Opioids Switching with Transdermal Systems in Chronic Cancer Pain

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Due to tolerance development and adverse side effects, chronic pain patients frequently need to be switched to alternative opioid therapy</p> <p>Objective</p> <p>To assess the efficacy and tolerability of an alternative transdermally applied (TDS) opioid in patients with chronic cancer pain receiving insufficient analgesia using their present treatment.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A total of 32 patients received alternative opioid therapy, 16 were switched from buprenorphine to fentanyl and 16 were switched from fentanyl to buprenorphine. The dosage used was 50% of that indicated in equipotency conversion tables. Pain relief was assessed at weekly intervals for the next 3 weeks</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Pain relief as assessed by VAS, PPI, and PRI significantly improved (p < 0.0001) in all patients at all 3 follow up visits. After 3 weeks of treatment, the reduction in the mean VAS, PPI, and PRI scores in the fentanyl and buprenorphine groups was 68, 77, 74, and 69, 79, and 62%, respectively. Over the same time period the use of oral morphine as rescue medication was reduced from 27.5 ± 20.5 (mean ± SD) to 3.75 ± 8.06, and 33.8 ± 18.9 to 3.75 ± 10.9 mg/day in the fentanyl and buprenorphine groups, respectively. There was no significant difference in either pain relief or rescue medication use between the two patient groups The number of patient with adverse events fell during the study. After the third week of the treatment the number of patients with constipation was reduced from 11 to 5, and 10 to 4 patients in the fentanyl and buprenorphine groups, respectively. There was a similar reduction in the incidence of nausea and vomiting. No sedation was seen in any patient after one week of treatment.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Opioid switching at 50% of the calculated equianalgesic dose produced a significant reduction in pain levels and rescue medication. The incidence of side effects decreased and no new side effects were noted. Further studies are required to provide individualized treatment for patients according to their different types of cancer.</p

A randomized, double-blind comparison of OROS® hydromorphone and controlled-release morphine for the control of chronic cancer pain

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Long-acting opioid formulations are advocated for maintaining pain control in chronic cancer pain. OROS^®hydromorphone is a sustained-release formulation of hydromorphone that requires dosing once daily to maintain therapeutic concentrations. The objective of this study was to demonstrate the clinical equivalence of immediate-release and sustained-release formulations of hydromorphone and morphine for chronic cancer pain.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>200 patients with cancer pain (requiring ≤ 540 mg/d of oral morphine) participated in this double-blind, parallel-group trial. Patients were randomized to receive hydromorphone or morphine (immediate-release for 2–9 days, sustained-release for 10–15 days). Efficacy was assessed with the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), investigator and patient global evaluations, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and the Mini-Mental State Examination. The primary endpoint was the 'worst pain in the past 24 hours' item of the BPI, in both the immediate-release and sustained-release study phases, with treatments deemed equivalent if the 95% confidence intervals (CI) of the between-group differences at endpoint were between -1.5 and 1.5. No equivalence limits were defined for secondary endpoints.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Least-squares mean differences (95% CI) between groups were 0.2 (-0.4, 0.9) in the immediate-release phase and -0.8 (-1.6, -0.01) in the sustained-release phase (intent-to-treat population), indicating that the immediate-release formulations met the pre-specified equivalence criteria, but that the lower limit of the 95% CI (-1.6) was outside the boundary (-1.5) for the sustained-release formulations. BPI 'pain now PM' was significantly lower with OROS^®hydromorphone compared with controlled-release morphine (least-squares mean difference [95% CI], -0.77 [-1.49, -0.05]; <it>p </it>= 0.0372). Scores for other secondary efficacy variables were similar between the two sustained-release treatments. At endpoint, > 70% of investigators and patients rated both treatments as good to excellent. The safety profiles of hydromorphone and morphine were similar and typical of opioid analgesics.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Equivalence was demonstrated for immediate-release formulations of hydromorphone and morphine, but not for the sustained-release formulations of OROS^®hydromorphone and controlled-release morphine. The direction of the mean difference between the treatments (-0.8) and the out-of-range lower limit of the 95% CI (-1.6) were in favor of OROS^®hydromorphone.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT0041054</p

Cutpoints for mild, moderate and severe pain in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee ready for joint replacement surgery

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Cutpoints (CPs) for mild, moderate and severe pain are established and used primarily in cancer pain. In this study, we wanted to determine the optimal CPs for mild, moderate, and severe pain in joint replacement surgery candidates with osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip or knee, and to validate the different CPs.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Patients (n = 353) completed the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), the WOMAC Arthritis Index, and the SF-36 health status measure. Optimal CPs for categorizing average pain with three severity levels were derived using multivariate analysis of variance, using different CP sets for average pain as the independent variable and seven interference items from the BPI as the dependent variable. To validate the CPs, we assessed if patients in the three pain severity groups differed in pain as assessed with WOMAC and SF-36, and if BPI average pain with the optimal CPs resulted in higher correlation with pain dimensions of the WOMAC and SF-36 than other CPs.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The optimal CPs on the 0–10 point BPI scale were CP (4,6) among hip patients and CP (4,7) among knee patients. The resulting pain severity groups differed in pain, as assessed with other scales than those used to derive the CPs. The optimal CPs had the highest association of average pain with WOMAC pain scores.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>CPs for pain severity differed somewhat for patients with OA of the hip and knee. The association of BPI average pain scores categorized according to the optimal CPs with WOMAC pain scores supports the validity of the derived optimal CPs.</p

Interference with work in fibromyalgia - effect of treatment with pregabalin and relation to pain response

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials in chronic pain often collect information about interference with work as answers to component questions of commonly used questionnaires but these data are not normally analysed separately. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of individual patient data from four large trials of pregabalin for fibromyalgia lasting 8-14 weeks. We analysed data on interference with work, inferred from answers to component questions of Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ), Short Form 36 Health Survey, Sheehan Disability Scale, and Multidimensional Assessment of Fatigue, including "How many days in the past week did you miss work, including housework, because of fibromyalgia?" from FIQ. Analyses were performed according to randomised treatment group (pregabalin 150-600 mg daily or placebo), pain improvement (0-10 numerical pain rating scale scores at trial beginning vs. end), and end of trial pain state (100 mm visual analogue pain scale [VAS]). RESULTS: Comparing treatment group average outcomes revealed modest improvement over the duration of the trials, more so with active treatment than with placebo. For the 'work missed' question from FIQ the change for patients on placebo was from 2.2 (standard deviation [SD] 2.3) days of work lost per week at trial beginning to 1.9 (SD 2.1) days lost at trial end (p &lt; 0.01). For patients on 600 mg pregabalin the change was from 2.1 (SD 2.2) days to 1.6 (SD 2.0) days (p &lt; 0.001). However, the change in days of work lost was substantial in patients with a good pain response: from 2.0 (SD 2.2) days to 0.97 (SD 1.6) days (p &lt; 0.0001) for those experiencing &gt;/= 50% pain improvement and from 1.9 (SD 2.2) days to 0.73 (SD 1.4) days (p &lt; 0.0001) for those achieving a low level of pain at trial end (&lt;30 mm on the VAS). Patients achieving both &gt;/= 50% pain improvement and a pain score &lt;30 mm on the VAS had the largest improvement, from 2.0 (SD 2.2) days to 0.60 (SD 1.3) days (p &lt; 0.0001). Analysing answers to the other questions yielded qualitatively similar results. CONCLUSIONS: Effective pain treatment goes along with benefit regarding work. A reduction in time off work &gt;1 day per week can be achieved in patients with good pain responses

Therapist Effects and the Impact of Early Therapeutic Alliance on Symptomatic Outcome in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

Few studies have examined therapist effects and therapeutic alliance (TA) in treatments for chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). Therapist effects are the differences in outcomes achieved by different therapists. TA is the quality of the bond and level of agreement regarding the goals and tasks of therapy. Prior research suffers the methodological problem that the allocation of therapist was not randomized, meaning therapist effects may be confounded with selection effects. We used data from a randomized controlled treatment trial of 296 people with CFS. The trial compared pragmatic rehabilitation (PR), a nurse led, home based self-help treatment, a counselling-based treatment called supportive listening (SL), with general practitioner treatment as usual. Therapist allocation was randomized. Primary outcome measures, fatigue and physical functioning were assessed blind to treatment allocation. TA was measured in the PR and SL arms. Regression models allowing for interactions were used to examine relationships between (i) therapist and therapeutic alliance, and (ii) therapist and average treatment effect (the difference in mean outcomes between different treatment conditions). We found no therapist effects. We found no relationship between TA and the average treatment effect of a therapist. One therapist formed stronger alliances when delivering PR compared to when delivering SL (effect size 0.76, SE 0.33, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.41). In these therapies for CFS, TA does not influence symptomatic outcome. The lack of significant therapist effects on outcome may result from the trial’s rigorous quality control, or random therapist allocation, eliminating selection effects. Further research is needed