Efficacy and safety of transdermal fentanyl and sustained-release oral morphine in patients with cancer and chronic non-cancer pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate effectiveness and safety information of transdermal fentanyl (TDF) (Duragesic/Durogesic) and sustained-release oral morphine (SRM) in cancer pain (CP) and chronic non-cancer pain (NCP), a pooled analysis was conducted on datasets of published, open label, uncontrolled (no comparator group) and randomised controlled (with SRM as comparator) studies of TDF. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eight trials with treatment durations of at least 28 days met the inclusion criteria. The effectiveness analysis assessed changes in average pain and pain 'right now' scores between baseline and Day 28. The safety analysis evaluated the incidence of adverse events (AEs) reported within the first 28 days of treatment with TDF or SRM. Subgroup analyses included pain type, gender, age, weight, and body mass index. RESULTS: Pooled efficacy data were available from 1220 patients; these showed that both TDF and SRM were effective in improving pain 'right now' scores (0-100 scale) from baseline to Day 28. The improvement was significantly more pronounced in the TDF treatment group (-26.7 +/- 31.3 for TDF, -18.7 +/- 30.9 for SRM, p = 0.002). This favourable effect of TDF was most apparent amongst patients with NCP. Data concerning AEs were available from over 2500 patients with CP (3 out of 10 patients) or chronic NCP (7 out of 10 patients). Significantly fewer patients in the TDF than in the SRM group reported any AE (72% vs. 87% respectively; p < 0.001), or an AE leading to the study drug being permanently discontinued (16% vs. 23% respectively; p < 0.001). Constipation and somnolence occurred considerably less frequently in the TDF than in the SRM treatment group. This difference was statistically significant in both the CP and NCP subgroups. CONCLUSION: This pooled data analysis provides expanded insight into the safety and effectiveness profile of transdermal fentanyl in patients with chronic pain. It shows significantly improved pain relief with transdermal fentanyl compared with sustained-release oral morphine, and supports current evidence of favourable tolerability of transdermal fentanyl, particularly with regard to reduced constipation and somnolence.
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 | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".