Schmidt-Hansen Mia, Bennett Michael I, Arnold Stephanie, Bromham Nathan, Hilgart Jennifer S
National Guideline Alliance, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, 27 Sussex Pl, Regent's Park, London, UK, NW1 4RG.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Aug 22;8(8):CD003870. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003870.pub6.
Many people with cancer experience moderate to severe pain that requires treatment with strong opioids, such as oxycodone and morphine. Strong opioids are, however, not effective for pain in all people, neither are they well-tolerated by all people. The aim of this review was to assess whether oxycodone is associated with better pain relief and tolerability than other analgesic options for adults with cancer pain. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in 2015, Issue 2 on oxycodone for cancer-related pain.
To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of oxycodone by any route of administration for pain in adults with cancer.
For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Science Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (ISI Web of Science), BIOSIS (ISI), and PsycINFO (Ovid) to November 2016. We also searched four trial registries, checked the bibliographic references of relevant studies, and contacted the authors of the included studies. We applied no language, date, or publication status restrictions.
We included randomised controlled trials (parallel group or cross-over) comparing oxycodone (any formulation or route of administration) with placebo or an active drug (including oxycodone) for cancer background pain in adults by examining pain intensity/relief, adverse events, quality of life, and participant preference.
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the included studies using standard Cochrane methodology. We meta-analysed pain intensity data using the generic inverse variance method, and adverse events using the Mantel-Haenszel method, or summarised these data narratively along with the quality of life and participant preference data. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using GRADE.
For this update, we identified six new studies (1258 participants) for inclusion. In total, we included 23 studies which enrolled/randomised 2648 participants, with 2144 of these analysed for efficacy and 2363 for safety. The studies examined a number of different drug comparisons.Pooled analysis of three of the four studies comparing controlled-release (CR) oxycodone to immediate-release (IR) oxycodone showed that the ability of CR and IR oxycodone to provide pain relief were similar (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.1, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.06 to 0.26; low quality evidence). Pooled analyses of adverse events showed no significant differences between CR and IR oxycodone for asthenia (risk ratio (RR) 0.58, 95% CI 0.2 to 1.68), confusion (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.2 to 3.02), constipation (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.13), dizziness/lightheadedness (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.37), drowsiness/somnolence (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.54), dry mouth (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.75), insomnia (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.31 to 3.53), nausea (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.28), nervousness (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.2 to 1.64), pruritus (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.65 to 3.25), vomiting (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.15), and discontinuation due to adverse events (RR 0.6, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.22). The quality of the evidence was very low for all these adverse events. Three of the four studies found similar results for treatment acceptability.Pooled analysis of seven of the nine studies comparing CR oxycodone to CR morphine indicated that pain relief was significantly better after treatment with CR morphine than CR oxycodone (SMD 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.27; low quality evidence). However, sensitivity analysis did not corroborate this result (SMD 0.12, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.26).Pooled analyses of adverse events showed no significant differences between CR oxycodone and CR morphine for confusion (RR 1.01 95% CI 0.78 to 1.31), constipation (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.16), dizziness/lightheadedness (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.76), drowsiness/somnolence (RR 0.9, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.08), dry mouth (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.8 to 1.26), dysuria (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.26), nausea (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.26), pruritus (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.29), vomiting (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.29), and discontinuation due to adverse events (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.6). However, the RR for hallucinations was significantly lower after treatment with CR oxycodone compared to CR morphine (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.97). The quality of the evidence was very low for all these adverse events. There were no marked differences in treatment acceptability or quality of life ratings.The remaining studies either compared oxycodone in various formulations or compared oxycodone to different alternative opioids. None found any clear superiority or inferiority of oxycodone for cancer pain, neither as an analgesic agent nor in terms of adverse event rates and treatment acceptability.The quality of this evidence base was limited by the high or unclear risk of bias of the studies and by imprecision due to low or very low event rates or participant numbers for many outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The conclusions have not changed since the previous version of this review. The data suggest that oxycodone offers similar levels of pain relief and overall adverse events to other strong opioids including morphine. Although we identified a clinically insignificant benefit on pain relief in favour of CR morphine over CR oxycodone, this did not persist following sensitivity analysis and so we do not consider this important. However, in this updated analysis, we found that hallucinations occurred less often with CR oxycodone than with CR morphine, but the quality of this evidence was very low so this finding should be treated with utmost caution. Our conclusions are consistent with other reviews and suggest that while the reliability of the evidence base is low, given the absence of important differences within this analysis it seems unlikely that larger head to head studies of oxycodone versus morphine are justified, although well-designed trials comparing oxycodone to other strong analgesics may well be useful. For clinical purposes, oxycodone or morphine can be used as first-line oral opioids for relief of cancer pain in adults.
许多癌症患者经历中度至重度疼痛,需要使用强效阿片类药物(如羟考酮和吗啡)进行治疗。然而,强效阿片类药物并非对所有人的疼痛都有效,也并非所有人都能很好地耐受。本综述的目的是评估与其他用于缓解成人癌症疼痛的镇痛药物相比,羟考酮是否能带来更好的疼痛缓解效果和耐受性。这是2015年第2期发表的关于羟考酮治疗癌症相关疼痛的原始Cochrane综述的更新版本。
评估通过任何给药途径使用羟考酮治疗成人癌症疼痛的有效性和耐受性。
对于本次更新,我们检索了截至2016年11月的Cochrane图书馆中的Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)、MEDLINE及MEDLINE在研数据库(Ovid)、Embase(Ovid)、科学引文索引、会议论文引文索引 - 科学版(ISI科学网)、BIOSIS(ISI)和PsycINFO(Ovid)。我们还检索了四个试验注册库,检查了相关研究的参考文献,并联系了纳入研究的作者。我们未设置语言、日期或出版状态限制。
我们纳入了随机对照试验(平行组或交叉试验),通过检查疼痛强度/缓解情况、不良事件、生活质量和参与者偏好,比较羟考酮(任何剂型或给药途径)与安慰剂或活性药物(包括羟考酮)用于成人癌症背景疼痛的情况。
两位综述作者独立提取数据,并使用标准的Cochrane方法评估纳入的研究。我们使用通用逆方差法对疼痛强度数据进行荟萃分析,使用Mantel - Haenszel法对不良事件进行分析,或者将这些数据与生活质量和参与者偏好数据一起进行叙述性总结。我们使用GRADE评估证据的总体质量。
对于本次更新,我们确定了六项新研究(1258名参与者)纳入。我们总共纳入了23项研究,这些研究共招募/随机分配了2648名参与者,其中2144名参与者的疗效数据和2363名参与者的安全性数据进行了分析。这些研究考察了多种不同的药物比较。对四项比较控释(CR)羟考酮与即释(IR)羟考酮的研究中的三项进行的汇总分析表明,CR羟考酮和IR羟考酮提供疼痛缓解的能力相似(标准化均数差(SMD)0.1,95%置信区间(CI)-0.06至0.26;低质量证据)。不良事件的汇总分析显示,CR羟考酮和IR羟考酮在乏力(风险比(RR)0.58,95% CI 0.2至1.68)、意识模糊(RR 0.78,95% CI 0.2至3.02)、便秘(RR .71,95% CI 0.45至1.13)、头晕/眩晕(RR 0.74,95% CI 0.4至1.37)、嗜睡/昏睡(RR 1.03,95% CI 0.69至1.54)、口干(RR 1.14,95% CI 0.48至2.75)、失眠(RR 1.04,95% CI 0.31至3.53)、恶心(RR 0.85,95% CI 0.56至1.28)、紧张(RR 0.57,95% CI 0.2至1.64)、瘙痒(RR 1.46,95% CI 0.65至3.25)、呕吐(RR 0.66,95% CI 0.38至1.15)以及因不良事件停药(RR 0.6,95% CI 0.29至1.22)方面无显著差异。所有这些不良事件的证据质量都非常低。四项研究中的三项在治疗可接受性方面得出了相似的结果。对九项比较CR羟考酮与CR吗啡的研究中的七项进行的汇总分析表明,CR吗啡治疗后的疼痛缓解明显优于CR羟考酮(SMD 0.14,95% CI 0.01至0.27;低质量证据)。然而,敏感性分析并未证实这一结果(SMD 0.12,95% CI -0.02至0.26)。不良事件的汇总分析显示,CR羟考酮和CR吗啡在意识模糊(RR 1.01,95% CI 0.78至1.31)、便秘(RR 0.98,95% CI 0.82至1.16)、头晕/眩晕(RR 0.76,95% CI 0.33至1.76)、嗜睡/昏睡(RR 0.9,95% CI 0.75至1.08)、口干(RR 1.01,95% CI 0.8至1.26)、排尿困难(RR 0.71,95% CI 0.4至1.26)、恶心(RR 1.02,95% CI 0.82至1.26)、瘙痒(RR 0.81,95% CI 0.51至1.29)、呕吐(RR 0.94,95% CI 0.68至1.29)以及因不良事件停药(RR 1.06,95% CI 0.43至2.6)方面无显著差异。然而,与CR吗啡相比,CR羟考酮治疗后幻觉的RR显著更低(RR 0.52,95% CI 0.28至0.97)。所有这些不良事件的证据质量都非常低。在治疗可接受性或生活质量评分方面没有明显差异。其余研究要么比较了不同剂型的羟考酮,要么比较了羟考酮与不同的替代阿片类药物。没有一项研究发现羟考酮在癌症疼痛治疗方面有任何明显的优势或劣势,无论是作为镇痛剂还是在不良事件发生率和治疗可接受性方面。这一证据基础的质量受到研究中高或不明确的偏倚风险以及许多结局因事件发生率低或参与者数量少导致的不精确性限制。
自本综述的上一版本以来,结论没有改变。数据表明,羟考酮与包括吗啡在内的其他强效阿片类药物在疼痛缓解水平和总体不良事件方面相似。尽管我们发现CR吗啡在疼痛缓解方面有临床意义不显著的优势,但敏感性分析后这一优势并未持续,因此我们认为这并不重要。然而,在本次更新分析中,我们发现CR羟考酮引起幻觉的频率低于CR吗啡,但该证据质量非常低,因此这一发现应极其谨慎对待。我们的结论与其他综述一致,表明虽然证据基础的可靠性较低,但鉴于本次分析中没有重要差异,似乎没有理由进行更大规模的羟考酮与吗啡的直接对比研究,尽管设计良好的比较羟考酮与其他强效镇痛药的试验可能会很有用。出于临床目的,羟考酮或吗啡可作为缓解成人癌症疼痛的一线口服阿片类药物。