The role of hydromorphone in cancer pain treatment: a systematic review

Efficacy and safety of hydromorphone for cancer pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Cancer pain significantly impacts individuals' quality of life, with opioids being employed as the primary means for pain relief. Nevertheless, concerns persist regarding the adverse reactions and effectiveness of opioids such as morphine. Hydromorphone, recognized as a potent opioid, is a viable alternative for managing cancer-related pain. The goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the effectiveness and safety characteristics of hydromorphone in comparison to other opioids, as well as different methods of administering this medication within the scope of cancer pain treatment.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched on December 25th, 2023. Following the PRISMA guidelines, a systematic investigation of databases was carried out, and suitable studies were chosen according to predetermined criteria (PICO framework). The meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

This review included 18 RCTs with 2271 patients who compared hydromorphone with morphine, oxycodone, or fentanyl, as well as other types of hydromorphone. Hydromorphone demonstrated efficacy similar to that of morphine and oxycodone in reducing cancer pain intensity, decreasing additional analgesic consumption, and improving quality of life. However, morphine showed slight superiority over hydromorphone in reducing breakthrough pain. Adverse events were comparable between hydromorphone and morphine or oxycodone. Patient-controlled and clinician-controlled hydromorphone administration routes yielded similar outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The outcomes of this study substantiate the efficacy of hydromorphone in the management of cancer-related pain, demonstrating similar levels of effectiveness and safety as morphine and oxycodone. These findings are consistent with prior comprehensive analyses, suggesting that hydromorphone is a feasible choice for alleviating cancer-associated pain. Additional investigations are warranted to determine its efficacy in distinct patient cohorts and for different modes of administration.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Prospero registration ID: CRD42024517513. Link: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails .

Prevalence of opioid-induced adverse events across opioids commonly used for analgesic treatment in Japan: a multicenter prospective longitudinal study

PURPOSE

Although opioids have been shown to be effective for cancer pain, opioid-induced adverse events (AEs) are common. To date, little is known about the differences in risks of AEs by opioid type. This study was performed to compare the prevalence of AEs across opioids commonly used for analgesic treatment in Japan.

METHODS

This study was conducted as a preplanned secondary analysis of a multicenter prospective longitudinal study of inpatients with cancer pain who received specialized palliative care for cancer pain relief. We assessed daily AEs until termination of follow-up. We rated the severity of AEs based on the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0. We computed adjusted odds ratios for each AE (constipation, nausea and vomiting, delirium, and drowsiness) with the following variables: opioid, age, sex, renal dysfunction, and primary cancer site.

RESULTS

In total, 465 patients were analyzed. Based on the descriptive analysis, the top four most commonly used opioids were included in the analysis: oxycodone, hydromorphone, fentanyl, and tramadol. With respect to the prevalence of AEs among all analyzed patients, delirium (n = 25, 6.3%) was the most frequent, followed by drowsiness (n = 21, 5.3%), nausea and vomiting (n = 19, 4.8%), and constipation (n = 28, 4.6%). The multivariate logistic analysis showed that no single opioid was identified as a statistically significant independent predictor of any AE.

CONCLUSION

There was no significant difference in the prevalence of AEs among oxycodone, fentanyl, hydromorphone, and tramadol, which are commonly used for analgesic treatment in Japan.

Evaluation of Clinical and Genetic Determinants of Treatment OutCome In EGFR Mutation Positive Advanced Lung Adenocarcinoma

Background

The aim of this research was to evaluate clinical and low-cost genetic determinants of treatment outcome in EGFR mutation positive advanced lung adenocarcinoma patients.

Material and Methods

EGFR mutation testing and EGFR 181946C>T genotyping were performed in 101 advanced lung adenocarcinoma patients using qRT-PCR and PCR-RFLP, respectively. Progression-free survival was defined as the time from the start of TKI therapy to date of progression, and overall survival as the time from diagnosis to death from any cause. Pain level was evaluated using a Numerical Rating Scale and the Verbal Descriptor Scale. Statistical significance was considered for P < .05.

