Are strong opioids equally effective and safe in the treatment of chronic cancer pain? A multicenter randomized phase IV 'real life' trial on the variability of response to opioids

Percutaneous Fixation with Internal Cemented Screws for Iliac Lytic Bone Metastases: Assessment of Pain and Quality of Life on Long Term Follow-up

PURPOSE

To assess effectiveness on pain, quality of life and late adverse events of percutaneous fixation with internal cemented screw (FICS) among patients with iliac lytic bone metastases with or without pathological fractures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective exploratory study analyzed FICS procedures on iliac osteolytic bone lesions with and without pathological fracture performed from July 2019 to January 2022 in one tertiary level university hospital. The procedure were performed under general anesthesia, and were CT and fluoroscopically guided. Numerical Pain Rate Score (NPRS), mean EuroQol visual analogue scale (EQ VAS), morphine consumption, walking ability, walking perimeter and presence of walking aids and the appearance of complications were evaluated.

RESULTS

Nineteen procedures among 18 patients were carried out with a mean follow up time of 243.3 ± 243.2 days. The mean of the maximum NPRS decreased from 8.4 ± 1.3 to 2.2 ± 3.1 at 1 month (p < 0.01) and remained between 1.3 and 4.1 during a follow-up consultation period of 3-24 months. The mean EQ VAS rose from 42.0 ± 12.5 to 57.3 ± 13.9 at 1 month (p < 0.01) follow-up and remained between 55.8 and 62.5 thereafter. No patient scores returned to pre-procedure levels during follow-up. Mean morphine use decreased from 111.1 ± 118.1 to 57.8 ± 70.3 mg/d at 1 month (p > 0.05) follow-up. No late adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

Percutaneous FICS is a safe procedure with fast and long-standing effect on pain, mobility and quality of life. It can be used as a complement to the known analgesic therapeutic arsenal for bone metastases.

Shifting Views on Cancer Pain Management: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

CONTEXT

Strong opioids are the cornerstone in the treatment of cancer-related pain.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to compare analgesic effectiveness of different strong opioids for the treatment of cancer-related pain.

METHODS

PubMed and Embase were searched for RCTs that compared strong opioids for treatment of cancer-related pain against one another. A network meta-analysis was conducted and the related Surface Under the Cumulative RAnking (SUCRA)-based treatment ranks were calculated. Primary outcome was pain intensity (numerical rating scale (NRS)) and/or the percentage of patients with ≥50% pain reduction, after 1 and 2-4 weeks.

RESULTS

Sixteen RCTs (1813 patients) were included. Methadone showed, with a high certainty of evidence, increased ORs for treatment success at 1 week, compared with morphine, buprenorphine, fentanyl, and oxycodone, range 3.230-36.833. Methadone had the highest likelihood to be the treatment of preference (ToP) (SUCRA 0.9720). For fentanyl, ORs were lower, however significant and with high certainty. After 2-4 weeks, methadone again showed the highest likelihood for ToP, however, with moderate certainty and nonsignificant ORs. The combination of morphine/methadone, compared with morphine, buprenorphine, fentanyl, hydromorphone, methadone, and oxycodone achieved a treatment effect of mean NRS difference after 2-4 weeks between -1.100 and -1.528 and had the highest likelihood for ToP.

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that methadone possibly deserves further promotion as first-line treatment for the treatment of cancer-related pain.

Opioid analgesics for nociceptive cancer pain: A comprehensive review

Pain is one of the most burdensome symptoms in people with cancer, and opioid analgesics are considered the mainstay of cancer pain management. For this review, the authors evaluated the efficacy and toxicities of opioid analgesics compared with placebo, other opioids, nonopioid analgesics, and nonpharmacologic treatments for background cancer pain (continuous and relatively constant pain present at rest), and breakthrough cancer pain (transient exacerbation of pain despite stable and adequately controlled background pain). They found a paucity of placebo-controlled trials for background cancer pain, although tapentadol or codeine may be more efficacious than placebo (moderate-certainty to low-certainty evidence). Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs including aspirin, piroxicam, diclofenac, ketorolac, and the antidepressant medicine imipramine, may be at least as efficacious as opioids for moderate-to-severe background cancer pain. For breakthrough cancer pain, oral transmucosal, buccal, sublingual, or intranasal fentanyl preparations were identified as more efficacious than placebo but were more commonly associated with toxicities, including constipation and nausea. Despite being recommended worldwide for the treatment of cancer pain, morphine was generally not superior to other opioids, nor did it have a more favorable toxicity profile. The interpretation of study results, however, was complicated by the heterogeneity in the study populations evaluated. Given the limited quality and quantity of research, there is a need to reappraise the clinical utility of opioids in people with cancer pain, particularly those who are not at the end of life, and to further explore the effects of opioids on immune system function and quality of life in these individuals.

[Pain therapy in urology-overview of current S3 guideline recommendations]

Dealing efficiently with patients suffering from pain is a central medical task. Pain, as an important function in developmental physiology, warns against damage to the body caused by external noxious agents as well as internal malfunctions and requires special attention in modern medicine. Peri- and postoperative pain is known to have a negative influence on postoperative convalescence. Treatment of tumor-related pain represents another relevant challenge in uro-oncology and palliative medicine. The updated guideline on perioperative pain therapy and palliative medicine for patients with incurable diseases or cancer is dedicated to these two topics.

Advancing Postoperative Pain Management in Oral Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review

The goal of this review is to shed light on the management of orofacial discomfort after a cancer diagnosis in the head and neck region. A search was conducted on PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science to identify studies on postoperative pain control in oral cancer. The review included open-access research, investigations into pain management, randomized clinical trials, retrospective studies, case-control studies, prospective studies, English-written studies, and full-text publications. Exclusion criteria included animal studies; in vitro studies; off-topic studies; reviews, case reports, letters, or comments; and non-English language. Three reviewers independently accessed databases and assigned a quality rating to the chosen articles. The review explores postoperative pain management in oral cancer patients; highlighting persistent opioid use; the efficacy of adjuvant drugs, such as gabapentin; and a multimodal approach. It emphasizes the need for personalized pain management, recognizing individual pain perception and tailoring interventions. Integrating pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies is crucial for comprehensive pain management. The review also serves as a guide for future research, emphasizing the need for standardized methodologies and diverse participant populations.

The Effects of Massage Therapy in Decreasing Pain and Anxiety in Post-Surgical Patients With Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Massage therapy is an effective non-pharmacological intervention in treating pain and anxiety of patients with cancer. Prior studies have reviewed the benefits of massage therapy in patients with breast cancer undergoing chemotherapy, radiation, and other patient-specific cancer treatments. What has yet to be examined is the effects of massage therapy on the pain and anxiety of patients with breast cancer after surgery.

Objective

: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine the effect of massage therapy on post-surgical pain and anxiety in patients with breast cancer.

Methods

Systematic searches were performed using databases PubMed, CINAHL, and Medline (EBSCO), with no date constraint through September 30, 2023, to identify randomized control trials, randomized pilot, and quasi-experimental studies. The database searches retrieved 1205 titles, and after screening, 7 studies were chosen for full analysis using Cohen's d, 95% Confidence Interval (CI), and effect size. The heterogeneity of the studies was calculated in the meta-analysis using Cochran's Q equation.

Results

Massage therapy techniques reported were massage therapy, classic massage, reflexology, myofascial release, and myofascial therapy, and were performed at day 0 up to 16 weeks post-surgery. Massage therapy decreased pain and anxiety for patients in the massage group. Analyses showed a positive effect size using massage therapy as an intervention for pain and anxiety in women with breast cancer post-surgery. Overall effect size for pain was 1.057 with a P-value of <.0001, and overall effect size for anxiety was .673 with a P-value of <.0001.

Conclusion

The current evidence in this study reflects that massage therapy is effective as a non-pharmacological tool in decreasing post-surgical pain and anxiety in women with breast cancer.

Finding predictors for successful opioid response in cancer patients: An analysis of data from four randomized controlled trials

CONTEXT

There is no consensus on which "strong" (or step 3 WHO analgesic ladder) opioid to prescribe to a particular patient with cancer-related pain. A better understanding of opioid and patient characteristics on treatment response will contribute to a more personalized opioid treatment.

OBJECTIVES

Assessment of potential predictors for successful opioid treatment response in patients with cancer pain.

