Intravenous Patient-Controlled Analgesia Versus Oral Opioids to Maintain Analgesia for Severe Cancer Pain: A Randomized Phase III Trial.

IF 16.4
Rongbo Lin, Lang He, Mingqian Lu, Li Zhuang, Wei Lu, Yunfang Chen, Junli Liu, Shaowei Lin, Shen Zhao, Liyu Su, Xia Lv, Jincai Zhong, Zhichun Zhang, Liyan Gong, Yushuang Luo, Tao Ren, Lei Cao, Jiang Liu, Huichao Zou, Chunxiang Shang, Lichun Cui, Shaojun Chen, Shuqiang Wu, Shanlan Yang, Xiaojuan Zhang, Pengtao Chen, Hong Deng, Yongsheng Zhao, Feng Fu, Bisheng Zhu, Xiaodong Wu, Yiming Bi, Hanxiang An, Tao Sun, Hong Gao, Zhongchao Huo, Jun Liang, Ying Chen, Cheng Huang
{"title":"Intravenous Patient-Controlled Analgesia Versus Oral Opioids to Maintain Analgesia for Severe Cancer Pain: A Randomized Phase III Trial.","authors":"Rongbo Lin, Lang He, Mingqian Lu, Li Zhuang, Wei Lu, Yunfang Chen, Junli Liu, Shaowei Lin, Shen Zhao, Liyu Su, Xia Lv, Jincai Zhong, Zhichun Zhang, Liyan Gong, Yushuang Luo, Tao Ren, Lei Cao, Jiang Liu, Huichao Zou, Chunxiang Shang, Lichun Cui, Shaojun Chen, Shuqiang Wu, Shanlan Yang, Xiaojuan Zhang, Pengtao Chen, Hong Deng, Yongsheng Zhao, Feng Fu, Bisheng Zhu, Xiaodong Wu, Yiming Bi, Hanxiang An, Tao Sun, Hong Gao, Zhongchao Huo, Jun Liang, Ying Chen, Cheng Huang","doi":"10.6004/jnccn.2025.7476","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Effective management of severe cancer pain remains challenging. Our phase II study suggested that intravenous patient-controlled analgesia with hydromorphone (IPCA-HM), delivered either as bolus-only or continuous infusion, is superior to oral morphine for patients with severe cancer pain, with bolus-only potentially providing comparable efficacy to infusion while resulting in a lower rate of morphine equivalent dose (MED) escalation. This phase III study aimed to validate these findings.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>Patients with solid tumors and severe cancer pain (≥7 at rest on an 11-point Numeric Rating Scale [NRS]) who achieved successful 24-hour IPCA-HM dose-finding were randomized (2:2:1) to bolus-only IPCA-HM (bolus), continuous infusion IPCA-HM (infusion), or oral morphine (oral) for 6 days. The primary outcome was average NRS score over days 1-3 (3DNRS).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 1,349 patients from 48 oncology centers, 542 received bolus, 540 infusion, and 267 oral. Mean [SD] 3DNRS scores were 2.36 [0.89], 2.26 [0.87], and 2.94 [1.16], respectively. Both IPCA-HM arms were statistically significantly better than the oral arm in 3DNRS scores (bolus vs oral: mean difference, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.42 to 0.74]; infusion vs oral: 0.68 [95% CI, 0.52 to 0.84]; both P<.001). Bolus was noninferior to infusion (mean difference, 0.10 [95% CI, -0.01 to 0.20]; predefined noninferiority margin, 0.3; P<.001), achieving noninferiority in opioid-naïve, but not opioid-tolerant, patients. Median (IQR) total MEDs over days 1-6 were 400 (260-692) mg, 643 (380-1,117) mg, and 867 (540-1,313) mg for the bolus, infusion, and oral arms, respectively. Opioid-related adverse events (all grade 1 or 2) were comparable between the bolus (20.1%) and infusion (23.0%) arms, and both were lower than in the oral arm (33.7%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>For severe cancer pain, both IPCA-HM regimens provided statistically significantly better pain relief compared with oral morphine. The bolus regimen achieved noninferior efficacy compared with infusion while requiring lower opioid doses, providing a safe and effective analgesic option.</p>","PeriodicalId":520697,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN","volume":" ","pages":"257-264"},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2025.7476","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Effective management of severe cancer pain remains challenging. Our phase II study suggested that intravenous patient-controlled analgesia with hydromorphone (IPCA-HM), delivered either as bolus-only or continuous infusion, is superior to oral morphine for patients with severe cancer pain, with bolus-only potentially providing comparable efficacy to infusion while resulting in a lower rate of morphine equivalent dose (MED) escalation. This phase III study aimed to validate these findings.

