Retrospective review compares characteristics of opioid-naïve and non-naïve cancer patients using fentanyl patches, suggesting common prescribing reasons.
BACKGROUND: Transdermal fentanyl is usually reserved for opioid-tolerant patients, but in Japan, a low-dose transdermal fentanyl patch (0.5 mg, delivering ~6 μg/h; Fentos tape®) has been approved for opioid-naïve cancer pain. However, real-world data on how this formulation is prescribed are limited. This study aimed to compare patient characteristics and prescribing reasons between opioid-naïve and non-naïve patients and to identify factors associated with opioid-naïve initiation. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 107 patients who were started on a low-dose transdermal fentanyl patch (0.5 mg, delivering ~6 μg/h) at a Japanese university hospital. Patients were classified as opioid-naïve [no prior opioid (n = 36)] or non-naïve [switched (n = 71)]. Data on demographics, cancer type, department, care setting, and reasons for patch use were categorized. Multivariate logistic regression examined factors associated with opioid-naïve initiation. RESULTS: Opioid-naïve patients more often had gastrointestinal cancer and were managed by gastrointestinal (GI)-related departments. Age and inpatient status were similar between the groups. The distribution of reasons for prescribing did not significantly differ (oral intake difficulty, 39% vs. 42%; bowel problems, 14% vs. 10%; renal dysfunction, 8% vs. 4%). GI cancer (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 4.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.75-11.18) and GI-related department (adjusted OR, 4.57; 95% CI, 1.67-12.53) were independently associated with opioid-naïve initiation. CONCLUSION: In this cohort, low-dose transdermal fentanyl patches were preferentially used as first-line strong opioids in patients with GI cancers and those under GI specialist care, rather than being limited to those with clear swallowing difficulty.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kajiura et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: