Skip to main content
Log in

Transdermal Fentanyl

An Updated Review of its Pharmacological Properties and Therapeutic Efficacy in Chronic Cancer Pain Control

  • Adis Drug Evaluation
  • Published:
Drugs Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

Abstract

Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid agonist which interacts primarily with the μ-opioid receptor. The low molecular weight, high potency and lipid solubility of fentanyl make it suitable for delivery by the transdermal therapeutic system. These patches are designed to deliver fentanyl at a constant rate (25, 50, 75 and 100 μg/h), and require replacement every 3 days.

Data from randomised, nonblind trials suggest that transdermal fentanyl is as effective as sustained-release oral morphine in the treatment of chronic cancer pain, as reported by patients using visual and numerical analogue scales as well as verbal description scales. No obvious differences in health-related quality of life were found in patients with chronic cancer pain when comparing transdermal fentanyl with sustained-release oral morphine. Nevertheless, significantly more patients expressed a preference for transdermal fentanyl than for sustained-release oral morphine after a randomised, nonblind, crossover trial.

Because of the formation of a fentanyl depot in the skin tissue, serum fentanyl concentrations increase gradually following initial application, generally levelling off between 12 and 24 hours. Thereafter, they remain relatively constant, with some fluctuation, for the remainder of the 72-hour application period. Once achieved, steady-state plasma fentanyl concentrations can be maintained for as long as the patches are renewed.

The most frequently observed adverse events during transdermal fentanyl administration (as with other opioid agonists) included vomiting, nausea and constipation. Data from a nonblind, randomised trials suggest that constipation occurs less frequently in patients receiving transdermal fentanyl than in those given sustained-release oral morphine. The most serious adverse event reported in US premarketing trials was hypoventilation, which occurred with an incidence of approximately 2%. Adverse reactions related to skin and appendages (i.e. rash and application site reactions —erythema, papules, itching and oedema) were reported in 153 patients with cancer at a frequency between 1 and 3%.

Conclusion: Transdermal fentanyl is a useful opioid-agonist for the treatment of moderate to severe chronic cancer pain. The advantages of transdermal fentanyl include ease of administration and the 3-day application interval. These factors coupled with a lower incidence of constipation are likely to contribute to the reported patient preference of transdermal fentanyl over sustained-release oral morphine.

Pharmacodynamic Profile of Transdermal Fentanyl

Fentanyl interacts with the μ-opioid receptor as a pure agonist. The analgesic potency of fentanyl is 75 to 100 times higher than that of morphine, probably because fentanyl is lipophilic, allowing rapid penetration of the blood-brain barrier. The mechanisms of opioid-induced analgesia are only partly understood.

Like other opioid agonists, fentanyl can induce potentially life-threatening respiratory depression. Experiments in cats suggest that fentanyl-induced sustained inspiration (thoracic rigidity) results from increased amplified efferent activity to the spinal cord inspiratory motor neurons. Moreover, studies in rats suggest that fentanyl, unlike morphine, induces respiratory depression via the μ1-receptor.

Constipation is a common adverse event after opioid administration. Subcutaneous administration of fentanyl and morphine to rats resulted in an analgesic peak effect at doses of 0.032 mg/kg and 8.0 mg/kg, respectively. This analgesic dose was only 1.1 times higher than the dose required for a 50% inhibition of castor oil-induced diarrhoea for fentanyl, but 36 times higher than that for morphine. These results suggest that fentanyl induces analgesia without incurring the same degree of constipation as morphine. Indeed, transdermal fentanyl administration appears to result in constipation in fewer patients when compared with oral morphine therapy as shown by clinical trials.

Peripheral vasodilation and hypotension have been observed after intravenous morphine administration in surgical patients. In this study, however, such haemodynamic effects were not seen following fentanyl administration. There are two possible explanations for this difference. Firstly, morphine-induced vasodilation has been associated with histamine release. Unlike morphine, however, fentanyl administration did not lead to increased plasma levels of histamine. A second explanation could be that morphine, but not fentanyl, stimulates the release of the potent vasodilator nitric oxide by human endothelial cells in vitro by stimulation of the μ3-receptor.

Pharmacokinetic Properties

Fentanyl can be administered transdermally because of its high solubility in both fat and water and its low molecular weight. The application systems are designed to deliver fentanyl at a constant rate for periods of 72 hours. Currently, patches with a delivery rate of 25, 50, 75 and 100 μg/h are available. Neither local blood flow nor anatomical site of application seem to affect fentanyl delivery. Nonetheless, a rise in body temperature to 40°C may increase the absorption rate by about one-third.

In general, the pharmacokinetics of transdermal fentanyl show interindividual variability. After intravenous administration, fentanyl has a high extravascular volume of distribution (3 to 8 L/kg) in surgical patients. In animals, the drug shows wide physiological distribution to the lungs, kidneys, heart, spleen, brain, muscles and body fat. After transdermal application, an average bioavailability of 92% has been estimated in surgical patients.

Mean maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) values were 0.6, 1.4, 1.7 and 2.5 μg/L at delivery rates of 25, 50, 75 and 100 μg/h, respectively. Plasma concentrations were proportional to delivery rate. Delays of 34 to 38 hours have been reported between patch application (25 to 100 μg/h) and occurrence of Cmax. This delay is likely to be due to the formation of a fentanyl depot within the skin before the drug diffuses into the circulation. After several sequential 3-day (72-hour) application intervals, steady-state plasma fentanyl concentrations are achieved, which can be maintained for as long as the fentanyl patches are renewed.

Fentanyl is mainly metabolised by cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4. The major metabolite is norfentanyl and minor metabolites include despropionylfentanyl, hydroxyfentanyl and hydroxynorfentanyl, none of which show clinically relevant pharmacological activity. Elimination of fentanyl after patch removal is slow; elimination half-life values of 13 to 22 hours have been reported. The slow elimination is likely to be due to the slow release of the drug from the skin depot. The total body clearance for fentanyl is 34.2 to 52.8 L/h. Since metabolisation of fentanyl is dependent on CYP3A4, coadministration of drugs that inhibit this isoenzyme may impair fentanyl clearance. Moreover, known CYP inducers may enhance fentanyl clearance.

Therapeutic Use

Randomised comparative trials in 40 to 127 patients with chronic pain associated with cancer have indicated that transdermal fentanyl 25 to 300 μg/h provides adequate pain control in 66 to 77% of patients. The only double-blind comparative trial of transdermal fentanyl, however, failed to show any statistically significant benefit over placebo. However, this study has not resulted in any significant doubt regarding the analgesic efficacy of transdermal fentanyl; indeed, treatment with transdermal fentanyl is well established and accepted in this indication, as indicated by recent review articles and treatment guidelines. There are a number of possible confounding factors that need to be considered when evaluating this study [including the absence of an active comparator and the possible masking of effects by rescue medication (oral morphine, 51 and 48 mg/day, respectively)].

Data from the two nonblind, randomised trials suggest that transdermal fentanyl is as effective as sustained-release oral morphine in the treatment of chronic cancer pain. No significant differences between transdermal fentanyl and sustained-release oral morphine were found for any of the efficacy parameters in the 2-week trials.

In all trials, patients received oral morphine as rescue medication for breakthrough pain. In the randomised studies, patients were stabilised with morphine before being switched to fentanyl patches. The initial dose of transdermal fentanyl was based on the previous morphine dose as calculated by the conversion table supplied by the manufacturer. In general, the transdermal fentanyl patches were replaced every 72 hours.

Pain control was assessed by the use of visual or numerical analogue scales and verbal descriptions by which patients could express pain intensity. Moreover, in three studies, quality-of-life parameters were assessed by elements from validated survey scales. Patients enrolled were adults experiencing chronic cancer pain and requiring strong opioid analgesia.

