Controlled-release oxycodone and naloxone in the treatment of chronic low back pain: a placebo-controlled, randomized study.

BACKGROUND: For Canadian regulatory purposes, an analgesic study was required to complement previously completed, pivotal studies on bowel effects and analgesia associated with controlled-release (CR) oxycodone/CR naloxone. OBJECTIVES: To compare the analgesic efficacy and safety of CR oxycodone/CR naloxone versus placebo in patients with chronic low back pain. METHODS: Patients requiring opioid therapy underwent a two- to seven-day opioid washout before being randomly assigned to receive either 10 mg/5 mg CR oxycodone/CR naloxone or placebo every 12 h, titrated weekly according to efficacy and tolerability to 20 mg/10 mg, 30 mg/15 mg or 40 mg/20 mg every 12 h. After four weeks, patients crossed over to the alternative treatment for an additional four weeks. Acetaminophen/codeine (300 mg/30 mg every 4 h to 6 h as needed) was provided as rescue medication. RESULTS: Of the 83 randomized patients, 54 (65%) comprised the per-protocol population. According to per-protocol analysis, CR oxycodone/CR naloxone resulted in significantly lower mean (± SD)pain scores measured on a visual analogue scale (48.6 ± 23.1 mm versus 55.9 ± 25.4 mm; P=0.0296) and five-point ordinal pain intensity scores (2.1 ± 0.8 versus 2.4 ± 0.9; P=0.0415) compared with placebo. After the double-blinded phase, patients and investigators both preferred CR oxycodone/CR naloxone over placebo. These outcomes continued in the 79% of patients who chose to continue receiving CR oxycodone/CR naloxone in a six-month, open-label evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: In patients complying with treatment as per protocol, CR oxycodone/CR naloxone was effective for the management of chronic low back pain of moderate or severe intensity.

Prevalence of postweaning multisystemic wasting syndrome in pigs sired by 13 Hungarian Landrace boars.

Between February 20 and October 31, 2003, 2034 sows were inseminated with semen collected from 13 Hungarian Landrace boars. Altogether 16,013 piglets were born: 13,801 (86.2 per cent) alive, 796 (4.97 per cent) stillborn and 156 (0.97 per cent) mummified. A total of 1260 (7.87 per cent) of the pigs developed signs of postweaning multisystemic wasting syndrome (PMWS). In the groups of sows inseminated with semen from each of the 13 boars, the percentages of farrowings producing piglets with signs of PMWS, stillborn piglets or mummified piglets were very high (59.4 per cent, 57.6 per cent and 13.8 per cent, respectively). There were significant differences between the proportions of piglets with signs of PMWS, stillborn piglets and mummified piglets sired by the different boars: 3.06 to 15.6 per cent, 1.76 to 8.52 per cent and 0 to 3.22 per cent, respectively.

A randomized, double-blind, crossover comparison of the efficacy and safety of oral controlled-release tramadol and placebo in patients with painful osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of controlled-release (CR) tramadol (Zytram XL, Purdue Pharma, Canada) and placebo in patients with painful osteoarthritis. METHODS: Patients underwent analgesic washout for two to seven days before random assignment to 150 mg daily of CR tramadol or placebo, and were titrated weekly to 200 mg, 300 mg or a maximum of 400 mg once daily. After four weeks, patients crossed over to the alternate treatment for another four weeks. Plain acetaminophen was provided as a rescue analgesic. All patients who completed the crossover study were eligible to receive open label CR tramadol for six months. RESULTS: Seventy-seven of 100 randomly assigned patients were evaluable for efficacy. CR tramadol resulted in significantly lower visual analogue scale pain intensity scores (37.4+/-23.9 versus 45.1+/-24.3, P=0.0009). Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index subscale scores for pain (189.0+/-105.0 versus 230.0+/-115.4; P=0.0001) and physical function (632.4+/-361.3 versus 727.4+/-383.4; P=0.0205) were significantly better with CR tramadol. Total pain and disability (22.8+/-14.5 versus 27.2+/-14.8; P=0.0004), and overall pain and sleep (104.7+/-98.0 versus 141.0+/-108.2; P=0.0005) scores in the Pain and Sleep Questionnaire were significantly lower for CR tramadol. Short-form 36 Health Survey scores were significantly better during CR tramadol treatment for the pain index (38.8+/-10.8 versus 35.6+/-9.0; P=0.0100), general health perception (46.5+/-11.2 versus 44.4+/-11.6; P=0.0262), vitality (43.1+/-13.2 versus 40.2+/-13.7; P=0.0255) and overall physical components (40.8+/-8.9 versus 37.8+/-7.7; P=0.0002). CR tramadol treatment was preferred by 55.8% of patients (P=0.0005) versus 20.8% and 23.4% of patients who chose placebo or had no preference, respectively. These improvements were sustained for up to six months, and 86.5% of patients reported at least moderate benefit from CR tramadol during long-term treatment. CONCLUSION: CR tramadol is effective for the management of painful osteoarthritis.

