The role of transdermal fentanyl patches in the effective management of cancer pain

Abstract

Transdermal fentanyl patches first became available in the early 1990s and provided an innovative treatment for the management of cancer pain. Since then, they have become a familiar and convenient method for providing analgesia for patients with stable levels of cancer pain. Transdermal delivery is more complex than oral administration and some specific factors need to be taken into consideration for the patches to be used appropriately and to their best advantage. This article will review the use of transdermal fentanyl, looking at their place in the overall therapy plan, the use of appropriate adjunctive prescribing and some specific practical and safety issues.

Post hoc analysis of pregabalin vs. non-pregabalin treatment in patients with cancer-related neuropathic pain: better pain relief, sleep and physical health

“…Dexamethasone was also more frequently used in the non-PGB than the PGB group with the implication of the secondary effects associated with corticosteroids [40]. No signifi cant differences were found regarding opioids as a group, probably because while morphine was used more frequently in the non-PGB group, fentanyl patches, which are a more convenient method to provide analgesia and produce less constipation than standard opioids [41,42], were used more frequently in the PGB. There was a trend for a less use of antidepressants (p=0.0923) and significantly less use of mirtazpine (p=0.0027) in the PGB than in the non-PGB group.…”

Reporting characteristics of cancer pain: A systematic review and quantitative analysis of research publications in palliative care journals

“…Individually, AJHPC had 10 articles,[89–98] BMCPC had one article,[99] COSPC had four articles,[100–103] EOLCJ had one,[104] EJPC had seven articles,[105–11] IJPC had five articles,[112–6] IJPN had two articles,[117118] JPPCP had five articles,[119–23] JPC had six articles,[124–9] JPM had 13 articles,[130–42] JSO had four articles,[143–6] PM had eight articles[147–54] and SCC had 26 articles[155–180] ‘mainly’ on cancer pain. Also refer to Table 2 for respective reporting rates and to Figure 3 for comparison of number of ‘cancer pain’ articles and ‘non-cancer pain’ articles between the journals.…”

“…[100–3106–11118–20122129139144145153158164176180] Among the original articles, there were 12 qualitative studies[115116118–20122124126–8155169–71173] and 56 quantitative studies. [89–99104105112–4117121123125130–8140–3146–52154156157159–63165–8172174175177–9] There were eight randomized clinical trials,[94143150157161162167177] 12 non-randomized clinical trials,[8999113125137147149151163172175178] 11 cohort studies,[9597121123130131133154156165168] zero case-control studies, 10 cross-sectional studies[9396114…”

Topical preparations for pain relief: efficacy and patient adherence

“…The low molecular weight and lipid solubility enable it to be delivered by the transdermal route. Its principal use is for chronic cancer pain, and since the 1990s, it has also been used for some cases of nonmalignant pain 19. For functionally impaired patients with nociceptive pain secondary to osteoarthritis who are ineligible to take other drugs, a systematic review suggests opioids are more effective than control interventions.…”