Although possible advantages of transdermal fentanyl on health-related quality of life are difficult to appraise methodologically, they embody important elements of palliative care and are an important clinical outcome. A randomised nonblind trial revealed no significant differences in effect on social, physical, role, cognitive or emotional functioning or global quality of life between transdermal fentanyl and sustained-release oral morphine. Nonetheless, significantly more patients preferred transdermal fentanyl than sustained-release oral morphine and there were significant differences in favour of fentanyl in other quality-of-life parameters (e.g. interruption of daily activities of both patients and caregivers, convenience and satisfaction).

Adverse Effects

The most serious adverse event associated with transdermal fentanyl administration was hypoventilation, which occurred in approximately 2% of patients with cancer pain during a premarketing trial. As with other opioid agents, the most frequently observed adverse events during fentanyl treatment are nausea, vomiting and constipation. Nonblind clinical data, however, suggest that fentanyl is associated with less constipation than sustained-release oral morphine as assessed by patient questionnaires. Clinical data in patients with cancer reveal no obvious differences in the occurrence of nausea and vomiting when comparing transdermal fentanyl with sustained-release oral morphine. Adverse reactions related to skin and appendages (i.e. rash and application site reactions —erythema, papules, itching and oedema) were reported in 153 patients with cancer at a frequency between 1 and 2%. Opioid withdrawal symptoms may occur after discontinuation of transdermal fentanyl administration and after conversion from other opioid analgesics to transdermal fentanyl.

Dosage and Administration

Transdermal fentanyl is contraindicated in patients with acute postoperative pain and should not be administered to children under 12 years of age or to patients under 18 years of age who weigh less than 50kg (1101b). Moreover, the initial dosage should not exceed 25 μg/h in opioid-naive patients and elderly or severely debilitated patients taking less than 135 mg/day oral morphine or equivalent. Doses should be personalised according to the manufacturer’s recommended conversion ratio. According to the manufacturer’s recommendations, adjustment of the dosage should be withheld until 3 days after initial application and should then occur at 6-day intervals if necessary. It is important to stress that rescue medication such as immediate-release oral morphine should be readily available to the patient, especially during the titration period. The transdermal fentanyl patches should be applied to an intact, hair-free (clipped not shaved) area of the skin.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Table I
Fig. 2
Table II
Fig. 3
Table III
Table IV
Table V
Table VI

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. WHO Expert Committee, editor. Cancer pain relief and palliative care. Geneva: WHO, 1990

    Google Scholar 

  2. Cleeland SC, Gonin R, Hatfield AK, et al. Pain and its treatment in outpatients with metastatic cancer. N Engl J Med 1994; 330: 592–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Portenoy RK, Lesage P. Management of cancer pain. Lancet 1999; 353(9165): 1695–700

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Mercadante S. Opioid rotation for cancer pain: Rationale and clinical aspects. Cancer 1999; 86(9): 1856–66

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Hanks GW, de Conno F, Cherny N, et al. Morphine and alternative opioids in cancer pain: the EAPC recommendations. Br J Cancer 2001; 84(5): 587–93

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Bagley JR, Wynn RL, Rudo FG, et al. New 4-(heteroanilido)piperidines, structurally related to the pure opioid agonist fentanyl, with agonist and/or antagonist properties. J Med Chem 1989; 32(3): 663–71

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Jeal W, Benfield P. Transdermal fentanyl: a review of its pharmacological properties and therapeutic efficacy in pain control. Drugs 1997 Jan; 53(1): 109–38

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Peng PWH, Sandler AN. A review of the use of fentanyl analgesia in the management of acute pain in adults. Anesthesiology 1999; 90(2): 576–99

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Villiger JW, Ray LJ, Taylor KM. Characteristics of [3H]fentanyl binding to the opiate receptor. Neuropharmacology 1983; 22(4): 447–52

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Maguire P, Tsai N, Kamal J, et al. Pharmacological profiles of fentanyl analogs at μ, δ and κ opiate receptors. Eur J Pharmacol 1992; 213(2): 219–25

