Suppr超能文献

缓释口服吗啡与透皮芬太尼及口服美沙酮在癌症疼痛管理中的比较

Sustained-release oral morphine versus transdermal fentanyl and oral methadone in cancer pain management.

作者信息

Mercadante Sebastiano, Porzio Giampiero, Ferrera Patrizia, Fulfaro Fabio, Aielli Federica, Verna Lucilla, Villari Patrizia, Ficorella Corrado, Gebbia Vittorio, Riina Salvatore, Casuccio Alessandra, Mangione Salvatore

机构信息

Pain Relief and Palliative Care Unit, La Maddalena Cancer Center, Via San Lorenzo 312, 90146 Palermo, Italy.

出版信息

Eur J Pain. 2008 Nov;12(8):1040-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ejpain.2008.01.013. Epub 2008 Mar 18.

Abstract

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to compare the analgesic and adverse effects, doses, as well as cost of opioid drugs, supportive drug therapy and other analgesic drugs in patients treated with oral sustained-release morphine, transdermal fentanyl, and oral methadone.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

One hundred and eight cancer patients, no longer responsive to opioids for moderate pain, were selected to randomly receive initial daily doses of 60 mg of oral sustained-release morphine, 15 mg of oral methadone, or 0.6 mg (25 microg/h) of transdermal fentanyl. Oral morphine was used as breakthrough pain medication during opioid titration. Opioid doses, pain intensity, adverse effects, symptomatic drugs, were recorded at week intervals for 4 weeks. Costs of opioid therapy, supportive drugs, and other analgesic drugs were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Seventy patients completed the 4 weeks period of study. Five, five, and four patients, treated with oral morphine, transdermal fentanyl, and oral methadone, respectively, required opioid switching. No differences in pain and symptom intensity were observed. Opioid escalation index was significantly lower in patients receiving methadone (p<0.0001), although requiring up and down changes in doses. At the doses used, methadone was significantly less expensive (p<0.0001), while the use and costs of supportive drugs and other analgesics were similar in the three groups. No relevant differences in adverse effects were observed among the groups during either the titration phase and chronic treatment.

CONCLUSION

All the three opioids used as first-line therapy were effective, well tolerated, and required similar amounts of symptomatic drugs or co-analgesics. Methadone was significantly less expensive, but required more changes, up and down, of the doses, suggesting that dose titration of this drug requires major clinical expertise.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在比较口服缓释吗啡、透皮芬太尼和口服美沙酮治疗患者中阿片类药物、辅助药物治疗及其他镇痛药的镇痛效果、不良反应、剂量及成本。

患者与方法

108例对中度疼痛的阿片类药物不再有反应的癌症患者,被随机选择接受初始每日剂量的60毫克口服缓释吗啡、15毫克口服美沙酮或0.6毫克(25微克/小时)透皮芬太尼。在阿片类药物滴定期间,口服吗啡用作爆发性疼痛的药物。每隔一周记录阿片类药物剂量、疼痛强度、不良反应、对症药物,共记录4周。还评估了阿片类药物治疗、辅助药物和其他镇痛药的成本。

结果

70例患者完成了4周的研究期。分别接受口服吗啡、透皮芬太尼和口服美沙酮治疗的5例、5例和4例患者需要更换阿片类药物。未观察到疼痛和症状强度的差异。接受美沙酮治疗的患者阿片类药物升级指数显著较低(p<0.0001),尽管需要调整剂量。在所使用的剂量下,美沙酮的成本显著较低(p<0.0001),而三组中辅助药物和其他镇痛药的使用及成本相似。在滴定阶段和长期治疗期间,各组之间在不良反应方面未观察到相关差异。

结论

用作一线治疗的所有三种阿片类药物均有效、耐受性良好,且需要相似量的对症药物或辅助镇痛药。美沙酮成本显著较低,但需要更多的剂量调整,这表明该药物的剂量滴定需要专业的临床经验。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验