High-dose tramadol in comparison to low-dose morphine for cancer pain relief

Chiropractic spinal manipulation and likelihood of tramadol prescription in adults with radicular low back pain: a retrospective cohort study using US data

OBJECTIVES

Patients receiving chiropractic spinal manipulation (CSM) for low back pain (LBP) are less likely to receive any opioid prescription for subsequent pain management. However, the likelihood of specifically being prescribed tramadol, a less potent opioid, has not been explored. We hypothesised that adults receiving CSM for newly diagnosed radicular LBP would be less likely to receive a tramadol prescription over 1-year follow-up, compared with those receiving usual medical care.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

US medical records-based dataset including >115 million patients attending academic health centres (TriNetX, Inc), queried 9 November 2023.

PARTICIPANTS

Opioid-naive adults aged 18-50 with a new diagnosis of radicular LBP were included. Patients with serious pathology and tramadol use contraindications were excluded. Variables associated with tramadol prescription were controlled via propensity matching.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were divided into two cohorts dependent on treatment received on the index date of radicular LBP diagnosis (CSM or usual medical care).

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Risk ratio (RR) for tramadol prescription (primary); markers of usual medical care utilisation (secondary).

RESULTS

After propensity matching, there were 1171 patients per cohort (mean age 35 years). Tramadol prescription was significantly lower in the CSM cohort compared with the usual medical care cohort, with an RR (95% CI) of 0.32 (0.18 to 0.57; p<0.0001). A cumulative incidence graph demonstrated that the reduced incidence of tramadol prescription in the CSM cohort relative to the usual medical care cohort was maintained throughout 1-year follow-up. Utilisation of NSAIDs, physical therapy evaluation and lumbar imaging was similar between cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found that US adults initially receiving CSM for radicular LBP had a reduced likelihood of receiving a tramadol prescription over 1-year follow-up. These findings should be corroborated by a prospective study to minimise residual confounding.

Management of Acute Cancer Pain in Asia: An Expert Opinion on the Role of Tramadol/Dexketoprofen Fixed-Dose Combination

Most patients experience acute cancer pain at some stage throughout their cancer journey. When inadequately managed, cancer pain has devastating consequences for the patient's quality of life. The suboptimal management of cancer pain in Asia is mainly driven by over-regulation and limited access to opioids. Concerns about adverse events and addiction have resulted in a negative perception of this group of drugs among physicians, as well as patients. There is a need to optimize the management of cancer pain across the region, through the provision of an alternative treatment option that is simple to prescribe, convenient to administer and well tolerated by patients, which will increase patients' compliance and good results. As recommended in many international guidelines, starting by the WHO analgesic ladder, cancer pain can be effectively managed with multimodal analgesia. Fixed-dose combinations (FDCs), in which two or more analgesic agents act synergistically to deliver a broad spectrum of pain relief, represent an effective and convenient option for delivering multimodal analgesia to patients with cancer pain. This is extremely well accepted by patients for several reasons. Any multimodal pharmacological approach to pain management should be based on the potentiality to block pain at different levels and to reduce the dosages of single analgesics, reducing their side effects. Hence, the use of NSAIDs, combined with other analgesics, is the general basis of multimodal pain management. If NSAIDs are combined with tramadol, a weak opioid that has per se a multimodal analgesic efficacy, it may be ideal. The tramadol/dexketoprofen FDC combines the centrally acting weak opioid with a peripherally acting NSAID to deliver rapid-onset, long-lasting analgesia, which has been proven efficacious and safe in the management of moderate-to-severe acute pain in the postoperative setting. This expert opinion explores the role of tramadol/dexketoprofen FDC in the management of patients with moderate-to-severe acute cancer pain. It is essentially based on the incredibly high amount of existing data on the use of the drug, and on the long-lasting experience of the experts in pain management of cancer patients participating in the advisory panel.

Phase III, international, multicentre, double-blind, dose increment, parallel-arm, randomised controlled trial of duloxetine versus pregabalin for opioid-unresponsive neuropathic cancer pain: a JORTC-PAL16 trial protocol

INTRODUCTION

Management of neuropathic cancer pain (NCP) refractory to regular opioids remains an important challenge. The efficacy of pregabalin for NCP except chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) has already been confirmed in two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) compared with placebo. Duloxetine offers the potential of analgesia in opioid refractory NCP. However, there are no RCT of duloxetine for the management of opioid-refractory NCP as a first line treatment. Both classes of drugs have the potential to reduce NCP, but there has been no head-to-head comparison for the efficacy and safety, especially given differing side effect profiles.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

An international, multicentre, double-blind, dose increment, parallel-arm, RCT is planned. Inclusion criteria include: adults with cancer experiencing NCP refractory to opioids; Brief Pain Inventory (BPI)-item 3 (worst pain) of ≥4; Neuropathic Pain on the Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs Pain Scale of ≥12 despite of an adequate trial of regular opioid medication (≥60 mg/day oral morphine equivalent dose). Patients with CIPN are excluded.The study will recruit from palliative care teams (both inpatients and outpatients) in Japan and Australia. Participants will be randomised (1:1 allocation ratio) to duloxetine or pregabalin arm. Dose escalation is until day 14 and from day 14 to 21 is a dose de-escalation period to avoid withdrawal effects. The primary endpoint is defined as the mean difference in BPI item 3 for worst pain intensity over the previous 24 hours at day 14 between groups. A sample size of 160 patients will be enrolled between February 2020 and March 2023.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval was obtained at Osaka City University Hospital Certified Review Board and South Western Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee. The results of this study will be submitted for publication in international journals and the key findings presented at international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: jRCTs051190097, ACTRN12620000656932.

