-
BMC Anesthesiology May 2023Management of acute postoperative pain is one of the major challenges in pediatric patients. Oral oxycodone has shown good pain relief in postoperative pain relief in... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
Management of acute postoperative pain is one of the major challenges in pediatric patients. Oral oxycodone has shown good pain relief in postoperative pain relief in children, but no studies have investigated intravenous oxycodone in this context.
OBJECTIVE
whether oxycodone PCIA can provide adequate and safe postoperative pain relief, in comparison to tramadol as reference opioid drug.
DESIGN
a randomized, double-blind, parallel, multi-center clinical trial.
SETTING
five university medical centers and three teaching hospitals in China.
PARTICIPANTS
patients aged 3-month-old to 6-year-old undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia.
INTERVENTION
patients were randomly allocated to either tramadol (n = 109) or oxycodone (n = 89) as main postoperative opioid analgesic. Tramadol or oxycodone were administered with a loading dose at the end of surgery (1 or 0.1 mg.kg, respectively), then with a parent-controlled intravenous device with fixed bolus doses only (0.5 or 0.05 mg.kg-1, respectively), and a 10-min lockout time.
OUTCOMES
the primary outcome was adequate postoperative pain relief, defined as a face, legs, activity, cry, and consolability (FLACC) score < 4/10 in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU), with no need for an alternative rescue analgesia. FLACC was measured 10 min after extubation then every 10 min until discharge from PACU. Analgesia was currently conducted with the boluses of either tramadol or oxycodone if FLACC was ≥ 3, up to three bolus doses, after what rescue alternative analgesia was administered.
RESULTS
tramadol and oxycodone provided a similar level of adequate postoperative pain relief in PACU and in the wards. No significant differences were either noted for the raw FLACC scores, the bolus dose demand in PACU, the time between the first bolus dose and discharge from PACU, analgesic drug consumption, bolus times required in the wards, function activity score, or the parents' satisfaction. The main observed side effects in both groups were nausea and vomiting, with no difference between groups. However, patients in the oxycodone group showed less sedation levels and had a shorter stay in the PACU, compared with the tramadol group.
CONCLUSIONS
an adequate postoperative analgesia can be achieved with intravenous oxycodone, this with less side effects than tramadol. It can therefore be a choice for postoperative pain relief in pediatric patients.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
The study was registered at www.chictr.org.cn (Registration number: ChiCTR1800016372; date of first registration: 28/05/2018; updated date:06/01/2023).
Topics: Humans; Child; Infant; Tramadol; Oxycodone; Prospective Studies; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Analgesics, Opioid; Pain, Postoperative; Double-Blind Method
PubMed: 37138225
DOI: 10.1186/s12871-023-02054-8 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2016Cancer pain is an important and distressing symptom that tends to increase in frequency and intensity as the cancer advances. For people with advanced cancer, the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Cancer pain is an important and distressing symptom that tends to increase in frequency and intensity as the cancer advances. For people with advanced cancer, the prevalence of pain can be as high as 90%. It has been estimated that 30% to 50% of people with cancer categorise their pain as moderate to severe, with between 75% and 90% of people with cancer experiencing pain that they describe as having a major impact on their daily life. Epidemiological studies suggest that approximately 15% of people with cancer pain fail to experience acceptable pain relief with conventional management. Uncontrolled pain can lead to physical and psychological distress and can, consequently, have a drastic effect on people's quality of life.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the analgesic efficacy of hydromorphone in relieving cancer pain, as well as the incidence and severity of any adverse events.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase and clinical trials registers up to April 2016. There were no language, document type or publication status limitations applied in the search.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared hydromorphone with placebo or other active pain medication for cancer pain in both adults and children. The four main outcomes selected have previously been identified as important to people with cancer; pain no worse than mild pain, and the impact of the treatment on consciousness, appetite and thirst. We did not consider physician-, nurse- or carer-reported measures of pain.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we estimated the mean difference (MD) between groups and its 95% CI. We used a random-effects model and assessed the risk of bias for all included studies. A meta-analysis was not completed on any of the primary outcomes in this review due to the lack of data. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created two 'Summary of findings' tables.