Results

Patients were treated with EGFR-TKIs for a period of 1–39months (median 9), with a median PFS of 12.0 months (10.4-13.6, CI 95%), and a median OS of 19.0 months (15.1-22.7, CI 95%). The presence of pain was significantly correlated with the existence of bone (P < .001) and adrenal glands metastases (P = .029). Genetic factors did not have a direct impact on pain management but had a significant effect on the response to TKIs leading to pain alleviation.

Conclusions

EGFR mutation subtype and the EGFR 181946 C>T SNP had a significant effect on the response to TKI inducing an indirect anti-dolorous effect.

Hydromorphone Prescription for Pain in Children-What Place in Clinical Practice?

While morphine is the gold standard treatment for severe nociceptive pain in children, hydromorphone is increasingly prescribed in this population. This review aims to assess available knowledge about hydromorphone and explore the evidence for its safe and effective prescription in children. Hydromorphone is an opioid analgesic similar to morphine structurally and in its pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties but 5-7 times more potent. Pediatric pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data on hydromorphone are sorely lacking; they are non-existent in children younger than 6 months of age and for oral administration. The current data do not support any advantage of hydromorphone over morphine, both in terms of efficacy and safety in children. Morphine should remain the treatment of choice for moderate and severe nociceptive pain in children and hydromorphone should be reserved as alternative treatment. Because of the important difference in potency, all strategies should be taken to avoid inadvertent administration of hydromorphone when morphine is intended.

Hydromorphone for cancer pain

BACKGROUND

This is an update of the original Cochrane Review first published in Issue 10, 2016. For people with advanced cancer, the prevalence of pain can be as high as 90%. Cancer pain is a distressing symptom that tends to worsen as the disease progresses. Evidence suggests that opioid pharmacotherapy is the most effective of these therapies. Hydromorphone appears to be an alternative opioid analgesic which may help relieve these symptoms.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the analgesic efficacy of hydromorphone in relieving cancer pain, as well as the incidence and severity of any adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and clinical trials registers in November 2020. We applied no language, document type or publication status limitations to the search.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared hydromorphone with placebo, an alternative opioid or another active control, for cancer pain in adults and children. Primary outcomes were participant-reported pain intensity and pain relief; secondary outcomes were specific adverse events, serious adverse events, quality of life, leaving the study early and death.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data. We calculated risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for binary outcomes on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis. We estimated mean difference (MD) between groups and 95% CI for continuous data. We used a random-effects model and assessed risk of bias for all included studies. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created three summary of findings tables.

MAIN RESULTS

With four new identified studies, the review includes a total of eight studies (1283 participants, with data for 1181 participants available for analysis), which compared hydromorphone with oxycodone (four studies), morphine (three studies) or fentanyl (one study). All studies included adults with cancer pain, mean age ranged around 53 to 59 years and the proportion of men ranged from 42% to 67.4%. We judged all the studies at high risk of bias overall because they had at least one domain with high risk of bias. We found no studies including children. We did not complete a meta-analysis for the primary outcome of pain intensity due to skewed data and different comparators investigated across the studies (oxycodone, morphine and fentanyl). Comparison 1: hydromorphone compared with placebo We identified no studies comparing hydromorphone with placebo. Comparison 2: hydromorphone compared with oxycodone Participant-reported pain intensity We found no clear evidence of a difference in pain intensity (measured using a visual analogue scale (VAS)) in people treated with hydromorphone compared with those treated with oxycodone, but the evidence is very uncertain (3 RCTs, 381 participants, very low-certainty evidence). Participant-reported pain relief We found no studies reporting participant-reported pain relief. Specific adverse events We found no clear evidence of a difference in nausea (RR 1.13 95% CI 0.74 to 1.73; 3 RCTs, 622 participants), vomiting (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.94; 3 RCTs, 622 participants), dizziness (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.44; 2 RCTs, 441 participants) and constipation (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.19; 622 participants) (all very low-certainty evidence) in people treated with hydromorphone compared with those treated with oxycodone, but the evidence is very uncertain. Quality of life We found no studies reporting quality of life. Comparison 3: hydromorphone compared with morphine Participant-reported pain intensity We found no clear evidence of a difference in pain intensity (measured using the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) or VAS)) in people treated with hydromorphone compared with those treated with morphine, but the evidence is very uncertain (2 RCTs, 433 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Participant-reported pain relief We found no clear evidence of a difference in the number of clinically improved participants, defined by 50% or greater pain relief rate, in the hydromorphone group compared with the morphine group, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.18; 1 RCT, 233 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Specific adverse events At 24 days of treatment, morphine may reduce constipation compared with hydromorphone, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.17; 1 RCT, 200 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We found no clear evidence of a difference in nausea (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.30; 1 RCT, 200 participants), vomiting (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.31; 1 RCT, 200 participants) and dizziness (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.88; 1 RCT, 200 participants) (all very low-certainty evidence) in people treated with hydromorphone compared with those treated with morphine, but the evidence is very uncertain. Quality of life We found no studies reporting quality of life. Comparison 4: hydromorphone compared with fentanyl Participant-reported pain intensity We found no clear evidence of a difference in pain intensity (measured by numerical rating scale (NRS)) at 60 minutes in people treated with hydromorphone compared with those treated with fentanyl, but the evidence is very uncertain (1 RCT, 82 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Participant-reported pain relief We found no studies reporting participant-reported pain relief. Specific adverse events We found no studies reporting specific adverse events. Quality of life We found no studies reporting quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence of the benefits and harms of hydromorphone compared with other analgesics is very uncertain. The studies reported some adverse events, such as nausea, vomiting, dizziness and constipation, but generally there was no clear evidence of a difference between hydromorphone and morphine, oxycodone or fentanyl for this outcome. There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of hydromorphone for cancer pain in comparison with other analgesics on the reported outcomes. Further research with larger sample sizes and more comprehensive outcome data collection is required.

