Topical morphine for treatment of cancer-related painful mucosal and cutaneous lesions: a double-blind, placebo-controlled cross-over clinical trial

Morphine (10, 20 mg) in a Postoperative Dressing Used with Patients After Surgical Debridement of Burn Wounds: A Prospective, Double-Blinded, Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective: This is the first clinical trial to evaluate the analgesic effect of 10 and 20 mg of morphine used in a postoperative dressing with patients after surgical debridement of burn wounds. Approach: In this randomized controlled trial, 20 adult patients with third-degree flame burns, who had undergone surgical debridement under general anesthesia, were randomly assigned to either group A, whose members were treated with a burn dressing that contained 10 mg of morphine, or group B, whose members were treated with a burn dressing that contained 20 mg of morphine; the dressing was also soaked with octenidine and phenoxyethanol in the case of both groups. The plasma morphine concentrations were measured 1, 2, 3, and 6 h after surgery, while the level of pain intensity was determined on the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NRS), and the occurrence of side effects was observed. Results: The serum morphine concentration levels were very low, but statistically different between the two groups at all time points. The NRS value was similar in both groups at all time points (p > 0.05). Despite this, in group B, the NRS value was 0 in all patients in postoperative hours 1, 2, and 3. No adverse effect of morphine sulfate was observed in any patient. Innovation: This project is the first clinical study to have demonstrated that morphine administered in dressings in concentrations of 0.02-0.08 mg/mL significantly reduces the occurrence of pain. Conclusion: The use of morphine in dressings after surgical treatment of burn wounds is very effective when it comes to pain management and is safe for the patient.

European consensus-based interdisciplinary guideline for invasive cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma: Part 2. Treatment-Update 2023

In order to update recommendations on treatment, supportive care, education, and follow-up of patients with invasive cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC), a multidisciplinary panel of experts from the European Association of Dermato-Oncology (EADO), the European Dermatology Forum (EDF), the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS), the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV), and the European Organisation of Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) was formed. Recommendations were based on an evidence-based literature review, guidelines, and expert consensus. Treatment recommendations are presented for common primary cSCC (low risk, high risk), locally advanced cSCC, regional metastatic cSCC (operable or inoperable), and distant metastatic cSCC. For common primary cSCC, the first-line treatment is surgical excision with postoperative margin assessment or micrographically controlled surgery. Achieving clear surgical margins is the most important treatment consideration for patients with cSCCs amenable to surgery. Regarding adjuvant radiotherapy for patients with high-risk localised cSCC with clear surgical margins, current evidence has not shown significant benefit for those with at least one high-risk factor. Radiotherapy should be considered as the primary treatment for non-surgical candidates/tumours. For cSCC with cytologically or histologically confirmed regional nodal metastasis, lymph node dissection is recommended. For patients with metastatic or locally advanced cSCC who are not candidates for curative surgery or radiotherapy, anti-PD-1 agents are the first-line systemic treatment, with cemiplimab being the first approved systemic agent for advanced cSCC by the Food and Drugs Administration/European Medicines Agency. Second-line systemic treatments for advanced cSCC, include epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (cetuximab) combined with chemotherapy or radiotherapy. Multidisciplinary board decisions are mandatory for all patients with advanced cSCC, considering the risks of toxicity, the age and frailty of patients, and co-morbidities, including immunosuppression. Patients should be engaged in informed, shared decision-making on management and be provided with the best supportive care to improve symptom management and quality of life. The frequency of follow-up visits and investigations for subsequent new cSCC depends on underlying risk characteristics.

Localized Drug Delivery Systems: An Update on Treatment Options for Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinomas

Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is one of the most common cancers in the world, with surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy being the primary treatment modalities. The treatment for HNSCC has evolved over time, due to which the prognosis has improved drastically. Despite the varied treatment options, major challenges persist. HNSCC chemotherapeutic and immunotherapeutic drugs are usually administered systemically, which could affect the patient's quality of life due to the associated side effects. Moreover, the systemic administration of salivary stimulating agents for the treatment of radiation-induced xerostomia is associated with toxicities. Localized drug delivery systems (LDDS) are gaining importance, as they have the potential to provide non-invasive, patient-friendly alternatives to cancer therapy with reduced dose-limiting toxicities. LDDSs involve directly delivering a drug to the tissue or organ affected by the disease. Some of the common localized routes of administration include the transdermal and transmucosal drug delivery system (DDSs). This review will attempt to explore the different treatment options using LDDSs for the treatment of HNSCC and radiotherapy-induced damage and their potential to provide a better experience for patients, as well as the obstacles that need to be addressed to render them successful.

Topical therapy for pain management in malignant fungating wounds: A scoping review

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To map and synthesise the existing literature on topical therapies for malignant fungating wounds pain management and the gaps involved.

BACKGROUND

Most cancer patients with malignant fungating wounds suffer from wound-related pain, affecting their quality of life. Unfortunately, even though pain is a relevant symptom in cancer and palliative care, little is currently known about topical treatments' availability and impact on pain management.

DESIGN

A scoping review following JBI® methodology METHODS: Searches were performed in CINAHL, LILACS, Embase, Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane, NICE, Scopus, JBISRIR and grey literature, in English, Portuguese and Spanish, with no time limit. Two authors independently reviewed all citations and a third was called in case of divergence, and studies in adults with malignant fungal wounds reporting topical pain interventions were included. In addition, a data extraction tool for synthesis and thematic analysis was developed. This study followed the PRISMA-ScR Checklist.

RESULTS

Seventy publications were selected from 796 records retrieved from databases. The studies mainly included non-systematic reviews and case studies with only six clinical trials. According to the narrative synthesis, twenty therapies were identified, including the use of wound dressings (58.6%), analgesic drugs (55.7%), topical antimicrobials (25.7%), skin barriers (15.7%), cryotherapy (5.7%) and negative pressure wound therapy (4.3%). Therapies were recommended to be applied to the wound bed or the periwound skin. In 68.5% of the studies, a standardised assessment for pain was not described.

CONCLUSIONS

Topical therapies applied to malignant fungating wounds or periwound areas had been examined for pain management. However, their effectiveness was analysed in a few interventional studies, indicating the need for further primary studies to inform evidence-based practice.

IMPLICATION FOR PRACTICE

Highlighted topical therapies for clinical practice consideration are opioids, anaesthetics and antimicrobials, with positive results described in randomised clinical trials. This study did not include patients.

Efficacy and Safety of Topical Morphine: A Narrative Review

Background. Opioids are the cornerstone of the therapy used in both acute and chronic pain syndromes to treat pain of moderate to severe intensity. The knowledge that opioid receptors also occur in other tissues outside the central nervous system has created a possibility for the topical use of opioids. Thus, local analgesia may be obtained without systemic adverse effects. Methods. A narrative review of scientific papers discussing the topical use of morphine was conducted. For this purpose, the PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, and Mendeley databases were searched. Results. The current knowledge on topical morphine does not allow for its recommended use in everyday medical practice, but suggests it may be effective, particularly in the treatment of ulcers and erosions of inflammatory etiology and painful skin lesions including persistent post-mastectomy pain due to breast cancer. Conclusions. Topical morphine has its place beside other analgesics. An important issue is the practical possibility to meet the demand for topical formulations, which is limited by technical difficulties.

Pathogenesis and Amelioration of Radiation-Induced Oral Mucositis

OPINION STATEMENT

Oral mucositis (OM) causes significant detriment to patient quality of life. Despite advances in RT, chemotherapy, and surgery for HNC which have led to improved local control and survival, management of certain toxicities such as OM have not kept pace. Numerous strategies have emerged with demonstrable benefit in preventing severe OM. However, ones which are not only effective, but practical and affordable to implement are rare. For example, infusion of growth factors or free radical scavengers, and daily treatment of intra-oral sites with lasers are supported by high-quality evidence but have not become widely adopted. It falls to familiarity of the physician with the available preventative measures and ultimately, patient preference in accepting which strategies for OM amelioration are used. In this review, we present a pathophysiological-based review of prevention techniques available for reducing the incidence and duration of severe OM.

Evaluation of topical morphine for treatment of oral mucositis in cancer patients

Introduction

Oral mucositis is a painful side effect to chemotherapy. Orally applied opioids may offer analgesia with fewer side effects than systemic opioids.

Methods

A randomized trial comparing the analgesic effect of a morphine oromucosal solution (OM) to placebo and a positive control group receiving intravenous (IV) morphine as an add-on treatment to morphine patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) in a mixed population of paediatric and adult haematology patients. All patients in the study were equipped with a morphine PCA pump and the participating patients were instructed to use this pump as an escape. Primary outcome was morphine consumption (mg/kg/hour) on the PCA pump. Secondary outcomes included pain intensity difference at rest and when performing oral hygiene, time to first PCA bolus, nutrition intake and adverse events.

Findings

A total of 60 patients (38 children <18 years) were randomized. Thirty patients were allocated to morphine OM/placebo IV (group MO), 15 patients to placebo OM/morphine IV (group MI) and 15 patients to placebo OM/placebo IV (group P). The median morphine consumption in the MO group (22.7 mcg/kg/hour 95% confidence interval (CI) 19.4-29.4 mcg/kg/hour, p = 0.38) was not significantly different from the placebo group (24.6 mcg/kg/hour 95% CI 16.8-34.4 mcg/kg/hour, p = 0.44) or the MI group (13.7 mcg/kg/hour 95% CI 9.7-37.8 mcg/kg/hour). For the secondary outcomes, the analysis of summed pain intensity difference after the first, third and fourth administrations of study medication indicated a reduction in pain for the MI group compared to the P and MO groups. No serious adverse events were reported.

Conclusion

The findings indicate that the analgesic effect of peripherally applied morphine is not significantly different from placebo, and parenteral opioids should continue to be the standard of care.

Scoping Review of Off-Label Topical Analgesia in Palliative, Hospice and Cancer Care: Towards Flexibility in Evidence-Based Medicine

Purpose

Scoping reviews address the nature of the literature per se rather than inferring evidence-based treatment guidelines. Scoping reviews of the published literature are intended to describe the aggregated nature of the evidence surrounding some agent or intervention, in contrast to systematic reviews that seek when possible to guide clinical practice. We conducted a scoping review to identify reports of potential clinical utility of off-label topical analgesics and adjuvants when FDA-approved treatments have proven inadequate.

Methods

We performed a comprehensive search of three databases (PubMed, Web of Science and Embase) for articles dating from 1947 to the present. Mindful that FDA-approved and WHO-recommended analgesic medications often prove inadequate for individual patients in extremis with palliative, hospice or cancer pain, we used broad, structured inclusion criteria to retrieve articles.

Results

We retrieved 12,100 articles; after screening, we had 39 reports addressing 19 different topical agents out of the 32 chemical entities. Our scoping review disclosed evidence about agents that might not have met inclusion criteria for clinical practice guidelines.

Discussion

Although generally considered lower quality evidence, case reports or series present suggestions for diverse topical medications to manage pain in challenging circumstances when high-quality evidence for agents and routes of administration is lacking.

Conclusion

Patients with the greatest need for evidence to identify and guide lesser-used agents during aggressive pain management are the most difficult to enroll and follow in standardized, controlled and/or blinded clinical trials. This scoping review identifies medications, dosages, and routes of topical agents reported to be effective in these often-challenging circumstances. Until larger and higher quality studies are completed, we must rely on the best available evidence even if of lower quality.

Terapia tópica para el tratamiento del dolor en heridas neoplásicas malignas: protocolo de revisión de alcance

BACKGROUND

A total of 14.5% of cancer patients develop malignant neoplastic wounds (MNW), characterised as friable, exudative, fetid, bleeding, and painful. Some studies report that all patients with MNW experience pain, but there is lack of scientific evidence to support their treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To map and examine the existing evidence on topical therapies to manage pain in adult patients with MNW.

METHOD

A scoping review protocol was designed, according to the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology. The databases CINAHL, LILACS, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane, NICE, Scopus, JBISRIR and the grey literature, for searching published and unpublished studies in English, Portuguese and Spanish. The selection will be made by at least two reviewers. The summary of the results will be narrative, with graphs and tables. Qualitative and quantitative studies and reviews will be included, describing the use of topical pain therapies in patients with MNW.

CONCLUSION

This study will allow to classify and discuss the available topical therapies, and to recommend future primary studies.

Topical Treatments and Their Molecular/Cellular Mechanisms in Patients with Peripheral Neuropathic Pain-Narrative Review

