Abstract
Opioids continue to be first-line pharmacotherapy for patients suffering from cancer pain. Unfortunately, subtherapeutic dosage prescribing of pain medications remains common, and many cancer patients continue to suffer and experience diminished quality of life. A large variety of therapeutic options are available for cancer pain patients. Analgesic pharmacotherapy is based on the patient’s self-report of pain intensity and should be tailored to meet the requirements of each individual. Most, if not all, cancer pain patients will ultimately require modifications in their opioid pharmacotherapy. When changes in a patient’s medication regimen are needed, adequate pain control is best maintained through appropriate dosage conversion, scheduling immediate release medication for withdrawal prevention, and providing as needed dosing for breakthrough pain. Transdermal opioids are noninvasive, cause less constipation and sedation when compared to oral opioids, and may improve patient compliance. A relative potency of 100:1 is recommended when converting the patient from oral morphine to transdermal fentanyl. Based on the limited data available, there is significant interpatient variability with transdermal buprenorphine and equipotency recommendations from oral morphine of 75:1–110:1 have been suggested. Cancer patients may require larger transdermal buprenorphine doses to control their pain and may respond better to a more aggressive 75–100:1 potency ratio. This review outlines the prescribing of transdermal fentanyl and transdermal buprenorphine including how to safely and effectively convert to and use them for those with cancer pain.
Video abstract
Point your SmartPhone at the code above. If you have a QR code reader the video abstract will appear. Or use:
Introduction
Opioids continue to be mainstay pharmacotherapy for moderate-to-severe cancer pain. A substantial amount of uncontrolled pain continues to be reported in at least 33% of newly diagnosed cancer patients, and in 65%–85% of those with metastatic disease.Citation1,Citation2 A wide variety of pharmacotherapy options are currently available to manage cancer pain.Citation3 Unfortunately, many experience subtherapeutic levels and continue to suffer from inadequate pain control.Citation2–Citation4 Patients who worry about exacerbations of their pain with ambulation often hesitate in participating in daily activities. As their averting behavior increases, family and social relationships are impacted and quality of life is reduced.Citation4,Citation5
Oral (PO) sustained-release (SR) preparations of morphine are considered to be the practitioner’s first choice for substantial cancer pain and, although transdermal opioids (TD-Os) (primarily transdermal fentanyl [TD-Fe]) are primarily recommended for use in those unable to take PO medications, the use of transdermal preparations have substantially increased in recent years.Citation4–Citation14 Most, if not all, cancer pain patients will ultimately require changes to their opioid therapy throughout the course of their illness.Citation4,Citation13,Citation14
The term “opioid switching” is used to describe the practice of substituting one World Health Organization (WHO) Pain Ladder step III choice opioid (ie, PO and TD-Os for moderate to severe pain) with another, and when patients are unable to achieve significant pain relief without experiencing substantial adverse effects (AE).Citation3,Citation4,Citation9,Citation13 This is not to be mistaken with the patient who is stabilized on PO morphine with limited to no AE and chooses to receive their medication via a transdermal route of administration. Opioid substitution, also called incomplete cross-tolerance, has been shown to improve opioid response.Citation14–Citation17
TD-Os’ place in therapy
TD-Os are considered a WHO Pain Ladder Step III choice (opioids for moderate to severe pain).Citation3,Citation18 TD-O administration provides a slow and steady increase in opiate plasma levels, extended half-lives of several days, and a long latent period before full pharmacologic effects are achieved. Based on the current literature available on the use of TD-Fe and transdermal buprenorphine (TD-Bu) for cancer pain, no significant differences in efficacy were discerned between the transdermal preparations in comparison to other opioids.Citation11,Citation12,Citation18–Citation20