Oxycodone versus morphine for cancer pain titration: A systematic review and pharmacoeconomic evaluation

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of Oxycodone Hydrochloride Controlled-release Tablets (CR oxycodone) and Morphine Sulfate Sustained-release Tablets (SR morphine) for moderate to severe cancer pain titration.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials meeting the inclusion criteria were searched through Medline, Cochrane Library, Pubmed, EMbase, CNKI,VIP and WanFang database from the data of their establishment to June 2019. The efficacy and safety data were extracted from the included literature. The pain control rate was calculated to eatimate efficacy. Meta-analysis was conducted by Revman5.1.4. A decision tree model was built to simulate cancer pain titration process. The initial dose of CR oxycodone and SR morphine group were 20mg and 30mg respectively. Oral immediate-release morphine was administered to treat break-out pain. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was performed with TreeAge Pro 2019.

Results

19 studies (1680 patients)were included in this study. Meta-analysis showed that the pain control rate of CR oxycodone and SR morphine were 86% and 82.98% respectively. The costs of CR oxycodone and SR morphine were $23.27 and $13.31. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per unit was approximate $329.76. At the willingness-to-pay threshold of $8836, CR oxycodone was cost-effective, while the corresponding probability of being cost-effective at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $300 was 31.6%. One-way sensitivity analysis confirmed robustness of results.

Conclusions

CR oxycodone could be a cost-effective option compared with SR morphine for moderate to severe cancer pain titration in China, according to the threshold defined by the WHO.

A Surface-Enhanced Raman Spectral Library of Important Drugs Associated With Point-of-Care and Field Applications

During the past decade, the ability of surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy (SERS) to measure extremely low concentrations, such as mg/L and below, and the availability of hand-held Raman spectrometers, has led to a significant growth in the number and variety of applications of SERS to real-world problems. Most of these applications involve the measurement of drugs, such as quantifying medication in patients, identifying illicit drugs in impaired drivers, and more recently, identifying drugs used as weapons. Similar to Raman spectroscopy, most of the point-of-care and field applications involve the identification of the drug to determine the course of action. However, unlike Raman spectroscopy, spectral libraries are not readily available to perform the necessary identification. In a large part, this is due to the uniqueness of the commercially available SERS substrates, each of which can produce different spectra for the same drug. In an effort to overcome this limitation, we have measured numerous drugs using the most common, and readily available SERS material and hand-held Raman analyzers, specifically gold colloids and analyzers using 785 nm laser excitation. Here we present the spectra of some 39 drugs of current interest, such as buprenorphine, delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol, and fentanyl, which we hope will aid in the development of current and future SERS drug analysis applications.

