relieving cancer pain, and to assess the incidence and severity of adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 9); MEDLINE (1966 to October 2015); and EMBASE (1974 to October 2015). We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov (1 October 2015).

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One review author extracted data, which were checked by another review author. There were insufficient comparable data for meta-analysis to be undertaken or to produce numbers needed to treat (NNTs) for the analgesic effect. We extracted any available data on the number or proportion of participants with 'no worse than mild pain' or treatment success (very satisfied, or very good or excellent on patient global impression scales).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified seven new studies in this update. We excluded six, and one study is ongoing so also not included in this update. This review contains a total of 62 included studies, with 4241 participants. Thirty-six studies used a cross-over design ranging from one to 15 days, with the greatest number (11) for seven days for each arm of the trial. Overall we judged the included studies to be at high risk of bias because the methods of randomisation and allocation concealment were poorly reported. The primary outcomes for this review were participant-reported pain and pain relief.Fifteen studies compared oral morphine modified release (Mm/r) preparations with morphine immediate release (MIR). Fourteen studies compared Mm/r in different strengths; six of these included 24-hour modified release products. Fifteen studies compared Mm/r with other opioids. Six studies compared MIR with other opioids. Two studies compared oral Mm/r with rectal Mm/r. Three studies compared MIR with MIR by a different route of administration. Two studies compared Mm/r with Mm/r at different times and two compared MIR with MIR given at a different time. One study was found comparing each of the following: Mm/r tablet with Mm/r suspension; Mm/r with non-opioids; MIR with non-opioids; and oral morphine with epidural morphine.In the previous update, a standard of 'no worse than mild pain' was set, equivalent to a score of 30/100 mm or less on a visual analogue pain intensity scale (VAS), or the equivalent in other pain scales. Eighteen studies achieved this level of pain relief on average, and no study reported that good levels of pain relief were not attained. Where results were reported for individual participants in 17 studies, 'no worse than mild pain' was achieved by 96% of participants (362/377), and an outcome equivalent to treatment success in 63% (400/638).Morphine is an effective analgesic for cancer pain. Pain relief did not differ between Mm/r and MIR. Modified release versions of morphine were effective for 12- or 24-hour dosing depending on the formulation. Daily doses in studies ranged from 25 mg to 2000 mg with an average of between 100 mg and 250 mg. Dose titration was undertaken with both instant release and modified release products. A small number of participants did not achieve adequate analgesia with morphine. Adverse events were common, predictable, and approximately 6% of participants discontinued treatment with morphine because of intolerable adverse events.The quality of the evidence is generally poor. Studies are old, often small, and were largely carried out for registration purposes and therefore were only designed to show equivalence between different formulations.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The conclusions have not changed for this update. The effectiveness of oral morphine has stood the test of time, but the randomised trial literature for morphine is small given the importance of this medicine. Most trials recruited fewer than 100 participants and did not provide appropriate data for meta-analysis. Only a few reported how many people had good pain relief, but where it was reported, over 90% had no worse than mild pain within a reasonably short time period. The review demonstrates the wide dose range of morphine used in studies, and that a small percentage of participants are unable to tolerate oral morphine. The review also shows the wide range of study designs, and inconsistency in cross-over designs. Trial design was frequently based on titration of morphine or comparator to achieve adequate analgesia, then crossing participants over in cross-over design studies. It was not clear if these trials were sufficiently powered to detect any clinical differences between formulations or comparator drugs. New studies added to the review for the previous update reinforced the view that it is possible to use modified release morphine to titrate to analgesic effect. There is qualitative evidence that oral morphine has much the same efficacy as other available opioids.

Efficacy and safety of transdermal fentanyl for the treatment of oral mucositis pain caused by chemoradiotherapy in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

PURPOSE

Oral mucositis is one of the most painful side effects found in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients treated with chemoradiotherapy. The transdermal route of administration is worthy of investigation for patients who suffer from dysphagia due to severe oral mucositis. In this phase 2 study, we investigated the efficacy and safety of transdermal fentanyl (TDF) for mucositis pain caused by chemoradiotherapy in ESCC patients.

METHODS

Forty-six ESCC patients who experienced moderate to severe oral mucosal pain during chemoradiotherapy received TDF for pain relief. The assessment of pain was made according to the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). Efficacy and safety of TDF was collected and conducted in an open-label fashion. The analgesic effect, quality of life, and side effects were evaluated after the administration of transdermal fentanyl using the paired sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.

RESULTS

The mucositis-induced pain disappeared in 31 (67.4 %) patients during the treatment with transdermal fentanyl with the median time of onset at day 6.6 (range 3-14). The median Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) score was reduced from 6 (range 3-9) before treatment to 4.5 (range 2-9), 3 (range 2-8), 2.5 (range 1-8), 2 (range 0-6), and 0 (range 0-4) on days 3, 6, 9, 11, and 15, respectively, after treatment (P < 0.001). The patients' quality of life also improved significantly (P < 0.01). The side effects of treatment were mild and disappeared within several days.

CONCLUSION

Transdermal fentanyl is an effective, convenient, and well-tolerated treatment for mucositis pain caused by chemoradiotherapy, which can improve ESCC patients' quality of life.

Reduced morphine consumption and pain severity with transdermal fentanyl patches following total knee arthroplasty

PURPOSE

To determine the effects of transdermal fentanyl patches (TFPs) for postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) surgery.

METHODS

A randomized, double-blind, controlled trial study of 40 ASA I-III patients undergoing TKA surgery was performed under general anaesthesia. Patients were randomly divided into two groups. Group I (n = 20) received two 25 μg TFPs placed on the laterals of chest wall approximately 12 h before induction of general anaesthesia. Group II, the control group (n = 20), received placebo patches of identical size. Postoperative pain at rest was assessed with visual analogue scale (VAS) at 0, 30 min and 2, 4, 6, 12, 24, 48 and 72 h. Total rescue consumption of morphine was estimated with patient control analgesia during the first 72 h after operation. The degree of active knee flexion and incidence of side effects were also evaluated.