Oxycodone/Acetaminophen: The Tailoring Combination Treatment for Specific Clinical Profile of Opioid Well-Responsive Cancer Pain

Background

International guidelines recommend moderate-to-severe cancer pain to be treated with strong opioids. However, pain management remains an unsolved matter, at least in the demanding oncology and palliative care setting. Although cancer pain consists of multiple components, which interact in complex ways where combination therapy can better intercept multiple pain characteristics, few studies have used a non-opioid/opioid association to exploit possible synergistic actions. Even the efforts of a recent approach emphasizing appropriate pain assessment and accurate classification to obtain personalized pain management have not produced a satisfactory analgesic strategy.

Objective

This analysis was intended to evaluate the effectiveness of the immediate release fixed combination of oxycodone/acetaminophen (OxyIR/Par) for the treatment of moderate-to-severe intensity background pain used alone or in combination with other strong opioids in cancer patients with breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP). This is a secondary analysis of a wider observational, prospective, multicenter study [Italian Oncologic Pain multiSetting Multicentric Survey (IOPS-MS)] performed on 179 patients treated with opioids for cancer pain who received the fixed combination of oxycodone/acetaminophen (OxyIR/Par) for the treatment of background pain (BGP).

Results

Cancer patients with breakthrough cancer pain and controlled BGP (Background Pain) were classified according to the presence of analgesic therapy with tablets of fixed combination OxyIR/Par alone (group A, n=120) or tablets of fixed combination OxyIR/Par combined with other strong opioids (group B, n=59). Clinical features of group A were different to group B: higher mean Karnofsky Performance Status Index 70.3% (95% CI=67.2–73.5; median=70, CI=60–80) vs 58.3 (95% CI=53.4–63.2; median=50, CI=45–70) (P<0.001), and mainly group A patients were treated in an ambulatory setting (55.0% group A vs 33.9% group B) (p<0.001). Both groups had managed BGP with similar mean dosages (group A: 12.0, CI=10.5–13.4; group B: 13.1, CI=11.0–15.1) and frequencies of OxyIR/Par alone for group A and in association to other opioids for group B, but Breakthrough cancer Pain (BTcP) exhibited different characteristics in the two groups, showing a lower mean intensity numerical rating scale (NRS) of 7.5 (95% CI=7.2–7.7; median=7, CI=7–8 group A) vs 7.9 (95% CI=7.6, 8.2; median= 8, CI=7–9 group B) (P=0.04) and a higher percentage of patients had a faster onset, defined as the maximum intensity reached in less than 10 minutes, 81.7% (N=98) in group A vs 59.3% (n=35) in group B (P=0.002).

Conclusion

This is the first analysis about the efficacy of an immediate-release fixed combination of OxyIR/Par in the real world for moderate-to-severe background cancer pain and breakthrough cancer pain. The oral fixed combination OxyIR/Par provided an adequate level of analgesia for moderate–severe background cancer pain, in a different cohort of cancer patients with different performance status, both in ambulatory and palliative settings. The low dosage of fixed combination OxyIR/Par was effective alone or in association with other opioids.

Bladder Care in Palliative Care Inpatients: A Prospective Dual Site Cohort Study

Background: Urinary catheterization is often undertaken to relieve distressing bladder symptoms in palliative care.

Objective: The primary aim of this study was to determine the incidence of, and clinical indications that predispose patients admitted to palliative care units to, urinary catheterization. The secondary aims were to determine causal factors, including the type of malignancy, antecedent medications, and duration of admission in these patients.

Methods: This was a prospective observational dual site cohort study in palliative care inpatients. Univariate categorical chi-square analysis was performed to compare patients with and without urinary catheterization, and to identify risk factors associated with urinary catheter use.

Results: The incidence of catheterization in this cohort was 41% (43/104) and urinary retention (63%) was the most common cause. Agitation (47%) and urinary incontinence (70%) were common symptoms in those catheterized. Medications that were significantly associated with the need for urinary catheterization were benzodiazepines (p < 0.01) and antipsychotics (p = 0.01). All measures that define poor functional status were found to be significant (p < 0.01). Patients with prolonged hospitalization of greater than three weeks were catheterized more frequently (p = 0.017). The majority of patients catheterized (79%) were admitted for terminal care.

Conclusions: The high incidence of urinary catheterization highlights the need for good bladder care for all patients in the palliative care setting. Patients with risk factors include the use of antipsychotics and benzodiazepines, declining functional status and prolonged hospital admission are more likely to be catheterized.

Adult Cancer Pain, Version 3.2019, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology

In recent years, the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Adult Cancer Pain have undergone substantial revisions focusing on the appropriate and safe prescription of opioid analgesics, optimization of nonopioid analgesics and adjuvant medications, and integration of nonpharmacologic methods of cancer pain management. This selection highlights some of these changes, covering topics on management of adult cancer pain including pharmacologic interventions, nonpharmacologic interventions, and treatment of specific cancer pain syndromes. The complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Adult Cancer Pain addresses additional aspects of this topic, including pathophysiologic classification of cancer pain syndromes, comprehensive pain assessment, management of pain crisis, ongoing care for cancer pain, pain in cancer survivors, and specialty consultations.