METHODS

An international partnership between four cancer pain research groups resulted in a combined individual-level database from four relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs; n = 881). Together, these RCTs investigated the short-term (1 week) and medium-term (4 or 5 weeks) treatment responses for morphine, buprenorphine, methadone, oxycodone, and fentanyl. Candidate predictors for treatment response were sex, age, pain type, pain duration, depression, anxiety, Karnofsky performance score, opioid type, and use of anti-neuropathic drug.

RESULTS

Opioid type and pain type were found statistically significant predictors of short-term treatment success. Sex, age, pain type, anxiety, and opioid type were statistically, significantly associated with medium-term treatment success. However, these models showed low discriminative power.

CONCLUSION

Fentanyl and methadone, and mixed pain were found to be statistically significant predictors of treatment success in patients with cancer-related pain. With the predictors currently assessed our data did not allow for the creation of a clinical prediction model with good discriminative power. Additional - unrevealed - predictors are necessary to develop a future prediction model.

Transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation for cancer-related pain management in patients receiving chronic opioid therapy: a randomized clinical trial

PURPOSE

The opioid crisis resulting from its use disorder and overdose poses additional challenges for cancer pain management. The American Society of Clinical Oncology Practice Guideline recommends acupuncture therapy for the management of adult cancer-related pain (CRP), but the effectiveness of transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (TEAS) on CRP remains uncertain.

METHODS

This 5-week prospective randomized clinical trial was conducted at 2 hospitals in China, and participants with CRP receiving chronic opioid therapy were randomized 1:1 into two groups between December 2014 and June 2018. The true TEAS group underwent 15 sessions of TEAS treatments over 3 consecutive weeks, while the control group received sham stimulation. The primary outcome was the numerical rating scale (NRS) score in the past 24h at week 3. The secondary outcomes included morphine equivalent daily dose, quality of life and adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 159 participants were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. The baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. The mean NRS scores were 0.98 points at week 3 in the true TEAS group and 1.41 points in the sham group, with the mean difference between groups of -0.43 points (P < 0.001; OR = 0.68, P < 0.05). The proportion of patients with NRS reduction more than thirty percentage at week 3 was 50.00% in the true TEAS group and 35.44% in the sham group (RD = 0.15, P > 0.05; RR = 1.41, P > 0.05). No significant difference in pain intensity between the two groups was observed during the follow-up period without TEAS intervention (week 4, OR = 0.83, P > 0.05; week 5, OR = 0.83, P > 0.05). The Karnofsky Performance Status value suggested that patients in the true TEAS group experienced an improved quality of life (Between-group differences: week 3, 3.5%, P < 0.05; week 4, 4.6%, P < 0.001; week 5, 5.6%, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The 3-week application of TEAS in patients with CRP receiving chronic opioid therapy resulted in a statistically significant reduction in pain scores, but the observed reduction was of uncertain clinical significance. The prolonged analgesic effect of TEAS was not confirmed in this trial.

CLINICALTRIAL

GOV: ChiCTR-TRC-13003803.

A Guide to Expanding the Use of Buprenorphine Beyond Standard Initiations for Opioid Use Disorder

Buprenorphine has become an important medication in the context of the ongoing opioid epidemic. However, complex pharmacologic properties and varying government regulations create barriers to its use. This narrative review is intended to facilitate buprenorphine use-including non-traditional initiation methods-by providers ranging from primary care providers to addiction specialists. This article briefly discusses the opioid epidemic and the diagnosis and treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD). We then describe the basic and complex pharmacologic properties of buprenorphine, linking these properties to their clinical implications. We guide readers through the process of initiating buprenorphine in patients using full agonist opioids. As there is no single recommended approach for buprenorphine initiation, we discuss the details, advantages, and disadvantages of the standard, low-dose, bridging-strategy, and naloxone-facilitated initiation techniques. We consider the pharmacology of, and evidence base for, buprenorphine in the treatment of pain, in both OUD and non-OUD patients. Throughout, we address the use of buprenorphine in children and adolescent patients, and we finish with considerations related to the settings of pregnancy and breastfeeding.

Cancer Pain and Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation-A Narrative Review

Background and Objectives: Pain is the most prevalent symptom in cancer patients. There is a paucity of data regarding non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) for the treatment of chronic pain in patients with cancer. The purpose of this article is to review the techniques of NIBS and present the published experiences of the oncological population. Materials and Methods: Databases including MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched for articles on cancer patients with pain that was managed with non-invasive brain stimulation techniques. We included articles in English that were published from inception to January 2023. As studies were limited in number and had different designs and methodologies, a narrative review was considered as the best option to integrate data. Results: Four studies focusing on transcranial magnetic stimulation, six articles on transcranial direct current stimulation, and three articles regarding cranial electric stimulation were found and reviewed. Conclusions: Data are limited and not robust. Further studies in this field are required. Guidelines on NIBS for non-malignant chronic pain conditions provide good premises for cancer-related chronic pain.

Should Buprenorphine Be Considered a First-Line Opioid for the Treatment of Moderate to Severe Cancer Pain?

Cancer pain remains a significant problem worldwide, affecting more than half of patients receiving anti-cancer treatment and most patients with advanced disease. Opioids remain the cornerstone of therapy, and morphine, given its availability, multiple formulations, price, and evidence base, is typically considered the first-line treatment for moderate to severe cancer pain. Buprenorphine has emerged in recent decades as an alternative opioid for treating chronic pain and substance use disorder (SUD). However, it remains controversial whether buprenorphine should be considered a first-line opioid for moderate to severe cancer pain. In this "Controversies in Palliative Care" article, three expert clinicians independently answer this question. Specifically, each group provides a synopsis of the key studies that inform their thought process, share practical advice on their clinical approach, and highlight the opportunities for future research. All three groups agree that there is a place for the use of buprenorphine as a first-line opioid in cancer pain. Specifically, they mention populations of elderly patients, patients with renal failure, and those with (SUD). They also underscore many unique and favorable characteristics of buprenorphine, such as the low risk for respiratory depression, lack of adverse effects on testosterone levels in men, no risk of serotonin syndrome when combined with antidepressants, and ease of use given its transdermal, transmucosal, and sublingual formulations. However, further studies are needed to guide the use of buprenorphine for cancer pain-primarily randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing buprenorphine with other opioids in various pain syndromes.

Case report: The lesson from opioid withdrawal symptoms mimicking paraganglioma recurrence during opioid deprescribing in cancer pain

Pain is one of the predominant and troublesome symptoms that burden cancer patients during their whole disease trajectory: adequate pain management is a fundamental component of cancer care. Opioid are the cornerstone of cancer pain relief therapy and their skillful management must be owned by physicians approaching cancer pain patients. In light of the increased survival of cancer patients due to advances in therapy, deprescription should be considered as a part of the opioid prescribing regime, from therapy initiation, dose titration, and changing or adding drugs, to switching or ceasing. In clinical practice, opioid tapering after pain remission could be challenging due to withdrawal symptoms' onset. Animal models and observations in patients with opioid addiction suggested that somatic and motivational symptoms accompanying opioid withdrawal are secondary to the activation of stress-related process (mainly cortisol and catecholamines mediated). In this narrative review, we highlight how the lack of validated guidelines and tools for cancer patients can lead to a lower diagnostic awareness of opioid-related disorders, increasing the risk of developing withdrawal symptoms. We also described an experience-based approach to opioid withdrawal, starting from a case-report of a symptomatic patient with a history of metastatic pheochromocytoma-paraganglioma.

Cancer Pain Management: A Narrative Review of Current Concepts, Strategies, and Techniques

Pain is frequently reported during cancer disease, and it still remains poorly controlled in 40% of patients. Recent developments in oncology have helped to better control pain. Targeted treatments may cure cancer disease and significantly increase survival. Therefore, a novel population of patients (cancer survivors) has emerged, also enduring chronic pain (27.6% moderate to severe pain). The present review discusses the different options currently available to manage pain in (former) cancer patients in light of progress made in the last decade. Major progress in the field includes the recent development of a chronic cancer pain taxonomy now included in the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) and the update of the WHO analgesic ladder. Until recently, cancer pain management has mostly relied on pharmacotherapy, with opioids being considered as the mainstay. The opioids crisis has prompted the reassessment of opioids use in cancer patients and survivors. This review focuses on the current utilization of opioids, the neuropathic pain component often neglected, and the techniques and non-pharmacological strategies available which help to personalize patient treatment. Cancer pain management is now closer to the management of chronic non-cancer pain, i.e., "an integrative and supportive pain care" aiming to improve patient's quality of life.

