Opioid prescribing for patients with cancer in the last year of life: a longitudinal population cohort study

Transdermal Opioids and the Quality of Life of the Cancer Patient: A Systematic Literature Review

OBJECTIVE

This systematic literature review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of transdermal opioids in managing cancer pain and their impact on the quality of life (QoL) of patients.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic literature review conducted following the PRISMA protocol, focusing on randomized clinical trials found in the Lilacs, Embase, PubMed, and SciELO databases over the last 20 years.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

We included randomized clinical trials, published in English, Portuguese, or Spanish, which assessed the impact of transdermal opioids on the QoL. Data extraction was facilitated using the Rayyan app.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Six articles meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria were analyzed. These studies covered a population ranging from 24 to 422 cancer patients experiencing moderate to severe pain. The risk of bias was assessed in each study, generally being categorized as uncertain or high.

RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE

The findings indicate that the analgesic effectiveness and side effects of transdermal formulations (specifically buprenorphine and fentanyl) for managing moderate to severe cancer pain are comparable to, or in some cases superior to, those of oral opioids traditionally employed.

CONCLUSIONS

Transdermal therapy was suggested to have several advantages over oral opioid therapy in enhancing cancer patients' QoL. These benefits span various dimensions, including pain management, physical functioning, mental health, vitality, overall patient improvement, anger/aversion, strength/activity, general QoL, cognitive and emotional functions, fatigue, and insomnia.

Healthcare provider perceptions and reported practices regarding opioid prescription for patients with chronic cancer pain

PURPOSE

Data indicates that clinicians might be under-prescribing opioids for patients with chronic cancer pain, and this could impact adequate pain management. Few studies have sought to understand healthcare provider (HCP) perceptions and practices regarding the prescription of opioids for chronic cancer pain. We assessed HCP perceptions and practices regarding opioid prescription for patients with chronic cancer pain since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

An anonymous cross-sectional survey was conducted among 186 HCPs who attended an opioid educational event in April 2021 and 2022.

RESULTS

Sixty-one out of 143 (44%) opioid prescribers reported reluctance to prescribe opioids for chronic cancer pain. In a multivariate logistic model, younger participants (log OR - 0.04, 95% CI - 0.085, - 0.004; p = 0.033) and pain medicine clinicians (log OR - 1.89, CI - 3.931, - 0.286; p = 0.034) were less reluctant, whereas providers who worry about non-medical opioid use were more reluctant to prescribe opioids (log OR 1.58 95% CI 0.77-2.43; p < 0.001). Fifty-three out of 143 (37%) prescribers had experienced increased challenges regarding opioid dispensing at pharmacies, and 84/179 (47%) of all respondents reported similar experience by their patients. Fifty-four out of 178(30%) were aware of opioid-related harmful incidents to patients or their families, including incidents attributed to opioid misuse by a household or family member.

CONCLUSION

A considerable number of opioid prescribers were reluctant to prescribe opioids for patients with chronic cancer pain. Many reported challenges regarding dispensing of opioids at the pharmacies. These may be unintended consequences of policies to address the opioid crisis. Future measures should focus on addressing regulatory barriers without undermining the gains already made to combat the opioid crisis.

Better opioid prescribing in an inpatient oncology unit: quality improvement project

OBJECTIVES

Unsafe opioid prescribing can lead to significant patient harm and improving standards is a national priority. This report summarises a three-stage process relating to opioid prescribing, which has led to a sustained improvement.

METHODS

Opioid prescriptions were reviewed retrospectively over a 4-year period in a tertiary cancer centre. The first audit cycle took place in 2017. When repeated in February 2020 following an opioid education programme implementation, prescribing remained poor. In September 2020, a quality improvement project (QIP) was developed with several interventions including opioid prescribing guidelines.

RESULTS

The first audit demonstrated that 76% met safe prescribing and 68% best practice. The second audit showed a deterioration in prescribing, 61% met safe prescribing and 39% best practice despite the implementation of an education programme. The QIP has led to an improvement in prescribing, at 4 months, 87% met safe prescribing and 56% best practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite implementation of a medical education initiative, a marked deterioration in safe opioid prescribing occurred. A shift towards QI methodology led to a successful pilot of focused interventions and resulted in improved standards of safe prescribing.

Community prescribing for cancer patients at the end of life: a national study

BACKGROUND

Good end-of-life care is essential to ensure dignity and comfort in death. To our knowledge, there has not been a national population-based study in England of community prescribing of all drugs used in end-of-life care for patients with cancer.

METHODS

57 632 people who died from malignant cancer in their own home or in a care home in 2017 in England were included in this study. National routinely collected data were used to examine community prescriptions dispensed for drugs for symptom control and anticipatory prescribing by key sociodemographic factors in the last 4 months of life.

RESULTS

94% of people who died received drugs to control their symptoms and 65% received anticipatory prescribing. Prescribing increased for the symptom control drug group (53% to 75%) and the anticipatory prescribing group (4% to 52%) over the 4-month period to death.

CONCLUSIONS

Most individuals who died of cancer in their own home or a care home were dispensed drugs commonly used to control symptoms at the end of life, as recommended by best-practice guidance. Lower prescribing activity was found for those who died in a care home, highlighting a potential need for improved end-of-life service planning.

