Role of oxycodone and oxycodone/naloxone in cancer pain management

Establishment to measure oxycodone in plasma with liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry

Oxycodone (OXY) is classified as a “strong opioid” in the World Health Organization system of cancer pain treatment. However, OXY also causes severe adverse reactions, such as respiratory depression. Thus, in order to adjust the dosage of OXY for well‐managed pain relief with less toxicity, we tried establishing and validating a system for measuring plasma concentrations of OXY using liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (LC–MS/MS). Human pooled plasma samples containing OXY diluted with 0.1% formic acid solution and internal standard (papaverine) were used for solid‐phase extraction. The eluents were injected into LC–MS/MS with Unison UK‐Silica column (100 × 2 mm, 3 μm, Imtakt). Mobile phase was a mixture of 1 mM ammonium formate solution and acetonitrile containing 0.1% formic acid (50:50). OXY in plasma could be measurable with good linearity in a concentration range of 2–100 ng/ml by using 100 μl of plasma within 4 min. Relative standard deviations of all validation results were within ±15%. These results suggest that our established method using LC–MS/MS to measure OXY in plasma would be useful to adjust the dosage of OXY in order to obtain its efficacy and to avoid its adverse reactions.

Oxycodone for cancer-related pain

BACKGROUND

Many people with cancer experience moderate to severe pain that requires treatment with strong opioids, such as oxycodone and morphine. Strong opioids are, however, not effective for pain in all people, neither are they well tolerated by all people. The aim of this review was to assess whether oxycodone is associated with better pain relief and tolerability than other analgesic options for adults with cancer pain. This is an updated Cochrane review previously published in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of oxycodone by any route of administration for pain in adults with cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Science Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (ISI Web of Science), BIOSIS (ISI), and PsycINFO (Ovid) to November 2021. We also searched four trial registries, checked the bibliographic references of relevant studies, and contacted the authors of the included studies. We applied no language, date, or publication status restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (parallel-group or cross-over) comparing oxycodone (any formulation or route of administration) with placebo or an active drug (including oxycodone) for cancer background pain in adults by examining pain intensity/relief, adverse events, quality of life, and participant preference.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently sifted the search, extracted data and assessed the included studies using standard Cochrane methodology. We meta-analysed pain intensity data using the generic inverse variance method, and pain relief and adverse events using the Mantel-Haenszel method, or summarised these data narratively along with the quality of life and participant preference data. We assessed the overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

For this update, we identified 19 new studies (1836 participants) for inclusion. In total, we included 42 studies which enrolled/randomised 4485 participants, with 3945 of these analysed for efficacy and 4176 for safety. The studies examined a number of different drug comparisons. Controlled-release (CR; typically taken every 12 hours) oxycodone versus immediate-release (IR; taken every 4-6 hours) oxycodone Pooled analysis of three of the four studies comparing CR oxycodone to IR oxycodone suggest that there is little to no difference between CR and IR oxycodone in pain intensity (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.1 to 0.34; n = 319; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on adverse events, including constipation (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.13), drowsiness/somnolence (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.54), nausea (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.28), and vomiting (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.15) (very low-certainty evidence). There were no data available for quality of life or participant preference, however, three studies suggested that treatment acceptability may be similar between groups (low-certainty evidence). CR oxycodone versus CR morphine The majority of the 24 studies comparing CR oxycodone to CR morphine reported either pain intensity (continuous variable), pain relief (dichotomous variable), or both. Pooled analysis indicated that pain intensity may be lower (better) after treatment with CR morphine than CR oxycodone (SMD 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.27; n = 882 in 7 studies; low-certainty evidence). This SMD is equivalent to a difference of 0.27 points on the Brief Pain Inventory scale (0-10 numerical rating scale), which is not clinically significant. Pooled analyses also suggested that there may be little to no difference in the proportion of participants achieving complete or significant pain relief (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.10; n = 1249 in 13 studies; low-certainty evidence). The RR for constipation (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.86) may be lower after treatment with CR oxycodone than after CR morphine. Pooled analyses showed that, for most of the adverse events, the CIs were wide, including no effect as well as potential benefit and harm: drowsiness/somnolence (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.05), nausea (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.12), and vomiting (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.04) (low or very low-certainty evidence). No data were available for quality of life. The evidence is very uncertain about the treatment effects on treatment acceptability and participant preference. Other comparisons The remaining studies either compared oxycodone in various formulations or compared oxycodone to different alternative opioids. None found any clear superiority or inferiority of oxycodone for cancer pain, neither as an analgesic agent nor in terms of adverse event rates and treatment acceptability. The certainty of this evidence base was limited by the high or unclear risk of bias of the studies and by imprecision due to low or very low event rates or participant numbers for many outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The conclusions have not changed since the previous version of this review (in 2017). We found low-certainty evidence that there may be little to no difference in pain intensity, pain relief and adverse events between oxycodone and other strong opioids including morphine, commonly considered the gold standard strong opioid. Although we identified a benefit for pain relief in favour of CR morphine over CR oxycodone, this was not clinically significant and did not persist following sensitivity analysis and so we do not consider this important. However, we found that constipation and hallucinations occurred less often with CR oxycodone than with CR morphine; but the certainty of this evidence was either very low or the finding did not persist following sensitivity analysis, so these findings should be treated with utmost caution. Our conclusions are consistent with other reviews and suggest that, while the reliability of the evidence base is low, given the absence of important differences within this analysis, it seems unlikely that larger head-to-head studies of oxycodone versus morphine are justified, although well-designed trials comparing oxycodone to other strong analgesics may well be useful. For clinical purposes, oxycodone or morphine can be used as first-line oral opioids for relief of cancer pain in adults.

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.

Evaluation of Recombinant CYP3A4 Variants on the Metabolism of Oxycodone In Vitro

Cytochrome P450 3A4 is a highly polymorphic enzyme and metabolizes approximately 40%-60% of therapeutic drugs. Its genetic polymorphism may significantly affect the expression and function of CYP3A4 resulting in alterations of the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the CYP3A4-mediated drugs. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the catalytic activities of 30 CYP3A4 nonsynonymous variants and wild type toward oxycodone in vitro. CYP3A4 proteins were incubated with oxycodone for 30 min at 37 °C and the reaction was terminated by cooling to -80 °C immediately. Ultraperformance liquid chromatography tandem mass-spectrometry was used to analyze noroxycodone, and kinetic parameters Km, Vmax, and intrinsic clearance (Vmax/Km) of noroxycodone were also determined. Compared with CYP3A4.1, 24 CYP3A4 variants (CYP3A4.2-.5, -.7-.16, -.18 and -.19, -.23 and -.24, -.28 and -.29, and -.31-.34) exhibited significantly decreased relative clearance values (from 4.82% ± 0.31% to 80.98% ± 5.08%), whereas CYP3A4.6, -.17, -.20, -.21, -.26, and -.30 displayed no detectable enzyme activity. As the first study of these alleles for oxycodone metabolism in vitro, results of this study may provide insight into establishing the genotype-phenotype relationship for oxycodone and serve as a reference for clinical administrators and advance the provision of personalized precision medicine.

Inhibition of glutamatergic transmission and neuronal excitability by oxycodone in the rat hippocampal CA3 neurons

Oxycodone, a semisynthetic opioid analgesic with actions similar to morphine, is extensively prescribed for treatment of moderate to severe acute pain. Given that glutamate plays a crucial role in mediating pain transmission, the purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of oxycodone on glutamatergic synaptic transmission in rat hippocampal CA3 area, which is associated with the modulation of nociceptive perception. Whole-cell patch-clamp recordings revealed that oxycodone effectively reduced presynaptic glutamate release, as detected by decreased frequencies of spontaneous excitatory postsynaptic currents (sEPSCs) and miniature EPSCs (mEPSCs), without eliciting significant changes in the amplitudes of sEPSCs and mEPSCs and glutamate-evoked inward currents. The inhibitory effect of oxycodone on the frequency of sEPSCs was blocked by the nonselective opioid receptor antagonist naloxone. In addition, oxycodone suppressed burst firing induced by 4-aminopyridine and tonic repetitive firing evoked by the applied depolarizing current. These results suggest that oxycodone inhibits spontaneous presynaptic glutamate release possibly by activating opioid receptors and consequently suppressing the neuronal excitability of hippocampal CA3 neurons.

The role of oxycodone/naloxone in the management of patients with pain and opioid-induced constipation

INTRODUCTION

Common opioid adverse effects (AE) of the gastrointestinal tract include opioid-induced constipation (OIC) and opioid-induced bowel dysfunction (OIBD) with traditional laxatives being of limited efficacy, having AEs and not addressing the pathophysiology of OIC or OIBD. Targeted treatment comprises of PAMORA (peripherally acting mu-opioid receptor antagonists) and a combination of an opioid receptor agonist with its antagonist, namely prolonged-release oxycodone with prolonged-release naloxone (OXN) tablets at a fixed ratio of 2:1. Oxycodone provides analgesia, whereas naloxone prevents binding or displaces it from opioid receptors located in the gut wall. Areas covered: The authors review the role of OXN in the management of patients with pain and OIC. A literature search was performed using the search terms 'oxycodone/naloxone' and 'opioid-induced constipation' using the PubMed database up to October 2018. Expert opinion: OXN delivers analgesia comparable (or superior versus placebo and in observational studies) to oxycodone alone and other opioids with a limited or decreased disturbing effect on bowel function. OXN in daily doses of up to 160 mg/80 mg provides effective analgesia with little negative impact on bowel function. OXN may be successfully used in patients with chronic pain, to prevent or treat symptoms of OIC and OIBD.

Spontaneously reported adverse drug events related to tapentadol and oxycodone/naloxone in Australia

Background

The rapid increase in prescribing and use of opioids for noncancer pain has coincided with an increase in opioid-related adverse drug events (ADEs). The objective of our study was to describe ADEs related to tapentadol and oxycodone/naloxone spontaneously reported to the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).

Methods

Public case detail reports for tapentadol (September 2013-March 2017) and oxycodone/naloxone (April 2011-March 2017) were sourced from the TGA. The total number of public case detail reports for tapentadol were 104 and 249 for oxycodone/naloxone. Demographic characteristics of patients, concomitant medications, causality assessment and outcome were described for each opioid according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system organ class.

Results

The most prevalent ADEs for tapentadol were nervous system disorders (n = 52, 50%), psychiatric (n = 34, 32.7%), gastrointestinal (n = 18, 17.3%), and general disorders and administration site conditions (n = 21, 20.2%). Sixteen (23.2%) of 69 nervous system disorders reaction terms were consistent with serotonin syndrome of which 14 (87.5%) involved documented coadministration with another serotonergic medication. The most prevalent ADEs for oxycodone/naloxone were psychiatric disorders (n = 78, 31.3%), gastrointestinal (n = 73, 29.3%), general disorders and administration site conditions (n = 87, 35%), and nervous system disorders (n = 62, 24.9%). There were 40 (16%) public case detail reports for oxycodone/naloxone with the MedDRA reaction terms 'drug withdrawal syndrome' and 'withdrawal syndrome'.

Conclusion

The profiles of spontaneous ADE reports for tapentadol and oxycodone/naloxone are largely consistent with their premarketing randomized controlled studies and profiles of opioids in general. Further research into the risk of serotonin syndrome with tapentadol use is warranted. The ADEs suggest clinicians should be cautious when switching patients to oxycodone/naloxone from other opioids.

Opioid Rotation in Cancer Pain Treatment

BACKGROUND

Rotating several different WHO level III opioid drugs is a therapeutic option for patients with chronic cancer-related pain who suffer from inadequate analgesia and/or intolerable side effects. The evidence favoring opioid rotation is controversial, and the current guidelines in Germany and other countries contain only weak recommendations for it.

METHODS

This review is based on pertinent publications retrieved by a systematic review of the literature on opioid rotation for adult patients with chronic cancerrelated pain who are regularly taking WHO level III opioids by the oral or trans - dermal route.

RESULTS

9 individual studies involving a total of 725 patients were included in the analysis, and 3 previous systematic reviews of studies involving a total of 2296 patients were also analyzed. Morphine, oxycodone, fentanyl, hydromorphone, and buprenorphine were used as first-line opioid drugs, and hydromorphone, bupre - norphine, tapentadol, fentanyl, morphine, oxymorphone, and methadone were used as second-line opioid drugs. In all of the studies, pain control was achieved for 14 days after each rotation. In most of them, the dose of the new drug introduced in each rotation needed to be increased above the dose initially calculated from a rotation ratio, with the exception of rotations to methadone. The frequency of side effects was only rarely lessened, but patients largely considered the result of opioid rotation to be positive. No particular opioid drug was found to be best.

CONCLUSION

Opioid rotation can improve analgesia and patient satisfaction. The success of opioid rotation appears to depend on the magnitude of the initial dose, among other factors. Tables of equianalgesic doses should be considered no more than a rough guide for determining the dose of the new drug. Rotations to methadone should be carried out under clinical supervision in experienced hands.

Efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of oxycodone for cancer-related pain in adults: an updated Cochrane systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of oxycodone for cancer pain in adults METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, Embase, SCI, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, BIOSIS, PsycINFO and four trials registries to November 2016.

