Opioid rotation from transdermal fentanyl to continuous subcutaneous hydromorphone in a cachectic patient: A case report and review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Opioid rotation from transdermal fentanyl to an alternate opioid is often necessitated in advanced disease, but is fraught with uncertainty due to variable absorption from the patch in end-stage illness and the lack of a clearly established opioid rotation ratio. The manufacturer of transdermal fentanyl provides opioid rotation recommendations only for rotation from the oral morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD) of opioid to the patch, not in the opposite direction. This is a case report of a single patient with cancer and cachexia admitted to the palliative care unit of a large academic medical centre in Canada. The patient is a 50-year-old female with widely metastatic breast cancer who developed opioid toxicity when maintenance transdermal fentanyl patch therapy (100 μg patch applied every 72 h) was rotated to subcutaneous hydromorphone infusion to improve pain control. Hydromorphone was initiated at a rate of 1 mg/h by continuous infusion based on an opioid rotation ratio for transdermal fentanyl (μg/h):MEDD (mg/day) of 1:2.4. Opioid toxicity eventually resolved with downward titration of hydromorphone to only 30% of the initially estimated equianalgesic dose. This case highlights the need for close follow-up of all patients undergoing opioid rotation from transdermal fentanyl and reinforces the need to reduce the initial dose of the new opioid by 30%-50% of the calculated MEDD, especially when rotating from a high dose of transdermal fentanyl, or if there are factors potentially impairing absorption from the patch such as age, cachexia and weight loss, or if rotation is performed for reasons other than uncontrolled pain.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".