-
Assessment of the potential of novel and classical opioids to induce respiratory depression in mice.British Journal of Pharmacology Dec 2023Opioid-induced respiratory depression limits the use of μ-opioid receptor agonists in clinical settings and is the main cause of opioid overdose fatalities. The...
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Opioid-induced respiratory depression limits the use of μ-opioid receptor agonists in clinical settings and is the main cause of opioid overdose fatalities. The relative potential of different opioid agonists to induce respiratory depression at doses exceeding those producing analgesia is understudied despite its relevance to assessments of opioid safety. Here we evaluated the respiratory depressant and anti-nociceptive effects of three novel opioids and relate these measurements to their in vitro efficacy.
EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH
Respiration was measured in awake, freely moving male CD-1 mice using whole body plethysmography. Anti-nociception was measured using the hot plate test. Morphine, oliceridine and tianeptine were administered intraperitoneally, whereas methadone, oxycodone and SR-17018 were administered orally. Receptor activation and arrestin-3 recruitment were measured in HEK293 cells using BRET assays.
KEY RESULTS
Across the dose ranges examined, all opioids studied depressed respiration in a dose-dependent manner, with similar effects at the highest doses, and with tianeptine and oliceridine showing reduced duration of effect, when compared with morphine, oxycodone, methadone and SR-17018. When administered at doses that induced similar respiratory depression, all opioids induced similar anti-nociception, with tianeptine and oliceridine again showing reduced duration of effect. These data were consistent with the in vitro agonist activity of the tested compounds.
CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS
In addition to providing effective anti-nociception, the novel opioids, oliceridine, tianeptine and SR-17018 depress respiration in male mice. However, the different potencies and kinetics of effect between these novel opioids may be relevant to their therapeutic application in different clinical settings.
Topics: Male; Humans; Animals; Mice; Analgesics, Opioid; Oxycodone; HEK293 Cells; Morphine; Respiratory Insufficiency; Methadone
PubMed: 37489013
DOI: 10.1111/bph.16199 -
Tidsskrift For Den Norske Laegeforening... Feb 2019
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Delayed-Action Preparations; Drug Industry; Drug Overdose; Humans; Marketing; Oxycodone; Substance-Related Disorders; United States
PubMed: 30808090
DOI: 10.4045/tidsskr.19.0140 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2015Many patients with cancer experience moderate to severe pain that requires treatment with strong opioids, of which oxycodone and morphine are examples. Strong opioids... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Many patients with cancer experience moderate to severe pain that requires treatment with strong opioids, of which oxycodone and morphine are examples. Strong opioids are, however, not effective for pain in all patients, nor are they well-tolerated by all patients. The aim of this review was to assess whether oxycodone is associated with better pain relief and tolerability than other analgesic options for patients with cancer pain.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of oxycodone for pain in adults with cancer.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), Science Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (ISI Web of Science), BIOSIS (ISI), PsycINFO (Ovid) and PubMed to March 2014. We also searched Clinicaltrials.gov, metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT), EU Clinical Trials Register and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We checked the bibliographic references of relevant identified studies and contacted the authors of the included studies to find additional trials not identified by the electronic searches. No language, date or publication status restrictions were applied to the search.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (parallel-group or cross-over) comparing oxycodone (any formulation or route of administration) with placebo or an active drug (including oxycodone) for cancer background pain in adults.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently extracted study data (study design, participant details, interventions and outcomes) and independently assessed the quality of the included studies according to standard Cochrane methodology. Where possible, we meta-analysed the pain intensity data using the generic inverse variance method, otherwise these data were summarised narratively along with the adverse event and patient preference data. The overall quality of the evidence for each outcome was assessed according to the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 17 studies which enrolled/randomised 1390 patients with 1110 of these analysed for efficacy and 1170 for safety. The studies examined a number of different drug comparisons. Four studies compared controlled release (CR) oxycodone to immediate release (IR) oxycodone and pooled analysis of three of these studies showed that the effects of CR and IR oxycodone on pain intensity after treatment were similar (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.1, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.06 to 0.26; low quality evidence). This was in line with the finding that none of the included studies reported differences in pain intensity between the treatment groups. Three of the four studies also found similar results for treatment acceptability and adverse