Healthcare provider perceptions and reported practices regarding opioid prescription for patients with chronic pain

PURPOSE

Data indicates that clinicians might be under-prescribing opioids for patients with chronic cancer pain, and this could impact adequate chronic pain management. Few studies have sought to understand healthcare provider (HCP) perceptions and practices regarding the prescription of opioids for chronic pain. We assessed HCP perceptions and practices regarding opioid prescription for patients with chronic pain since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

An anonymous cross-sectional survey was conducted among 186 HCPs who attended an opioid educational event in April 2021 and 2022.

RESULTS

61/143(44%) opioid prescribers reported reluctance to prescribe opioids for chronic pain. In a multivariate logistic model, younger participants (log OR -0.04, 95% CI: -0.085, -0.004; p = 0.033) and pain medicine clinicians (log OR -1.89, CI: -3.931, -0.286; p = 0.034) were less reluctant, whereas providers who worry about non-medical opioid use (NMOU) were more reluctant to prescribe opioids (log OR 1.58 95% CI: 0.77-2.43; p < 0.001). 53/143(37%) respondents had experienced increased challenges regarding opioid dispensing at pharmacies, and 84/179(47%) reported similar experience by their patients. 54/178(30%) HCPs were aware of opioid-related harmful incidents to patients or their families, including incidents attributed to opioid misuse by a household or family member.

CONCLUSION

A significant number of opioid prescribers were reluctant to prescribe opioids for patients with chronic pain. Many reported challenges regarding dispensing of opioids at the pharmacies. These may be unintended consequences of policies to address the opioid crisis. Future measures should focus on addressing regulatory barriers without undermining the gains already made to combat the opioid crisis.

Patterns of opioid analgesic prescribing in cancer outpatients during the last year of life in France: A pharmacoepidemiological cohort study based on the French health insurance database

Cancer pain management with adequate analgesics for cancer outpatients can be particularly challenging. This representative retrospective cohort study aimed to investigate the prevalence and timing of weak and strong opioid analgesic prescriptions in cancer outpatients during their last year of life, with a focus on factors associated to potential late strong opioid initiation. Factors associated with late strong opioid initiation were investigated through multivariate logistic regression analyses stratified by place of death. A retrospective cohort of cancer outpatients, who died between 2014 and 2016, was identified from the general sample of beneficiaries. Among N=4704 cancer patients (median age 76 years, 42.7% women), 3002 (63.8%) were prescribed and dispensed ≥1 weak or strong opioid analgesic during their last year of life; of whom, 2458 (52.3%) received ≥1 weak opioid analgesic (tramadol as single-ingredient accounting for 25.9%) and 1733 (36.8%) ≥1 strong opioid analgesic dispensation (fentanyl 21.6%). Median interval between the first prescription for any strong opioid and death was 18 weeks (interquartile range: 8-38), and for weak opioids 33 weeks (interquartile range: 20-47). Among weak opioid users, 1229 (50.0%) patients had received ≥1 weak opioid analgesic dispensation during the year n-2 before death. Among strong opioid users, 986 (56.9%) patients had received ≥1 weak opioid analgesic dispensation during the year n-2 before death and 381 (21.9%) patients ≥1 strong opioid analgesic dispensation. Patients with an outpatient death were more likely to have a late strong opioid initiation compared to patients with an inpatient death. Late strong opioid initiation (<18 weeks before death) was significantly associated with a lower number of hospitalization days and prior weak opioid exposure for patients with an inpatient death and, with older age, social, prior weak opioid exposure, and a prescription initiation by general practitioner for patients with an outpatient death. Our gained knowledge of opioid prescribing patterns in cancer patients during the last year of life might help to progress opioid analgesic treatment and to improve patient outcomes.

Interdisciplinary intervention for the management of nonmedical opioid use among patients with cancer pain

BACKGROUND

Few studies have assessed interventions aimed at managing nonmedical opioid use (NMOU) behavior among patients with cancer. The authors developed the Compassionate High-Alert Team (CHAT) intervention to manage patients receiving opioids for cancer pain who demonstrate NMOU behavior. The objective of this study was to determine the change in frequency of NMOU behaviors, pain intensity, and opioid requirements among those who received the intervention.

METHODS

A total of 130 patients receiving opioids for cancer pain that had documented evidence of NMOU and received the CHAT intervention were reviewed. Demographic and clinical information such as NMOU behaviors, pain scores, and morphine equivalent daily dose at baseline, 3, and 6 months post-intervention was obtained.

RESULTS

NMOU behaviors significantly decreased from a median (interquartile range) of 2 (1-3) at baseline to 0 (0-1) at both 3 and 6 months post-intervention (p < .001). A total of 45 of 75 (60%) and 31 of 50 (62%) of CHAT recipients achieved complete response to the intervention at 3 and 6 months, respectively. Higher baseline number of NMOU behaviors was independently associated with patient response to the intervention (odds ratio [OR], 1.97; 95% confidence interval [CI],1.09-4.28, p = .049 at 3 months; OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.20-6.47, p = .03 at 6 months). The median pain score decreased from 7 at baseline to 6 at both 3 and 6 months (p = .01). Morphine equivalent daily dose did not significantly change during that same period (143 mg/day vs. 139 mg/day, p = .13).