Opioids combined with antidepressants or antiepileptic drugs for cancer pain: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Combining antidepressant or antiepileptic drugs with opioids has resulted in increased pain relief when used for neuropathic pain in non-cancer conditions. However, evidence to support their effectiveness in cancer pain is lacking.

AIM

To determine if there is additional benefit when opioids are combined with antidepressant or antiepileptic drugs for cancer pain.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis. Randomised control trials comparing opioid analgesia in combination with antidepressant or antiepileptic drugs versus opioid monotherapy were sought. Data on pain and adverse events were extracted. Data were pooled using DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analyses, and heterogeneity was assessed.

RESULTS

Seven randomised controlled trials that randomised 605 patients were included in the review. Patients' pain was described as neuropathic cancer pain, cancer bone pain and non-specific cancer pain. Four randomised controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis in which opioid in combination with either gabapentin or pregabalin was compared with opioid monotherapy. The pooled standardised mean difference was 0.16 (95% confidence interval, -0.19, 0.51) showing no significant difference in pain relief between the groups. Adverse events were more frequent in the combination arms. Data on amitriptyline, fluvoxamine and phenytoin were inconclusive.

CONCLUSION

Combining opioid analgesia with gabapentinoids did not significantly improve pain relief in patients with tumour-related cancer pain compared with opioid monotherapy. Due to the heterogeneity of patient samples, benefit in patients with definite neuropathic cancer pain cannot be excluded. Clinicians should balance the small likelihood of benefit in patients with tumour-related cancer pain against the increased risk of adverse effects of combination therapy.

Evidence-Based Palliative Care 13 Years On: Has anything changed?

There is a paucity of data on whether interventions in individual palliative care units are evidence-based. Thirteen years ago an initial study evaluated the evidence base of interventions in palliative care. Using similar methodology in the present study, we evaluated the evidence for interventions performed in an inpatient palliative care setting, looking at level of evidence as well as quality and outcome of evidence. More than half of all the interventions (47 interventions, 59 percent) we looked at in a Brisbane, Australia, inpatient palliative care setting were based on a high level of evidence in the form of systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (level I or level II). There were only a few interventions (10 percent) for which no evidence could be retrieved. Our results show that the evidence base for interventions in palliative care continues to evolve, but that there are still areas for which further high-quality studies are needed.

The Conversion Ratio From Intravenous Hydromorphone to Oral Opioids in Cancer Patients

CONTEXT

The lack of knowledge of the accurate conversion ratio (CR) between intravenous (IV) and oral hydromorphone and opioid rotation ratio (ORR) between IV hydromorphone and oral morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD) may lead to poorly controlled pain or overdosing in cancer inpatients.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to determine the CR and ORR from IV hydromorphone to oral hydromorphone and MEDD (obtained from oral morphine and oxycodone).

METHODS

A total of 4745 consecutive inpatient palliative care consults during 2010-14 were reviewed for conversions from IV hydromorphone to oral hydromorphone, morphine or oxycodone. Patient characteristics, symptoms, and opioid doses were determined in patients successfully discharged on oral opioids without readmission within one week. Linear regression analysis was used to estimate the CR or ORR between the 24 hour IV hydromorphone mg dose before conversion and the oral opioid mg dose used before discharge.

RESULTS

Among 394 patients on IV hydromorphone, 147 underwent conversion to oral hydromorphone and 247 underwent rotation to oral morphine (163) or oxycodone (84). The median (interquartile range) CR from IV to PO hydromorphone was 2.5 (2.14-2.75) with correlation of 0.95 (P < 0.0001). The median ORR (interquartile range) from IV hydromorphone to MEDD was 11.46 (9.84-13.00) with correlation of 0.93(P < 0.0001). The median ORR was 11.54 in patients receiving <30 mg of IV hydromorphone/day and 9.86 in patients receiving ≥30 mg (P = 0.0004).

CONCLUSION

Our study found that 1 mg of IV hydromorphone is equivalent to 2.5 mg of oral hydromorphone and 11.46 mg of MEDD. Hydromorphone at doses ≥30 mg/day may require a lower ORR to other opioids.