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Donner B, Zenz M. Transdermal fentanyl: a new step on the therapeutic ladder. Anticancer Drugs 1995 Apr; 6: 39–43

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Von Cube B, Teschemacher-Herz HJ, Hess R, et al. Permeation morphinartig wirksamer Substanzen an den Ort der antinociceptiven Wirkung im Gehirn in Abhangigkeit van ihrer Lipoidloslichkeit nach intravenoser und nach intraventrikularer Applikation. Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol 1970; 265: 455–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Herz A, Albus K, Metys J, et al. On the central sites for the antinociceptive action of morphine and fentanyl. Neuropharmacology 1970; 98: 539–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kanjhan R. Opioids and pain. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol 1995; 22: 397–403

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Pasternak GW. Insights into mu opioid pharmacology The role of mu opioid receptor subtypes. Life Sci 2001; 68: 2213–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Janssen Pharmaceutica. Durogesic (Fentanyl transdermal system) full prescribing information (US). 2001

  17. Tabatabai M, Kitahata LM, Collins JG, et al. Disruption of the rhythmic activity of the medullary inspiratory neurons and phrenic nerve by fentanyl and reversal with nalbuphine. Anesthesiology 1989; 70: 489–95

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Chen S-W, Maguire PA, Davies MF, et al. Evidence for μ1-opioid receptor involvement in fentanyl-mediated respiratory depression. Eur J Pharmacol 1996; 312(2): 241–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Basta S, Anderson DL. Mechanisms and management of constipation in the cancer patient. J Pharm Care Pain Symptom Control 1998; 6(3): 21–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Collett B-J. Opioid tolerance: the clinical perspective. Br J Anaesth 1998 Jul; 81: 58–68

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Hedner T, Cassuto J. Opioids and opioid receptors in peripheral tissues. Scand J Gastroenterol 1987; 22 Suppl. 130: 27–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Megens AHP, Artois K, Vermeire J, et al. Comparison of the analgesic and intestinal effects of fentanyl and morphine in rats. J Pain Symptom Manage 1998; 15(4): 253–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Rosow CE, Moss J, Philbin DM, et al. Histamine release during morphine and fentanyl anesthesia. Anesthesiology 1982; 56: 93–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Bilfinger TV, Fimiani C, Stefano GB. Morphine’s immunoregulatory actions are not shared by fentanyl. Int J Cardiol 1998 Apr 30; 64 Suppl. 1: 61–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Grond S, Radbruch L, Lehmann KA. Clinical pharmacokinetics of transdermal opioids: focus on transdermal fentanyl. Clin Pharmacokinet 2000 Jan; 38: 59–89

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Mather LE. Clinical pharmacokinetics of fentanyl and its newer derivatives. Clin Pharmacokinet 1983; 8: 422–46

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Varvel JR, Shafer SL, Hwang SS, et al. Absorption characteristics of transdermally administered fentanyl. Anesthesiology 1989; 70: 928–34

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Portenoy RK, Southam MA, Gupta SK, et al. Transdermal fentanyl for cancer pain: repeated dose pharmacokinetics. Anesthesiology 1993; 78: 36–43

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Labroo RB, Paine MF, Thummel KE, et al. Fentanyl metabolism by human hepatic and intestinal cytochrome P450 3A4: implications for interindividual variability in disposition, efficacy, and drug interactions. Drug Metab Dispos 1997 Sep; 25: 1072–80

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Broome IJ, Wright BM, Bower S, et al. Postoperative analgesia with transdermal fentanyl following lower abdominal surgery. Anaesthesia 1995; 50: 300–3

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Roy SD, Flynn GL. Transdermal delivery of narcotic analgesics: comparative permeabilities of narcotic analgesics through human cadaver skin. Pharm Res 1989; 6(10): 825–32

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Lehmann KA, Zech D. Transdermal fentanyl: clinical pharmacology. J Pain Symptom Manage 1992; 7 Suppl. 3: S8–16