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients who received the CHAT intervention improved in their NMOU behaviors and pain intensity scores 3 and 6 months post-intervention. These preliminary findings support the efficacy of CHAT in managing patients receiving opioids for cancer pain who demonstrate NMOU behavior.

Practical Considerations for the Use of Cannabis in Cancer Pain Management—What a Medical Oncologist Should Know

Pain is a highly debilitating emotional and sensory experience that significantly affects quality of life (QoL). Numerous chronic conditions, including cancer, are associated with chronic pain. In the setting of malignancy, pain can be a consequence of the tumor itself or of life-saving interventions, including surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy. Despite significant pharmacological advances and awareness campaigns, pain remains undertreated in one-third of patients. To date, opioids have been the mainstay of cancer pain management. The problematic side effects and unsatisfactory pain relief of opioids have revived patients’ and physicians’ interest in finding new solutions, including cannabis and cannabinoids. The medical use of cannabis has been prohibited for decades, and it remains in Schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Regulations. Currently, the legal context for its usage has become more permissive. Various preclinical and observational studies have aimed to prove that cannabinoids could be effective in cancer pain management. However, their clinical utility must be further supported by high-quality clinical trials.

The Role of Pharmacogenomics in Opioid Prescribing

Pharmacogenomics is increasingly important to guide objective, safe, and effective individualised prescribing. Personalised prescribing has revolutionised treatments in the past decade, allowing clinicians to maximise drug efficacy and minimise adverse effects based on a person’s genetic profile. Opioids, the gold standard for cancer pain relief, are among the commonest medications prescribed in palliative care practice. This narrative review examines the literature surrounding opioid pharmacogenomics and its applicability to the palliative care cancer population. There is currently limited intersection between the fields of palliative care and pharmacogenomics, but growing evidence presents a need to build linkages between the two disciplines. Pharmacogenomic evidence guiding opioid prescribing is currently available for codeine and tramadol, which relates to CYP2D6 gene variants. However, these medications are prescribed less commonly for pain in palliative care. Research is accelerating with other opioids, where oxycodone (CYP2D6) and methadone (CYP2B6, ABCB1) already have moderate evidence of an association in terms of drug metabolism and downstream analgesic response and side effects. OPRM1 and COMT are receiving increasing attention and have implications for all opioids, with changes in opioid dosage requirements observed but they have not yet been studied widely enough to be considered clinically actionable. Current evidence indicates that incorporation of pharmacogenomic testing into opioid prescribing practice should focus on the CYP2D6 gene and its actionable variants. Although opioid pharmacogenomic tests are not widely used in clinical practice, the progressively reducing costs and rapid turnover means greater accessibility and affordability to patients, and thus, clinicians will be increasingly asked to provide guidance in this area. The upsurge in pharmacogenomic research will likely discover more actionable gene variants to expand international guidelines to impact opioid prescribing. This rapidly expanding area requires consideration and monitoring by clinicians in order for key findings with clinical implications to be accessible, meaningfully interpretable and communicated.

Sociodemographic and Clinical Characteristics Associated With Worst Pain Intensity Among Cancer Patients

AIMS

Patients with cancer have pain due to their cancer, the cancer treatment and other causes, and the pain intensity varies considerably between individuals. Additional research is needed to understand the factors associated with worst pain intensity. Our study aim was to determine the association between worst pain intensity and sociodemographics and cancerspecific factors among patients with cancer.

DESIGN

A total of 1,280 patients with cancer recruited from multiple cancer centers over 25 years in the United States were asked to complete a questionnaire that collected respondents' demographic, chronic pain, and cancer-specific information.

SETTINGS

Worst, least, and current pain intensities were captured using a modified McGill Pain Questionnaire (pain intensity measured on 0-10 scale). A generalized linear regression analysis was utilized to assess the associations between significant bivariate predictors and worst pain intensity scores.Our study sample was non-Hispanic White (64.5%), non-Hispanic Black (28.3%), and Hispanic (7.2%). On average, participants were 59.4 (standard deviation = 14.4) years old. The average worst pain intensity score was 6.6 (standard deviation = 2.50). After controlling for selected covariates, being Hispanic (β = 0.6859), previous toothache pain (β = 0.0960), headache pain (β = 0.0549), and stomachache pain (β = 0.0577) were positively associated with worse cancer pain. Notably, year of enrollment was not statistically associated with pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study sample was non-Hispanic White (64.5%), non-Hispanic Black (28.3%), and Hispanic (7.2%). On average, participants were 59.4 (standard deviation = 14.4) years old. The average worst pain intensity score was 6.6 (standard deviation = 2.50). After controlling for selected covariates, being Hispanic (β = 0.6859), previous toothache pain (β = 0.0960), headache pain (β = 0.0549), and stomachache pain (β = 0.0577) were positively associated with worse cancer pain. Notably, year of enrollment was not statistically associated with pain. Findings identified being Hispanic and having previous severe toothache, stomachache, and headache pain as significant predictors of worst pain intensity among patients with cancer. After controlling for selected covariates, we did not note statistical differences in worst pain during a 25-year period. Therefore,studies focused on improving the management of pain among patients with cancer should target interventions for those with Hispanic heritage and those with past history of severe common 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.

