Bruera E, Fainsinger R, Spachynski K, Babul N, Harsanyi Z, Darke A C
Division of Palliative Care Medicine, University of Alberta and Edmonton General Hospital, Canada.
J Clin Pharmacol. 1995 Jul;35(7):666-72. doi: 10.1002/j.1552-4604.1995.tb04106.x.
Although the oral route is the preferred method for morphine administration for cancer pain, many patients will require an alternate route of administration at some point during their illness. The authors studied the steady-state pharmacokinetics of morphine after administration of a novel, controlled-release suppository (MS-CRS) and subcutaneous morphine in a randomized, double-blind, two-way crossover evaluation in 10 patients with cancer pain. When administered at a 2.5:1 analgesic ratio, MS-CRS given every 12 hours showed an equivalent extent of absorption compared with subcutaneous morphine given every 4 hours (AUC0-12, 132.5 +/- 30.1 versus 123.8 +/- 27.3 ng.h.mL-1, P = not significant [NS]). Peak morphine concentrations were lower, time of peak was later, and percent fluctuation less after MS-CRS than after subcutaneous morphine (Cmax, 14.7 +/- 2.9 versus 29.9 +/- 5.4 ng/mL, P = .0110; tmax, 3.33 +/- 0.75 versus 2.22 +/- 0.15 hours, P = .0160; fluctuation, 122 +/- 71 versus 356 +/- 123%, P = .00160). Relative bioavailability of MS-CRS using the 2.5:1 analgesic ratio was 105%, and bioavailability from data dose normalized without regard to route specificity in metabolism was 42%. For both routes of administration there was a significant linear relationship between morphine dose and AUC (MS-CRS, r = .8568, P = .0032; subcutaneous morphine, r = .8314, P = .0055). MS-CRS morphine provides a pharmacokinetic profile consistent with dosing every 12 hours; at steady state, the extent of absorption is comparable with that of subcutaneous morphine when administered at a 2.5:1 dose ratio.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
尽管口服途径是癌症疼痛患者使用吗啡的首选给药方式,但许多患者在患病期间的某个阶段需要采用替代给药途径。作者在10例癌症疼痛患者中进行了一项随机、双盲、双向交叉评估,研究了一种新型控释栓剂(MS-CRS)和皮下注射吗啡给药后吗啡的稳态药代动力学。当以2.5:1的镇痛比例给药时,每12小时给予一次MS-CRS与每4小时皮下注射一次吗啡相比,吸收程度相当(AUC0-12,132.5±30.1对123.8±27.3 ng.h.mL-1,P=无显著性差异[NS])。MS-CRS给药后吗啡的峰值浓度较低,达峰时间较晚,波动百分比低于皮下注射吗啡(Cmax,14.7±2.9对29.9±5.4 ng/mL,P=.0110;tmax,3.33±0.75对2.22±0.15小时,P=.0160;波动,122±71对356±123%,P=.00160)。采用2.5:1镇痛比例时,MS-CRS的相对生物利用度为105%,不考虑代谢途径特异性的数据剂量标准化生物利用度为42%。两种给药途径下,吗啡剂量与AUC之间均存在显著的线性关系(MS-CRS,r=.8568,P=.0032;皮下注射吗啡,r=.8314,P=.0055)。MS-CRS吗啡的药代动力学特征与每12小时给药一次一致;在稳态时,以2.5:1的剂量比例给药时,其吸收程度与皮下注射吗啡相当。(摘要截短至250字)