美施康定直肠给药治疗消化道肿瘤癌痛108例

目的:观察美施康定直肠给药治疗消化道肿瘤重度癌性疼痛的止痛效果。方法:216例晚期消化道癌痛病人随机分为两组,治疗组108例经直肠给药;对照组108例口服给药。开始均采用美施康定30mg,每12小时给药1次。结果:治疗组108例重度癌痛病人,止痛完全36例,显著缓解63例,无效9例,总有效率91.6%;对照组有效率88.9%。治疗组不良反应明显低于对照组。结论:美施康定直肠给药对晚期消化道肿瘤病人癌性疼痛镇痛效果肯定,与口服相比,不良反应明显减少。     

我院54例门诊癌痛患者美施康定直肠给药分析

目的研究美施康定(硫酸吗啡控释片)经直肠给药对中、重度癌性疼痛的镇痛效果。方法美施康定30～90mg塞入直肠(距肛门2～3cm)每12小时1次,再根据疼痛缓解程度调整用药剂量,连用3周。结果直肠给药的总体有效率88.9%,且不良反应明显较口服给药少。结论美施康定经直肠给药可达到与口服同样的效果,且无明显副反应,可作为不能口服用药患者的一种治疗手段。     

奥施康定联合唑来膦酸治疗癌性骨转移疼痛的疗效研究

目的:观察强阿片类药物奥施康定(Oxycodone-HCL)联合唑来膦酸(Zoledronic Acid for Injection)静脉注射剂治疗癌症骨转移疼痛的临床疗效和安全性,并与用奥施康定进行比较。方法:治疗组在口服奥施康定的同时联合用唑来膦酸冻干粉剂4mg,加入生理盐水50ml中,静脉滴注15min。对照组口服奥施康定。采用视觉模拟评分(visual analoguescale,VAS)和生活质量评分(Karnofsky)来评估并记录患者给药后第1～8周的疼痛程度和生活质量。结果:镇痛疗效:治疗组:显效(CR)12例(26.7%),有效(PR)23例(51.1%),总体有效率(显效+有效)77.8%。对照组:显效9例(20%);有效19例(42.2%),总体有效率(显效+有效)62.2%。生存质量改善情况:治疗组显效10例,有效20例,有效率66.7%。对照组:显效8例,有效15例,有效率51%。结论:应用奥施康定联合唑来膦酸治疗恶性肿瘤骨转移疼痛止痛效果好,患者生活质量得到了明显改善,毒副反应较小。     

美施康定直肠给药治疗中晚期癌痛66例临床观察

目的：观察美施康定直肠与口服两种途径给药控制中晚期癌痛的疗效及不良反应。方法：66例中晚期癌痛患者分为两组，即直肠给药。口服给药组，按需定时给药，30mg每12小时1次，必要时增加剂量，每次增加30mg。直至控制疼痛。结果：两组镇痛效果相似，直肠给药组总有效率87．9％，口服给药组90．9％，直肠给药组的不良反应明显较口服给药组减少。结论：美施康定是控制中晚期癌痛的理想药物。直肠给药不良反应小。     

奥施康定治疗200例中重度癌痛临床体会

目的:观察奥施康定治疗中重度癌痛疗效、毒副反应,总结临床体会。方法:应用奥施康定治疗中重度癌痛患者,回顾性总结有疼痛评分记录及疗效、毒副反应记录的门诊或住院用药患者的临床用药体会。结果:有200例患者纳入本研究。奥施康定使用剂量为5mg q12h至240mg q12h,1例患者用80mg q8h方能持续有效止痛,疼痛控制总有效率为90.0%。应用奥施康定配合速效吗啡片达到良好滴定效果;毒副反应主要为便秘、头晕、恶心、呕吐、尿储留,也有出现皮疹、瘙痒,过度镇静、呼吸抑制各2例;预防性用药及用药前与患者充分沟通能减少或减轻不良反应;尽早、适当应用辅助药可以增加止痛疗效,减少阿片类药物用量;随着用药时间延长,即使药物剂量加大,不良反应发生率逐渐降低。结论:奥施康定是中重度癌痛患者良好选择,应用过程中要注意具体细节,恰当配合止痛辅助药,尽量减少不良反应,特别是严重不良反应的发生。     

奥施康定直肠给药治疗癌性疼痛体会

目的观察奥施康定经直肠给药对晚期癌痛的临床疗效及不良反应。方法奥施康定10～200mg经直肠给药塞入距肛门2～4cm处,每12h塞药1次。根据癌痛缓解程度调整用药量,连用2周后评价疗效。结果完全缓解(CR)27例(49.1%),部分缓解(PR)23例(41.8%),轻度缓解(MR)5例(9.1%),无效(NR)0例(0),总有效率(完全缓解+部分缓解)达到90.9%。结论奥施康定直肠给药止痛效果确切可靠,且无严重不良反应,可作为不能口服止痛药的癌性疼痛患者的较好选择。     

