Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26762381›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2016

Treatment with subcutaneous and transdermal fentanyl: results from a population pharmacokinetic study in cancer patients.

Astrid W Oosten, João A Abrantes, Siv Jönsson, Peter de Bruijn, Evelien J M Kuip, Amílcar Falcão, Carin C D van der Rijt, Ron H J Mathijssen

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Astrid W OostenDepartment of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Groene Hilledijk 301, 3075 EA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. a.oosten@erasmusmc.nl.
João A AbrantesDepartment of Pharmacology, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal.
Siv JönssonDepartment of Pharmaceutical Biosciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Peter de BruijnDepartment of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Groene Hilledijk 301, 3075 EA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Evelien J M KuipDepartment of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Groene Hilledijk 301, 3075 EA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Amílcar FalcãoDepartment of Pharmacology, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal.
Carin C D van der RijtDepartment of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Groene Hilledijk 301, 3075 EA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Ron H J MathijssenDepartment of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Groene Hilledijk 301, 3075 EA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Erasmus MC Cancer Institute · NLUppsala University · SEUniversity of Coimbra · PT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTransdermal fentanyl is effective for the treatment of moderate to severe cancer-related pain but is unsuitable for fast titration. In this setting, continuous subcutaneous fentanyl may be used. As data on the pharmacokinetics of continuous subcutaneous fentanyl are lacking, we studied the pharmacokinetics of subcutaneous and transdermal fentanyl. Furthermore, we evaluated rotations from the subcutaneous to the transdermal route.

methodsFifty-two patients treated with subcutaneous and/or transdermal fentanyl for moderate to severe cancer-related pain participated. A population pharmacokinetic model was developed and evaluated using non-linear mixed-effects modelling. For rotations from subcutaneous to transdermal fentanyl, a 1:1 dose conversion ratio was used while the subcutaneous infusion was continued for 12 h (with a 50 % tapering after 6 h). A 6-h scheme with 50 % tapering after 3 h was simulated using the final model.

resultsA one-compartment model with first-order elimination and separate first-order absorption processes for each route adequately described the data. The estimated apparent clearance of fentanyl was 49.6 L/h; the absorption rate constant for subcutaneous and transdermal fentanyl was 0.0358 and 0.0135 h(-1), respectively. Moderate to large inter-individual and inter-occasion variability was found. Around rotation from subcutaneous to transdermal fentanyl, measured and simulated plasma fentanyl concentrations rose and increasing side effects were observed.

conclusionsWe describe the pharmacokinetics of subcutaneous and transdermal fentanyl in one patient cohort and report several findings that are relevant for clinical practice. Further research is warranted to study the optimal scheme for rotations from the subcutaneous to the transdermal route.

Indexed as

Administration, CutaneousAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnalgesics, OpioidCancer PainFemaleFentanylHumansInfusions, IntravenousMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsYoung AdultAnalgesics, OpioidFentanylFentanylNONMEMPharmacokineticsSubcutaneousTransdermal

Identifiers

PMID26762381
PMCPMC4792338
OpenAlexW2234203559

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.