Analgesic efficacy in women and men with cancer pain, treated with strong opioids: are there differences?

BMJ oncology Pub Date : 2026-04-02 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.1136/bmjonc-2025-001024
Oscar Corli, Lorenzo Caldirola, Francesca Galli, Valter Torri, Silvio Garattini, Eliana Rulli, Giovanni Apolone
{"title":"Analgesic efficacy in women and men with cancer pain, treated with strong opioids: are there differences?","authors":"Oscar Corli, Lorenzo Caldirola, Francesca Galli, Valter Torri, Silvio Garattini, Eliana Rulli, Giovanni Apolone","doi":"10.1136/bmjonc-2025-001024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate sex differences in baseline clinical characteristics, analgesic response, safety profiles and treatment variations among cancer patients initiating WHO step III opioid therapy.</p><p><strong>Methods and analysis: </strong>This post hoc analysis used data from a four-arm, multicentre, randomised, comparative, superiority phase IV trial in cancer patients with moderate-to-severe pain requiring WHO step III opioids. The study was conducted across 44 specialist palliative care centres in Italy. Overall, 498 patients were evaluated, including 277 men (55.6%) and 221 women (44.4%). Eligible participants had locally advanced or metastatic tumours and persistent moderate-to-severe pain. Patients were centrally randomised (1:1:1:1) to morphine, oxycodone, buprenorphine or fentanyl around the clock. Follow-up lasted 28 days, with assessments on days 1 day, 3 days, 7 days, 14 days, 21 days and 28 days. Physicians could adjust opioid doses, add adjuvants or switch opioids as clinically indicated. Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were recorded. Baseline assessments included oncological history, comorbidities, Karnofsky performance status and self-reported psychological status. Pain intensity (PI) was measured on a 0-10 Numerical Rating Scale for average PI (API) and worst pain over the previous 24 hours at each visit. Analgesic response was classified per Farrar's criteria as non-responders (no improvement or worsening), poor responders (<30% PI reduction) or responders (≥30% reduction). Responders with final API ≤4 were also classified as responders per Corli's criteria; others were non-responders. Statistical analyses included χ<sup>2</sup> and Fisher's exact tests, t-tests, Mann-Whitney tests, linear mixed models and logistic regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>PI did not differ significantly between sexes. However, in the fentanyl group, dose increased over time differently between sexes (sex-by-time interaction: p=0.0026). Opioid switching from buprenorphine was more often due to inadequate pain control in men, and due to uncontrollable ADRs in women. Among patients with colorectal cancer, women showed greater pain reduction of the worst pain according to Farrar's criteria (91.3% vs 61.8%, p=0.022). ADRs incidence was higher in women than in men for transdermal buprenorphine (93.2% vs 77.9%, p=0.016). Higher baseline emotional tension was negatively associated with analgesic response (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.00). Other efficacy and safety outcomes were not statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Overall pain reduction did not differ by sex; however, men and women exhibited distinct patterns in dose escalation, opioid switching and ADR profiles. Accounting for sex differences may support more tailored and effective opioid selection in cancer pain management.</p><p><strong>Trial registration number: </strong>NCT01809106.</p>","PeriodicalId":72436,"journal":{"name":"BMJ oncology","volume":"5 1","pages":"e001024"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13052726/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjonc-2025-001024","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate sex differences in baseline clinical characteristics, analgesic response, safety profiles and treatment variations among cancer patients initiating WHO step III opioid therapy.

