A comparative study of 2 sustained-release morphine preparations for pain in advanced cancer

Jade Homsi, Declan Walsh, Wael Lasheen, Kristine A. Nelson, Lisa A. Rybicki, Jane Bast, Susan B. LeGrand

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: Several sustained-release morphine (SRM) formulations are available internationally. This study compared 2 such products available in the United States, SR1 and SR2. Patients and Methods: In an open-label study, patients with advanced cancer pain were randomized to receive SR1 or SR2 every 12 hours around-the-clock (ATC) for 5 days, with immediate release (IR) liquid morphine for rescue dosing (RD). Efficacy, safety, and patient acceptability were determined. Results: A total of 32 patients were evaluable for efficacy and toxicity. Pain scores, RD dosage, RD frequency over 5 days, RD within 3 hours before and after the scheduled SRM, and 8 of the 11 evaluated side effects were higher in the SR1 group. At presumed morphine steady state (day 3), pain scores (P =.05), RD dosage (P =.07), RD frequency (P =.07), and number of RD ±3 hours from scheduled SRM dose (P =.05) were consistently greater in the SR1 group (despite a higher median morphine dose in that group). There was a clinically important and directionally consistent trend that favored SR2, although not all were statistically significant. Patient preference favored SR2 (P <.05). Neither group had difficulty swallowing SR1 or SR2. Conclusions: This is the first study that directly compared two 12-hour SRM formulations. The data suggested, by multiple clinically important measures, that SR2 may provide superior analgesic efficacy and less toxicity compared to SR1. It also supports the concept that it cannot be assumed that different SR formulations of a given opioid are clinically equivalent. A larger study is needed to confirm our findings.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)99-105
Number of pages7
JournalAmerican Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine
Volume27
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2010

Fingerprint

Delayed-Action Preparations
Morphine
Pain
Neoplasms
Patient Preference
Patient Safety
Deglutition
Opioid Analgesics
Analgesics

Keywords

  • Cancer
  • Controlled release
  • Morphine
  • Oramorph
  • Pain
  • Palliative medicine
  • Sustained release

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

A comparative study of 2 sustained-release morphine preparations for pain in advanced cancer. / Homsi, Jade; Walsh, Declan; Lasheen, Wael; Nelson, Kristine A.; Rybicki, Lisa A.; Bast, Jane; LeGrand, Susan B.

In: American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, Vol. 27, No. 2, 01.03.2010, p. 99-105.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Homsi, Jade ; Walsh, Declan ; Lasheen, Wael ; Nelson, Kristine A. ; Rybicki, Lisa A. ; Bast, Jane ; LeGrand, Susan B. / A comparative study of 2 sustained-release morphine preparations for pain in advanced cancer. In: American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. 2010 ; Vol. 27, No. 2. pp. 99-105.
@article{2e8154ad942148f690e44e445a961683,
title = "A comparative study of 2 sustained-release morphine preparations for pain in advanced cancer",
abstract = "Purpose: Several sustained-release morphine (SRM) formulations are available internationally. This study compared 2 such products available in the United States, SR1 and SR2. Patients and Methods: In an open-label study, patients with advanced cancer pain were randomized to receive SR1 or SR2 every 12 hours around-the-clock (ATC) for 5 days, with immediate release (IR) liquid morphine for rescue dosing (RD). Efficacy, safety, and patient acceptability were determined. Results: A total of 32 patients were evaluable for efficacy and toxicity. Pain scores, RD dosage, RD frequency over 5 days, RD within 3 hours before and after the scheduled SRM, and 8 of the 11 evaluated side effects were higher in the SR1 group. At presumed morphine steady state (day 3), pain scores (P =.05), RD dosage (P =.07), RD frequency (P =.07), and number of RD ±3 hours from scheduled SRM dose (P =.05) were consistently greater in the SR1 group (despite a higher median morphine dose in that group). There was a clinically important and directionally consistent trend that favored SR2, although not all were statistically significant. Patient preference favored SR2 (P <.05). Neither group had difficulty swallowing SR1 or SR2. Conclusions: This is the first study that directly compared two 12-hour SRM formulations. The data suggested, by multiple clinically important measures, that SR2 may provide superior analgesic efficacy and less toxicity compared to SR1. It also supports the concept that it cannot be assumed that different SR formulations of a given opioid are clinically equivalent. A larger study is needed to confirm our findings.",
keywords = "Cancer, Controlled release, Morphine, Oramorph, Pain, Palliative medicine, Sustained release",
author = "Jade Homsi and Declan Walsh and Wael Lasheen and Nelson, {Kristine A.} and Rybicki, {Lisa A.} and Jane Bast and LeGrand, {Susan B.}",
year = "2010",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/1049909109345146",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "27",
pages = "99--105",
journal = "American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine",
issn = "1049-9091",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A comparative study of 2 sustained-release morphine preparations for pain in advanced cancer