RESULTS

We included 23 randomised controlled trials with 2144 patients analysed for efficacy and 2363 for safety. Meta-analyses showed no significant differences between controlled-release (CR) and immediate-release oxycodone in pain intensity or adverse events but did show significantly better pain relief after treatment with CR morphine compared with CR oxycodone. However, sensitivity analysis did not corroborate this result. Meta-analyses of the adverse events showed a significantly lower risk of hallucinations after treatment with CR oxycodone compared with CR morphine, but no other differences. The remaining studies either compared oxycodone in various formulations or compared oxycodone to different alternative opioids. None found any clear superiority or inferiority of oxycodone in pain relief or adverse events. The quality of this evidence base was limited by the high/unclear risk of bias of the studies and the low event rates for many outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Oxycodone offers similar levels of pain relief and adverse events to other strong opioids. However, hallucinations occurred less with CR oxycodone than with CR morphine, but the quality of this evidence was very low, so this finding should be treated with utmost caution. Our conclusions are consistent with other reviews and suggest that oxycodone can be used first line as an alternative to morphine. However, because it is cheaper, morphine generally remains the first-line opioid of choice.

Oxycodone for cancer-related pain

BACKGROUND

Many people with cancer experience moderate to severe pain that requires treatment with strong opioids, such as oxycodone and morphine. Strong opioids are, however, not effective for pain in all people, neither are they well-tolerated by all people. The aim of this review was to assess whether oxycodone is associated with better pain relief and tolerability than other analgesic options for adults with cancer pain. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in 2015, Issue 2 on oxycodone for cancer-related pain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of oxycodone by any route of administration for pain in adults with cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Science Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (ISI Web of Science), BIOSIS (ISI), and PsycINFO (Ovid) to November 2016. We also searched four trial registries, checked the bibliographic references of relevant studies, and contacted the authors of the included studies. We applied no language, date, or publication status restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (parallel group or cross-over) comparing oxycodone (any formulation or route of administration) with placebo or an active drug (including oxycodone) for cancer background pain in adults by examining pain intensity/relief, adverse events, quality of life, and participant preference.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the included studies using standard Cochrane methodology. We meta-analysed pain intensity data using the generic inverse variance method, and adverse events using the Mantel-Haenszel method, or summarised these data narratively along with the quality of life and participant preference data. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

For this update, we identified six new studies (1258 participants) for inclusion. In total, we included 23 studies which enrolled/randomised 2648 participants, with 2144 of these analysed for efficacy and 2363 for safety. The studies examined a number of different drug comparisons.Pooled analysis of three of the four studies comparing controlled-release (CR) oxycodone to immediate-release (IR) oxycodone showed that the ability of CR and IR oxycodone to provide pain relief were similar (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.1, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.06 to 0.26; low quality evidence). Pooled analyses of adverse events showed no significant differences between CR and IR oxycodone for asthenia (risk ratio (RR) 0.58, 95% CI 0.2 to 1.68), confusion (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.2 to 3.02), constipation (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.13), dizziness/lightheadedness (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.37), drowsiness/somnolence (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.54), dry mouth (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.75), insomnia (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.31 to 3.53), nausea (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.28), nervousness (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.2 to 1.64), pruritus (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.65 to 3.25), vomiting (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.15), and discontinuation due to adverse events (RR 0.6, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.22). The quality of the evidence was very low for all these adverse events. Three of the four studies found similar results for treatment acceptability.Pooled analysis of seven of the nine studies comparing CR oxycodone to CR morphine indicated that pain relief was significantly better after treatment with CR morphine than CR oxycodone (SMD 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.27; low quality evidence). However, sensitivity analysis did not corroborate this result (SMD 0.12, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.26).Pooled analyses of adverse events showed no significant differences between CR oxycodone and CR morphine for confusion (RR 1.01 95% CI 0.78 to 1.31), constipation (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.16), dizziness/lightheadedness (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.76), drowsiness/somnolence (RR 0.9, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.08), dry mouth (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.8 to 1.26), dysuria (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.26), nausea (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.26), pruritus (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.29), vomiting (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.29), and discontinuation due to adverse events (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.6). However, the RR for hallucinations was significantly lower after treatment with CR oxycodone compared to CR morphine (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.97). The quality of the evidence was very low for all these adverse events. There were no marked differences in treatment acceptability or quality of life ratings.The remaining studies either compared oxycodone in various formulations or compared oxycodone to different alternative opioids. None found any clear superiority or inferiority of oxycodone for cancer pain, neither as an analgesic agent nor in terms of adverse event rates and treatment acceptability.The quality of this evidence base was limited by the high or unclear risk of bias of the studies and by imprecision due to low or very low event rates or participant numbers for many outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The conclusions have not changed since the previous version of this review. The data suggest that oxycodone offers similar levels of pain relief and overall adverse events to other strong opioids including morphine. Although we identified a clinically insignificant benefit on pain relief in favour of CR morphine over CR oxycodone, this did not persist following sensitivity analysis and so we do not consider this important. However, in this updated analysis, we found that hallucinations occurred less often with CR oxycodone than with CR morphine, but the quality of this evidence was very low so this finding should be treated with utmost caution. Our conclusions are consistent with other reviews and suggest that while the reliability of the evidence base is low, given the absence of important differences within this analysis it seems unlikely that larger head to head studies of oxycodone versus morphine are justified, although well-designed trials comparing oxycodone to other strong analgesics may well be useful. For clinical purposes, oxycodone or morphine can be used as first-line oral opioids for relief of cancer pain in adults.