MAIN RESULTS
We included four studies (604 adult participants), which compared hydromorphone to oxycodone (two studies) or morphine (two studies). Overall, the included studies were at low or unclear risk of bias, rated unclear due to unknown status of blinding of outcome assessment; we rated three studies at high risk of bias for potential conflict of interest. Data for 504 participants were available for analysis. We collected data on endpoint participant-reported pain intensity measured with a visual analogue scale (VAS) (mean ± standard deviation (SD): hydromorphone 28.86 ± 17.08, n = 19; oxycodone 30.30 ± 25.33, n = 12; scale from 0 to 100 with higher score indicating worse pain), and Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) 24 hours worst pain subscale (mean ± SD: hydromorphone 3.5 ± 2.9, n = 99; morphine 4.3 ± 3.0, n = 101, scale from 0 to 10 with higher score indicating worse pain). The data demonstrated a similar effect between groups with both comparisons. The pain intensity data showed that participants in all four trials achieved no worse than mild pain. There were several adverse events: some were the expected opioid adverse effects such as nausea, constipation and vomiting; others were not typical opioid adverse effects (for example, decreased appetite, dizziness and pyrexia, as shown in Table 1 in the main review), but generally showed no difference between groups. There were three deaths in the morphine group during the trial period, considered to be due to disease progression and unrelated to the drug. Three trials had over 10% dropout, but the reason and proportion of dropout was balanced between groups. The overall quality of evidence was very low mainly due to high risk of bias, imprecision of effect estimates and publication bias. There were no data available for children or for several participant-important outcomes, including participant-reported pain relief and treatment impact on consciousness, appetite or thirst.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review indicated little difference between hydromorphone and other opioids in terms of analgesic efficacy. Data gathered in this review showed that hydromorphone had a similar effect on participant-reported pain intensity as reported for oxycodone and morphine. Participants generally achieved no worse than mild pain after taking hydromorphone, which is comparable with the other drugs. It produced a consistent analgesic effect through the night and could be considered for use in people with cancer pain experiencing sleep disturbance. However, the overall quality of evidence was very low mainly due to risk of bias, imprecision of effect estimates and publication bias. This review only included four studies with limited sample size and a range of study designs. Data for some important outcomes, such as impact of the treatment on consciousness, appetite or thirst, were not available. Therefore, we were unable to demonstrate superiority or inferiority of hydromorphone in comparison with other analgesics for these outcomes. We recommend that further research with larger sample sizes and more comprehensive outcome data collection is required.
Topics: Adult; Analgesics, Opioid; Female; Humans; Hydromorphone; Male; Morphine; Neoplasms; Oxycodone; Pain; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27727452
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011108.pub2 -
Pharmacology Research & Perspectives Feb 2022Tapentadol is a centrally acting analgesic with a dual mechanism of action. It acts as an agonist at the µ receptor and inhibitor of noradrenaline reuptake. Clinical... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
Tapentadol is a centrally acting analgesic with a dual mechanism of action. It acts as an agonist at the µ receptor and inhibitor of noradrenaline reuptake. Clinical trials suggest similar analgesic efficacy of tapentadol, oxycodone, and morphine in acute and chronic pain. Given the limited information about the molecular actions of tapentadol at the µ receptor, we investigated the intrinsic efficacy of tapentadol and compared it with other opioids. β-chlornaltrexamine (β-CNA, 100 nM, 20 min) was used to deplete spare receptors in AtT20 cells stably transfected with human µ receptor wild-type (WT). Opioid-mediated changes in membrane potential were measured in real-time using a membrane potential-sensitive fluorescent dye. Using Black and Leff's operational model, intrinsic efficacy relative to DAMGO was calculated for each opioid. Tapentadol (0.05 ± 0.01) activated the GIRK channel with lesser intrinsic efficacy than morphine (0.17 ± 0.02) and oxycodone (0.16 ± 0.02). We further assessed the signaling of tapentadol in the common µ receptor variants (N40D and A6V) which are associated with altered receptor signaling. We found no difference in the response of tapentadol between these receptor variants.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Animals; Cell Line, Tumor; Humans; Mice; Morphine; Oxycodone; Receptors, Opioid, mu; Tapentadol
PubMed: 35084120
DOI: 10.1002/prp2.921 -
JAMA Network Open Nov 2021Patients with a surgically managed fracture are commonly discharged from the hospital with a strong opioid prescription, but limited evidence exists to support this... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Randomized Controlled Trial
Effectiveness of Oxycodone Hydrochloride (Strong Opioid) vs Combination Acetaminophen and Codeine (Mild Opioid) for Subacute Pain After Fractures Managed Surgically: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
IMPORTANCE
Patients with a surgically managed fracture are commonly discharged from the hospital with a strong opioid prescription, but limited evidence exists to support this practice.