Multimodal approaches and tailored therapies for pain management: the trolley analgesic model

Chronic pain is described as a manifestation of real or potential tissue damage. It is identified as a perception influenced by the complex interactions of biological, psychological, and social factors. Different types of pain and their comorbidities dramatically affect patients' quality of life and their families. Due to diverse etiology and pathogenesis, pain management represents a controversial issue in clinical practice. In 1986, the WHO developed a three-step ladder model based on the use of analgesics for pain management according to pain intensity in a linear up or down movement. Despite its huge value for pain relief, this model has some limitations, and some controversies in the pharmacotherapy of pain management have arisen so far. To bypass these difficulties, the concept of WHO analgesic ladder has been contested and changed into a four bidirectional step model which postulates the use of the invasive procedures (neuromodulatory and neurosurgical procedures). Moreover, with the introduction of the neuromatrix theory for dealing the acute and the chronic pain, the WHO model was newly reinterpreted and changed into a platform analgesic model that includes multimodal pharmacological and alternative treatments applicable to all pain conditions, although excludes the precision therapies. Here, we summarize and revise these concepts in order to propose a new model termed "trolley analgesic model" that will allow adopting tailored therapies with dynamic multimodal approaches for pain management according to 1) the pain intensity, 2) the physiopathology of pain, 3) the complexity of symptoms, 4) the presence of comorbidity, and 5) the physiopathological factors and the social context.

Tramadol: a valuable treatment for pain in Southeast Asian countries

Background

The supply of controlled drugs is limited in the Far East, despite the prevalence of health disorders that warrant their prescription. Reasons for this include strict regulatory frameworks, limited financial resources, lack of appropriate training amongst the medical profession and fear of addiction in both general practitioners and the wider population. Consequently, the weak opioid tramadol has become the analgesic most frequently used in the region to treat moderate to severe pain.

Methods

To obtain a clearer picture of the current role and clinical use of tramadol in Southeast Asia, pain specialists from 7 countries in the region were invited to participate in a survey, using a questionnaire to gather information about their individual use and experience of this analgesic.

Results

Fifteen completed questionnaires were returned and the responses analyzed. Tramadol is used to manage acute and chronic pain caused by a wide range of conditions. Almost all the specialists treat moderate cancer pain with tramadol, and every one considers it to be significant or highly significant in the treatment of moderate to severe non-cancer pain. The reasons for choosing tramadol include efficacy, safety and tolerability, ready availability, reasonable cost, multiple formulations and patient compliance. Its safety profile makes tramadol particularly appropriate for use in elderly patients, outpatients, and for long-term treatment. The respondents strongly agreed that tighter regulation of tramadol would reduce its medical availability and adversely affect the quality of pain management. In some countries, there would no longer be any appropriate medication for cancer pain or the long-term treatment of chronic pain.

Conclusions

In Southeast Asia, tramadol plays an important part in the pharmacological management of moderate to severe pain, and may be the only available treatment option. If it were to become a controlled substance, the standard of pain management in the region would decline.

Impact of CYP genotype and inflammatory markers on the plasma concentrations of tramadol and its demethylated metabolites and drug tolerability in cancer patients

PURPOSE

Clinical responses to oral tramadol show a large variation in cancer patients. This study aimed to evaluate the impacts of cytochrome P450 (CYP) genotype and serum inflammatory markers on the plasma concentrations of tramadol and its demethylated metabolites and drug tolerability in cancer patients.

METHODS

The predose plasma concentrations of tramadol and its demethylated metabolites were determined at day 4 or later in 70 Japanese cancer patients treated with oral tramadol. The CYP genotypes, serum interleukin-6 (IL-6) and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels, and the duration of tramadol treatment were evaluated.

RESULTS

The CYP2D6 genotype did not affect the plasma tramadol concentration. The plasma concentration of O-desmethyltramadol and its ratio to tramadol were lower in the CYP2D6 intermediate and poor metabolizer (IM + PM) group than in the normal metabolizer (NM) group (P = 0.002 and P = 0.023). The plasma concentration of N-desmethyltramadol and its ratio to tramadol were higher in the CYP2D6 IM + PM group than in the NM group (P = 0.001 and P = 0.001). The CYP2B6*6 and CYP3A5*3 alleles had no effect on the plasma concentrations of tramadol and its demethylated metabolites. The serum IL-6 and CRP levels were inversely correlated with the plasma concentration ratios of N-desmethyltramadol to tramadol and of N,O-didesmethyltramadol to O-desmethyltramadol. The serum IL-6 level was associated with the treatment duration of oral tramadol.

CONCLUSIONS

The CYP2D6 genotype but not the CYP2B6 and CYP3A5 genotypes affected the plasma concentrations of O- and N-desmethyltramadol through alteration of the tramadol metabolic pathway. The serum IL-6 level was associated with N-demethylation activity and tramadol tolerability.

Long-term low-dose morphine for patients with moderate cancer pain is predominant factor effecting clinically meaningful pain reduction

PURPOSE

Patients with cancer often experience pain that affects their daily activities and quality of life. The analgesic ladder recommended by the World Health Organization has proved insufficient for many, and its scientific basis has been questioned. This retrospective study investigated factors related to adherence to long-term opioid therapy for patients with moderate cancer pain, including an evaluation of low-dose morphine relative to tramadol.