Methods and analysis: This post hoc analysis used data from a four-arm, multicentre, randomised, comparative, superiority phase IV trial in cancer patients with moderate-to-severe pain requiring WHO step III opioids. The study was conducted across 44 specialist palliative care centres in Italy. Overall, 498 patients were evaluated, including 277 men (55.6%) and 221 women (44.4%). Eligible participants had locally advanced or metastatic tumours and persistent moderate-to-severe pain. Patients were centrally randomised (1:1:1:1) to morphine, oxycodone, buprenorphine or fentanyl around the clock. Follow-up lasted 28 days, with assessments on days 1 day, 3 days, 7 days, 14 days, 21 days and 28 days. Physicians could adjust opioid doses, add adjuvants or switch opioids as clinically indicated. Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were recorded. Baseline assessments included oncological history, comorbidities, Karnofsky performance status and self-reported psychological status. Pain intensity (PI) was measured on a 0-10 Numerical Rating Scale for average PI (API) and worst pain over the previous 24 hours at each visit. Analgesic response was classified per Farrar's criteria as non-responders (no improvement or worsening), poor responders (<30% PI reduction) or responders (≥30% reduction). Responders with final API ≤4 were also classified as responders per Corli's criteria; others were non-responders. Statistical analyses included χ2 and Fisher's exact tests, t-tests, Mann-Whitney tests, linear mixed models and logistic regression.

Results: PI did not differ significantly between sexes. However, in the fentanyl group, dose increased over time differently between sexes (sex-by-time interaction: p=0.0026). Opioid switching from buprenorphine was more often due to inadequate pain control in men, and due to uncontrollable ADRs in women. Among patients with colorectal cancer, women showed greater pain reduction of the worst pain according to Farrar's criteria (91.3% vs 61.8%, p=0.022). ADRs incidence was higher in women than in men for transdermal buprenorphine (93.2% vs 77.9%, p=0.016). Higher baseline emotional tension was negatively associated with analgesic response (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.00). Other efficacy and safety outcomes were not statistically significant.

Conclusions: Overall pain reduction did not differ by sex; however, men and women exhibited distinct patterns in dose escalation, opioid switching and ADR profiles. Accounting for sex differences may support more tailored and effective opioid selection in cancer pain management.

Trial registration number: NCT01809106.

用强阿片类药物治疗癌症疼痛的女性和男性的镇痛效果:有差异吗?
目的:评估基线临床特征、镇痛反应、安全性和癌症患者接受WHO第三步阿片类药物治疗差异的性别差异。方法和分析:这项事后分析使用了一项四组、多中心、随机、比较、优势的IV期试验的数据,该试验的患者是需要WHO第三步阿片类药物治疗的中度至重度疼痛的癌症患者。这项研究是在意大利44个专业姑息治疗中心进行的。总共评估了498例患者,其中男性277例(55.6%),女性221例(44.4%)。符合条件的参与者患有局部晚期或转移性肿瘤和持续的中度至重度疼痛。患者按1:1:1∶1的比例集中随机分配至吗啡、羟考酮、丁丙诺啡或芬太尼。随访28 d,分别于第1天、第3天、第7天、第14天、第21天、第28天进行评估。医生可以根据临床需要调整阿片类药物剂量,添加佐剂或切换阿片类药物。记录药物不良反应(adr)。基线评估包括肿瘤病史、合并症、Karnofsky表现状态和自我报告的心理状态。疼痛强度(PI)采用0-10数值评定量表对每次就诊前24小时内的平均PI (API)和最严重疼痛进行测量。根据Farrar标准将镇痛反应分为无反应(无改善或恶化)、不良反应(2和Fisher精确检验、t检验、Mann-Whitney检验、线性混合模型和逻辑回归)。结果:PI在两性间无显著差异。然而,在芬太尼组中,剂量随时间的增加在两性之间存在差异(性别-时间相互作用:p=0.0026)。从丁丙诺啡改用阿片类药物更多的是由于男性疼痛控制不足,以及女性无法控制的不良反应。在结直肠癌患者中,根据Farrar标准,女性表现出更大的疼痛减轻(91.3% vs 61.8%, p=0.022)。经皮丁丙诺啡女性不良反应发生率高于男性(93.2% vs 77.9%, p=0.016)。较高的基线情绪紧张与镇痛反应呈负相关(OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.41 ~ 1.00)。其他疗效和安全性结果无统计学意义。结论:总体疼痛减轻无性别差异;然而,男性和女性在剂量递增、阿片类药物转换和不良反应方面表现出不同的模式。考虑到性别差异可能支持在癌症疼痛管理中更有针对性和有效的阿片类药物选择。试验注册号:NCT01809106。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书