Palliative Care of Adult Patients With Cancer

BACKGROUND

In Germany, the annual mortality rate from cancer in the year 2011 was 269.9 deaths per 100 000 persons; every fourth death was due to cancer. A central objective of palliative care is to maintain the best possible quality of life for cancer patients right up to the end of their lives.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched for pertinent publications, and the ones that were selected were assessed as recommended by the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. As part of the German Guideline Program in Oncology, recommendations for the S3 Guideline on Palliative Care concerning seven different topics in the management of adult patients with incurable cancer were developed by a representative expert panel employing a consensus process.

RESULTS

Opioids are the drugs of first choice for severe and moderately severe cancer-related pain, and for breathlessness. No clinically relevant respiratory depression was observed in any study. When opioids are used, accompanying medication to prevent constipation is recommended. Drugs other than opioids are ineffective against breathlessness, but clinical experience has shown that benzodiazepines and opioids can be used in combination in advanced stages of disease, or if the patient suffers from marked anxiety. Depression should be treated even in patients with a short life expectancy; psychotherapy is indicated, and antidepressant medication is indicated as well if depression is at least moderately severe. Communication skills, an essential component of palliative care, play a major role in conversations between the physician and the patient about the diagnosis, the prognosis, and the patient's wish to hasten death. When the dying phase begins, tumor-specific treatments should be stopped.

CONCLUSION

Palliative care should be offered to cancer patients with incurable disease. Generalist and specialist palliative care constitute a central component of patient care, with the goal of achieving the best possible quality of life for the patient.

Comparison of the Tolerability Profile of Controlled-Release Oral Morphine and Oxycodone for Cancer Pain Treatment. An Open-Label Randomized Controlled Trial

CONTEXT

Oxycodone and morphine are recommended as first-choice opioids for moderate/severe cancer pain, but evidence about their relative tolerability has significant methodological limitations.

OBJECTIVES

This study was mainly aimed at comparing the risk of developing adverse events (AEs) with controlled-release oral morphine vs. oxycodone; secondary aims were comparing their analgesic efficacy and testing heterogeneity in tolerability across different age and renal function subgroups.

METHODS

An open-label multicenter RCT (EudraCT number: 2006-003151-21) was carried out in patients with moderate/severe cancer pain. At baseline, 7 and 14 days, patients scored on 0-10 rating scales (0-10 numerical rating scale) the intensity of pain and of a list of common opioid side effects. The primary end point was the percentage of patients reporting an AE (a worsening ≥ 2 points on any of the listed side effects); tolerability by subgroups and average follow-up pain intensity were compared through regression models.

RESULTS

One hundred eighty-seven patients were enrolled (47% of originally planned). Intention to treat (ITT) analysis (N = 185, morphine 94, oxycodone 91) did not show any difference in the risk of developing AEs (risk difference -0.6%, 95% CI -11.0% to 9.9%) nor in analgesia (0-10 numerical rating scale pain intensity difference -0.28, 95% CI -0.83 to 0.27). No evidence of heterogeneity of tolerability across age and renal function patient subgroups emerged.

CONCLUSION

This trial failed to show any difference in tolerability and analgesic efficacy of morphine and oxycodone as first-line treatment for moderate/severe cancer pain but results interpretation is difficult due to lack of power, potential bias from open-label design, and concerns about assay sensitivity. These data, however, can significantly contribute to future meta-analyses comparing WHO Step-III opioids and are relevant in designing future randomized studies.

Once-Daily OROS Hydromorphone for Management of Cancer Pain: an Open-Label, Multi-Center, Non-Interventional Study

Extended-release osmotic extended-release oral delivery system (OROS) hydromorphone is a strong synthetic opioid designed to maintain a constant blood concentration by once daily dosing. The objective of this observational study was to investigate the clinical usefulness of OROS hydromorphone in patients with cancer pain of moderate to severe intensity. Patients with cancer pain who required strong opioids were administered with OROS hydromorphone for 4 weeks. We assessed changes in pain intensity using a numerical rating scale (NRS) as well as levels of sleep disturbance, breakthrough pain, end-of-dose failure, patient satisfaction, and overall assessment of drug effectiveness based on investigator evaluation. Of the 648 enrolled patients, 553 patients were included in the full analysis set. The mean pain intensity was significantly decreased from the NRS value of 5.07 ± 1.99 to 2.75 ± 1.94 (mean % change of 42.13 ± 46.53, P < 0.001). The degree of sleep disturbance significantly improved (mean NRS change of 1.61 ± 2.57, P < 0.001), and the incidence of breakthrough pain was significantly decreased (mean NRS change of 1.22 ± 2.30, P < 0.001). The experience of end-of-dose failure also significantly decreased from 4.60 ± 1.75 to 3.93 ± 1.70, P = 0.007). The patient satisfaction rate was 72.7%, and 72.9% of investigators evaluated the study drug as effective. OROS hydromorphone was an effective and tolerable agent for cancer pain management. It effectively lowered pain intensity as well as improved sleep disturbance, breakthrough pain, and end-of-dose failure.