Analgesic Effect of Buprenorphine for Chronic Noncancer Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Buprenorphine is a partial agonist at the µ-opioid receptor and an antagonist at the delta and kappa opioid receptors. It has high affinity and low intrinsic activity at the µ-opioid receptor. Buprenorphine demonstrates no ceiling effect for clinical analgesia, but demonstrates this for respiratory depression and euphoria. It may provide effective analgesia while producing less adverse effects, making it a promising opioid analgesic. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to examine the analgesic efficacy of buprenorphine for patients with chronic noncancer pain.

METHODS

PubMed, MEDLNE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched up to January 2022. Randomized controlled trials were included if they compared buprenorphine versus placebo or active analgesic in patients with chronic noncancer pain, where pain score was an outcome. Nonrandomized controlled trials, observational studies, qualitative studies, case reports, and commentaries were excluded. Two investigators independently performed the literature search, study selection, and data collection. A random-effects model was used. The primary outcome was the effect of buprenorphine on pain intensity in patients with chronic noncancer pain based on standardized mean difference (SMD) in pain score. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Grade of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

RESULTS

Two separate literature searches were conducted for patients with and without opioid use disorder (OUD). Only one study met the search criteria for those with OUD. Fourteen randomized controlled trials were included for those without OUD. Buprenorphine was associated with reduced pain score (SMD = -0.368, P < .001, I 2 = 89.37%) compared to placebo or active analgesic. Subgroup meta-analyses showed statistically significant differences in favor of buprenorphine versus placebo (SMD = -0.404, P < .001), for chronic low back pain (SMD = -0.383, P < .001), when administered via the transdermal route (SMD = -0.572, P = .001), via the buccal route (SMD = -0.453, P < .001), with length of follow-up lasting <12 weeks (SMD = -0.848, P < .05), and length of follow-up lasting 12 weeks or more (SMD = -0.415, P < .001). There was no significant difference when compared to active analgesic (SMD = 0.045, P > .05). Quality of evidence was low to moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

Buprenorphine was associated with a statistically significant and small reduction in pain intensity compared to placebo. Both the transdermal and buccal routes provided pain relief. There was more evidence supporting its use for chronic low back pain.

Cannabis-based medicines and medical cannabis for adults with cancer pain

BACKGROUND

Pain is a common symptom in people with cancer; 30% to 50% of people with cancer will experience moderate-to-severe pain. This can have a major negative impact on their quality of life. Opioid (morphine-like) medications are commonly used to treat moderate or severe cancer pain, and are recommended for this purpose in the World Health Organization (WHO) pain treatment ladder. Pain is not sufficiently relieved by opioid medications in 10% to 15% of people with cancer. In people with insufficient relief of cancer pain, new analgesics are needed to effectively and safely supplement or replace opioids.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of cannabis-based medicines, including medical cannabis, for treating pain and other symptoms in adults with cancer compared to placebo or any other established analgesic for cancer pain.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 26 January 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected double-blind randomised, controlled trials (RCT) of medical cannabis, plant-derived and synthetic cannabis-based medicines against placebo or any other active treatment for cancer pain in adults, with any treatment duration and at least 10 participants per treatment arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. The primary outcomes were 1. proportions of participants reporting no worse than mild pain; 2. Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) of much improved or very much improved and 3. withdrawals due to adverse events. Secondary outcomes were 4. number of participants who reported pain relief of 30% or greater and overall opioid use reduced or stable; 5. number of participants who reported pain relief of 30% or greater, or 50% or greater; 6. pain intensity; 7. sleep problems; 8. depression and anxiety; 9. daily maintenance and breakthrough opioid dosage; 10. dropouts due to lack of efficacy; 11. all central nervous system adverse events. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 14 studies involving 1823 participants. No study assessed the proportions of participants reporting no worse than mild pain on treatment by 14 days after start of treatment. We found five RCTs assessing oromucosal nabiximols (tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD)) or THC alone involving 1539 participants with moderate or severe pain despite opioid therapy. The double-blind periods of the RCTs ranged between two and five weeks. Four studies with a parallel design and 1333 participants were available for meta-analysis. There was moderate-certainty evidence that there was no clinically relevant benefit for proportions of PGIC much or very much improved (risk difference (RD) 0.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 0.12; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 16, 95% CI 8 to 100). There was moderate-certainty evidence for no clinically relevant difference in the proportion of withdrawals due to adverse events (RD 0.04, 95% CI 0 to 0.08; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 25, 95% CI 16 to endless). There was moderate-certainty evidence for no difference between nabiximols or THC and placebo in the frequency of serious adverse events (RD 0.02, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.07). There was moderate-certainty evidence that nabiximols and THC used as add-on treatment for opioid-refractory cancer pain did not differ from placebo in reducing mean pain intensity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.19, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.02). There was low-certainty evidence that a synthetic THC analogue (nabilone) delivered over eight weeks was not superior to placebo in reducing pain associated with chemotherapy or radiochemotherapy in people with head and neck cancer and non-small cell lung cancer (2 studies, 89 participants, qualitative analysis). Analyses of tolerability and safety were not possible for these studies. There was low-certainty evidence that synthetic THC analogues were superior to placebo (SMD -0.98, 95% CI -1.36 to -0.60), but not superior to low-dose codeine (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.32; 5 single-dose trials; 126 participants) in reducing moderate-to-severe cancer pain after cessation of previous analgesic treatment for three to four and a half hours (2 single-dose trials; 66 participants). Analyses of tolerability and safety were not possible for these studies. There was low-certainty evidence that CBD oil did not add value to specialist palliative care alone in the reduction of pain intensity in people with advanced cancer. There was no difference in the number of dropouts due to adverse events and serious adverse events (1 study, 144 participants, qualitative analysis). We found no studies using herbal cannabis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that oromucosal nabiximols and THC are ineffective in relieving moderate-to-severe opioid-refractory cancer pain. There is low-certainty evidence that nabilone is ineffective in reducing pain associated with (radio-) chemotherapy in people with head and neck cancer and non-small cell lung cancer. There is low-certainty evidence that a single dose of synthetic THC analogues is not superior to a single low-dose morphine equivalent in reducing moderate-to-severe cancer pain. There is low-certainty evidence that CBD does not add value to specialist palliative care alone in the reduction of pain in people with advanced cancer.

Identifying risk factors for opioid-induced neurotoxicity in cancer patients receiving oxycodone

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to determine the frequency of opioid-induced neurotoxicity (OIN) in cancer patients receiving oral controlled-release oxycodone and to define risk factors for OIN.

METHODS

This was a single-center, retrospective study of hospitalized adult cancer patients receiving oral controlled-release oxycodone between April 1, 2013, and April, 30, 2020. The onset of OIN within 30 days after oxycodone initiation in the study patients was investigated. OIN was defined as any of the following: delirium, hallucinations (visual or auditory), seizure, myoclonus, hyperesthesia, and excessive somnolence. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for OIN in patients receiving oxycodone.

RESULTS

In total, 520 patients were included in this study. The number of patients with OIN was 65 (12.5%). The median time until onset of OIN after oxycodone initiation was 7.5 days. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that age ≥ 65 years (OR = 2.74, 95% CI [1.30-5.78], p = 0.008), total bilirubin ≥ 1.3 mg/dL (OR = 4.85, 95% CI [2.13-11.0], p < 0.001), and concomitant use of pregabalin or mirogabalin (OR = 3.11, 95% CI [1.47-6.61], p = 0.003) were significant independent risk factors for OIN.

CONCLUSION

Age ≥ 65 years, liver dysfunction, and concomitant use of pregabalin or mirogabalin were independent risk factors for OIN in patients receiving oxycodone. Patients with these risk factors who are receiving oxycodone should be monitored for OIN, especially early in the administration of oxycodone.

Lung cancer patients with positive programmed death-ligand 1 expression endure graver postoperative pain

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pain after video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) is common in lung cancer patients, and it is unclear whether cancer itself participates in pain regulation. Programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expressed by tumours may be analgesic. Our study aimed to detect the association between PD-L1 and acute postoperative pain.

METHODS

We reviewed patients who underwent VATS for lung cancer with tumour PD-L1 expression analysed in our centre from Jan 2017 to Jul 2020. They were divided into PD-L1 (-) group and PD-L1 (+) group and were further divided into four subgroups according to opioids for postoperative analgesia: sufentanil PD-L1 (-), sufentanil PD-L1 (+), oxycodone PD-L1 (-), and oxycodone PD-L1 (+). We compared the numeric rating scale (NRS) for the first three postoperative days at rest or cough between groups.

