Lawlor P, Turner K, Hanson J, Bruera E
Palliative Care Program, Grey Nuns Community Health Centre, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Pain. 1997 Aug;72(1-2):79-85. doi: 10.1016/s0304-3959(97)00018-3.
Morphine (M) and hydromorphone (HM) are commonly used opioid analgesics for cancer pain. Opioid rotation is often necessary in the event of toxicity and/or inadequate analgesia. Equianalgesic reference tables based on single dose comparisons are possibly inadequate for patients on chronic treatment and developing tolerance. This retrospective study of opioid rotation involving M and HM sought to determine the equianalgesic dose ratio for 91 rotations in 74 consecutively evaluable cancer pain patients. Only rotations involving subcutaneous (s.c.-s.c.) and oral (p.o.-p.o.) routes were evaluated. There were 44 rotations from M-HM (34: s.c.-s.c., 10: p.o.-p.o.) and 47 rotations from HM-M (35: s.c.-s.c., 12: p.o.-p.o.). Expressing all ratios as M/HM, the median dose ratios (lower-upper quartiles) for s.c. and p.o. rotations were 4.92 (4.1-5.9) vs. 5.76 (4.9-5.8) for M-HM (P = 0.28, NS) and 4.0 (3.1-4.8) vs. 3.45 (2.8-4.2) for HM-M (P = 0.4, NS), respectively. Pain intensity, as measured on a visual analogue scale (VASP), showed no significant difference between mean values pre- and post-rotation. A unified overall median dose ratio of 4.29 (3.3-5.3, lower-upper quartiles) was calculated by expressing all of the HM-M dose ratios as M/HM and combining them with the dose ratios for all of the M-HM rotations. This suggests a potency ratio of approximately 4.3:1 between M and HM. When expressed as M/HM for dose ratio comparison, the median dose ratio for all HM-M rotations was 3.7 (2.9-4.5, lower-upper quartiles) vs. 5 (4.2-5.9) for M-HM rotations (P = 0.0001), suggesting that the opioid to which rotation is taking place is more potent than our proposed unified overall median dose ratio of 4.29:1 would predict. Our data suggests that HM is 5 times more potent than M when given second (M-HM), but is only 3.7 times more potent when given first (HM-M). We therefore recommend a ratio of 5 for M/HM in rotating from M to HM and ratio of 3.7 for M/HM when rotating from HM to M in patients exposed to chronic dosing of these opioids. There was no correlation observed between M-HM and HM-M dose ratios and the level of previous opioid dose, in contrast to HM to methadone rotation where the dose ratio was higher in patients receiving higher doses of HM.
吗啡(M)和氢吗啡酮(HM)是常用于治疗癌症疼痛的阿片类镇痛药。在出现毒性和/或镇痛不足的情况下,通常需要进行阿片类药物轮换。基于单剂量比较的等效镇痛参考表可能不适用于接受长期治疗且产生耐受性的患者。这项关于涉及M和HM的阿片类药物轮换的回顾性研究旨在确定74例可连续评估的癌症疼痛患者中91次轮换的等效镇痛剂量比。仅评估了涉及皮下(s.c.-s.c.)和口服(p.o.-p.o.)途径的轮换。有44次从M-HM的轮换(34次:s.c.-s.c.,10次:p.o.-p.o.)和47次从HM-M的轮换(35次:s.c.-s.c.,12次:p.o.-p.o.)。将所有比例表示为M/HM,皮下和口服轮换的中位剂量比(下四分位数-上四分位数),M-HM分别为4.92(4.1-5.9)和5.76(4.9-5.8)(P = 0.28,无显著性差异),HM-M分别为4.0(3.1-4.8)和3.45(2.8-4.2)(P = 0.4,无显著性差异)。通过视觉模拟量表(VASP)测量的疼痛强度在轮换前后的平均值之间没有显著差异。通过将所有HM-M剂量比表示为M/HM并将它们与所有M-HM轮换的剂量比相结合,计算出统一的总体中位剂量比为4.29(3.3-5.3,下四分位数-上四分位数)。这表明M和HM之间的效价比约为4.3:1。当表示为M/HM进行剂量比比较时,所有HM-M轮换的中位剂量比为3.7(2.9-4.5,下四分位数-上四分位数),而M-HM轮换的中位剂量比为5(4.2-5.9)(P = 0.0001),这表明正在轮换至的阿片类药物比我们提出的统一总体中位剂量比4.29:1所预测的更有效。我们的数据表明,第二次给予(M-HM)时,HM的效力比M高5倍,但第一次给予(HM-M)时,效力仅高3.7倍。因此,我们建议在这些阿片类药物长期给药的患者中,从M轮换至HM时M/HM的比例为5,从HM轮换至M时M/HM的比例为3.7。与HM至美沙酮的轮换不同,在HM至美沙酮的轮换中,接受较高剂量HM的患者剂量比更高,而M-HM和HM-M的剂量比与先前阿片类药物剂量水平之间未观察到相关性。