Once-daily, controlled-release tramadol and sustained-release diclofenac relieve chronic pain due to osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The present study was a randomized, parallel, double-blind comparison between controlled-release (CR) tramadol and sustained-release (SR) diclofenac in patients with chronic pain due to osteoarthritis of the hips and/or knees. METHODS: Patients with at least moderate pain intensity, and having received analgesics over the past three months, underwent a two- to seven-day washout of current analgesics before initiation of 200 mg CR tramadol or 75 mg SR diclofenac. During the eight-week study, patients returned to the clinic biweekly. CR tramadol doses were titrated to a maximum of 200 mg, 300 mg or 400 mg per day. SR diclofenac doses were titrated to 75 mg or 100 mg once daily, or 75 mg twice a day based on pain relief and the presence of side effects. For rescue analgesic, patients took acetaminophen as needed, up to 650 mg three times a day. RESULTS: Forty-five patients on CR tramadol and 52 patients on SR diclofenac were evaluable. Significant improvements from prestudy treatment were shown for visual analogue scale pain (P=0.0001), stiffness (P<0.0005) and physical function (P=0.0001) scores for both treatments. There were no significant differences between the two treatments in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities subscales, overall pain, pain and sleep, or the clinical effectiveness evaluation. Overall incidence of adverse events was similar in both groups, with more opioid-related adverse events with CR tramadol, and two serious adverse events occurring with the use of SR diclofenac. CONCLUSIONS: CR tramadol is as effective as SR diclofenac in the treatment of pain due to knee or hip osteoarthritis, with the potential for fewer of the serious side effects that characterize nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug administration.

A double-blind, crossover study of controlled-release metoclopramide and placebo for the chronic nausea and dyspepsia of advanced cancer.

To compare a novel controlled-release formulation of metoclopramide with placebo in patients with cancer-associated dyspepsia syndrome, 26 adult patients with a >/=1 month history of cancer-associated dyspepsia syndrome were randomized to receive either controlled-release metoclopramide 40 mg every 12 hours or matching placebo for a period of 4 days. On day 5, patients crossed over to the alternate treatment for a further period of 4 days. Dose adjustments and rescue antiemetics were permitted during both phases. Nausea, anorexia, bloating, vomiting/retching, and drowsiness were assessed on a 100-mm VAS scale in a daily diary. On the last day of treatment of each phase, nausea was significantly lower in the controlled-release metoclopramide group compared to placebo (17 +/- 12 mm versus 12 +/- 10 mm). Nausea scores tended to increase across days during the placebo phase and to decrease during the controlled-release metoclopramide phase. There was a trend for improvement in the intensity of all symptoms on controlled-release metoclopramide with the exception of appetite, but this trend only reached statistical significance for nausea. The frequency and severity of elicited adverse events did not differ significantly between treatments, although drowsiness, dizziness, and poor sleep were somewhat higher in the placebo group. In no case was it necessary to discontinue controlled-release metoclopramide because of toxicity. These results indicate that controlled-release metoclopramide reduces gastrointestinal symptoms in this population of advanced cancer patients.