METHODS

Clinical data were collected of patients with moderate cancer pain (n = 353) who received either low-dose morphine or tramadol and were followed for ≥ 27 weeks. Factors related to regime adherence were investigated, including the analgesia type, cancer therapy (antitumor therapy or palliative care), pain type (nociceptive, neuropathic, or mixed), and living distance to the hospital. Factors related to clinically meaningful pain reduction (≥ 30% reduction in pain from baseline) were also investigated.

RESULTS

Patients taking tramadol, receiving antitumor therapy, experiencing neuropathic pain, and living far from the hospital were more likely to change analgesic strategy compared with, respectively, patients receiving low-dose morphine, palliative care, experiencing nociceptive pain, and living nearby. Factors that increased the likelihood of adherence to the analgesic regime were also associated with the likelihood of clinically meaningful pain reduction. Among adverse effects, a significantly higher percentage of patients experienced constipation in the tramadol group compared with those given morphine.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with moderate cancer pain, long-term low-dose morphine was safe and more effective than tramadol for clinically meaningful pain reduction, and patients were less likely to change the analgesic strategy.

Comparative pharmacology and toxicology of tramadol and tapentadol

Moderate-to-severe pain represents a heavy burden in patients' quality of life, and ultimately in the society and in healthcare costs. The aim of this review was to summarize data on tramadol and tapentadol adverse effects, toxicity, potential advantages and limitations according to the context of clinical use. We compared data on the pharmacological and toxicological profiles of tramadol and tapentadol, after an extensive literature search in the US National Library of Medicine (PubMed). Tramadol is a prodrug that acts through noradrenaline and serotonin reuptake inhibition, with a weak opioid component added by its metabolite O-desmethyltramadol. Tapentadol does not require metabolic activation and acts mainly through noradrenaline reuptake inhibition and has a strong opioid activity. Such features confer tapentadol potential advantages, namely lower serotonergic, dependence and abuse potential, more linear pharmacokinetics, greater gastrointestinal tolerability and applicability in the treatment of chronic and neuropathic pain. Although more studies are needed to provide clear guidance on the opioid of choice, tapentadol shows some advantages, as it does not require CYP450 system activation and has minimal serotonergic effects. In addition, it leads to less side effects and lower abuse liability. However, in vivo and in vitro studies have shown that tramadol and tapentadol cause similar toxicological damage. In this context, it is important to underline that the choice of opioid should be individually balanced and a tailored decision, based on previous experience and on the patient's profile, type of pain and context of treatment.

SIGNIFICANCE

This review underlines the need for a careful prescription of tramadol and tapentadol. Although both are widely prescribed synthetic opioid analgesics, their toxic effects and potential dependence are not completely understood yet. In particular, concerning tapentadol, further research is needed to better assess its toxic effects.

Tramadol prescription patterns in patients followed by general practitioners and orthopedists in Germany in the year 2015

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to analyze tramadol prescription patterns in acute pain patients followed by general practitioners and orthopedists in Germany.

METHODS

This study included patients ≥18 years diagnosed with acute pain who received at least one tramadol prescription each in one of 1,129 general or 179 orthopedic practices in Germany between January and December 2015 (index date). Patients were excluded if they had received a prescription for another analgesic in the year prior to the index date, had a follow-up of less than 15 months after the index date, or were prescribed tramadol for a period of more than three months. The main outcome of this retrospective study was the share of patients receiving tramadol in combination therapy. Combination therapy was defined as the prescription of tramadol in conjunction with at least one other analgesic during the same medical visit.

RESULTS

The present study included a total of 8,766 individuals. Overall, 1,492 (22.0%) of tramadol patients seen by general practitioners and 370 (18.7%) of those seen by orthopedists received tramadol in combination with other analgesics. Although this proportion was similar throughout the different subgroups in orthopedic practices, it was considerably higher in patients >80 years and in those with private health insurance coverage in general practices.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately one of five tramadol patients was prescribed tramadol in combination therapy. Further research is needed to gain a better understanding of the demographic and clinical factors that have an effect on tramadol prescription patterns in Germany.

Acute impairing effects of morphine related to driving: A systematic review of experimental studies to define blood morphine concentrations related to impairment in opioid-naïve subjects

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to look for dose- and concentration-effect relationships in experimental studies on single-dose administration of morphine on traffic-relevant behavioral tests by a systematic literature review and possibly to see whether a dose/concentration could be defined below which few or no tests would be affected.

METHODS

Searches for corresponding literature were conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO, throughout March of 2016. The search strategy consisted of words colligated to cognitive and psychomotor functions of relevance to driving, in relation to morphine administration. The tests were arranged in main groups, and tests showing impairment were categorized by doses as well as calculated plasma concentrations.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies were included in the review. Impairment after the administration of a single intravenously dose of morphine was found in some of the tests on reaction time, attention, and visual functions. No impairment was observed in tests on psychomotor skills and en-/decoding. Tests on reaction time appeared to be less sensitive to the morphine administration, whereas tests on visual functions and attention appeared to be the most sensitive to the morphine administration. Single-dose administration of morphine with dosages up to 5 mg appeared to cause very few effects on traffic-relevant performance tasks. At higher dosages, impairment was found on various tasks but with no clear dose-effect relationship. Plasma morphine concentrations less than 50 nmol/L are most probably accompanied by few effects on traffic-relevant performance tasks.

