Inhaled Morphine Compared With Morphine By Mouth in Treating Cancer Patients With Breakthrough Pain

July 17, 2013 updated by: Dana-Farber Cancer Institute

An Open Label, Randomized, Multicenter, Crossover, Phase II Study to Compare Pain Relief Following Morphine Administration Via AERxPMS vs Orally in Cancer Patients Experiencing Opioid-Sensitive Breakthrough Pain

RATIONALE: Morphine that is inhaled may be more rapidly absorbed than morphine that is given by mouth. It is not yet known if inhaled morphine is more effective than morphine given by mouth in relieving breakthrough pain.

PURPOSE: Randomized phase II trial to compare the effectiveness of inhaled morphine with that of morphine given by mouth in treating cancer patients who have breakthrough pain.

Study Overview

Detailed Description

OBJECTIVES: I. Compare the change in pain intensity during the 15 minutes immediately following aerosolized vs oral morphine sulfate in cancer patients with opioid-sensitive breakthrough pain. II. Compare preference for continued use of these regimens in these patients. III. Compare the pain relief in patients treated with these regimens. IV. Evaluate satisfaction of patients treated with these regimens.

OUTLINE: This is a randomized, open-label, crossover, multicenter study. Patients are randomized to 1 of 2 treatment arms. Patients undergo titration of aerosolized morphine sulfate over days 1-7 to determine the optimal baseline and breakthrough dosage. Arm I: Patients receive aerosolized morphine sulfate as needed for breakthrough pain, up to 4 inhalations every 15 minutes, on days 8-14. Patients crossover to oral morphine sulfate as needed for breakthrough pain on days 15-21. Arm II: Patients receive oral morphine sulfate as needed for breakthrough pain on days 8-14. Patients crossover to aerosolized morphine sulfate as needed for breakthrough pain, up to 4 inhalations every 15 minutes, on days 15-21. Patients may continue treatment with either oral or aerosolized morphine sulfate for an additional 60 days beginning on day 22. Quality of life is assessed weekly for 3 weeks. Patients complete a pain management satisfaction survey at the end of each therapy crossover week.

PROJECTED ACCRUAL: Approximately 50 patients will be accrued for this study.

Study Type

Interventional

Phase

  • Phase 2

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

    • Massachusetts
      • Boston, Massachusetts, United States, 02115
        • Brigham and Women's Hospital

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

18 years and older (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

DISEASE CHARACTERISTICS: Opioid-sensitive breakthrough pain due to cancer More than 1 episode daily Oral opiate dose of no more than 100 mg of morphine No known allergy to morphine or other opioids No known CNS excitatory response to morphine or other opioids No unstable persistent morbidity due to prior chemotherapy or radiotherapy

PATIENT CHARACTERISTICS: Age: 18 and over Performance status: ECOG 0-3 Life expectancy: More than 3 months Hematopoietic: Not specified Hepatic: Bilirubin less than 2.0 mg/dL AST less than 82 U/L ALT less than 72 U/L Renal: Creatinine less than 1.5 mg/dL Pulmonary: No significant history or recent exacerbation of bronchial asthma No chronic obstructive pulmonary disease No significant pulmonary pathology that would preclude study Other: No history of substance abuse, including alcohol, within the past 2 months No other condition that would preclude study Not pregnant or nursing Fertile patients must use effective contraception

PRIOR CONCURRENT THERAPY: Biologic therapy: Not specified Chemotherapy: Recovered from prior chemotherapy No concurrent chemotherapy that would cause toxicity (e.g., emesis) Endocrine therapy: Not specified Radiotherapy: Recovered from prior radiotherapy No concurrent radiotherapy that would cause toxicity (e.g., emesis) Surgery: Not specified Other: At least 30 days or 5 half-lives (whichever is longer) since prior investigational drug No concurrent MAO inhibitors

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Supportive Care

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Investigators

  • Study Chair: Nathaniel Katz, MD, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start

March 1, 2001

Study Completion (Actual)

February 1, 2004

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

July 11, 2001

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

February 26, 2004

First Posted (Estimate)

February 27, 2004

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Estimate)

July 18, 2013

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

July 17, 2013

Last Verified

February 1, 2002

More Information

Terms related to this study

Other Study ID Numbers

  • DFCI-MOR-00-01
  • CDR0000068672 (Registry Identifier: PDQ (Physician Data Query))
  • ARADIGM-MOR-00-01
  • BWH-2000-P-001516

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Pain

Clinical Trials on quality-of-life assessment

Subscribe