Comparison of analgesic effect of oxycodone and morphine on patients with moderate and advanced cancer pain: a meta-analysis

Patient-Controlled Subcutaneous Analgesia with Hydromorphone versus Oral Oxycontin for Opioid Titration of Cancer Pain: A Prospective Multicenter Randomized Trial

Background

Studies have shown that oral oxycontin tablets can be used for opioid titration. The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) guidelines for adult cancer pain recommend opioid titration through the parenteral route, usually the intravenous or subcutaneous route. Patient-controlled subcutaneous analgesia (PCSA) with hydromorphone needs further evaluation for opioid titration. This prospective multicenter study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of hydromorphone PCSA with oral oxycontin tablets for opioid titration of cancer pain.

Patients and Methods

Eligible patients with cancer pain were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the PCSA group or the oxycontin group for dose titration. Different titration methods were given in both groups depending on whether the patient had an opioid tolerance. The primary endpoint of this study was time to successful titration (TST).

Results

A total of 256 patients completed this study. The PCSA group had a significantly lower TST compared with the oxycontin group (median [95% confidence interval (CI)], 5.5[95% CI:2.5-11.5] hours vs.16.0 [95% CI:11.5-22.5] hours; p<0.001). The frequency (median; interquartile) of breakthrough pain (Btp) over 24 hours was significantly lower in the PCSA group (2.5;2.0-3.5) than in the oxycontin group.(3.0; 2.5-4.5) (p=0.04). The pain was evaluated by numeric rating scale (NRS) score at 12 hours after the start of titration. The pain score (median; interquartile) was significantly lower in the PCSA versus the oxycontin group (2.5;1.5-3.0) vs 4.5;3.0-6.0) (p=0.02). The equivalent dose of oral morphine (EDOM) for a successful titration was similar in both groups (p=0.29), but there was a significant improvement in quality of life (QoL) in both groups (p=0.03). No between-group difference in the incidence of opioid-related adverse effects was observed (p=0.32).

Conclusion

Compared with oral oxycontin tablet, the use of PCSA with hydromorphone achieved a shorter titration duration for patients with cancer pain (p<0.001), without significantly increasing adverse events (p=0.32).

Oxycodone: A Current Perspective on Its Pharmacology, Abuse, and Pharmacotherapeutic Developments

Oxycodone, a semisynthetic derivative of naturally occurring thebaine, an opioid alkaloid, has been available for more than 100 years. Although thebaine cannot be used therapeutically due to the occurrence of convulsions at higher doses, it has been converted to a number of other widely used compounds that include naloxone, naltrexone, buprenorphine, and oxycodone. Despite the early identification of oxycodone, it was not until the 1990s that clinical studies began to explore its analgesic efficacy. These studies were followed by the pursuit of several preclinical studies to examine the analgesic effects and abuse liability of oxycodone in laboratory animals and the subjective effects in human volunteers. For a number of years oxycodone was at the forefront of the opioid crisis, playing a significant role in contributing to opioid misuse and abuse, with suggestions that it led to transitioning to other opioids. Several concerns were expressed as early as the 1940s that oxycodone had significant abuse potential similar to heroin and morphine. Both animal and human abuse liability studies have confirmed, and in some cases amplified, these early warnings. Despite sharing a similar structure with morphine and pharmacological actions also mediated by the μ-opioid receptor, there are several differences in the pharmacology and neurobiology of oxycodone. The data that have emerged from the many efforts to analyze the pharmacological and molecular mechanism of oxycodone have generated considerable insight into its many actions, reviewed here, which, in turn, have provided new information on opioid receptor pharmacology. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Oxycodone, a μ-opioid receptor agonist, was synthesized in 1916 and introduced into clinical use in Germany in 1917. It has been studied extensively as a therapeutic analgesic for acute and chronic neuropathic pain as an alternative to morphine. Oxycodone emerged as a drug with widespread abuse. This article brings together an integrated, detailed review of the pharmacology of oxycodone, preclinical and clinical studies of pain and abuse, and recent advances to identify potential opioid analgesics without abuse liability.