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Hwang SS, Nichols KC, Southam M. Transdermal permeation: physiological and physicochemical aspects. In: Lehmann KA, Zech D, editors. Transdermal fentanyl: a new approach to prolonged pain control. 1st ed. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1991: 1–7

    Google Scholar 

  34. Roy SD, Flynn GL. Transdermal delivery of narcotic analgesics: pH, anatomical, and subject influences on cutaneous permeability of fentanyl and sufentanil. Pharm Res 1990; 7: 842–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Southam MA. Transdermal fentanyl therapy: system design, pharmacokinetics and efficacy. Anticancer Drugs 1995 Apr; 6: 29–34

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Catterall RA. Problems of sweating and transdermal fentanyl [letter]. Palliat Med 1997; 11(2): 169–70

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Gourlay GK, Kowalski SR, Plummer JL, et al. The transdermal administration of fentanyl in the treatment of postoperative pain: pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamic effects. Pain 1989; 37: 193–202

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Holley FO, van Steennis C. Postoperative analgesia with fentanyl: pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of constant-rate i.v. and transdermal delivery. Br J Anaesth 1988; 60: 608–13

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Tateishi T, Krivoruk Y, Ueng YF, et al. Identification of human liver cytochrome P-450 3A4 as the enzyme responsible for fentanyl and sulfanyl N-dealkylation. Anesth Analg 1996; 82(1): 167–72

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Feierman DE, Lasker JM. Metabolism of fentanyl, a synthetic opioid analgesic by human liver microsomes. Role of CYP3A 4. Drug Metab Dispos 1996; 24(9): 932–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Ahmedzai S, Brooks D. Transdermal fentanyl versus sustained-release oral morphine in cancer pain: preference, efficacy, and quality of life. TTS-Fentanyl Comparative Trial Group. J Pain Symptom Manage 1997 May; 13(5): 254–61

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Wong J-O, Chiu G-L, Tsao C-J, et al. Comparison of oral controlled-release morphine with transdermal fentanyl in terminal cancer pain. Acta Anaesthesiol Sin 1997 Mar; 35(1): 25–32

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Payne R, Mathias SD, Pasta DJ, et al. Quality of life and cancer pain: satisfaction and side effects with transdermal fentanyl versus oral morphine. J Clin Oncol 1998 Apr; 16: 1588–93

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Kongsgaard UE, Poulain P. Transdermal fentanyl for pain control in adults with chronic cancer pain. Eur J Pain 1998; 2: 53–62

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Radbruch L, Sabatowski R, Petzke F, et al. Transdermal fentanyl for the management of cancer pain: a survey of 1005 patients. Palliat Med 2001; 15: 309–21

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Sloan PA, Moulin DE, Hays H. A clinical evaluation of transdermal therapeutic system fentanyl for the treatment of cancer pain. J Pain Symptom Manage 1998 Aug; 16: 102–11

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Ahmedzai S, Allan E, Fallon M, et al. Transdermal fentanyl in cancer pain. TTS-Fentanyl Multicentre Study Group. J Drug Dev 1994; 6: 93–7

    Google Scholar 

  48. Donner B, Zenz M, Tryba M, et al. Direct conversion from oral morphine to transdermal fentanyl: a multicenter study in patients with cancer pain. Pain 1996; 64(3): 527–34

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Donner B, Zenz M, Strumpf M, et al. Long-term treatment of cancer pain with transdermal fentanyl. J Pain Symptom Manage 1998 Mar; 15: 168–75

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Hardy JR, Rees EAJ. A survey of transdermal fentanyl use in a major cancer center. J Pain Symptom Manage 1998 Apr; 15: 213–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Vielvoye-Kerkmeer APE, Mattern C, Uitendaal MR Transdermal fentanyl in opioid-naive cancer pain patients: an open trial using transdermal fentanyl for the treatment of chronic cancer pain in opioid-naive patients and a group using codeine. J Pain Symptom Manage 2000 Mar; 19: 185–92