Opioid Use at End-Of-Life Among Nova Scotia Patients With Cancer

Purpose: To determine the factors associated with opioid analgesic prescriptions as measured by community pharmacy dispensations to all Nova Scotia (NS) patients with cancer at end-of-life from 2005 to 2009.

Methods: The NS Cancer Registry and the NS Prescription Monitoring Program (NSPMP) were used to link Nova Scotians who had a cancer diagnosis and received a prescription for opioids in their last year of life (n = 6,186) from 2005 to 2009. The association of factors with opioid dispensations at end-of-life were determined (e.g., patient demographics, type of prescriber, type of cancer, and opioid type, formulation, and dose).

Results: Almost 54% (n = 6,186) of the end-of-life study population with cancer (n = 11,498) was linked to the NSPMP and therefore dispensed opioids. Most prescriptions were written by general practitioners (89%) and were for strong opioids (81%). Immediate-release formulations were more common than modified-release formulations. Although the annual average parenteral morphine equivalents (MEQ) did not change during the study period, the number of opioid prescriptions per patient per year increased from 5.9 in 2006 to 7.0 in 2009 (p < 0.0001). Patients age 80 and over received the fewest prescriptions (mean 3.9/year) and the lowest opioid doses (17.0 MEQ) while patients aged 40–49 received the most prescriptions (mean 14.5/year) and the highest doses of opioid (80.2 MEQ).

Conclusion: Our study examined opioid analgesic use at end-of-life in patients with cancer for a large real-world population and determined factors, trends and patterns associated with type and dose of opioid dispensed. We provide information regarding how general practitioners prescribe opioid therapy to patients at end-of-life. Our data suggest that at the time of this study, there may have been under-prescribing of opioids to patients with cancer at end-of-life. This information can be used to increase awareness among general practitioners, and to inform recommendations from professional regulatory bodies, to aid in managing pain for cancer patients at end-of-life. Future work could address how opioid prescribing has changed over time, and whether efforts to reduce opioid prescribing in response to the opioid crisis have affected patients with cancer at end-of-life in Nova Scotia.

Pain self-management interventions for community-based patients with advanced cancer: a research programme including the IMPACCT RCT

Background

Each year in England and Wales, 150,000 people die from cancer, of whom 110,000 will suffer from cancer pain. Research highlights that cancer pain remains common, severe and undertreated, and may lead to hospital admissions.

Objective

To develop and evaluate pain self-management interventions for community-based patients with advanced cancer.

Design

A programme of mixed-methods intervention development work leading to a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial of a multicomponent intervention for pain management compared with usual care, including an assessment of cost-effectiveness.

Participants

Patients, including those with metastatic solid cancer (histological, cytological or radiological evidence) and/or those receiving anti-cancer therapy with palliative intent, and health professionals involved in the delivery of community-based palliative care.

Setting

For the randomised controlled trial, patients were recruited from oncology outpatient clinics and were randomly allocated to intervention or control and followed up at home.

Interventions

The Supported Self-Management intervention comprised an educational component called Tackling Cancer Pain, and an eHealth component for routine pain assessment and monitoring called PainCheck.

Main outcome measures

The primary outcome was pain severity (measured using the Brief Pain Inventory). The secondary outcomes included pain interference (measured using the Brief Pain Inventory), participants’ pain knowledge and experience, and cost-effectiveness. We estimated costs and health-related quality-of-life outcomes using decision modelling and a separate within-trial economic analysis. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios per quality-adjusted life-year for the trial period.

Results

Work package 1 – We found barriers to and variation in the co-ordination of advanced cancer care by oncology and primary care professionals. We identified that the median time between referral to palliative care services and death for 42,758 patients in the UK was 48 days. We identified key components for self-management and developed and tested our Tackling Cancer Pain resource for acceptability. Work package 2 – Patients with advanced cancer and their health professionals recognised the benefits of an electronic system to monitor pain, but had reservations about how such a system might work in practice. We developed and tested a prototype PainCheck system. Work package 3 – We found that strong opioids were prescribed for 48% of patients in the last year of life at a median of 9 weeks before death. We delivered Medicines Use Reviews to patients, in which many medicines-related problems were identified. Work package 4 – A total of 161 oncology outpatients were randomised in our clinical trial, receiving either supported self-management (n = 80) or usual care (n = 81); their median survival from randomisation was 53 weeks. Primary and sensitivity analyses found no significant treatment differences for the primary outcome or for other secondary outcomes of pain severity or health-related quality of life. The literature-based decision modelling indicated that information and feedback interventions similar to the supported self-management intervention could be cost-effective. This model was not used to extrapolate the outcomes of the trial over a longer time horizon because the statistical analysis of the trial data found no difference between the trial arms in terms of the primary outcome measure (pain severity). The within-trial economic evaluation base-case analysis found that supported self-management reduced costs by £587 and yielded marginally higher quality-adjusted life-years (0.0018) than usual care. However, the difference in quality-adjusted life-years between the two trial arms was negligible and this was not in line with the decision model that had been developed. Our process evaluation found low fidelity of the interventions delivered by clinical professionals.