Restriction of oxycodone in the emergency department (ROXY-ED): A randomised controlled trial

Background

The prescription of opioids in emergency care has been associated with harm, including overdose and dependence. The aim of this trial was to assess restriction of access to oxycodone (ROXY), in combination with education and guideline modifications, versus education and guideline modifications alone (standard care) to reduce oxycodone administration in the Emergency Department (ED).

Methods

An unblinded, active control, randomised controlled trial was conducted in an adult tertiary ED. Participants were patients aged 18-75 years who had analgesics administered in the ED. The primary intervention was ROXY, through removal of all oxycodone immediate release tablets from the ED imprest, with availability of a small supply after senior clinician approval. The intervention did not restrict prescription of discharge medications. The primary outcome measure was oxycodone administration rates. Secondary outcomes were administration rates of other analgesic medications, time to initial analgesics and oxycodone prescription on discharge.

Results

There were 2258 patients eligible for analysis. Oxycodone was administered to 80 (6.1%) patients in the ROXY group and 221 (23.3%) patients in the standard care group (relative risk (RR) 0.26; 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.33; p < .001). Tapentadol was prescribed more frequently in the ROXY group (RR 2.17; 95% CI: 1.71-2.74), while there were no differences in prescription of other analgesic medications. On discharge, significantly fewer patients were prescribed oxycodone (RR 0.51; 95% CI: 0.39-0.66) and no differences were observed in prescription rates of other analgesic medications. There was no difference in time to first analgesic (HR 0.94; 95% CI: 0.86-1.02).

Conclusions

Restricted access to oxycodone was superior to education and guideline modifications alone for reducing oxycodone use in the ED and reducing discharge prescriptions of oxycodone from the ED. The addition of simple restrictive interventions is recommended to enable rapid changes to clinician behaviour to reduce the potential harm associated with the prescribing of oxycodone in the ED.

The Role of Pharmacogenomics in Opioid Prescribing

Pharmacogenomics is increasingly important to guide objective, safe, and effective individualised prescribing. Personalised prescribing has revolutionised treatments in the past decade, allowing clinicians to maximise drug efficacy and minimise adverse effects based on a person’s genetic profile. Opioids, the gold standard for cancer pain relief, are among the commonest medications prescribed in palliative care practice. This narrative review examines the literature surrounding opioid pharmacogenomics and its applicability to the palliative care cancer population. There is currently limited intersection between the fields of palliative care and pharmacogenomics, but growing evidence presents a need to build linkages between the two disciplines. Pharmacogenomic evidence guiding opioid prescribing is currently available for codeine and tramadol, which relates to CYP2D6 gene variants. However, these medications are prescribed less commonly for pain in palliative care. Research is accelerating with other opioids, where oxycodone (CYP2D6) and methadone (CYP2B6, ABCB1) already have moderate evidence of an association in terms of drug metabolism and downstream analgesic response and side effects. OPRM1 and COMT are receiving increasing attention and have implications for all opioids, with changes in opioid dosage requirements observed but they have not yet been studied widely enough to be considered clinically actionable. Current evidence indicates that incorporation of pharmacogenomic testing into opioid prescribing practice should focus on the CYP2D6 gene and its actionable variants. Although opioid pharmacogenomic tests are not widely used in clinical practice, the progressively reducing costs and rapid turnover means greater accessibility and affordability to patients, and thus, clinicians will be increasingly asked to provide guidance in this area. The upsurge in pharmacogenomic research will likely discover more actionable gene variants to expand international guidelines to impact opioid prescribing. This rapidly expanding area requires consideration and monitoring by clinicians in order for key findings with clinical implications to be accessible, meaningfully interpretable and communicated.

Oxycodone for cancer-related pain

BACKGROUND

Many people with cancer experience moderate to severe pain that requires treatment with strong opioids, such as oxycodone and morphine. Strong opioids are, however, not effective for pain in all people, neither are they well tolerated by all people. The aim of this review was to assess whether oxycodone is associated with better pain relief and tolerability than other analgesic options for adults with cancer pain. This is an updated Cochrane review previously published in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of oxycodone by any route of administration for pain in adults with cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Science Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (ISI Web of Science), BIOSIS (ISI), and PsycINFO (Ovid) to November 2021. We also searched four trial registries, checked the bibliographic references of relevant studies, and contacted the authors of the included studies. We applied no language, date, or publication status restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (parallel-group or cross-over) comparing oxycodone (any formulation or route of administration) with placebo or an active drug (including oxycodone) for cancer background pain in adults by examining pain intensity/relief, adverse events, quality of life, and participant preference.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently sifted the search, extracted data and assessed the included studies using standard Cochrane methodology. We meta-analysed pain intensity data using the generic inverse variance method, and pain relief and adverse events using the Mantel-Haenszel method, or summarised these data narratively along with the quality of life and participant preference data. We assessed the overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

