Sublingual Methadone for the Management of Cancer-Related Breakthrough Pain: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Breakthrough pain is a highly prevalent and difficult to manage cancer pain problem. Current strategies are frequently ineffective, in part because of a mismatch between the sudden onset and brief duration of breakthrough pain and the slower onset and more prolonged duration of oral immediate-release opioids. Novel analgesic interventions are needed to provide a closer match between the temporal profile of the pain and the pharmacodynamics of the pain medication, and novel models of study of breakthrough pain are needed to evaluate them. METHODS: This is an open-label feasibility study of a model to evaluate sublingual methadone for cancer-related breakthrough pain. The model has three phases: screening, upward titration, and optimal dose evaluation. RESULTS: Seven patients with breakthrough pain because of cancer entered the upward titration phase of the trial, and 61 episodes of breakthrough pain were evaluated with sublingual methadone at escalating doses ranging from 2-18 mg. Toxicity was generally mild and similar to patients' prior breakthrough medication. Four patients entered the optimal dose evaluation phase, and 39 discrete episodes of breakthrough pain were available for evaluation. Significant relief of pain occurred with a median onset of 5 minutes, and no serious adverse events were encountered. CONCLUSIONS: This model of assessment of breakthrough pain, whereby each episode of pain is treated as a separate data set and multiple discrete episodes of breakthrough pain are assessed every 5 minutes in each patient, appears to be feasible within the cancer pain population. Preliminary results suggest a very rapid onset of relief of breakthrough pain with sublingual methadone when administered at the optimal dose, consistent with a highly favorable early pharmacodynamic profile of methadone administered via this route. Further study is warranted.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".