TD-Os have lower rates of constipation and sedation when compared to PO opioids, are noninvasive, and offer a convenient dosing schedule to assist with patient adherence.Citation7,Citation10–Citation14 There is limited data available demonstrating that TD-Bu may have fewer reports of nausea and treatment discontinuance due to AE when compared to TD-Fe, but more research is needed to validate these results.Citation18,Citation19
Converting to TD-Os
When substituting one opioid for another, it is important to utilize safe and effective conversion ratios.Citation21–Citation24 Dosage calculation errors can result in under- or over-dosing, undue distress in the patient, therapy failure, non-adherence, and/or discontinuance. Unfortunately, intrapatient variability and incomplete cross-tolerance have contributed to the lack of a consensus guideline on opioid equianalgesic dosing.Citation24 Historically, a conversion ratio of 6:1 has been used for pain to substitute between PO and intravenous (IV) morphine.Citation25
The 6:1 ratio was derived from acute repeated crossover administration (also called “relative potency assays”) and has since been found to be inadequate for cancer pain.Citation26,Citation27 A ratio of 3:1 (PO to IV morphine) has been shown to be more effective and the most often utilized to relieve cancer pain.Citation28–Citation30 Practical equianalgesic dosing ratios were derived from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the efficacy of two opioid medications or from observational case series describing opioid substitution during chronic administration.Citation23 A systematic review by Mercadante and Caraceni provides important insight from six RCTs with crossover designs and from 26 case series examining opioid switching.Citation23 The strongest evidence was found from patients who were stabilized at equianalgesic doses of oxycodone and morphine (four RCTs), oxycodone and hydromorphone (one RCT), and hydromorphone and morphine (one RCT) before opioid substitution occurred.Citation23
The first step in conversion is to calculate the patient’s 24-hour PO morphine usage (mg/day) and then apply the appropriate conversion ratio to determine the TD-O dose. When converting to TD-O pharmacotherapy, the patient is at increased risk of suffering significant breakthrough pain and opioid withdrawal.Citation22 In order to reduce the chances of opioid withdrawal, patients should be prescribed an instant release (IR) opioid given on a regular schedule every 3 or 4 hours and not as needed (PRN) until the TD-O reaches therapeutic levels. Additionally, supplemental doses of IR opioid PRN for breakthrough pain relief should be given during initiation of TD-O therapy (first 18 hours for TD-Fe and first 48 hours for TD-Bu) followed by every 2–3 hours PRN therafter.Citation22 During dosage titration of TD-Os, the practitioner should note the daily amount of the IR breakthrough pain medication utilized during the first 48–72 hours after beginning TD-O pharmacotherapy, and consider increasing the TD-O dose if clinically necessary. Moreover, TD-Os are long acting and can take 5–6 days to reach steady state serum concentrations. Steady state concentrations occur during the second patch application of TD-Fe when dosed every 3 days and during the first application of TD-Bu when given every 7 days.Citation22,Citation30 TD-Bu for cancer pain is dosed on two fixed days of the week (ie, Tuesday and Saturday).Citation10
TD-Fe conversion ratios
Donner et al examined 98 cancer pain patients who were switched from SR PO morphine to TD-Fe.Citation31 They found that a 2:1 dosage conversion ratio (2 mg/day of PO morphine equals 1 μg/hr of TD-Fe), representing a relative potency of 100:1, provided an appropriate starting dose for cancer pain.Citation31 The starting TD-Fe dose was determined based on pre-enrollment dose of SR PO morphine and then converted to TD-Fe using the 2:1 PO morphine (mg/day) to TD-Fe (μg/hr) dosage conversion rate (100:1 relative potency). Patients were provided a liquid formulation of IR PO morphine PRN to address any breakthrough pain. TD-Fe was found to be comparable to SR morphine for treatment of cancer pain with pain levels and the number of reported pain attacks unchanged.Citation31 However, TD-Fe patients had significantly higher (P<0.05) usage of IR PO morphine PRN for breakthrough pain as compared to SR morphine. The researchers were unable to determine a reason for this finding but hypothesized that either patients were accustomed to using an PO IR opioid for breakthrough pain, or that some patients did not achieve effective pain relief over the 72-hour dosing period and may have benefited from 48-hour dosing of their TD-Fe.Citation31