Neuropathic pain in humans results from an injury or disease of the somatosensory nervous system at the peripheral or central level. Despite the considerable progress in pain management methods made to date, peripheral neuropathic pain significantly impacts patients' quality of life, as pharmacological and non-pharmacological methods often fail or induce side effects. Topical treatments are gaining popularity in the management of peripheral neuropathic pain, due to excellent safety profiles and preferences. Moreover, topical treatments applied locally may target the underlying mechanisms of peripheral sensitization and pain. Recent studies showed that peripheral sensitization results from interactions between neuronal and non-neuronal cells, with numerous signaling molecules and molecular/cellular targets involved. This narrative review discusses the molecular/cellular mechanisms of drugs available in topical formulations utilized in clinical practice and their effectiveness in clinical studies in patients with peripheral neuropathic pain. We searched PubMed for papers published from 1 January 1995 to 30 November 2020. The key search phrases for identifying potentially relevant articles were "topical AND pain", "topical AND neuropathic", "topical AND treatment", "topical AND mechanism", "peripheral neuropathic", and "mechanism". The result of our search was 23 randomized controlled trials (RCT), 9 open-label studies, 16 retrospective studies, 20 case (series) reports, 8 systematic reviews, 66 narrative reviews, and 140 experimental studies. The data from preclinical studies revealed that active compounds of topical treatments exert multiple mechanisms of action, directly or indirectly modulating ion channels, receptors, proteins, and enzymes expressed by neuronal and non-neuronal cells, and thus contributing to antinociception. However, which mechanisms and the extent to which the mechanisms contribute to pain relief observed in humans remain unclear. The evidence from RCTs and reviews supports 5% lidocaine patches, 8% capsaicin patches, and botulinum toxin A injections as effective treatments in patients with peripheral neuropathic pain. In turn, single RCTs support evidence of doxepin, funapide, diclofenac, baclofen, clonidine, loperamide, and cannabidiol in neuropathic pain states. Topical administration of phenytoin, ambroxol, and prazosin is supported by observational clinical studies. For topical amitriptyline, menthol, and gabapentin, evidence comes from case reports and case series. For topical ketamine and baclofen, data supporting their effectiveness are provided by both single RCTs and case series. The discussed data from clinical studies and observations support the usefulness of topical treatments in neuropathic pain management. This review may help clinicians in making decisions regarding whether and which topical treatment may be a beneficial option, particularly in frail patients not tolerating systemic pharmacotherapy.

Peripheral Mechanisms of Neuropathic Pain-the Role of Neuronal and Non-Neuronal Interactions and Their Implications for Topical Treatment of Neuropathic Pain

Neuropathic pain in humans arises as a consequence of injury or disease of somatosensory nervous system at peripheral or central level. Peripheral neuropathic pain is more common than central neuropathic pain, and is supposed to result from peripheral mechanisms, following nerve injury. The animal models of neuropathic pain show extensive functional and structural changes occurring in neuronal and non-neuronal cells in response to peripheral nerve injury. These pathological changes following damage lead to peripheral sensitization development, and subsequently to central sensitization initiation with spinal and supraspinal mechanism involved. The aim of this narrative review paper is to discuss the mechanisms engaged in peripheral neuropathic pain generation and maintenance, with special focus on the role of glial, immune, and epithelial cells in peripheral nociception. Based on the preclinical and clinical studies, interactions between neuronal and non-neuronal cells have been described, pointing out at the molecular/cellular underlying mechanisms of neuropathic pain, which might be potentially targeted by topical treatments in clinical practice. The modulation of the complex neuro-immuno-cutaneous interactions in the periphery represents a strategy for the development of new topical analgesics and their utilization in clinical settings.

Peripherally acting opioid analgesics and peripherally-induced analgesia

The management of pain, particularly chronic pain, is still an area of medical need. In this context, opioids remain a gold standard for the treatment of pain. However, significant side effects, mainly of central origin, limit their clinical use. Here, we review recent progress to improve the therapeutic and safety profiles of opioids for pain management. Characterization of peripheral opioid-mediated pain mechanisms have been a key component of this process. Several studies identified peripheral µ, δ, and κ opioid receptors (MOR, DOR, and KOR, respectively) and nociceptin/orphanin FQ (NOP) receptors as significant players of opioid-mediated antinociception, able to achieve clinically significant effects independently of any central action. Following this, particularly from a medicinal chemistry point of view, main efforts have been directed towards the peripheralization of opioid receptor agonists with the objective of optimizing receptor activity and minimizing central exposure and the associated undesired effects. These activities have allowed the characterization of a great variety of compounds and investigational drugs that show low central nervous system (CNS) penetration (and therefore a reduced side effect profile) yet maintaining the desired opioid-related peripheral antinociceptive activity. These include highly hydrophilic/amphiphilic and massive molecules unable to easily cross lipid membranes, substrates of glycoprotein P (a extrusion pump that avoids CNS penetration), nanocarriers that release the analgesic agent at the site of inflammation and pain, and pH-sensitive opioid agonists that selectively activate at those sites (and represent a new pharmacodynamic paradigm). Hopefully, patients with pain will benefit soon from the incorporation of these new entities.

Scalable in silico Simulation of Transdermal Drug Permeability: Application of BIOiSIM Platform

INTRODUCTION

Transdermal drug delivery is gaining popularity as an alternative to traditional routes of administration. It can increase patient compliance because of its painless and noninvasive nature, aid compounds in bypassing presystemic metabolic effects, and reduce the likelihood of adverse effects through decreased systemic exposure. In silico physiological modeling is critical to predicting dermal exposure for a therapeutic and assessing the impact of different formulations on transdermal disposition.

METHODS

The present study aimed at developing a physiologically based transdermal platform, "BIOiSIM", that could be globally applied to a wide variety of compounds to predict their transdermal disposition. The platform integrates a 16-compartment model of compound pharmacokinetics and was used to simulate and predict drug exposure of three chemically and biologically distinct drug-like compounds. Machine learning optimization was composed of two components: exhaustive search algorithm (coarse-tuning) and descent (fine-tuning) integrated with the platform used to quantitatively determine parameters influencing pharmacokinetics (eg permeability, kperm) of test compounds.

RESULTS

The model successfully predicted drug exposure (AUC, Cmax and Tmax) following transdermal application of morphine, buprenorphine and nicotine in human subjects, mostly with less than two-fold absolute average fold error (AAFE). The model was further able to successfully characterize the relationship between observed systemic exposure and intended pharmacological effect. The predicted systemic concentration of morphine and plasma levels of endogenous pain biomarkers were used to estimate the effectiveness of a given therapeutic regimen.

CONCLUSION

BIOiSIM marks a novel approach to in silico prediction that will enable leveraging of machine learning technology in the pharmaceutical space. The approach to model development outlined results in scalable, accurate models and enables the generation of large parameter/coefficient datasets from in vivo clinical data that can be used in future work to train quantitative structure activity relationship (QSAR) models for predicting likelihood of compound utility as a transdermally administered therapeutic.

A Practical Approach to Using Adjuvant Analgesics in Older Adults

The adjuvant analgesics are a large and diverse group of drugs that were developed for primary indications other than pain and are potentially useful analgesics for one or more painful conditions. The "adjuvant" designation reflects their early use as opioid co-analgesics for cancer pain. During the past 3 decades, their role in pain management has changed with the advent of many new entities, emerging data from numerous analgesic trials, and growing clinical experience. Many of these drugs are now used as primary analgesics for specific types of chronic pain. With proper patient selection and cautious administration, they can potentially contribute meaningfully to the management of chronic pain in older adults. A practical approach categorizes the many adjuvant analgesics by broad indications: multipurpose drugs and drugs that target neuropathic pain, musculoskeletal pain, and cancer pain, respectively. This article reviews the status of the evidence supporting the analgesic potential of the adjuvant analgesics and discusses best practices in terms of drug selection and dosing. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:691-698, 2020.

European interdisciplinary guideline on invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the skin: Part 2. Treatment

In order to update recommendations on treatment, supportive care, education and follow-up of patients with invasive cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC), a multidisciplinary panel of experts from the European Dermatology Forum, the European Association of Dermato-Oncology and the European Organization of Research and Treatment of Cancer was formed. Recommendations were based on evidence-based literature review, guidelines and expert consensus. Treatment recommendations are presented for common primary cSCC (low risk, high risk), locally advanced cSCC, regional metastatic cSCC (operable or inoperable) and distant metastatic cSCC. For common primary cSCC (the most frequent cSCC type), first-line treatment is surgical excision with postoperative margin assessment or microscopically controlled sugery. Safety margins containing clinical normal-appearing tissue around the tumour during surgical excision and negative margins as reported in the pathology report are necessary to minimise the risk of local recurrence and metastasis. In case of positive margins, a re-excision shall be done, for operable cases. Lymph node dissection is recommended for cSCC with cytologically or histologically confirmed regional nodal involvement. Radiotherapy should be considered as curative treatment for inoperable cSCC, or for non-surgical candidates. Anti-PD-1 antibodies are the first-line systemic treatment for patients with metastatic or locally advanced cSCC who are not candidates for curative surgery or radiation, with cemiplimab being the first approved systemic agent for advanced cSCC by the Food and Drug Administration/European Medicines Agency. Second-line systemic treatments for advanced cSCC include epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (cetuximab) combined with chemotherapy or radiation therapy. Multidisciplinary board decisions are mandatory for all patients with advanced disease who require more than surgery. Patients should be engaged with informed decisions on management and be provided with best supportive care to optimise symptom management and improve quality of life. Frequency of follow-up visits and investigations for subsequent new cSCC depend on underlying risk characteristics.