Transdermal opioids for cancer pain

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.

Transdermal buprenorphine improves overall quality of life and symptom severity in cancer patients with pain

AIM AND OBJECTIVES

This study explored the effect of transdermal buprenorphine on quality of life and six symptoms in cancer patients with pain.

BACKGROUND

Transdermal opioids offer advantages over traditional routes of administration. The impact of transdermal buprenorphine on quality of life for patients with cancer in Asian populations is unknown.

DESIGN

This study employed a single-arm observational repeated measures design. Cancer patients with pain were evaluated prior to treatment (baseline). Over a 4-week treatment period, quality of life and symptoms were assessed at 2 and 4 weeks. This study adhered to the recommendations of STROBE guidelines.

METHODS

This multi-site study was conducted in six hospitals located across northern, middle and southern Taiwan. Adult cancer patients whose pain was previously stable with opioid analgesics and, based on clinical judgement, were able to convert to transdermal buprenorphine treatment were invited to participate. Quality of life was measured with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30).

RESULTS

Generalised estimating equations showed participants who completed at least one follow-up measurement (N = 80) over 4-weeks had a significant improvement in overall quality of life. Functional status only improved for social functioning. However, symptom severity decreased significantly for nausea/vomiting, pain, insomnia and constipation.

CONCLUSIONS

The study provides initial evidence supporting transdermal buprenorphine for providing beneficial effects of improving quality of life and reducing severity of symptoms in Asian patients with cancer.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

The findings of this study can inform the clinical practice that the use of transdermal buprenorphine in cancer patients with pain may also reduce the severity of other symptoms and improve overall quality of life.

TRIAL REGISTRATION DETAILS

This study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. Identifier: NCT04315831.

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Novel Opioid Analgesics for the Development of Transdermal Opioid Patches That Possess Morphine-Like Pharmacological Profiles Rather Than Fentanyl: Possible Opioid Switching Alternatives Among Patch Formula

Transdermal fentanyl is widely used in the treatment of severe pain because of convenience, safety, and stable blood concentrations. Nevertheless, patients often develop tolerance to fentanyl, necessitating the use of other opioids; transdermal buprenorphine patch is widely used as an analgesic agent, though available formulation does not provide comparable analgesic effect as transdermal fentanyl patch. Opioids bind to the opioid receptor (OR) to activate both G protein–mediated and β-arrestin–mediated pathways. We synthesized morphine-related compounds with high transdermal absorbability (N1 and N2) and evaluated their OR activities pharmacologically in comparison with fentanyl and morphine.

Characterization of the Presence and Function of Platelet Opioid Receptors

Opioids are typically used for the treatment of pain related to disease or surgery. In the body, they enter the bloodstream and interact with a variety of immune and neurological cells that express the μ-, δ-, and κ-opioid receptors. One blood-borne cell-like body that is not well understood in the context of opioid interactions is the platelet. The platelet is a highly sensitive anucleate cell-like fragment responsible for maintaining hemostasis through shape change and the secretion of chemical messengers. This research characterizes platelet opioid receptors, how specific receptor agonists impact platelet exocytosis, and the role of the κ-and μ-receptors in platelet function. Platelets were found to express all three opioid receptors, but upon stimulation with their respective agonist no activation was detected. Furthermore, exposure to the opioid agonists did not impact traditional platelet secretion stimulated by thrombin, a natural platelet activator. In addition, data collected from knockout mice suggest that the opioid agonists may be interacting nonspecifically with platelets. Dark-field images revealed differences in activated platelet shape between the κ- and μ-knockout platelets and the control platelets. Finally, κ-knockout platelets showed variations in their ability to adhere and aggregate compared to control platelets. Overall, these data show that platelet function is not likely to be heavily affected by blood-borne opioids.

Current management of cancer pain in Italy: Expert opinion paper

Introduction

Chronic pain and breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP) have a high prevalence in all cancer types and cancer stages, combined with a significant physical, psychological, and economic burden. Despite efforts to improve appropriate management of cancer pain, a poor assessment and guilty undertreatment are still reported in many countries. The purpose of this expert opinion paper is to contribute to reduce and clarify these issues with a multidisciplinary perspective in order to share virtuous paths of care.

Methods

Common questions about cancer pain assessment and treatment were submitted to a multidisciplinary pool of Italian clinicians and the results were subsequently discussed and compared with the findings of the published literature.

Conclusion

Despite a dedicated law in Italy and effective treatments available, a low percentage of specialists assess pain and BTcP, defining the intensity with validated tools. Moreover, in accordance with the findings of the literature in many countries, the undertreatment of cancer pain is still prevalent. A multidisciplinary approach, more training programs for clinicians, personalised therapy drug formulations, and virtuous care pathways will be essential to improve cancer pain management.