CONCLUSIONS

A plasma morphine concentration of 50 nmol/L (approximately 14.3 ng/mL) could represent an upper level, under which there is little accompanying road traffic risk. A single dose of 5 mg morphine IV and analgetic equivalence doses of fentanyl, hydromorphone, oxycodone, and oxymorphone are presented with the suggestion that few traffic-relevant effects will appear after such doses.

Where there is no morphine: the challenge and hope of palliative care delivery in Tanzania

Background

In Tanzania, a country of 42 million, access to oral morphine is rare.

Aim

To demonstrate the effectiveness of palliative care teams in reducing patients’ pain and in increasing other positive life qualities in the absence of morphine; and to document the psychological burden experienced by their clinical providers, trained in morphine delivery, as they observed their patients suffering and in extreme pain.

Setting

One hundred and forty-five cancer patients were included from 13 rural hospitals spread across Tanzania.

Method

A mixed method study beginning with a retrospective quantitative analysis of cancer patients who were administered the APCA African POS tool four times. Bivariate analyses of the scores at time one and four were compared across the domains. The qualitative arm included an analysis of interviews with six nurses, each with more than five years’ palliative care experience and no access to strong opioids.

Results

Patients and their family caregivers identified statistically significant (p < 0.001) improvements in all of the domains. Thematic analysis of nurse interviews described the patient and family benefits from palliative care but also their great distress when ‘bad cases’ arose who would likely benefit only from oral morphine.

Conclusion

People living with chronic cancer-related pain who receive palliative care experience profound physical, spiritual and emotional benefits even without oral morphine. These results demonstrate the need for continued advocacy to increase the availability of oral morphine in these settings in addition to palliative care services.

Does Tramadol Have a Role in Pain Control in Palliative Care?

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of the step II of the World Health Organization analgesic ladder including tramadol has been questioned recently.

METHODS

Retrospective study of patients treated with tramadol admitted as inpatients to one palliative care unit between November 1, 2009, and October 30, 2012.

RESULTS

In the study period, 730 patients were admitted and 66 (9%) of them met the criteria for inclusion; 45 (68%) continued medication with tramadol until discharge from the unit, while 21 (32%) had to switch to an opioid for moderate to severe pain. The reason for switching was uncontrolled pain in 16 (76%) patients, and for 5 (24%) patients, the switch was made for other reasons.

CONCLUSION

The data suggest that tramadol may have a role to play in the treatment of pain in palliative care.

Pharmacological management of pain in chronic pancreatitis

Introduction:

Chronic pancreatitis is a condition that is rising in incidence in the Western World. It is predominated by severe intractable abdominal pain that presents a significant impact on patients’ quality of life and physical functioning. The pain is persistent in many patients, requiring admission to hospital for the majority at some stage in their illness. There is no current NICE or SIGN guideline with associated grading for the pharmacological management of this symptom. This paper aims to investigate and summarise the current pharmacological therapies for pain control in an attempt to formulate the levels of evidence supporting their use.

Methods:

The online digital archives PubMed, Science Direct, Medscape and the Cochrane Library were searched for the keywords pain and chronic pancreatitis. Hand searches of relevant journals and citations were used to complete the investigation of current literature on the topic. Relevant articles and studies were critically analysed in a standard format with relation to study type, population, number, end point and outcomes. Publications not relevant to the management of pain in chronic pancreatitis were excluded.

Results:

Medical therapies, including oral analgesics and enzyme preparations, were included in the analysis of current modalities for treating pain in chronic pancreatitis.

Conclusions:

A summary of the evidence base for different pharmacological treatments in the context of chronic pancreatitis has shown that large number trials evaluating their efficacy in managing pain are lacking and offer scope for future research on this topic. The use of ‘alternative’ treatments such as antioxidant preparations and enzyme antagonists has shown promise. With regard to opioids, tramadol is as effective as morphine with less neuropsychiatric and gastrointestinal side effects. Oxycodone may derive more benefit than morphine due to an additional Κ-agonist effect.

Pain management for the cancer patient - current practice and future developments

Anaesthesiologists will be asked to provide pain management for cancer patients in the absence of more specialised services, when interventional techniques are indicated and in the postoperative period. In all these settings, the complexity of cancer pain and its psychosocial connotations need to be considered to provide appropriate and holistic care. Principles of systemic pain management, effective in most patients, continue to follow established guidelines; identification of neuropathic pain and its appropriate treatment is important here. Interventional pain relief is required in a minority of cancer patients, but it should be considered when appropriate and then done with best available expertise. Neurolytic procedures have lost importance here over the years. Postoperative pain management should be multimodal with consideration of regional techniques when applicable. In managing postoperative pain in cancer patients, opioid tolerance needs to be addressed to avoid withdrawal and poor analgesia. Preventive techniques aiming to reduce chronic postoperative pain should be considered.

Effect of intrathecal magnesium in the presence or absence of local anaesthetic with and without lipophilic opioids: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Spinal anaesthesia is the primary anaesthetic technique for many types of surgery. Adjuncts to the local anaesthetics (LA) used in spinal anaesthesia can exhibit undesirable side-effects, limiting their use, but magnesium may have advantages in this respect. We sought randomized control trials (RCTs) in patients undergoing all types of surgery and in women in labour to compare the effect of intrathecal magnesium sulphate ± LA ± lipophilic opioid (experimental group) with the use of either intrathecal lipophilic opioids ± LA or LA only (control group). The primary outcome was the duration of spinal anaesthesia. Secondary outcomes were: onset and time to maximal sensory blockade, onset of motor block, and duration of sensory and motor blockade. We found 15 RCTs comprising 980 patients. The duration of spinal anaesthesia was significantly increased in the experimental group [standardized mean difference (SMD) -1.05 (-1.70, -0.41) (P = 0.001)], compared with the control group. This increased duration of spinal anaesthesia was seen in non-obstetric studies, SMD -1.38 (-2.11, -0.66) (P = 0.0002), but not in obstetric studies, SMD -0.55 (-1.87, 0.77) (P = 0.41). There was no delay in the onset of sensory or motor blockade. The incidence of hypotension and pruritus was similar in both groups. Heterogeneity was high in all outcome measures. The duration of spinal anaesthesia may be increased by the addition of magnesium to lipophilic opioids ± LA.

Flupirtine enhances the anti-hyperalgesic effects of morphine in a rat model of prostate bone metastasis

OBJECTIVE

Current treatments for cancer pain are often inadequate, particularly when metastasis to bone is involved. The addition to the treatment regimen of another drug that has a complementary analgesic effect may increase the overall analgesia without the necessity to increase doses, thus avoiding dose-related side effects. This project investigated the synergistic effect of the addition of the potassium channel (KCNQ2-3) modulator flupirtine to morphine treatment in a rat model of prostate cancer-induced bone pain.

DESIGN

Syngeneic prostate cancer cells were injected into the right tibia of male Wistar rats under anesthesia. This led to expanding tumor within the bone in 2 weeks, together with the concurrent development of hyperalgesia to noxious heat. Paw withdrawal thresholds from noxious heat were measured before and after the maximum non-sedating doses of morphine and flupirtine given alone and in combinations. Dose-response curves for morphine (0.13-5.0 mg/kg ip) and flupirtine (1.25-10.0 mg/kg ip) given alone and in fixed-dose combinations were plotted and subjected to an isobolographic analysis.

RESULTS

Both morphine (ED₅₀ = 0.74 mg/kg) and flupirtine (ED₅₀ = 3.32 mg/kg) caused dose-related anti-hyperalgesia at doses that did not cause sedation. Isobolographic analysis revealed that there was a synergistic interaction between flupirtine and morphine. Addition of flupirtine to morphine treatment improved morphine anti-hyperalgesia, and resulted in the reversal of cancer-induced heat hyperalgesia.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that flupirtine in combination with morphine may be useful clinically to provide better analgesia at lower morphine doses in the management of pain caused by tumors growing in bone.

The impact of opioid analgesics on the gastrointestinal tract function and the current management possibilities

Opioid-induced bowel dysfunction (OIBD) comprises gastrointestinal symptoms such as constipation, anorexia, nausea, vomiting, gastro-oesophageal reflux, delayed digestion, abdominal pain, bloating, hard stool and incomplete evacuation that significantly deteriorate patients' quality of life and compliance. Approximately one third of patients treated with opioids do not adhere to the opioid regimen or simply quit the treatment due to OIBD. Several strategies are undertaken to prevent or treat OIBD. Traditional oral laxatives are used but their effectiveness is limited and they display adverse effects. Other possibilities comprise opioid switch or changing the administration route. New therapies target opioid receptors in the gut that seem to be the main source of OIBD. One is a combination of an opioid and opioid antagonist (oxycodone/naloxone) in prolonged-release tablets, and another is a purely peripherally acting opioid receptor antagonist (methylnaltrexone) available in subcutaneous injections. The aim of this article is to review the pathomechanism and possible treatment strategies of OIBD.

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.

The second step of the analgesic ladder and oral tramadol in the treatment of mild to moderate cancer pain: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

To analyse the evidence supporting the widespread use of modified analgesic ladders or oral tramadol as alternatives to codeine/paracetamol for mild to moderate cancer pain.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was independently performed by two authors. The level of evidence and risk/benefit ratio were assessed in all the selected trials. A comprehensive analysis of the level of evidence, risk/benefit ratio and strength of the recommendations was carried out. The analysis was performed using the GRADE system.

RESULTS

Eighteen papers were included into the analysis. The level of evidence was low or very low for all the trials, and as a result the risk/benefit ratio was uncertain. Likewise, the strength of the final recommendations was considered weak negative for either the use of modified analgesic ladders (by-passing the second step of the World Health Organization (WHO) analgesic ladder) or the use of oral tramadol as an alternative to codeine/paracetamol in the second step of the WHO analgesic ladder.

CONCLUSIONS

Data supporting the role of modified two-step analgesic ladders or oral tramadol as an alternative to codeine/paracetamol are insufficient to recommend their routine use in cancer patients with mild to moderate cancer pain.

The impact of tramadol and dihydrocodeine treatment on quality of life of patients with cancer pain

BACKGROUND

Tramadol and dihydrocodeine (DHC) are analgesics of step 2 WHO analgesic ladder (opioids for mild to moderate pain, weak opioids) frequently used in the treatment of cancer pain of moderate intensity. The aim of the study was to assess the impact of tramadol and DHC treatment on quality of life (QL) and performance status (PS) of patients with cancer pain.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Randomised, cross-over, clinical study of 40 opioid-naive patients with nociceptive cancer pain who received tramadol or DHC controlled release tablets for 7 days, and then drugs were switched and administered for another 7 days. Pain was assessed by visual analogue scale (VAS), QL by EORTC QLQ C 30, and PS by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) and Karnofsky.