Double blind randomized placebo control trial of controlled release codeine in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the hip or knee.

OBJECTIVE: Pain is the cardinal feature of osteoarthritis (OA), and with advancing disease there is loss of function and increasing pain even at times of joint rest. Few studies have evaluated the role of opioid analgesics in treating the pain of OA. METHODS: This randomized, double blind, parallel group study compared the efficacy and safety of a 12 hourly controlled release codeine formulation (Codeine Contin) with placebo in patients with chronic pain due to OA of the hips and/or knees. The 4 week treatment period, following an analgesic washout phase of 2-7 days, included weekly clinic evaluations, at which the dose was escalated as appropriate, and daily patient diary completion. Pain (daily), stiffness, and physical function (weekly) were assessed using the multidimensional, self-administered WOMAC (visual analog scale version) questionnaire. RESULTS: Sixty-six eligible patients completed the study. The mean initial and final daily doses of controlled release codeine were 50 mg every 12 h at baseline and 159 mg every 12 h at the final assessment. All variables in the efficacy analysis indicated superiority of controlled release codeine over placebo. The WOMAC pain scale showed an improvement of 44.8% over baseline in the controlled release codeine group compared with 12.3% taking placebo (p = 0.0004). For the WOMAC stiffness and physical function scales the improvements over baseline on controlled release codeine were 47.7% and 49.3%, respectively compared with 17.0% and 17.0%, respectively, with placebo (p = 0.003; p = 0.0007). Controlled release codeine was also significantly better than placebo on measures of sleep quality and requirement for supplemental acetaminophen. CONCLUSION: Single entity controlled release codeine is an effective treatment for pain due to OA of the hip or knee.

Twice-daily versus once-daily morphine sulphate controlled-release suppositories for the treatment of cancer pain. A randomized controlled trial.

We evaluated the safety and efficacy of controlled-release morphine sulphate suppositories administered 12-hourly and once daily in patients with chronic cancer in a randomized double-blind crossover trial. Pain was assessed using a 100-mm VAS pain scale and a five-point ordinal pain scale. The VAS pain intensity score was 17.5+/-17.2 after suppositories every 12 h, versus 16.2+/-13.4 after suppositories every 24 h (difference not significant). The difference between the mean VAS pain scores with 12-hourly and once-daily dosing was 1.3 mm (not significant). The mean ordinal pain scores were 1.0+/-0.7 versus 1.0+/-0.6 for 12-hourly and once-a-day dosing, respectively (not significant). A retrospective power analysis indicated that a difference of 5.9 mm was detectable, even with only 6 patients. Adverse events noted were constipation, nausea, anorexia, and dry mouth. The use of once-a-day controlled-release morphine suppository is a more convenient and equally effective alternative to twice a day dosing.

Randomized, double-blind, cross-over trial comparing safety and efficacy of oral controlled-release oxycodone with controlled-release morphine in patients with cancer pain.

PURPOSE: Use of oxycodone for chronic cancer pain has been hampered by its short elimination half-life. This study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of controlled-release formulations of oxycodone and morphine for cancer pain. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-two adult patients with cancer pain and a > or = 3-day history of stable analgesia with oral opioids provided written informed consent and were randomized to controlled-release oxycodone or controlled-release morphine for 7 days. To blind the study using available tablet strengths, the dose ratio of oxycodone to morphine was set at 1:1.5. On day 8, patients were crossed over to the alternate drug for 7 days. Pain intensity was assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS 0 to 100 mm) and a categorical scale (CAT 0 to 4). Side effects were assessed using a checklist (four-point categorical severity) and a nondirected questionnaire. Patients and investigators made blinded global ratings of efficacy and treatment preference. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients completed the study (10 men, 13 women). The VAS and CAT scores were (mean+/-SD) 23+/-21 and 1.2+/-0.8 on controlled-release oxycodone, and 24+/-20 (P=.43) and 1.3+/-0.7 (P=.36) on controlled-release morphine. No period or carryover effect was detected. There were no significant differences in adverse effects (P=.40) or ratings of efficacy and preference. The median oxycodone/morphine dose ratio was 1.5 and the maximum was 2.3. CONCLUSION: Controlled-release oxycodone is as safe and effective as controlled-release morphine in the treatment of cancer pain.