Limitations

In the randomised controlled trial, the low fidelity of the interventions and the challenge of the study design, which forced the usual-care arm to have earlier access to palliative care services, might explain the lack of observed benefit. Overall, 71% of participants returned outcome data at 6 or 12 weeks and so we used administrative data to estimate costs. Our decision model did not include the negative trial results from our randomised controlled trial and, therefore, may overestimate the likelihood of cost-effectiveness.

Conclusions

Our programme of research has revealed new insights into how patients with advanced cancer manage their pain and the challenges faced by health professionals in identifying those who need more help. Our clinical trial failed to show an added benefit of our interventions to enhance existing community palliative care support, although both the decision model and the economic evaluation of the trial indicated that supported self-management could result in lower health-care costs.

Future work

There is a need for further research to (1) understand and facilitate triggers that prompt earlier integration of palliative care and pain management within oncology services; (2) determine the optimal timing of technologies for self-management; and (3) examine prescriber and patient behaviour to achieve the earlier initiation and use of strong opioid treatment.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN18281271.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 9, No. 15. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Potential inappropriate use of strong opioid analgesics in cancer outpatients during the last year of life in France and associated factors

AIMS

A better knowledge of opioid prescribing patterns would help to identify areas of potential improvement in cancer pain management. This study aimed to identify potential inappropriate use (PIU) of strong opioid analgesics in cancer outpatients in their last year of life.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort of cancer patients who died between 2011 and 2014 and were exposed as outpatient to a strong opioid analgesic in the last year of life was identified in the Echantillon Généraliste de Bénéficiaires (a 1/97th random sample of the French general population). Prescribing patterns of strong opioids were analysed and PIU was defined by at least 1 of these criteria: overlapping prescriptions; contraindicated prescriptions; lack of laxatives; potential drug interactions; prescription in patients hospitalized for opioid-related disorders. Factors associated with PIU were investigated through a multiple logistic regression model.

RESULTS

One third of the 2236 patients (median age 72 years [interquartile range: 61-82], 44.1% women) presented a PIU (insufficient laxative prescription [19.6% of patients], insufficient background treatment with transmucosal fentanyl [14.8%], overlapping prescriptions [2.6%]). The rate of PIU significantly decreased from 37.6% (2011) to 29.8% (2014). For patients with a duration of opioid use ≥3 months, factors associated with PIU were fentanyl prescription (adjusted odds ratio = 2.36; 95% confidence interval [1.86-3.00]) and previous use of strong opioid (adjusted odds ratio = 1.88; [1.50-2.36]).

CONCLUSION

In France, 1/3 of cancer patients exposed to strong opioids experienced PIU and this proportion tended to decrease over time. There is still room for progress in cancer pain management at the end of life.

Opioid epidemic and prescribing in hospice and palliative care: a review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Rising rates of opioid abuse worldwide have led to the implementation of policies to curb opioid prescribing. It is unknown what impact these policies have on prescribing within the setting of hospice and palliative care.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the current state of the science of opioid prescribing in hospice and palliative care in relation to the opioid epidemic and associated policies.

METHODS

A systematic integrative literature review was conducted using the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PubMed, ProQuest Central and SCOPUS.

RESULTS

Most of the existing literature examines physician perspectives related to opioid prescribing in primary care settings. Ample evidence exists that policies can and do affect rates of opioid prescribing in specialties outside of hospice and palliative care. There is limited evidence to suggest how these policies affect opioid prescribing in hospice and palliative care. However, the available evidence suggests that opioids are necessary in hospice and palliative care in order to manage pain.

CONCLUSION

Further research is necessary to examine the possible negative impact of the opioid epidemic on opioid prescribing in hospice and palliative care.

Health Care Provider Attitudes, Beliefs, and Perceived Confidence in Managing Patients With Cancer Pain and Nonmedical Opioid Use

CONTEXT

Health care provider education is an effective strategy to improve knowledge and competencies in opioid-prescribing practices. However, there are very few studies regarding this among providers of patients with cancer pain and nonmedical opioid use (NMOU). The aim of our study was to assess participants' attitudes, beliefs, and self-perceived confidence in caring for patients with cancer pain and NMOU before and after attending an opioid educational seminar on the use and nonmedical use of opioids in patients with cancer.

METHODS

An anonymous cross-sectional survey was conducted among health care providers who attended an opioid educational event in April 2018 and May 2019.

RESULTS

The overall response rate was 63% (129 of 206). Approximately 72% of participants had concerns about NMOU in patients with cancer, 69% felt that such patients are frequently underdetected, and 63% felt that cancer pain is frequently undertreated. At baseline, only 23% reported adequate knowledge and 35% reported confidence in caring for patients with cancer with NMOU-related issues. Among those who completed both the preseminar and postseminar surveys, these numbers improved significantly at the end of the seminar (26% vs. 71% and 43% vs. 84%, respectively; all P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Most health care providers expressed concerns about underdetection of NMOU and undertreatment of pain among patients with cancer. Many self-reported knowledge and confidence deficits in caring for patients with cancer with NMOU. Seminar participation was associated with an increase in the number of participants with self-perceived knowledge and confidence. Future studies are needed to ascertain the impact of such opioid educational events on patient care practices.

