A comparison between the administration of oral prolonged-release oxycodone-naloxone and transdermal fentanyl in patients with moderate-to-severe cancer pain: a propensity score analysis

BACKGROUND

Opioids are the most important pharmacological treatment for moderate-to-severe cancer pain, but side effects limit their use. Transdermal fentanyl (TDF) and oral prolonged-release oxycodone-naloxone (OXN-PR) are effective in controlling chronic pain, with less constipation compared to other opioids. However, TDF and OXN-PR have never been directly compared.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Cancer patients with moderate-to-severe chronic pain were consecutively enrolled in two prospective 28-day trials, received either TDF or OXN-PR, and were assessed at baseline and after 7, 14, 21, and 28 days. The primary endpoint was 28-day analgesic response rate (average pain intensity decrease ≥30% from baseline). Other outcome measures included opioid daily dose changes over time; need for adjuvant analgesics; number of switches; premature discontinuation; presence and severity of constipation; and other adverse drug reactions. To compare the efficacy and the safety of TDF and OXN-PR, we used the propensity score analysis to adjust for heterogeneity between the two patient groups.

RESULTS

Three hundred ten out of 336 patients originally treated (119 TDF and 191 OXN-PR) were included in the comparative analysis. The amount of responders was comparable after TDF (75.3%) and OXN-PR administration (82.9%, not significant [NS]). The final opioid daily dose expressed as morphine equivalent was 113.6 mg for TDF and 44.5 mg for OXN-PR (p<0.0001). A daily opioid dose escalation >5% was less common after OXN-PR (19.3%) than after TDS administration (37.9%, p<0.0001). Opioid switches and discontinuation were similar in both groups. Severe constipation in the two groups was comparable (32.6% after TDF vs 24.7% after OXN-PR, NS). Nausea, vomiting, and dry mouth were significantly less frequent in the OXN-PR group than in the TDF group.

CONCLUSION

Despite a similar analgesic activity in moderate-to-severe cancer pain, OXN-PR is characterized by lower daily dosages, less need for drug escalation, and fewer side effects compared to TDF.

Are strong opioids equally effective and safe in the treatment of chronic cancer pain? A multicenter randomized phase IV 'real life' trial on the variability of response to opioids

BACKGROUND

Guidelines tend to consider morphine and morphine-like opioids comparable and interchangeable in the treatment of chronic cancer pain, but individual responses can vary. This study compared the analgesic efficacy, changes of therapy and safety profile over time of four strong opioids given for cancer pain.

PATIENT AND METHODS

In this four-arm multicenter, randomized, comparative, of superiority, phase IV trial, oncological patients with moderate to severe pain requiring WHO step III opioids were randomly assigned to receive oral morphine or oxycodone or transdermal fentanyl or buprenorphine for 28 days. At each visit, pain intensity, modifications of therapy and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were recorded. The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of nonresponders, meaning patients with worse or unchanged average pain intensity (API) between the first and last visit, measured on a 0-10 numerical rating scale. (NCT01809106).

RESULTS

Forty-four centers participated in the trial and recruited 520 patients. Worst pain intensity and API decreased over 4 weeks with no significant differences between drugs. Nonresponders ranged from 11.5% (morphine) to 14.4% (buprenorphine). Appreciable changes were made in the treatment schedules over time. Each group required increases in the daily dose, from 32.7% (morphine) to 121.2% (transdermal fentanyl). Patients requiring adjuvant analgesics ranged from 68.9% (morphine) to 81.6% (oxycodone), switches varied from 22.1% (morphine) to 12% (oxycodone), discontinuation of treatment from 27% ( morphine) to 14.5% (fentanyl). ADRs were similar except for effects on the nervous system, which significantly prevailed with morphine.

CONCLUSION

The main findings were the similarity in pain control, response rates and main adverse reactions among opioids. Changes in therapy schedules were notable over time. A considerable proportion of patients were nonresponders or poor responders.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01809106 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01809106?term=cerp&rank=2).

Evaluation of the comparative analgesic effectiveness of transdermal and oral opioids in cancer patients: a propensity score analysis

BACKGROUND

Transdermal delivery systems containing fentanyl or buprenorphine, despite the relatively lack of comparative studies, have reached an impressive share of the market in several countries. In the context of a wider observational study, we applied the propensity score to test the comparative effectiveness of the two routes of administration (oral vs. transdermal).

METHODS

We applied the propensity score in a subgroup of patients (starting the World Health Organization third step therapy during the scheduled follow-up of 28 days) using pre-planned primary (pain intensity change) and secondary endpoints, such as increase in doses, need for switching and safety profile. Univariate and multivariate analyses were carried out.

RESULTS

Three-hundred sixty-six eligible cases were analysed. We found a difference among the two groups in terms of variables potentially associated with therapy choice and outcomes. After adjusting for propensity score, results were in favour of transdermal delivery systems for the primary endpoint (odds ratio 1.68; p = 0.04). A similar trend was also present for the other secondary endpoints. Only in the case of nausea and vomiting, patients receiving transdermal delivery systems reported a higher frequency of events.

CONCLUSION

The application of the propensity score has helped understand better the actual effectiveness of transdermal delivery systems that are at least equivalent to the oral opioids, and even more effective for pain intensity reduction.