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

1998 ◽  
Vol 16 (10) ◽  
pp. 3222-3229 ◽  
Author(s):  
E Bruera ◽  
M Belzile ◽  
E Pituskin ◽  
R Fainsinger ◽  
A Darke ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Controlled Release ◽  
Cancer Pain ◽  
Treatment Preference ◽  
Dose Ratio ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Elimination Half ◽  
Global Ratings ◽  
History Of ◽  
Controlled Release Formulations

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.

A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 2 dose ratios for conversion from parenteral to oral methadone in patients with cancer pain.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (26_suppl) ◽  
pp. 206-206
Author(s):  
Jesus Gonzalez-Barboteo ◽  
Josep Porta-Sales ◽  
Maria Nabal-Vicuña ◽  
Leyre Diez-Porres ◽  
Jaume Canal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Cancer Pain ◽  
Pain Intensity ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Oral Route ◽  
Dose Ratio ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Lower Ratio

206 Background: Methadone (M) is frequently used for severe cancer pain using the parenteral and oral route. The most commonly used dose ratio (DR) parenteral: oral is 1:2. However, methadone is highly bioavailable and a lower ratio might result in similar analgesia with less toxicity. The main objective of this RCT is to compare success and side effects with 2 ratios of parenteral to oral M: 1:2 vs 1:1.2 in hospitalized patients with cancer pain. Methods: Inpatients with cancer pain well controlled with parenteral M requiring rotation to the oral route. Double blind RCT. Outcomes included pain intensity (BPI), opioid toxicity (CTCAE), and M dose. Success was defined as good pain control with no toxicity at 72hs. Results: 39/44 randomized patients were evaluable (89%): 21 in DR 1:2 and 18 in DR 1:1.2. 71% male, median age 65. No significant difference between DR1:2 and DR1:1.2 in frequency of neuropathic pain (64 Vs 68%), Papscore A/B (100 Vs 91%), CAGE + (23 Vs 18%). Median M dose pre/post was 24.5mg±13.5 y 49 mg±27.3 for DR 1:2, Vs 23.3mg±9.4 (p: NS) y 28mg±11.3 (p < 0.01) for DR 1:1.2. The DR1:2 group developed more cumulative toxicity at dasy 1, 2 and 3 (p < 0.015, p < 0.006 y p < 0.001 respectively). Pain intensity pre/ post was: 1.58±1.3 and 0.87±1.0, ns for DR 1:2, Vs 1.13±0.7 (p:NS) and 1.07±0.9 (p:NS) for DR 1:1.2. Success was observed in 12 pts in DR1:2 Vs 18 in DR 1:1.2, p < 0.001. Side effects related to M were observed in 33/46 pts in DR 1:2 (mainly neurotoxicity symptoms) Vs 1/6 in DR 1:1.2. Conclusions: DR 1:1.2 when changing from parenteral to oral M resulted in lower toxicity and no difference in analgesia. More conservative dose adjustment during M route change should be considered. Granted by Spanish Ministry of Health EC10-133. EUDRACT Number: 2010-024092-39. Clinical trial information: 2010-024092-39.

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

1995 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 1520-1527 ◽  
Author(s):  
E Bruera ◽  
R Fainsinger ◽  
K Spachynski ◽  
N Babul ◽  
Z Harsanyi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Controlled Release ◽  
Cancer Pain ◽  
Pain Intensity ◽  
Clinical Efficacy ◽  
Oral Morphine ◽  
Mcgill Pain Questionnaire ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Significant Difference

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.

Randomized, double-blind comparison of ondansetron versus ondansetron plus metopimazine as antiemetic prophylaxis during platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with cancer.