Hydromorphone for cancer pain

BACKGROUND

Cancer pain is an important and distressing symptom that tends to increase in frequency and intensity as the cancer advances. For people with advanced cancer, the prevalence of pain can be as high as 90%. It has been estimated that 30% to 50% of people with cancer categorise their pain as moderate to severe, with between 75% and 90% of people with cancer experiencing pain that they describe as having a major impact on their daily life. Epidemiological studies suggest that approximately 15% of people with cancer pain fail to experience acceptable pain relief with conventional management. Uncontrolled pain can lead to physical and psychological distress and can, consequently, have a drastic effect on people's quality of life.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the analgesic efficacy of hydromorphone in relieving cancer pain, as well as the incidence and severity of any adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase and clinical trials registers up to April 2016. There were no language, document type or publication status limitations applied in the search.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared hydromorphone with placebo or other active pain medication for cancer pain in both adults and children. The four main outcomes selected have previously been identified as important to people with cancer; pain no worse than mild pain, and the impact of the treatment on consciousness, appetite and thirst. We did not consider physician-, nurse- or carer-reported measures of pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we estimated the mean difference (MD) between groups and its 95% CI. We used a random-effects model and assessed the risk of bias for all included studies. A meta-analysis was not completed on any of the primary outcomes in this review due to the lack of data. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created two 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies (604 adult participants), which compared hydromorphone to oxycodone (two studies) or morphine (two studies). Overall, the included studies were at low or unclear risk of bias, rated unclear due to unknown status of blinding of outcome assessment; we rated three studies at high risk of bias for potential conflict of interest. Data for 504 participants were available for analysis. We collected data on endpoint participant-reported pain intensity measured with a visual analogue scale (VAS) (mean ± standard deviation (SD): hydromorphone 28.86 ± 17.08, n = 19; oxycodone 30.30 ± 25.33, n = 12; scale from 0 to 100 with higher score indicating worse pain), and Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) 24 hours worst pain subscale (mean ± SD: hydromorphone 3.5 ± 2.9, n = 99; morphine 4.3 ± 3.0, n = 101, scale from 0 to 10 with higher score indicating worse pain). The data demonstrated a similar effect between groups with both comparisons. The pain intensity data showed that participants in all four trials achieved no worse than mild pain. There were several adverse events: some were the expected opioid adverse effects such as nausea, constipation and vomiting; others were not typical opioid adverse effects (for example, decreased appetite, dizziness and pyrexia, as shown in Table 1 in the main review), but generally showed no difference between groups. There were three deaths in the morphine group during the trial period, considered to be due to disease progression and unrelated to the drug. Three trials had over 10% dropout, but the reason and proportion of dropout was balanced between groups. The overall quality of evidence was very low mainly due to high risk of bias, imprecision of effect estimates and publication bias. There were no data available for children or for several participant-important outcomes, including participant-reported pain relief and treatment impact on consciousness, appetite or thirst.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review indicated little difference between hydromorphone and other opioids in terms of analgesic efficacy. Data gathered in this review showed that hydromorphone had a similar effect on participant-reported pain intensity as reported for oxycodone and morphine. Participants generally achieved no worse than mild pain after taking hydromorphone, which is comparable with the other drugs. It produced a consistent analgesic effect through the night and could be considered for use in people with cancer pain experiencing sleep disturbance. However, the overall quality of evidence was very low mainly due to risk of bias, imprecision of effect estimates and publication bias. This review only included four studies with limited sample size and a range of study designs. Data for some important outcomes, such as impact of the treatment on consciousness, appetite or thirst, were not available. Therefore, we were unable to demonstrate superiority or inferiority of hydromorphone in comparison with other analgesics for these outcomes. We recommend that further research with larger sample sizes and more comprehensive outcome data collection is required.