Changes in Percutaneous Absorption of Fentanyl Patches in Rats Treated with a Sebum-Like Secretion

The percutaneous absorption of a fentanyl (FEN)-patch is affected by various external factors including the volume of sebum secretion, which causes changes in the skin surface environment. In this study, we prepared a lard-based sebum-like secretion (SLS), and applied it to investigate the effect of different skin surface conditions on the drug penetration of a FEN-patch. In vitro work to test drug release using the Franz diffusion cell indicated that drug release was significantly suppressed by treatment with 5% SLS, which is equivalent to the amount of daily human sebum secretion. Conversely, in ex vivo experiments using rat skin, the amount of FEN that accumulated in the skin tissue of the 5% SLS-treated rats was higher in comparison with the non-SLS treated group. Furthermore, in vivo experiments indicated that the plasma FEN concentration in rats treated with the FEN-patch was significantly increased by treatment with 5% SLS. These results suggest that the sebum affected the release, accumulation, and absorption of FEN from the FEN-patch, and the FEN concentration in the blood was reflected by the balance of the suppression of drug release and the enhancement of drug accumulation in the skin with SLS.

Transdermal buprenorphine and fentanyl patches in cancer pain: a network systematic review

Treatment of cancer pain is generally based on the three-step World Health Organization (WHO) pain relief ladder, which utilizes a sequential approach with drugs of increasing potency. Goals of pain management include optimization of analgesia, optimization of activities of daily living, minimization of adverse effects, and avoidance of aberrant drug taking. In addition, it is recommended that analgesic regimens are individualized and simplified to help ensure patient compliance and should provide the least invasive, easiest, and safest route of opioid administration to ensure adequate analgesia. Buprenorphine and fentanyl are two opioids available for the relief of moderate-to-severe cancer pain. Available clinical data regarding the transdermal (TD) formulations of these opioids and the extent to which they fulfill the recommendations mentioned earlier are systematically reviewed, with the aim of providing additional information for oncologists and pain specialists regarding their comparative use. Due to lack of studies directly comparing TD buprenorphine with TD fentanyl, data comparing these with other step-3 opioids are also evaluated in a network fashion.

Fentanyl for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Opioid drugs, including fentanyl, are commonly used to treat neuropathic pain, and are considered effective by some professionals. Most reviews have examined all opioids together. This review sought evidence specifically for fentanyl, at any dose, and by any route of administration. Other opioids are considered in separate reviews.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy of fentanyl for chronic neuropathic pain in adults, and the adverse events associated with its use in clinical trials.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase from inception to June 2016, together with the reference lists of retrieved articles, and two online study registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing fentanyl (in any dose, administered by any route, and in any formulation) with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality and potential bias. We did not carry out any pooled analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Only one study met our inclusion criteria. Participants were men and women (mean age 67 years), with postherpetic neuralgia, complex regional pain syndrome, or chronic postoperative pain. They were experiencing inadequate relief from non-opioid analgesics, and had not previously taken opioids for their neuropathic pain. The study used an enriched enrolment randomised withdrawal design. It was adequately blinded, but we judged it at unclear risk of bias for other criteria.Transdermal fentanyl (one-day fentanyl patch) was titrated over 10 to 29 days to establish the maximum tolerated and effective dose (12.5 to 50 µg/h). Participants who achieved a prespecified good level of pain relief with a stable dose of fentanyl, without excessive use of rescue medication or intolerable adverse events ('responders'), were randomised to continue with fentanyl or switch to placebo for 12 weeks, under double-blind conditions. Our prespecified primary outcomes were not appropriate for this study design, but the measures reported do give an indication of the efficacy of fentanyl in this condition.In the titration phase, 1 in 3 participants withdrew because of adverse events or inadequate pain relief, and almost 90% experienced adverse events. Of 258 participants who underwent open-label titration, 163 were 'responders' and entered the randomised withdrawal phase. The number of participants completing the study (and therefore continuing on treatment) without an increase of pain by more than 15/100 was 47/84 (56%) with fentanyl and 28/79 (35%) with placebo. Because only 63% responded sufficiently to enter the randomised withdrawal phase, this implies that only a maximum of 35% of participants entering the study would have had useful pain relief and tolerability with transdermal fentanyl, compared with 22% with placebo. Almost 60% of participants taking fentanyl were 'satisfied' and 'very satisfied' with their treatment at the end of the study, compared with about 40% with placebo. This outcome approximates to our primary outcome of moderate benefit using the Patient Global Impression of Change scale, but the group was enriched for responders and the method of analysis was not clear. The most common adverse events were constipation, nausea, somnolence, and dizziness.There was no information about other types of neuropathic pain, other routes of administration, or comparisons with other treatments.We downgraded the quality of the evidence to very low because there was only one study, with few participants and events, and there was no information about how data from people who withdrew were analysed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the suggestion that fentanyl works in any neuropathic pain condition.

