Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Rationales behind the choice of administration form with fentanyl: Delphi survey among Danish general practitioners

Ramune Jacobsen, PhD, Claus Møldrup, PhD, Lona Christrup, PhD

Abstract


Background and Aim: The aim of this study was to describe the rationale behind the choice of fentanyl administration forms among Danish general practitioners (GPs).
Methods: Thirty-eight Danish GPs were contacted via an Internet survey system to perform a Delphi survey. In the brainstorming phase, the main reasons for prescribing and not prescribing fentanyl patches, oral transmucosal systems (OTFCs), and nasal sprays were identified. In the second phase, GPs were asked to rate the importance of each reason.
Results and Discussion: Thirty-three GPs responded in the brainstorming phase, and 33 and 31 in two rating rounds, respectively. The most important reason to choose fentanyl patches was that patients’ clinical condition did not allow them to take analgesia orally. OTFCs were primarily seen as a self-administrative alternative to injections in case of breakthrough pain. The main reasons for not choosing OTFCs were intolerance to fentanyl and price. The most important possible rationale to choose fentanyl nasal spray was easy administration. The most important possible reasons to not choose fenanyl nasal spray were application side effects.
Conclusions: The rationale behind the choice of administration form with fentanyl partly differed from those overviewed in the literature. Fentanyl nasal spray was seen as a better option for treatment of breakthrough pain among terminally ill patients if compared with OTFCs.

Keywords


fentanyl, administration, rationale, general practitioners

Full Text:

PDF

References


Zacny JP, Lichtor JL, Zaragoza JG, et al.: Subjective and behavioral responses to intravenous fentanyl in healthy volunteers. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 1992; 107: 319-326.

Jeal W, Benfield P: Transdermal fentanyl. A review of its pharmacological properties and therapeutic efficacy in pain control. Drugs. 1997; 53: 109-138.

Fine PG, Streisand JB: A review of oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate: Potent, rapid and noninvasive opioid analgesia. J Palliat Med. 1998; 1: 55-63.

Danish Medicine Agency (Laegemiddelstyrelsen): The list of approved medicines. Available at http://www.laegemiddelstyrelsendk/. Accessed December 19, 2007.

Slatkin NE, Xie F, Messina J, et al.: Fentanyl buccal tablet for relief of breakthrough pain in opioid-tolerant patients with cancer-related chronic pain. J Support Oncol. 2007; 5: 327-334.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration: Duragesic Label. Available at http://www.fda.gov/cder/foi/label/2005/19813s039lblpdf. Accessed December 19, 2007.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration: Medication Guide Actiq. Available at http://www.fda.gov/cder/Offices/ODS/MG/fentanyl_citrateMG pdf. Accessed December 20, 2007.

Mosser KH: Transdermal fentanyl in cancer pain. Am Fam Physician. 1992; 45: 2289-2294.

Southam MA: Transdermal fentanyl therapy: System design, pharmacokinetics and efficacy. Anticancer Drugs. 1995; 6: 29-34.

Mystakidou K, Katsouda E, Tsilika E, et al.: Transdermal therapeutic fentanyl-system (TTS-F). In Vivo. 2004; 18: 633-642.

Gourlay GK: Treatment of cancer pain with transdermal fentanyl. Lancet Oncol. 2001; 2: 165-172.

Kornick CA, Santiago-Palma J, Moryl N, et al.: Benefit-risk assessment of transdermal fentanyl for the treatment of chronic pain. Drug Saf. 2003; 26: 951-973.

Mercadante S, Fulfaro F: Alternatives to oral opioids for cancer pain. Oncology (Williston Park). 1999; 13: 215-225.

Radovanovic D, Pjevic M, Malbasa Z, et al.: The use of transdermal fentanyl in the treatment of cancer pain. Arch Oncol. 2002; 10: 263-266.

Simmonds MA, Richenbacher J: Transdermal fentanyl: Long-term analgesic studies. J Pain Symptom Manage. 1992; 7: S36-S39.

Gordon DB: Oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate for cancer breakthrough pain: A review. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2006; 33: 257-264.