For this update, we identified 19 new studies (1836 participants) for inclusion. In total, we included 42 studies which enrolled/randomised 4485 participants, with 3945 of these analysed for efficacy and 4176 for safety. The studies examined a number of different drug comparisons. Controlled-release (CR; typically taken every 12 hours) oxycodone versus immediate-release (IR; taken every 4-6 hours) oxycodone Pooled analysis of three of the four studies comparing CR oxycodone to IR oxycodone suggest that there is little to no difference between CR and IR oxycodone in pain intensity (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.1 to 0.34; n = 319; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on adverse events, including constipation (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.13), drowsiness/somnolence (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.54), nausea (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.28), and vomiting (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.15) (very low-certainty evidence). There were no data available for quality of life or participant preference, however, three studies suggested that treatment acceptability may be similar between groups (low-certainty evidence). CR oxycodone versus CR morphine The majority of the 24 studies comparing CR oxycodone to CR morphine reported either pain intensity (continuous variable), pain relief (dichotomous variable), or both. Pooled analysis indicated that pain intensity may be lower (better) after treatment with CR morphine than CR oxycodone (SMD 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.27; n = 882 in 7 studies; low-certainty evidence). This SMD is equivalent to a difference of 0.27 points on the Brief Pain Inventory scale (0-10 numerical rating scale), which is not clinically significant. Pooled analyses also suggested that there may be little to no difference in the proportion of participants achieving complete or significant pain relief (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.10; n = 1249 in 13 studies; low-certainty evidence). The RR for constipation (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.86) may be lower after treatment with CR oxycodone than after CR morphine. Pooled analyses showed that, for most of the adverse events, the CIs were wide, including no effect as well as potential benefit and harm: drowsiness/somnolence (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.05), nausea (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.12), and vomiting (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.04) (low or very low-certainty evidence). No data were available for quality of life. The evidence is very uncertain about the treatment effects on treatment acceptability and participant preference. Other comparisons The remaining studies either compared oxycodone in various formulations or compared oxycodone to different alternative opioids. None found any clear superiority or inferiority of oxycodone for cancer pain, neither as an analgesic agent nor in terms of adverse event rates and treatment acceptability. The certainty of this evidence base was limited by the high or unclear risk of bias of the studies and by imprecision due to low or very low event rates or participant numbers for many outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The conclusions have not changed since the previous version of this review (in 2017). We found low-certainty evidence that there may be little to no difference in pain intensity, pain relief and adverse events between oxycodone and other strong opioids including morphine, commonly considered the gold standard strong opioid. Although we identified a benefit for pain relief in favour of CR morphine over CR oxycodone, this was not clinically significant and did not persist following sensitivity analysis and so we do not consider this important. However, we found that constipation and hallucinations occurred less often with CR oxycodone than with CR morphine; but the certainty of this evidence was either very low or the finding did not persist following sensitivity analysis, so these findings should be treated with utmost caution. Our conclusions are consistent with other reviews and suggest that, while the reliability of the evidence base is low, given the absence of important differences within this analysis, it seems unlikely that larger head-to-head studies of oxycodone versus morphine are justified, although well-designed trials comparing oxycodone to other strong analgesics may well be useful. For clinical purposes, oxycodone or morphine can be used as first-line oral opioids for relief of cancer pain in adults.