Efficacy of fentanyl transdermal patch in the treatment of chronic soft tissue cancer pain

Background:

Cancer pain may be a major problem for health care providers worldwide. According to different studies reporting the pain severity, one-third of patients reported to have moderate to severe pain. Management of cancer pain is one of the most important goals of palliative care. Recently, different research results on the efficacy of opioid analgesics in chronic pain management have played a role to implement standards in pain control by government agencies worldwide.

Objectives:

This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of fentanyl transdermal patch in the treatment of chronic soft tissue cancer pain.

Patients and Methods:

In a prospective descriptive study, we evaluated 86 patients with soft tissue tumors with chronic pain referred to cancer institute of Imam Khomeini Hospital, Tehran, Iran, during 2006-2007. For all patients, transdermal fentanyl patch (25 μg/h) was administered. The appearance of patches was the same. Pain severity was measured by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) initially and 24, 48 and 72 hours after the initiation of treatment.

Results:

Patients' characteristics and VAS score before the treatment were not significantly different (P > 0.05). According to our findings, the pain severity was significantly reduced after the treatment (P = 0.001). The incidence of adverse events in patients was significantly high (72%). The most common adverse events were sleepiness, nausea and vomiting in 30.2% and 18.6%, respectively.

Conclusions:

Transdermal fentanyl patch was an effective and safe method to reduce pain in patients with soft tissue tumors. Moreover, it could improve the quality of life in these patients, but adverse events occurred in approximately 72% of patients.

Pain management of the cancer patient

INTRODUCTION

Cancer pain is one of the most important symptoms of malignant disease, which has a major impact on the quality of life of cancer patients. Therefore, it needs to be treated appropriately after a careful assessment of the types and causes of pain.

AREAS COVERED

The mainstay of cancer pain management is systemic pharmacotherapy. This is, in principle, still based on the WHO guidelines initially published in 1986. Although these have been validated, they are not evidence-based. The principles are a stepladder approach using non-opioids, weak and then strong opioids. In addition, adjuvants can be added at any step to address specific situations such as bone or neuropathic pain. Patients, even if they are on long-acting opioids, need to be provided with immediate-release opioids for breakthrough pain. In case of inefficacy or severe adverse effects of one opioid, rotation to another opioid is recommended.

EXPERT OPINION

There is a major need for more and better randomized controlled trials in the setting of cancer pain as the lack of evidence is hampering the improvement of current treatment guidelines.

Dosing considerations with transdermal formulations of fentanyl and buprenorphine for the treatment of cancer pain

Opioids continue to be first-line pharmacotherapy for patients suffering from cancer pain. Unfortunately, subtherapeutic dosage prescribing of pain medications remains common, and many cancer patients continue to suffer and experience diminished quality of life. A large variety of therapeutic options are available for cancer pain patients. Analgesic pharmacotherapy is based on the patient’s self-report of pain intensity and should be tailored to meet the requirements of each individual. Most, if not all, cancer pain patients will ultimately require modifications in their opioid pharmacotherapy. When changes in a patient’s medication regimen are needed, adequate pain control is best maintained through appropriate dosage conversion, scheduling immediate release medication for withdrawal prevention, and providing as needed dosing for breakthrough pain. Transdermal opioids are noninvasive, cause less constipation and sedation when compared to oral opioids, and may improve patient compliance. A relative potency of 100:1 is recommended when converting the patient from oral morphine to transdermal fentanyl. Based on the limited data available, there is significant interpatient variability with transdermal buprenorphine and equipotency recommendations from oral morphine of 75:1–110:1 have been suggested. Cancer patients may require larger transdermal buprenorphine doses to control their pain and may respond better to a more aggressive 75–100:1 potency ratio. This review outlines the prescribing of transdermal fentanyl and transdermal buprenorphine including how to safely and effectively convert to and use them for those with cancer pain.

Transdermal fentanyl for cancer pain

BACKGROUND

Opioid drugs have been used for many years to relieve pain. Transdermal fentanyl offers one option for delivering and maintaining pain relief in patients with moderate or severe cancer pain.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the analgesic efficacy of transdermal fentanyl for relief of cancer pain, and to assess the adverse events associated with the use of transdermal fentanyl for relief of cancer pain.