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.

Underprescription of Step III Opioids in French Cancer Survivors With Chronic Pain: A Call for Integrated Early Palliative Care in Oncology

CONTEXT

Chronic pain (CP) is a major concern in cancer survivors. Often under-reported by patients, it is both underassessed and undertreated by care providers.

OBJECTIVES

To assess CP prevalence and related treatment in cancer survivors five years after diagnosis and to identify factors associated with prescribing opioids among survivors with CP, focusing on access to palliative care (PC).

METHODS

In 2015-2016, we interviewed 4174 French patients diagnosed with cancer five years previously. Combining patient-reported and clinical-reported outcomes together with medicoadministrative data, we studied factors associated with Step II and Step III opioid prescriptions in cancer survivors with CP. We performed multinomial logistic regression adjusting for various covariates, including self-reported health status variables and inpatient PC.

RESULTS

Five years after cancer diagnosis, 63.5% of the respondents reported current CP (i.e., pain lasting three months or more). Of these, 64.6% and 14.4% were prescribed at least one Step II or Step III opioid, respectively. Only 1.9% had had inpatient PC since diagnosis. After adjustment for age, gender, clinical and self-reported variables, we found that the latter were more likely to receive Step III opioids (adjusted relative risk ratio 5.33; 95% CI 1.15, 24.58).

CONCLUSION

This study showed a high prevalence of CP five years after cancer diagnosis. Step III opioids were underprescribed but positively associated with inpatient PC. PC access in France remains limited, especially among cancer survivors. Integrating PC in oncology is essential to provide the best cancer-related symptoms management.

The relationship between pain, analgesics and survival in patients with advanced cancer; a secondary data analysis of the international European palliative care Cancer symptom study

PURPOSE

Opioids reduce cancer-related pain but an association with shorter survival is variably reported.

AIM

To investigate the relationship between pain, analgesics, cancer and survival within the European Palliative Care Cancer Symptom (EPCCS) study to help inform clinical decision making.

METHODS

Secondary analysis of the international prospective, longitudinal EPCCS study which included 1739 adults with advanced, incurable cancer receiving palliative care. In this secondary analysis, for all participants with date of death or last follow up, a multilevel Weibull survival analysis examined whether pain, analgesics, and other relevant variables are associated with time to death.

RESULTS

Date of death or last follow-up was available for 1404 patients (mean age 65.7 [SD:12.3];men 50%). Secondary analysis of this group showed the mean survival from baseline was 46.5 (SD:1.5) weeks (95% CI:43.6-49.3). Pain was reported by 76%; 60% were taking opioids, 51% non-opioid analgesics and 24% co-analgesics. Opioid-use was associated with decreased survival in the multivariable model (HR = 1.59 (95% CI:1.38-1.84), p < 0.001). An exploratory subgroup analysis of those with C-reactive protein (CRP) measures (n = 219) indicated higher CRP was associated with poorer survival (p = 0.001). In this model, the strength of relationship between survival and opioid-use weakened (p = 0.029).

CONCLUSION

Opioid-use and survival were associated; this relationship weakened in a small sensitivity-testing subgroup analysis adjusting for CRP. Thus, the observed relationship between survival and opioid-use may partly be due to tumour-related inflammation. Larger studies, measuring disease activity, are needed to confirm this finding to more accurately judge the benefits and risks of opioids in advanced progressive disease.

Patterns of pain medication use associated with reported pain interference in older adults with and without cancer

CONTEXT

Concerns about the adequacy of pain management among older adults are increasing, particularly with restrictions on opioid prescribing.

OBJECTIVES

To examine associations between prescription pain medication receipt and patient-reported pain interference in older adults with and without cancer.

METHODS

Using the 2007-2012 Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare Health Outcomes Survey (MHOS) database linked to Medicare Part D prescription claims, we selected MHOS respondents (N = 15,624) aged ≥ 66 years, ≤ 5 years of a cancer diagnosis (N = 9105), or without cancer (N = 6519). We measured receipt of opioids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and antiepileptics, and selected antidepressants within 30 days prior to survey. Patient-reported activity limitation due to pain (pain interference) within the past 30 days was summarized as severe, moderate, or mild/none. Logistic regression using predictive margins estimated associations between pain interference, cancer history, and pain medication receipt, adjusting for socio-demographics, chronic conditions, and Part D low-income subsidy.

RESULTS

Severe or moderate pain interference was reported by 21.3% and 46.1%, respectively. Pain medication was received by 21.5%, with 11.6% receiving opioids. Among adults reporting severe pain interference, opioid prescriptions were filled by 27.0% versus 23.8% (p = 0.040) with and without cancer, respectively. Over half (56%) of adults reporting severe pain in both groups failed to receive any prescription pain medication.

CONCLUSIONS

Older adults with cancer were more likely to receive prescription pain medications compared with adults without cancer; however, many older adults reporting severe pain interference did not receive medications. Improved assessment and management of pain among older adults with and without cancer is urgently needed.