OBJECTIVE
To test the hypothesis that strong opioids provide greater analgesia than mild opioids over the first week postdischarge from hospital after fracture surgical treatment.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
This double-blind, superiority, randomized clinical trial was conducted at a single-center, major trauma hospital in Sydney, Australia. Participants were inpatients who had sustained an acute nonpathological facture of a long bone or the pelvis, patella, calcaneus, or talus who were treated with surgical fixation and enrolled from July 27, 2016, to August 22, 2017. Data were analyzed from June through October 2018.
INTERVENTIONS
Initiation at discharge of oxycodone hydrochloride 5 mg of 10 mg (ie, 1 or 2 tablets) or combination acetaminophen and codeine 500 mg and 8 mg or 1000 mg and 16 mg (ie, 1 or 2 tablets) 4 times daily for a maximum duration of 3 weeks.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was the mean of daily pain scores collected during week 1 of treatment measured using the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NRS). Participants were asked to rate their mean pain over the previous 24 hours daily using an NRS score from 0 to 10, with 0 representing no pain and 10 representing the worst pain imaginable. The key secondary outcomes were EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level Questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) responses, worst pain, medication adverse events, global perceived effect, and return to work.
RESULTS
A total of 120 patients with 1 or more acute orthopedic fractures requiring surgical fixation were randomized, including 59 patients in the strong-opioid group (43 [72.9%] men; mean [SD] age, 36.0 [14.1] years; mean oral morphine equivalent for days 1-7 of 32.9 mg) and 61 patients in the mild opioid group (47 [77.1%] men; mean [SD] age, 38.2 [13.5] years; mean oral morphine equivalent for days 1-7 of 5.5 mg). From days 1 to 7 postdischarge, the mean daily NRS mean pain score was 4.04 (95% Cl, 3.67 to 4.41) in the strong opioid group and 4.54 (95% Cl, 4.17 to 4.90) in the mild opioid group. The between-group difference of the primary outcome was not statistically significant (-0.50 [95% Cl, -1.11 to 0.12]; P = .11) despite a 6-fold increased dose of opioids being delivered in the strong opioid group.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
This study found that treatment with strong opioid medication subacutely was not superior to treatment with milder medication for treatment of pain among patients with surgically managed orthopedic fractures. These findings suggest that ongoing first-line strong opioid use after discharge from the hospital should not be supported.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Australia New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry No.: ACTRN12616000941460.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Adult; Analgesics, Opioid; Australia; Codeine; Double-Blind Method; Drug Combinations; Female; Fractures, Bone; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Orthopedic Procedures; Oxycodone; Pain Management; Pain, Postoperative; Young Adult
PubMed: 34787656
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.34988 -
The American Journal of Hospice &... Oct 2022Opioids are known to induce delirium, but few studies have closely investigated differences in incidence of delirium among different opioids.
BACKGROUND
Opioids are known to induce delirium, but few studies have closely investigated differences in incidence of delirium among different opioids.
OBJECTIVES
To determine whether there is a clinically significant difference in the incidence of delirium between oral opioids in previously opioid-naive patients.
METHODS
Subjects were 259 opioid-naive in-patients with cancer who were started on morphine sulfate, oxycodone hydrochloride, or tapentadol hydrochloride extended-release tablets at our hospital between August 1, 2014, and September 30, 2018. The incidence of delirium during the first week of treatment was compared between the drugs.