Development and characterization of a mucoadhesive sublingual formulation for pain control: extemporaneous oxycodone films in personalized therapy

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this work was the development of mucoadhesive sublingual films, prepared using a casting method, for the administration of oxycodone.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A solvent casting method was employed to prepare the mucoadhesive films. A calibrated pipette was used to deposit single aliquots of different polymeric solutions on a polystyrene plate lid. Among the various tested polymers, hydroxypropylcellulose at low and medium molecular weight (HPC) and pectin at two different degrees of esterification (PC) were chosen for preparing solutions with good casting properties, capable of producing films suitable for mucosal application.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The obtained films showed excellent drug content uniformity and stability and rapid drug release, which, at 8 min, ranged from 60% to 80%. All films presented satisfactory mucoadhesive and mechanical properties, also confirmed by a test on healthy volunteers, who did not experience irritation or mucosa damages. Pectin films based on pectin at lower degrees of esterification have been further evaluated to study the influence of two different amounts of drug on the physicochemical properties of the formulation. A slight reduction in elasticity has been observed in films containing a higher drug dose; nevertheless, the formulation maintained satisfactory flexibility and resistance to elongation.

CONCLUSIONS

HPC and PC sublingual films, obtained by a simple casting method, could be proposed to realize personalized hospital pharmacy preparations on a small scale.

Intractable restless legs syndrome: role of prolonged-release oxycodone-naloxone

Restless legs syndrome (RLS) is a common neurological disorder characterized by an irresistible urge to move the legs accompanied by uncomfortable sensations that occur at night or at time of rest. Pharmacological therapy should be limited to patients who suffer from clinically relevant symptoms. Chronic RLS is usually treated with either a dopamine agonist (pramipexole, ropinirole, rotigotine) or an α2δ calcium-channel ligand (gabapentin, gabapentin enacarbil, pregabalin). Augmentation is the main complication of long-term dopaminergic treatment, and frequently requires a reduction of current dopaminergic dose or a switch to non-dopaminergic medications. Opioids as monotherapy or add-on treatment should be considered when alternative satisfactory regimens are unavailable and the severity of symptoms warrants it. In a recent Phase III trial, oxycodone-naloxone prolonged release (PR) demonstrated a significant and sustained effect on patients with severe RLS inadequately controlled by previous treatments. The adverse-event profile was consistent with the safety profile of opioids. The most frequent adverse events were fatigue, constipation, nausea, headache, hyperhidrosis, somnolence, dry mouth, and pruritus. Adverse events were usually mild or moderate in intensity. No cases of augmentation were reported. Oxycodone-naloxone PR is approved for the second-line symptomatic treatment of adults with severe to very severe idiopathic RLS after failure of dopaminergic treatment. Further studies are needed to evaluate if oxycodone-naloxone PR is equally efficacious as a first-line treatment. Moreover, long-term comparative studies between opioids, dopaminergic drugs and α2δ ligands are needed.

Chronic oxycodone induces integrated stress response in rat brain

BACKGROUND

Oxycodone is an opioid that is prescribed to treat multiple types of pain, especially when other opioids are ineffective. Unfortunately, similar to other opioids, repetitive oxycodone administration has the potential to lead to development of analgesic tolerance, withdrawal, and addiction. Studies demonstrate that chronic opioid exposure, including oxycodone, alters gene expression profiles and that these changes contribute to opioid-induced analgesic effect, tolerance and dependence. However, very little is known about opioids altering the translational machinery of the central nervous system. Considering that opioids induce clinically significant levels of hypoxia, increase intracellular Ca(2+) levels, and induce the production of nitric oxide and extracellular glutamate transmission, we hypothesize that opioids also trigger a defensive mechanism called the integrated stress response (ISR). The key event in the ISR activation, regardless of the trigger, is phosphorylation of translation initiation factor 2 alpha (eIF2α), which modulates expression and translational activation of specific mRNAs important for adaptation to stress. To test this hypothesis, we used an animal model in which female rats were orally gavaged with 15 mg/kg of oxycodone every 24 h for 30 days.

