Optimizing use of opiates in the management of cancer pain

Toward a Psychological Model of Chemical Coping with Opioids in Cancer Care

LEARNING OBJECTIVES AFTER PARTICIPATING IN THIS CME ACTIVITY, THE PSYCHIATRIST SHOULD BE BETTER ABLE TO

• Outline the risk factors involved with opioid accessibility in patients receiving treatment for cancer.• Identify factors to address in order to mitigate risk for opioid misuse during cancer care.

ABSTRACT

Most patients with advanced cancer receive treatment for related pain. Opioid accessibility, however, is a risk factor for misuse, which can present care challenges and quality-of-life concerns. There is a lack of consistent universal screening prior to initiation of opioid prescribing. One crucial issue in treating this population is adequately identifying and mitigating risk factors driving opioid misuse. Drawing on theory and research from addiction science, psychology, palliative care, and oncology, the presented conceptual framework suggests that risk factors for opioid misuse during cancer care can be stratified into historical, current, malleable, and unmalleable factors. The framework identifies necessary factors to address in order to mitigate risk for opioid misuse during cancer care, and offers key directions for future research.

An acceptance and commitment therapy-based intervention for opioid use disorder risk in individuals with cancer: A treatment development study

This paper describes the iterative development of an evidence-based behavioral intervention for individuals with cancer at risk for opioid use disorder, using the National Institutes of Health Stage Model for Behavioral Intervention Development. Adult patients with cancer from an outpatient palliative care clinic at an academic cancer center, with moderate to high risk of opioid misuse, were enrolled in a treatment development study that aimed to increase psychological flexibility. In this intervention, psychological flexibility is the posited mechanism of change for reduction of opioid use disorder risk. Patients completed baseline (pre-intervention) assessments, a six-session behavioral intervention based in Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, post-intervention assessments, and a semi-structured exit interview. Ten patients with moderate to high risk of opioid misuse completed the intervention. Patients rated the intervention as highly acceptable and were generally highly satisfied. Patients reported finding the coping skills helpful (e.g., mindfulness, cognitive defusion) and reported a preference for more sessions. These treatment development efforts have implications for the development and design of acceptance- and mindfulness-based, targeted interventions for individuals with cancer, receiving palliative care and at risk for opioid use disorder. Specifically, this six-session behavioral intervention to increase psychological flexibility was acceptable to patients and ready to be studied in a pilot RCT.

Pharmacogenomics of Opioid Treatment for Pain Management

Pain affects approximately 100 million Americans. Pain harms quality of life and costs patients billions of dollars per year. Clinically, nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic therapies can alleviate acute and chronic pain suffering. Opioids are one type of medication used to manage pain. However, opioids can potentially create dependence and substance abuse, and the effects are not consistent in all patients. Pharmacogenomics is the study of the genome to understand the effects of drugs on individual patients based on their genetic information. Through pharmacogenomics, researchers can investigate genetic polymorphisms related to pain that maximize individual patient drug responses and minimize toxicity. This chapter discusses the pharmacogenomics of opioids to treat pain, including individual genetic differences to opioid treatments, opioid pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, and the genetic polymorphisms associated with individual opioid medications.

Animal Models of Cancer-Related Pain: Current Perspectives in Translation

The incidence of pain in cancer patients during diagnosis and treatment is exceedingly high. Although advances in cancer detection and therapy have improved patient prognosis, cancer and its treatment-associated pain have gained clinical prominence. The biological mechanisms involved in cancer-related pain are multifactorial; different processes for pain may be responsible depending on the type and anatomic location of cancer. Animal models of cancer-related pain have provided mechanistic insights into the development and process of pain under a dynamic molecular environment. However, while cancer-evoked nociceptive responses in animals reflect some of the patients’ symptoms, the current models have failed to address the complexity of interactions within the natural disease state. Although there has been a recent convergence of the investigation of carcinogenesis and pain neurobiology, identification of new targets for novel therapies to treat cancer-related pain requires standardization of methodologies within the cancer pain field as well as across disciplines. Limited success of translation from preclinical studies to the clinic may be due to our poor understanding of the crosstalk between cancer cells and their microenvironment (e.g., sensory neurons, infiltrating immune cells, stromal cells etc.). This relatively new line of inquiry also highlights the broader limitations in translatability and interpretation of basic cancer pain research. The goal of this review is to summarize recent findings in cancer pain based on preclinical animal models, discuss the translational benefit of these discoveries, and propose considerations for future translational models of cancer pain.