Patients and methods: Patients with solid tumors and severe cancer pain (≥7 at rest on an 11-point Numeric Rating Scale [NRS]) who achieved successful 24-hour IPCA-HM dose-finding were randomized (2:2:1) to bolus-only IPCA-HM (bolus), continuous infusion IPCA-HM (infusion), or oral morphine (oral) for 6 days. The primary outcome was average NRS score over days 1-3 (3DNRS).

Results: Of 1,349 patients from 48 oncology centers, 542 received bolus, 540 infusion, and 267 oral. Mean [SD] 3DNRS scores were 2.36 [0.89], 2.26 [0.87], and 2.94 [1.16], respectively. Both IPCA-HM arms were statistically significantly better than the oral arm in 3DNRS scores (bolus vs oral: mean difference, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.42 to 0.74]; infusion vs oral: 0.68 [95% CI, 0.52 to 0.84]; both P<.001). Bolus was noninferior to infusion (mean difference, 0.10 [95% CI, -0.01 to 0.20]; predefined noninferiority margin, 0.3; P<.001), achieving noninferiority in opioid-naïve, but not opioid-tolerant, patients. Median (IQR) total MEDs over days 1-6 were 400 (260-692) mg, 643 (380-1,117) mg, and 867 (540-1,313) mg for the bolus, infusion, and oral arms, respectively. Opioid-related adverse events (all grade 1 or 2) were comparable between the bolus (20.1%) and infusion (23.0%) arms, and both were lower than in the oral arm (33.7%).

Conclusions: For severe cancer pain, both IPCA-HM regimens provided statistically significantly better pain relief compared with oral morphine. The bolus regimen achieved noninferior efficacy compared with infusion while requiring lower opioid doses, providing a safe and effective analgesic option.

静脉患者控制镇痛与口服阿片类药物维持严重癌症疼痛的镇痛:一项随机III期试验。
背景:严重癌症疼痛的有效管理仍然具有挑战性。我们的II期研究表明,对于严重癌症疼痛的患者,单丸或持续输注氢吗啡酮静脉自控镇痛(IPCA-HM)优于口服吗啡,单丸可能提供与输注相当的疗效,同时导致更低的吗啡当量剂量(MED)上升率。这项III期研究旨在验证这些发现。患者和方法:患有实体瘤和严重癌性疼痛(在11点数值评定量表[NRS]中休息时≥7)的患者成功实现24小时IPCA-HM剂量发现,随机(2:2:1)分为单丸IPCA-HM(丸),持续输注IPCA-HM(输注)或口服吗啡(口服)6天。主要终点为1-3天的平均NRS评分(3DNRS)。结果:来自48个肿瘤中心的1,349例患者中,542例接受了静脉注射,540例接受了输液,267例接受了口服。平均[SD] 3DNRS评分分别为2.36[0.89]、2.26[0.87]、2.94[1.16]。两个IPCA-HM组在3DNRS评分上均显著优于口服组(注射组与口服组:平均差值为0.58 [95% CI, 0.42至0.74];输注组与口服组:0.68 [95% CI, 0.52至0.84];两组结论:对于严重的癌性疼痛,两种IPCA-HM方案均比口服吗啡提供更好的疼痛缓解,具有统计学意义。与输注相比,丸剂方案的疗效不差,同时需要更低的阿片类药物剂量,提供了一种安全有效的镇痛选择。
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