Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, Fujian Cancer Hospital & Fujian Medical University Cancer Hospital, Fuzhou.
College of Clinical Medicine for Oncology, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou.
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2022 Sep;20(9):1013-1021.e3. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2022.7034.
Optimal analgesic maintenance for severe cancer pain is unknown. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IPCA) with continuous infusion plus rescue dose or bolus-only dose versus conventional oral extended-release morphine as a background dose with normal-release morphine as a rescue dose to maintain analgesia in patients with severe cancer pain after successful opioid titration.
Patients with persistent severe cancer pain (≥7 at rest on the 11-point numeric rating scale [NRS]) were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatment arms: (A1) IPCA hydromorphone with bolus-only dose where dosage was 10% to 20% of the total equianalgesic over the previous 24 hours (TEOP24H) administered as needed, (A2) IPCA hydromorphone with continuous infusion where dose per hour was the TEOP24H divided by 24 and bolus dosage for breakthrough pain was 10% to 20% of the TEOP24H, and (B) oral extended-release morphine based on TEOP24H/2 × 75% (because of incomplete cross-tolerance) every 12 hours plus normal-release morphine based on TEOP24H × 10% to 20% for breakthrough pain. After randomization, patients underwent IPCA hydromorphone titration for 24 hours to achieve pain control before beginning their assigned treatment. The primary endpoint was NRS over days 1 to 3.
A total of 95 patients from 9 oncology study sites underwent randomization: 30 into arm A1, 32 into arm A2, and 33 into arm B. Arm B produced a significantly higher NRS over days 1 to 3 compared with arm A1 or A2 (P<.001). Daily NRS from day 1 to day 6 and patient satisfaction scores on day 3 and day 6 were worse in arm B. Median equivalent-morphine consumption increase was significantly lower in A1 (P=.024) among the 3 arms. No severe adverse event occurred in any arm.
Compared with oral morphine maintenance, IPCA hydromorphone for analgesia maintenance improves control of severe cancer pain after successful titration. Furthermore, IPCA hydromorphone without continuous infusion may consume less opioid.
对于重度癌痛,最佳的镇痛维持治疗方案尚不明确。本研究评估了静脉患者自控镇痛(IPCA)持续输注加解救剂量或推注剂量与常规口服缓释吗啡作为背景剂量加即释吗啡解救剂量,以维持成功滴定阿片类药物后重度癌痛患者的镇痛效果。
持续性重度癌痛(静息时数字评定量表[NRS]评分≥7 分)患者被随机分为 3 个治疗组之一:(A1)IPCA 氢吗啡酮推注剂量组,按需给予前 24 小时总等效镇痛剂量[TEOP24H]的 10%20%(A2)IPCA 氢吗啡酮持续输注组,每小时剂量为 TEOP24H 除以 24,爆发性疼痛推注剂量为 TEOP24H 的 10%20%;(B)口服缓释吗啡组,剂量基于 TEOP24H/2×75%(因不完全交叉耐受),每 12 小时 1 次,爆发性疼痛给予 TEOP24H×10%~20%的即释吗啡。随机分组后,患者接受 IPCA 氢吗啡酮滴定 24 小时,以达到疼痛控制,然后开始接受指定治疗。主要终点为第 1 至 3 天的 NRS。
9 个肿瘤学研究点的 95 例患者接受了随机分组:30 例入组 A1 组,32 例入组 A2 组,33 例入组 B 组。与 A1 或 A2 组相比,B 组第 1 至 3 天的 NRS 显著更高(P<.001)。B 组第 1 至 6 天的每日 NRS 和第 3 天及第 6 天的患者满意度评分均较差。3 组中 A1 组的等效吗啡消耗量增加中位数显著较低(P=.024)。任何组均未发生严重不良事件。
与口服吗啡维持治疗相比,成功滴定后的 IPCA 氢吗啡酮镇痛维持可更好地控制重度癌痛。此外,无持续输注的 IPCA 氢吗啡酮可能消耗更少的阿片类药物。