Opioid use in patients undergoing treatment for oral cavity cancer

OBJECTIVE

In the context of the opioid epidemic, there is value in examining the use of opioids in specific cancer patient cohorts. We analyzed opioid use in patients undergoing adjuvant therapy for oral cavity cancer to define the incidence of new persistent use beyond 3 months.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective.

SETTING

Comprehensive academic cancer center.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective IRB-approved analysis of opioid use in patients who received adjuvant radiotherapy with or with concurrent systemic therapy for surgically resected oral cavity cancer between 2003 and 2016. Factors associated with opioid use were evaluated by Chi-square test and one-way ANOVA. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate overall survival.

RESULTS

Of 77 identified patients, 10 (13%) patients received opioid prescriptions at 3 months or greater following completion of radiotherapy. Patients who were opioid naive prior to surgery required significantly fewer opioid prescriptions than intermittent or chronic opioid users. No specific factors were associated with new persistent opioid use.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing surgery and adjuvant radiotherapy for oral cavity cancer who required opioids for cancer treatment related pain are at minimal risk for new dependency. Judicious pain management should be applied for patients with a history of prior opioid use. Larger patient cohorts will be needed to identify patient, disease, and treatment characteristics associated with new persistent use given its limited incidence.

Outcomes Associated with Treatment of Chronic Pain with Tapentadol Compared with Morphine and Oxycodone: A UK Primary Care Observational Study

Introduction

This study compared adverse outcomes and resource use for patients with a diagnosis of pain treated with tapentadol prolonged-release (PR) versus those treated with morphine controlled-release (CR) and oxycodone CR.

Methods

Data were sourced from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), a database derived from UK primary care. Patients prescribed tapentadol PR between May 2011 and December 2016 were selected and matched to two groups of controls treated with either morphine CR or oxycodone CR on gender, age, pain duration, pain site, pain aetiology, Charlson index and prior analgesia. Times to first adverse event (constipation or nausea/vomiting) were compared within a Cox proportional hazards model. Rates of primary care contacts, accident and emergency contacts and, for a subset of patients linked to Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), inpatient admissions and outpatient contacts were compared using incidence rate ratios (IRRs) derived from Poisson regression.

Results

A total of 1907 patients prescribed tapentadol PR were identified and 1791 (93.9%) had a pain diagnosis. Of these 1246 (65.3%) were matched to morphine controls and 829 (43.4%) to oxycodone controls. Compared to controls, gastrointestinal adverse events with tapentadol PR treatment were reduced; aHR = 0.532 (0.402–0.703; p < 0.001) versus morphine CR and 0.517 (0.363–0.735; p < 0.001) versus oxycodone CR. Compared with morphine CR, primary care contacts [IRR = 0.831 (0.802–0.861)], accident and emergency attendance [0.739 (0.572–0.951)], outpatient contacts [0.917 (0.851–0.989)] and inpatients contacts [0.789 (0.664–0.938)] were reduced. For oxycodone, the respective figures were 0.735 (0.703–0.768), 0.971 (0.699–1.352), 0.877 (0.799–0.962) and 0.748 (0.601–0.932).

Conclusion

Tapentadol PR was associated with significantly fewer adverse gastrointestinal events than morphine CR and oxycodone CR in patients with a diagnosis of pain. There was also significantly reduced primary and secondary care resource use. As with all observational studies, potential bias due to residual confounding and confounding by indication should be considered.

Funding

Grünenthal Ltd.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-019-00932-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

An update on the safety of prescribing opioids in pediatrics

INTRODUCTION

The opioid abuse epidemic and its toll on the adolescent population have heightened awareness for safer opioid prescribing practices in pediatric pain management. Opioids remain the mainstay of therapy for severe pain, although there is an emphasis on multimodal therapy. Areas covered: In this update, the authors present information on parenteral/oral opioids commonly used in pediatrics. Recommendations for opioid use in special circumstances including neonates and developmental pharmacokinetic concerns are discussed. Due to noticeable interindividual variability, pharmacogenomics may be important for tailoring pain regimens. In particular, the role of CYP2D6 phenotypes on opioid selection/dosing and clinical implications are discussed. A summary of adverse effects and opioid safety data, and the role of regulations, risk assessment, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines, follow-up, and monitoring for compliance in opioid prescribing, are detailed. Expert opinion: 'One size does not fit all' describes the need for public policies focused on pediatric pain and opioid use, as children are not 'little adults.' Clinical trials to evaluate pharmacokinetics-pharmacodynamics of opioids are currently lacking. Development of novel biased opioid agonists, clinical integration of genetics in informed decision-making, and emphasis on top-down approaches to pain management will be key to decrease opioid reliance.

Pharmacokinetics, safety and tolerability of a novel tocopheryl phosphate mixture/oxycodone transdermal patch system: a Phase I study

AIM

To characterize the pharmacokinetic profile and evaluate the safety and tolerability of a transdermal oxycodone patch containing tocopheryl phosphate mixture (TPM).

PATIENTS & METHODS

Eleven healthy subjects received a single application of three TPM/oxycodone patches applied to the torso for 72 h.

RESULTS

Oxycodone was detected 8.0 ± 2.7-h postpatch administration, reaching a mean maximum plasma concentration of 3.41 ± 1.34 ng/ml at 49.3 ± 21.2 h. The safety profile was consistent with the application method and known side-effect profile of oxycodone and naltrexone. No treatment-limiting skin irritation was observed.

CONCLUSION

A 3-day application of the TPM/oxycodone patch demonstrated an acceptable safety profile and was well tolerated by healthy subjects, with limited dermal irritation following application.

Cognitive Effects and Sedation

OBJECTIVE

Cognitive effects and sedation (CES) are prevalent in chronic nonmalignant pain populations receiving long-term opioid therapy and are among the most common reasons patients discontinue opioid use. In this narrative review, we describe the phenomenology, epidemiology, mechanisms, assessment, and management of opioid-related CES.

DESIGN

We reviewed the empirical and theoretical literature on CES in opioid-treated populations with chronic pain. Data on long-term opioid therapy (≥ 3 months in duration) in chronic nonmalignant pain patients were sought.

RESULTS

The phenomenology of CES includes: inattention, concentration difficulties, memory deficits, psychomotor dysfunction, perceptual distortions, and executive dysfunction and somnolence, sleep disorders, and lethargy. Deficits may be caused by unrelieved pain or opioid therapy alone, or from a combination of these and other factors. Mechanisms include central nervous system effects, for example, direct toxic effects on neurons resulting in decreased consciousness; direct effects on processing and reaction resulting in cognitive or psychomotor impairment, and inhibitory effects on cholinergic activity. Pharmacological management approaches may include opioid dose reduction and rotation or psychostimulant use. Nonpharmacological approaches may include cognitive-behavioral therapy, mindfulness-based stress reduction, acupuncture, exercise, and yoga.

CONCLUSIONS

The most prevalent CES include: memory deficits (73-81%), sleep disturbance (35-57%), and fatigue (10%). At its most severe, extreme cognitive dysfunction can result in frank delirium and decreased alertness can result in coma. Emotional distress, sleep disorders, and other comorbidities and treatments can worsen CES, particularly among the elderly. Conclusions about the neuropsychological domains affected by opioids are limited due to the heterogeneity of studies and methodological issues.

Direct conversion from tramadol to tapentadol prolonged release for moderate to severe, chronic malignant tumour-related pain

Background

A recent randomized‐withdrawal, active‐ and placebo‐controlled, double‐blind phase 3 study showed that tapentadol prolonged release (PR) was effective and well tolerated for managing moderate to severe, chronic malignant tumour‐related pain in patients who were opioid naive or dissatisfied with current treatment (Pain Physician, 2014, 17, 329–343). This post hoc, subgroup analysis evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of tapentadol PR in patients who previously received and were dissatisfied with tramadol for any reason and who had a pain intensity ≥5 (11‐point numerical rating scale) before converting directly to tapentadol PR.

Methods

In the original study, eligible patients had been randomized (2:1) and titrated to their optimal dose of tapentadol PR (100–250 mg bid) or morphine sulphate‐controlled release (40–100 mg bid) over 2 weeks. The present report focuses on results during the titration period for a subgroup of patients randomized to tapentadol PR after having been on tramadol treatment prior to randomization in the study (n = 129). Results for this subgroup are compared with results for all 338 patients who received tapentadol PR during titration (overall tapentadol PR group).

Results

Responder rates (responders: completed titration, mean pain intensity <5 [0–10 scale] and ≤20 mg/day rescue medication during last 3 days) were slightly better for the tramadol/tapentadol PR subgroup (69.8% [90/129]) vs. the overall tapentadol PR group (63.9% [214/335]). Tolerability profiles were comparable for both groups.

Conclusions

Results of this subgroup analysis indicate that patients with cancer pain could safely switch from prior treatment with the weak centrally acting analgesic tramadol directly to the strong centrally acting analgesic tapentadol PR, for an improved analgesic therapy for severe pain.