Comparative efficacy and safety of controlled-release morphine suppositories and tablets in cancer pain.

Although the oral route is the preferred method of opioid therapy in patients with cancer pain, many patients will require an alternate route of analgesic administration at some point during the trajectory of their illness. This study compared the efficacy and safety of a novel, controlled-release suppository of morphine (MSC-R) and controlled-release morphine tablets (MSC-T) in patients with cancer pain. In a double-blind crossover study, 27 patients with cancer pain were randomized to receive MSC-R or MSC-T every 12 hours for 7 days each, using a 1:1 analgesic equivalence ratio. Pain intensity was assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS) and the Present Pain Intensity Index of the McGill Pain Questionnaire. Nausea and sedation were also assessed with a VAS. Pharmacodynamic assessments were made by the patient at 8:00 AM, 12:00 PM, 4:00 PM, and 8:00 PM and rescue morphine use recorded in a daily diary. There were no significant differences between MSC-R and MSC-T in overall scores for pain intensity VAS, ordinal pain intensity, and sedation. There was a small but significant difference in overall nausea VAS score in favor of MSC-R. Mean daily rescue analgesic use did not differ significantly during between treatment with MSC-R and MSC-T. MSC-R provides pain control comparable to that provided by MSC-T when given every 12 hours at a 1:1 dose ratio, and represents a reliable alternative method of pain control for patients unable to take oral opioid agents.

Chronic nausea in advanced cancer patients: a retrospective assessment of a metoclopramide-based antiemetic regimen.

The purpose of this retrospective study is to assess the frequency and intensity of chronic nausea in patients admitted to the Palliative Care Unit and the results of a metoclopramide-based treatment regimen. We reviewed the medical records of 100 consecutive patients admitted to the Palliative Care Unit at the Edmonton General Hospital until death during 1992-1993. All patients had terminal cancer and normal cognitive function. All patients completed the Functional Analogue Scale for appetite, nausea, pain, activity, shortness of breath, and sensation of well-being at 1000 and 1600 hours every day. Patients who complained of nausea initially received metoclopramide 10 mg every 4 hr orally or subcutaneously (Step 1). If nausea persisted, dexamethasone 10 mg twice daily was added (Step 2). Step 3 consisted of a continuous subcutaneous infusion of metoclopramide of 60-120 mg/day plus dexamethasone. If no response was observed, other antiemetics were administered (Step 4). Upon admission to the unit, 32 patients (32%) presented with nausea. During the average admission of 25 +/- 13 days, 98 patients (98%) developed nausea. Twenty-five patients (25%) required other antiemetics because of bowel obstruction (18), extrapyramidal side effects (3), or other reasons (4). Most patients without bowel obstruction achieved excellent control of nausea using the metoclopramide-based regimen. During the first 5 days and last 5 days of admission, nausea had significantly lower intensity than the rest of the symptoms that were monitored. Our results suggest that, although nausea is very frequent, it can be well controlled in the majority of patients using safe and simple antiemetic regimens.

Randomized evaluation of controlled-release codeine and placebo in chronic cancer pain.

