Oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate: randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial for treatment of breakthrough pain in cancer patients

Efficacy and safety of fentanyl inhalant for the treatment of breakthrough cancer pain: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP) has a negative impact on patients' quality of life, general activities, and is related to worse clinical outcomes. Fentanyl inhalant is a hand-held combination drug-device delivery system providing rapid, multi-dose (25μg/dose) administration of fentanyl via inhalation of a thermally generated aerosol. This multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, multiple-crossover, double-blind study evaluated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of fentanyl inhalant in treating BTcP in opioid-tolerant patients.

METHODS

The trial was conducted in opioid-tolerant cancer patients with 1 ~ 4 BTcP outbursts per day. Each patient was treated and observed for 6 episodes of BTcP (4 with fentanyl inhalant, 2 with placebo). During each episode of targeted BTcP, patients were allowed up to six inhalations, with an interval of at least 4 min between doses. Primary outcome was the time-weighted sum of PID (pain intensity difference) scores at 30 min (SPID30).

RESULTS

A total of 335 BTcP episodes in 59 patients were treated. The mean SPID30 was -97.4 ± 48.43 for fentanyl inhalant-treated episodes, and -64.6 ± 40.25 for placebo-treated episodes (p < 0.001). Significant differences in PID for episodes treated with fentanyl inhalant versus placebo was seen as early as 4 min and maintained for up to 60 min. The percentage of episodes reported PI (pain intensity) scores ≤ 3, a ≥ 33% or ≥ 50% reduction in PI scores at 30 min, PR30 (pain relief scores at 30 min) and SPID60 favored fentanyl inhalant over placebo. Only 4.4% of BTcP episodes required rescue medication in fentanyl inhalant group. Most AEs were of mild or moderate severity and typical of opioid drugs.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with fentanyl inhalant was shown to be a promising therapeutic option for BTcP, with significant pain relief starting very soon after dosing. Confirmation of effectiveness requires a larger phase III trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05531422 registered on 6 September 2022 after major amendment, NCT04713189 registered on 14 January 2021.

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.

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.

The role of fentanyl in the treatment of breakthrough cancer pain: Different biotechnologies, different results and different drug costs

The aim of this paper was to assess the drug costs of the different biotechnologies (intranasal fentanyl spray (INFS), oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate (OTFC) and fentanyl buccal tablet (FBT)) in the treatment of breakthrough cancer pain (BTCP). We have calculated the mean drug costs (expressed in euros (€)) for patients treated for BTCP. INFS resulted the less expensive towards OTFC and FBT, with 697 440 €versus (vs.) 809 552 €vs. 779 662 €every 100 patients treated for BTCP, respectively. In conclusion, combining drug costs of different biotechnologies (INFS, OTFC and FBT) with the measure of efficacy represented by the reduction of BTCP avoided (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, ICER), INFS resulted in better cost-effectiveness.

Combined Oral Fentanyl Citrate and Midazolam as Premedication for Bone Marrow Aspiration and Biopsy in Patients with Hematological Malignancies: A Randomized, Controlled and Patient-Blinded Clinical Trial

Bone marrow aspiration and biopsy (BMAB) is a painful procedure, and the routinely used local infiltration anesthesia (LIA) with lidocaine is unable to provide pain relief during the most uncomfortable phases. The primary endpoint of the present randomized, patient-blinded trial was to evaluate the efficacy of an opioid and benzodiazepine combination plus LIA (sedoanalgesia) in patients undergoing BMAB for hematological malignancies. The secondary endpoint was the safety of the procedure in an outpatient setting. Ancillary assessments were anticipatory anxiety related to pain recall in the event of re-biopsy, and adequacy of bone tissue harvested. Patients were randomly assigned to one of 2 arms to receive either sedoanalgesic placebo plus LIA (standard group) or oral fentanyl citrate 200 μg plus oral midazolam 5 mg plus LIA (combo group) during BMAB. Pre-procedural anxiety and procedural pain were assessed according to the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS: 0–10), dividing the time of the procedure into five intervals (T0, T1, T2a, T2b and T3) and evaluating the degree of discomfort at each time (T) in both groups. One hundred and sixteen patients were eligible for the study. At T2b (time of biopsy) and T3 (time after biopsy), a significantly lower perception of pain was registered in the combo group. Moreover, there were no significant sedoanalgesia-related side-effects. Finally, histological specimens were higher in quality in the combo group. Sedoanalgesia was highly effective in reducing pain during biopsy, diminished anticipatory anxiety in patients undergoing re-biopsy and led to fewer non-diagnostic specimens being harvested.

Effects of age and gender in patients receiving doses of opioids for breakthrough pain proportional to background opioid doses

AIM

To identify the role of age and gender in analgesic and adverse effects after administering fentanyl products for breakthrough pain (BT), given in doses proportional to opioid doses given for background pain.

METHODS

Data from nine studies, in which patients with BP were given fentanyl products in doses proportional to their basal opioid regimen, were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total 462 patients presenting 1905 episodes of BP were included in this analysis. In older patients, the decrease in pain intensity was more pronounced 15 min after administration of a BP medication. No gender differences were found. No significant differences in frequency and intensity of adverse effects for age and gender were found.

CONCLUSION

Fentanyl products given for BP in doses proportional to background opioid regimen were more effective in older patients without adding risks of adverse effects. Gender did not influence analgesia and adverse effects of fentanyl products.

Nanotechnology: A Promising New Paradigm for the Control of Pain

Objective

The objective of this article is to critically review both preclinical and clinical studies that focus on the use of nanotechnology for both acute and chronic pain management, surveying both diagnostic and therapeutic applications. The article also provides information on nanotechnology for pain practitioners, so that they may better understand how this technology works and how it may be applied to their day-to-day clinical practice.

Study Design

Narrative review.

Methods

The Pubmed NCBI and EMBASE databases were utilized to review published reports of in vivo and clinical studies that focus on using nanotechnology for pain management applications in both the acute and chronic pain settings.

Results

Articles were screened by title, abstract, and full article review. They were then analyzed by specific clinical indications, and appropriate data were presented based on a critical analysis of those articles.