Management of Chronic Pain in Survivors of Adult Cancers: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline

PURPOSE

To provide evidence-based guidance on the optimum management of chronic pain in adult cancer survivors.

METHODS

An ASCO-convened expert panel conducted a systematic literature search of studies investigating chronic pain management in cancer survivors. Outcomes of interest included symptom relief, pain intensity, quality of life, functional outcomes, adverse events, misuse or diversion, and risk assessment or mitigation.

RESULTS

A total of 63 studies met eligibility criteria and compose the evidentiary basis for the recommendations. Studies tended to be heterogeneous in terms of quality, size, and populations. Primary outcomes also varied across the studies, and in most cases, were not directly comparable because of different outcomes, measurements, and instruments used at different time points. Because of a paucity of high-quality evidence, many recommendations are based on expert consensus.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Clinicians should screen for pain at each encounter. Recurrent disease, second malignancy, or late-onset treatment effects in any patient who reports new-onset pain should be evaluated, treated, and monitored. Clinicians should determine the need for other health professionals to provide comprehensive pain management care in patients with complex needs. Systemic nonopioid analgesics and adjuvant analgesics may be prescribed to relieve chronic pain and/or to improve function. Clinicians may prescribe a trial of opioids in carefully selected patients with cancer who do not respond to more conservative management and who continue to experience distress or functional impairment. Risks of adverse effects of opioids should be assessed. Clinicians should clearly understand terminology such as tolerance, dependence, abuse, and addiction as it relates to the use of opioids and should incorporate universal precautions to minimize abuse, addiction, and adverse consequences. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/chronic-pain-guideline and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki.

Efficacy and Safety of Methadone as a Second-Line Opioid for Cancer Pain in an Outpatient Clinic: A Prospective Open-Label Study

INTRODUCTION

Most clinical reports on methadone rotation describe outcomes in hospitalized patients. The few studies that have included outpatients are retrospective. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of methadone as a second-line opioid in adult patients with advanced cancer after rotation in routine clinical practice at a palliative care outpatient clinic.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a prospective, open-label study of 145 patients whose treatment was rotated from other opioids to methadone. Informed consent was obtained in all cases. The main outcome measure was change in the variable "worst pain" at day 28. Pain and pain interference were assessed with the Brief Pain Inventory, with side effects evaluated according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 3.0. Pain levels were evaluated at study entry and at days 3, 7, 9, 14, 21, and 28.

RESULTS

Rotation to methadone was performed for the following reasons: poor pain control (77.9%), opioid side effects (2.1%), or both (20%). The mean daily oral morphine equivalent dose before rotation was 193.7 mg. The median worst and average pain scores decreased significantly (p < .0001) from baseline to day 28: The median worst pain score decreased from 9 (interquartile range [IQR]: 8-10) to 6 (IQR: 3-8), and the median average pain score decreased from 6 (IQR: 5-7) to 4 (IQR: 2-5). The proportions of patients with moderate to severe worst and average pain decreased by 30.3% and 47.5%, respectively, by day 28. No increase in opioid toxicity was observed during the study.

CONCLUSION

In outpatients with advanced cancer, rotation to methadone as a second-line opioid was efficacious and safe when using a tiered scheme with close follow-up by experienced health professionals.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The results of this study, conducted prospectively under real clinical conditions, support the efficacy and safety of oral methadone as a second-line opioid in ambulatory patients with cancer. Moreover, these findings corroborate previously reported outcomes in retrospective outpatient studies and prospective studies that evaluated inpatient populations. Although more research into methadone rotation strategies is still needed, this study describes a successful tiered scheme of oral methadone rotation that was proven safe and effective during follow-up.

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.

Preservation of organ function in head and neck cancer

Preservation of function is a crucial aspect for the evaluation of therapies applied in the field of head and neck cancer. However, preservation of anatomic structures cannot automatically be equated with preservation of function. Functional outcome becomes increasingly important particularly for the evaluation of alternative treatment options with equivalent oncological outcomes.AS A RESULT, PRESENT STUDIES TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THREE TOPIC AREAS WITH VARYING EMPHASIS: (1) the effects of cancer therapy on essential physiological functions, (2) additional therapy-induced side-effects and complications, and (3) health-related quality of life. The present article summarizes vital aspects of clinical research from recent years. Functional outcomes after surgical and non-surgical treatment approaches are presented according to tumor localization and staging criteria. Additional methodological aspects relating to data gathering and documentation as well as challenges in implementing the results in clinical practice are also discussed.