RESULTS

A total of 369 patients (167 in PD-L1 (-) vs. 202 in PD-L1 (+)) were included. On the first postoperative day, NRS at cough in the PD-L1 (+) patients were higher than those in the PD-L1 (-) patients (2.91 ± 1.07 vs. 2.66 ± 1.01, p = 0.018). On the third day, NRS at cough in PD-L1 (+) patients was higher (2.50 ± 1.02 vs. 2.26 ± 1.09, p = 0.043). For patients with oxycodone, NRS was higher in PD-L1 (+) than in PD-L1 (-) (p = 0.041) at cough after surgery. In contrast, those with sufentanil did not significantly differ in NRS between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with PD-L1 (+) suffered graver pain in the early postoperative period after VATS for lung cancer compared with PD-L1 (-) on tumours. Analgesia with sufentanil seemed to overcome this effect better than oxycodone.

SIGNIFICANCE

We demonstrated that patients with positive programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) on tumours suffered graver pain in the early postoperative period after video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for lung cancer and reacted differently with opioids. It might be beneficial to adjust analgesic protocols according to tumour PD-L1 expression for individualized postoperative pain management.

Opioid-related adverse drug reactions in patients visiting the emergency division of a tertiary hospital

Opioid use and associated morbidity and mortality have increased in several countries during the past 20 years. We performed a study whose objective was to assess the frequency and causes of opioid-related emergency division (ED) visits in an adult tertiary Swiss University Hospital over 9 weeks in 2018. We primarily assessed opioid-related adverse drug reactions (ADR), secondary overdose, misuse, abuse, and insufficient pain relief. Current opioid use was identified in 1037 (8.3%) of the 12 470 included ED visits. In 64 opioid users, an ADR was identified as a contributing cause of the ED visit, representing 6.2% of opioid users, and 0.5% of the total ED visits. Moreover, we identified an overdose in 16 opioid users, misuse or abuse in 19 opioid users, and compatible withdrawal symptoms in 7 opioid users. After pooling all these events, we conclude that the ED visits could be related to opioid use in 10.2% of opioid users. Finally, in 201 opioid users, insufficient pain relief (pain not responding to the current pharmacological treatment) was identified as a contributing cause of ED visits. In these cases, other factors than simply pharmacological nonresponse may have been involved. In the context of an ever-increasing opioid use to better control chronic pain situations, these results should reinforce emergency network epidemiological surveillance studies at a national level.

Cancer pain: Results of a prospective study on prognostic indicators of pain intensity including pain syndromes assessment

BACKGROUND

Pain is a prevalent symptom in patients with advanced cancer. Recognition of prognostic factors associated with pain intensity, could help provide better assessment, leading to better pain management.

AIM

identifying prognostic factors which could guide improvements on cancer pain classification.

DESIGN

a prospective observational study on chronic cancer pain, exploring the association between average mean pain intensity during a 28 days study follow-up and patients' clinical and pain-related characteristics, including pain syndromes. To evaluate these associations, a mixed model was built.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Patients attending a Palliative Care and Pain Outpatient Clinic from May 2015 to June 2019 were screened. Patients with moderate to severe cancer pain who were already receiving or needed treatment with third step WHO ladder opioids were enrolled in the study. Data from 342 patients with at least one follow-up visit were analyzed.

RESULTS

Pain intensity decreased significantly for all patients during time (p < 0.001). Age, sex, emotional distress, pain duration and neuropathic pain presence evaluated by the Douleur Neuropathique 4 Questions (DN4) questionnaire were not significantly associated to pain intensity. Breakthrough/episodic pain was associated with higher pain intensity during follow-up (p < 0.001). The diagnosis of pain syndrome was overall significantly associated with mean pain intensity during follow-up (p = 0.016). Particularly, the concurrent presence of visceral and soft (p = 0.026) or soft and nervous tissue pain (p = 0.043) were significantly related to worse outcome, whereas pain due to only soft tissue damage with better outcome (p = 0.032).

CONCLUSIONS

The recognition of specific pain syndromes may help to better classify cancer pain.

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.

Safety and effectiveness of transdermal buprenorphine in cancer pain: An observational study in Taiwan (SOOTHE)

AIM

Buprenorphine is one of the strongest opioids used for the relief of cancer pain. This study aims to evaluate the real-world clinical experiences of transdermal buprenorphine used in moderate to severe cancer pain in the Asian population.

METHODS

This is an open-labeled, multicenter, 4-week observational study. Stable cancer pain patients who decided to switch the previous opioid to transdermal buprenorphine will be enrolled in this study. The safety and effectiveness were observed and collected. Pain assessment was performed using a numerical rating scale by the investigators and the Brief Pain Inventory Short Form (BPI-SF) by the patient. The safety profiles included concomitant medications and adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

A total of 83 patients were enrolled in this study. The global pain scores in the BPI, as well as the four individual pain parameters (worst, least, average, and right now), showed a continued decrease (p < .05) from week 2 to week 4. Significant improvements were observed in normal work activities, relations with other people, sleep, enjoyment of life, and global BPI pain interference score on week 4. Pain assessments conducted by investigators demonstrated significant, continuous improvements during the study periods. In addition, transdermal buprenorphine demonstrated good safety/tolerability with limited drug-related AEs in the Asian population with cancer pain.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that transdermal buprenorphine in the Asian population has good safety profiles and continued improvements in pain relief, sleep, and pain interferences. Transdermal buprenorphine can be an effective and convenient option as a transdermal opioid for patients with moderate to severe cancer pain in Taiwan. (NCT Number: NCT04315831).

Revision of Pharmacological Treatment Recommendations for Cancer Pain: Clinical Guidelines from the Japanese Society of Palliative Medicine

Background: Pain is one of the most common symptoms in cancer patients. The Japanese Society for Palliative Medicine (JSPM) first published its clinical guidelines for the management of cancer pain in 2010. Since then, more research on cancer pain management has been reported, and new drugs have become available in Japan. Thus, the JSPM has now revised the clinical guidelines using a validated methodology. Methods: This guideline was developed through a systematic review, discussion, and the Delphi method, following a formal guideline development process. Results: Thirty-five recommendations were created: 19 for the pharmacological management of cancer pain, 6 for the management of opioid-induced adverse effects, and 10 for pharmacological treatment procedures. Due to the lack of evidence that directly addressed our clinical questions, most of the recommendations had to be based on consensus among committee members and other guidelines. Discussion: It is critical to continue to build high-quality evidence in cancer pain management, and revise these guidelines accordingly.

A Comprehensive Strategy to Pain Management for Cancer Patients in an Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility

Cancer pain has been shown to have a significant negative impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) for people experiencing it. This is also true for patients admitted to inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs). An interdisciplinary approach is often needed to fully address a person's pain to help them attain maximum functional independence and to ensure a safe discharge home. Improving a patient's performance status in an IRF may also be a crucial determinant in their ability to continue receiving treatment for their cancer. However, if a person is determined to no longer be a candidate for aggressive, disease modulating treatment, IRFs can also be utilized to help patients and family's transition to comfort directed care with palliative or hospice services. This article will discuss the interventions of the multidisciplinary inpatient rehabilitation team to address a person's pain.

Comparative Analysis of the Efficacy and Safety of Different Traditional Chinese Medicine Injections in the Treatment of Cancer-Related Pain: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis

Background: Given the limitations of three-step analgesic therapy and the extensive use of traditional Chinese medicine injections (TCMIs) for cancer-related pain (CRP), this network meta-analysis (NMA) aims to compare the efficacy and safety of different regimens of TCMIs for CRP.

Methods: A literature search was conducted in seven electronic databases for all related articles published before 12 April 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were screened by a prior eligible criteria. The quality of literature was evaluated by the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We used Stata 16.0 software to analyze data including total pain relief rate, quality of life, and the incidence of adverse reactions. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) probability values were applied to rank the interventions. Radar map was used to exhibit the most outstanding regimen for a certain outcome. Synthetic sorting bubble diagram was performed to show the relatively better regimen by integrating two or three outcomes.

