Noninterventional observational study using high-dose controlled-release oxycodone (CR oxycodone) for cancer pain management in outpatient clinics

Intravenous Oxycodone versus Intravenous Morphine in Cancer Pain: A Randomized, Open-Label, Parallel-Group, Active-Control Study

Objective

To compare efficacy and safety of intravenous continuous infusion of oxycodone with morphine in patients with cancer pain.

Methods

A 5-day, randomized, open-label, exploratory study at 6 sites in the Republic of Korea. Sixty-six adults aged ≥19 years with moderate-to-severe cancer pain (Numeric Rating Scale [NRS] ≥ 4) were enrolled. The study group received intravenous (IV) oxycodone, and the comparator group received IV morphine which were titrated depending on pain intensity. The efficacy endpoint is change in average NRS score from baseline to Day 5. Other assessments included worst, current, and average pain intensity; patient satisfaction; medication dose; and adverse events.

Results

Both groups achieved >50% reduction in average pain intensity: from “moderate” at baseline (oxycodone versus morphine: 6.0 ± 1.8 versus 5.9 ± 1.4) to “mild” at Day 5 (2.5 ± 1.8 versus 2.8 ± 1.6). While this reduction was similar between groups (3.5 ± 2.2 versus 3.1 ± 1.8, P value = 0.562), oxycodone achieved faster pain relief (average pain: 3.0 ± 1.6 versus 3.9 ± 1.6, P value = 0.020) on Day 2 and significant NRS reductions for worst pain on Day 2 (P value = 0.045) and current pain on Day 2 (P value = 0.035) and Day 5 (P value = 0.020) compared to morphine. Patient satisfaction, adverse events, and adverse drug reactions were similar for both groups.

Conclusions

For Asian patients with cancer pain, IV oxycodone is faster acting and showed similar analgesic efficacy and safety profiles as IV morphine. This trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02660229.

World Workshop on Oral Medicine VI: a systematic review of medication-induced salivary gland dysfunction

The aim of this paper was to perform a systematic review of the pathogenesis of medication-induced salivary gland dysfunction (MISGD). Review of the identified papers was based on the standards regarding the methodology for systematic reviews set forth by the World Workshop on Oral Medicine IV and the PRISMA statement. Eligible papers were assessed for both the degree and strength of relevance to the pathogenesis of MISGD as well as on the appropriateness of the study design and sample size. A total of 99 papers were retained for the final analysis. MISGD in human studies was generally reported as xerostomia (the sensation of oral dryness) without measurements of salivary secretion rate. Medications may act on the central nervous system (CNS) and/or at the neuroglandular junction on muscarinic, α-and β-adrenergic receptors and certain peptidergic receptors. The types of medications that were most commonly implicated for inducing salivary gland dysfunction were those acting on the nervous, cardiovascular, genitourinary, musculoskeletal, respiratory, and alimentary systems. Although many medications may affect the salivary flow rate and composition, most of the studies considered only xerostomia. Thus, further human studies are necessary to improve our understanding of the association between MISGD and the underlying pathophysiology.