Codeine is widely used in combination with acetaminophen and aspirin for the management of mild to moderate pain. However, there are few controlled clinical trials of single-entity codeine in chronic cancer pain. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of controlled-release codeine given every 12 hr in patients with cancer pain. Thirty-five patients with chronic cancer pain were randomized in a double-blind crossover study to controlled-release (CR) codeine or placebo, for 7 days each. Pain intensity was assessed at 0800 hr and 2000 hr using a visual analogue scale (VAS) and a five-point categorical scale, and the use of "rescue" acetaminophen-plus-codeine (300 mg/30 mg every 4 hr as needed) was recorded. Thirty patients completed the study (17 male, 13 female; mean age, 64.4 +/- 9.8 years) with a mean daily CR codeine dose of 277 +/- 77 mg (range, 200-400 mg). CR codeine treatment resulted in significantly lower overall VAS pain intensity scores (22 +/- 18 mm versus 36 +/- 20 mm, P = 0.0001), categorical pain intensity scores (1.2 +/- 0.8 versus 1.8 +/- 0.8, P = 0.0001), and pain scores when assessed by day of treatment and by time of day. Daily "rescue" analgesic consumption was significantly lower on CR codeine, compared to placebo treatment (2.2 +/- 2.3 versus 4.6 +/- 2.8 tablets per day, P = 0.0001). Both patients and investigators preferred CR codeine to placebo (80% versus 3%, P = 0.0014 and 73% versus 7%, P = 0.0160, respectively). These data indicate that CR codeine, given every 12 hr results in significant reductions in pain intensity and the use of "rescue" acetaminophen-plus-codeine in patients with cancer pain. CR codeine provides the benefits of a flexible single entity codeine formulation and the convenience of 12-hr duration of action, which allows patients uninterrupted sleep and improved compliance.

Control of cancer-related pain with MS Contin: a comparison between 12-hourly and 8-hourly administration.

Nineteen cancer patients with chronic pain of moderate to severe intensity were randomized in a double-blind manner to 5 days of either 8-hourly or 12-hourly administration of controlled-release morphine (MS Contin, MSC), followed by the alternate schedule for 5 days. The control of pain, using an average dose of 303.4 +/- 254.4 mg/day of MSC, was good during both the 8-hourly and 12-hourly phases, and the mean daily pain intensity measured by visual analogue scale (VAS), pain relief (VAS), and global efficacy scores did not differ when compared by treatment schedule. The need for supplemental "rescue" morphine was infrequent and did not differ between treatment phases (8-hourly, 0.7 +/- 0.7 and 12-hourly, 0.6 +/- 0.6 doses per day, p = 0.6232). The overall frequency and severity of adverse events did not differ between the two dosing schedules. A majority of patients (67%) reported that they believed that 12-hourly dosing was a moderate or great advantage over 8-hourly dosing.

Steady-state pharmacokinetic evaluation of a novel, controlled-release morphine suppository and subcutaneous morphine in cancer pain.

Although the oral route is the preferred method for morphine administration for cancer pain, many patients will require an alternate route of administration at some point during their illness. The authors studied the steady-state pharmacokinetics of morphine after administration of a novel, controlled-release suppository (MS-CRS) and subcutaneous morphine in a randomized, double-blind, two-way crossover evaluation in 10 patients with cancer pain. When administered at a 2.5:1 analgesic ratio, MS-CRS given every 12 hours showed an equivalent extent of absorption compared with subcutaneous morphine given every 4 hours (AUC0-12, 132.5 +/- 30.1 versus 123.8 +/- 27.3 ng.h.mL-1, P = not significant [NS]). Peak morphine concentrations were lower, time of peak was later, and percent fluctuation less after MS-CRS than after subcutaneous morphine (Cmax, 14.7 +/- 2.9 versus 29.9 +/- 5.4 ng/mL, P = .0110; tmax, 3.33 +/- 0.75 versus 2.22 +/- 0.15 hours, P = .0160; fluctuation, 122 +/- 71 versus 356 +/- 123%, P = .00160). Relative bioavailability of MS-CRS using the 2.5:1 analgesic ratio was 105%, and bioavailability from data dose normalized without regard to route specificity in metabolism was 42%. For both routes of administration there was a significant linear relationship between morphine dose and AUC (MS-CRS, r = .8568, P = .0032; subcutaneous morphine, r = .8314, P = .0055). MS-CRS morphine provides a pharmacokinetic profile consistent with dosing every 12 hours; at steady state, the extent of absorption is comparable with that of subcutaneous morphine when administered at a 2.5:1 dose ratio.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Clinical efficacy and safety of a novel controlled-release morphine suppository and subcutaneous morphine in cancer pain: a randomized evaluation.

