Explore the vast range of titles available.

PurposeNaloxegol, an oral once-daily peripherally acting mu-opioid receptor antagonist, is indicated for the treatment of opioid-induced constipation (OIC) with inadequate response to laxative(s), in cancer and non-cancer patients. This study mainly aimed to assess in real-life conditions the efficacy and safety of naloxegol in cancer pain patients and the evolution of their quality of life.MethodsA non-interventional, 4-week follow-up study was conducted in 24 French oncology and pain centers between 2018 and 2019. Eligible patients were aged ≥ 18 years, treated with opioids for cancer pain, and started naloxegol for OIC with inadequate response to laxatives. The rate of the response to naloxegol (primary criterion) was assessed at W4. The evolution of quality of life was measured using the Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life (PAC-QOL).ResultsA total of 124 patients were included (mean age, 62 ± 12 years; ECOG ≤ 2, 79%; primary cancer, lung 18%, breast 16%, prostate 11%, head and neck 9%, digestive 9%…; metastatic stage, 80%). At inclusion, the median opioid dosage was 60 mg of oral morphine or equivalent. At W4, the response rate was 73.4% (95% CI [63.7–83.2%]), and 62.9% (95% CI [51.5–74.2%]) of patients had a clinically relevant change in quality of life (decrease in PAC-QOL score ≥ 0.5 point). Adverse events related to naloxegol were reported in 8% of patients (7% with gastrointestinal events; one serious diarrhea).ConclusionThis real-world study shows that naloxegol is effective and well tolerated in cancer pain patients with OIC and that their quality of life improves under treatment.

Background/Objectives: CAPTRANE evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of high-concentration capsaicin patch (HCCP) vs. oral pregabalin for the treatment of postsurgical neuropathic pain (PSNP) following breast cancer surgery. The study was designed with the aim of demonstrating noninferiority of one HCCP against daily pregabalin. Methods: This was a multicenter, randomized, parallel-arm, open-label study conducted across nine centers in France. The primary endpoint was a change from baseline in the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) score after 2 months. Results: Recruitment challenges resulted in the randomization of 140 patients (versus 644 planned); the per-protocol population comprised 107 patients (HCCP: n = 65; pregabalin: n = 42). Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. In the per-protocol analysis, the mean (standard deviation) change versus baseline in NPRS score was −1.926 (2.554) with HCCP and −1.634 (2.498) with pregabalin. The prespecified analysis showed that HCCP was not inferior to pregabalin: the lower bound of the 90% confidence interval for the between-arm difference was −0.889 and the upper bound was +0.260 (i.e., below the predefined clinical threshold of +0.4). Patient-reported outcomes showed no statistically significant differences between treatments. The painful area size decreased significantly more with HCCP. Tolerability profiles differed, with HCCP mostly causing application-site reactions. While >50% of patients switched from pregabalin to HCCP, none switched from HCCP to pregabalin. Conclusions: This comparative study in PSNP post breast cancer surgery, evaluating a single treatment of HCCP, shows a noninferior reduction in pain intensity, a superior reduction in painful area size, and a patient preference for HCCP compared with pregabalin. Despite limitations, it contributes valuable initial data for PSNP management in breast cancer care.