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

Phase III study of bilayer sustained-release tramadol tablets in patients with cancer pain: a double-blind parallel-group, non-inferiority study with immediate-release tramadol capsules as an active comparator

PURPOSE

We investigated whether twice-daily administration of a bilayer tablet formulation of tramadol (35% immediate-release [IR] and 65% sustained-release) is as effective as four-times-daily IR tramadol capsules for managing cancer pain.

METHODS

This randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-comparator, non-inferiority study enrolled opioid-naïve patients using non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or acetaminophen (paracetamol) to manage cancer pain and self-reported pain (mean value over 3 days ≥ 25 mm on a 100-mm visual analog scale [VAS]). Patients were randomized to either bilayer tablets or IR capsules for 14 days. The starting dose was 100 mg/day and could be escalated to 300 mg/day. The primary endpoint was the change in VAS (averaged over 3 days) for pain at rest from baseline to end of treatment/discontinuation.

RESULTS

Overall, 251 patients were randomized. The baseline mean VAS at rest was 47.67 mm (range: 25.6-82.7 mm). In the full analysis set, the adjusted mean change in VAS was - 22.07 and - 19.08 mm in the bilayer tablet (n = 124) and IR capsule (n = 120) groups, respectively. The adjusted mean difference was - 2.99 mm (95% confidence interval [CI] - 7.96 to 1.99 mm). The upper 95% CI was less than the predefined non-inferiority margin of 7.5 mm. Other efficacy outcomes were similar in both groups. Adverse events were reported for 97/126 (77.0%) and 101/125 (80.8%) patients in the bilayer tablet and IR capsule groups, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Twice-daily administration of bilayer tramadol tablets was as effective as four-times-daily administration of IR capsules regarding the improvement in pain VAS, with comparable safety outcomes.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

JapicCTI-184143/jRCT2080224082 (October 5, 2018).

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

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