Constipation and the use of laxatives was significantly reduced (P≤0.05) in those receiving TD-Fe.Citation31 No clinical differences were discovered in regards to vital signs (respiratory rate, blood pressure, and heart rate), other adverse events (vomiting, diarrhea, dizziness, dyspnea, sweating, pruritus, dry mouth, fatigue), and reports of respiratory depression. There were three patients (3% of participants) who reported experiencing morphine withdrawal symptoms within the first day after switching to TD-Fe.Citation31
Clinical experience with TD-Fe for cancer pain in Germany also concluded that the 2:1 dosage conversion ratio was safe and effective.Citation32 An observational study was conducted on 1,828 cancer patients who were switched from opioid naïve (WHO Step I), codeine (WHO Step II), or PO morphine (WHO Step III) to TD-Fe for their pain.Citation33 The authors reported that a 3:1 exchange ratio utilized to begin TD-Fe pharmacotherapy created subtherapeutic serum levels.Citation33 All patients in the study required dosage increases equal to the 2:1 ratio during the first 2 days of TD-Fe pharmacotherapy.Citation33 Overall, there were no significant differences in the side effect profiles between the opioid naïve and PO morphine group (32% versus 30.1%, respectively). Patients switched from PO codeine to TD-Fe had a higher incidence of side effects (45%) although this finding was not reported as statistically significant. Constipation was the most common adverse effect reported with an average incidence of 16.6% across all groups.Citation33
Given the information reported, outlines a possible dosing algorithm for TD-Fe. provides the relative analgesic potencies compared to PO morphine of commonly prescribed opioids in the treatment of cancer pain.Citation22,Citation23,Citation32–Citation38 Patients should first be stabilized on their current opioid therapy prior to switching.Citation24 When the initial dose of TD-Fe is determined, the practitioner should evaluate the patient’s clinical status and adjust the dosage to the nearest dosage using available strengths (12.5, 25, 50, 75, and 100 μg/hr). Opioid naïve patients should be started on no more than 25 μg/hr of TD-Fe. It may be necessary to combine patch strengths to reach the nearest dose. provides some examples of TD-Fe dosage conversion.
Abbreviations: hr, hour; IR, immediate release; TD-Fe, transdermal fentanyl.
Abbreviation: hr, hour.
TD-Bu rotation
Buprenorphine, a partial mu-receptor agonist, does not appear to produce clinically negative effects on pain control during opioid switching.Citation34,Citation35 TD-Bu is available in several dosing strengths (5, 10, 15, 20, 35, 52.5, and 70 μg/hr). Published data for conversion to TD-Bu is less robust and a variety of conversion ratios have been utilized.Citation23 There have been two N of 1 studies performed in cancer patients with stable pain control that support the use of a 75:1 relative analgesic potency for switching from PO morphine to TD-Bu.Citation34,Citation35 Thus, a dose of 60 mg/day of PO morphine would equate to 0.8 mg/day of TD-Bu or 35 μg/hr.Citation34,Citation35 The first study involved converting 10 cancer patients who were receiving stable doses of PO Morphine or TD-Fe for more than 6 days with no more than 2 daily IR PO morphine breakthrough doses to TD-Bu.Citation34 No statistically significant changes in pain, symptom intensity, and global satisfaction with analgesic pharmacotherapy were observed.Citation34 Constipation was significantly (P=0.014) improved with the conversion to TD-Bu.Citation34 In the other N of 1 study, a within-patient two-way crossover design comparing TD-Bu and TD-Fe in six cancer patients was utilized.Citation35 These patients had been stabilized on either TD-Bu or TD-Fe for at least 6 days with acceptable analgesia and without relevant AE, and were using two or fewer breakthrough doses of IR PO morphine each day.Citation35 There were no statistically significant changes in pain and symptom intensity reported during switching. The authors concluded that cancer patients receiving stable doses of TD-Fe or TD-Bu can be safely switched to an alternate TD-O at using the 100:1 relative potency for TD-Fe and a 75:1 relative potency for TD-Bu.Citation35
A study by Aurilio et al examined 16 patients switched from TD-Fe to TD-Bu and 16 others from TD-Bu to TD-Fe; all as a result of ineffective analgesia due to AE.Citation36 Unfortunately, the final conversion ratios varied based on the direction of the switch and patient selection. Therefore, the dosing conversion-related conclusions could not be made in this study.Citation36
A retrospective study of a German patient database involving 2,198 non-cancer and 2,544 cancer patient records suggested an equipotency ratio of PO morphine to TD-Bu of 110:1 to 115:1.Citation37 A study limitation was the inability to identify patients concurrently using more than one patch of the same strength. Therefore, the “calculated” equipotent doses between PO morphine and TD-Bu were conservative and most likely higher than reported.Citation37
Freye et al evaluated TD-Bu in 42 patients suffering from severe musculoskeletal (N=24), cancer (N=10), or neuropathic (N=8) pain.Citation38 No conversion recommendations were provided and opioid transfers were made solely on practitioner’s clinical judgment.Citation38 The researchers found that based on the dosages of TD-Bu prescribed, lower TD-Bu doses were needed. The majority (71%) of patients in this study obtained sufficient relief with 52.5 μg/hr of TD-Bu (25% reduction in dose or 100:1 ratio); however, it should be noted that this dose was increased to a 75:1 ratio or 70 μg/hr for the ten cancer patients enrolled in the study, suggesting that this population may require more aggressive dosing.Citation38
Four patient case evaluations reported a less aggressive morphine to TD-Bu relative potency ratio.Citation39 It was difficult to determine which ratio the researchers were supporting (110–115:1 in the abstract and a 100:1 final ratio reported in the conclusions). It is important to note that all of the patients studied had chronic non-cancer pain and research has shown that cancer patients require higher doses to achieve adequate pain relief.Citation40–Citation43 Given that there is limited evidence available on the conversion ratios to TD-Bu, these data are of some importance here. In the first case, the prescribed TD-Bu dose of 17.5 μg/hr was equal a 76:1 equipotency ratio (PO morphine 32 mg/day to TD-Bu 0.42 mg/day).Citation22,Citation23,Citation39 In the fourth reported case a dose of 50 μg/hr of TD-Fe was switched to 52.5 μg/hr of TD-Bu using a 100:1 relative potency. The 100:1 potency resulted in 70% relief from pain with no adverse consequences in this particular patient. For over a year, this patient reported reasonable pain control and only used breakthrough medication approximately once weekly.Citation39 Significant interpatient variability in therapeutic response to TD-Bu was reported between each of the cases and patients were also taking several adjuvant pain medications or treatments (ie, amitriptyline, gabapentin, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, carbamazepine, acupuncture) to assist with pain management. Thus, the data reported from these four case studies are quite mixed and an accurate equipotency ratio for TD-Bu cannot be pinpointed by these findings.
Given the limited data available, a precise recommendation for TD-Bu conversions cannot be made at this time. Cancer pain patients may require more aggressive conversion ratios but more research is needed in this patient population.
Breakthrough pain and withdrawal
Breakthrough or transient pain is described as brief exacerbations of pain that occur in the background of stabilized pain management adequately controlled by around-the-clock (ATC) SR opioid therapy.Citation40,Citation41 Transient pain is treated with adjunctive PRN doses of PO IR opioids (morphine, oxycodone, or hydrocodone), as well as buccal or intra-nasal fentanyl in concert with an appropriate ATC SR opioid therapy.Citation4 IR transmucosal fentanyl doses should be titrated according to patient response.Citation4 Adequate pain relief from first dose of TD-O should be evaluated at initiation of pharmacotherapy and continued over the first 3–5 days of administration.Citation42 The goal is to limit the number of breakthrough pain doses such that the patient’s life is disrupted as little as possible during their day and at rest.
If more than two doses are required for breakthrough pain over a 24-hour period in order to achieve adequate pain control once steady state has been reached, then the clinician may consider increasing the TD-O dose.Citation22 TD-Fe dosage increases are usually 25%–33% of the patch strength and based on the patient’s response to therapy.Citation22 The ideal dose of TD-O is individualized and determined by continued evaluation of pain control and use of breakthrough pain pharmacotherapy.
