Differences between Transdermal Fentanyl and Buprenorphine in the Elderly Hospice Patients

Introduction. Opioids are the most important drugs in treating pain in palliative care patients. Transdermal formulations are especially useful due to their noninvasive nature and minimal interference in daily life. However, studies have shown a controversial relationship of opioids to survival and a rise in deaths associated with the use of transdermal opioids. Although applying precise doses is paramount, we have no clear recommendations for the exact equianalgesic ratio for buprenorphine patch and no recommendation for the type of transdermal opioid to use in hospice. Methods. We analyzed the differences between the transdermal fentanyl and buprenorphine group by analyzing patient characteristics and evaluating the differences in survival in hospice patients over the age of 65, from 2013 to 2017. Results. A total of 292 patients (75.8%) used fentanyl patch and 93 (24.1%) were on buprenorphine patch. Patients had virtually the same characteristics in both groups. However, when using a 1:100 buprenorphine equianalgesic ratio, there were significant differences in initial and final doses, and it seems that a 1:80 conversion rate is more accurate for elderly hospice patients. Finally, there was no difference in survival between the two groups using transdermal opioids, with or without adjuvant analgesics. Discussion. There were no differences in survival between the group using transdermal fentanyl and the group using buprenorphine in the elderly hospice population. Although adjuvant NSAIDs could be useful in the treatment of pain in terminal cancer, they do not affect survival or reduce the opioid doses, while a 1:80 equianalgesic ratio of buprenorphine might be the most appropriate in this population.

Comparative efficacy and safety of oral or transdermal opioids in the treatment of knee or hip osteoarthritis: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis protocol

IntroductionOsteoarthritis is a common degenerative joint disease that eventually leads to disability and poor quality of life. The main symptoms are joint pain and mobility disorders. If the patient has severe pain or other analgesics are contraindicated, opioids may be a viable treatment option. To evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of opioids in the treatment of knee or hip osteoarthritis, we will integrate direct and indirect evidence using a Bayesian network meta-analysis to establish hierarchies of these drugs.Methods and analysisWe will search the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and PsycINFO databases as well as published and unpublished research in international registries and regulatory agency websites for osteoarthritis reports published prior to 5 January 2018. There will be no restrictions on the language. Randomised clinical trials that compare oral or transdermal opioids with other various opioids, placebo or no treatment for patients with knee or hip osteoarthritis will be included. The primary outcomes of efficacy will be pain and function. We will use pain and function scales to evaluate the main outcomes. The secondary outcomes of safety will be defined as the proportion of patients who have stopped treatment due to side effects. Pairwise meta-analyses and Bayesian network meta-analyses will be performed for all related outcome measures. We will conduct subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses to assess the robustness of our findings. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations framework will be used to assess the quality of the evidence contributing to each network assessment.Ethics and disseminationThis study does not require formal ethical approval because individual patient data will not be included. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications or conference presentations.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018085503.

Do transdermal opioids reduce healthcare use in an Australian rural pain population? A comparison with oral opioids

Objective: To determine whether transdermal (TD) opioids reduce healthcare contacts when compared with oral opioids in a rural population with chronic noncancer pain (CNCP).Design: An observational longitudinal study to measure the changes in selfreported healthcare use by the route of opioid administration over time (monthly for 1 year). Subjects were opioid-treated CNCP patients from North West Tasmania. The subjects completed the monthly datasheets by recording all healthcare contacts and the routes of opioid administration. The outcome measures of mean monthly healthcare contacts (MHCs) by the routes of opioid administration were analyzed using generalized estimating equations with robust standard errors.Results: The details of 10,564 healthcare contacts from 198 subjects were obtained during the study. General practitioner (GP) mean MHCs were 2.01 (95% confidence intervals [CI] = 1.58-2.45) for oral opioids and significantly (p = 0.02) lower by 0.38 (95% CI = −0.70 to −0.05) contacts for TD opioids. Pharmacy mean MHCs were 2.44 (95% CI = 1.88-3.00) for oral opioids and unchanged (p = 0.86) by −0.04 (95% CI = −0.44-0.37) for TD opioids. Total mean MHCs with oral opioid use were 5.98 (95% CI = 4.93-7.03). With TD opioid use, this was nonsignificantly lower (p = 0.12) by 0.62 (95% CI = −1.40-0.15) contacts.Conclusions: The use of TD opioid preparations, with their prolonged analgesic effect, may reduce total healthcare activity and significantly reduce GP contact. This may particularly benefit a rural population where there is a relative shortage of doctors.