Pharmacogenetics in palliative care

Response to analgesics, anticancer pharmacotherapy and pharmacotherapy of other cancer related symptoms vary broadly between individuals. Age, disease, comorbidities, concomitant medication, organ function and patients' compliance may partly explain the differences. However, the focus of ongoing research has shifted towards genomic variants of phase I and II drug metabolizing enzymes with one important goal being an individual dose adjustment according to a patient's genotype. Polymorphisms of the cytochrome P 450 2D6 influence the metabolism of many drugs including the analgesics codeine, tramadol, hydrocodone and oxycodone, as well as the metabolism of tricyclic antidepressants and the anticancer drug tamoxifen. Other candidate genes such as (opioid)-receptors, transporters and other molecules important for pharmacotherapy in pain management are discussed. Although pharmacogenetics as a diagnostic tool has the potential to improve patient therapy, study results are often equivocal and limited by small sample sizes and often by their retrospective design. Well designed studies are needed to demonstrate superiority of pharmoacogenetics to conventional dosing regimes.

Personalized therapy in pain management: where do we stand?

Genomic variations influencing response to pharmacotherapy of pain are currently under investigation. Drug-metabolizing enzymes represent a major target of ongoing research in order to identify associations between an individual's drug response and genetic profile. Polymorphisms of the cytochrome P450 enzymes (CYP2D6) influence metabolism of codeine, tramadol, hydrocodone, oxycodone and tricyclic antidepressants. Blood concentrations of some NSAIDs depend on CYP2C9 and/or CYP2C8 activity. Genomic variants of these genes associate well with NSAIDs' side effect profile. Other candidate genes, such as those encoding (opioid) receptors, transporters and other molecules important for pharmacotherapy in pain management, are discussed; however, study results are often equivocal. Besides genetic variants, further variables, for example, age, disease, comorbidity, concomitant medication, organ function as well as patients' compliance, may have an impact on pharmacotherapy and need to be addressed when pain therapists prescribe medication. Although pharmacogenetics as a diagnostic tool has the potential to improve patient therapy, well-designed studies are needed to demonstrate superiority to conventional dosing regimes.

Pharmacogenomic considerations in opioid analgesia

Translating pharmacogenetics to clinical practice has been particularly challenging in the context of pain, due to the complexity of this multifaceted phenotype and the overall subjective nature of pain perception and response to analgesia. Overall, numerous genes involved with the pharmacokinetics and dynamics of opioids response are candidate genes in the context of opioid analgesia. The clinical relevance of CYP2D6 genotyping to predict analgesic outcomes is still relatively unknown; the two extremes in CYP2D6 genotype (ultrarapid and poor metabolism) seem to predict pain response and/or adverse effects. Overall, the level of evidence linking genetic variability (CYP2D6 and CYP3A4) to oxycodone response and phenotype (altered biotransformation of oxycodone into oxymorphone and overall clearance of oxycodone and oxymorphone) is strong; however, there has been no randomized clinical trial on the benefits of genetic testing prior to oxycodone therapy. On the other hand, predicting the analgesic response to morphine based on pharmacogenetic testing is more complex; though there was hope that simple genetic testing would allow tailoring morphine doses to provide optimal analgesia, this is unlikely to occur. A variety of polymorphisms clearly influence pain perception and behavior in response to pain. However, the response to analgesics also differs depending on the pain modality and the potential for repeated noxious stimuli, the opioid prescribed, and even its route of administration.

