PurposeTo review the recent literature on opioid rotation (ie, switching from one opioid drug to another or changing an opioid’s administration route) in cancer patients experiencing severe pain and to develop a novel equianalgesia table for use in routine clinical practice.MethodsThe MEDLINE database was searched with terms “cancer pain,” “opioid rotation,” “opioid switching,” “opioid ratio,” “opioid conversion ratio,” and “opioid equianalgesia” for the major opioids (morphine, oxycodone, fentanyl, and hydromorphone) and the intravenous, subcutaneous, oral, and transdermal administration routes. Selected articles were assessed for the calculated or cited opioid dose ratio, bidirectionality, and use of the oral morphine equivalent daily dose or a direct drug-to-drug ratio.ResultsTwenty publications met our selection criteria and were analyzed in detail. We did not find any large-scale, prospective, double-blind randomized controlled trial with robust design, and most of the studies assessed relatively small numbers of patients. Bidirectionality was investigated in seven studies only.ConclusionThe updated equianalgesic table presented here incorporates the latest data and provides information on bidirectionality. Despite the daily use of equianalgesic tables, they are not based on high-level scientific evidence. More clinical research is needed on this topic.

Treatment of cancer pain is generally based on the three-step World Health Organization (WHO) pain relief ladder, which utilizes a sequential approach with drugs of increasing potency. Goals of pain management include optimization of analgesia, optimization of activities of daily living, minimization of adverse effects, and avoidance of aberrant drug taking. In addition, it is recommended that analgesic regimens are individualized and simplified to help ensure patient compliance and should provide the least invasive, easiest, and safest route of opioid administration to ensure adequate analgesia. Buprenorphine and fentanyl are two opioids available for the relief of moderate-to-severe cancer pain. Available clinical data regarding the transdermal (TD) formulations of these opioids and the extent to which they fulfill the recommendations mentioned earlier are systematically reviewed, with the aim of providing additional information for oncologists and pain specialists regarding their comparative use. Due to lack of studies directly comparing TD buprenorphine with TD fentanyl, data comparing these with other step-3 opioids are also evaluated in a network fashion.

Cancer pain is one of the most common, feared, debilitating, and often undertreated symptoms among cancer patients. It needs attention since it has a significant impact on the quality of life (QoL) of the patients. Also, since cancer has emerged as a major health problem in developing countries, there is a need to strengthen preventive strategies for effective cancer pain management and provide comfort to cancer patients. Nonetheless, various barriers limit developing countries toward optimal cancer pain management. To bridge the gap between adequate pain management and burden of cancer pain in developing countries, a comprehensive understanding of the limitations faced and the prevalence of cancer pain should be addressed. The aim of this literature review is to provide a deeper understanding on the factors associated with cancer pain as well as barriers toward optimal cancer pain management in developing countries. Some of the barriers addressed were administrative, judicial, economic, and professional barriers. Also, estimates on the prevalence of cancer pain and detrimental effects of pain on the QoL of cancer patients have been addressed. In summary, pain, which is one of the most debilitating symptoms of cancer, remains uncontrolled and undertreated in developing countries. It has a profound impact on the patient’s QoL and can have physical, psychological, and social consequences; therefore, it needs to be managed urgently and appropriately. Most importantly, optimal treatment of cancer pain should be highlighted as a priority in developing countries and concerted efforts should be made to eliminate different barriers discussed in this review for effective and humane care.

Introduction Optimal pain management is crucial to the postoperative recovery process. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravenous oxycodone with intravenous fentanyl, morphine, sufentanil, pethidine, and hydromorphone for acute postoperative pain. Methods A systematic literature search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases was performed for randomized controlled trials published from 2008 through 2017 (inclusive) that evaluated the acute postoperative analgesic efficacy of intravenous oxycodone against fentanyl, morphine, sufentanil, pethidine, and hydromorphone in adult patients (age ≥ 18 years). Outcomes examined included analgesic consumption, pain intensity levels, side effects, and patient satisfaction. Results Eleven studies were included in the review; six compared oxycodone with fentanyl, two compared oxycodone with morphine, and three compared oxycodone with sufentanil. There were no eligible studies comparing oxycodone with pethidine or hydromorphone. Overall, analgesic consumption was lower with oxycodone than with fentanyl or sufentanil. Oxycodone exhibited better analgesic efficacy than fentanyl and sufentanil, and comparable analgesic efficacy to morphine. In terms of safety, there was a tendency towards more side effects with oxycodone than with fentanyl, but the incidence of side effects with oxycodone was comparable to morphine and sufentanil. Where patient satisfaction was evaluated, higher satisfaction levels were observed with oxycodone than with sufentanil and comparable satisfaction was noted when comparing oxycodone with fentanyl. Patient satisfaction was not evaluated in the studies comparing oxycodone with morphine. Conclusions Our findings suggest that intravenous oxycodone provides better analgesic efficacy than fentanyl and sufentanil, and comparable efficacy to morphine with less adverse events such as sedation. No studies comparing intravenous oxycodone with pethidine or hydromorphone were identified in this review. Better alignment of study methodologies for future research in this area is recommended to provide the best evidence base for a meta-analysis. Funding Mundipharma Singapore Holding Pte Ltd, Singapore. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s40122-019-0122-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Introduction: As of 22 June 2020, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS)-coronavirus (CoV)-2 has infected more than 8.95 million people worldwide, causing [ 468,000 deaths. The virus is transmitted through respiratory droplets and physical contact from contaminated surfaces to the mucosa. Hand hygiene and oral decontamination among other measures are key to preventing the spread of the virus. We report the in vitro virucidal activity of topical and oral povidone-iodine (PVP-I) products against SARS-CoV-2. Methods: Suspension assays were used to assess the virucidal activity of PVP-I against SARS-CoV-2. Products were tested at a contact time of 30 s for virucidal activity. Viral titres were calculated using the Spearman-Kärber method and reported as median tissue culture infectious dose (TCID 50 )/mL. Results: All four products [antiseptic solution (PVP-I 10%), skin cleanser (PVP-I 7.5%), gargle and mouth wash (PVP-I 1%) and throat spray (PVP-I 0.45%)] achieved C 99.99% virucidal activity against SARS-CoV-2, corresponding to C 4 log 10 reduction of virus titre, within 30 s of contact. Conclusion:This study provides evidence of rapid and effective virucidal activity of PVP-I against SARS-CoV-2. PVP-I-based products are widely available for medical and personal use for hand hygiene and oral decontamination, and could be readily integrated into coronavirus disease, COVID-19, infection control measures in hospital and community settings.