Results: A total of 84 RCTs involving 8,044 patients were included. The results indicated that YDZYR + AN (Yadanziyouru injection plus analgesic) ranked first for pain relief rate, closely followed by KLT + AN (Kanglaite injection plus analgesic). AD + AN (Aidi injection plus analgesic) ranked first for quality of life, KLT + AN following closely. The total adverse reaction rate of FFKS + AN (Fufangkushen injection plus analgesic) was the lowest, and the constipation rate of FFKS was the lowest. In terms of the incidence of nausea and vomiting, KLT + AN was the best choice. In the plots analysis, the results of integrated total incidence of adverse reactions and pain relief rate analysis indicated that FFKS + AN was the most appropriate regimen. Meanwhile, it had the lowest incidence of integrated constipation, nausea and vomiting, and total adverse reactions. KLT + AN was the best in alleviating pain and improving quality of life integrated outcomes.

Conclusion: In conclusion, FFKS + AN was the best treatment regimen for the pain relief rate and total adverse reaction rate, and it was also the safest regimen for CRP treatment. KLT + AN was the most effective choice. Further, compared with analgesic treatment alone for patients with CRP, TCMIs + AN combination treatment strategies are significantly more effective. However, more high-quality RCTs are required to support these conclusions.

Systematic Review Registration: (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#recordDetails, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/export_details_pdf.php), identifier (ChiCTR-ONC-CRD42021267829)

Pharmacological Advances in Opioid Therapy: A Review of the Role of Oliceridine in Pain Management

Problems with the treatment of acute pain may arise when a patient is opioid-tolerant, such as those on chronic therapy with opioids or opiate replacement therapy, those who misuse opioids, and those who are in recovery. While some of the adverse effects of opioid medications are well known, it is also important to recognize the roles of tolerance and hyperalgesia. Oliceridine can target and modulate a novel μ-receptor pathway. The G protein-biased agonism of oliceridine allows for effective re-sensitization and desensitization of the mu-opioid receptor, which decreases the formation of opioid tolerance in patients. Oliceridine has been demonstrated to be an effective and relatively safe intravenous analgesic for the treatment of postoperative pain and is generally well tolerated with a favorable side effect profile when compared to morphine. As the prevalence of pain increases, it is becoming increasingly important to find safe and effective analgesics.

[Opioid rotation in cancer related "mixed pain" scenario : How a "chronic pain patient" becomes a "palliative patient"-a case report]

This case report describes the situation of a 67-year-old chronic pain patient who is confronted with the diagnosis of metastatic small cell lung cancer due to an incidental finding. Previously, she had been struggling with chronic lumboischialgia. As she progressed, treatment-resistant tumor pain became increasingly prominent. The importance of recognizing the change in pain quality is described. The tumor pain with a neuropathic component or "mixed pain" made symptom control difficult in the present case report. A switch from transdermally applied fentanyl to a subcutaneous perfusor system with morphine was made and shortly thereafter, due to lack of pain control, to an oral sustained-release oxycodone preparation. This dual opioid rotation is discussed below. Aspects such as resistance development, incomplete cross-tolerance and genetic polymorphisms are highlighted with the help of scientific literature review.

Symptoms During Outpatient Cancer Treatment and Options for Their Management

BACKGROUND

Cancer patients account for a large segment of the German healthcare system, with a 5-year prevalence of around 1.7 million persons. Advances in oncological treatment, now frequently performed on an outpatient basis, are granting many of these individuals a longer life span. At the same time, cancer patients often suffer disease-related symptoms and adverse effects from their tumor treatment, which may strongly impair their quality of life despite the improved techniques for management of side effects.

METHODS

This review is based on a selective literature search of the PubMed and Cochrane Library databases carried out in December 2019 and January 2020. Special attention was paid to guidelines, expert opinions, and recommendations from professional societies.

RESULTS

Alongside decreased well-being, cancer patients often suffer from fatigue (70-100%), loss of appetite (6-53%), pain (30-80 %), and dyspnea (10-70%). The prevalence and severity of the symptoms varies depending on the tumor entity and the patient's sex. A meta-analysis showed that besides causal treatment, physical activity achieves moderately strong effects in tumor-associated fatigue syndrome (Cohen's d = 0.30 [0.25; 0.36]). The WHO recommends early use of opioids in tumor-associated pain. A meta-analysis of randomized trials described symptom relief by means of opioids also in dyspnea (standardized mean difference: -0.32 [-0.53; -0.10]). Increasingly, guidelines are recommending regular palliative medical symptom screening.

CONCLUSION

Regular documentation of symptoms in outpatients offers the opportunity for targeted management of symptoms during treatment with the involvement of various disciplines such as palliative medicine, exercise therapy, and psychotherapy.

Management of Opioid-Induced Constipation and Bowel Dysfunction: Expert Opinion of an Italian Multidisciplinary Panel

The prescribing and use of opioid analgesics is increasing in Italy owing to a profusion in the number and types of opioid analgesic products available, and the increasing prevalence of conditions associated with severe pain, the latter being related to population aging. Herein we provide the expert opinion of an Italian multidisciplinary panel on the management of opioid-induced constipation (OIC) and bowel dysfunction. OIC and opioid-induced bowel dysfunction are well-recognised unwanted effects of treatment with opioid analgesics that can profoundly affect quality of life. OIC can be due to additional factors such as reduced mobility, a low-fibre diet, comorbidities, and concomitant medications. Fixed-dose combinations of opioids with mu (μ) opioid receptor antagonists, such as oxycodone/naloxone, have become available, but have limited utility in clinical practice because the individual components cannot be independently titrated, creating a risk of breakthrough pain as the dose is increased. A comprehensive prevention and management strategy for OIC should include interventions that aim to improve fibre and fluid intake, increase mobility or exercise, and restore bowel function without compromising pain control. Recommended first-line pharmacological treatment of OIC is with an osmotic laxative (preferably polyethylene glycol [macrogol]), or a stimulant laxative such as an anthraquinone. A second laxative with a complementary mechanism of action should be added in the event of an inadequate response. Second-line treatment with a peripherally acting μ opioid receptor antagonist (PAMORA), such as methylnaltrexone, naloxegol or naldemedine, should be considered in patients with OIC that has not responded to combination laxative treatment. Prokinetics or intestinal secretagogues, such as lubiprostone, may be appropriate in the third-line setting, but their use in OIC is off-label in Italy, and should therefore be restricted to settings such as specialist centres and clinical trials.

P2X Receptors: Potential Therapeutic Targets for Symptoms Associated With Lung Cancer - A Mini Review

Symptoms associated with lung cancer mainly consist of cancer-associated pain, cough, fatigue, and dyspnea. However, underlying mechanisms of lung cancer symptom clusters remain unclear. There remains a paucity of effective treatment to ameliorate debilitating symptoms and improve the quality of life of lung cancer survivors. Recently, extracellular ATP and its receptors have attracted increasing attention among researchers in the field of oncology. Extracellular ATP in the tumor microenvironment is associated with tumor cell metabolism, proliferation, and metastasis by driving inflammation and neurotransmission via P2 purinergic signaling. Accordingly, ATP gated P2X receptors expressed on tumor cells, immune cells, and neurons play a vital role in modulating tumor development, invasion, progression, and related symptoms. P2 purinergic signaling is involved in the development of different lung cancer-related symptoms. In this review, we summarize recent findings to illustrate the role of P2X receptors in tumor proliferation, progression, metastasis, and lung cancer- related symptoms, providing an outline of potential anti-neoplastic activity of P2X receptor antagonists. Furthermore, compared with opioids, P2X receptor antagonists appear to be innovative therapeutic interventions for managing cancer symptom clusters with fewer side effects.

Benefit-Risk Analysis of Buprenorphine for Pain Management

Health care providers in the United States are facing challenges in selecting appropriate medication for patients with acute and chronic pain in the midst of the current opioid crisis and COVID-19 pandemic. When compared with conventional opioids, the partial µ-opioid receptor agonist buprenorphine has unique pharmacologic properties that may be more desirable for pain management. The formulations of buprenorphine approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for pain management include intravenous injection, transdermal patch, and buccal film. A comparison of efficacy and safety data from studies of buprenorphine and conventional opioids suggests that buprenorphine may be a better-tolerated treatment option for many patients that provides similar or superior analgesia. Our benefit-risk assessment in this narrative review suggests that health care providers should consider that buprenorphine may be an appropriate alternative for pain management over other opioids.

Regular dosing compared with as-needed dosing of opioids for management of chronic cancer pain: systematic review and meta-analysis

Opioids are the recommended form of analgesia for patients with persistent cancer pain, and regular dosing "by the clock" is advocated in many international guidelines on cancer pain management. The development of sustained-release opioid preparations has made regular dosing easier for patients. However, patients report that the intensity and impact of their cancer pain varies considerably day to day, and many try to find a trade-off between acceptable pain control and impact of cognitive (and other) adverse effects on daily activities. In acute care settings, (eg, postoperative) as-needed dosing and other opioid-sparing approaches have resulted in better patient outcomes compared with regular dosing. The aim of this study was to determine whether regular dosing of opioids was superior to as-needed dosing for persistent cancer pain. We systematically searched for randomised controlled trials that directly compared pain outcomes from regular dosing of opioids with as-needed dosing in adult cancer patients. We identified 4347 records, 25 randomised controlled trials meet the inclusion criteria, 9 were included in the review, and 7 of these included in meta-analysis. We found no clear evidence demonstrating superiority of regular dosing of opioids compared with as-needed dosing in persistent cancer pain, and regular dosing was associated with significantly higher total opioid doses. There was, however, a paucity of trials directly answering this question, and low-quality evidence limits the conclusions that can be drawn. It is clear that further high-quality clinical trials are needed to answer this question and to guide clinical practice.

Practices and Hindrances in Cancer Pain Management: Results of a National Multi-Cancer Center Survey Among Healthcare Professionals in China

Background

Inadequate control of cancer-related pain in China is an ongoing problem. This study investigated the practices of cancer pain (CP) management at major cancer centers in China and perceived hindrances and knowledge of CP management among health professionals.

Methods

From September to October 2019, a survey was conducted using electronic questionnaires via the internet to investigate the practices, and perceived hindrances and knowledge in managing CP among healthcare professionals from 7 provincial cancer centers in China. The questionnaire included demographic data, the professionals' practices among their own patients, their opinions regarding hindrances to CP management, and knowledge of CP management.

Results

We gathered validated responses from 411 anonymous healthcare professionals, with 82.2% (411/500) of response rate. Based on the analysis of these 411 questionnaires, the results demonstrated that CP was prevalent among patients with cancer, while moderate-to-severe pain took a great proportion. CP management was inadequate for a significant proportion of the patients with CP. Pain assessment, analgesic treatment, attention to adverse effects of analgesic, and multidisciplinary management were usually ineffectual in many cases. The duration of work experience did not significantly affect CP management. The respondents considered that both patients and healthcare professionals were responsible for the undermanagement of CP. Only 26 (6.3%) respondents were able to answer correctly all 10 of the professional questions regarding CP.

Conclusion

CP is commonly undermanaged in China. Effective pain control requires the implementation of standards, and the sufficient attention and training of healthcare professionals.

How Patients and Providers Weigh the Risks and Benefits of Long-Term Opioid Therapy for Cancer Pain

PURPOSE

To understand how patients and providers weigh the risks and benefits of long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) for cancer pain.

METHODS

Researchers used VA approved audio-recording devices to record interviews. ATLAS t.i., a qualitative analysis software, was used for analysis of transcribed interview data. Participants included 20 Veteran patients and 20 interdisciplinary providers from primary care- and oncology-based practice settings. We conducted semistructured interviews and analyzed transcripts used thematic qualitative methods. Interviews explored factors that affect decision making about appropriateness of LTOT for cancer related pain. We saturated themes for providers and patients separately.

RESULTS

Factors affecting patient decision-making included influence from various information sources, persuasion from trusted providers, and sometimes deferral of the decision to their provider. Relative prioritization of pain management as the focal patient concern varied with some patients describing comparatively more fear of chemotherapy than opioid analgesics, comparatively more knowledge of opioids in relation to other drugs;patients expressed a preference to spend the limited time they have with their oncologist discussing cancer treatment rather than opioid use. Factors affecting provider decision making included prognosis, patient goals, patient characteristics, and provider experience and biases. Providers differed in how they weigh the relative importance of alleviating pain or avoiding opioids in the face of treating patients with cancer and histories of substance abuse.

CONCLUSION

Divergent perspectives on factors need to be considered when weighing risks and benefits. Policies and interventions should be designed to reduce variation in practice to promote equal access to adequate pain management. Improved shared decision-making initiatives will take advantage of patient decision-making factors and priorities.

Safety of tapentadol compared with other opioids in chronic pain treatment: network meta-analysis of randomized controlled and withdrawal trials

OBJECTIVE

To assess the relative safety of oral tapentadol PR and other opioid analgesics for moderate or severe chronic pain in adults, we conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA).

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized withdrawal trials of tapentadol with other WHO stage II and III opioid analgesics in patients with moderate or severe chronic pain. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane databases and trial registries. Feasibility assessment evaluated the trials' suitability for NMA. Outcomes assessed were overall AEs, overall serious adverse events, constipation, nausea, dizziness, somnolence, headache, and discontinuation due to AEs. Randomized withdrawal trials were analyzed separately to other RCTs.

RESULTS

Searches conducted in April 2019 identified 16,604 records. Following screening and feasibility assessment, 29 RCTs and 19 randomized withdrawal trials were identified and included in the NMA. Consistent with existing research, evidence from RCTs suggested that tapentadol is associated with relatively lower odds of adverse events occurring than most active comparators. The withdrawal trial data were less clear, with higher uncertainty around the results, and results that appear to contradict the RCT evidence. There are a number of trial design factors that may be affecting these results.

CONCLUSIONS

RCT evidence suggests that tapentadol can be a useful treatment option for patients suffering from chronic pain and in need of an opioid analgesic. Opioids should be prescribed by a qualified physician only after other analgesics have been considered, taking side effects and misuse risk into account.

Predicting Opioid Therapy Safety In Pancreatic Cancer Patients

Background — Obligatory use of strong opioids for treating chronic pain syndrome in patients with pancreatic cancer provides the implementation of opioid-associated adverse reactions. Genetic and non-genetic risk factors are predictive of the opioid therapy safety. Contemporary methods of information analysis allow using prognostic risk models for practical application. Objective — Identification of significant risk factors for the development of opioid-associated adverse drug reactions in patients with chronic pain syndrome against the background of pancreatic cancer. Material and Methods — The study included 90 patients with chronic pain against the background of pancreatic cancer, randomized at a ratio of 1: 1. Group 1 received morphine sulfate (MS), group 2 received fentanyl transdermal therapeutic system (FTTS) with standard adjuvant therapy (ketoprofen, diazepam, amitriptyline). To assess pain level, the 10-point Digital Rating Scale, the Visual Analogue Scale and the pain questionnaires were used. The assessment of the treatment safety was conducted by the Naranjo Scale. Assessment of prognostic genetic and non-genetic factors was carried out using ROC analysis with calculation of AUC (the area under the ROC-curve). Results — Prognostic models of good quality were determined with the optimal ratio of sensitivity and specificity for the influence of genetic and non-genetic risk factors on the development of opioid-associated adverse drug reactions (OA-ADRs) in comparison groups. Various prognostic factors, complementing each other, were identified in the comparison groups. Conclusion — The following OA-ADRs predicting factors were identified: for FTTS-associated nausea and vomiting – age and carriage of rs7438135 AG genotype of UGT2B7 gene; for local reactions – the sum of points on the ESAS scale and carriage of rs7438135 AA genotype of UGT2B7 gene; for difficulty urinating – the level of glomerular filtration rate; for neurotoxicity – the level of AST and bilirubin, and the carriage of rs1128503 GG genotype of ABCB1 gene; for pruritus – carriage of rs1045642642 AA genotype of ABCB1 gene. The prognostic factors for the implementation of MS-associated neurotoxicity were age and comorbidity; for dry mouth was predicted best from the sum of points on the MMCE scale; weakness was predicted by the carriage of rs7668258 TT genotype of UGT2B7 gene.

A narrative review of buprenorphine in adult cancer pain

INTRODUCTION

Adult cancer pain is a disease state battled on a global scale. Proper pain management is essential to prevent health complications and promote patient well-being. Due to the opioid misuse crisis in the United States, providers are looking for alternatives to traditional opioids used for adult cancer pain. Buprenorphine has a unique pharmacologic profile, allowing it to be delivered in noninvasive ways; thus, it offers an alternative to traditional options. Randomized controlled trials have shown improved pain scores with transdermal buprenorphine, and they showed reductions in pain scores and increased improvement in quality of life scores versus other opioids. Sublingual buprenorphine has more limited, but promising data for reducing cancer pain.

AREAS COVERED

We provide a narrative review of pathophysiological pathways of pain in cancer, how they are treated, and the unique properties of buprenorphine. Guidelines addressing pain management during cancer treatment are assessed to identify buprenorphine's place in therapy. Recent literature reporting efficacy and safety of buprenorphine use in pain management during cancer treatment will be presented.