RESULTS
The incidence of delirium was 4.8% (n = 83) for morphine sulfate, 6.9% (n = 131) for oxycodone hydrochloride, and 6.7% (n = 45) for tapentadol hydrochloride. The incidence did not significantly differ between oxycodone hydrochloride (OR = .69, 95% CI = .20-2.30, [Fisher's exact test] = .77) or tapentadol hydrochloride (OR = .71, 95% CI = .15-3.32, [Fisher's exact test] = .70) and morphine sulfate (reference group). Moreover, the incidence did not significantly differ between tapentadol hydrochloride (OR = 1.03, 95% CI = .27-3.00, [Fisher's exact test] = 1.00) and oxycodone hydrochloride (reference group).
CONCLUSION
The incidence of delirium in previously opioid-naive patients did not differ significantly among morphine sulfate, oxycodone hydrochloride, and tapentadol hydrochloride extended-release tablets, suggesting similar risk of delirium in opioid-naive patients among these oral opioids.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Delirium; Humans; Incidence; Morphine; Oxycodone; Tapentadol
PubMed: 35045754
DOI: 10.1177/10499091211065171 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2016This is an update of an earlier review that considered both neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia (Issue 6, 2014), which has now been split into separate reviews for the two... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is an update of an earlier review that considered both neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia (Issue 6, 2014), which has now been split into separate reviews for the two conditions. This review considers neuropathic pain only.Opioid drugs, including oxycodone, are commonly used to treat neuropathic pain, and are considered effective by some professionals. Most reviews have examined all opioids together. This review sought evidence specifically for oxycodone, at any dose, and by any route of administration. Separate reviews consider other opioids.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of oxycodone for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE from inception to 6 November 2013 for the original review and from January 2013 to 21 December 2015 for this update. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and two online clinical trial registries. This update differs from the earlier review in that we have included studies using oxycodone in combination with naloxone, and oxycodone used as add-on treatment to stable, but inadequate, treatment with another class of drug.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing any dose or formulation of oxycodone with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality and potential bias. Where pooled analysis was possible, we used dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and numbers needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods.We assessed the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and created a 'Summary of findings' table.
MAIN RESULTS
The updated searches identified one additional published study, and one clinical trial registry report. We included five studies reporting on 687 participants; 637 had painful diabetic neuropathy and 50 had postherpetic neuralgia. Two studies used a cross-over design and three used a parallel group design; all studies used a placebo comparator, although one study used an active placebo (benztropine). Modified-release oxycodone (oxycodone MR) was titrated to effect and tolerability. One study used a fixed dose combination of oxycodone MR and naloxone. Two studies added oxycodone therapy to ongoing, stable treatment with either pregabalin or gabapentin. All studies had one or more sources of potential major bias.No study reported the proportion of participants experiencing 'substantial benefit' (at least 50% pain relief or who were very much improved). Three studies (537 participants) in painful diabetic neuropathy reported outcomes equivalent to 'moderate benefit' (at least 30% pain relief or who were much or very much improved), which was experienced by 44% of participants with oxycodone and 27% with placebo (number needed to treat for one additional beneficial outcome (NNT) 5.7).All studies reported group mean pain scores at the end of treatment. Three studies reported a greater pain intensity reduction and better patient satisfaction with oxycodone MR alone than with placebo. There was a similar result in the study adding oxycodone MR to stable, ongoing gabapentin, but adding oxycodone MR plus naloxone to stable, ongoing pregabalin did not show any additional effect.More participants experienced adverse events with oxycodone MR alone (86%) than with placebo (63%); the number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNH) was 4.3. Serious adverse events (oxycodone 3.4%, placebo 7.0%) and adverse event withdrawals (oxycodone 11%, placebo 6.4%) were not significantly different between groups. Withdrawals due to lack of efficacy were less frequent with oxycodone MR (1.1%) than placebo (11%), with a number needed to treat to prevent one withdrawal of 10. The add-on studies reported similar results.We downgraded the quality of the evidence to very low for all outcomes, due to limitations in the study methods, heterogeneity in the pain condition and study methods, and sparse data.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was only very low quality evidence that oxycodone (as oxycodone MR) is of value in the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy or postherpetic neuralgia. There was no evidence for other neuropathic pain conditions. Adverse events typical of opioids appeared to be common.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Analgesics, Opioid; Constipation; Delayed-Action Preparations; Diabetic Neuropathies; Disorders of Excessive Somnolence; Dizziness; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Neuralgia, Postherpetic; Oxycodone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27465317
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010692.pub3 -
BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care Jun 2018To assess the efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of oxycodone for cancer pain in adults METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, Embase, SCI,... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of oxycodone for cancer pain in adults METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, Embase, SCI, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, BIOSIS, PsycINFO and four trials registries to November 2016.
