Bono A V, Cuffari S
Service d'Urologie, Hôpital di Circolo, Varèse, Italie.
Drugs. 1997;53 Suppl 2:40-9. doi: 10.2165/00003495-199700532-00009.
Opioid analgesics represent one of the most important tools in a sequential pharmacological approach to oncological pain relief. They are recommended by the WHO when nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) no longer provide adequate analgesia. However, the use of opioids is limited because of their numerous and often severe adverse effects. This aspect of opioids has motivated continuous research projects aimed at discovering drugs that can provide maximum pain relief but with improved tolerability. Tramadol is a new, centrally acting analgesic with a dual mechanism of action. It shows a selective interaction with mu receptors, which are responsible for nociception, and has weak pharmacodynamic activity on other opioid receptors. At the same time, it acts synergistically on neuroamine transmission by inhibiting synaptic noradrenaline (norepinephrine) reuptake and inducing intrasynaptic serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine; 5-HT) release. From a pharmacokinetic standpoint, tramadol offers high bioavailability, with similar patterns after oral or parenteral administration (half-life 5 to 7 hours, time to peak plasma concentration 3.1 hours, and approximately 20% plasma protein binding). Although the efficacy of tramadol is comparable to that of other drugs with similar modes of action, the incidence of side effects such as constipation and respiratory depression is lower. The frequency of euphoria and dysphoria is negligible, resulting in little risk of abuse or dependence. It therefore seemed appropriate to further investigate the efficacy and tolerability of tramadol, defined as having only weak potency, in comparison with a widely used opioid, in oncological pain. Buprenorphine was selected as an opioid with a potency equivalent to half that of morphine, but with tolerability that is partially limited by the fact that it frequently gives rise to adverse reactions considered typical of stronger opioids. To compare the analgesic effect and tolerability of tramadol and buprenorphine, 60 patients (44 men, 16 women; average age 61.4 years), all presenting with advanced tumours, were treated orally in a controlled crossover trial with randomised sequences. Patients took both drugs, each for a week, with a 24-hour washout period between treatments. Tramadol was prescribed at the daily dose of 300mg, orally, and buprenorphine at 0.6 mg/day, as a sublingual preparation. Assessments were made of Karnofsky performance status and severity of pain before and during the 4 hours after taking the 2 drugs. Each patient also completed a daily diary recording the severity of pain 1 hour after the dose, the evolution of pain during the day and its severity compared with that on the previous day. They also assessed the duration and quality of sleep. The Karnofsky index changed little with either treatment, but all other variables showed worthwhile improvement, indicating the significant analgesic effect of both drugs. Buprenorphine and tramadol had a similar analgesic effect, although the improvement with the test drug was significant within 1 hour of administration (p < 0.05 compared with baseline) and more marked (p < 0.05 on day 2 compared with buprenorpine). At the end of tramadol treatment, sleep had also improved, both quantitatively and qualitatively (both p < 0.05). The final assessment was significantly in favour of tramadol as regards efficacy (p < 0.05) and patient acceptability (p < 0.01). Thus, tramadol was better tolerated than buprenorphine, and caused fewer and milder adverse reactions. Only 1 patient discontinued tramadol, compared with 18 using reference therapy. Tramadol, although theoretically less potent, nevertheless brought about as much pain relief as the comparator opioid. In conclusion, for this class of drug, tramadol provides an excellent balance between efficacy and tolerability, confirming preliminary studies.
阿片类镇痛药是肿瘤疼痛缓解序贯药理学方法中最重要的工具之一。当非甾体抗炎药(NSAIDs)不再能提供充分镇痛效果时,世界卫生组织推荐使用阿片类镇痛药。然而,由于阿片类药物有众多且常常很严重的不良反应,其使用受到限制。阿片类药物的这一情况促使人们持续开展研究项目,旨在发现能提供最大程度疼痛缓解但耐受性更好的药物。曲马多是一种新型的中枢性镇痛药,具有双重作用机制。它与负责痛觉感受的μ受体有选择性相互作用,对其他阿片受体的药效学活性较弱。同时,它通过抑制突触去甲肾上腺素(去甲肾上腺素)再摄取和诱导突触内5-羟色胺(5-羟色胺;5-HT)释放,对神经胺传递起协同作用。从药代动力学角度来看,曲马多具有高生物利用度,口服或胃肠外给药后模式相似(半衰期5至7小时,血浆浓度达峰时间3.1小时,血浆蛋白结合率约20%)。尽管曲马多的疗效与其他作用方式相似的药物相当,但便秘和呼吸抑制等副作用的发生率较低。欣快感和烦躁不安的发生率可忽略不计,导致滥用或成瘾风险很小。因此,与一种广泛使用的阿片类药物相比,进一步研究曲马多(其效力仅被定义为较弱)在肿瘤疼痛中的疗效和耐受性似乎是合适的。丁丙诺啡被选为一种效力相当于吗啡一半的阿片类药物,但其耐受性部分受到限制,因为它经常引发被认为是更强效阿片类药物典型的不良反应。为比较曲马多和丁丙诺啡的镇痛效果和耐受性,60例患者(44例男性,16例女性;平均年龄61.4岁),均患有晚期肿瘤,在一项采用随机序列的对照交叉试验中接受口服治疗。患者服用两种药物,每种药物服用一周,治疗之间有24小时的洗脱期。曲马多的口服日剂量为300mg,丁丙诺啡为0.6mg/天,采用舌下制剂。在服用两种药物前及服用后4小时内对卡氏功能状态评分和疼痛严重程度进行评估。每位患者还完成一份每日日记,记录服药后1小时的疼痛严重程度、白天疼痛的变化及其与前一天相比的严重程度。他们还评估了睡眠的持续时间和质量。两种治疗方式下卡氏指数变化不大,但所有其他变量均有显著改善,表明两种药物均有显著的镇痛效果。丁丙诺啡和曲马多的镇痛效果相似,尽管试验药物在给药后1小时内的改善显著(与基线相比p<0.05),且在第2天比丁丙诺啡更明显(p<0.05)。在曲马多治疗结束时,睡眠在数量和质量上均有改善(均p<0.05)。在疗效(p<0.05)和患者可接受性(p<0.01)方面,最终评估明显有利于曲马多。因此,曲马多的耐受性比丁丙诺啡更好,引起的不良反应更少且更轻微。与18例使用对照治疗的患者相比,只有1例患者停用曲马多。曲马多虽然理论上效力较弱,但与对照阿片类药物带来的疼痛缓解程度相同。总之,对于这类药物,曲马多在疗效和耐受性之间实现了极佳的平衡,证实了初步研究结果。