PURPOSE: A significant number of cancer patients will require an alternate route of morphine administration at some point during their illness. This study compared the clinical efficacy and safety of a novel morphine sulfate controlled-release suppository (MS-CRS) and subcutaneous (SC) morphine in patients with cancer pain. METHODS: Thirty patients with cancer pain were randomized in a double-blind crossover study to MS-CRS every 12 hours or SC morphine every 4 hours for 4 days each, using a 2.5:1 analgesic equivalence ratio. Pain intensity was assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS) and the Present Pain Intensity Index of the McGill Pain Questionnaire. Nausea and sedation were also assessed with a VAS. Evaluations were made by the patient at 8 AM, noon, 4 PM, and 8 PM and rescue morphine consumption recorded. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients completed the study (13 men and 10 women; mean age, 64.0 +/- 2.0 years) and were treated with mean daily MS-CRS and SC morphine doses of 326 +/- 69 mg and 138 +/- 28 mg, respectively. There was a small but significant difference in overall ordinal pain-intensity scores in favor of MS-CRS (0.7 +/- 0.1 v 0.9 +/- 0.1, P = .0459). There were no significant differences between MS-CRS and SC morphine in overall VAS scores for pain intensity (13 +/- 3 v 13 +/- 3 mm), sedation (23 +/- 3 v 25 +/- 4 mm), and nausea (8 +/- 2 v 9 +/- 2 mm). The mean daily rescue analgesic consumption during MS-CRS and SC morphine did not differ significantly (1.2 +/- 0.4 v 1.2 +/- 0.4 doses/d). CONCLUSION: MS-CRS, administered every 12 hours, provides analgesia comparable to SC morphine and represents a reliable, noninvasive alternative method of pain control for patients unable to take oral morphine.

Efficacy of Uniphyl, salbutamol, and their combination in asthmatic patients on high-dose inhaled steroids.

A group of 32 patients with moderately severe, chronic asthma (mean FEV1 55% of predicted), maintained on moderately high doses of inhaled corticosteroids (mean dose 1,100 micrograms/d), participated in this double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study. The effect on pulmonary function of adding theophylline (U, once daily Uniphyl), inhaled salbutamol (S, 200 micrograms four times per day), and their combination (C) or placebo (P) was assessed on Day 14 of each treatment phase. Patients recorded peak expiratory flow, asthma symptom severity (morning and evening), and use of rescue salbutamol inhaler in daily diaries. Mean FEV1 between 0730 and 1800 h and maximum FEV1 between 0730 and 1300 h were significantly higher on U, S, and C compared with P (p < 0.006). Morning peak flow and FEV1 (0730 h) were significantly higher on U and C compared with S and P (p < 0.01). Evening peak flow was higher on U than P (p < 0.001), and C was higher than S and P (p < 0.01). Rescue salbutamol inhaler use was significantly higher on P than on U, C, or S (p = 0.0001). Patient rating of asthma symptoms during C was significantly better than on S or P (p < 0.05). Patient rating of asthma control and study phase preference was significantly higher on combination and Uniphyl alone than on placebo, the combination also being superior to salbutamol alone. Addition of Uniphyl or a combination of Uniphyl and salbutamol significantly improves pulmonary function and asthma symptoms in patients treated with high doses of inhaled corticosteroids and as-needed beta agonists.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Steady-state pharmacokinetics of hydromorphone and hydromorphone-3-glucuronide in cancer patients after immediate and controlled-release hydromorphone.