RESULTS

From 40 patients recruited, 30 completed the study. DHC treatment provided better analgesia (VAS). In QL functional scales, better emotional functioning in tramadol group and better global QL and cognitive functioning in DHC group were observed. In symptom scales, less fatigue, pain and sleep disturbances, less nausea and vomiting and better appetite in DHC group were noted. In tramadol group, less constipation and less financial problems were observed. No differences in dyspnoea and diarrhoea were noted. ECOG and Karnofsky PS were low and did not differ between tramadol and DHC groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Dihydrocodeine treatment was associated with better global QL, cognitive functioning, analgesia and appetite, less fatigue, sleep disturbances, nausea and vomiting. Tramadol therapy was connected with better emotional functioning, less constipation and financial problems. PS deteriorated in both tramadol and DHC groups.

Management of cancer pain

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

The role of opioid receptor antagonists in the treatment of opioid-induced constipation: a review

Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is associated with negative impact of opioid analgesics on opioid receptors located in the gut wall. Until recently, OIC was treated symptomatically only, with different laxatives which did not target the pathophysiology of OIC. Recently, several opioid receptor antagonists have been introduced in the treatment of OIC. Methylnaltrexone (MNTX) is a peripheral mu-opioid receptor antagonist for subcutaneous administration, which does not evoke symptoms of opioid abstinence. MNTX is indicated for patients with OIC who are not amenable to therapy with oral laxatives. In clinical trials, the effectiveness of MNTX assessed as its ability to induce spontaneous bowel movement, is 50%-60% of treated patients; MNTX demonstrates significant superiority over placebo. Another product is combination of oral formulation of prolonged release oxycodone and prolonged release naloxone (PR oxycodone/PR naloxone), indicated for patients who require opioid administration for chronic pain and have already developed OIC, and for those who need opioid therapy and take the drug to prevent OIC. Naloxone administered orally displays local, antagonist effects on opioid receptors in the gut wall, negligible systemic bioavailability, and significantly reduces the oxycodone constipating effect. PR oxycodone/PR naloxone has similar analgesic efficacy, but causes less constipation and less laxative consumption in comparison with patients treated with oxycodone alone. Both products are expensive, therefore their administration should be carefully considered. On the other hand, uncontrolled OIC and the necessity to perform rectal invasive procedures (enema, manual evacuation) lead not only to increased health care costs, but most importantly, cause severe patient suffering.

Compatibility and stability of ternary admixtures of tramadol, haloperidol, and hyoscine N-butyl bromide: retrospective clinical evaluation

BACKGROUND

Combination of drugs for subcutaneous infusion is common practice in palliative medicine, however, there is no information pertaining to the compatibility and stability of tramadol combined in ternary admixtures and no information exists regarding its clinical performance.

METHODS

Tramadol hydrochloride, haloperidol lactate, and hyoscine N-butyl bromide have been examined for compatibility and stability when combined in solution under conditions mimicking their potential use via subcutaneous infusion in terminal oncology patients. Concentration ranges were 8.8-33.3 mg/mL, 0.208-0.624 mg/mL, and 3.33-6.67 mg/mL for tramadol hydrochloride, haloperidol lactate, and hyoscine N-butyl bromide. With these, 27 different admixtures were prepared and stored at 25 degrees C using 0.9% saline as diluent. Quantification was performed by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). The clinical performance of the admixture was retrospectively assessed in 28 terminal oncology patients exhibiting Karnofsky's indexes of 10%-20%.

RESULTS

All three drugs were very stable (>92%) at 25 degrees C for 15 days. Pain was completely controlled in all patients. Fifty percent of the patients suffered from 3-5 vomiting episodes per day and of these, 75% experienced complete control of the episodes. None of the patients showed local reactions after subcutaneous administration of the admixture.

RESULTS

Our results confirm the compatibility and stability of the ternary admixture and its utility in highly vulnerable patients exhibiting moderate symptoms.

Long-term stability of the hydrochlorides of tramadol and alizapride in dextrose 5% polyolefin bag at 5+/-3 degrees C

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the stability of tramadol hydrochloride 100mg associated with alizapride 50mg in 100ml of 5% dextrose solution stored at 5+/-3 degrees C.

METHODS

Solutions of 5% dextrose 100ml in polyolefin bags (n=5) containing approximately tramadol hydrochloride 100mg associated with alizapride 50mg were prepared under aseptic conditions and stored about 32 days at 5+/-3 degrees C. The tramadol hydrochloride and alizapride concentrations were measured by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). Visual inspection was performed and pH was measured periodically during the storage. Stability of the solutions was defined as the common regression line 95% lower confidence limit of the concentration remaining superior to 90% of the initial concentration as recommended by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

RESULTS

No color change or precipitation in the solutions was observed. Tramadol hydrochloride 100mg associated with alizapride 50mg in 100ml of 5% dextrose infusions was stable when stored at 5+/-3 degrees C during 32 days. Throughout this period, the lower confidence limit of the estimated regression line of concentration-time profile remained above 90% of the initial concentration. There was no significant change in pH during storage.

CONCLUSION

Under the conditions of this study, tramadol hydrochloride 100mg associated with alizapride 50mg in 100ml of 5% dextrose infusions stored up to 32 days at 5+/-3 degrees C remain stable and may be prepared in advance by a Centralized Intravenous Additive Service (CIVAS) to improve safety and management.

