buprenorphine and Cancer-Pain

Opioids are an important treatment in managing cancer pain. Uncontrolled pain can be detrimental to function and quality of life. Common adverse effects of opioids such as sedation, constipation and nausea are well recognised, but opioid effects on the endocrine and immune systems are less apparent. The evidence for the immunomodulatory effects of opioids suggest that some opioids might be immunosuppressive and that their use might be associated with reduced survival and increased rates of infection in patients with cancer. However, the quality of this evidence is limited. Opioid-induced endocrinopathies, in particular opioid-induced hypogonadism, may also impact cancer survival and impair quality of life. But again, evidence in patients with cancer is limited, especially with regard to their management. There are some data that different opioids influence immune and endocrine function with varying outcomes. For example, some opioids, such as tramadol and buprenorphine, demonstrate immune-sparing qualities when compared to others. However, most of this data is preclinical and without adequate clinical correlation; thus, no opioid can currently be recommended over another in this context. Higher opioid doses might have more effect on immune and endocrine function. Ultimately, it is prudent to use the lowest effective dose to control the cancer pain. Clinical presentations of opioid-induced endocrinopathies should be considered in patients with cancer and assessed for, particularly in long-term opioid users. Hormone replacement therapies may be considered where appropriate with support from endocrinology specialists.

Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Buprenorphine; Cancer Pain; Humans; Neoplasms; Quality of Life

Pain is a common symptom in pediatric patients with cancer, and most patients in palliative care will receive opioids. Traditional opioids have several drawbacks, including their adverse effects, inconsistent or diminishing efficacy, and limited available routes of administration. Buprenorphine is an attractive option for pain management because of its safety profile, unique pharmacology, and availability in transdermal, buccal, parenteral, and sublingual (SL) dosage forms. Unfortunately, data supporting the use of buprenorphine in pediatric pain patients, particularly SL buprenorphine, are lacking. This case report describes the feasibility of SL buprenorphine use in pediatric patients with complex cancer-related pain.

Topics: Administration, Cutaneous; Analgesics, Opioid; Buprenorphine; Cancer Pain; Child; Humans; Neoplasms; Pain

Adult cancer pain is a disease state battled on a global scale. Proper pain management is essential to prevent health complications and promote patient well-being. Due to the opioid misuse crisis in the United States, providers are looking for alternatives to traditional opioids used for adult cancer pain. Buprenorphine has a unique pharmacologic profile, allowing it to be delivered in noninvasive ways; thus, it offers an alternative to traditional options. Randomized controlled trials have shown improved pain scores with transdermal buprenorphine, and they showed reductions in pain scores and increased improvement in quality of life scores versus other opioids. Sublingual buprenorphine has more limited, but promising data for reducing cancer pain.. We provide a narrative review of pathophysiological pathways of pain in cancer, how they are treated, and the unique properties of buprenorphine. Guidelines addressing pain management during cancer treatment are assessed to identify buprenorphine's place in therapy. Recent literature reporting efficacy and safety of buprenorphine use in pain management during cancer treatment will be presented.. Current literature shows strong data for transdermal buprenorphine and promising data for sublingual buprenorphine. With this evidence, buprenorphine could have a more expanded role in managing adult cancer pain.

Topics: Adult; Analgesics, Opioid; Buprenorphine; Cancer Pain; Drug Delivery Systems; Humans; Pain Measurement; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