Conclusions

As the development of nanomedical applications in acute and chronic pain management continues, medical practitioners should consider their growing potential to enhance the care of patients who are consistently living with pain. Current barriers to implementation include manufacturing scale-up for commercial viability, long-term nanoparticle toxicity considerations, and high cost for successful passage through clinical trials. These challenges will need to be overcome with ongoing translational research efforts in collaboration with industry and government bodies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Nitrous oxide/oxygen mixture for analgesia in adult cancer patients with breakthrough pain: A randomized, double-blind controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of a fixed nitrous oxide/oxygen mixture for the management of breakthrough cancer pain.

METHODS/DESIGN

A double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial was undertaken in the Medical ward of Tumor Hospital of General Hospital of Ningxia Medical University. 240 cancer patients with breakthrough pain were recruited and randomly received a standard pain treatment (morphine sulphate immediate release) plus a pre-prepared nitrous oxide/oxygen mixture, or the standard pain treatment plus oxygen. The primary endpoint measure was the numerical rating scale (NRS) score measured at baseline, 5 and 15 min after the beginning of treatment, and at 5 min post treatment.

RESULT

In all, analysis of pain score (NRS) at 5 min after the beginning of treatment shown a significant decrease in nitrous oxide/oxygen mixture treated patients with 2.8 ± 1.3 versus 5.5 ± 1.2 in controls (p < 0.01). At 15 min during the intervention, the mean pain score for nitrous oxide/oxygen was 2.0 ± 1.1 compared with 5.6 ± 1.3 for oxygen (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

This study shows that self-administered nitrous oxide/oxygen mixture was effective in reducing moderate to severe breakthrough pain among patients with cancer.

SIGNIFICANCE

The management of breakthrough cancer pain is always a challenge due to its temporal characteristics of rapid onset, moderate to severe in intensity, short duration (median 30-60 min). Our study find that self-administered nitrous oxide/oxygen mixture was effective in reducing moderate to severe breakthrough cancer pain.

The use of rapid onset fentanyl in children and young people for breakthrough cancer pain

Background and aims

No published studies have looked at the dosing and use of rapid onset fentanyl preparations in children. The primary aim of this study was to assess whether there is a correlation between effective dose of rapid onset fentanyl and background oral morphine equivalent analgesia in children less than 18 years old. Secondary objectives included establishing whether there is a correlation between effective dose of rapid onset fentanyl and age and weight. Reported side effects were also reviewed.

Methods

This study is a retrospective case note review of all children less than 18 years old who received rapid onset fentanyl products in a tertiary paediatric oncology centre in England between 2010 and 2015. Correlations were analysed using Spearman’s correlation coefficient as data was non-parametric.

Results

Data on 26 children (5-17 yrs; 13-100 kg) was analysed. The most common diagnosis in children being given rapid onset fentanyl products was a solid tumour (84.6%). Eleven children used sublingual tablets, 17 used lozenges and one used a fentanyl nasal spray (three patients used two different preparations). The only significant correlation found was between dose of fentanyl lozenge and weight (r s = 0.81, p < 0.001). Very few side effects were reported with the most frequent being nausea (8%) and sleepiness (8%).

Conclusions

Fentanyl lozenges seem to be safe and well tolerated in children as young as five years old, weighing as little as 13 kg. Results suggest that children should always be started on the lowest available dose of chosen preparation and that this dose should be titrated according to response.

This study demonstrates that there is no correlation between background opioid dose and effective dose of rapid onset fentanyl in children. This mirrors findings of similar studies in adults. There was a strong correlation between effective dose of fentanyl lozenge and weight. This may be in part due to clinicians being more inclined to increase fentanyl lozenge doses as the child is in control of when they have had enough medication. In contrast, buccal tablets are absorbed quickly and the child always receives the full dose, making clinicians more reluctant to titrate the dose.

Implications

This article presents initial evidence for feasibility and tolerability of fentanyl lozenges in children as young as five years old, who are on relatively low doses of background opioids. This could be of interest to clinicians who are looking for alternatives to oral opioids to manage breakthrough pain in children with cancer.

Fentanyl buccal tablet for breakthrough cancer pain in clinical practice: results of the non-interventional prospective study ErkentNIS

Purpose

Several patients with advanced cancer suffer from breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP). BTcP is pain exacerbation despite opioid baseline therapy. Fentanyl buccal tablet (FBT) is a rapid-onset opioid for the treatment of BTcP. The aim of this study is to document the feasibility of FBT in patients with BTcP.

Methods

The study was performed in 64 centers. Basic pain score was rated on a numeric rating scale (NRS) before and after treatment. BTcP episodes, baseline opioid therapy, and FBT dose were rated as well as individual dose titration, findings on tolerability, patient satisfaction, and safety of the drug.

Results

Two hundred sixty-three patients were available for analysis. Patients rated a basic pain score of 6 (range 2–10) points on an NRS and described an average of 2 to 5 BTcP episodes per day. After titration of FBT, BTcP control was achieved within 5 min in 36%, within 10 min in 68%, and within 15 min in 95%. Basic pain score decreased to a mean NRS of 4 and BTcP episodes decreased to < 1 to 3 episodes per day. BTcP control, onset of action of FBT, potency of FBT, tolerability of FBT, and safety of FBT were rated as excellent or good by 89 to 99% of the patients. Adverse drug reactions were registered in 3%.

Conclusions

Treatment with FBT led to rapid pain relief and reductions in the number of BTcP episodes and patient satisfaction was rated as excellent or good.

Rapid acting fentanyl formulations in breakthrough pain in cancer. Drug selection by means of the System of Objectified Judgement Analysis

Drug selection of rapid acting fentanyl formulations in the treatment of breakthrough pain in patients with cancer is performed by the System of Objectified Judgement Analysis method. All seven available formulations were included in the analysis. The following selection criteria were used: number of available strengths, variability in the rate of absorption, interactions, clinical efficacy, side effects, ease of administration and documentation. No direct double-blind comparative studies between two or more formulations were identified and the clinical documentation of all formulations is limited. The most distinguishing criterion was ease of use. This led to slightly higher scores for Abstral, Instanyl and PecFent than for the other formulations. The pros and cons of each formulation should be discussed with the patient, and the most suitable formulation selected for each individual patient.