Oxycodone in the Opioid Epidemic: High 'Liking', 'Wanting', and Abuse Liability

It is estimated that nearly a third of people who abuse drugs started with prescription opioid medicines. Approximately, 11.5 million Americans used prescription drugs recreationally in 2016, and in 2018, 46,802 Americans died as the result of an opioid overdose, including prescription opioids, heroin, and illicitly manufactured fentanyl (National Institutes on Drug Abuse (2020) Opioid Overdose Crisis. https://www.drugabuse.gov/drugs-abuse/opioids/opioid-overdose-crisis . Accessed 06 June 2020). Yet physicians will continue to prescribe oral opioids for moderate-to-severe pain in the absence of alternative therapeutics, underscoring the importance in understanding how drug choice can influence detrimental outcomes. One of the opioid prescription medications that led to this crisis is oxycodone, where misuse of this drug has been rampant. Being one of the most highly prescribed opioid medications for treating moderate-to-severe pain as reflected in the skyrocketed increase in retail sales of 866% between 1997 and 2007, oxycodone was initially suggested to be less addictive than morphine. The false-claimed non-addictive formulation of oxycodone, OxyContin, further contributed to the opioid crisis. Abuse was often carried out by crushing the pills for immediate burst release, typically by nasal insufflation, or by liquefying the pills for intravenous injection. Here, we review oxycodone pharmacology and abuse liability as well as present the hypothesis that oxycodone may exhibit a unique pharmacology that contributes to its high likability and abuse susceptibility. We will discuss various mechanisms that likely contribute to the high abuse rate of oxycodone including clinical drug likability, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, differences in its actions within mesolimbic reward circuity compared to other opioids, and the possibility of differential molecular and cellular receptor interactions that contribute to its selective effects. We will also discuss marketing strategies and drug difference that likely contributes to the oxycodone opioid use disorders and addiction.

The relationship between the expression of soluble programmed cell death-1 and cancer pain: A protocol for systematic review and meta analysis

BACKGROUND

The immune checkpoint programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) plays a critical role in immune regulation. Recent studies have demonstrated functional PD-1 expression in peripheral sensory neurons, which contributes to neuronal excitability, pain, and opioid analgesia. However, the relationship between the expression of soluble programmed cell death-1(sPD-1) and cancer pain is controversial. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between sPD-1 expression level and cancer pain through meta-analysis.

METHODS

Studies were selected from Pubmed, Web of science, Embase, Google Scholar, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. The standard mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using the random-effect model or fixed-effect model to assess the association between sPD-1 expression level and cancer pain. All analyses were performed with the Stata 14 software.

RESULTS

This review will be disseminated in print by peer-review.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study will help us to determine whether the expression level of sPD-1 is related to cancer pain.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The private information from individuals will not be published. This systematic review also should not endanger participant rights. Ethical approval is not available. The results may be published in a peer-reviewed journal or disseminated in relevant conferences.

OSF REGISTRATION NUMBER

DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/WDPUY.

Mitigating the opioid crisis for the lower extremity provider opioid stewardship programs

Opioids are an effective form of analgesia for pain treatment. Over prescribing of opioids agents have becom;1;e detrimental to the United States' public health. One of the most difficult challenges for any prescriber is to balance the potential benefits versus the potential risks of opioid prescribing. Addressing the opioid crisis requires an interprofessional team approach. The utilization of an opioid stewardship program provides the necessary frame work to identify gaps in the in quality and development in the implementation of a change of long standing opioid culture and practice. These programs address opioid prescribing, treatment for opioid use disorder, educational initiatives, and the use of information technology. A few acronyms have been created to assist providers to guide them when prescribing opioids. The purpose of this article is to explore the central theme of responsible opioid pain management. It will introduce, define, and defend with clinical base evidence a proposed acronym "MORPHINE" to assist and help shape prescription opioid strategies used for lower extremity pain. Implications for practicing lower extremity providers need to acknowledge the potential harm that prescribing opioids may cause to their patients. Opioid stewardship principles should become a priority in podiatric medicine and podiatric surgery.