All health professionals should be aware of the importance of evaluating pain - fifth vital sign- in cancer patients. Peripheral and central acting analgesics are widely used to treat moderate to severe pain, particularly cancer pain. Many guidelines have addressed this issue. However, real life patients' have other problems and comorbidities that may raise doubts when prescribing.. Authors made a literature search, trying to clarify same specific situations: loss of oral route, renal impairment (hemodialysis), hepatic impairment, frequent opiod interactions and the availability of short-acting formulations.. The following medicines were included in this analysis: the natural opiates (morphine and codeine), their synthetic and semisynthetic derivatives (hydromorphone, oxycodone, and fentanyl), the partial agonist buprenorphine and finally tramadol and tapentadol. Transdermal systems are only available for buprenorphine and fentanyl. In hepatic impairment, fentanyl is safe, but with the exception of codeine and tramadol; other opioids should be used with caution. In renal failure: fentanyl, hydromorphone, and tapentadol are safe. Morphine should be avoided; other opioids should be used with caution. In hemodialysis, buprenorphine, fentanyl, hydromorphone and tramadol (at doses up to 200 mg/day) may be used.. Failure to recognize the impact of various situations described throughout this work, including the bioavailability due to loss of oral route, due to pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the various drugs, either in the context of the impaired metabolism or excretion, or in due to pharmacological interactions, conditions a serious risk of subtreatment of pain and consequent impact in terms of quality of life.. Opioid prescription is safe and effective, even in moderate to severe comorbidities such as renal and hepatic impairment and in patients with no oral route available. In this case, as when considering pharmacological interactions, an individualized therapeutic plan is the best solution and the patient should be assessed regularly. Unadjusted doses may relate to bad pain control and a higher prevalence of adverse events.. Introdução: A dor é equiparada a quinto sinal vital e deve ser avaliada de forma sistemática em todas as consultas de um paciente com cancro. Os fármacos utilizados na prática oncológica para tratar os doentes com dor crónica moderada a severa incluem analgésicos de ação periférica e central que têm sido abordados em múltiplas diretrizes nacionais e internacionais. No entanto, na prática clínica há que equacionar outros problemas e eventuais comorbilidades, que podem levantar dúvidas no momento da prescrição.Material e Métodos: Fez-se uma revisão da literatura, tentando refletir sobre algumas situações específicas na utilização de opióides, nomeadamente perda da via oral, insuficiência renal (hemodiálise), insuficiência hepática, interações medicamentosas e formulações de ação imediata.Resultados: Os opiáceos naturais (morfina e codeína) e os seus derivados sintéticos e semissintéticos (hidromorfona, oxicodona, fentanilo), o agonista parcial buprenorfina e finalmente o tramadol e tapentadol foram selecionados para esta análise. Os sistemas transdérmicos estão apenas disponíveis para a buprenorfina e o fentanilo. Na insuficiência hepática, o fentanilo foi considerado seguro, mascom exceção da codeína e do tramadol, podem todos ser usados com precaução. Na insuficiência renal, o fentanilo, a hidromorfona e o tapentadol foram considerados seguros. Deve evitar-se a morfina, e os restantes poderão ser usados com precaução. Em pacientes em hemodiálise pode usar-se buprenorfina, fentanilo, hidromorfona e tramadol (em doses até 200 mg/dia).Discussão: O não reconhecimento do impacto das várias situações descritas ao longo deste trabalho, nomeadamente a alteração da biodisponibilidade por perda de via oral, por alteração da farmacocinética e farmacodinâmica dos vários fármacos, quer no contexto da insuficiência de órgão responsável pelo metabolismo ou excreção, quer no contexto das interações farmacológicas, condiciona umnorme risco de subtratamento da dor e consequente impacto em termos de qualidade de vida.Conclusão: A prescrição de opióides é segura e efetiva, mesmo em situações de comorbilidades moderadas a graves como insuficiência renal e hepática e em doentes sem via oral disponível. Neste caso, como quando considerámos as interações farmacológicas, o plano terapêutico deve ser individualizado e o paciente deve ser avaliado regularmente. A seleção inadequada e/ou dose mal ajustada de um fármaco, o não reconhecimento do impacto dos efeitos adversos, frequente

Topics: Administration, Oral; Analgesics, Opioid; Buprenorphine; Cancer Pain; Codeine; Deglutition Disorders; Fentanyl; Humans; Hydromorphone; Liver Failure; Morphine; Oxycodone; Renal Dialysis; Renal Insufficiency; Tapentadol; Tramadol

Et stadig høyere antall pasienter i legemiddelassistert rehabilitering dør av somatiske sykdommer, inkludert kreftsykdom. I det palliative sykdomsforløpet er særlig smertebehandlingen utfordrende.

Topics: Acetaminophen; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Analgesics, Opioid; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Buprenorphine; Cancer Pain; Humans; Methadone; Opiate Substitution Treatment; Opioid-Related Disorders; Pain Management; Pain Measurement; Pain, Postoperative; Palliative Care; Terminal Care

Rotating several different WHO level III opioid drugs is a therapeutic option for patients with chronic cancer-related pain who suffer from inadequate analgesia and/or intolerable side effects. The evidence favoring opioid rotation is controversial, and the current guidelines in Germany and other countries contain only weak recommendations for it.. This review is based on pertinent publications retrieved by a systematic review of the literature on opioid rotation for adult patients with chronic cancerrelated pain who are regularly taking WHO level III opioids by the oral or trans - dermal route.. 9 individual studies involving a total of 725 patients were included in the analysis, and 3 previous systematic reviews of studies involving a total of 2296 patients were also analyzed. Morphine, oxycodone, fentanyl, hydromorphone, and buprenorphine were used as first-line opioid drugs, and hydromorphone, bupre - norphine, tapentadol, fentanyl, morphine, oxymorphone, and methadone were used as second-line opioid drugs. In all of the studies, pain control was achieved for 14 days after each rotation. In most of them, the dose of the new drug introduced in each rotation needed to be increased above the dose initially calculated from a rotation ratio, with the exception of rotations to methadone. The frequency of side effects was only rarely lessened, but patients largely considered the result of opioid rotation to be positive. No particular opioid drug was found to be best.. Opioid rotation can improve analgesia and patient satisfaction. The success of opioid rotation appears to depend on the magnitude of the initial dose, among other factors. Tables of equianalgesic doses should be considered no more than a rough guide for determining the dose of the new drug. Rotations to methadone should be carried out under clinical supervision in experienced hands.

Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Buprenorphine; Cancer Pain; Chronic Pain; Fentanyl; Germany; Humans; Hydromorphone; Morphine; Neoplasms; Oxycodone; Pain Management