AU - Homsi, Jade

AU - Walsh, Declan

AU - Lasheen, Wael

AU - Nelson, Kristine A.

AU - Rybicki, Lisa A.

AU - Bast, Jane

AU - LeGrand, Susan B.

PY - 2010/3/1

Y1 - 2010/3/1

N2 - Purpose: Several sustained-release morphine (SRM) formulations are available internationally. This study compared 2 such products available in the United States, SR1 and SR2. Patients and Methods: In an open-label study, patients with advanced cancer pain were randomized to receive SR1 or SR2 every 12 hours around-the-clock (ATC) for 5 days, with immediate release (IR) liquid morphine for rescue dosing (RD). Efficacy, safety, and patient acceptability were determined. Results: A total of 32 patients were evaluable for efficacy and toxicity. Pain scores, RD dosage, RD frequency over 5 days, RD within 3 hours before and after the scheduled SRM, and 8 of the 11 evaluated side effects were higher in the SR1 group. At presumed morphine steady state (day 3), pain scores (P =.05), RD dosage (P =.07), RD frequency (P =.07), and number of RD ±3 hours from scheduled SRM dose (P =.05) were consistently greater in the SR1 group (despite a higher median morphine dose in that group). There was a clinically important and directionally consistent trend that favored SR2, although not all were statistically significant. Patient preference favored SR2 (P <.05). Neither group had difficulty swallowing SR1 or SR2. Conclusions: This is the first study that directly compared two 12-hour SRM formulations. The data suggested, by multiple clinically important measures, that SR2 may provide superior analgesic efficacy and less toxicity compared to SR1. It also supports the concept that it cannot be assumed that different SR formulations of a given opioid are clinically equivalent. A larger study is needed to confirm our findings.

AB - Purpose: Several sustained-release morphine (SRM) formulations are available internationally. This study compared 2 such products available in the United States, SR1 and SR2. Patients and Methods: In an open-label study, patients with advanced cancer pain were randomized to receive SR1 or SR2 every 12 hours around-the-clock (ATC) for 5 days, with immediate release (IR) liquid morphine for rescue dosing (RD). Efficacy, safety, and patient acceptability were determined. Results: A total of 32 patients were evaluable for efficacy and toxicity. Pain scores, RD dosage, RD frequency over 5 days, RD within 3 hours before and after the scheduled SRM, and 8 of the 11 evaluated side effects were higher in the SR1 group. At presumed morphine steady state (day 3), pain scores (P =.05), RD dosage (P =.07), RD frequency (P =.07), and number of RD ±3 hours from scheduled SRM dose (P =.05) were consistently greater in the SR1 group (despite a higher median morphine dose in that group). There was a clinically important and directionally consistent trend that favored SR2, although not all were statistically significant. Patient preference favored SR2 (P <.05). Neither group had difficulty swallowing SR1 or SR2. Conclusions: This is the first study that directly compared two 12-hour SRM formulations. The data suggested, by multiple clinically important measures, that SR2 may provide superior analgesic efficacy and less toxicity compared to SR1. It also supports the concept that it cannot be assumed that different SR formulations of a given opioid are clinically equivalent. A larger study is needed to confirm our findings.

KW - Cancer

KW - Controlled release

KW - Morphine

KW - Oramorph

KW - Pain

KW - Palliative medicine

KW - Sustained release

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77649264943&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77649264943&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/1049909109345146

DO - 10.1177/1049909109345146

M3 - Article

C2 - 19776372

AN - SCOPUS:77649264943

VL - 27

SP - 99

EP - 105

JO - American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine

JF - American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine

SN - 1049-9091

IS - 2

ER -