What does this study add?

Results of this post hoc analysis show that patients who had received prior tramadol therapy could switch directly to tapentadol PR, with the majority (˜70%) experiencing improved efficacy.

Ready conversion of patients with well-controlled, moderate to severe, chronic malignant tumor-related pain on other opioids to tapentadol extended release

Background and Objectives

The effectiveness and tolerability of tapentadol extended release (ER), a centrally acting analgesic with μ-opioid receptor agonist and norepinephrine (noradrenaline) reuptake inhibitor activities, have been demonstrated in patients with chronic pain, including those switching directly from prior opioid therapy. The objective of the current study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of conversion to oral tapentadol ER (50–250 mg twice daily) from previous around-the-clock strong opioid therapy in patients with moderate to severe, chronic malignant tumor–related cancer pain that was well-controlled.

Methods

This randomized, open-label, phase III study, which was conducted in Japan, included a 1- to 2-week screening period (on previous opioid) and an 8-week, open-label treatment period. Eligible patients, who were taking a strong opioid analgesic and had a mean pain intensity score <4 during the 3 days prior to randomization (adequate pain control on previous strong opioid), were randomized (1:1) to receive twice-daily treatment with tapentadol ER (100–500 mg/day) or morphine sustained release (SR; 20–140 mg/day; reference for assay sensitivity). Initial doses were estimated based on the conversion ratio of tapentadol ER:oxycodone:morphine:fentanyl = 10:2:3:0.03. The primary effectiveness endpoint was the proportion of patients who maintained pain control [change from baseline in mean pain intensity (11-point numerical rating scale) less than +1.5 for 3 consecutive days and no more than two doses of rescue medication per day for 3 consecutive days) during the first week of open-label treatment.

Results

In the tapentadol ER group (n = 50), 84.0 % of patients (42/50; 95 % CI, 70.89–92.83) maintained pain control during Week 1. On the Patient Global Impression of Change, 2.1 % (1/48), 2.1 % (1/48), 22.9 % (11/48), and 50.0 % (24/48) of patients in the tapentadol ER group reported that their overall condition was “very much improved,” “much improved,” “minimally improved,” and “not changed,” respectively, at Week 1 compared with 0 %, 10.7 % (3/28), 28.6 % (8/28), and 53.6 % (15/28) reporting these ratings at Week 8. The sensitivity of effectiveness analyses was validated based on results using morphine SR; 98.0 % (49/50; 95 % CI, 89.35–99.95) of patients in the morphine SR group maintained pain control after 1 week of treatment. The overall safety profile was similar to that demonstrated in previous studies; tapentadol ER was associated with a lower incidence of gastrointestinal treatment-emergent adverse events than morphine SR [38.0 % (19/50) vs. 54.0 % (27/50)], including constipation [12.0 % (6/50) vs. 20.0 % (10/50)] and vomiting [6.0 % (3/50) vs. 26.0 % (13/50)].

Conclusions

Overall, results indicate that conversion from previous strong opioids to tapentadol ER (50–250 mg twice daily) was successful and resulted in safe and effective pain control with improved gastrointestinal tolerability versus morphine SR in patients with moderate to severe cancer-related pain that was well-controlled on their previous opioid.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40261-014-0204-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Use of opioid analgesics or sleeping medication and survival of cancer patients

PURPOSE OF THE RESEARCH

Pain and sleep disturbance have been shown to have a profound influence on the outcomes of cancer treatment. This study sought to determine whether administering opioid analgesics or sleeping medication to cancer patients during their first admission to a hospital is associated with poor prognoses.

METHODS AND SAMPLE

We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study by analyzing data obtained from the National Health Insurance Research Database in Taiwan. The study population comprised cancer patients whose first admission to a hospital for initial cancer treatment was in 2004.

KEY RESULTS

We collected data on 2302 cancer patients. To analyze the effect of opioid analgesic and sleeping medication usage on cancer patient survival, we compared the 3-year survival rates among 4 groups of patients (no use, sleeping medications-only, opioid analgesics-only, both used). The 3-year Kaplan-Meier plots for these 4 groups show that the difference was statistically significant (log rank 48.244, p < 0.001). The longevity of cancer patients was the greatest among the no-use group, followed by the sleeping medications-only group, then the opioid analgesics-only group, and finally, the group in which both sleeping medications and opioid analgesics were used.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of opioid analgesics or sleeping medication was shown to be negatively correlated with the survival rate of cancer patients.