events in the IR and CR groups; but one study reported that, compared to IR oxycodone, CR oxycodone was associated with significantly fewer adverse events.Six studies compared CR oxycodone to CR morphine and pooled analysis of five of these studies indicated that pain intensity did not differ significantly between the treatments (SMD 0.14, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.32; low quality evidence). There were no marked differences in adverse event rates, treatment acceptability or quality of life ratings.The remaining seven studies either compared oxycodone in various formulations or compared oxycodone to different alternative opioids. None of them found any clear superiority or inferiority of oxycodone for cancer pain, neither as an analgesic agent nor in terms of adverse event rates and treatment acceptability.The quality of this evidence base was limited by the risk of bias of the studies and by small sample sizes for many outcomes. Random sequence generation and allocation concealment were under-reported, and the results were substantially compromised by attrition with data missing from more than 20% of the enrolled/randomised patients for efficacy and from more than 15% for safety.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Overall, the data included within this review suggest that oxycodone offers similar levels of pain relief and adverse events to other strong opioids including morphine, which is commonly considered the gold standard strong opioid. Our conclusions are consistent with other recent reviews and suggest that while the reliability of the evidence base is low, given the absence of important differences within this analysis it seems unlikely that larger head to head studies of oxycodone versus morphine will be justified. This means that for clinical purposes oxycodone or morphine can be used as first line oral opioids for relief of cancer pain.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Delayed-Action Preparations; Drug Administration Schedule; Humans; Morphine; Neoplasms; Oxycodone; Pain; Pain Management; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25723351
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003870.pub5 -
Molecular Neurobiology Dec 2021Sex differences in opioid analgesia occur in rodents and humans, and could be due to differences in drug and metabolite levels. Thus, we investigated the sex and cycle...
Sex differences in opioid analgesia occur in rodents and humans, and could be due to differences in drug and metabolite levels. Thus, we investigated the sex and cycle differences in analgesia (nociception) from oxycodone in rats and related these to sex and cycle differences in brain and plasma oxycodone and metabolite levels. Since numerous opioids are CYP2D enzyme substrates and variation in CYP2D alters opioid drug levels and response, we also initiated studies to see if the sex and cycle differences observed might be due to differences in brain CYP2D activity. Across oxycodone doses, females in diestrus had higher analgesia (using tail flick latency) compared to males and females in estrus; we also demonstrated a direct effect of estrous cycle on analgesia within females. Consistent with the analgesia, females in diestrus had highest brain oxycodone levels (assessed using microdialysis) compared to males and females in estrus. Analgesia correlated with brain oxycodone, but not brain oxymorphone or noroxycodone levels, or plasma drug or metabolite levels. Propranolol (a CYP2D mechanism-based inhibitor), versus vehicle pre-treatments, increased brain oxycodone, and decreased brain oxymorphone/oxycodone drug level ratios (an in vivo CYP2D activity phenotype in the brain) in males and females in estrus, but not in females in diestrus. Brain oxymorphone/oxycodone inversely correlated with analgesia. Together, both sex and estrous cycle impact oxycodone analgesia and brain oxycodone levels, likely through regulation of brain CYP2D oxycodone metabolism. As CYP2D6 is expressed in human brain, perhaps similar sex and cycle influences also occur in humans.
Topics: Analgesia; Analgesics, Opioid; Animals; Brain; Estrous Cycle; Female; Male; Oxycodone; Pain Measurement; Rats; Rats, Wistar; Sex Characteristics
PubMed: 34581987
DOI: 10.1007/s12035-021-02560-1 -
European Journal of Medical Research Jan 2021Intravenous opioids are administered for the management of visceral pain after laparoscopic surgery. Whether oxycodone has advantages over other opioids in the treatment... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Intravenous opioids are administered for the management of visceral pain after laparoscopic surgery. Whether oxycodone has advantages over other opioids in the treatment of visceral pain is not yet clear.
METHODS
In this study, the analgesic efficiency and adverse events of oxycodone and other opioids, including alfentanil, sufentanil, fentanyl, and morphine, in treating post-laparoscopic surgery visceral pain were evaluated. This review was conducted according to the methodological standards described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis statement. The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched in December 2019.
RESULTS
Ten studies were included in this review. The sample size was 695 participants. The results showed that compared with morphine and fentanyl, oxycodone had a more potent analgesic efficacy on the first day after laparoscopic surgery, especially during the first 0.5 h. There was no significant difference in sedation between the two groups. Compared to morphine and fentanyl, oxycodone was more likely to lead to dizziness and drowsiness. Overall, patient satisfaction did not differ significantly between oxycodone and other opioids.
