An international, open-label, randomised trial comparing a two-step approach versus the standard three-step approach of the WHO analgesic ladder in patients with cancer

•For decades the empirical WHO 3 step analgesic ladder has remained the keystone to cancer pain management education worldwide.•Debate has existed around the need for step 2 of the analgesic ladder which consists of weak opioids, such as codeine.•We examined pain and side-effects between the standard 3 step (weak to strong opioid) and a 2 step arm (no weak opioid).•Time to pain control equal in both arms, fewer side effects in 2 step arm, 50% in control arm needed strong opioid by day 7.•Important practical implications, particularly in LMICs where weak opioids (step 2) are expensive and switching complicated. BackgroundWorldwide, cancer pain management follows the World Health Organization (WHO) three-step analgesic ladder. Using weak opioids (e.g. codeine) at step 2 is debatable with low-dose strong opioids being potentially better, particularly in low- and middle-income countries where weak opioids are expensive. We wanted to assess the efficiency, safety and cost of omitting step 2 of the WHO ladder.Patients and methodsWe carried out an international, open-label, randomised (1 : 1) parallel group trial. Eligible patients had cancer, pain ≥4/10 on a 0-10 numerical rating scale, required at least step 1 (paracetamol) of the WHO ladder and were randomised to the control arm (weak opioid, step 2 of the WHO ladder) or the experimental arm (strong opioid, step 3). Primary outcome was time to stable pain control (3 consecutive days with pain ≤3). Secondary outcomes included distress, opioid-related side-effects and costs. The primary outcome analysis was by intention to treat and the follow-up was for 20 days.ResultsOne hundred and fifty-three patients were randomised (76 control, 77 experimental). There was no statistically significant difference in time to stable pain control between the arms, P = 0.667 (log-rank test). The adjusted hazard ratio for the control arm was 1.03 (95% confidence interval 0.72-1.49). In the control arm, 38 patients (53%) needed to change to a strong opioid due to ineffective analgesia. The median time to change was day 6 (interquartile range 4-11). Compared to the control arm, patients in the experimental arm had less nausea (P = 0.009) and costs were less.ConclusionThis trial provides some evidence that the two-step approach is an alternative option for cancer pain management. Worldwide, cancer pain management follows the World Health Organization (WHO) three-step analgesic ladder. Using weak opioids (e.g. codeine) at step 2 is debatable with low-dose strong opioids being potentially better, particularly in low- and middle-income countries where weak opioids are expensive. We wanted to assess the efficiency, safety and cost of omitting step 2 of the WHO ladder. We carried out an international, open-label, randomised (1 : 1) parallel group trial. Eligible patients had cancer, pain ≥4/10 on a 0-10 numerical rating scale, required at least step 1 (paracetamol) of the WHO ladder and were randomised to the control arm (weak opioid, step 2 of the WHO ladder) or the experimental arm (strong opioid, step 3). Primary outcome was time to stable pain control (3 consecutive days with pain ≤3). Secondary outcomes included distress, opioid-related side-effects and costs. The primary outcome analysis was by intention to treat and the follow-up was for 20 days. One hundred and fifty-three patients were randomised (76 control, 77 experimental). There was no statistically significant difference in time to stable pain control between the arms, P = 0.667 (log-rank test). The adjusted hazard ratio for the control arm was 1.03 (95% confidence interval 0.72-1.49). In the control arm, 38 patients (53%) needed to change to a strong opioid due to ineffective analgesia. The median time to change was day 6 (interquartile range 4-11). Compared to the control arm, patients in the experimental arm had less nausea (P = 0.009) and costs were less. This trial provides some evidence that the two-step approach is an alternative option for cancer pain management.