Although the pharmacokinetics of oral hydromorphone has been evaluated in healthy volunteers after small single oral doses, data are not available regarding the disposition of hydromorphone and its principal metabolite, hydromorphone-3-glucuronide (H3G), at steady-state and after large oral doses. The authors studied the pharmacokinetics of hydromorphone and H3G after oral administration of an immediate-release (IR) and controlled-release (CR) formulation of hydromorphone at a daily dose of 48 +/- 11 mg (range 6-216 mg) in a randomized, double-blind, steady-state, two-way crossover evaluation in 18 patients with chronic cancer pain. Controlled-release hydromorphone demonstrated equivalent bioavailability and acceptable CR characteristics, when compared with IR hydromorphone (CR vs. IR: AUC0-12 123.10 +/- 20.38 vs. 118.98 +/- 20.92 ng.hr.mL-1, P = NS, Cmax 17.76 +/- 3.07 vs. 19.70 +/- 4.04 ng.mL-1, P = NS, Cmin 6.04 +/- 1.01 vs. 5.28 +/- 1.000 ng.mL-1, P = NS, and Tmax 4.78 +/- 0.78 vs. 1.47 +/- 0.22 hr, P = 0.0008). A significant linear relationship existed between hydromorphone dose and hydromorphone AUC (r = 0.8315, P = 0.0001) and between hydromorphone AUC and H3G AUC (r = 0.8048, P = 0.0001) over a wide dose range. The steady-state molar ratio of H3G to hydromorphone was 27:1. The authors conclude that CR hydromorphone provides a pharmacokinetic profile consistent with 12 hourly dosing and that at steady state, oral hydromorphone is extensively metabolized to H3G, although the pharmacologic activity of this metabolite remains unknown.

Comparison of the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of controlled release and immediate release metoclopramide for the management of chronic nausea in patients with advanced cancer.

BACKGROUND: The short elimination half-life of metoclopramide necessitates frequent administration for optimal relief of nausea. This study compares a newly developed controlled release preparation of metoclopramide (CRM) and immediate release metoclopramide (IRM) with respect to efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics in patients with chronic nausea associated with advanced cancer. METHODS: Thirty-four patients with advanced cancer with nausea lasting more than 1 month and with no evidence of involvement of the gastrointestinal tract, peptic ulcer or gastritis, brain metastases, or metabolic abnormalities were randomized, in a double-blind cross-over study, to receive 40 mg of CRM every 12 hours or 20 mg of IRM every 6 hours for 3 days. Nausea, food intake, and side effects were assessed four times daily. On Day 3, sequential venous samples were taken (12 patients) to determine plasma metoclopramide concentrations. RESULTS: In 29 evaluable patients, the intensity of nausea on Day 3, measured by a 0-100-mm visual analogue scale and 0-3 categoric scale was 15 +/- 17 and 0.6 +/- 0.6 after IRM, versus 8 +/- 9 (P = 0.033) and 0.4 +/- 0.5 (P = 0.055) after CRM, respectively. Visual analogue scale nausea scores recorded by time of day and by day for the 3 treatment days were significantly lower for patients who received CRM compared with those who received IRM (P = 0.047 and P = 0.043, respectively), but categoric nausea scores were not significantly different between treatments by time of day and by day across the 3 treatment days. No differences were observed in caloric intake or side effects between treatments. In a pharmacokinetic analysis, the CRM/IRM ratio for area under the curve0-12 (microgram x hours x L-1), Cmax (microgram/L), and Tmax (hours) was 100%, 98%, and 2.3 fold, respectively. CONCLUSION: Controlled release metoclopramide is safe and effective in managing chronic nausea in patients with advanced cancer. Future studies should focus on characterizing this syndrome more clearly and on determining the optimal dose of metoclopramide and the effects of drug combinations that have proven to be useful in managing chemotherapy-induced emesis (i.e., metoclopramide plus corticosteroids).