For minimal withdrawal symptoms, patients should be counseled to utilize their scheduled IR opioid every 3–4 hours and not PRN during the transition period.Citation43 The withdrawal prevention or bridge dose of IR PO opioid should be equal to 10%–15% of the previous 24 hour opioid dose taken prior to beginning TD-Fe pharmacotherapy. Patients can also self-medicate with additional doses or IR opioids about every 2 hours, PRN, if they experience breakthrough pain during this initial period and thereafter.Citation22
TD-O patch considerations
Proper skin adhesion is essential to ensure TD-O patch efficacy.Citation44 First, the hair on the skin at the application site should be carefully clipped; shaving of the skin is not recommended as abrasions may occur.Citation44,Citation45 TD-Os should be applied to clean, dry, unbroken, and undamaged skin.Citation45,Citation46 The plastic backing should be removed and the patch secured firmly with hand pressure over 30 seconds. Per the transdermal therapeutic system Multicentre Study Group, there were no issues associated with patch adherence in the majority (82%) of TD-Fe patients.Citation46 In warm weather climates or for those experiencing significant sweating, the patch may also be held in place with a small amount of adhesive tape. Rotation of the application site is recommended with each TD-O patch change in order to minimize subcutaneous deposits of opioid medication.Citation44
TD-O patches can be worn during bathing, showering, or swimming but patients should avoid hot water and external heat sources (eg, electric blankets, heating pads, saunas, hot water spas, hot springs, sunbathing).Citation44,Citation45 Several transdermal medication formulations have been found to contain metals (eg, aluminum, titanium dioxide).Citation46,Citation47 These metals have the potential to conduct a current during magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) procedures or when external defibrillation is used in cardiac resuscitation.Citation46 There have been several cases of skin burns in patients wearing TD-O patches during MRI scans prompting the Institute for Safe Medication Practices and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to issue alerts to remove the patches prior to MRI procedures.Citation47,Citation48
TD-O patches should never be cut for dosage adjustments or applied when altered or damaged.Citation47,Citation49 When a patch is removed for disposal, it should be folded in half such that the adhesive side sticks to itself and then flushed down the toilet immediately.Citation46 Leftover patches that are no longer needed can be removed from their packaging and disposed of in the same manner.Citation47
TD-Fe’s analgesic effects usually last for 3 days for the majority of cancer pain patients and is therefore dosed every 72 hours.Citation10 For those with poor pain control, it is recommended that the dosage of TD-Fe be increased rather than reducing the dosing interval.Citation50,Citation51 However, a small number of patients may experience a reduction in pain control between 48 hours and 60 hours post-application.Citation49,Citation50 Therefore, the practitioner may contemplate a 48-hour dosing interval if the patient is consistently requiring more than four daily doses of breakthrough pain medication taken between 48–72 hours following patch application even with several dosing modifications.Citation46,Citation50 TD-Bu patches are usually changed twice weekly on fixed days of the week to assist with patient adherence.Citation10
Adverse effects and interactions
As mentioned earlier, TD-Os are well tolerated and are associated with reduced AE, especially constipation (16%–22%), nausea (2%–9%) and sedation (2%–11%) when compared to PO opioid analgesics.Citation7,Citation10–Citation14,Citation30 Minor application site-related dermatologic reactions such as rash (5.6%), itching (13.6%), erythema (8.2%), irritation (2.7%), and dermatitis (0.8%) have been noted with TD-Os.Citation11,Citation22,Citation45
An RCT by Tassinari et al demonstrated that patients receiving morphine or methadone developed clinically significant central nervous system (CNS) AE, whereas no CNS side effects were reported in the TD-Fe cohort.Citation11 A meta-analysis conducted by the same group of researchers found that cancer and non-cancer patients experienced significantly less constipation and urinary retention, as well as preferring the use of TD-Fe over PO SR morphine.Citation12 No significant differences were discerned between PO SR opiates and TD-Os (TD-Fe and TD-Bu) in overall AE, overall gastrointestinal AE, overall neurologic AE, nausea, somnolence, hypoventilation, withdrawal from trial, and changes in opioid therapy.Citation12
All opioids can cause physical dependence and patients should be monitored for symptoms such as agitation, anxiety, insomnia, hyperkinesia, tremors, and gastrointestinal problems at 2 days to 2 weeks following discontinuance of TD-O pharmacotherapy.Citation44 In healthy volunteers, buprenorphine does exhibit a “ceiling effect” for respiratory depression but not for analgesia.Citation51,Citation52 Clinically significant respiratory depression can be seen with TD-Bu in patients prescribed concomitant CNS depressants.Citation53 Removal of the final TD-Bu patch produces a gradual reduction in serum levels, as well as a very slow dissociation from the opioid receptor, making the risk of withdrawal symptoms upon patch discontinuation low.Citation52
TD-Os are processed by the liver’s CYP450 enzyme system and any medication known to affect the CYP3A enzyme () will interact with TD-Os.Citation53 An FDA black box warning exists prohibiting the concomitant use of CYP34A inhibitors with TD-Fe.Citation54,Citation55 There is also concern in patients with CYP3A5 polymorphism as the capability of CYP3A5 to metabolize opioids has not been fully evaluated.Citation53 Any substances or medications known to cause CNS depression (eg, alcohol, benzodiazepines, skeletal muscle relaxants) can cause additive effects with TD-Os.Citation54 Deaths have occurred with co-administration of benzodiazepines and TD-Os.Citation54
As with all opioid medication, TD-Os carry a risk of overdose and the potential for death. The use of TD-Os is increasing and so are the number of TD-O related deaths.Citation55 In order to reduce the risk of fatality, the FDA has issued several safety warnings over the past 9 years.Citation56–Citation58 In September 2013, the FDA sent out a safety communication indicating that all fentanyl patches where to undergo a color change in an effort to prevent accidental exposure which can cause serious harm and death in children, pets, and others.Citation59 From 1997 to 2012, 26 young children have had accidental overdoses of TD-Fe; ten of these children died as a result. The FDA continues to raise public awareness via their TD-Fe Safe Use Initiative along with the TD-Fe Medication Guide and Instructions for Use (provided with each prescription).Citation58,Citation59 However, it is also very important that health care professionals provide information to patients and their caregivers on the appropriate storage and disposal each time they write a prescription for TD-Os.
