A randomized, double-blind comparison of OROS® hydromorphone and controlled-release morphine for the control of chronic cancer pain

被引：46

作者：

Hanna M. ^{[1
,2
]}

Thipphawong J. ^{[3
]}

机构：

[1] Pain Research Unit, King's College Hospital, King's College London

[2] Analgesics and Pain Research, Beckenham, Kent

[3] Johnson and Johnson Pharmaceutical Research Division Corporation, Mountain View, CA 94043

来源：

BMC Palliative Care | / 7卷 / 1期

关键词：

Morphine; Hydromorphone; Pain Interference; Breakthrough Pain; Brief Pain Inventory;

D O I：

10.1186/1472-684X-7-17

中图分类号：

学科分类号：

摘要：

Background. Long-acting opioid formulations are advocated for maintaining pain control in chronic cancer pain. OROS® hydromorphone is a sustained-release formulation of hydromorphone that requires dosing once daily to maintain therapeutic concentrations. The objective of this study was to demonstrate the clinical equivalence of immediate-release and sustained-release formulations of hydromorphone and morphine for chronic cancer pain. Methods. 200 patients with cancer pain (requiring ≤ 540 mg/d of oral morphine) participated in this double-blind, parallel-group trial. Patients were randomized to receive hydromorphone or morphine (immediate-release for 2-9 days, sustained-release for 10-15 days). Efficacy was assessed with the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), investigator and patient global evaluations, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and the Mini-Mental State Examination. The primary endpoint was the 'worst pain in the past 24 hours' item of the BPI, in both the immediate-release and sustained-release study phases, with treatments deemed equivalent if the 95% confidence intervals (CI) of the between-group differences at endpoint were between -1.5 and 1.5. No equivalence limits were defined for secondary endpoints. Results. Least-squares mean differences (95% CI) between groups were 0.2 (-0.4, 0.9) in the immediate-release phase and -0.8 (-1.6, -0.01) in the sustained-release phase (intent-to-treat population), indicating that the immediate-release formulations met the pre-specified equivalence criteria, but that the lower limit of the 95% CI (-1.6) was outside the boundary (-1.5) for the sustained-release formulations. BPI 'pain now PM' was significantly lower with OROS® hydromorphone compared with controlled-release morphine (least-squares mean difference [95% CI], -0.77 [-1.49, -0.05]; p = 0.0372). Scores for other secondary efficacy variables were similar between the two sustained-release treatments. At endpoint, > 70% of investigators and patients rated both treatments as good to excellent. The safety profiles of hydromorphone and morphine were similar and typical of opioid analgesics. Conclusion. Equivalence was demonstrated for immediate-release formulations of hydromorphone and morphine, but not for the sustained-release formulations of OROS® hydromorphone and controlled-release morphine. The direction of the mean difference between the treatments (-0.8) and the out-of-range lower limit of the 95% CI (-1.6) were in favor of OROS® hydromorphone. Trial registration. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT0041054. © 2008 Hanna et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

引用

共 39 条

[1]

Schug S.A., Zech D., Dorr U., Cancer pain management according to WHO analgesic guidelines, J Pain Symptom Manage, 5, pp. 27-32, (1990)

[2]

Ventafridda V., Caraceni A., Gamba A., Field-testing of the WHO guidelines for cancer pain relief. Summary report of demonstration projects, Advances in Pain Research and Therapy, pp. 451-64, (1990)

[3]

Health Organization W., Cancer pain relief and palliative care, Report of a WHO Expert Committee. Technical Report Series 804, pp. 1-75, (1990)

[4]

Hanks G.W., Conno F., Cherny N., Hanna M., Kalso E., McQuay H.J., Mercadante S., Meynadier J., Poulain P., Ripamonti C., Radbruch L., Casas J.R., Sawe J., Twycross R.G., Ventafridda V., Morphine and alternative opioids in cancer pain: The EAPC recommendations, Br J Cancer, 84, pp. 587-93, (2001)

[5]

Pain Society A., Principles of Analgesic Use in the Treatment of Acute Pain and Cancer Pain, (2003)

[6]

Palangio M., Northfelt D.W., Portenoy R.K., Brookoff D., Doyle Jr. R.T., Dornseif B.E., Damask M.C., Dose conversion and titration with a novel, once-daily, OROS osmotic technology, extended-release hydromorphone formulation in the treatment of chronic malignant or nonmalignant pain, J Pain Symptom Manage, 23, pp. 355-68, (2002)

[7]

Angst M.S., Drover D.R., Lotsch J., Ramaswamy B., Naidu S., Wada D.R., Stanski D.R., Pharmacodynamics of orally administered sustained-release hydromorphone in humans, Anesthesiology, 94, pp. 63-73, (2001)

[8]

Drover D.R., Angst M.S., Valle M., Ramaswamy B., Naidu S., Stanski D.R., Verotta D., Input characteristics and bioavailability after administration of immediate and a new extended-release formulation of hydromorphone in healthy volunteers, Anesthesiology, 97, pp. 827-36, (2002)

[9]

Bass D.M., Prevo M., Waxman D.S., Gastrointestinal safety of an extended-release, nondeformable, oral dosage form (OROS: A retrospective study), Drug Saf, 25, pp. 1021-33, (2002)

[10]

Verma R.J., Krishna D.M., Garg S., Formulation aspects in the development of osmotically controlled oral drug delivery systems, J Controlled Release, 79, pp. 7-27, (2002)

← 1 2 3 4 →