Pain is a common symptom with cancer, and 30% to 50% of all people with cancer will experience moderate to severe pain that can have a major negative impact on their quality of life. Opioid (morphine-like) drugs are commonly used to treat moderate or severe cancer pain, and are recommended for this purpose in the World Health Organization (WHO) pain treatment ladder. The most commonly-used opioid drugs are buprenorphine, codeine, fentanyl, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, methadone, morphine, oxycodone, tramadol, and tapentadol.. To provide an overview of the analgesic efficacy of opioids in cancer pain, and to report on adverse events associated with their use.. We identified systematic reviews examining any opioid for cancer pain published to 4 May 2017 in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in the Cochrane Library. The primary outcomes were no or mild pain within 14 days of starting treatment, withdrawals due to adverse events, and serious adverse events.. We included nine reviews with 152 included studies and 13,524 participants, but because some studies appeared in more than one review the number of unique studies and participants was smaller than this. Most participants had moderate or severe pain associated with a range of different types of cancer. Studies in the reviews typically compared one type of opioid or formulation with either a different formulation of the same opioid, or a different opioid; few included a placebo control. Typically the reviews titrated dose to effect, a balance between pain relief and adverse events. Various routes of administration of opioids were considered in the reviews; oral with most opioids, but transdermal administration with fentanyl, and buprenorphine. No review included studies of subcutaneous opioid administration. Pain outcomes reported were varied and inconsistent. The average size of included studies varied considerably between reviews: studies of older opioids, such as codeine, morphine, and methadone, had low average study sizes while those involving newer drugs tended to have larger study sizes.Six reviews reported a GRADE assessment (buprenorphine, codeine, hydromorphone, methadone, oxycodone, and tramadol), but not necessarily for all comparisons or outcomes. No comparative analyses were possible because there was no consistent placebo or active control. Cohort outcomes for opioids are therefore reported, as absolute numbers or percentages, or both.Reviews on buprenorphine, codeine with or without paracetamol, hydromorphone, methadone, tramadol with or without paracetamol, tapentadol, and oxycodone did not have information about the primary outcome of mild or no pain at 14 days, although that on oxycodone indicated that average pain scores were within that range. Two reviews, on oral morphine and transdermal fentanyl, reported that 96% of 850 participants achieved that goal.Adverse event withdrawal was reported by five reviews, at rates of between 6% and 19%. Participants with at least one adverse event were reported by three reviews, at rates of between 11% and 77%.Our GRADE assessment of evidence quality was very low for all outcomes, because many studies in the reviews were at high risk of bias from several sources, including small study size.. The amount and quality of evidence around the use of opioids for treating cancer pain is disappointingly low, although the evidence we have indicates that around 19 out of 20 people with moderate or severe pain who are given opioids and can tolerate them should have that pain reduced to mild or no pain within 14 days. This accords with the clinical experience in treating many people with cancer pain, but overstates to some extent the effectiveness found for the WHO pain ladder. Most people will experience adverse events, and help may be needed to manage the more common undesirable adverse effects such as constipation and nausea. Perhaps between 1 in 10 and 2 in 10 people treated with opioids will find these adverse events intolerable, leading to a change in treatment.

Topics: Acetaminophen; Administration, Cutaneous; Administration, Oral; Analgesics, Opioid; Buprenorphine; Cancer Pain; Codeine; Fentanyl; Humans; Hydromorphone; Methadone; Oxycodone; Phenols; Review Literature as Topic; Tapentadol; Tramadol

Buprenorphine (BUP) is a semisynthetic derivative of the opium alkaloid thebaine found in the poppy Papaver somniferum. Its chemical structure contains the morphine structure but differs by having a cyclopropylmethyl group. Buprenorphine is a potent µ opioid agonist. Buprenorphine undergoes extensive first-pass metabolism in the liver and gut. The development of a transdermal BUP formulation in 2001 led to its evaluation in cancer pain. This article provides the practitioner with an update on the current role of BUP in cancer care. It highlights data suggesting effectiveness in various types of cancer pain. The article reviews pharmacology, routes of administration, adverse effects, drug interactions, and cost considerations.

Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Buprenorphine; Cancer Pain; Humans; Palliative Care

To compare the effects of oral morphine and oxycodone and transdermal fentanyl and buprenorphine on quality of life (QoL) of cancer patients with severe pain.. Cancer patients with severe pain (NRS 6-10) treated at home and in outpatient clinics who failed to respond to non-opioids and/or "weak" opioids were randomized to morphine, oxycodone, fentanyl, or buprenorphine treatment for 28 days. Immediate-release oral morphine was rescued analgesic and 10-ml lactulose twice daily was prophylaxis of constipation; no antiemetics were used for prophylaxis.. Above all, 62 patients participated and 53 patients completed the study. Good analgesia was obtained with all 4 opioids. Morphine was associated with the less negative impact of pain on the ability to walk and normal work, and tendency on activity (BPI-SF) and lower consumption of rescue morphine. All 4 opioids elicited similar adverse effects. According to ESAS, the intensity of nausea and drowsiness increased at the beginning but decreased as treatment continued. Appetite, well-being, anxiety, depression, and fatigue improved. No changes were seen in constipation, vomiting and dyspnea. Constipation was rarely observed with all opioids (BFI). Any opioids improved overall QoL and emotional functioning with tendency improving physical functioning (EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL). Activity improved (Karnofsky). Morphine induced greater improvement in physical functioning and trend in improvement mood (HADS).. All opioids significantly improved patients' QoL. Morphine induced less negative impact of pain on daily activities and greater improvement in physical functioning with trends of better mood and less intense fatigue.

Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Buprenorphine; Cancer Pain; Delayed-Action Preparations; Female; Fentanyl; Humans; Male; Morphine; Neoplasms; Oxycodone; Quality of Life

To compare analgesia and adverse effects during oral morphine and oxycodone and transdermal fentanyl and buprenorphine administration in cancer patients with pain.. Cancer patients treated at home and in outpatient clinics with severe pain (numerical rating scale score 6-10) fail to respond to non-opioids and/or weak opioids. All patients were randomized to either morphine, oxycodone, fentanyl or buprenorphine and divided into subgroups with predominant neuropathic and nociceptive pain component. Doses of opioids were titrated to satisfactory analgesia and acceptable adverse effects intensity. Patients were assessed at baseline and followed for 28 days. In all patient groups, immediate-release oral morphine was the rescue analgesic and lactulose 10 mL twice daily was the prophylaxis of constipation; no antiemetics were used as prophylaxis.. A total of 62 patients participated and 53 patients completed the study. Good analgesia was obtained for all 4 opioids, for both nociceptive and neuropathic pain. The use of co-analgesics was greater in patients with neuropathic pain. Morphine treatment was associated with less negative impact of pain on ability to walk, work and activity (trend) according to Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form scores and less consumption of rescue morphine. The most common adverse effects included nausea and drowsiness, which increased at the beginning of the treatment and gradually decreased over the days to come. Appetite, well-being, anxiety, depression, and fatigue improved. There was no constipation (the Bowel Function Index scores were within normal range) during the treatment with all opioids. No changes were seen for constipation, vomiting and dyspnea.. All opioids were effective and well-tolerated. Morphine was the most effective in the improvement in some of the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form items regarding negative impact of pain on patients' daily activities. Prophylaxis of constipation was effective; antiemetics may be considered for nausea prevention.

Topics: Administration, Cutaneous; Administration, Oral; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Analgesics, Opioid; Buprenorphine; Cancer Pain; Constipation; Delayed-Action Preparations; Drug Therapy, Combination; Fentanyl; Humans; Lactulose; Male; Middle Aged; Morphine; Oxycodone; Pain Measurement; Severity of Illness Index

Buprenorphine is one of the strongest opioids used for the relief of cancer pain. This study aims to evaluate the real-world clinical experiences of transdermal buprenorphine used in moderate to severe cancer pain in the Asian population.. This is an open-labeled, multicenter, 4-week observational study. Stable cancer pain patients who decided to switch the previous opioid to transdermal buprenorphine will be enrolled in this study. The safety and effectiveness were observed and collected. Pain assessment was performed using a numerical rating scale by the investigators and the Brief Pain Inventory Short Form (BPI-SF) by the patient. The safety profiles included concomitant medications and adverse events (AEs).. A total of 83 patients were enrolled in this study. The global pain scores in the BPI, as well as the four individual pain parameters (worst, least, average, and right now), showed a continued decrease (p < .05) from week 2 to week 4. Significant improvements were observed in normal work activities, relations with other people, sleep, enjoyment of life, and global BPI pain interference score on week 4. Pain assessments conducted by investigators demonstrated significant, continuous improvements during the study periods. In addition, transdermal buprenorphine demonstrated good safety/tolerability with limited drug-related AEs in the Asian population with cancer pain.. This study demonstrated that transdermal buprenorphine in the Asian population has good safety profiles and continued improvements in pain relief, sleep, and pain interferences. Transdermal buprenorphine can be an effective and convenient option as a transdermal opioid for patients with moderate to severe cancer pain in Taiwan. (NCT Number: NCT04315831).

Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Buprenorphine; Cancer Pain; Humans; Neoplasms; Pain; Taiwan

Opioid misuse and opioid use disorder (OUD) are important comorbidities in people with advanced cancer and cancer-related pain, but there is a lack of consensus on treatment.. To develop consensus among palliative care and addiction specialists on the appropriateness of various opioid management strategies in individuals with advanced cancer-related pain and opioid misuse or OUD.. For this qualitative study, using ExpertLens, an online platform and methodology for conducting modified Delphi panels, between August and October 2020, we conducted 2 modified Delphi panels to understand the perspectives of palliative and addiction clinicians on 3 common clinical scenarios varying by prognosis (weeks to months vs months to years). Of the 129 invited palliative or addiction medicine specialists, 120 participated in at least 1 round. A total of 84 participated in all 3 rounds.. Consensus was investigated for 3 clinical scenarios: (1) a patient with a history of an untreated opioid use disorder, (2) a patient taking more opioid than prescribed, and (3) a patient using nonprescribed benzodiazepines.. Participants were mostly women (47 [62%]), White (94 (78 [65%]), and held MD/DO degrees (115 [96%]). For a patient with untreated OUD, regardless of prognosis, it was deemed appropriate to begin treatment with buprenorphine/naloxone and inappropriate to refer to a methadone clinic. Beginning split-dose methadone was deemed appropriate for patients with shorter prognoses and of uncertain appropriateness for those with longer prognoses. Beginning a full opioid agonist was deemed of uncertain appropriateness for those with a short prognosis and inappropriate for those with a longer prognosis. Regardless of prognosis, for a patient with no medical history of OUD taking more opioids than prescribed, it was deemed appropriate to increase monitoring, inappropriate to taper opioids, and of uncertain appropriateness to increase the patient's opioids or transition to buprenorphine/naloxone. For a patient with a urine drug test positive for non-prescribed benzodiazepines, regardless of prognosis, it was deemed appropriate to increase monitoring, inappropriate to taper opioids and prescribe buprenorphine/naloxone.. The findings of this qualitative study provide urgently needed consensus-based guidance for clinicians and highlight critical research and policy gaps.

Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Benzodiazepines; Buprenorphine; Cancer Pain; Consensus; Female; Humans; Male; Methadone; Naloxone; Neoplasms; Opioid-Related Disorders

Although buprenorphine is widely accepted as a treatment option for opioid use disorder (OUD), it is underutilized as a treatment for cancer-related pain. Owing to its decreased side effect profile, various formulations (depending on FDA indication of pain versus OUD), and ability to simultaneously address OUD and pain, buprenorphine is gaining popularity in the outpatient palliative medicine setting. Despite these compelling benefits, there are significant barriers to initiating therapy. These barriers include clinician experience, insurance authorization, pharmacy supply, and stigma. We present a complicated case to describe the practical clinical experience of an attempt at low-dose initiation of buprenorphine to treat cancer-related pain in a patient with concurrent OUD and to discuss ways to start overcoming the encountered barriers.

Topics: Buprenorphine; Cancer Pain; Humans; Neoplasms; Opioid-Related Disorders

Most patients with cancer-related pain are managed using opioids; cancer-related pain in the setting of pregnancy can be challenging to address owing to risk to the fetus associated with

Topics: Adult; Analgesics, Opioid; Buprenorphine; Cancer Pain; Female; Humans; Neoplasms; Opioid-Related Disorders; Pain Management; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications

Outpatients with cancer commonly have nonmedical opioid use (NMOU) behaviors and use opioids to dull emotional and existential suffering. Buprenorphine is often used for cancer pain due to less reported euphoria when compared to other opioids.. A retrospective review was done in patients who were prescribed buprenorphine for cancer pain. Pain scores were reported on a Likert pain scale of 1 to 10. Nonmedical opioid use was defined as patients taking opioids for emotional pain at or above the maximum prescribed amount.. The pain score in those patients without NMOU was significantly lower after rotation to buprenorphine than those with NMOU. We deduce that in those with NMOU, it is more challenging to achieve pain relief with buprenorphine. Overall, for all patients, rotation to buprenorphine resulted in a marginally significantly reduced pain score.

Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Buprenorphine; Cancer Pain; Comorbidity; Female; Humans; Male; Mental Disorders; Middle Aged; Opioid-Related Disorders; Prescription Drug Overuse; Retrospective Studies

Sustained-release buprenorphine is widely used in mice with the intention of providing long-lasting analgesia. Statements about duration of therapeutic efficacy are based on persistence of serum buprenorphine levels over a minimum threshold, but behavioral data demonstrating sustained efficacy is not established. Additionally, chronic opioid exposure can induce tolerance and/or hyperalgesia; mice receiving sustained-release buprenorphine have not been evaluated for these effects. This study assessed clinical efficacy and duration of sustained-release buprenorphine in inflammatory, post-operative, and cancer pain; and screened for centrally-mediated opioid-induced hyperalgesia as well as opioid tolerance. At 1-2 mg/kg sustained-release buprenorphine, statistically significant analgesic efficacy occurred only at time points up to 2 h. These animals showed no changes in von Frey thresholds on the contralateral side, i.e. no centrally-mediated opioid hyperalgesia. To establish whether acute onset opioid tolerance resulted from a single sustained-release buprenorphine administration, we used the tail flick assay, exposing mice to sustained-release buprenorphine or saline on Day 1 and buprenorphine on Day 2. We measured duration and efficacy of 1 mg/kg buprenorphine after 1 mg/kg sustained-release buprenorphine, and also quantified a dose-response curve of buprenorphine (0.1-3 mg/kg) after 2 mg/kg sustained-release buprenorphine. Compared to control animals, mice previously exposed to sustained-release buprenorphine showed diminished analgesic response to buprenorphine; the resultant dose-response curve showed decreased efficacy. Pretreatment with naloxone, an opioid receptor antagonist, blocked sustained-release buprenorphine analgesic action. The short duration of antinociception following administration of sustained-release buprenorphine in mice is caused by the rapid development of tolerance.

Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Animals; Buprenorphine; Cancer Pain; Delayed-Action Preparations; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Drug Tolerance; Hyperalgesia; Male; Mice; Mice, Inbred C3H; Naloxone; Narcotic Antagonists; Pain Measurement; Pain, Postoperative

To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of buprenorphine for cancer pain in adults and children.. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI Web of Science, ISI BIOSIS, ClinicalTrials.gov, metaRegister of Controlled Trials, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the Proceedings of the Congress of the European Federation of International Association for the Study of Pain to early 2015.. We included 19 randomised controlled trials comparing buprenorphine with placebo, buprenorphine or another active drug for cancer pain. The trials included 1421 patients and examined 16 different intervention comparisons. Of the 11 studies that compared buprenorphine to another drug, 5, 3 and 3 studies, respectively, found that buprenorphine was superior, no different or inferior to the alternative treatment in side effects profile or patient preference/acceptability. Pain intensity ratings did not differ significantly between intramuscular buprenorphine and buprenorphine suppository, although intramuscular treatment was associated with more adverse events (1 study). One study found faster onset of pain relief after sublingual than subdermal buprenorphine, with similar analgesia duration and adverse event rates. 2 studies found transdermal buprenorphine superior to placebo, whereas a third study found no difference between placebo and different doses of transdermal buprenorphine. No clear dose-response relationship was found for transdermal buprenorphine. The quality of this evidence base was limited by under-reporting, small sample sizes and attrition.. Buprenorphine might be considered as a fourth-line option compared with the more standard therapies of morphine, oxycodone and fentanyl, and even then it would only be suitable for some patients.

Topics: Aged; Analgesics, Opioid; Buprenorphine; Cancer Pain; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome