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

Joseph V. Pergolizzi, Sebastiano Mercadante, Antonio Virizuela Echaburu, Bart Van Den Eynden, Rosa María De Faría Fragoso, Sylvester Mordarski, Willem Lybaert, Juraj Beniak, Anna Orońska, Ondrej Slama

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

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 longterm 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 mg/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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1517-1528
Number of pages12
JournalCurrent Medical Research and Opinion
Volume25
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2009

Fingerprint

Buprenorphine
Consensus
Chronic Pain
Pain
Opioid Analgesics
Analgesics
Neuralgia
Therapeutics
Cancer Pain
Acute Pain
Dizziness
Constipation
Drug Delivery Systems
Palliative Care
PubMed
Respiratory Insufficiency
Analgesia
Immunosuppression
Morphine
Nausea

Keywords

  • Cancer pain
  • Neuropathic pain
  • Opioid
  • Palliative care
  • Transdermal buprenorphine analgesic

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Pergolizzi, J. V., Mercadante, S., Echaburu, A. V., Van Den Eynden, B., De Faría Fragoso, R. M., Mordarski, S., ... Slama, O. (2009). The role of transdermal buprenorphine in the treatment of cancer pain: An expert panel consensus. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 25(6), 1517-1528. https://doi.org/10.1185/03007990902920731

The role of transdermal buprenorphine in the treatment of cancer pain : An expert panel consensus. / Pergolizzi, Joseph V.; Mercadante, Sebastiano; Echaburu, Antonio Virizuela; Van Den Eynden, Bart; De Faría Fragoso, Rosa María; Mordarski, Sylvester; Lybaert, Willem; Beniak, Juraj; Orońska, Anna; Slama, Ondrej.

In: Current Medical Research and Opinion, Vol. 25, No. 6, 06.2009, p. 1517-1528.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Pergolizzi, JV, Mercadante, S, Echaburu, AV, Van Den Eynden, B, De Faría Fragoso, RM, Mordarski, S, Lybaert, W, Beniak, J, Orońska, A & Slama, O 2009, 'The role of transdermal buprenorphine in the treatment of cancer pain: An expert panel consensus', Current Medical Research and Opinion, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 1517-1528. https://doi.org/10.1185/03007990902920731
Pergolizzi JV, Mercadante S, Echaburu AV, Van Den Eynden B, De Faría Fragoso RM, Mordarski S et al. The role of transdermal buprenorphine in the treatment of cancer pain: An expert panel consensus. Current Medical Research and Opinion. 2009 Jun;25(6):1517-1528. https://doi.org/10.1185/03007990902920731
Pergolizzi, Joseph V. ; Mercadante, Sebastiano ; Echaburu, Antonio Virizuela ; Van Den Eynden, Bart ; De Faría Fragoso, Rosa María ; Mordarski, Sylvester ; Lybaert, Willem ; Beniak, Juraj ; Orońska, Anna ; Slama, Ondrej. / The role of transdermal buprenorphine in the treatment of cancer pain : An expert panel consensus. In: Current Medical Research and Opinion. 2009 ; Vol. 25, No. 6. pp. 1517-1528.
@article{d073cf281d5849ada65efa9da8b8efea,
title = "The role of transdermal buprenorphine in the treatment of cancer pain: An expert panel consensus",
abstract = "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 longterm 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 mg/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.",
keywords = "Cancer pain, Neuropathic pain, Opioid, Palliative care, Transdermal buprenorphine analgesic",
author = "Pergolizzi, {Joseph V.} and Sebastiano Mercadante and Echaburu, {Antonio Virizuela} and {Van Den Eynden}, Bart and {De Far{\'i}a Fragoso}, {Rosa Mar{\'i}a} and Sylvester Mordarski and Willem Lybaert and Juraj Beniak and Anna Orońska and Ondrej Slama",
year = "2009",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1185/03007990902920731",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "25",
pages = "1517--1528",
journal = "Current Medical Research and Opinion",
issn = "0300-7995",
publisher = "Informa Healthcare",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The role of transdermal buprenorphine in the treatment of cancer pain

T2 - An expert panel consensus

AU - Pergolizzi, Joseph V.

AU - Mercadante, Sebastiano

AU - Echaburu, Antonio Virizuela

AU - Van Den Eynden, Bart

AU - De Faría Fragoso, Rosa María

AU - Mordarski, Sylvester

AU - Lybaert, Willem

AU - Beniak, Juraj

AU - Orońska, Anna

AU - Slama, Ondrej

PY - 2009/6

Y1 - 2009/6

N2 - 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 longterm 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 mg/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.

AB - 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 longterm 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 mg/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.

KW - Cancer pain

KW - Neuropathic pain

KW - Opioid

KW - Palliative care

KW - Transdermal buprenorphine analgesic

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=67649435618&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=67649435618&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1185/03007990902920731

DO - 10.1185/03007990902920731

M3 - Article

C2 - 19435402

AN - SCOPUS:67649435618

VL - 25

SP - 1517

EP - 1528

JO - Current Medical Research and Opinion

JF - Current Medical Research and Opinion

SN - 0300-7995

IS - 6

ER -