RESULTS
We included 23 randomised controlled trials with 2144 patients analysed for efficacy and 2363 for safety. Meta-analyses showed no significant differences between controlled-release (CR) and immediate-release oxycodone in pain intensity or adverse events but did show significantly better pain relief after treatment with CR morphine compared with CR oxycodone. However, sensitivity analysis did not corroborate this result. Meta-analyses of the adverse events showed a significantly lower risk of hallucinations after treatment with CR oxycodone compared with CR morphine, but no other differences. 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 in pain relief or adverse events. The quality of this evidence base was limited by the high/unclear risk of bias of the studies and the low event rates for many outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
Oxycodone offers similar levels of pain relief and adverse events to other strong opioids. However, hallucinations occurred less 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 oxycodone can be used first line as an alternative to morphine. However, because it is cheaper, morphine generally remains the first-line opioid of choice.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Cancer Pain; Humans; Oxycodone; Pain Management; Patient Preference; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29331953
DOI: 10.1136/bmjspcare-2017-001457 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Feb 2017This prospective study aimed to characterize the population pharmacokinetics of intravenous oxycodone and to determine the minimum effective concentration (MEC) and... (Clinical Trial)
Clinical Trial
AIMS
This prospective study aimed to characterize the population pharmacokinetics of intravenous oxycodone and to determine the minimum effective concentration (MEC) and minimum effective analgesic concentration (MEAC) of oxycodone for major open intra-abdominal surgery.
METHODS
In the pharmacokinetic study, patients were administered intravenous oxycodone (0.1 mg kg ), and arterial blood was sampled at pre-set intervals. In the analgesic-potency study, patients were administered intravenous oxycodone (0.1 mg kg ) 30 min before the end of the surgery, were placed in the postoperative anaesthesia care unit (PACU), and were asked to rate their pain every 10 min using a visual analogue scale (0 = no pain, 10 = most severe pain). On the first occasion that wound pain at rest and during compression was rated as ≥3 or ≥5, respectively, the first blood sample was obtained to determine the MEC. A second blood sample was obtained after titration with 2 mg of oxycodone to yield wound pain <3 at rest and <5 during wound compression, and MEAC was determined. MEC and MEAC were determined again in each patient.
RESULTS
In the population pharmacokinetic study (n = 54), oxycodone plasma concentration over time was well described by a three-compartment mammillary model. Lean body mass and age were significant covariates for the volume of distribution and metabolic clearance of the pharmacokinetic model of oxycodone, respectively. The analgesic-potency study (n = 50) showed that the median (95% CI) MEC and MEAC were 31.5 (19.2-42.8) and 74.1 (29.2-128.3) ng ml (first measurements) and 63.4 (15.6-120.1) and 76.1 (32.9-132.7) ng ml (second measurements), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
In major intra-abdominal open surgery, the MEAC and analgesic potency of oxycodone were 75 ng ml and 60 ng ml , respectively.
Topics: Abdomen; Administration, Intravenous; Aged; Analgesics, Opioid; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Models, Biological; Oxycodone; Pain Measurement; Pain, Postoperative; Prospective Studies
PubMed: 27558774
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.13101 -
PloS One 2022This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of oxycodone hydrochloride (OxyContin) rectal administration in cancer pain patients. This is geared towards... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of oxycodone hydrochloride (OxyContin) rectal administration in cancer pain patients. This is geared towards providing the research evidence for a novel route of OxyContin administration.
METHODS
Relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were searched in electronic databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, EMBASE, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Scientific Journal Database (VIP database), Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM). Moreover, unpublished academic data were obtained by contacting the colleague, professor, or Institute of Traditional Chinese Medicine. The RCTs of transrectal Oxycodone administration of sustained-release tablets for moderate and severe pain patients were searched in the databases from inception to December 2020.
RESULTS
According to the inclusion criteria, a total of 8 RCTs were included, with a total of 648 patients. Meta analysis results showed that there was no statistically significant difference in the efficacy of moderate to severe pain control between the rectal administration group and the oral administration group (RR = 1.04, 95%CI: 0.99-1.10, p = 0.13>0.05). At the same time, the incidence of adverse reactions in the rectal administration group was low. In terms of constipation, the rectal administration group was less than the oral administration group, with a statistically significant difference (RR = 0.43, 95%CI: 0.31-0.58, p< 0.00001). In terms of nausea and vomiting, the rectal administration group was less than the oral administration group, and the difference was statistically significant(RR = 0.30, 95%CI: 0.21-0.42, p<0.00001). In terms of sleepiness, there was no significant difference between the two groups(RR = 0.54, 95%CI: 0.26-1.15, p = 0.11>0.05). In terms of dizziness, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (RR = 0.43, 95%CI:0.27-0.68, p = 0.31>0.05). In terms of dyuria, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (RR = 0.37, 95%CI: 0.02-7.02, p = 0.51>0.05). In terms of KPS scores there was no significant difference was noted between the rectal and oral administration groups (RR = 1.04, 95%CI: 0.89-1.21, p = 0.63>0.05).
CONCLUSION
In summary, we found no significant differences in efficacy between rectal administration of OxyContin and oral administration. Thus, rectal administration should be considered in managing cancer pain among patients with difficulty in oral OxyContin administration.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42021209660.
Topics: Administration, Rectal; Cancer Pain; Delayed-Action Preparations; Humans; Oxycodone; Pain
PubMed: 35759471
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0266754 -
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance Dec 2021Opioid use disorder and its consequences are a persistent public health concern for Australians. Web activity has been used to understand the perception of drug safety...
BACKGROUND
Opioid use disorder and its consequences are a persistent public health concern for Australians. Web activity has been used to understand the perception of drug safety and diversion of drugs in contexts outside of Australia. The anonymity of the internet offers several advantages for surveilling and inquiring about specific covert behaviors, such as diversion or discussion of sensitive subjects where traditional surveillance approaches might be limited.
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to characterize the content of web posts and compare reports of illicit sales of tapentadol and oxycodone from sources originating in Australia. First, post content is evaluated to determine whether internet discussion encourages or discourages proper therapeutic use of the drugs. Second, we hypothesize that tapentadol would have lower street price and fewer illicit sales than oxycodone.
METHODS
Web posts originating in Australia between 2017 and 2019 were collected using the Researched Abuse, Diversion, and Addiction-Related Surveillance System Web Monitoring Program. Using a manual coding process, unstructured post content from social media, blogs, and forums was categorized into topics of discussion related to the harms and behaviors that could lead to harm. Illicit sales data in a structured format were collected through a crowdsourcing website between 2016 and 2019 using the Researched Abuse, Diversion, and Addiction-Related Surveillance System StreetRx Program. In total, 2 multivariable regression models assessed the differences in illicit price and number of sales.
RESULTS
A total of 4.7% (28/600) of tapentadol posts discussed an adverse event, whereas 10.27% (95% CI 9.32-11.21) of oxycodone posts discussed this topic. A total of 10% (60/600) of tapentadol posts discussed unsafe use or side effects, whereas 20.17% (95% CI 18.92-21.41) of oxycodone posts discussed unsafe use or side effects. There were 31 illicit sales reports for tapentadol (geometric mean price per milligram: Aus $0.12 [US $0.09]) and 756 illicit sales reports for oxycodone (Aus $1.28 [US $0.91]). Models detected no differences in the street price or number of sales between the drugs when covariates were included, although the potency of the pill significantly predicted the street price (P<.001) and availability predicted the number of sales (P=.03).
CONCLUSIONS
Australians searching the web for opinions could judge tapentadol as safer than oxycodone because of the web post content. The illicit sales market for tapentadol was smaller than that of oxycodone, and drug potency and licit availability are likely important factors influencing the illicit market.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Australia; Humans; Internet; Oxycodone; Tapentadol
PubMed: 34932012
DOI: 10.2196/29187