Special populations
TD-Os should be used with caution in cachectic and/or liver dysfunction patients. Limited research has demonstrated that TD-Fe is not as well absorbed through the skin in cachectic patients which may be a result of their reduced adipose tissue stores.Citation60 Cachectic patients should be carefully monitored as they may be at risk for inadequate analgesia even with seemingly large doses of TD-O. Frail elderly are often on multiple medications and have several comorbidities increasing their risk of medication- and disease-related interactions.Citation61 The elderly commonly experience increased medication sensitivity, reduced medication response, and harmful adverse reactions. PO SR opioids and TD-Os are the preferred medications for this population and must be carefully monitored and titrated. Dosage adjustments of TD-Os are not required in those with renal impairment; however, opioids are metabolized by the liver and should be carefully monitored in those with hepatic impairment.Citation62 Limited data exist for the use of TD-Os in the pediatric population. While these medications may be a convenient choice for the treatment of cancer pain in children, research is currently not available to support their widespread use.Citation63,Citation64
Conclusion and recommendations
Opioid medications are first-line pharmacotherapy for cancer pain sufferers. Most if not all cancer pain patients will ultimately transition between opioids, including transdermal formulations. It is important to appropriately convert and monitor them during these transitional periods. Every cancer patient requires individualized dosing of their TD-O in order to reduce the risk of subtherapeutic dosing and withdrawal. TD-Fe and TD-Bu formulations offer safe and effective therapeutic options in the treatment of cancer pain. More aggressive dosing of TD-Fe is required in this patient population using a 100:1 equianalgesic ratio. There is significant interpatient variability with TD-Bu and equipotency ratio recommendations range from 75:1–110:1. Cancer patients may require larger TD-Bu doses to control their pain and may respond better to a 75–100:1 dosing ratio. Patients prefer the favorable side-effect profile and convenience of TD-Os making these formulations a beneficial WHO step III choice for moderate to severe cancer pain.
Disclosure
The author reports there was no funding received to write this manuscript or conflict of interest of any kind.
References
- CleelandCSGoninRHatfieldAKPain and its treatment in outpatients with metastatic cancerN Engl J Med199433095925967508092
- Van den Beuken-van EverdingenMHde RijkeJMKesselsAGSchoutenHCvan KleefMPatijnJPrevalence of pain in patients with cancer: a systematic review of the past 40 yearsAnn Oncol20071891437144917355955
- MercadanteSFultaroFWorld Health Organization guideline: a reappraisalAnn Oncol200516Suppl 4iv132iv13515923413
- CaraceniAHanksGKaasaSUse of opioid analgesics in the treatment of cancer pain: evidence-based recommendations from the EAPCLancet Oncol2012132e58e6822300860
- QuigleyCThe role of opioids in cancer painBMJ2005331752082582916210282
- HuiDBrueraETransdermal fentanyl: not ready for front lineJ Palliat Care200925430020131589
- TassinariDDrudiFRosatiMMaltoniMTransdermal opioids as front line treatment of moderate to severe cancer pain: a systemic reviewPalliat Med201125547848721708854
- WiffenPJMcQuayHJOral morphine for cancer painCochrane Database Syst Rev20074CD00386817943804
- JadadARBrowmanGPThe WHO analgesic ladder for cancer pain management: stepping up the quality of its evaluationJAMA199527423187018737500538
- CachiaEAhmedzaiSHTransdermal opioids for cancer painCurr Opin Support Palliat Care201151151921325999
- TassinariDSartoriSTamburiniEAdverse effects of transdermal opiates treating moderate-severe cancer pain in comparison to long-acting morphine: a meta-analysis and systematic review of the literatureJ Palliat Med200811349250118363493
- TassinariDSartoriSTamburiniETransdermal fentanyl as a front-line approach to moderate-severe pain: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trialsJ Pallliat Care2009253172180