RESULTS

The VAS scores at 2, 4, 6, 12, 24, 48 and 72 h were significantly less in the group I compared to the group II (p < 0.05). Total morphine consumption was significantly less in group I than in group II (p < 0.05). No significant differences were found between the groups in the postoperative active knee flexion (n.s.). Side effects were similar between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Transdermal fentanyl patches provide effective pain relief and decrease total rescue morphine consumption during the first 72 h after operation without additive side effects in patients undergoing TKA surgery.

Oral morphine for cancer pain

BACKGROUND

This is the second updated version of a Cochrane review first published in Issue 4, 2003 of The Cochrane Library and first updated in 2007. Morphine has been used for many years to relieve pain. Oral morphine in either immediate release or modified release form remains the analgesic of choice for moderate or severe cancer pain.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of oral morphine in relieving cancer pain, and assess the incidence and severity of adverse effects.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases: Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Group Trials Register (June 2013); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 5, May); MEDLINE (1966 to June 2013); and EMBASE (1974 to June 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using placebo or active comparators reporting on the analgesic effect of oral morphine in adults and children with cancer pain. Trials with fewer than ten participants were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One review author extracted data, which were checked by another review author. There were insufficient comparable data for meta-analysis to be undertaken or to produce numbers needed to treat (NNTs) for the analgesic effect. We extracted any available data on the number or proportion of participants with 'no worse than mild pain' or treatment success (very satisfied, or very good or excellent on patient global impression scales).

MAIN RESULTS

Ten new studies (638 participants) were identified for this update, bringing the total of included studies to 62, with 4241 participants. Thirty-six studies used a cross-over design ranging from one to 15 days, with the greatest number (11) for seven days for each arm of the trial.Fifteen studies compared oral morphine modified release (Mm/r) preparations with morphine immediate release (MIR). Fourteen studies compared Mm/r in different strengths; six of these included 24-hour modified release products. Fifteen studies compared Mm/r with other opioids. Six studies compared MIR with other opioids. Two studies compared oral Mm/r with rectal Mm/r. Three studies compared MIR with MIR by a different route of administration. Two studies compared Mm/r with Mm/r at different times and two compared MIR with MIR given at a different time. One study was found comparing each of the following: Mm/r tablet with Mm/r suspension; Mm/r with non-opioids; MIR with non-opioids; and oral morphine with epidural morphine.In this update a standard of 'no worse than mild pain' was set equivalent to a score of 30/100 mm or less on a visual analogue pain intensity scale (VAS), or the equivalent in other pain scales. Eighteen studies achieved this level of pain relief on average, and no study reported that good levels of pain relief were not attained. Where results were reported for individual participants in 17 studies, 'no worse than mild pain' was achieved by 96% of participants (362/377), and an outcome equivalent to treatment success in 63% (400/638).Morphine is an effective analgesic for cancer pain. Pain relief did not differ between Mm/r and MIR. Modified release versions of morphine were effective for 12- or 24-hour dosing depending on the formulation. Daily doses in studies ranged from 25 mg to 2000 mg with an average of between 100 mg and 250 mg. Dose titration was undertaken with both instant release and modified release products. A small number of participants did not achieve adequate analgesia with morphine. Adverse effects were common and approximately 6% of participants discontinued treatment because of intolerable adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effectiveness of oral morphine has stood the test of time, but the randomised trial literature for morphine is small given the importance of this medicine. Most trials recruited fewer than 100 participants and did not provide appropriate data for meta-analysis. Only a few reported how many people had good pain relief, but where it was reported, over 90% had no worse than mild pain within a reasonably short time period. The review demonstrates the wide dose range of morphine used in studies, and that a small percentage of participants are unable to tolerate oral morphine. The review also shows the wide range of study designs, and inconsistency in cross-over designs. Trial design was frequently based on titration of morphine or comparator to achieve adequate analgesia, then crossing participants over in cross-over design studies. It was not clear if these trials are sufficiently powered to detect any clinical differences between formulations or comparator drugs. New studies added to the review reinforce the view that it is possible to use modified release morphine to titrate to analgesic effect. There is qualitative evidence that oral morphine has much the same efficacy as other available opioids.

Converting to transdermal fentanyl: avoidance of underdosing

BACKGROUND

Converting between the various opioid agents continues to be challenge for many practitioners. Specifically, variable recommendations for converting to the transdermal fentanyl patch may lead to confusion among clinicians and errors in dosing.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to describe the inconsistencies among available opioid conversions with regard to transdermal fentanyl and to provide recommendations for safe and effective utilization of this product in patients with chronic pain.

RESULTS

Available reports support the use of the morphine intravenous to oral ratio of 1:3 during the conversion to transdermal fentanyl product.

CONCLUSIONS

Underdosing is an often overlooked complication of switching to transdermal fentanyl. Current recommendations for converting to transdermal fentanyl do not reflect contemporary clinical practice and should be reevaluated.

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.

Overview of Diagnosis and Management of Metastatic Disease to Bone

Background

Bone metastases occur frequently in patients with advanced cancer and are a serious complication of cancer. The decision to treat is often individualized, based on each patient's clinical presentation, life expectancy, and quality of life.

Methods

We reviewed the current literature pertaining to management of metastatic disease to bone, and the medical, radiotherapeutic, and surgical treatment options for management of bone metastasis are discussed.

