Guidelines tend to consider morphine and morphine-like opioids comparable and interchangeable in the treatment of chronic cancer pain, but individual responses can vary. This study compared the analgesic efficacy, changes of therapy and safety profile over time of four strong opioids given for cancer pain. In this four-arm multicenter, randomized, comparative, of superiority, phase IV trial, oncological patients with moderate to severe pain requiring WHO step III opioids were randomly assigned to receive oral morphine or oxycodone or transdermal fentanyl or buprenorphine for 28 days. At each visit, pain intensity, modifications of therapy and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were recorded. The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of nonresponders, meaning patients with worse or unchanged average pain intensity (API) between the first and last visit, measured on a 0–10 numerical rating scale. (NCT01809106). Forty-four centers participated in the trial and recruited 520 patients. Worst pain intensity and API decreased over 4 weeks with no significant differences between drugs. Nonresponders ranged from 11.5% (morphine) to 14.4% (buprenorphine). Appreciable changes were made in the treatment schedules over time. Each group required increases in the daily dose, from 32.7% (morphine) to 121.2% (transdermal fentanyl). Patients requiring adjuvant analgesics ranged from 68.9% (morphine) to 81.6% (oxycodone), switches varied from 22.1% (morphine) to 12% (oxycodone), discontinuation of treatment from 27% ( morphine) to 14.5% (fentanyl). ADRs were similar except for effects on the nervous system, which significantly prevailed with morphine. The main findings were the similarity in pain control, response rates and main adverse reactions among opioids. Changes in therapy schedules were notable over time. A considerable proportion of patients were nonresponders or poor responders. NCT01809106 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01809106?term=cerp&rank=2).

Cancer cachexia (CC) is a debilitating multifactorial syndrome, involving progressive deterioration and functional impairment of skeletal muscles. It affects about 80% of patients with advanced cancer and causes premature death. No causal therapy is available against CC. In the last few decades, our understanding of the mechanisms contributing to muscle wasting during cancer has markedly increased. Both inflammation and oxidative stress (OS) alter anabolic and catabolic signaling pathways mostly culminating with muscle depletion. Several preclinical studies have emphasized the beneficial roles of several classes of nutraceuticals and modes of physical exercise, but their efficacy in CC patients remains scant. The route of nutraceutical administration is critical to increase its bioavailability and achieve the desired anti-cachexia effects. Accumulating evidence suggests that a single therapy may not be enough, and a bimodal intervention (nutraceuticals plus exercise) may be a more effective treatment for CC. This review focuses on the current state of the field on the role of inflammation and OS in the pathogenesis of muscle atrophy during CC, and how nutraceuticals and physical activity may act synergistically to limit muscle wasting and dysfunction.

In treating chronic and acute pain, opioids are widely used. Although they do provide analgesia, their usage does come with adverse events (AEs). One of the most burdensome is opioid-induced bowel dysfunction, and more specifically opioid-induced constipation (OIC). The pathogenesis of these AEs is well known as the consequence of the action of opioids on m-receptors in the enteric nervous system. In recent years, medicines counteracting this specific action at the receptors have been registered for clinical use: the peripherally acting μ-opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORAs). The knowledge of their comparative efficacy and tolerability is very important for physicians and patients in opioid therapy. This systematic review of the existing literature on PAMORAs aimed to study the relative clinical advantages and disadvantages. The most important data banks, including “PubMed,” “Embase,” “CT.gov,” “ICTRP” and “CINAHL” were used to find the published material on PAMORAs. The selected publications were examined to systematically analyze the efficacy and safety of the four existing PAMORAs. All of the medications are superior to placebo in reducing OIC. There are few published data on alvimopan used to treat OIC, and it is only indicated for the treatment of post-abdominal surgery ileus. Methylnaltrexone is studied mainly in its subcutaneous (SC) formulation. When used in its oral formulation, it seems more rapid than naloxegol and placebo in the reduction of OIC. Naldemedine is able to produce more spontaneous bowel movements (SBMs) when compared to alvimopan and naloxegol. Tolerability was found to be similar for all of them. In particular, they affect the gastrointestinal tract (GI), with flatulence and diarrhea, especially at high dosages. For some of them, nasopharyngitis and abdominal pain were observed as treatment adverse effects (TEAs). Several cardiovascular TEAs were reported after methylnaltrexone use, but it is not clear whether they were consequences of the drug or related to the general conditions of the patients. Considering the existing data, naloxegol and naldemedine seem to be the best choices, with a higher number of spontaneous bowel movements following naldemedine administration.

Background: Cancer patients experience multiple symptoms throughout the course of the disease. We aimed to provide a comprehensive analysis of the symptom burden in patients with advanced cancer at admission to specialist palliative care (PC) services and seven days later to estimate the immediate impact of PC intervention. Patient and methods: The analysis was based on an observational, prospective, multicenter study (named DEMETRA) conducted in Italy on new patients accessing network specialist PC centers during the period May 2017–November 2017. The prevalence and intensity of symptoms were assessed at baseline and after seven days using three tools including the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS). Results: Five PC centers recruited 865 cancer patients. Thirty-three different symptoms were observed at the baseline, the most frequent being asthenia (84.9%) and poor well-being (71%). The intensity of the most frequent symptoms according to ESAS ranged from 5.5 for asthenia to 3.9 for nausea. The presence and intensity of physical symptoms increased with increasing levels of anxiety and depression. After seven days, prevalence of nausea and breathlessness as well as intensity of almost all symptoms significantly decreased. Conclusions: The study confirmed the considerable symptom burden of patients with advanced cancer. PC intervention has significantly reduced the severity of symptoms, despite the patients’ advanced disease and short survival.