Access to Opioids for Patients with Advanced Disease

Pain at the end of life is common in both malignant and non-malignant disease. It is feared by patients, their families and careers, and professionals. Effective pain control can be achieved for the majority of patients at the end of life using a multimodal approach. Pharmacological management relies predominantly on strong opioids. In spite of this, evidence suggests that under treatment of pain is common resulting in unnecessary suffering. Multiple barriers to use of opioids have been identified. Patient barriers include reluctance to report pain and to take analgesics. Professional barriers include inadequate pain assessment and lack of specialist knowledge and confidence in opioid therapy. Fear of side effects including respiratory depression affects patients and professionals alike. The impact of the "opioid epidemic", with increasing prescribed and illicit opioid use around the world, has also led to increasingly stringent regulation and concern about under prescribing in palliative care. System barriers to use of opioids at the end of life result from limited opioid availability in some countries and also inconsistent and limited access to palliative care. Multiple interventions have been developed to address these barriers, targeted at patients, professionals and systems. There is increasing evidence to suggest that complex interventions combining a number of different approaches are most effective in optimising pain outcomes for patients at the end of life.

Specialist palliative care support is associated with improved pain relief at home during the last 3 months of life in patients with advanced disease: analysis of 5-year data from the national survey of bereaved people (VOICES)

BACKGROUND

Studies have shown that more than half of patients with advanced progressive diseases approaching the end-of-life report pain and that pain relief for these patients is poorest at home compared to other care settings such as acute care facilities and hospice. Although home is the most common preferred place of death, the majority of deaths occur outside the home. Specialist palliative care is associated with improved quality of life, but systematic reviews of RCTs have failed to show a consistent association with better pain relief. The aim of this study was to examine the factors associated with good pain relief at home in the last 3 months of life for people with advanced progressive disease.

METHODS

Data were obtained from the National Bereavement Survey in England, a cross-sectional post-bereavement survey of a stratified random sample of 246,763 deaths which were registered in England from 2011 to 2015. From 110,311 completed surveys (45% response rate), the analysis was based on individual-level data from 43,509 decedents who were cared for at home before death.

RESULTS

Decedents who experienced good pain relief at home before death were significantly more likely to have received specialist palliative care (adjusted OR = 2.67; 95% CI, 2.62 to 2.72) and to have a recorded preferred place of death (adjusted OR = 1.87; 95% CI, 1.84 to 1.90) compared to those who did not. Good pain relief was more likely to be reported by a spouse or partner of the decedents compared to reports from their son or daughter (adjusted OR = 1.50, 95% CI, 1.47 to 1.53).

CONCLUSION

This study indicates that patients at home who are approaching the end-of-life experience substantially better pain relief if they receive specialist palliative care and their preferred place of death is recorded regardless of their disease aetiology.

Standards for the management of cancer-related pain across Europe-A position paper from the EFIC Task Force on Cancer Pain

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Pain is a common symptom in patients who survive cancer and in those who live with progressive advanced disease. Evidence from meta-analyses suggests that pain remains poorly controlled for a large proportion of patients; barriers to good management include poor assessment of pain, inadequate support for patient self-management and late or inadequate access to strong opioid analgesia in those with advanced disease.

METHODS

The European Pain Federation (EFIC) established a Task Force in 2017 which convened a European group of experts, drawn from a diverse range of relevant clinical disciplines, to prepare a position paper on appropriate standards for the management of cancer-related pain. The expert panel reviewed the available literature and made recommendations using the GRADE system to combine quality of evidence with strength of recommendation. The panel took into account the desirable and undesirable effects of the management recommendation, including the cost and inconvenience of each when deciding the recommendation.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The 10 standards presented are aimed to improve cancer pain management and reduce variation in practice across Europe. The Task Force believes that adoption of these standards by all 37 countries will promote the quality of care of patients with cancer-related pain and reduce unnecessary suffering.

SIGNIFICANCE

Pain affects up to 40% of cancer survivors and affects at least 66% of patients with advanced progressive disease, many of whom experience poor pain control. These 10 standards are aimed to improve cancer pain management, promote the quality of care of patients and reduce variation across Europe.

Access to hospital and community palliative care for patients with advanced cancer: A longitudinal population analysis

BACKGROUND

The UK National Health Service is striving to improve access to palliative care for patients with advanced cancer however limited information exists on the level of palliative care support currently provided in the UK. We aimed to establish the duration and intensity of palliative care received by patients with advanced cancer and identify which cancer patients are missing out.

METHODS

Retrospective cancer registry, primary care and secondary care data were obtained and linked for 2474 patients who died of cancer between 2010 and 2012 within a large metropolitan UK city. Associations between the type, duration, and amount of palliative care by demographic characteristics, cancer type, and therapies received were assessed using Chi-squared, Mann-Whitney or Kruskal-Wallis tests. Multinomial multivariate logistic regression was used to assess the odds of receiving community and/or hospital palliative care compared to no palliative care by demographic characteristics, cancer type, and therapies received.