Results

Current management of skeletal metastasis includes analgesia, systemic therapy, radiation therapy, and surgery. We propose treatment algorithms for management of vertebral and nonvertebral bone metastases and suggest individualized interventions based on clinical presentation.

Conclusions

Management of bone metastases is complex and requires a multidisciplinary approach. The goal of treatment is often palliative, and intervention and treatment regimens should be individualized based on the specific clinical presentation of each patient.

Three-cycle fentanyl patch system contributes to stable control of plasma fentanyl concentration in gynecologic cancer pain patients

OBJECTIVE

Pain affects many cancer patients in advancing stages, lowering the level of their quality of life. Morphine has long been the "gold standard" for the treatment of cancer pain; however, its side effects, particularly sedation and cognitive impairment at high doses, have encouraged the use of "opioid rotation". The transdermal fentanyl patch has advantages over oral morphine, with reduced side effects and increased convenience in practical usage. The side effects were reduced in patients who changed to the fentanyl patch, but rescue analgesia was often needed because of the decrease of fentanyl release from the patch, especially on patch replacement day. To maintain a stable fentanyl plasma level before patch replacement, we have established a three-cycle fentanyl patch system and reported that it provided appropriate pain control. The objective of this study was to investigate the individual variability of plasma fentanyl concentration in a three-cycle fentanyl patch system.

CASE REPORT

The gynecologic cancer patients were treated using the three-cycle fentanyl patch system. Blood samples were taken from the patients and plasma fentanyl concentration was analyzed. A stable plasma fentanyl level was observed, and good pain control was achieved in each patient using the three-cycle fentanyl patch system. A stable plasma fentanyl level was maintained the day before the conventional patch replacement day.

DISCUSSION

The three-cycle fentanyl patch system provided a stable plasma fentanyl concentration and excellent pain relief and should be considered for pain control in cancer patients.

Management of opioid-induced nausea and vomiting in cancer patients: systematic review and evidence-based recommendations

The objectives were to review the existing literature on management of opioid-induced nausea and vomiting in cancer patients and summarize the findings into evidence-based recommendations. Systematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were performed, using free text and MeSH/EMTREE search terms. The searches were limited to articles published in English from each database set-up date to 31 July 2009. Reference lists and relevant international conference proceedings were hand-searched. Fifty-five studies were identified, providing data on 5741 patients. The studies were classified into: (A) studies in which treatment of nausea/vomiting was the primary outcome (a total of 18 studies, of which eight studies specifically addressed opioid-induced emesis); and (B) studies in which nausea/vomiting were secondary or tertiary outcomes (37 studies). The existing evidence had several limitations, there was a lack of consistency and the overall quality was grade D. By applying the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) system, three weak recommendations were formulated. The current evidence is too limited to give evidence-based recommendations for the use of antiemetics for opioid-induced nausea or vomiting in cancer patients. The evidence suggests that nausea and vomiting in cancer patients receiving an opioid might be reduced by changing the opioid or opioid administration route. The evidence was also too limited to prioritize between symptomatic treatment and adjustment of the opioid treatment.

Fentanyl transdermal patches: overview of cutaneous adverse effects in humans

Using Medline, Embase, and the Science Citation Index, we summarize the cutaneous adverse effects of transdermal and parenteral fentanyl. The fentanyl transdermal therapeutic system (TTS; patch) provides continuous systemic delivery of fentanyl (N-phenyl-N-(1-(2-phenylethyl)-4-piperidinyl) propanamide), a potent opioid analgesic, for 72 hours. Clinical studies of fentanyl TTSs demonstrated varying rates of irritation at the application site, ranging from none to 42%, with a median of 25%. Most descriptions of skin reactions included erythema at the application site, indicating irritant dermatitis. Skin testing in 2 subjects receiving parenteral doses concluded that although immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies to fentanyl exist, few cases of immediate-type allergic reactions to fentanyl have been substantiated. Comparing the reactions to anesthetic agents during allergenic testing demonstrated positive "wheal and flare" to fentanyl in only 1 of 50 patients (2%). Pruritus has been frequently reported during administration of epidural fentanyl, but allergenicity has not been shown. The few case reports of possible anaphylactic reactions to fentanyl have not clearly demonstrated fentanyl as the causal agent. In addition, transdermal and intravenous/epidural routes of administration may not be comparable because of large differences in plasma concentrations: When these results are taken together, fentanyl (TTS) has shown limited skin intolerance.

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.

Transdermal fentanyl: pharmacology and toxicology

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the underlying pharmacology, safety, and misuse/abuse of transdermal fentanyl, one of the cornerstone pharmacotherapies for patients with chronic pain.

METHODS

Literature was identified through searches of Medline (PubMed) and several textbooks in the areas of pharmacology, toxicology, and pain management. A bibliographical review of articles identified by these searches was also performed. Search terms included combinations of the following: fentanyl, transdermal, patch, pharmacology, kinetics, toxicity, and poisoning. All pertinent clinical trials, retrospective studies, and case reports relevant to fentanyl pharmacology and transdermal fentanyl administered by any route and published in English were identified. Each was reviewed for data regarding the clinical pharmacology, abuse, misuse, and safety of transdermal fentanyl. Data from these studies and information from review articles and pharmaceutical prescribing information were included in this review.

RESULTS

Fentanyl is a high-potency opioid that has many uses in the treatment of both acute and chronic pain. Intentional or unintentional misuse, as well as abuse, may lead to significant clinical consequences, including death. Both the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Health Canada have warned of potential pitfalls associated with transdermal fentanyl, although these have not been completely effective in preventing life-threatening adverse events and fatalities related to its inappropriate use.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinically consequential adverse effects may occur unexpectedly with normal use of transdermal fentanyl, or if misused or abused. Misuse and therapeutic error may be largely preventable through better education at all levels for both the prescriber and patient. The prevention of intentional misuse or abuse may require regulatory intervention.

