Pain polymorphisms and opioids: An evidence based review.

Despite the various different candidate genetic polymorphisms of potential clinical relevance, there is not enough understanding of the inter­individual variability in analgesic administration. The cytochrome P450 2D6 (CYP2D6) genotype is thought to be one of the most studied. The aim of the present evidence­based review was to determine if there is now sufficient evidence to make clinical recommendations based on a specific genomic profile. The data sources utilized were as follows: PubMed (NLM) database, Evidence Based Medicine Guidelines and Google. Research on clinical guidance standards, systematic reviews, meta­analyses and clinical trials, published prior to January 2018, were evaluated in English, using the MeSH terms 'cancer pain', 'polymorphism', 'genetic' and 'gene polymorphism'. To assess the level of evidence, the Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy of the American Family Physician was applied. From the initial search, 12 systematic reviews and/or meta­analyses, 5 clinical trials and 10 guidelines were selected. The results indicated that genetic variation of µ­opioid receptor 1 (OPRM1) may contribute to inter­individual differences in morphine consumption with recommendation grade A for OPRM A118G single nucleotide polymorphism (rs1799971). Polymorphisms associated with the metabolization process of morphine and other opioid drugs are very relevant in opioid titration and ethnic subgroup differences which have to be taken into account (particularly, for the recommendation grade A for the CYP2D6 polymorphism). In human studies, the catechol­O­methyl transferase (COMT) genotype affects the efficacy of opioids in acute and chronic pain under different settings, with recommendation grade B to the COMT single nucleotide polymorphism rs4680 (Val/Met). Finally, polymorphisms of the ATP­binding cassette family of efflux transporters were highlighted. Consistent data on pain polymorphisms is now widely available; however, these results have had very little impact on clinical guidelines and daily oncologist practice. Persisting pain, side effects of grade 3 (NCI­CTCAE v4.0) and breakthrough pain with more than 4 episodes/day should be considered the criteria for pain multidisciplinary team discussions and for polymorphism screening.

The role of transdermal buprenorphine in the treatment of cancer pain: an expert panel consensus.

BACKGROUND: The semi-synthetic opioid, buprenorphine, has the general structure of morphine but differs from it in significant ways, both pharmacologically and clinically. A number of long-term studies have shown effective, long-lasting analgesia in moderate to severe cancer and non-cancer pain, including neuropathic pain, with a low incidence of constipation, nausea, dizziness and tiredness. The treatment of moderate to severe chronic pain has improved as a result of the development of new methods of administration of this substance, particularly the introduction of the transdermal drug delivery system, which offers a number of advantages over the usual oral and parenteral routes. SCOPE: A panel of experts specialising in palliative care and pain treatment was convened in November 2007 to discuss their clinical experiences with transdermal buprenorphine and other analgesics. The aim was to provide practical guidance on the treatment of cancer pain with transdermal buprenorphine, particularly when there is a need for increasing pain relief leading to high and increasing doses. A literature search on the use of transdermal buprenorphine was carried out for the panel meeting (based on a search of PubMed to November 2007 - since updated by an additional search for the period to February 2009) and a number of case histories were presented and discussed. This commentary article presents this evidence and the consensus findings of the expert panel. FINDINGS: The Panel reached consensus that transdermal buprenorphine was a valuable treatment for chronic cancer pain, including its neuropathic components. A number of general recommendations were made. Large-scale, randomised clinical studies are needed to provide product comparisons on the use of analgesics in the treatment of neuropathic pain although it was recognised that such studies may not be practicable. Data on the treatment of acute and chronic pain should be kept separate in general. Physicians should be made more aware of the problem of hyperalgesic effects of some opioids in long term use. Buprenorphine in contrast has been described to exert an antihyperalgesic effect. The development of analgesic tolerance with some opioids in long term use and the lack of it with buprenorphine requires further studies. The registered dose range of 35-140 microg/h was considered adequate to achieve sufficient pain relief in most patients although some members of the panel presented data showing that increases beyond this dose range provided improved pain relief if slow titration is used. However, it was generally felt that more evidence was needed before this could become generally acceptable. CONCLUSION: The consensus was that transdermal buprenorphine has a valuable role to play in the treatment of chronic cancer pain because of its efficacy and good safety and tolerability profile, including a low risk of respiratory depression, a lack of immunosuppression and a lack of accumulation in patients with impaired renal function.