Efficacy and Safety of Oral or Nasal Fentanyl for Treatment of Breakthrough Pain in Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review

Formulations of fentanyl that use buccal, sublingual, or nasal transmucosal routes of administration have been developed for the treatment of BTP in opioid-tolerant patients with cancer. The purposes of this analysis were to identify and review published data describing the efficacy and safety of different oral or nasal transmucosal fentanyl formulations for treatment of cancer-related BTP, based on a critical analysis of scientific literature. Oral transmucosal or intranasal fentanyl is an effective treatment for management of BTP episodes due to a potent analgesic effect, rapid onset of action, and sustained effect. Furthermore, it is a reasonably safe treatment, causing generally mild adverse events not leading to treatment discontinuation. Nevertheless, further progress in standardizing methodology, definitions, and criteria used both in research and in clinical practice is needed in order to generate quality information allowing a better understanding of the comparable efficacy of available formulations of fentanyl. A more rigorous assessment of long-term safety is also needed to establish a balance between benefits and risks of the available options.

Breakthrough Cancer Pain: Ten Commandments

The term "breakthrough cancer pain" (BTcP) was introduced about 25 years ago. Peaks of pain intensity reported in patients with cancer had been invariably examined in the past years, providing relevant information for a better knowledge of this phenomenon and its treatment. The aim of this critical review was to provide the golden rules, namely, the 10 commandments, for a correct diagnostic pathway of BTcP and a consequent personalized pharmacological treatment. These are as follows: 1) assessment of background analgesia, 2) drugs used for background analgesia, 3) BTcP is a frequent phenomenon, 4) characteristics of BTcP, 5) diagnosis of BTcP, 6) continuous assessment, 7) tailored pharmacological treatment of BTcP, 8) selection of BTcP medication, 9) dosing BTcP medications, and 10) education. These steps may help clinicians to recognize and treat BTcP adequately.

Oral morphine for cancer pain

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

WITHDRAWN: Opioids for the management of breakthrough pain in cancer patients

At August 2015, this review has been withdrawn. It is correct at the date of publication, and previous versions can be accessed in the ‘Other versions’ tab on the Cochrane Library. The Cochrane Editorial Unit (CEU) agreed with the authors of the feedback that the review was misleading, and because the original author team was unavailable to update the review, the CEU advised that it should be withdrawn. See below for full details. PaPaS is seeking a new author team to develop a new review which will serve to update the original.

Feedback 1, received 15 February 2015

Dr Vicente Ruiz Garcia
 vicenteruizgarcia@gmail.com

With colleagues Xavier Bonfill Cosp, Eduardo Lopez Briz, Rafa Carbonell, Jose Luis Gonzalvez Perales, Sylvia Bort Martí, and Marta Roque Figuls.

Comment: Dear editor:

We have read the update of Zeppetella and Davies about management of breakthrough pain in cancer patients (1). We think that this review is very important to help clinicians and patients to decide whether the new treatments for the breakthrough pain in cancer could be a useful alternative to morphine.

In this update, some comments that we made to the previous review (the letter was not published) (2) were considered by the authors; in particular, not pooling the results obtained for oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate (OTFC) versus placebo, with those of OTFC versus morphine, and those of two trials that were titration of doses of fentanyl. However, we do not agree with the authors’ results when they state: “When compared with placebo or oral morphine, participants gave lower pain intensity and higher pain relief scores for transmucosal fentanyl formulations at all time points”. First, the outcomes at 15 min (the most important to obtain a quick relief of pain), Pain intensity Difference (Comparison 2. Transmucosal opioid versus oral morphine) and Comparison 4. OTFC versus intravenous morphine), failed to show statistically significant differences with oral morphine (mean difference 0.37 CI 95% 0.00‐0.73) and with morphine iv (mean difference 0.80 CI 95% 0.00‐1,60). In any case the results had no clinical relevance. Moreover the authors state “at all time points”, whereas they do not provide any data for longer times (i.e. 30, 45, 60 min). In addition, authors state “transmucosal fentanyl citrate are safe (..) (compared with both placebo and morphine) in relieving breakthrough pain”. Surprisingly no analysis of adverse events have been done that were only described in each study. Seven out 15 were crossover trials and it was impossible to draw conclusions about it.

As reviewers we know that multiple comparisons could be made, but the most clinical interesting comparison is the gold standard, morphine.

The review only shows in SOF, comparisons of fentanyl with placebo and concludes, that it is effective. Surprisingly, there is no mention of morphine comparison, which we consider a key point, because no patient will take placebo if he has a breakthrough pain, but morphine for obvious reasons.

In our opinion, traversing the authors’ conclusions, this review did not show that the use of oral and nasal transmucosal fentanyl is an effective alternative to morphine for patients with breakthrough cancer pain.

Reply

The authors of the review were contacted but chose not to provide a response to the feedback.

Contributors

Kate Seers, PaPaS Feedback Editor, and Anna Hobson, PaPaS Managing Editor.

Additional feedback 2, received May 2015

On 15 February 2015, Dr Vicente Ruiz Garcia (University Hospital La Fe, Spain), and his colleagues Xavier Bonfill Cosp, Eduardo Lopez Briz, Rafa Carbonell, Jose Luis Gonzalvez Perales, Sylvia Bort Martí, and Marta Roque Figuls submitted feedback via the Cochrane Library. The main complaint is available above.

On 23 February, 16 March and 15 April, Kate Seers (Feedback Editor, PaPaS) contacted the authors and invited them to respond. On 21 March, John Zeppetella (lead author) declined to provide a formal response. No response was received from Andrew Davies (second author).

On 31 March, PaPaS sought advice from the Cochrane Editorial Unit (CEU) on how to manage the issue; advised to publish without a response, depending on nature of feedback.

On 11 May 2015, review re‐published with feedback incorporated.

On 20 May 2015, Marta Roqué Figuls (Statistician, Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre) wrote to the CEU repeating the initial claim. They did not agree with the approach decided upon by the Co‐Ed, which was supported by the EiC. They stated “The CCIb assessment is that the review presents methodological shortcomings, and the conclusions are skewed in favor of fentanyl. Consequently, we support Vicente and colleagues’ petition to re‐assess the publication status of the review.”