Mystakidou K, Katsouda E, Parpa E, et al.: Oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate: Overview of pharmacological and clinical characteristics. Drug Deliv. 2006; 13: 269-276.

Rees E: The role of oral transmucosal fetanyl citrate in the management of breakthrough cancer pain. Int J Palliat Nurs. 2002; 8: 304-308.

Zeppetella G, Ribeiro MD: Opioids for the management of breakthrough (episodic) pain in cancer patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006; 25: CD004311.

Reddy SK, Nguyen P: Breakthrough pain in cancer patients: New therapeutic approaches to an old challenge. Curr Rev Pain. 2000; 4: 242-247.

Christrup LL, Foster D, Popper LD, et al.: Pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and tolerability of fentanyl following intranasal versus intravenous administration in adults undergoing third-molar extraction: A randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, two-way, crossover study. Clin Ther. 2008; 30: 469-481.

Foster D, Upton R, Christrup L, et al.: Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of intranasal versus intravenous fentanyl in patients with pain after oral surgery. Ann Pharmacother. 2008; 42: 1380-1387.

Zeppetella G: An assessment of the safety, efficacy, and acceptability of intranasal fentanyl citrate in the management of cancer-related breakthrough pain: A pilot study. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2000; 20: 253-258.

Efstathiou N, Ameen J, Coll AM: Healthcare providers’ priorities for cancer care: A Delphi study in Greece. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2007; 11: 141-150.

Møldrup C, Morgall JM: Risks of future drugs: A Danish expert Delphi. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2001; 67: 273-289.

Stevens B, McGrath P, Yamada J, et al.: Identification of pain indicators for infants at risk for neurological impairment: A Delphi consensus study. BMC Pediatr. 2006; 6: 1.

Akins RB, Tolson H, Cole BR: Stability of response characteristics of a Delphi panel: Application of bootstrap data expansion. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005; 5: 37.

Nevo D, Chan YE: A Delphi study of knowledge management systems: Scope and requirements. Inf Manage. 2007; 44: 538-597.

Campbell SM, Cantrill JA, Roberts D: Prescribing indicators for UK general practice: Delphi consultation study. BMJ. 2000; 321: 425-428.

Rasmussen HM, Sondergaard J, Kampmann JP, et al.: General practitioners prefer prescribing indicators based on detailed information on individual patients: A Delphi study. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2005; 61: 237-241.

Fayers PM, Machin D: Quality of Life. Assessment, Analysis and Interpretation. Chichester, England: Wiley, 2007.

Kilner T: Educating the ambulance technician, paramedic, and clinical supervisor: Using factor analysis to inform the curriculum. Emerg Med J. 2004; 21: 379-385.

John Bell & Associates: Statistics for practical people. Available at http://www.proaxis.com/~johnbell/sfpp/sfpp6.htm. Accessed January 28, 2008.

Bland JM, Altman DG: Cronbach’s alpha. Br Med J. 1997; 314: 572.

DeVellis RF: Scale Development: Theory and Applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2003.

Mystakidou K, Katsouda E, Parpa E, et al.: Oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate for the treatment of breakthrough pain in cancer patients: An overview of its pharmacological and clinical characteristics. Am J Hospice Palliat Care. 2005; 22: 228-232.

Dale O, Hjortkjaer R, Kharasch ED: Nasal administration of opioids for pain management in adults. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2002; 46: 759-770.

Baker JA, Lovell K, Harris N, et al.: Multidisciplinary consensus of best practice for pro re nata (PRN) psychotropic medications within acute mental health settings: A Delphi study. J Psychiatr Mental Health Nurs. 2007; 14: 478-484.

Richter A, Ostrowski C, Dombeck MP, et al.: Delphi panel study of current hypertension treatment patterns. Clin Ther. 2001; 23: 160-167.

Powell C: The Delphi technique: Myths and realities. J Adv Nurs. 2003; 41: 376-382.

Sackman H: Delphi Critique. Expert Opinion, Forecasting, and Group Process. Lexington: Lexington Books, 1975.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.5055/jom.2010.0024

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.