Capillary electrophoresis contributions to the hydromorphone metabolism in man

CE-ESI multistage IT-MS (CE-MS(n), n < or = 4) and computer simulation of fragmentation are demonstrated to be effective tools to detect and identify phase I and phase II metabolites of hydromorphone (HMOR) in human urine. Using the same CE conditions as previously developed for the analysis of urinary oxycodone and its metabolites, HMOR and its phase I metabolites produced by N-demethylation, 6-keto-reduction and N-oxidation and phase II conjugates of HMOR and its metabolites formed with glucuronic acid, glucose, and sulfuric acid could be detected in urine samples of a patient that were collected during a pharmacotherapy episode with daily ingestion of 48 mg of HMOR chloride. The CE-MS(n) data obtained with the HMOR standard, synthesized hydromorphol and hydromorphone-N-oxide, and CYP3A4 in vitro produced norhydromorphone were employed to identify the metabolites. This approach led to the identification of previously unknown HMOR metabolites, including HMOR-3O-glucide and various N-oxides, structures for which no standard compounds or mass spectra library data were available. Furthermore, the separation of alpha- and beta-hydromorphol, the stereoisomers of 6-keto-reduced HMOR, was achieved by CE in the presence of the single isomer heptakis(2,3-diacetyl-6-sulfato)-beta-CD. The obtained data indicate that the urinary excretion of alpha-hydromorphol is larger than that of beta-hydromorphol.

Oral or transdermal opioids for osteoarthritis of the knee or hip

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis is the most common form of joint disease and the leading cause of pain and physical disability in the elderly. Opioids may be a viable treatment option if patients suffer from severe pain or if other analgesics are contraindicated. However, the evidence about their effectiveness and safety is contradictory. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects on pain and function and the safety of oral or transdermal opioids as compared with placebo or no intervention in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL (up to 28 July 2008), checked conference proceedings, reference lists, and contacted authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were included if they were randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared oral or transdermal opioids with placebo or no treatment in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee or hip. Studies of tramadol were excluded. No language restrictions were applied. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data in duplicate. Standardised mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for pain and function, and risk ratios for safety outcomes. Trials were combined using inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: Ten trials with 2268 participants were included. Oral codeine was studied in three trials, transdermal fentanyl and oral morphine in one trial each, oral oxycodone in four, and oral oxymorphone in two trials. Overall, opioids were more effective than control interventions in terms of pain relief (SMD -0.36, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.26) and improvement of function (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.45 to -0.21). We did not find substantial differences in effects according to type of opioid, analgesic potency (strong or weak), daily dose, duration of treatment or follow up, methodological quality of trials, and type of funding. Adverse events were more frequent in patients receiving opioids compared to control. The pooled risk ratio was 1.55 (95% CI 1.41 to 1.70) for any adverse event (4 trials), 4.05 (95% CI 3.06 to 5.38) for dropouts due to adverse events (10 trials), and 3.35 (95% CI 0.83 to 13.56) for serious adverse events (2 trials). Withdrawal symptoms were more severe after fentanyl treatment compared to placebo (SMD 0.60, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.79; 1 trial). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The small to moderate beneficial effects of non-tramadol opioids are outweighed by large increases in the risk of adverse events. Non-tramadol opioids should therefore not be routinely used, even if osteoarthritic pain is severe.

Oral or transdermal opioids for osteoarthritis of the knee or hip.

