Mercadante Sebastiano, Ferrera Patrizia, Villari Patrizia, Casuccio Alessandra, Intravaia Giuseppe, Mangione Salvatore
Pain Relief and Palliative Care Unit, La Maddalena Cancer Center, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2009 Apr;37(4):632-41. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2007.12.024.
The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate the frequency, indications, outcomes, and predictive factors associated with opioid switching, using a protocol that had been clinically applied and viewed as effective for many years. A prospective study was carried out on a cohort of consecutive cancer patients who were receiving opioids but had an unacceptable balance between analgesia and adverse effects, despite symptomatic treatment of side effects. The initial conversion ratio between opioids and routes was as follows (mg/day): oral morphine 100=intravenous morphine 33=transdermal fentanyl 1=intravenous fentanyl 1=oral methadone 20=intravenous methadone 16=oral oxycodone 70=transdermal buprenorphine 1.3. The switch was assisted by opioids used as needed, and doses were changed after the initial conversion according to clinical response in an acute care setting. Intensity of pain and symptoms associated with opioid therapy were recorded. A distress score (DS) was calculated as a sum of symptom intensity. A switch was considered successful when the intensity of pain and/or DS, or the principal symptom necessitating the switch, decreased to at least 33% of the value recorded before switching. One hundred eighteen patients underwent opioid substitutions. The indications for opioid switching were uncontrolled pain and adverse effects (50.8%), adverse effects (28.8%), uncontrolled pain (15.2%), and convenience (4.2%). Overall, 103 substitutions were successful. Ninety-six substitutions were successful after the first switching, and a further substitution was successful in seven patients who did not respond to the first switch. The mean time to achieve dose stabilization after switching was 3.2 days. The presence of both poor pain control and adverse effects was related to unsuccessful switching (P<0.004). No relationship was identified between unsuccessful switching and the opioid dose, opioid sequence, pain mechanism, or use of adjuvant medications. Opioid switching was an effective method to improve the balance between analgesia and adverse effects in more than 80% of cancer patients with a poor response to an opioid. The presence of both poor pain relief and adverse effects is a negative factor for switching prognosis, whereas renal failure is not.
本研究的目的是使用一种已在临床应用多年且被视为有效的方案,前瞻性评估与阿片类药物转换相关的频率、适应证、结局及预测因素。对一组连续接受阿片类药物治疗但尽管对副作用进行了对症治疗,镇痛效果与不良反应之间的平衡仍不理想的癌症患者进行了前瞻性研究。阿片类药物与给药途径之间的初始转换比例如下(毫克/天):口服吗啡100 = 静脉注射吗啡33 = 透皮芬太尼1 = 静脉注射芬太尼1 = 口服美沙酮20 = 静脉注射美沙酮16 = 口服羟考酮70 = 透皮丁丙诺啡1.3。根据需要使用阿片类药物辅助转换,并在急性护理环境中根据临床反应在初始转换后调整剂量。记录与阿片类药物治疗相关的疼痛强度和症状。计算痛苦评分(DS)作为症状强度的总和。当疼痛强度和/或DS,或导致转换的主要症状降低至转换前记录值的至少33%时,转换被视为成功。118例患者接受了阿片类药物替代治疗。阿片类药物转换的适应证为疼痛控制不佳和不良反应(50.8%)、不良反应(28.8%)、疼痛控制不佳(15.2%)和便利性(4.2%)。总体而言,103次替代治疗成功。96次替代治疗在首次转换后成功,另外7例对首次转换无反应的患者再次替代治疗成功。转换后达到剂量稳定的平均时间为3.2天。疼痛控制不佳和不良反应同时存在与转换失败有关(P<0.004)。未发现转换失败与阿片类药物剂量、阿片类药物顺序、疼痛机制或辅助药物的使用之间存在关联。阿片类药物转换是改善超过80%对阿片类药物反应不佳的癌症患者镇痛与不良反应之间平衡的有效方法。疼痛缓解不佳和不良反应同时存在是转换预后的负面因素,而肾衰竭则不是。