Comparative clinical efficacy and safety of immediate release and controlled release hydromorphone for chronic severe cancer pain.

BACKGROUND: The short elimination half-life of hydromorphone necessitates 4-hourly dosing to maintain optimal levels of analgesia in patients with chronic cancer pain. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of controlled release hydromorphone administered every 12 hours and immediate release hydromorphone administered every 4 hours in patients with chronic severe cancer pain. METHODS: Forty-eight patients with stable chronic severe cancer pain were randomized, in a double-masked crossover study, to controlled release hydromorphone every 12 hours or immediate release hydromorphone every 4 hours for 7 days each. Pain intensity was assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS) and the Present Pain Intensity Index of the McGill Pain Questionnaire. Nausea and sedation were also assessed using a VAS. Assessments were made by the patient four times a day at 7:00 a.m., 11:00 a.m., 3:00 p.m., and 7:00 p.m. Use of rescue hydromorphone also was recorded by the patient. RESULTS: Forty-five patients completed the study (26 women, 19 men; mean age, 57.1 +/- 13.6 years) and received a mean daily dose of 76 +/- 133 mg (range, 6-768 mg). There were no significant differences between controlled release hydromorphone and immediate release hydromorphone in overall VAS pain intensity scores (19 +/- 14 vs. 20 +/- 14 mm), ordinal pain intensity scores (1.2 +/- 0.8 vs. 1.2 +/- 0.8) and pain scores by day of treatment or time of day. The daily rescue analgesic consumption during controlled release hydromorphone and immediate release hydromorphone did not differ significantly overall (1.1 +/- 1.1 vs. 1.0 +/- 1.1 doses per day) or with respect to time of day. There were no significant differences in overall VAS sedation scores (18 +/- 18 mm vs. 19 +/- 18 mm) and in overall mean VAS nausea scores (12 +/- 15 mm vs. 11 +/- 14 mm) between controlled release hydromorphone and immediate release hydromorphone. CONCLUSIONS: Controlled release hydromorphone administered every 12 hours is as effective as immediate release hydromorphone administered every 4 hours in the management of patients with chronic severe cancer pain. The benefits of controlled release hydromorphone lie in the convenience of its capsule formulation, which can be sprinkled on soft food, and its 12-hour duration of action, which allows patients uninterrupted sleep and improved compliance.

The dose-response relationship of controlled-release codeine (Codeine Contin) in chronic cancer pain.

The improved pain control provided by regular dosing of opioid analgesics in patients with severe cancer pain has been well established. However, the treatment of mild-to-moderate cancer pain is often limited to "as needed" dosing with fixed combinations of codeine or oxycodone plus a nonopioid analgesic, which do not allow optimal titration of the individual components. This randomized double-blind study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of controlled-release codeine (Codeine Contin) in patients with cancer pain, and to estimate its dose equivalence to a standard combination of acetaminophen plus codeine. Twenty-four patients with at least moderate cancer pain were randomized to Codeine Contin 100, 200, or 300 mg every 12 hr or acetaminophen plus codeine (600 mg/60 mg) every 6 hr. On days 1 and 4 of dosing, pain intensity and pain relief were assessed hourly for 12 hr. The sum of pain intensity differences (SPID) from baseline and the total pain relief (TOTPAR) scores demonstrated a dose-response relationship for Codeine Contin on days 1 and 4 that was statistically significant on day 1 and suggested greater analgesic efficacy on day 4, compared with day 1. Codeine Contin 150 mg every 12 hr was estimated to be equianalgesic to acetaminophen plus codeine (600 mg/60 mg) given every 6 hr. Because a similar equivalence was also demonstrated from analysis of adverse event data, it is concluded that Codeine Contin 150 mg produces analgesia and a side-effect profile similar to a 40% lower dose of codeine provided by the combination.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)