Endogenous Opiates and Behavior: 2018

This paper is the forty-first consecutive installment of the annual anthological review of research concerning the endogenous opioid system, summarizing articles published during 2018 that studied the behavioral effects of molecular, pharmacological and genetic manipulation of opioid peptides and receptors as well as effects of opioid/opiate agonists and antagonists. The review is subdivided into the following specific topics: molecular-biochemical effects and neurochemical localization studies of endogenous opioids and their receptors (2), the roles of these opioid peptides and receptors in pain and analgesia in animals (3) and humans (4), opioid-sensitive and opioid-insensitive effects of nonopioid analgesics (5), opioid peptide and receptor involvement in tolerance and dependence (6), stress and social status (7), learning and memory (8), eating and drinking (9), drug abuse and alcohol (10), sexual activity and hormones, pregnancy, development and endocrinology (11), mental illness and mood (12), seizures and neurologic disorders (13), electrical-related activity and neurophysiology (14), general activity and locomotion (15), gastrointestinal, renal and hepatic functions (16), cardiovascular responses (17), respiration and thermoregulation (18), and immunological responses (19).

Independent Research on Cancer Pain Management in the Setting of Early Palliative Care: A Flywheel to Counteract General Opioid Misuse and Abuse

The increased recognition of the high prevalence and important burden of cancer pain and the documentation of a large proportion of patients receiving inadequate analgesic treatment should have reinforced the need for evidence-based recommendations. The World health Organization (WHO) guidelines on cancer pain management—or palliative care—are traditionally based on a sequential, three-step, analgesic ladder according to pain intensity: nonopioids (paracetamol or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) to mild pain in step I; weak opioids (eg, codeine or tramadol) to mild-moderate pain in step II; and strong opioids to moderate-severe pain in step. III. Despite the widespread use of this ladder, unrelieved pain continues to be a substantial concern in one third of patients with either solid or hematologic malignancies. The sequential WHO analgesic ladder, and in particular, the usefulness of step II opioids have been questioned but there are no universally used guidelines for the treatment of pain in patients with advanced cancer and not all guideline recommendations are evidence-based. The American Society of Clinical Oncology and the European Society of Medical Oncology have recommended the implementation of early palliative care (EPC), which is a novel model of care, consisting of delivering dedicated palliative service concurrent with active treatment as early as possible in the cancer disease trajectory. Improvement in cancer pain management is one of the several important positive effects following EPC interventions. Independent well-designed research studies on pharmacological interventions on cancer pain, especially in the EPC setting are warranted and may contribute to spur research initiatives to investigate the poorly addressed issues of pain management in non cancer patients.

Intracerebroventricular administration of CYX-6, a potent μ-opioid receptor agonist, a δ- and κ-opioid receptor antagonist and a biased ligand at μ, δ & κ-opioid receptors, evokes antinociception with minimal constipation and respiratory depression in rats in contrast to morphine

Mu opioid receptor (MOPr) agonists are thought to produce analgesia via modulation of G-protein-coupled intracellular signalling pathways whereas the β-arrestin2 pathway is proposed to mediate opioid-related adverse effects. Here, we report the antinociception, constipation and respiratory depressant profile of CYX-6, a potent MOPr agonist that is also a delta and a kappa opioid receptor (DOPr/KOPr) antagonist and that lacks β-arrestin2 recruitment at each of the MOPr, DOPr and the KOPr. In anaesthetised male Sprague Dawley rats, an intracerebroventricular (i.c.v.) guide cannula was stereotaxically implanted. After 5-7 days post-surgical recovery, rats received a single i.c.v. bolus dose of CYX-6 (3-30 nmol), morphine (100 nmol) or vehicle. Antinociception was assessed using the warm water tail flick test (52.5 ± 0.5 °C). Constipation was assessed using the charcoal meal gut motility test and the castor oil-induced diarrhoea test. Respiratory depression was measured by whole-body plethysmography in awake, freely moving animals, upon exposure to a hypercapnic gas mixture (8% CO2, 21% O2 and 71% N2). The intrinsic pharmacology of CYX-6 given by the i.c.v. route in rats showed that it produced dose-dependent antinociception. It also produced respiratory stimulation rather than depression and it had a minimal effect on intestinal motility in contrast to the positive control, morphine. CYX-6 is an endomorphin-2 analogue that dissociates antinociception from constipation and respiratory depression in rats. Our findings provide useful insight to inform the discovery and development of novel opioid analgesics with a superior tolerability profile compared with morphine.

Correction to: Comparison of analgesic effect of oxycodone and morphine on patients with moderate and advanced cancer pain: a meta-analysis

After publication of this article [1], the authors noted that the corresponding email address is incorrect.