Nonresponsiveness and Susceptibility of Opioid Side Effects Related to Cancer Patients' Clinical Characteristics: A Post-Hoc Analysis

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

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

Adolescents and Young Adults With Sickle Cell Disease: Nociplastic Pain and Pain Catastrophizing as Predictors of Pain Interference and Opioid Consumption

OBJECTIVES

Some patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) have features of nociplastic pain. While research suggests that many patients with nociplastic pain consume more opioids due to opioid nonresponsiveness, little is known about the impact of nociplastic pain and pain catastrophizing on opioid consumption and pain interference among adolescents and young adults (AYA) with SCD. The purpose of this study was to (1) characterize nociplastic pain and pain catastrophizing among AYA with SCD, and (2) determine whether these characterizations are associated with subsequent opioid consumption and pain interference 1 month after characterization.

METHODS

Participants completed surveys characterizing nociplastic pain and catastrophizing at a routine clinic visit (baseline). Thereafter, participants received weekly text messages that included pain interference and opioid consumption surveys. Multipredictor 2-part models were used to evaluate the predictive relationships between baseline characterizations and subsequent pain interference, and opioid consumption.

RESULTS

Forty-eight AYA aged 14 to 35 completed baseline measures. Twenty-five percent of participants had scores suggestive of nociplastic pain. Greater nociplastic pain features significantly increased the odds of consuming opioids (odds ratio=1.2) and having greater interference from pain (odds ratio=1.46). Regression analyses found that greater baseline nociplastic pain characteristics were significantly associated with opioid consumption (β=0.13) and pain interference (β=0.061); whereas higher pain catastrophizing scores predicted less opioid consumption (β=-0.03) and less pain interference (β=-0.0007).

DISCUSSION

In this sample of AYA with SCD, features of nociplastic pain predicted higher subsequent opioid consumption and pain interference. Being aware of nociplastic pain features in patients with SCD may better guide individualized pain management.

Opioid-Induced Constipation in Patients with Cancer Pain in Japan (OIC-J Study): A Post Hoc Analysis

Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) can limit the clinical benefit of opioid treatment. This post-hoc analysis evaluated the association between the Rome IV diagnostic criteria and other measures for OIC, including the Bowel Function Index (BFI), correlation between demographics and OIC onset, impact of OIC on pain treatment, and impact of patient–healthcare professional (HCP) communication on patient satisfaction. Patients recorded bowel habits in paper diaries for 14 days following opioid initiation. Study-specific questionnaires were used to evaluate patient awareness of OIC and satisfaction. Patients were ≥20 years old, initiating strong opioid therapy for cancer pain, had an ECOG PS ≤ 2, and had no constipation (≥3 bowel movements within 7 days of enrollment). A total of 220 patients were enrolled. The sensitivity and specificity of BFI for identifying OIC were 81.2% and 54.7%, respectively. Age <65 versus ≥65 years (odds ratio (OR) = 0.510, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.267–0.977) and the presence or absence of comorbidities (OR = 0.443, 95% CI: 0.221–0.885) were correlated with OIC onset. The proportion of inpatients with sustainable pain control at week 2 was similar in patients with or without OIC (60.0% vs. 67.2%, respectively). By patient assessment, there was a significant correlation between an adequate level of patient–HCP communication and satisfaction with OIC treatment (OR = 9.538 (95% CI: 1.577–57.681)). Using BFI to screen for OIC represents a valid approach in patients with cancer pain. Patient–HCP communication is essential for effective management of OIC in patients with cancer pain.

A narrative review of buprenorphine in adult cancer pain

INTRODUCTION

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

AREAS COVERED

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

EXPERT OPINION

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

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

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

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

Introduction

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Discussion

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

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

CONTEXT

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Treatment of Pain in Cancer: Towards Personalised Medicine

Despite increased attention to cancer pain, pain prevalence in patients with cancer has not improved over the last decade and one third of cancer patients on anticancer therapy and half of patients with advanced disease still suffer from moderate to severe pain. In this review, we explore the possible reasons for the ongoing high prevalence of cancer pain and discuss possible future directions for improvement in personalised pain management. Among possible reasons for the lack of improvement are: Barriers for patients to discuss pain with clinicians spontaneously; pain measurement instruments are not routinely used in daily practice; limited knowledge concerning the assessment of undertreatment; changes in patients’ characteristics, including the ageing of the population; lack of significant improvement in the treatment of neuropathic pain; limitations of pharmacological treatment and lack of evidence-based nonpharmacological treatment strategies. In order to improve cancer pain treatment, we recommend: (1) Physicians proactively ask about pain and measure pain using assessment instruments; (2) the development of an optimal tool measuring undertreatment; (3) educational interventions to improve health care workers’ skills in pain management; (4) the development of more effective and personalised pharmacological and nonpharmacological pain treatment.

The Association between Patient Characteristics and Opioid Treatment Response in Neuropathic and Nociceptive Pain due to Cancer

BACKGROUND

Cancer pain remains a difficult problem, for which opioids are often necessary. At present it is difficult to predict the effectiveness of opioid therapy.

OBJECTIVES

We aim to assess the association between patient characteristics and opioid treatment response in cancer patients, and develop a model to predict probability of response.

SUBJECTS

We used data from two previously published randomized clinical trials, in which patients with head and neck cancer were treated with fentanyl or methadone (total N = 134).

MEASUREMENTS

Treatment success was defined as ≥50% pain reduction at one and five weeks. We analyzed patient characteristics (age, sex, depression, and anxiety), treatment characteristics (having had chemotherapy, radiotherapy, surgery, methadone, or fentanyl) and pain characteristics (neuropathic and nociceptive).

DESIGN

Based on univariable and multivariable regression analyses determinants of therapy success were assessed. Based on these analyses a prediction model was developed.

RESULTS

Our analyses show that one-week therapy success was associated with methadone (odds ratio [OR] = 5.21), duration of pain in months (OR = 1.12), neuropathic pain (OR = 3.36), and age of the patient in years (OR = 0.95). Inclusion of these four characteristics into our prediction model resulted in an area under the curve of 81.6%.

CONCLUSIONS

Careful analyses of patient attributes, treatment, and pain type of patients with head and neck cancer resulted in a prediction model that allowed to predict short-term pain relief and the opioid treatment response in neuropathic and nociceptive pain owing to cancer.