BACKGROUND Osteoarthritis is the most common form of joint disease and the leading cause of pain and physical disability in older people. Opioids may be a viable treatment option if people have severe pain or if other analgesics are contraindicated. However, the evidence about their effectiveness and safety is contradictory. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2009. OBJECTIVES To determine the effects on pain, function, safety, and addiction of oral or transdermal opioids compared with placebo or no intervention in people with knee or hip osteoarthritis. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL (up to 28 July 2008, with an update performed on 15 August 2012), checked conference proceedings, reference lists, and contacted authors. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared oral or transdermal opioids with placebo or no treatment in people with knee or hip osteoarthritis. We excluded studies of tramadol. We applied no language restrictions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We extracted data in duplicate. We calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for pain and function, and risk ratios for safety outcomes. We combined trials using an inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS We identified 12 additional trials and included 22 trials with 8275 participants in this update. Oral oxycodone was studied in 10 trials, transdermal buprenorphine and oral tapentadol in four, oral codeine in three, oral morphine and oral oxymorphone in two, and transdermal fentanyl and oral hydromorphone in one trial each. All trials were described as double-blind, but the risk of bias for other domains was unclear in several trials due to incomplete reporting. Opioids were more beneficial in pain reduction than control interventions (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.20), which corresponds to a difference in pain scores of 0.7 cm on a 10-cm visual analogue scale (VAS) between opioids and placebo. This corresponds to a difference in improvement of 12% (95% CI 9% to 15%) between opioids (41% mean improvement from baseline) and placebo (29% mean improvement from baseline), which translates into a number needed to treat (NNTB) to cause one additional treatment response on pain of 10 (95% CI 8 to 14). Improvement of function was larger in opioid-treated participants compared with control groups (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.17), which corresponds to a difference in function scores of 0.6 units between opioids and placebo on a standardised Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) disability scale ranging from 0 to 10. This corresponds to a difference in improvement of 11% (95% CI 7% to 14%) between opioids (32% mean improvement from baseline) and placebo (21% mean improvement from baseline), which translates into an NNTB to cause one additional treatment response on function of 11 (95% CI 7 to 14). We did not find substantial differences in effects according to type of opioid, analgesic potency, route of administration, daily dose, methodological quality of trials, and type of funding. Trials with treatment durations of four weeks or less showed larger pain relief than trials with longer treatment duration (P value for interaction = 0.001) and there was evidence for funnel plot asymmetry (P value = 0.054 for pain and P value = 0.011 for function). Adverse events were more frequent in participants receiving opioids compared with control. The pooled risk ratio was 1.49 (95% CI 1.35 to 1.63) for any adverse event (9 trials; 22% of participants in opioid and 15% of participants in control treatment experienced side effects), 3.76 (95% CI 2.93 to 4.82) for drop-outs due to adverse events (19 trials; 6.4% of participants in opioid and 1.7% of participants in control treatment dropped out due to adverse events), and 3.35 (95% CI 0.83 to 13.56) for serious adverse events (2 trials; 1.3% of participants in opioid and 0.4% of participants in control treatment experienced serious adverse events). Withdrawal symptoms occurred more often in opioid compared with control treatment (odds ratio (OR) 2.76, 95% CI 2.02 to 3.77; 3 trials; 2.4% of participants in opioid and 0.9% of participants control treatment experienced withdrawal symptoms). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The small mean benefit of non-tramadol opioids are contrasted by significant increases in the risk of adverse events. For the pain outcome in particular, observed effects were of questionable clinical relevance since the 95% CI did not include the minimal clinically important difference of 0.37 SMDs, which corresponds to 0.9 cm on a 10-cm VAS.

Linking altered central pain processing and genetic polymorphism to drug efficacy in chronic low back pain.

BACKGROUND Inability to predict the therapeutic effect of a drug in individual pain patients prolongs the process of drug and dose finding until satisfactory pharmacotherapy can be achieved. Many chronic pain conditions are associated with hypersensitivity of the nervous system or impaired endogenous pain modulation. Pharmacotherapy often aims at influencing these disturbed nociceptive processes. Its effect might therefore depend on the extent to which they are altered. Quantitative sensory testing (QST) can evaluate various aspects of pain processing and might therefore be able to predict the analgesic efficacy of a given drug. In the present study three drugs commonly used in the pharmacological management of chronic low back pain are investigated. The primary objective is to examine the ability of QST to predict pain reduction. As a secondary objective, the analgesic effects of these drugs and their effect on QST are evaluated. METHODS/DESIGN In this randomized, double blinded, placebo controlled cross-over study, patients with chronic low back pain are randomly assigned to imipramine, oxycodone or clobazam versus active placebo. QST is assessed at baseline, 1 and 2 h after drug administration. Pain intensity, side effects and patients' global impression of change are assessed in intervals of 30 min up to two hours after drug intake. Baseline QST is used as explanatory variable to predict drug effect. The change in QST over time is analyzed to describe the pharmacodynamic effects of each drug on experimental pain modalities. Genetic polymorphisms are analyzed as co-variables. DISCUSSION Pharmacotherapy is a mainstay in chronic pain treatment. Antidepressants, anticonvulsants and opioids are frequently prescribed in a "trial and error" fashion, without knowledge however, which drug suits best which patient. The present study addresses the important need to translate recent advances in pain research to clinical practice. Assessing the predictive value of central hypersensitivity and endogenous pain modulation could allow for the implementation of a mechanism-based treatment strategy in individual patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01179828.