Yu Shiying, Shen Wei, Yu Lu, Hou Yanyan, Han John, Richards Henry M
Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science & Technology, Wuhan, Hubei Province, China.
Xin Hua Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
J Pain. 2014 Aug;15(8):835-44. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2014.04.008. Epub 2014 May 15.
Noninferiority of the efficacy of once-daily hydromorphone hydrochloride extended-release (hydromorphone ER) compared with twice-daily oxycodone hydrochloride controlled-release (oxycodone CR) was investigated in this randomized, double-blind study in Chinese patients with moderate to severe cancer pain requiring strong oral opioid analgesics. Randomization (1:1) to hydromorphone ER (8-32 mg) or oxycodone CR (10-40 mg) was followed by dose titration (up to 8 days) and dose maintenance (28 days, weekly visits). Primary endpoint was change from baseline to end of study in "worst pain in the past 24 hours" of Brief Pain Inventory (Short Form) score on last observation carried forward (per protocol set). A total of 137 of 260 randomized patients completed maintenance phase (hydromorphone ER: n = 70; oxycodone CR: n = 67); per protocol set: 81 patients. Mean age was 53.1 years (range: 18-70 years; males: 65.3%); most common Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status = 2. Least square mean difference between 2 treatment groups for primary endpoint using analysis of covariance (baseline score, covariate) was -.1 (95% confidence interval: -1.3, 1.1), with upper bound of 95% confidence interval <1.5 (predefined noninferiority margin). Most common reason for deaths was disease progression (hydromorphone ER: 6.3%; oxycodone CR: 12.7%). Treatment-emergent adverse events were comparable between treatment groups. Hydromorphone ER was noninferior to oxycodone CR in alleviating cancer pain and was well tolerated.
This article demonstrates clinical noninferiority of the efficacy of once-daily hydromorphone ER compared with twice-daily oxycodone CR in alleviating cancer pain in Chinese patients, with comparable safety profiles between the 2 treatment groups. Thus, a treatment option with the potential for a reduced dosing frequency exists for health care providers and patients.
在这项针对需要强效口服阿片类镇痛药的中度至重度癌症疼痛中国患者的随机双盲研究中,研究了每日一次盐酸氢吗啡酮缓释片(氢吗啡酮ER)与每日两次盐酸羟考酮控释片(羟考酮CR)疗效的非劣效性。随机(1:1)分为氢吗啡酮ER组(8 - 32毫克)或羟考酮CR组(10 - 40毫克),随后进行剂量滴定(长达8天)和剂量维持(28天,每周访视)。主要终点是根据预先设定的方案,采用末次观察值结转法,从基线到研究结束时简短疼痛问卷(简表)“过去24小时最严重疼痛”评分的变化。260例随机分组患者中,共有137例完成维持阶段(氢吗啡酮ER组:n = 70;羟考酮CR组:n = 67);根据预先设定的方案:81例患者。平均年龄为53.1岁(范围:18 - 70岁;男性:65.3%);最常见的东部肿瘤协作组体能状态为2。使用协方差分析(基线评分,协变量)对两个治疗组主要终点的最小二乘均值差异为 -0.1(95%置信区间:-1.3,1.1),95%置信区间上限<1.5(预先定义的非劣效界值)。最常见的死亡原因是疾病进展(氢吗啡酮ER组:6.3%;羟考酮CR组:12.7%)。治疗中出现的不良事件在治疗组之间具有可比性。氢吗啡酮ER在缓解癌症疼痛方面不劣于羟考酮CR,且耐受性良好。
本文证明了每日一次氢吗啡酮ER与每日两次羟考酮CR在缓解中国癌症患者疼痛方面疗效的临床非劣效性,两个治疗组的安全性相当。因此,对于医疗服务提供者和患者而言,存在一种给药频率可能降低的治疗选择。