Oxycodone for Cancer-Related Pain
Open Access
- 24 April 2006
- journal article
- review article
- Published by American Medical Association (AMA) in Archives of internal medicine (1960)
- Vol. 166 (8) , 837-843
- https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.166.8.837
Abstract
To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of oxycodone in cancer-related pain, we conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Four studies, comparing oral oxycodone with either oral morphine (n = 3) or oral hydromorphone (n = 1), were suitable for meta-analysis. Standardized mean differences in pain scores comparing oxycodone with control groups were pooled using random-effects models. Overall, there was no evidence that mean pain scores differed between oxycodone and control drugs (pooled standardized mean difference, 0.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], −0.29 to 0.36; P = .8; I2 = 62%). In meta-regression analyses, pain scores were higher for oxycodone compared with morphine (0.20; 95% CI, −0.04 to 0.44) and lower compared with hydromorphone (−0.36; 95% CI, −0.71 to 0.00), although these effect sizes were small. The efficacy and tolerability of oxycodone are similar to morphine, supporting its use as an opioid for cancer-related pain.This publication has 27 references indexed in Scilit:
- Opioids in chronic non-cancer pain: systematic review of efficacy and safetyPAIN®, 2004
- Minimizing predictability while retaining balance through the use of less restrictive randomization proceduresStatistics in Medicine, 2003
- Measuring inconsistency in meta-analysesBMJ, 2003
- Clinically Important Changes in Acute Pain Outcome MeasuresJournal of Pain and Symptom Management, 2003
- Meta‐analysis combining parallel and cross‐over clinical trials. I: Continuous outcomesStatistics in Medicine, 2002
- Morphine or Oxycodone in Cancer Pain?Acta Oncologica, 2000
- Prevalence of symptoms among patients with advanced cancer: An international collaborative studyJournal of Pain and Symptom Management, 1996
- The WHO analgesic ladder for cancer pain management. Stepping up the quality of its evaluationJAMA, 1995
- Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trialsJAMA, 1995