Reply

On 9 June, Christopher Eccleston (Co‐ordinating Editor, PaPaS) advised that the review remain unchanged until it was ready for updating in September 2015.

On 25 June 2015 David Tovey (Editor in Chief, Cochrane) responded to say “We have now had a chance to appraise this review and also obtain a report from our screening team… In summary we agree with almost all of the criticisms made of the review, and are concerned that the flaws may mean that the findings are misleading as currently presented. We note that the authors have declined to respond to the useful comments provided by Vicente. Having considered this and discussed it internally, we agree with our colleagues at the IbCC that the review should be withdrawn temporarily until the errors have been fixed and the review updated. We would like to re‐screen the review before any update or amendment is published.”

On 2 July and 23 July, Anna Hobson (Managing Editor, PaPaS) again invited the authors to respond to the initial feedback and subsequent reviews by 23 July. No response was forthcoming.

At August 2015, the review was withdrawn.

Contributors

Kate Seers (Feedback Editor, PaPaS), Cochrane Editorial Unit (CEU), Christopher Eccleston (Co‐ordinating Editor, PaPaS), David Tovey (Editor in Chief, Cochrane), Anna Hobson (Managing Editor, PaPaS).

The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.

Breakthrough Pain Management in Patients Undergoing Radiotherapy: A National Survey on Behalf of the Palliative and Supportive Care Study Group

Aims

To assess the contribution of radiation oncologists in Italy in current management of breakthrough pain (BtP).

Methods

In 2012, the Palliative and Supportive Care Study Group of the Italian Association of Radiation Oncology (AIRO) proposed a survey. All Italian radiation oncologists were individually invited to complete an online questionnaire regarding their management of BtP in patients undergoing radiotherapy treatment.

Results

A total of 303 Italian radiation oncologists (of 330 who had access to the Web site) completed the questionnaire over an 8-month period. Some important differences were shown in pain intensity assessment by validated measurement scales, as well as in setting and prescribing analgesic therapy to prevent procedural pain. These differences were also reviewed and discussed related to international guidelines and data available from the literature.

Conclusions

Compared to other medical professionals, the involvement of radiation oncologists in cancer pain management remains marginal, at least in Italy. More than 70% of radiation oncologists directly optimized the analgesic therapy during the treatment course and more than 50% implemented specific treatment for BtP. However, the ability of the radiation oncologist to manage BtP could be improved. In order to increase the consciousness of systematic symptom measurement and to spread the knowledge of the best type of analgesic drugs to be used, training events promoted by national associations, such as AIRO, and a collaborative multidisciplinary approach of the management of cancer pain will be promoted.

Breakthrough pain management using fentanyl buccal tablet (FBT) in combination with around-the-clock (ATC) opioids based on the efficacy and safety of FBT, and its relationship with ATC opioids: results from an open-label, multi-center study in Japanese cancer patients with detailed evaluation

Objective

Rapid analgesic onset opioids, particularly fentanyl buccal tablet, is preferable for managing breakthrough pain. The efficacy and safety of fentanyl buccal tablet and its association with around-the-clock opioids needs to be explored with an option of dose adjustments, more closely reflecting administration in clinical practice. The aim of the study was to assess the safety and efficacy of fentanyl buccal tablet in breakthrough pain management in combination with around-the-clock opioids with the dose adjustment option, and explore the dose adjustment's influence on breakthrough pain management using detailed evaluation.

Methods

The 12-week open-label, multi-center study was conducted throughout Japan. Cancer patients aged 20 years or older, experiencing persistent pain controlled with around-the-clock opioids and breakthrough pain with supplemental medications were enrolled. Fentanyl buccal tablet and around-the-clock opioid doses could be adjusted under protocol-specified conditions. Efficacy variables were assessed at each fentanyl buccal tablet administration. Safety was assessed mainly by adverse events.

Results

All efficacy variables showed sustained analgesic effect. Nearly half the patients stayed on the same dose; most fentanyl buccal tablet administrations did not require additional supplemental medications. Dose increase of fentanyl buccal tablet and around-the-clock opioids seemed to improve breakthrough pain intensity and frequency, respectively. Fentanyl buccal tablet and around-the-clock opioid doses were not strongly associated. Treatment-related adverse events were all common with opioid treatment and did not increase over time.

Conclusions

Fentanyl buccal tablet can stably and safely manage breakthrough pain in cancer patients with independent dose adjustment based on detailed evaluation of each patient's condition. Breakthrough pain management using fentanyl buccal tablet with around-the-clock opioids at optimal doses may be an important factor in palliative care for cancer patients with breakthrough pain.

Safety and efficacy of oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate compared to morphine sulphate immediate release tablet in management of breakthrough cancer pain

Aim:

To compare the efficacy and safety of oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate (OTFC) and oral morphine in Indian patients with breakthrough episodes of cancer pain.

Materials and Methods:

In this randomized, open label, active controlled, clinical study, total 186 patients who regularly experienced 1-4 episodes of breakthrough cancer pain (BTCP) daily, over the persistent pain controlled by taking oral morphine 60 mg/day or its equivalent were randomized to receive either OTFC 200 mcg or oral morphine 10 mg for the treatment of BTCP for 3 days. Improvement in pain as determined by numerical rating scale (NRS) at 5, 15, 30, and 60 minutes of drug administration and percentage of BTCP episodes showing reduction in pain intensity by >33% at 15 minutes were primary efficacy endpoints. Secondary efficacy endpoints were requirement for rescue analgesia and global assessment by physician and patient. Data of both treatment groups were analysed by appropriate statistical test using software, STATISTICA, version 11.

Results:

Patients treated with OTFC experienced significantly greater improvement in pain intensity of breakthrough episodes compared to those treated with oral morphine at all assessment time points (P < 0.0001). 56% of breakthrough pain episodes treated with OTFC showed a greater than 33% reduction in pain intensity from baseline at 15 minutes compared to 39% episodes treated with oral morphine (P < 0.0001). Patient's and physician's global assessment favoured OTFC than oral morphine (P < 0.0001). Requirement of rescue analgesia in both the study groups was similar (P > 0.05). Both study drugs were well tolerated.