- MercadanteSBrueraEOpioid switching: a systematic and critical reviewCancer Treat Rev200632430431516624490
- DaleOMoksnesKKaasaSEuropean Palliative Care Research Collaborative pain guidelines: opioid switching to improve analgesia or reduce side-effects. A systematic reviewPalliat Med201125549450321708856
- de StoutzNBrueraESuarez-AlmazorMOpioid rotation for toxicity reduction in terminal cancer patientsJ Pain Symptom Manage19951053783847673770
- BrueraEPereiraJWatanabeSBelzileMOpioid rotation in patients with cancer pain. A retrospective comparison of dose ratios between methadone, hydromorphone, and morphineCancer19967848528578756381
- MercadanteSOpioid rotation in cancer pain: rationale and clinical aspectsCancer19998691856186610547561
- MercadenteSPorzioGFerreraPSustained release oral morphine versus transdermal fentanyl and oral methadone in cancer pain managementEur J Pain20081281040104618353696
- WolffRFAuneDTruyersCSystematic review of efficacy and safety of buprenorphine versus fentanyl or morphine in patients with chronic moderate to severe painCurr Med Res Opin201228583384522443154
- KoyyalaguntaDBrueraESolankiDRA systematic review of randomized trials on the effectiveness of opioids in cancer painPain Physician201215Suppl 3ES39ES5822786461
- SlatkinNEOpioid switching and rotation in primary care: implementation and clinical utilityCurr Med Res Opin20092592133215019601703
- SkaerTLTransdermal opioids for cancer painHealth Qual Life Outcomes200642416573839
- MercadanteSCaraceniAConversion ratios for opioid switching in the treatment of cancer pain: a systematic reviewPalliat Med201125550451521708857
- BradleyAMValgusJMBernardSConverting transdermal fentanyl: avoidance of underdosingJ Palliat Med201316440941123477303
- AshburnMLipmanAManagement of pain in the cancer patientAnesth Analg19937624024168424523
- FinePGPortenoyRKAd Hoc Expert Panel on Evidence Review and Guidelines for Opioid Rotation. Establishing best practices for opioid rotation: conclusions of an expert panelJ Pain Symptom Manage200938341842519735902
- KnotkovaHFinePFPortenoyRKOpioid rotation: the science and the limitations of the equianalgesic dose tableJ Pain Symptom Manage200938342643919735903
- HanksGWFallonMTTransdermal fentanyl in cancer pain. Conversion from oral morphineJ Pain Symptom Manage1995102877537319
- WebsterLRFinePGOverdose deaths demand a new paradigm for opioid rotationPain Med201213457157422458858
- GrondSRadbruchLLehmannKAClinical pharmacokinetics of transdermal opioids: focus on transdermal fentanylClin Pharmacokinet2000381598910668859
- DonnerBZenzMTrybaMStrumpfMDirect conversion from oral morphine to transdermal fentanyl: A multicenter study in patients with cancer painPain19966435275348783318
- RadbruchLElsnerFClinical experience with transdermal fentanyl for the treatment of cancer pain in GermanyKeio J Med2004531232915096725
- MystakidouKParpaETsilikaEPain management of cancer patients with transdermal fentanyl: a study of 1828 step I, II, and III transfersJ Pain20045211913215042520
- MercadanteSCasuccioATirelliWGiarrantanoAEquipotent doses to switch from high doses of opioids to transdermal buprenorphineSupport Care Cancer200917671571819104845
- MercadanteSPorzioGFulfanoFSwitching from transdermal drugs: an observational ‘N of 1’ study of fentanyl and buprenorphineJ Pain Symptom Manage200734553253817629666
- AurilioCPaceMCPotaVOpioids switching with transdermal systems in chronic cancer painJ Ex Clini Cancer Res20092861
- SittiRLikarRNautrupBPEquipotent dose of transdermal fentanyl and transdermal buprenorphine in patients with cancer and noncancer pain: results of a retrospective cohort studyClin Ther200527222523715811486
- FreyeEAnderson-HillemacherARitzdorfILevyJVOpioid rotation from high-dose morphine to transdermal buprenorphine (Transtec) in chronic pain patientsPain Pract20077212312917559481
- LikarRKrainerBSittiRChallenging the equipotency calculation for transdermal buprenorphine: four case studiesInt J Clin Pract200862115215618173815
- DaviesANDickmanAReidCThe management of cancer-related breakthrough pain: recommendations of a task group of the Science Committee of the Association for Palliative Medicine of Great Britain and IrelandEur J Pain200913433133818707904