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Simmonds MA. Transdermal fentanyl: clinical development in the United States. Anticancer Drugs 1995 Apr; 6: 35–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Korte W, Morant R. Transdermal fentanyl in uncontrolled cancer pain: titration on a day-to-day basis as a procedure for safe and effective dose finding —a pilot study in 20 patients. Support Care Cancer 1994; 2: 123–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Zech DFJ, Grond SUA, Lynch J, et al. Transdermal fentanyl and initial dose-finding with patient-controlled analgesia in cancer pain: a pilot study with 20 terminally ill cancer patients. Pain 1992; 50: 293–301

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Grond S, Zech D, Lehmann KA, et al. Transdermal fentanyl in the long-term treatment of cancer pain: a prospective study of 50 patients with advanced cancer of the gastrointestinal tract or the head and neck region. Pain 1997 Jan; 69(1–2): 191–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Eisner F, Radbruch L, Sabatowski R, et al. Switching opioids to transdermal fentanyl in a clinical setting [in German]. Schmerz 1999; 13(4): 273–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Nugent M, Davis C, Brooks D, et al. Long-term observations of patients receiving transdermal fentanyl after a randomized trial. J Pain Symptom Manage 2001; 21(5): 385–91

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Collins JJ, Dunkel IJ, Gupta SK, et al. Transdermal fentanyl in children with cancer pain: feasibility, tolerability, and pharmacokinetic correlates. J Pediatr 1999; 134(3): 319–23

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Goldman A, Hunt AM, Baird J, et al. Use of transdermal fentanyl (Durogesic) in the treatment of children with chronic pain requiring long-term opioids. 9th World Congr Pain 1999 Aug 22: Vienna, Austria, 197

  60. Hui Ming Chang. Cancer pain management. Med Clin North Am 1999; 83(3): 711–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Makin MK. Strong opioids for cancer pain. J R Soc Med 2001; 94: 17–21

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Allan L, Hays H, Jensen NH, et al. Randomised crossover trial of transdermal fentanyl and sustained release oral morphine for treating chronic non-cancer pain. BMJ 2001; 322(7295): 1154–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Janssen-Cilag. Durogesic (Transdermal Fentanyl) Fachinformation (Prescribing information for Germany). 2000

  64. Janssen-Cilag Ltd. UK. Summary of Product Characteristics UK [online]. Available from URL: www.janssen-cilag.co.uk [Accessed Nov 2001]

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard B. R. Muijsers.

Additional information

Various sections of the manuscript reviewed by: M.Barnett, Coventry and University of Warwick, Warwick, England; S. Mercadante, La Maddalena Cancer Center, Palermo, Italy; L. Radbruch, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany; F. Takeda, Saitama Cancer Center, Saitama City, Japan; D. Thorpe, The Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA; J. Wong, St. Martin De Porres Hospital, Chia-Yi City, Taiwan.

Data Selection

Sources: Medical literature published in any language since 1997 on fentanyl transdermal, identified using Medline and EMBASE, supplemented by AdisBase (a proprietary database of Adis International). Additional references were identified from the reference lists of published articles. Bibliographical information, including contributory unpublished data, was also requested from the company developing the drug.

Search strategy: Medline search terms were ‘fentanyl’ and ‘transdermal’. EMBASE search terms were ‘fentanyl’ and ‘transdermal’. AdisBase search terms were ‘fentanyl’ and ‘transdermal’. Searches were last updated on 2 Nov 2001.

Selection: Studies in patients with chronic cancer pain who received transdermal fentanyl. Inclusion of studies was based mainly on the methods section of the trials. When available, large, well controlled trials with appropriate statistical methodology were preferred. Relevant pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic data are also included.

Index terms: Transdermal fentanyl, cancer pain, opioids, pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, therapeutic use.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Muijsers, R.B.R., Wagstaff, A.J. Transdermal Fentanyl. Drugs 61, 2289–2307 (2001). https://doi.org/10.2165/00003495-200161150-00014

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00003495-200161150-00014

Keywords

Navigation