EXPERT OPINION

Current literature shows strong data for transdermal buprenorphine and promising data for sublingual buprenorphine. With this evidence, buprenorphine could have a more expanded role in managing adult cancer pain.

Buprenorphine buccal film for chronic pain management

Buprenorphine is a Schedule III opioid with unique pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties that contribute to effective analgesia and fewer safety risks than other opioids. This review article focuses on the buccal film formulation, which is preferable to other buprenorphine formulations on the basis of bioavailability, safety and efficacy. The clinical studies reviewed here confirm that buprenorphine buccal film offers effective and continuous pain relief that is generally well tolerated, with no cases of respiratory depression reported in any of the studies. On the basis of these clinical data and individual patient risk/benefit assessments, clinicians should consider utilizing buprenorphine buccal film as a first-line opioid treatment for chronic pain over other buprenorphine formulations or other opioids.

Comparison of the Quality of Life of Cancer Patients with Pain Treated with Oral Controlled-Release Morphine and Oxycodone and Transdermal Buprenorphine and Fentanyl

AIM

To compare the effects of oral morphine and oxycodone and transdermal fentanyl and buprenorphine on quality of life (QoL) of cancer patients with severe pain.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Cancer patients with severe pain (NRS 6-10) treated at home and in outpatient clinics who failed to respond to non-opioids and/or "weak" opioids were randomized to morphine, oxycodone, fentanyl, or buprenorphine treatment for 28 days. Immediate-release oral morphine was rescued analgesic and 10-ml lactulose twice daily was prophylaxis of constipation; no antiemetics were used for prophylaxis.

RESULTS

Above all, 62 patients participated and 53 patients completed the study. Good analgesia was obtained with all 4 opioids. Morphine was associated with the less negative impact of pain on the ability to walk and normal work, and tendency on activity (BPI-SF) and lower consumption of rescue morphine. All 4 opioids elicited similar adverse effects. According to ESAS, the intensity of nausea and drowsiness increased at the beginning but decreased as treatment continued. Appetite, well-being, anxiety, depression, and fatigue improved. No changes were seen in constipation, vomiting and dyspnea. Constipation was rarely observed with all opioids (BFI). Any opioids improved overall QoL and emotional functioning with tendency improving physical functioning (EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL). Activity improved (Karnofsky). Morphine induced greater improvement in physical functioning and trend in improvement mood (HADS).

CONCLUSION

All opioids significantly improved patients' QoL. Morphine induced less negative impact of pain on daily activities and greater improvement in physical functioning with trends of better mood and less intense fatigue.

Practice review: Evidence-based and effective management of pain in patients with advanced cancer

BACKGROUND

Pain of a moderate or severe intensity affects over half of patients with advanced cancer and remains undertreated in at least one-third of these patients.

AIM

The aim of this study was to provide a pragmatic overview of the evidence supporting the use of interventions in pain management in advanced cancer and to identify where encouraging preliminary results are demonstrated but further research is required.

DESIGN

A scoping review approach was used to examine the evidence supporting the use of guideline-recommended interventions in pain management practice.

DATA SOURCES

National or international guidelines were selected if they described pain management in adult cancer patients and were written within the last 5 years in English. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (January 2014 to January 2019) was searched for 'cancer' AND 'pain' in the title, abstract or keywords. A MEDLINE search was also made.

RESULTS

A strong opioid remains the drug of choice for treating moderate or severe pain. Bisphosphonates and radiotherapy are also effective for cancer-related bone pain. Optimal management requires a tailored approach, support for self-management and review of treatment outcomes. There is likely a role for non-pharmacological approaches. Paracetamol should not be used in patients taking a strong opioid to treat pain. Cannabis-based medicines are not recommended. Weak opioids, ketamine and lidocaine are indicated in specific situations only.

CONCLUSION

Interventions commonly recommended by guidelines are not always supported by a robust evidence base. Research is required to evaluate the efficacy of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, anti-convulsants, anti-depressants, corticosteroids, some invasive anaesthetic techniques, complementary therapies and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation.

Experience of morphine therapy for refractory dyspnea as palliative care in advanced heart failure patients

BACKGROUND

In the field of palliative care, morphine is known to be effective for alleviating dyspnea in cancer patients. However, little is known regarding the safety and efficacy of morphine therapy for refractory dyspnea as palliative care in advanced heart failure (HF) patients.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed consecutive advanced HF patients who were referred to the Palliative Care Team at our institution and administered morphine for refractory dyspnea during hospitalization between September 2013 and December 2018. We investigated the details of morphine usage, vital signs, an 11-point quantitative symptom scale, and adverse events at baseline, 24 h, and 72 h after the start of treatment.

RESULTS

Morphine was administered for refractory dyspnea in 43 advanced HF patients [mean age: 73.5 years, male: 28 (65%), New York Heart Association functional class IV: 43 (100%), median left ventricular ejection fraction: 25%, median B-type natriuretic peptide level: 927 pg/ml, concurrent intravenous inotrope: 33 (77%)]. Median initial dose of morphine was 5 mg/day in both oral and intravenous administration and median duration of administration was 5 days. Significant decreases in an 11-point quantitative symptom scale [7 (5, 9) vs. 2 (1, 6); p <  0.01, (data available in 8 patients)] and respiratory rate (22.2 ± 6.1 vs. 19.7 ± 5.2 breaths per minute; p < 0.01) were observed 24 h after the start of morphine administration. Meanwhile, oxygen saturation, blood pressure, and heart rate were not significantly altered after treatment (NS). Common adverse events were delirium (18%) and constipation (8%); however, no lethal adverse event definitely related to morphine therapy occurred during treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

This single-center retrospective study revealed the clinical practice of morphine therapy and suggested that morphine therapy might be feasible for refractory dyspnea as palliative care in advanced HF patients.

The Complex Balance between Analgesic Efficacy, Change of Dose and Safety Profile Over Time, in Cancer Patients Treated with Opioids: Providing the Clinicians with an Evaluation Tool

Background: Scanty data exist on the integration between the analgesic effect of opioids, dose changes, and adverse events in cancer patients. Methods: To provide further information on this issue, we analysed data on 498 advanced-stage cancer patients treated with strong opioids. At baseline and three visits (at days 7, 14, and 21), pain intensity, oral morphine-equivalent daily dose, and the prevalence of major adverse events were measured. The proportion of responders (pain intensity decrease ≥30% from baseline) and non-responders, as well as of patients with low or high dose escalation, was calculated. Results: Pain intensity strongly decreased from baseline (pain intensity difference −4.0 at day 7 and −4.2 at day 21) in responders, while it was quite stable in non-responders (pain intensity difference −0.8 at day 7 and −0.9 at day 21). In low dose escalation patients (82.4% at final visit), daily dose changed from 52.3 to 65.3 mg; in high dose escalation patients (17.6%), it varied from 94.1 to 146.7 mg. Among responders, high dose escalation patients experienced significantly more frequent adverse events compared to low or high dose escalation patients, while no differences were observed in non-responders. Conclusions: The response to opioids results from the combination of three clinical aspects, which are strongly interrelated. These results provide some thoughts to help clinical evaluations and therapeutic decisions regarding opioid use.

Identification of genetic polymorphisms modulating nausea and vomiting in two series of opioid-treated cancer patients

Nausea and vomiting are often associated with opioid analgesia in cancer patients; however, only a subset of patients develop such side effects. Here, we tested the hypothesis that the occurrence of nausea and vomiting is modulated by the genetic background of the patients. Whole exome sequencing of DNA pools from patients with either low (n = 937) or high (n = 557) nausea and vomiting intensity, recruited in the European Pharmacogenetic Opioid Study, revealed a preliminary association of 53 polymorphisms. PCR-based genotyping of 45 of these polymorphisms in the individual patients of the same series confirmed the association for six SNPs in AIM1L, CLCC1, MUC16, PDE3A, POM121L2, and ZNF165 genes. Genotyping of the same 45 polymorphisms in 264 patients of the Italian CERP study, also treated with opioids for cancer pain, instead confirmed the association for two SNPs in ZNF568 and PDE3A genes. Only one SNP, rs12305038 in PDE3A, was confirmed in both series, although with opposite effects of the minor allele on the investigated phenotype. Overall, our findings suggest that genetic factors are indeed associated with nausea and vomiting in opioid-treated cancer patients, but the role of individual polymorphisms may be weak.