- HaugenDFHjermstadMJHagenNAssessment and classification of cancer breakthrough pain: a systematic literature reviewPain2010149347648220236762
- KornickCASantiago-PalmaJMorylNet al. Benefit-risk assessment of transdermal fentanyl for the treatment of chronic painDrug Saf2003261395197314583070
- BreitbartWChandlerSEagelBAn alternative algorithm for dosing of transdermal fentanyl for cancer-related painOncology (Williston Park)200014569570510853461
- PayneRChandlerSEinhausMGuidelines for the clinical use of transdermal fentanylAnticancer Drugs19956350537606038
- WenWLynchSYMuneraCApplication site adverse events associated with the buprenorphine transdermal system: a pooled analysisExpert Opin Drug Saf201312330931923506252
- DurandCAlhanmmadAWillettKPractical considerations for optimal transdermal drug deliveryAm J Health Syst Pharm201269211612422215357
- FDA [homepage on the Internet]Public Health Advisory: risk of burns during MRI scans from Transdermal drug patches with metallic backings Available from: http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/DrugSafetyInformationforHeathcareProfessionals/PublicHealthAdvisories/ucm111313.htmAccessed May 19, 2014
- HongIGabayMLadolceASafety concerns involving transdermal patches and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)Hospital Pharmacy20104510771778
- SouthamMATransdermal fentanyl therapy: System design, pharmacokinetics and efficacyAnticancer Drugs19956Suppl 329347606033
- PortenoyRKSouthamMGuptaSKTransdermal fentanyl for cancer pain. Repeated dose pharmacokinetics and efficacyAnesthesiology199378136438424569
- DahanAYassenARombergRBuprenorphine induces ceiling in respiratory depression but not in analgesiaBr J Anaesth200696562763216547090
- DahanAOpioid-induced respiratory effects: new data on buprenorphinePalliat Med200620Suppl 1S3S816764215
- OverholserBRFosterDROpioid pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactionsAm J Manage Care201117Suppl 11S276S287
- McCance-KatzEFSullivanLNallaniSDrug interaction of clinical importance among the opioids, methadone, and buprenorphine, and other frequently prescribed medications: a reviewAm J Addict201019141620132117
- JumbelicMIDeaths with transdermal fentanyl patchesAm J Forensic Med Pathol2010311182119918162
- FDA [homepage on the Internet]Safety warnings regarding use of fentanyl transdermal (skin) patches Available from: http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/DrugSafetyInformationforHeathcareProfessionals/PublicHealthAdvisories/ucm051739.htmAccessed May 19, 2014
- FDA [homepage on the Internet]FDA issues second safety warning on fentanyl skin patch: deaths and serious injuries from improper use Available from: http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/2007/ucm109046.htmAccessed May 19, 2014
- FDA [homepage on the Internet]FDA reminds the public about the potential for life-threatening harm from accidental exposure to fentanyl transdermal systems (patches) Available from: http://www.fda.gov/drugs/drugsafety/ucm300747.htmAccessed May 19, 2014
- FDA [homepage on the Internet]FDA Drug Safety Communication: FDA requiring color changes to Duragesic (fentanyl) pain patches to aid safety-emphasizing that accidental exposure to used patches can cause death Available from: http://www.fda.gov/drugs/drugsafety/ucm368902.htmAccessed May 19, 2014
- HeiskanenTMatzkeSHaakanaSTransdermal fentanyl in cachectic cancer patientsPain20091441–221822219442446
- van OjikALJansenPAFBruwersJRvan RoonENTreatment of chronic pain in older people evidence-based choice of strong-acting opioidsDrugs Aging201229861562522765848
- PloskerGlBuprenorphine 5, 10, and 20 μg/h transdermal patch: a review of its use in the management of chronic non-malignant painDrugs201171182491250922141389
- MichelEAndersonBZernikowBBuprenorphine TTS for children – a review of the drug’s clinical pharmacologyPaediatr Anaesth201121328029021091589
- ZernikowBMichelECraigFAndersonBJPediatric palliative care: use of opioids for the management of painPaediatr Drugs200911212915119301934