Long-term stability of tramadol chlorhydrate and metoclopramide hydrochloride in dextrose 5% polyolefin bag at 4°C

Objectives. Preparation of intravenous solution in advance could be efficient to improve quality assurance, security, time management, and cost saving of drug delivery. The purpose of this study was to investigate the stability of a mixture of tramadol chlorhydrate and metoclopramide hydrochloride in dextrose 5% polyolefin bags at 4°C.

Methods. The stability of five bags of solution containing 100 mg tramadol and 10 mg metoclopramide per 100 mL dextrose 5% and stored at 4°C was studied during 32 days and concentrations measured by high performance liquid chromatography-diode array detection.

Results. No degradation interference nor modification in retention times were observed throughout the study period. At day 32, tramadol concentration was 96.9% ± 2.1 and metoclopramide 97.2% ± 1.3 of the initial concentration.

Conclusion. Based on a shelf-life of 90% residual potency, tramadol and metoclopramide were compatible and stable for at least 32 days at 4°C and can be prepared in advance in a centralized intravenous additive service facility. J Oncol Pharm Practice (2009) 15: 195—200.

A randomized, double-blind, crossover comparison of the efficacy and safety of oral controlled-release tramadol and placebo in patients with painful osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of controlled-release (CR) tramadol (Zytram XL, Purdue Pharma, Canada) and placebo in patients with painful osteoarthritis.

METHODS

Patients underwent analgesic washout for two to seven days before random assignment to 150 mg daily of CR tramadol or placebo, and were titrated weekly to 200 mg, 300 mg or a maximum of 400 mg once daily. After four weeks, patients crossed over to the alternate treatment for another four weeks. Plain acetaminophen was provided as a rescue analgesic. All patients who completed the crossover study were eligible to receive open label CR tramadol for six months.

RESULTS

Seventy-seven of 100 randomly assigned patients were evaluable for efficacy. CR tramadol resulted in significantly lower visual analogue scale pain intensity scores (37.4+/-23.9 versus 45.1+/-24.3, P=0.0009). Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index subscale scores for pain (189.0+/-105.0 versus 230.0+/-115.4; P=0.0001) and physical function (632.4+/-361.3 versus 727.4+/-383.4; P=0.0205) were significantly better with CR tramadol. Total pain and disability (22.8+/-14.5 versus 27.2+/-14.8; P=0.0004), and overall pain and sleep (104.7+/-98.0 versus 141.0+/-108.2; P=0.0005) scores in the Pain and Sleep Questionnaire were significantly lower for CR tramadol. Short-form 36 Health Survey scores were significantly better during CR tramadol treatment for the pain index (38.8+/-10.8 versus 35.6+/-9.0; P=0.0100), general health perception (46.5+/-11.2 versus 44.4+/-11.6; P=0.0262), vitality (43.1+/-13.2 versus 40.2+/-13.7; P=0.0255) and overall physical components (40.8+/-8.9 versus 37.8+/-7.7; P=0.0002). CR tramadol treatment was preferred by 55.8% of patients (P=0.0005) versus 20.8% and 23.4% of patients who chose placebo or had no preference, respectively. These improvements were sustained for up to six months, and 86.5% of patients reported at least moderate benefit from CR tramadol during long-term treatment.

CONCLUSION

CR tramadol is effective for the management of painful osteoarthritis.

Going beyond efficacy: strategies for cancer pain management

Despite great advances in the fields of pain management and palliative care, pain directly or indirectly associated with a cancer diagnosis remains significantly undertreated. The present paper reviews the current standard for cancer pain management and highlights new treatments and targeted interventional techniques.

[Pain related to head and neck cancers during disease progression]

Head and neck cancers can be revealed by pain symptoms caused by an excess of nociception. Other pain sometimes occurs during the cancer's progression such as neuropathic or mixed pain. These should incite the clinician to be watchful so as not to miss recurrence of the cancer. Treatment is complex, requiring management by a multidisciplinary team.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Opioid titration in cancer pain: a critical review

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

Tramadol and hyoscine N-butyl bromide combined in infusion solutions: compatibility and stability

BACKGROUND

More than two-thirds of patients with metastatic cancer experience pain. Tramadol is one of the most interesting and useful weak opioids used by palliative care units to treat moderate to moderately severe pain. Relief of distressful symptoms in terminally ill patients is of prime importance; a common practice is to administer opioid analgesics in conjunction with other drugs as hyoscine N-butyl bromide, which is very useful in reducing secretions in patients with inoperable malignant bowel obstruction. The pursuit for excellence in symptom control in patients unable to take oral medication has led to the administration of medications by other routes such as the subcutaneous route.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to fulfill the lack of information regarding the compatibility and physical stability of tramadol hydrochloride and hyoscine N-butyl bromide combined in infusion solutions.

METHODS

The stability of nine admixtures (stored in polypropylene syringes) at 4 and 25 degrees C was assessed over a period of 15 days.

RESULTS

Nonstatistically significant losses of tramadol HCl and a maximum loss of 7% for hyoscine N-butyl bromide were obtained. Therefore, tramadol HCl (dose range, 100-400 mg/day) can be formulated together in saline with hyoscine N-butyl bromide (dose range 40-80 mg/day) for s.c. infusion using a 60-ml drug infuser for a duration of 7 days.

Low morphine doses in opioid-naive cancer patients with pain

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