CONCLUSIONS
Oxycodone is superior to other analgesics within 24 h after laparoscopic surgery, but its adverse effects should be carefully considered.
Topics: Alfentanil; Analgesics, Opioid; Fentanyl; Humans; Laparoscopy; Morphine; Oxycodone; Pain; Pain Management; Sufentanil
PubMed: 33422129
DOI: 10.1186/s40001-020-00463-w -
Scientific Reports Aug 2023Anesthesia for laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and perioperative management remains a challenge. Several clinical studies indicate that opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) may... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Anesthesia for laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and perioperative management remains a challenge. Several clinical studies indicate that opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) may be beneficial, but there is no consensus on the most optimal anesthesia technique in clinical practice. The aim of our study was to assess the potential benefits and risks of intraoperative OFA compared to multimodal analgesia (MMA) with remifentanil infusion. In a prospective, randomized study, we analyzed 59 patients' data. Primary outcome measures were oxycodone consumption and reported pain scores (numerical rating scale, NRS) at 1, 6, 12, and 24th hours after surgery. Postoperative sedation on the Ramsay scale, nausea and vomiting on the PONV impact scale, desaturation episodes, pruritus, hemodynamic parameters, and hospital stay duration were also documented and compared. There were no significant differences in NRS scores or total 24-h oxycodone requirements. In the first postoperative hour, OFA group patients needed an average of 4.6 mg of oxycodone while the MMA group 7.72 mg (p = 0.008, p < 0.05 statistically significant). The PONV impact scale was significantly lower in the OFA group only in the first hour after the operation (p = 0.006). Patients in the OFA group required higher doses of ephedrine 23.67 versus 15.69 mg (p = 0.039) and more intravenous fluids 1160 versus 925.86 ml (p = 0.007). The mode of anesthesia did not affect the pain scores or the total dose of oxycodone in the first 24 postoperative hours. Only in the first postoperative hour were an opioid-sparing effect and reduction of PONV incidence seen in the OFA group when compared with remifentanil-based anesthesia. However, patients in the OFA group showed significantly greater hemodynamic lability necessitating higher vasopressor doses and more fluid volume.
Topics: Humans; Analgesics, Opioid; Remifentanil; Oxycodone; Prospective Studies; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Pain, Postoperative; Anesthesia; Laparoscopy; Gastrectomy
PubMed: 37542100
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-39856-2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2017Many people with cancer experience moderate to severe pain that requires treatment with strong opioids, such as oxycodone and morphine. Strong opioids are, however, not... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Many people with cancer experience moderate to severe pain that requires treatment with strong opioids, such as oxycodone and morphine. Strong opioids are, however, not effective for pain in all people, neither are they well-tolerated by all people. The aim of this review was to assess whether oxycodone is associated with better pain relief and tolerability than other analgesic options for adults with cancer pain. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in 2015, Issue 2 on oxycodone for cancer-related pain.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of oxycodone by any route of administration for pain in adults with cancer.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Science Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (ISI Web of Science), BIOSIS (ISI), and PsycINFO (Ovid) to November 2016. We also searched four trial registries, checked the bibliographic references of relevant studies, and contacted the authors of the included studies. We applied no language, date, or publication status restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (parallel group or cross-over) comparing oxycodone (any formulation or route of administration) with placebo or an active drug (including oxycodone) for cancer background pain in adults by examining pain intensity/relief, adverse events, quality of life, and participant preference.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the included studies using standard Cochrane methodology. We meta-analysed pain intensity data using the generic inverse variance method, and adverse events using the Mantel-Haenszel method, or summarised these data narratively along with the quality of life and participant preference data. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
For this update, we identified six new studies (1258 participants) for inclusion. In total, we included 23 studies which enrolled/randomised 2648 participants, with 2144 of these analysed for efficacy and 2363 for safety. The studies examined a number of different drug comparisons.Pooled analysis of three of the four studies comparing controlled-release (CR) oxycodone to immediate-release (IR) oxycodone showed that the ability of CR and IR oxycodone to provide pain relief were similar (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.1, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.06 to 0.26; low quality evidence). Pooled analyses of adverse events showed no significant differences between CR and IR oxycodone for asthenia (risk ratio (RR) 0.58, 95% CI 0.2 to 1.68), confusion (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.2 to 3.02), constipation (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.13), dizziness/lightheadedness (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.37), drowsiness/somnolence (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.54), dry mouth (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.75), insomnia (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.31 to 3.53), nausea (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.28), nervousness (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.2 to 1.64), pruritus (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.65 