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.

Fentanyl inhibits glucose-stimulated insulin release from β-cells in rat pancreatic islets

AIM: To explore the effects of fentanyl on insulin release from freshly isolated rat pancreatic islets in static culture.

METHODS: Islets were isolated from the pancreas of mature Sprague Dawley rats by common bile duct intraductal collagenase V digestion and were purified by discontinuous Ficoll density gradient centrifugation. The islets were divided into four groups according to the fentanyl concentration: control group (0 ng/mL), group I (0.3 ng/mL), group II (3.0 ng/mL), and group III (30 ng/mL). In each group, the islets were co-cultured for 48 h with drugs under static conditions with fentanyl alone, fentanyl + 0.1 μg/mL naloxone or fentanyl + 1.0 μg/mL naloxone. Cell viability was assessed by the MTT assay. Insulin release in response to low and high concentrations (2.8 mmol/L and 16.7 mmol/L, respectively) of glucose was investigated and electron microscopy morphological assessment was performed.

RESULTS: Low- and high-glucose-stimulated insulin release in the control group was significantly higher than in groups II and III (62.33 ± 9.67 μIU vs 47.75 ± 8.47 μIU, 39.67 ± 6.18 μIU and 125.5 ± 22.04 μIU vs 96.17 ± 14.17 μIU, 75.17 ± 13.57 μIU, respectively, P < 0.01) and was lowest in group III (P < 0.01). After adding 1 μg/mL naloxone, insulin release in groups II and III was not different from the control group. Electron microscopy studies showed that the islets were damaged by 30 ng/mL fentanyl.

CONCLUSION: Fentanyl inhibited glucose-stimulated insulin release from rat islets, which could be prevented by naloxone. Higher concentrations of fentanyl significantly damaged β-cells of rat islets.

Efficacy and safety of transdermal fentanyl for treatment of oral mucositis pain caused by chemotherapy

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

We investigated the efficacy and safety of transdermal fentanyl for severe mucositis pain caused by chemotherapy.

METHODS

Thirty-two patients who had moderate to severe pain using the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) were enrolled in this study. The analgesic effect, quality of life and side effects were evaluated after the administration of transdermal fentanyl.

RESULTS

The median NRS score was reduced from 6 (range 4 - 9) before treatment to 4 (range 0 - 9), 2.5 (range 0 - 8), 2 (range 0 - 8), 2 (range 0 - 6) and 0 (range 0 - 5) on days 3, 5, 7, 10 and 15, respectively, after treatment (p < 0.001). The patients' quality of life also improved significantly (p < 0.01). The side effects of treatment were mild, and disappeared within several days.

CONCLUSIONS

Transdermal fentanyl is an effective, convenient and well-tolerated treatment for severe mucositis pain caused by chemotherapy that can improve patients' quality of life.

Assessment and management of breakthrough pain in cancer patients: current approaches and emerging research

Cancer pain is highly prevalent and often severe. Fortunately, most cancer pain can be readily managed, with up to 90% of patients responding well to standard interventions. However, breakthrough cancer pain-brief flares of severe pain superimposed on baseline pain-is common, difficult to manage, and often negatively impacts patients' quality of life. Breakthrough cancer pain is traditionally managed with oral, immediate-release opioids. However, because of its sudden onset and severity, oral opioids often fall short of providing adequate control. Research into novel approaches to pain management has identified several innovative strategies for this difficult cancer pain problem. We describe current approaches to assess, define, characterize, and treat breakthrough cancer pain, and summarize recent clinical research on novel agents, novel routes of drug delivery, and other advances in its management.

Effect of acepromazine, butorphanol, or N-butylscopolammonium bromide on visceral and somatic nociception and duodenal motility in conscious horses

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate effects of butorphanol, acepromazine, and N-butylscopolammonium bromide (NBB) on visceral and somatic nociception and duodenal motility in conscious, healthy horses.

ANIMALS

6 adult horses.

PROCEDURES

Visceral nociception was evaluated by use of colorectal distention (CRD) and duodenal distention (DD) threshold. Somatic nociception was evaluated via thermal threshold (TT). Nose-to-ground height, heart rate, and respiratory rate were also measured. Each horse received each treatment in randomized order; investigators were not aware of treatments. Butorphanol was administered IV as a bolus (18 microg/kg) followed by constant rate infusion at 13 microg/kg/h for 2 hours, whereas acepromazine (0.04 mg/kg), NBB (0.3 mg/kg), and saline (0.9% NaCl) solution (2 mL) were administered IV as a bolus followed by constant rate infusion with saline solution (10 mL/h) for 2 hours. Variables were measured before and for 3 hours after treatment. Data were analyzed by use of a 3-factor ANOVA followed by a Bonferroni t test for multiple comparisons.

RESULTS

Nose-to-ground height decreased after acepromazine. Respiratory rate decreased after acepromazine and increased after butorphanol. Heart rate increased briefly after NBB. Some horses had an increase in TT after butorphanol and acepromazine, but there was not a significant treatment effect over time. Drug effect on DD or motility was not evident. The CRD threshold increased significantly at 5, 65, 155, and 185 minutes after acepromazine and from 5 to 65 minutes after NBB.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Each drug caused predictable changes in sedation and vital signs, but consistent anti-nociceptive effects were not evident.