RESULTS

Overall 64.6% of patients received palliative care. The average palliative care input was two contacts over six weeks. Community palliative care was associated with more palliative care events (p<0.001) for a longer duration (p<0.001). Patients were less likely to receive palliative care if they were: male (p = 0.002), aged 80 years or over (p<0.05), diagnosed with lung cancer (p<0.05), had not received an opioid prescription (p<0.001), or had not received chemotherapy (p<0.001). Patients given radiotherapy were more likely to receive community only palliative care compared to no palliative care (Odds Ratio = 1.49, 95% Confidence Interval = 1.16-1.90).

CONCLUSION

Timely supportive care for cancer patients is advocated but these results suggest that older patients and those who do not receive anti-cancer treatment or opioid analgesics miss out. These patients should be targeted for assessment to identify unmet needs which could benefit from palliative care input.

Developing a complex intervention to support timely engagement with palliative care for patients with advanced cancer in primary and secondary care in the UK: a study protocol

INTRODUCTION

For patients with advanced cancer, timely access to palliative care can improve quality of life and enable patients to participate in decisions about their end-of-life care. However, in a UK population of 2500 patients who died from cancer, one-third did not receive specialist palliative care, and of those who did, the duration of involvement was too short to maximise the benefits. Initiating a conversation about palliative care is challenging for some health professionals and patients often have unmet information needs and misconceptions about palliative care. We will work closely with patients and health professionals to develop a patient decision aid and health professional training module designed to facilitate a timely and informed conversation about palliative care.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study is being conducted over 24 months from November 2017 to October 2019 and follows the UK Medical Research Council framework for developing complex interventions and the International Patient Decision Aids Guideline. The Ottawa Decision Support Framework underpins the study. The Supporting Timely Engagement with Palliative care (STEP) intervention will be developed though an iterative process informed by interviews and focus groups with patients with advanced cancer, oncologists, general practitioners and palliative care doctors. An expert panel will also review each iteration. The expert panel will consist of a patient representative with experience of palliative care, health professionals who are involved in advanced cancer care decision-making, a medical education expert and the National Council for Palliative Care director of transformation. The feasibility and acceptability of the decision aid and doctor training will be tested in oncology and general practice settings.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval for the study has been granted by the Office for Research Ethics Committees Northern Ireland (ORECNI), approval reference 17/NI/0249. Dissemination and knowledge transfer will be conducted via publications, national bodies and networks, and patient and family groups.

Is palliative care support associated with better quality end-of-life care indicators for patients with advanced cancer? A retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to establish the association between timing and provision of palliative care (PC) and quality of end-of-life care indicators in a population of patients dying of cancer.

SETTING

This study uses linked cancer patient data from the National Cancer Registry, the electronic medical record system used in primary care (SystmOne) and the electronic medical record system used within a specialist regional cancer centre. The population resided in a single city in Northern England.

PARTICIPANTS

Retrospective data from 2479 adult cancer decedents who died between January 2010 and February 2012 were registered with a primary care provider using the SystmOne electronic health record system, and cancer was certified as a cause of death, were included in the study.

RESULTS

Linkage yielded data on 2479 cancer decedents, with 64.5% who received at least one PC event. Decedents who received PC were significantly more likely to die in a hospice (39.4% vs 14.5%, P<0.005) and less likely to die in hospital (23.3% vs 40.1%, P<0.05), and were more likely to receive an opioid (53% vs 25.2%, P<0.001). PC initiated more than 2 weeks before death was associated with avoiding a hospital death (≥2 weeks, P<0.001), more than 4 weeks before death was associated with avoiding emergency hospital admissions and increased access to an opioid (≥4 weeks, P<0.001), and more than 33 weeks before death was associated with avoiding late chemotherapy (≥33 weeks, no chemotherapy P=0.019, chemotherapy over 4 weeks P=0.007).

CONCLUSION

For decedents with advanced cancer, access to PC and longer duration of PC were significantly associated with better end-of-life quality indicators.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Oxycodone for cancer-related pain

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Pain and Opioids in Cancer Care: Benefits, Risks, and Alternatives

Pain remains common in the setting of malignancy, occurring as a consequence of cancer and its treatment. Several high-quality studies confirm that more than 50% of all patients with cancer experience moderate to severe pain. The prevalence of pain in cancer survivors is estimated to be 40%, while close to two-thirds of those with advanced disease live with pain. Progress has occurred in the management of cancer pain, yet undertreatment persists. Additionally, new challenges are threatening these advances. These challenges are numerous and include educational deficits, time restraints, and limited access to all types of care. New challenges to access are occurring as a result of interventions designed to combat the prescription drug abuse epidemic, with fewer clinicians willing to prescribe opioids, pharmacies reluctant to stock the medications, and payers placing strict limits on reimbursement. A related challenge is our evolving understanding of the risks of long-term adverse effects associated with opioids. And reflective of the opioid abuse epidemic affecting the general population, the potential for misuse or abuse exists in those with cancer. Guidelines have been developed to support oncologists when prescribing the long-term use of opioids for cancer survivors. The challenges surrounding the use of opioids, and the need for safe and effective alternative analgesics, are leading to intense interest in the potential benefits of cannabis for cancer-related pain. Oncologists are faced with questions regarding the types of cannabis available, differences between routes of administration, data concerning safety and efficacy, and legal and regulatory dynamics.