RESULTS

We demonstrated increased levels of hsp70 and BiP expression as well as phosphorylation of eIF2α in various rat brain areas after oxycodone administration. Polysomal analysis indicated oxycodone-induced translational stimulation of ATF4 and PDGFRα mRNAs, which have previously been shown to depend on the eIF2α kinase activation. Moreover, using breast adenocarcinoma MCF7 cells, which are known to express the μ-opioid receptor, we observed induction of the ISR pathway after one 24-h treatment with oxycodone.

CONCLUSIONS

The combined in vivo and in vitro data suggest that prolonged opioid treatment induces the integrated stress response in the central nervous system; it modulates translational machinery in favor of specific mRNA and this may contribute to the drug-induced changes in neuronal plasticity.

Emerging therapies for patients with symptoms of opioid-induced bowel dysfunction

Opioid-induced bowel dysfunction (OIBD) comprises gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, including dry mouth, nausea, vomiting, gastric stasis, bloating, abdominal pain, and opioid-induced constipation, which significantly impair patients’ quality of life and may lead to undertreatment of pain. Traditional laxatives are often prescribed for OIBD symptoms, although they display limited efficacy and exert adverse effects. Other strategies include prokinetics and change of opioids or their administration route. However, these approaches do not address underlying causes of OIBD associated with opioid effects on mostly peripheral opioid receptors located in the GI tract. Targeted management of OIBD comprises purely peripherally acting opioid receptor antagonists and a combination of opioid receptor agonist and antagonist. Methylnaltrexone induces laxation in 50%–60% of patients with advanced diseases and OIBD who do not respond to traditional oral laxatives without inducing opioid withdrawal symptoms with similar response (45%–50%) after an oral administration of naloxegol. A combination of prolonged-release oxycodone with prolonged-release naloxone (OXN) in one tablet (a ratio of 2:1) provides analgesia with limited negative effect on the bowel function, as oxycodone displays high oral bioavailability and naloxone demonstrates local antagonist effect on opioid receptors in the GI tract and is totally inactivated in the liver. OXN in daily doses of up to 80 mg/40 mg provides equally effective analgesia with improved bowel function compared to oxycodone administered alone in patients with chronic non-malignant and cancer-related pain. OIBD is a common complication of long-term opioid therapy and may lead to quality of life deterioration and undertreatment of pain. Thus, a complex assessment and management that addresses underlying causes and patomechanisms of OIBD is recommended. Newer strategies comprise methylnaltrexone or OXN administration in the management of OIBD, and OXN may be also considered as a preventive measure of OIBD development in patients who require opioid administration.

Oxycodone for cancer-related pain

BACKGROUND

Many patients with cancer experience moderate to severe pain that requires treatment with strong opioids, of which oxycodone and morphine are examples. Strong opioids are, however, not effective for pain in all patients, nor are they well-tolerated by all patients. The aim of this review was to assess whether oxycodone is associated with better pain relief and tolerability than other analgesic options for patients with cancer pain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of oxycodone for pain in adults with cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), Science Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (ISI Web of Science), BIOSIS (ISI), PsycINFO (Ovid) and PubMed to March 2014. We also searched Clinicaltrials.gov, metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT), EU Clinical Trials Register and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We checked the bibliographic references of relevant identified studies and contacted the authors of the included studies to find additional trials not identified by the electronic searches. No language, date or publication status restrictions were applied to the search.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (parallel-group or cross-over) comparing oxycodone (any formulation or route of administration) with placebo or an active drug (including oxycodone) for cancer background pain in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted study data (study design, participant details, interventions and outcomes) and independently assessed the quality of the included studies according to standard Cochrane methodology. Where possible, we meta-analysed the pain intensity data using the generic inverse variance method, otherwise these data were summarised narratively along with the adverse event and patient preference data. The overall quality of the evidence for each outcome was assessed according to the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 studies which enrolled/randomised 1390 patients with 1110 of these analysed for efficacy and 1170 for safety. The studies examined a number of different drug comparisons. Four studies compared controlled release (CR) oxycodone to immediate release (IR) oxycodone and pooled analysis of three of these studies showed that the effects of CR and IR oxycodone on pain intensity after treatment were similar (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.1, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.06 to 0.26; low quality evidence). This was in line with the finding that none of the included studies reported differences in pain intensity between the treatment groups. Three of the four studies also found similar results for treatment acceptability and adverse events in the IR and CR groups; but one study reported that, compared to IR oxycodone, CR oxycodone was associated with significantly fewer adverse events.Six studies compared CR oxycodone to CR morphine and pooled analysis of five of these studies indicated that pain intensity did not differ significantly between the treatments (SMD 0.14, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.32; low quality evidence). There were no marked differences in adverse event rates, treatment acceptability or quality of life ratings.The remaining seven studies either compared oxycodone in various formulations or compared oxycodone to different alternative opioids. None of them found any clear superiority or inferiority of oxycodone for cancer pain, neither as an analgesic agent nor in terms of adverse event rates and treatment acceptability.The quality of this evidence base was limited by the risk of bias of the studies and by small sample sizes for many outcomes. Random sequence generation and allocation concealment were under-reported, and the results were substantially compromised by attrition with data missing from more than 20% of the enrolled/randomised patients for efficacy and from more than 15% for safety.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the data included within this review suggest that oxycodone offers similar levels of pain relief and adverse events to other strong opioids including morphine, which is commonly considered the gold standard strong opioid. Our conclusions are consistent with other recent reviews and suggest that while the reliability of the evidence base is low, given the absence of important differences within this analysis it seems unlikely that larger head to head studies of oxycodone versus morphine will be justified. This means that for clinical purposes oxycodone or morphine can be used as first line oral opioids for relief of cancer pain.

Controlled-release oxycodone versus naproxen at home after ambulatory surgery: a randomized controlled trial

Background

Strong opioids in the home setting after ambulatory surgery have rarely been studied for fear of hazardous adverse effects such as respiratory depression.

Objectives

We compared the efficacy of paracetamol/controlled-release (CR) oxycodone and paracetamol/naproxen for treatment of acute postoperative pain at home after ambulatory surgery. Secondary outcomes were adverse effects of study medication, treatment satisfaction, and postoperative analgesic compliance.

Methods

Patients undergoing ambulatory knee arthroscopy or inguinal hernia repair surgery (n = 105) were randomized into 3 groups: Group1 paracetamol/naproxen (n = 35), Group 2 paracetamol/CR oxycodone for 24 hours (n = 35), and Group 3 paracetamol/CR oxycodone for 48 hours (n = 35). Pain intensity at movement and at rest using a visual analog scale as well as satisfaction with postoperative analgesia and side effects were recorded for up to 48 hours postoperatively. Compliance with study medication was also assessed.

Results

For pain at movement and at rest, no significant differences were found between the paracetamol/naproxen group and either the paracetamol/CR oxycodone for 24 hours group (β = 2.6 [4.9]; P = 0.597) or the paracetamol/CR oxycodone for 48 hours (β = –1.7 [5.1]; P = 0.736). No major adverse effects of study medication were registered and satisfaction with postoperative pain treatment was high in all groups. Compliance was comparable across the groups. Despite clear instructions, 8 patients with the lowest pain scores did not use any of the prescribed pain medication.

Conclusions

Paracetamol/CR oxycodone and paracetamol/naproxen are equally effective in treatment of acute postoperative pain at home after ambulatory surgery with comparable patient satisfaction level. We suggest paracetamol/CR oxycodone to be a valuable alternative for the current paracetamol/naproxen gold standard, particularly in patients with a contraindication for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02152592.

Decreased analgesic effect of morphine, but not buprenorphine, in patients with advanced P-glycoprotein(+) cancers

BACKGROUND

P-glycoprotein (P-gp) is expressed on the blood-brain barrier (BBB) and acts as a transporter regulating the analgesic effect of morphine. The P-gp is also expressed by different types of tumors. The aim of this study was to determine the potential association of the P-gp expression in malignant tumors with analgesic effects in patients.

METHODS

The P-gp expression in 120 malignant tumors was examined by immunohistochemistry. The analgesic responses of individual patients to morphine and buprenorphine (BNP) were evaluated by visual analog scale (VAS). The levels of plasma morphine and BNP were determined by HPLC.

RESULTS

We found that there was no significant difference in the values of VAS between patients with P-gp(+) and P-gp(-) malignant tumors in responses to 0.000025 g x kg(-2) of BNP administered by patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA), accompanied by similar levels of plasma BNP in those patients. In contrast, the values of VAS in response to 0.00075 g x kg(-2) of morphine in patients with P-gp(+) tumors were significantly greater than those in the patients with P-gp(-) tumors, although similar levels of plasma morphine were detected in both groups of patients. Furthermore, treatment with a higher dose (0.0011 g x kg(-2)) of morphine effectively controlled pain in those with P-gp(+) tumors.

CONCLUSION

Our data indicated that patients with P-gp(+) tumors required a higher dose of morphine to achieve an analgesic effect and that the P-gp expression in tumors may be valuable for predicting the analgesic responses of patients with severe pain to morphine.

The place of oxycodone/naloxone in chronic pain management

Opioid analgesics are usually effective in the management of severe chronic pain. However, symptoms of opioid-induced bowel dysfunction (OIBD) are common during opioid therapy. Opioid-induced bowel dysfunction is often unsuccessfully managed due to limited effectiveness and numerous adverse effects of traditional laxatives. Newer treatment possibilities directed at the pathomechanism of OIBD comprise combined prolonged-release oxycodone with prolonged-release naloxone (oxycodone/naloxone) tablets. Oxycodone/naloxone provides effective analgesia with limited impact on bowel function as oxycodone displays high oral bioavailability and naloxone act as local antagonist on opioid receptors in the gastrointestinal tract due to nearly complete inactivation in the liver. Oxycodone/naloxone is administered to opioid-naive patients with severe pain and those unsuccessfully treated with weak opioids. Oxycodone/naloxone may be also administered to patients treated with strong opioids who experience intense symptoms of OIBD. Studies conducted to date indicate that oxycodone/naloxone is an important drug in chronic pain management, prevention and treatment of OIBD.

A randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, double-dummy, parallel-group study to determine the safety and efficacy of oxycodone/naloxone prolonged-release tablets in patients with moderate/severe, chronic cancer pain

OBJECTIVE

An examination of whether oxycodone/naloxone prolonged-release tablets (OXN PR) can improve constipation and maintain analgesia, compared with oxycodone prolonged-release tablets (OxyPR) in patients with moderate/severe cancer pain.

METHODS

Randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, double-dummy, parallel-group study in which 185 patients were randomized to receive up to 120 mg/day of OXN PR or OxyPR over 4 weeks. Efficacy assessments included Bowel Function Index (BFI), Brief Pain Inventory Short-Form (BPI-SF), laxative and rescue medication use. Quality of life (QoL) and safety assessments were conducted.

RESULTS

After 4 weeks, mean BFI score was significantly lower with OXN PR; mean total laxative intake was 20% lower with OXN PR. Mean BPI-SF scores were similar for both treatments and the average rate of analgesic rescue medication use was low and comparable. QoL assessments were stable and comparable with greater improvements in constipation-specific QoL assessments with OXN PR. Overall, rates of adverse drug reactions were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

OXN PR provides superior bowel function in cancer pain patients, compared with OxyPR, without compromising analgesic efficacy or safety. This study confirms that OXN PR is well tolerated and efficacious in cancer pain patients and results are in line with those seen in non-malignant pain patients.

Pain management in patients with cancer: focus on opioid analgesics

Cancer pain is generally treated with pharmacological measures, relying on using opioids alone or in combination with adjuvant analgesics. Weak opioids are used for mild-to-moderate pain as monotherapy or in a combination with nonopioids. For patients with moderate-to-severe pain, strong opioids are recommended as initial therapy rather than beginning treatment with weak opioids. Adjunctive therapy plays an important role in the treatment of cancer pain not fully responsive to opioids administered alone (ie, neuropathic, bone, and visceral colicky pain). Supportive drugs should be used wisely to prevent and treat opioids’ adverse effects. Understanding the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, interactions, and cautions with commonly used opioids can help determine appropriate opioid selection for individual cancer patients.

Efficacy and tolerability of oxycodone in moderate-severe cancer-related pain: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

In order to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of oxycodone in moderate-severe cancer-related pain, we conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Publications addressing the efficacy and tolerability of oxycodone in moderate-severe cancer-related pain were selected from the Cochrane library, PubMed, Embase and CBM databases. Data were extracted from the studies by two independent reviewers. The meta-analysis was performed by RevMan 5.0.25 and STATA 9.2 software. From these data, odds ratios (ORs) or the standard mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Finally, only seven RCTs were retrieved with a total of 613 cancer patients with moderate-severe pain. The meta-analysis results showed that oxycodone was statistically superior to other strong opioids based on pain intensity scores following intervention [weighted mean difference (WMD), 0.25; 95% CI, 0.05-0.45; P=0.01; WMD, -1.30; 95% CI, -1.55-1.05; P<0.001, respectively]. In addition, there were statistically significant differences between oxycodone and other strong opioids in cancer-related pain on the obvious effective rate and the overall effective rate (OR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.40-2.95; P=0.0002; OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.09-3.44; P=0.02, respectively). Compared with other strong opioids, nausea and constipation occurred significantly less frequently with the use of oxycodone for cancer-related pain (OR=0.52, 95% CI=0.32-0.85, P=0.009; OR= 0.55, 95% CI= 0.35-0.87, P= 0.01; respectively). In conclusion, this meta-analysis confirms that the efficacy and tolerability of oxycodone are superior to those of other strong opioids, including morphine sulfate, codeine and tramadol, supporting its use as an opioid for cancer-related pain.