to 3.25), vomiting (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.15), and discontinuation due to adverse events (RR 0.6, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.22). The quality of the evidence was very low for all these adverse events. Three of the four studies found similar results for treatment acceptability.Pooled analysis of seven of the nine studies comparing CR oxycodone to CR morphine indicated that pain relief was significantly better after treatment with CR morphine than CR oxycodone (SMD 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.27; low quality evidence). However, sensitivity analysis did not corroborate this result (SMD 0.12, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.26).Pooled analyses of adverse events showed no significant differences between CR oxycodone and CR morphine for confusion (RR 1.01 95% CI 0.78 to 1.31), constipation (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.16), dizziness/lightheadedness (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.76), drowsiness/somnolence (RR 0.9, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.08), dry mouth (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.8 to 1.26), dysuria (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.26), nausea (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.26), pruritus (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.29), vomiting (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.29), and discontinuation due to adverse events (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.6). However, the RR for hallucinations was significantly lower after treatment with CR oxycodone compared to CR morphine (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.97). The quality of the evidence was very low for all these adverse events. There were no marked differences in treatment acceptability or quality of life ratings.The remaining studies either compared oxycodone in various formulations or compared oxycodone to different alternative opioids. None found any clear superiority or inferiority of oxycodone for cancer pain, neither as an analgesic agent nor in terms of adverse event rates and treatment acceptability.The quality of this evidence base was limited by the high or unclear risk of bias of the studies and by imprecision due to low or very low event rates or participant numbers for many outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The conclusions have not changed since the previous version of this review. The data suggest that oxycodone offers similar levels of pain relief and overall adverse events to other strong opioids including morphine. Although we identified a clinically insignificant benefit on pain relief in favour of CR morphine over CR oxycodone, this did not persist following sensitivity analysis and so we do not consider this important. However, in this updated analysis, we found that hallucinations occurred less often with CR oxycodone than with CR morphine, but the quality of this evidence was very low so this finding should be treated with utmost caution. Our conclusions are consistent with other reviews and suggest that while the reliability of the evidence base is low, given the absence of important differences within this analysis it seems unlikely that larger head to head studies of oxycodone versus morphine are justified, although well-designed trials comparing oxycodone to other strong analgesics may well be useful. For clinical purposes, oxycodone or morphine can be used as first-line oral opioids for relief of cancer pain in adults.
Topics: Aged; Analgesics, Opioid; Cancer Pain; Constipation; Delayed-Action Preparations; Drug Administration Schedule; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Morphine; Nausea; Neoplasms; Oxycodone; Pain Measurement; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sleep Stages; Vomiting
PubMed: 28829910
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003870.pub6 -
Medical Principles and Practice :... 2018One of the most important side effects of opioids is their influence on the electrical activity of the heart. This review focusses on the effects of opioids on QT... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
One of the most important side effects of opioids is their influence on the electrical activity of the heart. This review focusses on the effects of opioids on QT interval prolongation and their arrhythmogenic liability.
METHODS
By using various keywords, papers published up to 2018 in different databases were searched and identified. The search terms were opioids names, corrected QT interval, human-ether-a-go-go gene, torsades de pointes (TdP), cardiac arrhythmias, opioid dependence and other relevant terms. It emphasized the effects of each opioid agent alone on electrocardiogram (ECG) and some interactions.
RESULTS
Available data indicate that some opioids such as methadone are high-risk even at low doses, and have potential for prolongation of the QT interval and development of TdP, a dangerous ventricular tachycardia. A number of opioids such as tramadol and oxycodone are intermediate risk drugs and may develop long QT interval and TdP in high doses. Some other opioids such as morphine and buprenorphine are low-risk drugs and do not produce QT interval prolongation and TdP at least in routine doses. Opium-consumers are at higher risk of supra-ventricular arrhythmias, sinus bradycardia, cardiac block and atrial fibrillation.
CONCLUSION
The cardiac arrhythmogenicity of various opioids is different. Methadone has a higher capability to induce long QT interval and dangerous arrhythmias in conventional doses than others. To reduce of arrhythmogenic risk, high doses of opioids must be used cautiously with periodic monitoring of ECG in high-risk consumers such as patients under opioid maintenance treatment.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Arrhythmias, Cardiac; Electrocardiography; Humans; Methadone; Oxycodone; Tramadol
PubMed: 30071529
DOI: 10.1159/000492616 -
Psychopharmacology May 2020Over the last decade, oxycodone has become one of the most widely abused drugs in the USA. Oxycodone use disorder (OUD) is a serious health problem that has prompted a...