Safety And Efficacy Of The Unique Opioid Buprenorphine For The Treatment Of Chronic Pain

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain is associated with decreased quality of life and is one of the most common reasons adults seek medical care, making treatment imperative for many aspects of patient well-being. Chronic pain management typically involves the use of Schedule II full μ-opioid receptor agonists for pain relief; however, the increasing prevalence of opioid addiction is a national crisis that is impacting public health and social and economic welfare. Buprenorphine is a Schedule III partial μ-opioid receptor agonist that is an equally effective but potentially safer treatment option for chronic pain than full μ-opioid receptor agonists. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the clinical efficacy and safety of the transdermal and buccal formulations of buprenorphine, which are approved by the Food and Drug Administration for chronic pain, compared with that of extended-release full μ-opioid receptor agonists.

METHODS

Controlled or randomized controlled clinical trial information was retrieved from EMBASE, Medline, and PubMed using the search terms "buprenorphine" AND "chronic" AND "pain."

RESULTS

A total of 33 clinical studies were ultimately used in this review, including 29 (88%) on transdermal buprenorphine and 4 (12%) on buprenorphine buccal film. Although the measure of pain intensity varied among studies, each of these 33 trials demonstrated efficacy for buprenorphine in pain relief. A total of 28 studies also assessed safety, with each concluding that buprenorphine was generally well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Comparison of current clinical data along with results of responder and safety analyses support the use of buprenorphine over full μ-opioid receptor agonists for effective preferential treatment of chronic pain; however, head-to-head clinical studies are warranted.

Lack of Efficacy: When Opioids Do Not Achieve Analgesia from the Beginning of Treatment in Cancer Patients

Introduction

Opioids are often used to relieve moderate to severe pain, but their analgesic response may vary. We focused on the absolute lack of analgesic response immediately after beginning opioid treatment, quantifying the proportion of patients with unchanged or worse pain on day 3 (defined as early non-responders (ENRs)) and day 7.

Methods

This is a post-hoc analysis from a randomized controlled trial involving 498 cancer patients with pain, starting to receive WHO step III opioids. On days 1, 3 and 7 pain intensity (PI) was measured.

Results

On day 3, 68 (13.7%) patients were ENRs, 53 no change and 15 greater PI compared to baseline. The relationships between pain and clinical characteristics showed no significant differences between ENRs and Early responders (ERs), except for PI at baseline, which was significantly lower in ENRs. ENRs on day 3 were re-assessed on day 7 to explore the patterns of analgesic response: 31.7% of patients remained NRs, 48.3% had become responders, and 20.0% were poor responders. Adverse drug reactions were similar in ERs and ENRs at each visit.

Discussion

The complete lack of early response to opioids in cancer patients is clinically important and more frequent than expected. Better definition of the mechanism will allow better pain management in cancer and non-cancer patients.

Pain Control in Latin America: The Optimized Role of Buprenorphine in the Treatment of Cancer and Noncancer Pain

Pain is a terrible health problem that transcends borders and nationalities, although there may be significant differences among regions regarding pain management. In Latin America (LatAm, composed of the many nations of Central America, South America, Mexico, and the Caribbean), access to healthcare, pain management, and opioid analgesics can vary. Despite an international U.S.-led trend toward greater control in opioid prescribing, the role of opioids in the management of severe pain in LatAm is probably smaller than it should be, as opioid consumption in LatAm overall is low. Buprenorphine is a strong opioidwith certain characteristics that make it a potentially useful analgesic agent in LatAm: it has a unique pharmacology that allows for transdermal administration and a favorable safety profile with a ceiling effect for respiratory depression. It has a well-studied low risk potential for misuse, and there is strong evidence for its safety and efficacy in managing both cancer and noncancer pain in adults. Caregivers and policy makers in LatAm may learn from the U.S. experience with opioids in order to develop protocols to better and safely manage pain, and it is possible that buprenorphine will play a key role.

The Burden of Opioid Adverse Events and the Influence on Cancer Patients' Symptomatology

CONTEXT

Opioids are frequently used for the treatment of moderate-to-severe pain and their use may produce a number of unwanted adverse events (AEs).

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to understand the burden of opioid-induced AEs in cancer patients with pain after the introduction of strong opioids (WHO Step III).

METHODS

This is a cohort study derived from a randomized controlled trial involving 498 cancer patients with pain who received strong opioids. During 28-day follow-up, we analyzed frequency, intensity, and changes over time of the main opioid-induced AEs; the influence of previous pain therapy on AEs; and the relationships between the presence of AEs and analgesic response.

RESULTS

After starting strong opioids, dry mouth, nausea, and vomiting immediately increased and persisted over time, constipation continued to increase, while drowsiness and confusion tended to decrease. Patients previously treated with weak opioids had more frequent and severe AEs. While at all observation points the percentage of patients without AEs was 37%-39%, considering all the five scheduled visits, from Day 3 to Day 28, 17% of patients never experienced any AEs, while 48% of patients had four or more concomitant AEs. Patients with no AEs experienced significantly lower pain intensity.

CONCLUSION

Opioid introduction induces various AEs that persist over time and worse patients' symptomatology. Moreover, there seems to be a different expression of the opioid toxicity among patients, and a possible interaction between AEs and the analgesic response. The balance between the opioids analgesic effect and induced toxicity is fundamental in deciding the best management for pain in cancer patients.

Comparative Efficacy of Therapeutics for Chronic Cancer Pain: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

Opioids are the primary choice for managing chronic cancer pain. However, many nonopioid therapies are currently prescribed for chronic cancer pain with little published evidence comparing their efficacy.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any systemic pharmaceutical intervention and/or combination thereof in treating chronic cancer pain. The primary outcome was global efficacy reported as an odds ratio (OR). The secondary outcome was change in pain intensity reported as a standardized mean difference (SMD).

RESULTS

We included 81 RCTs consisting of 10,003 patients investigating 11 medication classes. Most RCTs (80%) displayed low risk of bias. The top-ranking classes for global efficacy were nonopioid analgesics (network OR, 0.30; 95% credibility interval [CrI], 0.13 to 0.67), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (network OR, 0.44; 95% CrI, 0.22 to 0.90), and opioids (network OR, 0.49; 95% CrI, 0.27 to 0.86), whereas the top-ranked interventions were lidocaine (network OR, 0.04; 95% CrI, 0.01 to 0.18; surface under the cumulative ranking curve analysis [SUCRA] score, 98.1), codeine plus aspirin (network OR, 0.22; 95% CrI, 0.08 to 0.63; SUCRA score, 81.1), and pregabalin (network OR, 0.29; 95% CrI, 0.08 to 0.92; SUCRA score, 73.8). In terms of reducing pain intensity, we found that no class was superior to placebo, whereas the following top-ranked interventions were superior to placebo: ziconotide (network SMD, −24.98; 95% CrI, −32.62 to −17.35; SUCRA score, 99.8), dezocine (network SMD, −13.56; 95% CrI, −23.37 to −3.69; SUCRA score, 93.5), and diclofenac (network SMD, −11.22; 95% CrI, −15.91 to −5.80; SUCRA score, 92.9).

CONCLUSION

There are significant differences in efficacy among current regimens for chronic cancer pain. Our evidence suggests that certain nonopioid analgesics and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs can serve as effectively as opioids in managing chronic cancer pain.

Oral prolonged-release Oxycodone-Naloxone: analgesic response, safety profile, and factors influencing the response in advanced cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Oxycodone-Naloxone (OXN) aims to reduce opioid-related constipation while being successfully analgesic.

METHODS

We evaluated the analgesic response, prevalence, and severity of side effects in 176 cancer patients with moderate to severe pain and treated with OXN. Patients were followed for 28 days and evaluated every seven. Pain intensity, changes of therapy, and adverse drug reactions were recorded at each visit. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of responders (≥30% reduction of pain intensity from baseline to final) and final average pain score ≤4 on a 0-10 scale.

RESULTS

Average and worst pain intensity, and breakthrough pain (BTP) prevalence decreased over time and 81.3% of patients were responders. The starting daily dose of OXN was raised from 25.1±13.0 mg to 44.1±29.9 mg, and dose escalation >5%/day was observed in 19.4% of patients; 40.8-46.2% and 11.0-17.0% experienced any and severe grade of constipation during the follow-up visit, respectively. Digestive system tumor, thyroid endocrinopathies, psychological irritability, and BTP increased the risk of analgesic non-response.

CONCLUSIONS

OXN had strong analgesic effect in moderate to severe cancer pain patients: the safety profile is in line with the common adverse effects of opioids and severe constipation was uncommon. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.