Conclusions:

OTFC was found to provide faster onset of analgesic effect than immediate release oral morphine in management of breakthrough cancer pain.

Breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP): a synthesis of taxonomy, pathogenesis, therapy, and good clinical practice in adult patients in Italy

Pain presents in 80% of patients with advanced cancer, and 30% have periods of increased pain due to fluctuating intensity, known as breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP). BTcP is high-intensity, short-duration pain occurring in several episodes per day and is non-responsive to treatment. The clinical approach to BTcP is variable. A review of the literature was performed to provide clinicians and practitioners with a rational synthesis of the ongoing scientific debate on BTcP and to provide a basis for optimal clinical approach to BTcP in adult Italian patients. Data show that circadian exacerbations of pain should be carefully monitored, differentiating, if possible, between fluctuations of background pain (BP), end-of-dose effect, and BTcP. BTcP should be monitored in all care contexts in clinical practice and each care facility must have all the medications and products approved for use in BTcP at their disposal. Data show that knowledge about medications for BTcP is lacking: medications for BTcP treatment are not interchangeable, although containing the same active substance; each physician must know the specific characteristics of each medication, its pharmacological properties, limitations in clinical practice, specifics relating to titration and repeatability of administration, and technical specifics relating to the accessibility and delivery. Importantly, before choosing a rapid-onset opioid (ROO), it is essential to deeply understand the status of patient and the characteristics of their family unit/caregivers, taking into account the patient’s progressive loss of autonomy and/or cognitive-relational functionality. When BTcP therapy is initiated or changed, special attention must be paid to training the patient and family members/caregivers, providing clear instructions regarding the timing of drug administration. The patient must already be treated effectively with opioids before introducing ROOs for control of BTcP.

Assessing age and gender in studies of breakthrough pain medications

OBJECTIVE

The present review was performed to identify possible differences observed between adults and elderly patients and between males and females in randomized clinical trials of breakthrough pain (BTP).

METHODS

A systematic search of the existing literature from 1998 to September 2013 was performed. Randomized clinical trials reporting data on older patients were selected.

RESULTS

Sixteen comparative studies were selected. The age range of inclusion criteria patients was mainly between 18-80 or ≥18 years. In some cases this data was unreported. The mean age of patients was 48-64 years, but information regarding the number of elderly patients was present in three studies only. Gender distribution was more or less 50%:50%. No subgroup analysis of efficacy or adverse effects of BTP medications for age and gender was reported.

CONCLUSION

There is a need for more information regarding the use of opioids for BTP according to age and gender.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of fentanyl buccal tablets for breakthrough pain: efficacy and safety in Japanese cancer patients

CONTEXT

Rapid-onset opioids for treating breakthrough pain (BTP) in patients with cancer are needed in the Japanese care setting.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the efficacy and safety of fentanyl buccal tablets (FBTs) for treating BTP in Japanese cancer patients.

METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study. In subjects receiving around-the-clock (ATC) opioids at doses of 30 mg or more to less than 60 mg or 60-1000 mg of oral morphine equivalents (low and high ATC groups), dose titration was started from 50 to 100 μg FBT, respectively. Subjects whose effective dose was identified were randomly allocated to a prearranged administration order of nine tablets (six FBTs and three placebos), one tablet each for nine episodes of BTP (double blinded). Efficacy and safety of FBT were assessed for patients overall, and also for the low and high ATC groups.

RESULTS

A significant difference was observed between FBT and placebo for the primary endpoint of pain intensity difference at 30 minutes. The analgesic onset of FBT was observed from 15 minutes in several secondary variables (e.g., pain relief). Adverse events were somnolence and other events associated with opioids were mostly mild or moderate. Of the low and high ATC group subjects, an effective FBT dose was identified in 72.2% and 73.1%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The safety of FBT and its analgesic effect on BTP were confirmed in Japanese cancer patients receiving opioids. Our findings suggest that analgesic onset may occur from 15 minutes after FBT, and that FBT can be administered to patients with low doses of ATC opioids.

A network meta-analysis of the efficacy of opioid analgesics for the management of breakthrough cancer pain episodes

CONTEXT

With many medications available for the management of breakthrough cancer pain (BTCP), physicians may require additional guidance in selecting an appropriate medication to suit an individual patient's needs.

OBJECTIVES

To identify all the evidence and assess the relative clinical value of currently approved BTCP medications.

METHODS

Following a systematic literature search (2007-2010), the results of 10 randomized controlled trials investigating the effects of BTCP medications (intranasal fentanyl spray [INFS], fentanyl pectin nasal spray, fentanyl sublingual tablets, fentanyl buccal soluble film, fentanyl buccal tablets, oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate, and morphine sulfate immediate release) were synthesized using a network meta-analysis. The main outcome was pain intensity difference (PID) relative to placebo up to 60 minutes after the intake of medication.

RESULTS

INFS, fentanyl pectin nasal spray, fentanyl buccal tablet, and oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate showed greater PIDs relative to placebo than other BTCP medications 15 minutes after intake. All other medications showed greater PIDs relative to placebo at 30 minutes, except morphine sulfate immediate release, which did not show efficacy over placebo until 45 minutes. Only INFS produced clinically meaningful pain relief (absolute PID ≥2) at 15 minutes.

CONCLUSION

From current evidence, although all BTCP medications provided pain relief within the time frames assessed, transmucosal fentanyl medications achieved a greater level of pain relief in a shorter time frame than placebo or oral morphine.

A randomized, placebo-controlled study of a new sublingual formulation of fentanyl citrate (fentanyl ethypharm) for breakthrough pain in opioid-treated patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

Oromucosal fentanyl is currently used for the treatment of breakthrough pain (BTP) in opioid-treated cancer patients. Ethypharm developed a sublingual formulation of fentanyl suprabioavailable to oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate with a higher early systemic exposure and a shorter Tmax.

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluated the efficacy and safety profile of fentanyl Ethypharm (FE) in relieving BTP in opioid-treated cancer patients.

METHODS

Opioid-treated adult cancer patients, experiencing 1 to 4 episodes of BTP per day, were included in the study. After an open-label titration period to identify an optimal dose that would provide adequate pain relief for 2 consecutive episodes of BTP with an acceptable level of adverse events, patients were randomly assigned to a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover period with 1 of 13 prespecified sequences of 9 tablets (6 tablets of FE of the dose identified during the open-label titration and 3 placebo). Pain intensity and pain relief were recorded at 3, 6, 10, 15, 30, and 60 minutes after study drug administration. Adverse events were recorded. The primary end point was the sum of pain intensity differences (SPID) at 30 minutes.

RESULTS

The distribution of optimal dosages of FE was as follows: 133 µg, 35.9%; 267 µg, 30.8%; 400 µg, 14.1%; 533 µg, 12.8%; and 800 μg, 6.4%. In the modified intention-to-treat population (n = 73), FE significantly improved mean (SE) SPID compared with placebo at 30 minutes (75.0 [49.8] vs 52.5 [52.8]; P < 0.0001). FE significantly improved SPID, pain intensity difference, and pain relief compared with placebo from 6 to 60 minutes' postadministration. Patients with BTP who received placebo required the use of rescue medication more often than those treated with FE (38.4% vs 17.5%; P < 0.0001). A significant improvement in pain scores (>33% and >50% reductions) was also reported for BTP treated with FE. Pain scores for patients with BTP with a neuropathic component (13 patients) were lower with FE than for those receiving placebo, but the difference was not significant. AEs were of mild or moderate severity and typical of opioid drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

This newly developed galenic formulation with a higher early systemic exposure and a shorter Tmax compared with oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate makes FE a particularly suitable formulation for the management of BTP in opioid-treated cancer patients due to the very rapid onset of action. FE provided significant improvement in pain intensity of BTP compared with placebo as early as 6 minutes' postadministration with a sustained effect over 60 minutes. FE was well tolerated by patients. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT 01842893.

Opioids for the management of breakthrough pain in cancer patients

BACKGROUND

This review is an update of a previously published review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Issue 1, 2006). Breakthrough pain is a transient exacerbation of pain that occurs either spontaneously or in relation to a specific predictable or unpredictable trigger despite relative stable and adequately controlled background pain. Breakthrough pain usually related to background pain and is typically of rapid onset, severe in intensity and generally self limiting with a mean duration of 30 minutes. Breakthrough pain has traditionally been managed by the administration of supplemental oral analgesia (rescue medication) at a dose proportional to the total around-the-clock (ATC) opioid dose.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of opioid analgesics given by any route, used for the management of breakthrough pain in patients with cancer, and to identify and quantify, if data permitted, any adverse effects of this treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and trial registries in January 2005 for the original review, and again on 6 February 2013 for this update.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of opioids used as rescue medication against active or placebo comparator in patients with cancer pain. Outcome measures sought were reduction in pain intensity measured by an appropriate scale, adverse effects, attrition, patient satisfaction and quality of life. We applied no language restrictions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected and examined eligible studies. We retrieved full text if any uncertainty about eligibility remained. We screened non-English texts. We conducted quality assessment and data extraction using standardised data forms. We compared drug and placebo dose, titration, route and formulation and recorded details of all outcome measures (if available).

MAIN RESULTS

The original review included four studies (393 participants), all concerned with the use of oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate (OTFC) in the management of breakthrough pain. Two studies examined the titration of OTFC, one study compared OTFC versus normal-release morphine and one study compared OTFC versus placebo.Fifteen studies (1699 participants) met the inclusion criteria for this update. All studies reported on the utility of seven different transmucosal fentanyl formulations, five of which were administered orally and two nasally. Eight studies compared the transmucosal fentanyl formulations versus placebo, four studies compared them with another opioid, one study was a comparison of different doses of the same formulation and two were randomised titration studies. Oral and nasal transmucosal fentanyl formulations were an effective treatment for breakthrough pain. When compared with placebo or oral morphine, participants gave lower pain intensity and higher pain relief scores for transmucosal fentanyl formulations at all time points. Global assessment scores also favoured transmucosal fentanyl preparations. One study compared intravenous with the transmucosal route and both were effective.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Oral and nasal transmucosal fentanyl is an effective treatment in the management of breakthrough pain. The RCT literature for the management of breakthrough pain is relatively small. Given the importance of this subject, more trials, including head-to-head comparisons of the available transmucosal fentanyl formulations are required.

Efficacy of rapid-onset oral fentanyl formulations vs. oral morphine for cancer-related breakthrough pain: a meta-analysis of comparative trials

CONTEXT

Breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP) is widely recognized as a clinically significant complication of chronic cancer pain. With most BTcP episodes peaking in intensity within a few minutes and lasting for approximately 30 minutes, speed of onset is crucial for effective pain management. Although the last decade has seen the development of a number of rapid-onset fentanyl preparations, BTcP is still typically managed by supplemental or rescue doses of the patient's around-the-clock medication, such as oral morphine. Importantly, although the fentanyl preparations, such as fentanyl buccal tablet (FBT), sublingual fentanyl citrate orally disintegrating tablet (ODT), and oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate lozenge (OTFC), have all been proven to be efficacious in clinical studies, oral morphine has never been specifically tested in BTcP, other than as a comparator in studies of OTFC and fentanyl pectin nasal spray.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the relative contributions to pain relief from oral morphine and the fentanyl preparations using placebo as a common comparator.

METHODS

Relevant studies were identified by review of the literature and used in a mixed-treatment meta-analysis to indirectly compare fentanyl preparations, morphine, and placebo for the treatment of BTcP.

RESULTS

Analysis incorporating the five relevant studies identified revealed that although the fentanyl preparations provide superior pain relief vs. placebo in the first 30 minutes after dosing (FBT provided an 83% probability of superior pain relief, ODT 66%, and OTFC 73% vs. placebo), oral morphine performed little better than placebo (56% probability).

CONCLUSION

This mixed-treatment analysis suggests that FBT, ODT, and OTFC might provide more efficacious treatment options than oral morphine for BTcP.

Fast-acting fentanyl preparations and pain management

Cancer-related pain is a common clinical problem, experienced by ∼90% of patients with cancer. The mainstay of treatment remains opioids and the WHO analgesic ladder. Following the principles of the analgesic ladder, 80% of patients can achieve pain control. However, breakthrough pain remains a form of cancer-related pain that is particularly difficult to manage in both specialist and generalist settings. The focus of this article is the mismatch between the temporal characteristics of the majority of cancer-related breakthrough pain which is fast onset and resolution, with the pharmacological profile of oral morphine. The contribution of fast-acting fentanyl preparations to the treatment of breakthrough pain and the evidence for the various commercially available preparations will be considered.

Single-dose pharmacokinetics of fentanyl sublingual spray and oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate in healthy volunteers: a randomized crossover study

BACKGROUND

Fentanyl sublingual spray (FSS) is a novel fentanyl formulation recently developed for the treatment of breakthrough cancer pain, which is characterized by a fast onset and a relatively short duration.

OBJECTIVE

To compare rate of absorption and systemic bioavailability between FSS and oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate (OTFC) in healthy volunteers.

METHODS

This randomized 3-way crossover study involved 29 healthy volunteers (25 men and 4 women; mean age, 35 years) who received single doses of FSS (400 μg), OTFC (400 μg), and intravenous fentanyl citrate (100 μg) separated by washout periods of ≥7 days. Oral naltrexone was given to minimize potential adverse effects of fentanyl. Plasma fentanyl concentrations were measured for 36 hours after each dose for the calculation of pharmacokinetic parameters.

RESULTS

Mean Cmax values of fentanyl were higher with FSS versus OTFC (0.81 ng/mL vs 0.61 ng/mL) and were attained more quickly; the median Tmax was 1.5 hours with FSS and 2.0 hours with OTFC (P < 0.05). Furthermore, potentially effective fentanyl concentrations were achieved more quickly with FSS than with OTFC. Five and 10 minutes after administration, mean plasma concentrations were 19.0% and 53.7% of Cmax with FSS, respectively, compared with levels below the lower limit of assay quantification and 6.1%, respectively, with OTFC. Plasma concentrations of fentanyl at 10 minutes with FSS were equivalent to those with OTFC at 60 minutes. The Cmax and AUCs were approximately 33% to 36% greater with FSS than with OTFC, and the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratios for each parameter fell outside the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%. Systemic bioavailability was also greater with FSS than with OTFC (approximately 76% vs 51%). All 3 fentanyl treatments were well tolerated. All reported adverse events were mild and consistent with those previously reported in healthy volunteers receiving transmucosal fentanyl with naltrexone, and none occurred in >2 participants during any treatment period.

CONCLUSIONS

Absorption of fentanyl in this study was faster and bioavailability was greater with FSS than with OTFC. The pharmacokinetic profile of the sublingual spray closely matches the duration of onset to pain intensity in a breakthrough cancer pain episode. These findings suggest that FSS is appropriate for the treatment of breakthrough cancer pain. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01780233.

Single-dose fentanyl sublingual spray for breakthrough cancer pain

Breakthrough cancer pain (BTCP) is defined as a transient exacerbation of pain that arises in patients with otherwise controlled persistent pain. BTCP typically has a rapid onset and relatively short duration, but it causes a significant amount of physical and psychological distress for patients. Several rapid-onset fentanyl formulations have been introduced in the USA to replace traditional oral opioids for the treatment of BTCP: a transmucosal lozenge, a sublingual orally disintegrating tablet, a buccal tablet, a buccal soluble film, a pectin nasal spray and, the newest formulation to enter the market, a sublingual spray. This article reviews the six rapid-onset formulations of fentanyl approved in the USA for the management of BTCP with emphasis on describing the published literature on fentanyl sublingual spray. The different fentanyl formulations vary in pharmacokinetic properties and ease of use, but all have a rapid onset and a relatively short duration of analgesia. Fentanyl sublingual spray has demonstrated absorption within 5 minutes of administration, with fentanyl plasma concentrations increasing over the first 30 minutes and remaining elevated for 60–90 minutes in pharmacokinetic studies in healthy subjects. Fentanyl sublingual spray shows linear dose proportionality, and changes in the temperature or acidity of the oral cavity do not alter its pharmacokinetic properties. In patients with BTCP, statistically significant pain relief is measurable at 5 minutes after administration of fentanyl sublingual spray, when compared with placebo, with significant pain relief lasting at least 60 minutes after administration. Adverse events are typical of opioid treatment and are considered mild to moderate in intensity. In summary, fentanyl sublingual spray provides rapid onset of analgesia and is a tolerable and effective treatment for BTCP.

Oral morphine for cancer pain

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Considerations in selecting rapid-onset opioids for the management of breakthrough pain

Breakthrough pain (BTP) is a transitory pain that occurs despite the use of long-term, around-the-clock analgesia. It is highly prevalent in certain populations and places a significant burden on patients, their families, caregivers, and health-care systems. Despite its prevalence and impact, BTP is sometimes unrecognized and often undertreated. Various formulations of fentanyl – a rapid-onset opioid with short duration of action – are available for the management of BTP. The efficacy of formulations using transmucosal, transbuccal, sublingual, and intranasal administration routes has been demonstrated for BTP treatment in clinical trials. However, a lack of head-to-head trials evaluating their relative efficacy makes it challenging for physicians to reach informed decisions on the most efficacious intervention for individual patients. In the absence of clear data on the relative efficacy of fentanyl formulations, prescribing decisions need to be based on physician understanding and experience and product cost and availability, taking into account the individual patient’s needs, the ability of the patient or caregivers to administer medication, and the patient’s wishes. This review evaluates current pharmacologic methods of alleviating BTP and discusses factors that should be considered when selecting the most appropriate formulation for individual patients. With the range of fentanyl formulations available, it is now possible to successfully address BTP in the majority of patients.