RATIONALE
Over the last decade, oxycodone has become one of the most widely abused drugs in the USA. Oxycodone use disorder (OUD) is a serious health problem that has prompted a need to develop animal models of OUD that have both face and predictive validity. Oxycodone use in humans is more prevalent in women and leads to pronounced hyperalgesia and irritability during withdrawal. However, unclear is whether current animal models of oxycodone self-administration recapitulate these characteristics in humans.
OBJECTIVES
We assessed the face validity of a model of extended-access oxycodone self-administration in rats by examining the escalation of oxycodone intake and behavioral symptoms of withdrawal, including irritability-like behavior and mechanical nociception, in male and female Wistar rats.
RESULTS
Both male and female rats escalated their oxycodone intake over fourteen 12-h self-administration sessions. After escalation, female rats administered more drug than male rats. No differences in plasma oxycodone levels were identified, but males had a significantly higher level of oxycodone in the brain at 30 min. Extended access to oxycodone significantly decreased aggressive-like behavior and increased defensive-like behaviors when tested immediately after a 12-h self-administration session, followed by a rebound increase in aggressive-like behavior 12 h into withdrawal. Tests of mechanical nociception thresholds during withdrawal indicated pronounced hyperalgesia. No sex differences in irritability-like behavior or pain sensitivity were observed.
CONCLUSIONS
The present study demonstrated the face validity of the extended access model of oxycodone self-administration by identifying sex differences in the escalation of oxycodone intake and pronounced changes in pain and affective states.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Animals; Brain; Emotions; Female; Male; Oxycodone; Pain Threshold; Rats; Rats, Wistar; Self Administration; Sex Characteristics; Substance Withdrawal Syndrome
PubMed: 32114633
DOI: 10.1007/s00213-020-05479-y -
Journal of Analytical Toxicology Feb 2022The purpose of this research was to develop and validate an analytical method for the detection and quantification of noroxymorphone-3β-D-glucuronide (NOMG),...
The purpose of this research was to develop and validate an analytical method for the detection and quantification of noroxymorphone-3β-D-glucuronide (NOMG), oxymorphone-3β-D-glucuronide (NOMG), noroxymorphone (NOM), oxymorphone (OM), 6α-oxycodol (αOCL), 6β-oxycodol (βOCL), noroxycodone (NOC) and oxycodone (OC) in urine by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry to be used in a human study. The method was validated according to the Academy Standards Board Standard Practices for Method Development in Forensic Toxicology. The method was then applied to a single-dose pilot study of a subject. Urine samples were collected from the subject after ingesting 10-mg OC as an immediate-release tablet. Additionally, urine specimens (n = 15) that had previously been confirmed positive for OC were analyzed using the validated method. The calibration range for NOMG and OMG was 0.05-10 μg/mL; for all other analytes, it was 0.015-10 μg/mL. Validation parameters such as bias, precision, carryover and dilution integrity, all met the validation criteria. After the method was validated, urine samples from the first subject in the controlled dose study were analyzed. It was observed that OC, NOC and OMG contained the highest concentrations and were present in either the 0.5 or 1 h void. NOC and OMG were detected until the 48 h collection, while OC was detectable till the 24 h collection. Time to reach maximum concentration (Tmax) in the urine was achieved within 1.5 h for OC and within 3 h for NOC and OMG. Maximum concentration (Cmax) in the urine for OC, NOC and OMG was 3.15, 2.0 and 1.56 μg/mg, respectively. OC concentrations in authentic urines ranged from 0.015 to 12 μg/mL. Ranges for NOMG and OMG were 0.054-9.7 μg/mL and 0.14-67 μg/mL, respectively. A comprehensive method for the quantification of NOMG, OMG, NOM, OM, αOCL, βOCL, NOC and OC in urine was optimized and met the validation criteria. The concentrations of NOMG and OMG presented in this study provide the details needed in the forensic community to better comprehend OC pharmacokinetics.
Topics: Chromatography, Liquid; Humans; Oxycodone; Oxymorphone; Pilot Projects; Tandem Mass Spectrometry
PubMed: 33270113
DOI: 10.1093/jat/bkaa186