SEARCH METHODS

The following databases were searched: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 4 of 12); MEDLINE (1966 to May 2013); EMBASE (1974 to May 2013; CANCERLIT (PubMED) (November 2012); and ClinicalTrials.gov (May 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted independently by two review authors. We extracted any available data on the number or proportion of patients with 'no worse than mild pain' or treatment success (very satisfied, or very good or excellent on patient global impression scales), together with information about adverse events and withdrawals.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified nine studies meeting the inclusion criteria, including a Turkish study that is awaiting formal translation. There were 1244 participants randomised in classically designed RCTs, of whom 1197 had evaluable data, and 138 patients enrolled in an enriched enrolment, randomised withdrawal (EERW) trial. Overall, 600 participants were treated with transdermal fentanyl patches, 382 with various formulations of morphine, 36 with methadone, and 221 with paracetamol plus codeine. There were major sources of potential bias, including lack of blinding, small size, high levels of attrition, and inconsistent reporting.We could not compare data in a meaningful analysis regarding adverse events such as nausea, abdominal pain, gastrointestinal bleeding, and confusion. These events may have been attributable to the underlying disease process.There were insufficient comparable data for meta-analysis to be undertaken or to produce numbers needed to treat (NNT) for the analgesic effect. In seven studies with 461 participants reporting pain intensity results after about two weeks, the mean or median pain scores were on the borderline of mild and moderate pain. Most participants would have had no worse than mild pain on treatment. Another reported that 77% of participants using transdermal fentanyl had an undefined successful outcome. Fewer participants experienced constipation with transdermal fentanyl (28%) than with oral morphine (46%), giving a risk ratio of 0.61 (95% CI 0.47 to 0.78); the NNT to prevent constipation was 5.5 (95% CI 3.8 to 10).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The randomised trial literature for effectiveness of transdermal fentanyl is limited, but it is an important medicine. Most studies recruited fewer than 100 participants and did not provide data appropriate for meta-analysis. Only a few reported how many patients had good pain relief but, where data were reported, a majority had no worse than mild pain within a reasonably short time period. The evidence pointed to a useful and significant reduction in complaints about constipation for transdermal fentanyl compared with oral morphine.

Inadequate cancer pain management in Italian clinical trials

Pain treatment in Italy is far from being optimal. In order to improve this situation, the reporting of a complete assessment of pain in the clinical record became compulsory by law. Pain-related cancer protocols (143) were selected from the National Monitoring Centre of Clinical Trials Database and reviewed. Our data indicate that pain management is not being reported as it should be: treatment has been taken into account in only 36.4% of the protocols, and assessment in 37.1%. Furthermore, breakthrough cancer pain has never been reported. The main aim of cancer therapy is obviously control the disease, however Ethics Committees should pay close attention to pain therapy when evaluating clinical protocols.

Pain management

Despite published guidelines and educational programs on the assessment and treatment of cancer-related pain, in any stage of oncological disease, unrelieved pain continues to be a substantial worldwide public health concern either in patients with solid and haematological malignancies. The proper and regular self-reporting assessment of pain is the first step for an effective and individualized treatment. Opioids are the mainstay of analgesic therapy and can be associated with non-opioids drugs such as paracetamol or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and to adjuvant drugs (for neuropathic pain and symptom control). The role and the utility of weak opioids (i.e. codeine, dihydrocodeine, tramadol) are a controversy point. Morphine has been placed by World Health Organization on its Essential Drug List. In the comparative study with other strong opioids (hydromorphone, oxycodone), there is no evidence to show superiority or inferiority with morphine as the first choice opioid. Oral methadone is a useful and safe alternative to morphine. Methadone presents the potential to control pain difficult to manage with other opioids. although the oral route of opioid administration is considered the one of choice, intravenous, subcutaneous, rectal, transdermal, sublingual, intranasal, and spinal routes must be used in particular situation. Transdermal opioids such as fentanyl and buprenorphine are best reserved for patients whose opioid requirements are stable. Switching from one opioid to another can improve analgesia and tolerability.

The efficacy of transdermal fentanyl for pain relief after endoscopic submucosal dissection: a prospective, randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Epigastric pain management following endoscopic submucosal dissection is an important consideration. This study aimed to investigate the utility and safety of fentanyl patches for pain relief after the procedure.

METHODS

Patients who were scheduled to undergo endoscopic submucosal dissection were prospectively randomised to either a transdermal fentanyl patch group or a placebo control group. An additional pethidine was intravenously administered when pain developed and a numerical rating scale was used to evaluate both pre- and post-procedural pain.

RESULTS

One hundred and ten patients were randomly assigned to receive either a 12 mcg/h fentanyl patch or a control patch on the night before the procedure. The fentanyl patch group had significantly lower pain scores immediately following the procedure (mean, 5.17 vs. 4.26, p=0.030). Maximal pain scores during the first 24 h (5.43 vs. 4.46, p=0.038) and pain scores on the day after the procedure (2.98 vs. 1.20, p<0.001) were also lower in the fentanyl patch group. In addition, the fentanyl patch group required a significantly lower dose of pethidine for pain management (24.54 vs. 11.25, p=0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

The application of a transdermal fentanyl patch is an effective, convenient, and safe method to control epigastric pain after endoscopic submucosal dissection.