Clinical Drug Investigation

, Volume 27, Issue 9, pp 605–611

Absorption of Fentanyl from Fentanyl Buccal Tablet in Cancer Patients With or Without Oral Mucositis

A Pilot Study
  • Mona Darwish
  • Mary Kirby
  • Philmore Robertson
  • William Tracewell
  • John G Jiang
Original Research Article

Abstract

Background and objectives: Patients with cancer, particularly those undergoing chemotherapy or radiotherapy, may develop oral mucositis. This is the first study to investigate the absorption profile of fentanyl buccal tablet (FBT) — an effervescent formulation of fentanyl indicated for the management of breakthrough pain in opioid-tolerant cancer patients — in patients with or without oral mucositis.

Methods: In this open-label study, patients with or without oral mucositis self-administered a single 200μg dose of FBT by placing the tablet between the upper gum and cheek above a molar tooth. Venous blood samples for measurement of plasma fentanyl concentrations were collected at regular intervals up to 8 hours following FBT administration. Parameters of interest included maximum plasma concentration (Cmax), time to reach Cmax (tmax), area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to 8 hours (AUC8), and AUC from time zero to the median tmax (AUCtmax′). Adverse events were monitored throughout the study. Oral mucosal examinations and measurements of vital signs were performed at intervals up to 8 hours following FBT administration.

Results: Sixteen patients, 8 with and 8 without oral mucositis, received FBT and completed the study. The severity of oral mucositis was mild in the patients exhibiting this condition. Median Cmax values were comparable: 1.14 ng/mL (range 0.26–2.69 ng/mL) in patients with mucositis, and 1.21 ng/mL (range 0.21–2.34 ng/mL) in patients without mucositis. The tmax was not significantly different in the two groups: median tmax was 25.0 min (range 15–45 min) in patients with mucositis and 22.5 min (range 10–121 min) in patients without mucositis. Median AUCtmax′ values were 0.17ng · h/mL (range 0.04–0.52 ng · h/ mL) in patients with mucositis, and 0.20 ng · h/mL (range 0.00–0.65 ng · h/mL) in patients without mucositis. The corresponding AUC8 values were 2.05 ng · h/mL (range 1.16–3.83 ng · h/mL) and 1.55 ng · h/mL (range 0.74–3.07 ng · h/ mL), respectively. FBT was generally well tolerated in this small group. No application site adverse events or changes in oral mucosal assessments were reported.

Conclusion: The absorption profile of a single dose of FBT 200μg was similar in patients with or without mild oral mucositis. The compound was generally well tolerated.

References

  1. 1.
    Lesage P, Portenoy RK. Trends in cancer pain management. Cancer Control 1999; 6: 136–45PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Portenoy RK, Payne D, Jacobsen P. Breakthrough pain: characteristics and impact in patients with cancer pain. Pain 1999; 81: 129–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bennett D, Burton AW, Fishman S, et al. Consensus panel recommendations for the assessment and management of breakthrough pain. Part 1: Assessment. Pharm Ther 2005; 30: 296–301Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kwong KKF. Prevention and treatment of oropharyngeal mucositis following cancer therapy: are there new approaches? Cancer Nurs 2004; 27: 183–205PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Borbasi S, Cameron K, Quested B, et al. More than a sore mouth: patients’ experience of oral mucositis. Oncol Nurs Forum 2002; 29: 1051–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Berger A, Henderson M, Nadoolman W, et al. Oral capsaicin provides temporary relief for oral mucositis pain secondary to chemotherapy/radiation therapy. J Pain Symptom Manage 1995; 10: 243–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ohrn KEO, Wahlin YB, Sjoden PO. Oral status during radiotherapy and chemotherapy: a descriptive study of patient experiences and the occurrence of oral complications. Support Care Cancer 2001; 9: 247–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sonis ST. Mucositis as a biological process: a new hypothesis for the development of chemotherapy-induced stomatotoxicity. Oral Oncol 1998; 34: 39–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wardley AM, Jayson GC, Swidnell R, et al. Prospective evaluation of oral mucositis in patients receiving myeloablative conditioning regimens and haemopoietic progenitor rescue. Br J Haematol 2000; 110: 292–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Berger AM, Eilers J. Factors influencing oral cavity status during high-dose antineoplastic therapy: a secondary data analysis. Oncol Nurs Forum 1998; 25: 1623–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Portenoy RK, Taylor D, Messina J, et al. A randomized, placebo-controlled study of fentanyl buccal tablet for breakthrough pain in opioid-treated patients with cancer. Clin J Pain 2006; 22: 805–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Durfee S, Messina J, Khankari R. Fentanyl effervescent buccal tablets: enhanced buccal absorption. Am J Drug Deliv 2006; 4: 1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    CTCAE. Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, Version 3.0, DCTD, NCI, NIH, DHHS March 31, 2003. Publication date: 2006 Aug 9 [online]. Available from URL: http://ctep.cancer.gov [Accessed 2006 Dec 14]
  14. 14.
    Darwish M, Kirby M, Robertson Jr P, et al. Pharmacokinetic properties of fentanyl effervescent buccal tablets: a phase I, open-label, crossover study of single-dose 100, 200, 400, and 800 μg in healthy adult volunteers. Clin Ther 2006; 28: 707–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gibaldi M, Perrier D. Pharmacokinetics, chapter 11. 2nd edition. New York: Marcel Dekker, 1982Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Darwish M, Tempero K, Kirby M, et al. Pharmacokinetics and dose proportionality of fentanyl effervescent buccal tablets in healthy volunteers. Clin Pharmacokinet 2005; 44: 1279–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mona Darwish
    • 1
  • Mary Kirby
    • 1
  • Philmore Robertson
    • 2
  • William Tracewell
    • 2
  • John G Jiang
    • 1
  1. 1.Clinical PharmacologyCephalon, Inc.FrazerUSA
  2. 2.Drug Safety and DispositionCephalon, Inc.West ChesterUSA

Personalised recommendations