Opioid genetics in the context of opioid switching

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

On a population level, there is no difference in terms of efficacy or side-effects between any of the strong opioids. On an individual level, however, there is marked variation in response to opioids. This review presents some of the recent advances in opioid pharmacogenetic studies.

RECENT FINDINGS

A growing number of genes have been studied in a number of different patient populations. Most data have come from candidate-gene studies. There have been two genome-wide association studies in pain and opioid response. The clinical and genetic complexity of response to opioids has limited the clinical applicability of the genetic results. Currently, interindividual variation in opioid response is managed clinically through a process known as opioid switching. The evidence supporting the efficacy of opioid switching is poor, mainly because randomized controlled trials in this area are lacking.

SUMMARY

Adequately powered studies to allow identification of genetic variants with small effect size and exploration of gene-gene interaction are needed. Integration of genetic analysis in clinical studies with carefully defined outcome measures will increase the likelihood of identifying clinical and genetic factors which can be used to predict opioid response.

Use of opioid analgesics in the treatment of cancer pain: evidence-based recommendations from the EAPC

Here we provide the updated version of the guidelines of the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) on the use of opioids for the treatment of cancer pain. The update was undertaken by the European Palliative Care Research Collaborative. Previous EAPC guidelines were reviewed and compared with other currently available guidelines, and consensus recommendations were created by formal international expert panel. The content of the guidelines was defined according to several topics, each of which was assigned to collaborators who developed systematic literature reviews with a common methodology. The recommendations were developed by a writing committee that combined the evidence derived from the systematic reviews with the panellists' evaluations in a co-authored process, and were endorsed by the EAPC Board of Directors. The guidelines are presented as a list of 16 evidence-based recommendations developed according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system.

Is morphine still the best reference opioid?

SUMMARY Cancer and noncancer pain can usually be managed according to the WHO analgesic ladder and, in many countries, morphine remains the first-line opioid of choice for chronic severe pain. There have been many advances in the use of opioids for moderate-to-severe pain control in recent years. Consequently, the position of morphine as the gold standard became gradually more questioned, mostly because of serious adverse effects and the availability of different opioids and new formulations. The place of morphine as the first-line option is based on reasons of familiarity, availability or cost rather than medical advantages. In recent years, a number of systematic reviews failed to demonstrate superiority of morphine over other opioids in terms of efficacy or tolerability. Moreover, some strong opioids have shown improved tolerability or convenience. Currently, morphine might still be considered as a reference drug for equivalent dosing, but not for strategic healthcare decisions, as it has not demonstrated clinical or pharmacological superiority over other opioids. Therefore, there is a lack of evidence to sustain the role of morphine as the gold standard in the treatment of chronic severe pain.

The use of high doses of OROS hydromorphone in an acute palliative care unit

OBJECTIVES

To characterize patients who received high doses of OROS hydromorphone (OROD-HY), a retrospective study of patients admitted in an acute pain relief and palliative care unit for a period of two years (from June 2009 to June 2011) was performed.

METHODS

Globally, 79 patients were prescribed OROS-HY during admission at mean maximum doses of 68 mg/day (±42). Twenty-two patients were switched from other opioids to OROS-HY and 16 patients were switched from OROS-HY to other opioids. Sixty-three patients were discharged home with a prescription of OROS-HY with doses of 53 mg/day (±44). Doses were significantly lower in older patients (p < 0.005). The mean admission time was 6.1 days (±3.2). During admission 10 patients (12.6%) were prescribed doses of OROS-HY of more than 64 mg/day.

RESULTS

The maximum mean doses of this group of patients reached during admission were 238 mg/day. Eight of them were successfully treated and discharged home with doses of 175 mg/day. Two patients did not achieve an adequate balance between analgesia and adverse effects and received alternative treatments.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that OROS-HY administered in larger doses was relatively safe and effective, showing versatility and flexibility similar to other opioids.