Grading clinical guidelines for the use of transmucosal immediate-release fentanyl products in breakthrough pain

Pain is a complex symptom that is commonly feared in palliative care owing to its significant effects on patients' quality of life (QoL), and is directly associated with morbidity. More specifically, the management of breakthrough pain (BTP) is particularly important. Opioids play a major part in the management of BTP, and the various transmucosal immediate-release fentanyl (TIRF) products are a common treatment choice. This paper considers the strength of the evidence underlying recommendations regarding the use of TIRF. Failure to consider the quality of evidence in practice can lead to misguided recommendations. Guidelines should therefore be used to inform clinicians of the quality of the underlying evidence and whether recommendations are strong or weak. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach is increasingly being adopted worldwide as it provides a system for rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations that is clear, comprehensive, transparent, and practical. This paper adopts the GRADE approach to assess the strength of recommendations made in a 2011 review by Zeppetella in order to develop guidelines for the use of TIRF. The recommendations include that TIRF products can be considered for first-line treatment and that they should be individualised to patients who are on a background opioid.

Clinical management of pain in advanced lung cancer

Lung cancer is the most common cancer in the world and pain is its most common symptom. Pain can be brought about by several different causes including local effects of the tumor, regional or distant spread of the tumor, or from anti-cancer treatment. Patients with lung cancer experience more symptom distress than patients with other types of cancer. Symptoms such as pain may be associated with worsening of other symptoms and may affect quality of life. Pain management adheres to the principles set out by the World Health Organization's analgesic ladder along with adjuvant analgesics. As pain can be caused by multiple factors, its treatment requires pharmacological and non-pharmacological measures from a multidisciplinary team linked in with specialist palliative pain management. This review article examines pain management in lung cancer.

Use of combined transmucosal fentanyl, nitrous oxide, and hematoma block for fracture reduction in a pediatric emergency department

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the use of combined inhaled nitrous oxide (NO), hematoma block (HB), and transmucosal fentanyl (TMF) as sedoanalgesia in the reduction of radioulnar fractures in children in a pediatric emergency department (PED).

METHODS

A retrospective, analytical observational study examining the cases of radioulnar fracture reduction in PED from 2007 to 2009 in children from 4 to 15 years old. The cases were divided into 2 groups: those in which only NO + HB was used and those in which TMF was combined with NO + HB. The pain perceived by the child, the doctor, and the nurse was studied during the procedure with 0- to 10-point scales (10 being severe pain). Satisfaction of the medical professionals, duration of the procedure, and the adverse effects that appeared were also studied.

RESULTS

Eighty-one children were included. Sixty-four children (79%) received NO + TMF + HB, and 17 children (21%) received NO + HB only. The pain perceived by the child during the procedure in the group receiving NO + TMF + HB was 2.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8-3.1) compared with 3.9 (95% CI, 2.3-5.5) in the NO + HB group (P = 0.035), the pain perceived by the doctor was 2.6 (95% CI, 2-3.2) compared with 4 (95% CI, 1.6-4), and by the nurse was 2.7 (95% CI, 2-3.3) compared with 3.9 (95% CI, 2.3-5.5), respectively. Adverse events appeared in 15.3% of the NO + TMF + HB group and in 40% of the NO + HB group.

CONCLUSIONS

The association of NO + TMF + HB in the reduction of radioulnar fractures in PED improves pain control compared with the NO + HB combination. New studies are required to confirm the benefit and safety of this drug combination.

A comprehensive review of rapid-onset opioids for breakthrough pain

Breakthrough pain (BTP) is a transitory pain (reaching maximum severity in ~15 minutes and lasting ~60 minutes in patients with cancer) that occurs despite the management of chronic pain with long-term around-the-clock analgesia. BTP occurs in 33-65% of patients with chronic cancer pain and in ~70% of patients with chronic noncancer pain. BTP has historically been managed with short-acting opioids; however, these medications have a pharmacokinetic profile that does not correlate with the sudden onset and short time to maximum severity of BTP. Interest in rapid-onset opioids to relieve BTP has therefore been growing. This comprehensive review aims to summarize the currently available clinical data for the approved rapid-onset opioids, which comprise different formulations of fentanyl, a μ-opioid receptor agonist with anaesthetic and analgesic properties. Administration routes for fentanyl in the management of BTP currently include the transmucosal and intranasal routes; an intrapulmonary formulation is also in development. The findings of this review suggest that the efficacy and safety of the approved rapid-onset opioids are comparable.

Efficacy and safety of fentanyl sublingual spray for the treatment of breakthrough cancer pain: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

A number of transmucosal fentanyl formulations have been developed for the management of breakthrough cancer pain (BTCP). Sublingual delivery of fentanyl, formulated as fentanyl sublingual spray, offers the potential for more rapid and greater absorption of fentanyl and associated onset of analgesic effect compared with other formulations. The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of fentanyl sublingual spray for the treatment of BTCP.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial conducted in opioid-tolerant patients with BTCP. An open-label titration period was followed by a double-blind treatment period during which patients received fentanyl sublingual spray (100-1600 mcg) or placebo.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00538850.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary efficacy measure was summed pain intensity difference at 30 minutes (SPID(30)). Secondary efficacy measures included total pain relief at 30 minutes (TOTPAR(30)) and patient global evaluation of study medication at 30 minutes. Efficacy measures were also assessed at various time points from 5-60 minutes postdose. Adverse events were monitored throughout the study.

RESULTS

A total of 130 patients were treated during the titration period, of whom 98 (75.4%) entered the double-blind period. Relative to placebo, fentanyl sublingual spray significantly improved mean SPID scores from 5 minutes (p = 0.0219) through 60 minutes (p < 0.0001), including the primary endpoint at 30 minutes (p < 0.0001). Fentanyl sublingual spray produced significantly greater pain relief (expressed in terms of TOTPAR) from 5 through 60 minutes (p < 0.0001), and significantly greater global evaluation of treatment effectiveness (p < 0.0001), compared with placebo. During double-blind treatment, the most frequently reported adverse events were nausea (7.1%), hyperhidrosis (5.1%), and peripheral edema (5.1%). Serious adverse events occurred in seven patients (5.4%) during titration and six (6.1%) during double-blind treatment; none were considered related to treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings indicate that treatment with fentanyl sublingual spray results in effective relief of BTCP, with a rapid onset of action, and is well tolerated.