Opioids and the management of chronic severe pain in the elderly: consensus statement of an International Expert Panel with focus on the six clinically most often used World Health Organization Step III opioids (buprenorphine, fentanyl, hydromorphone, methadone, morphine, oxycodone)

SUMMARY OF CONSENSUS: 1. The use of opioids in cancer pain: The criteria for selecting analgesics for pain treatment in the elderly include, but are not limited to, overall efficacy, overall side-effect profile, onset of action, drug interactions, abuse potential, and practical issues, such as cost and availability of the drug, as well as the severity and type of pain (nociceptive, acute/chronic, etc.). At any given time, the order of choice in the decision-making process can change. This consensus is based on evidence-based literature (extended data are not included and chronic, extended-release opioids are not covered). There are various driving factors relating to prescribing medication, including availability of the compound and cost, which may, at times, be the main driving factor. The transdermal formulation of buprenorphine is available in most European countries, particularly those with high opioid usage, with the exception of France; however, the availability of the sublingual formulation of buprenorphine in Europe is limited, as it is marketed in only a few countries, including Germany and Belgium. The opioid patch is experimental at present in U.S.A. and the sublingual formulation has dispensing restrictions, therefore, its use is limited. It is evident that the population pyramid is upturned. Globally, there is going to be an older population that needs to be cared for in the future. This older population has expectations in life, in that a retiree is no longer an individual who decreases their lifestyle activities. The "baby-boomers" in their 60s and 70s are "baby zoomers"; they want to have a functional active lifestyle. They are willing to make trade-offs regarding treatment choices and understand that they may experience pain, providing that can have increased quality of life and functionality. Therefore, comorbidities--including cancer and noncancer pain, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and postherpetic neuralgia--and patient functional status need to be taken carefully into account when addressing pain in the elderly. World Health Organization step III opioids are the mainstay of pain treatment for cancer patients and morphine has been the most commonly used for decades. In general, high level evidence data (Ib or IIb) exist, although many studies have included only few patients. Based on these studies, all opioids are considered effective in cancer pain management (although parts of cancer pain are not or only partially opioid sensitive), but no well-designed specific studies in the elderly cancer patient are available. Of the 2 opioids that are available in transdermal formulation--fentanyl and buprenorphine--fentanyl is the most investigated, but based on the published data both seem to be effective, with low toxicity and good tolerability profiles, especially at low doses. 2. The use of opioids in noncancer-related pain: Evidence is growing that opioids are efficacious in noncancer pain (treatment data mostly level Ib or IIb), but need individual dose titration and consideration of the respective tolerability profiles. Again no specific studies in the elderly have been performed, but it can be concluded that opioids have shown efficacy in noncancer pain, which is often due to diseases typical for an elderly population. When it is not clear which drugs and which regimes are superior in terms of maintaining analgesic efficacy, the appropriate drug should be chosen based on safety and tolerability considerations. Evidence-based medicine, which has been incorporated into best clinical practice guidelines, should serve as a foundation for the decision-making processes in patient care; however, in practice, the art of medicine is realized when we individualize care to the patient. This strikes a balance between the evidence-based medicine and anecdotal experience. Factual recommendations and expert opinion both have a value when applying guidelines in clinical practice. 3. The use of opioids in neuropathic pain: The role of opioids in neuropathic pain has been under debate in the past but is nowadays more and more accepted; however, higher opioid doses are often needed for neuropathic pain than for nociceptive pain. Most of the treatment data are level II or III, and suggest that incorporation of opioids earlier on might be beneficial. Buprenorphine shows a distinct benefit in improving neuropathic pain symptoms, which is considered a result of its specific pharmacological profile. 4. The use of opioids in elderly patients with impaired hepatic and renal function: Functional impairment of excretory organs is common in the elderly, especially with respect to renal function. For all opioids except buprenorphine, half-life of the active drug and metabolites is increased in the elderly and in patients with renal dysfunction. It is, therefore, recommended that--except for buprenorphine--doses be reduced, a longer time interval be used between doses, and creatinine clearance be monitored. Thus, buprenorphine appears to be the top-line choice for opioid treatment in the elderly. 5. Opioids and respiratory depression: Respiratory depression is a significant threat for opioid-treated patients with underlying pulmonary condition or receiving concomitant central nervous system (CNS) drugs associated with hypoventilation. Not all opioids show equal effects on respiratory depression: buprenorphine is the only opioid demonstrating a ceiling for respiratory depression when used without other CNS depressants. The different features of opioids regarding respiratory effects should be considered when treating patients at risk for respiratory problems, therefore careful dosing must be maintained. 6. Opioids and immunosuppression: Age is related to a gradual decline in the immune system: immunosenescence, which is associated with increased morbidity and mortality from infectious diseases, autoimmune diseases, and cancer, and decreased efficacy of immunotherapy, such as vaccination. The clinical relevance of the immunosuppressant effects of opioids in the elderly is not fully understood, and pain itself may also cause immunosuppression. Providing adequate analgesia can be achieved without significant adverse events, opioids with minimal immunosuppressive characteristics should be used in the elderly. The immunosuppressive effects of most opioids are poorly described and this is one of the problems in assessing true effect of the opioid spectrum, but there is some indication that higher doses of opioids correlate with increased immunosuppressant effects. Taking into consideration all the very limited available evidence from preclinical and clinical work, buprenorphine can be recommended, while morphine and fentanyl cannot. 7. Safety and tolerability profile of opioids: The adverse event profile varies greatly between opioids. As the consequences of adverse events in the elderly can be serious, agents should be used that have a good tolerability profile (especially regarding CNS and gastrointestinal effects) and that are as safe as possible in overdose especially regarding effects on respiration. Slow dose titration helps to reduce the incidence of typical initial adverse events such as nausea and vomiting. Sustained release preparations, including transdermal formulations, increase patient compliance.