1997 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 1690-1696 ◽  
Author(s):  
J Herrstedt ◽  
T Sigsgaard ◽  
J Handberg ◽  
B M Schousboe ◽  
M Hansen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Complete Response ◽  
Treatment Preference ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Antiemetic Effect ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Antiemetic Prophylaxis ◽  
Platinum Based Chemotherapy ◽  
Dopamine D2 Antagonist ◽  
Efficacy Parameters ◽  
Blind Comparison

PURPOSE To investigate the antiemetic effect and tolerability of the 5-hydroxytryptamine3(5-HT3) antagonist ondansetron plus the dopamine D2 antagonist metopimazine versus ondansetron alone in patients receiving platinum-based chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS One hundred eleven chemotherapy-naive patients who were scheduled to receive two consecutive courses of platinum-based chemotherapy were randomized between ondansetron 8 mg intravenously (IV) followed by 8 mg orally twice a day plus metopimazine 35 mg/m2 as a 24-hour continuous infusion followed by 30 mg orally four times a day for 4 days, or ondansetron plus placebo. The study used a double-blind, crossover, placebo-controlled design. RESULTS Ninety-four patients completed the crossover. Complete response (CR; no emetic episodes) was obtained on day 1 in 77.7% of the patients who received the combination versus 50.0% of those who received ondansetron alone (P = .00002), and in 51.7% versus 31.0% on days 2 to 6 (P = .0009). The overall CR (days 1 to 6) was 48.9% versus 25.3% (P = .0002). Additionally, significantly less nausea was observed with the combination on day 1 (P = .0002), days 2 to 6 (P = .0001), and days 1 to 6 (P = .00004). Patient preference was 63.6% for the combination and 13.6% for ondansetron alone; 22.7% expressed no treatment preference (P < .0001; therapeutic gain 50.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 31.6% to 68.4%). Adverse reactions were mild and without significant differences between the two treatments. CONCLUSION Metopimazine plus ondansetron was significantly superior to ondansetron alone, concerning all efficacy parameters assessed, in patients who received platinum-based chemotherapy.

scholarly journals Bioavailability of immediate and controlled release formulations of lithium carbonate

2002 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 74-79 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luciana Vismari ◽  
Maria Laura N Pires ◽  
Ana Amélia Benedito-Silva ◽  
Helena Maria Calil
Keyword(s):  
Single Dose ◽  
Controlled Release ◽  
Lithium Concentration ◽  
Area Under The Curve ◽  
Lithium Carbonate ◽  
Immediate Release ◽  
Dose Administration ◽  
Multiple Doses ◽  
Elimination Half ◽  
Controlled Release Formulations

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES: Controlled-release lithium formulations were developed to minimize elevated blood peaks, related to side-effects and intoxications. However, there is little information about the bioavailability of the only controlled-release lithium formulation available in Brazil. The objective of this study was to compare the bioavailability of controlled-release and immediate-release lithium formulations, after single and multiple doses. METHODS: Twelve healthy volunteers received 900 mg of immediate-release or controlled-release lithium carbonate in single or multiple doses during 9 days. After single dose administration, the following parameters were analyzed for each formulation: maximum lithium concentration (Cmax); time to reach Cmax (t max); area under the curve of serum concentration versus time (AUC0-12 and AUC0-<FONT FACE=Symbol>¥</FONT>) and the elimination half-life (t1/2 elim.). After multiple doses, Cmax; t max; AUC0-12; mean (Cmean) and minimum drug concentration (Cmin) and degree of fluctuation (DF) were analyzed. A 90% confidence interval (90%CI) for the ratio between the AUCs for each formulation was constructed. RESULTS/DISCUSSION: Following single dose, the two formulations were bioequivalent; however, they were not after multiple doses. This fact could be a consequence of methodological limitations of lithium level's measurements since, following single dose, these levels could not be detected at time periods 24 and 48h in many volunteers, compromising the calculation of t1/2 elim ,and consequently of the AUC0<FONT FACE=Symbol>-¥</FONT> and the 90%CI to the ratio of these areas. Therefore, the bioequivalence found after single dose may be an unreliable result.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document