Oral morphine for cancer pain

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of a previous Cochrane review first published in Issue 4, 2003 of The Cochrane Library. Morphine has been used for many years to relieve pain. Oral morphine in either immediate release or modified release form remains the analgesic of choice for moderate or severe cancer pain.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of oral morphine in relieving cancer pain and to assess the incidence and severity of adverse effects.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The following databases were searched: Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Group Trials Register (December 2006); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2006, Issue 4); MEDLINE (1966 to December 2006); and EMBASE (1974 to December 2006).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting on the analgesic effect of oral morphine in adults and children with cancer pain. Any comparator trials were considered. Trials with fewer than ten participants were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One review author extracted data, which was checked by the other review author. There were insufficient comparable data for meta-analysis to be undertaken or to produce numbers-needed-to-treat (NNT) for the analgesic effect.

MAIN RESULTS

In this update, nine new studies with 688 participants were added. Fifty-four studies (3749 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Fifteen studies compared oral modified release morphine (Mm/r) preparations with immediate release morphine (MIR). Twelve studies compared Mm/r in different strengths, five of these included 24-hour modified release products. Thirteen studies compared Mm/r with other opioids. Six studies compared MIR with other opioids. Two studies compared oral Mm/r with rectal Mm/r. Two studies compared MIR with MIR by a different route of administration. One study was found comparing each of the following: Mm/r tablet with Mm/r suspension; Mm/r with non-opioids; MIR with non-opioids; and oral morphine with epidural morphine. Morphine was shown to be an effective analgesic. Pain relief did not differ between Mm/r and MIR. Modified release versions of morphine were effective for 12 or 24-hour dosing depending on the formulation. Daily doses in studies ranged from 25 mg to 2000 mg with an average of between 100 mg and 250 mg. Dose titration were undertaken with both instant release and modified release products. Adverse effects were common but only 4% of patients discontinued treatment because of intolerable adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The randomised trial literature for morphine is small given the importance of this medicine. Most trials recruited fewer than 100 participants and did not provide appropriate data for meta-analysis. Trial design was frequently based on titration of morphine or comparator to achieve adequate analgesia, then crossing participants over in crossover design studies. It was not clear if these trials are sufficiently powered to detect any clinical differences between formulations or comparator drugs. Studies added to the review reinforce the view that it is possible to use modified release morphine to titrate to analgesic effect. There is qualitative evidence for effectiveness of oral morphine which compares well to other available opioids. There is limited evidence to suggest that transmucosal fentanyl provides more rapid pain relief for breakthrough pain compared to morphine.

The evidence base of palliative medicine: is inpatient palliative medicine evidence-based?

BACKGROUND

In 2001, Good and Stafford published a study attempting to show that inpatient palliative medicine is evidence-based.

AIM

To critically examine the papers cited in support of the claim that palliative medicine is evidence-based.

METHOD

All the papers cited were re-examined by at least two reviewers. The papers were graded using a tool used in the production of 22 evidence-based national clinical guidelines over the past three years. Differences of opinion about quality were resolved by discussion or independent arbitration.

RESULTS

The 41 papers cited by Good and Stafford included 25 randomized controlled trials (RCT), six other controlled studies and 10 uncontrolled studies. Sample size. Mean sample size was 160 (range 9-1404). The median sample size was 56; 19/41(46%) had <50 subjects; 30/41 (73%) had <100. Power calculations. 16/25 (64%) of RCTs, had no power calculations, making it difficult to draw conclusions about true differences between groups. Quality rating and grade of evidence: Of the RCTs 15/25 (60%) had a high risk of bias; of the other controlled studies 5/6 (83%) had a high risk of bias. Applicability. The studies were generally applicable to a population with advanced disease: 30/41 (73%) related with populations with advanced disease.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that studies cited in support of palliative medicine as an evidence-based specialty are of variable, and at times poor quality. This study seems to show that the claim that inpatient palliative medicine is evidence-based is at best tenuous and at worst misleading. Palliative Medicine 2007; 21 : 623-627.

Orofacial pain in cancer: part II--clinical perspectives and management

Cancer-associated pain is extremely common and is associated with significant physical and psychological suffering. Unfortunately, pain associated with cancer or its treatment is frequently under-treated, probably due to several factors, including phobia of opioids, under-reporting by patients, and under-diagnosis by healthcare workers. The most common etiology of cancer pain is local tumor invasion (primary or metastatic), involving inflammatory and neuropathic mechanisms; these have been reviewed in Part I. As malignant disease advances, pain usually becomes more frequent and more intense. Additional expressions of orofacial cancer pain include distant tumor effects, involving paraneoplastic mechanisms. Pain secondary to cancer therapy varies with the treatment modalities used: Chemo-radiotherapy protocols are typically associated with painful mucositis and neurotoxicity. Surgical therapies often result in nerve and tissue damage, leading, in the long term, to myofascial and neuropathic pain syndromes. In the present article, we review the clinical presentation of cancer-associated orofacial pain at various stages: initial diagnosis, during therapy (chemo-, radiotherapy, surgery), and in the post-therapy period. As a presenting symptom of orofacial cancer, pain is often of low intensity and diagnostically unreliable. Diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of pain in cancer require knowledge of the presenting characteristics, factors, and mechanisms involved.

Three-cycle fentanyl patch system significantly improves pain control in gynecologic cancer

Pain affects many cancer patients, and in advanced stages of the disease it can significantly affect the quality of their lives. Morphine has long been the 'gold standard' for the treatment of cancer pain. However, its side-effects, particularly sedation and cognitive impairment at high doses, have encouraged the use of 'opioid rotation'. The transdermal fentanyl patch has advantages over oral morphine, with reduced side-effects and increased convenience in practical usage. The side-effects were reduced in patients who changed to the fentanyl patch, but rescue analgesia was often needed because of the decrease of fentanyl release from the patch, especially on the patch replacement day. We have developed a three-cycle fentanyl patch system that provided an appropriate pain control, and this system should be considered for pain relief in cancer patients.

Cutaneous Reactions to Transdermal Therapeutic Systems

Transdermal therapeutic systems have been increasingly used in the past two decades. However, cutaneous side effects are fairly common and may result in poor patient compliance. This review article summarizes the spectrum of reactions due to transdermal therapeutic systems and provides a current list of known allergens.

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.

Utilisation pattern of fentanyl transdermal system in The Netherlands

PURPOSE

To describe the utilisation pattern of TTS fentanyl in daily practice.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed with data from the Dutch PHARMO system, including medication and hospital admission records of 850,000 inhabitants of 25 Dutch cities. New starters of TTS fentanyl with at least two consecutive prescriptions in the period of 1 January 1996 through 31 December 2001 were included in the study cohort. Patients were distinguished in having non-cancer or cancer pain.

RESULTS

About 61% of the patients suffered from non-cancer pain and 60% used other opioids before start of TTS fentanyl. The majority of the patients used other pain medication during the first treatment episode. Most patients (74%) started treatment with the lowest dose of TTS fentanyl (25 microg/hour), patients with cancer pain more often started with higher doses. About half of the patients changed type of patch during the first treatment episode, 80% of these patients had an increase in dose of TTS fentanyl. Fifty percent of all patients had a first treatment episode of less than 2 months and more than one third did not renew their prescription within two months. The median number of days of use per patch was 2.2 days for all patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of TTS fentanyl is limited to a short period of time for a substantial percentage of patients starting treatment. The median duration of use per TTS fentanyl patch i.e. 2.2 days, was lower than the 3 days application period recommended in the summary of product characteristics.

Advances in opioid therapy and formulations

Newly developed opioid analgesics and drug delivery systems may provide pain relief for patients intolerant of morphine. Long-acting oral opioids supply satisfactory analgesia at more convenient dosing intervals. Implantable pumps can provide full analgesic doses of opioids both subcutaneously and intrathecally over extended time periods. Optimal opioid use should rely on individualized dose-finding approaches to enhance pain relief while limiting drug-related side effects and avoiding the common problems associated with opioid prescription in clinical practice.

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.

Transdermal fentanyl in HSCT patients: an open trial using transdermal fentanyl for the treatment of oral mucositis pain

Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid that can be delivered through a transdermal therapeutic system (TTS). The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of fentanyl TTS in treating oral mucositis pain in 75 adult hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) patients. The analysis was based on 62 patients who developed mucositis. Pain control was assessed by the patients using a visual analogue scale (VAS) from day 0 to day +33 after HSCT. Fentanyl TTS was administered at the patient's request. In all, 20 patients did not require fentanyl (group A). The first 22 patients asking for the patch received fentanyl 25 microg/h (group B) and the subsequent 20 patients received 50 microg/h (group C). There were no significant differences in pain relief between groups B and C. The expected effect of a decrease in mean pain score (mean of the VAS scores of all of the patients in the same group each day) following the application of fentanyl TTS was not noted. We can conclude that fentanyl TTS at the doses used in this study may not adequately relieve oral mucositis pain.

Pharmacological treatments for persistent non-malignant pain in older persons

Persistent non-malignant pain is common, often neglected and under-treated among older persons. Some older adults do not complain because they consider chronic pain to be a characteristic of normal aging. Physicians have concerns regarding adverse effects of pharmacological treatment. The model of the World Health Organization for treatment of cancer pain is generally accepted and also recommended for persistent non-cancer pain. Furthermore, non-pharmacological treatment should complement drug treatment whenever possible. An initial assessment and possible treatment of underlying causes of pain are pertinent. Modern pharmacological pain management is based on non-opioid and opioid analgesics. NSAIDs are among the most widely prescribed class of drugs in the world. The new cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors such as celecoxib and rofecoxib offer an alternative for the treatment of mild-to-moderate pain in patients with a history of gastric ulcers or bleeding. Paracetamol (acetaminophen) is being used widely for the management of mild pain across all age groups as it has moderate adverse effects at therapeutic dosages. For moderate pain, a combination of non-opioid analgesics and opioid analgesics with moderate pain relief properties (e.g. oxycodone, codeine, tramadol and tilidine/naloxone) is recommended. For severe pain, a combination of non-opioid analgesics and opioid analgesics with strong pain relief properties (e.g. morphine, codeine) is recommended. The least toxic means of achieving systemic pain relief should be used. For continuous pain, sustained-release analgesic preparations are recommended. Drugs should be given on a fixed time schedule, and possible adverse effects and interactions should be carefully monitored. Adjuvant drugs, such as antidepressants or anticonvulsants, can be very effective especially in the treatment of certain types of pain, such as in diabetic neuropathy. Effective pain management should result in decreased pain, increased function and improvement in mood and sleep.

Use of transdermal fentanyl without prior opioid stabilization in patients with cancer pain

OBJECTIVE

To determine the safety and efficacy of transdermal fentanyl for pain relief in cancer patients and to compare the effects on patients according to whether they had previously received strong opioids, weak opioids or non-opioid analgesia.

METHODS

Cancer patients requiring strong analgesia were recruited into an open-label, multicentre study, conducted in eight countries. Patients received transdermal fentanyl treatment for 28 days. Pain severity, overall satisfaction with pain control, convenience of use of patches and treatment preferences were recorded daily.

RESULTS

Of the 292 participants, 135 had previously received a strong opioid, 84 had previously received a weak opioid and 73 had received no regular opioids. Thirty-eight patients did not complete the study, mainly due to adverse events. For all groups the proportion of patients with 'good to excellent' pain control increased after transdermal fentanyl treatment. Transdermal fentanyl was well tolerated, with the most common treatment-related adverse events being nausea, vomiting and constipation. The percentage of strong-opioid-tolerant patients with constipation decreased following transdermal fentanyl treatment and increased slightly in the strong-opioid-naïve groups. Most patients rated the convenience of the patches as 'good to excellent', and most preferred transdermal fentanyl to their previous therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Transdermal fentanyl is an effective and well-tolerated treatment for cancer-related pain for patients regardless of whether they have previously received opioids. Previous guidelines have often advocated initial dose finding with short-acting opioids but this study demonstrates that such a complex titration and conversion schedule may not be necessary,and that treatment may be initiated directly with long-acting formulations such as transdermal fentanyl when previous analgesic therapy fails to provide adequate relief.

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

The aim of this observational study was to examine pain management outcomes and quality of life (QoL) measures in cancer patients with intolerable or chronic severe pain transferring from World Health Organization's step I, II, and III analgesics to the transdermal therapeutic fentanyl system (TTS-F). This study examines the safety and efficacy of TTS-F in long-term pain management, addressing the role of TTS-F in cancer pain. Pain measures were assessed in 1828 patients (step I [naïve], 268; step II [codeine], 1239; and step III [morphine], 321) on the basis of selected questions from the Greek-Brief Pain Inventory. Overall treatment satisfaction (scale, 1 to 4), QoL, and European Collaborative Oncology Group (ECOG) status were also recorded. These were assessed in relation to TTS-F dose, stratified by transfer step, primary cancer, metastases, type of pain, and concomitant use of anti-inflammatory drugs. Of 1828 patients, 100 (5.5%) withdrew, and an addition 14 (0.8%) discontinued because of side effects. A total of 1714 continued on study; 744 patients died, and 970 departed during the study period. In total, 93.8% were satisfied with their pain relief, and complete patient satisfaction was obtained within 2 months. Pain, QoL, and treatment satisfaction measures demonstrated statistically significant improvements over time, independent of the step transfer. Although doses of TTS-F were higher for step III > II > I and for metastatic than nonmetastatic, the median dose for all groups remained 50 microg/h throughout the study period. Pain and QoL improvements were independent of patient characteristic(s). Direct transfer to TTS-F for patients with intolerable or chronic moderate to severe cancer pain offers an efficient and safe long-term analgesic option for palliative care patients. Careful selection and follow-up by experienced palliative care specialists are mandatory. TTS-F as a first-line analgesic approach for severe cancer pain should be considered a viable option because of its durable efficacy and low incidences of side effects.

PERSPECTIVE

At a fairly constant dose of 50 microg/h, the transdermal therapeutic fentanyl system offers a safe, well-tolerated pain relief treatment for carefully monitored patients with cancer pain. The authors stress that this includes patients who experience difficulties in their pain management while progressing through the WHO's ladder for pain management.

Investigating the Effects of TTS-Fentanyl for Cancer Pain on the Psychological Status of Patients Naïve to Strong Opioids

Few studies have investigated the effect of fentanyl delivered via the transdermal route with regard to the patient's psychological status. Patients who were naive to strong opioids and were attending a palliative care unit for pain relief from advanced cancer participated in this study to determine the effect of transdermal therapeutic system fentanyl (TTS-F) on their psychological condition. Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS), the Karnofsky Performance Scale (100-0, optimum-death), and a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) (0: no pain; 10: worst pain) were used to measure the level of pain. Data were collected at baseline (T0), on the 7th day (T1), and on the 14th day (T2) of TTS-F application in order to determine changes in correlation to TTS-F dose. Patients' status improved according to the Zung SDS questionnaire (P < .0005) and with each of its subscales (P < .05). A similar improvement was observed according to the Spielberger STAI questionnaire (P = .002). Moreover, VAS measures demonstrated that patients achieved significant pain relief (P < .0005), while patients' performance status did not alter significantly over the study period. Furthermore, the Zung SDS showed a statistically significant correlation when compared with the Spielberger STAI (P < .01). These data provide some evidence that the psychological status, as measured with respect to depression and anxiety in patients with advanced cancer, is improved in patients receiving TTS-fentanyl. Future research should use a broad range of psychological measurements in order to assist the development of practices, which are aimed at the improvement of quality of life in these patients.

Radiotherapy plus either transdermal fentanyl or paracetamol and codeine for painful bone metastases: a randomised study of pain relief and quality of life

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of providing analgesia with either transdermal fentanyl (TTS-fentanyl) or paracetamol and codeine (P/C) in addition to radiotherapy in patients with metastatic bone pain.

METHODS

In a prospective study, 26 patients with radiologically confirmed bony metastases received radiotherapy (R/T). They were randomised to receive either 500 mg paracetamol and 30 mg codeine four times per day (P/C group), or transdermal fentanyl patches delivering 25 microg fentanyl/h (TTS-fentanyl group). Pain was assessed using visual analogue pain ratings (VAS) and the Greek Brief Pain Inventory (G-BPI) questionnaire administered before R/T and after 3 months.

RESULTS

Data were available from 24 eligible patients. Use of TTS-fentanyl was associated with significantly superior pain relief. Mean VAS fell from 7.0 to 1.1 with TTS-fentanyl and from 8.3 to 4.3 with P/C, p< 0.01. The TTS-fentanyl group also showed significantly greater improvements of important G-BPI domains including global quality of life, pain, and physical, cognitive, and role functioning, than the P/C group (p< 0.01). Four patients receiving TTS-fentanyl and three receiving P/C reported severe nausea/vomiting.

CONCLUSIONS

Transdermal fentanyl combined with R/T was more effective in reducing metastatic bone pain and resulted in greater improvements in quality of life than paracetamol and codeine.