美施康定联合吲哚美辛栓治疗晚期癌痛患者疗效评估

目的评估美施康定联合吲哚美辛栓与单一大剂量应用美施康定临床的疗效。方法晚期癌痛患者140例随机分为2组:对照组75例和观察组65例。观察组给予小剂量美施康定口服及吲哚美辛栓纳肛,对照组仅给予美施康定口服。观察2组的有效率及不良反应发生率。结果对照组有效66例,观察组有效58例,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。2组不良反应发生率:头晕、恶心呕吐、便秘,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论小剂量美施康定联合吲哚美辛栓治疗晚期癌痛患者疗效与单一大剂量应用美施康定相比副反应更小,且更经济,且止痛效果无明显差别。     

盐酸羟考酮缓释片与硫酸吗啡缓释片治疗晚期癌痛患者的疗效分析

目的观察盐酸羟考酮(奥施康定)和吗啡缓释片(美施康定片)的止痛效果及不良反应。方法选取奥施康定口服治疗的58倒患者和美施康定口服60例治疗的患者,比较用药4周后的镇痛疗效。结果泰勒宁组镇痛治疗的总有效率为80.6%,美施康定组为85.8%,两组间疗效无统计学差异(P>0.05)。奥施康定使用后的不良反应发生率较低,美施康定治疗后便秘等消化道不良反应发生率较多见。两组疗效相当。结论奥施康定与吗啡缓释片均可有效治疗肿瘤患者中、重度癌性疼痛,但奥施康定副作用的发生率更低。     

美施康定治疗78例中重度癌痛临床体会

目的观察美施康定治疗中重度癌痛疗效、毒副反应,总结应用体会。方法应用美施康定治疗中重度癌痛患者,回顾性总结有疼痛评分记录及疗效、毒副反应记录住院用药患者的临床用药体会。结果有78例癌痛患者进入本文分析、总结。美施康定使用剂量10mg1次/12h至300mg1次/12h,疼痛控制总有效率为92.3%。应用美施康定配合速效吗啡片达到良好滴定效果;毒副反应主要为便秘、头晕、恶心、呕吐,尿储留,有出现皮疹、瘙痒,过度镇静,呼吸抑制各2例;预防性用药及用药前与患者充分沟通能减少或减轻不良反应。结论美施康定是中重度癌痛患者良好选择,应用过程中要注意具体细节,尽量减少不良反应,特别是严重不良反应的发生。     

两种不同的给药方法治疗恶性肿瘤癌痛的疗效观察

目的探讨两种不同的给药方法对恶性肿瘤癌痛的止痛效果及其不良反应。方法对比观察美施康定与芬太尼透皮贴剂对恶性肿瘤癌痛的止痛疗效及毒副反应。美施康定组开始服用美施康定30mg,每12小时1次,若疼痛未缓解2～3天后,进行剂量调整,加用美施康定30mg,一直到获得满意的疼痛缓解。芬太尼透皮贴剂从4．2mg开始,采用剂量逐渐递增的方法,贴膜每3天更换1次,剂量调整幅度为每次增加4．2mg,直到疼痛缓解为止。结果美施康定组与芬太尼透皮贴剂组在控制恶性肿瘤癌痛方面疗效相当（P〉0．05）,而芬太尼透皮贴剂组的不良反应比美施康定组明显减少（P〈0．05）。结论芬太尼透皮贴剂治疗恶性肿瘤癌痛效果好,不良反应少,使用方便,有效改善恶性肿瘤患者的生活质量。     

硫酸吗啡控释片直肠给药缓解晚期癌痛的临床观察

目的探讨硫酸吗啡控释片口服或直肠给药对晚期癌痛的止痛效果及不良反应。方法将70例中、重度疼痛晚期癌症患者随机分为口服给药组和直肠用药组,各35例。分别采用硫酸吗啡控释片口服或直肠给药,观察其疗效及不良反应。结果药物的起效时间、镇痛时间存在个体差异。口服给药组总有效率为91．4％高于直肠用药组的88．6％,差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论硫酸吗啡控释片直肠给药是一种有效、安全的镇痛途径。     

经口服和直肠应用吗啡控释片对癌性疼痛疗效对比研究

目的 观察应用硫酸吗啡控释片(MST)口服和经直肠不同途径对中重度癌性疼痛的疗效和不良反应。方法 85例伴有中重度疼痛的癌症患者被随机分A组(口服MST)42例和B组(经直肠应用MST)43例。结果 A组患者维持剂量≤60mg／d和＞60mg／d的有效率分别86.8％，100％，而B组分别为89．2％，83．3％，两组无明显差异(P＞0．05)；并且进一步对A、B两组不同疼痛分级，不同疼痛类型的止痛效果分析，均无明显差异(P＞0．05)；另外A、B两组的不良反应如恶心、呕吐、便秘、头晕、嗜睡等均无统计学差异(P＞0．05)。结论 经口服和直肠应用MST的疗效和不良反应相近，经直肠应用MST是一种有效、安全、方便的镇痛方法之一。     

The influence of the route of administration: a comparative study at steady state of oral sustained release morphine and morphine sulfate suppositories

Steady state pharmacokinetics of morphine (M), morphine-3-glucuronide (M3G) and morphine-6-glucuronide (M6G) were investigated in 6 patients with intractable cancer pain administered orally with MST (Mundipharma, Limburg, Germany) and, subsequently, rectally with MSR to make a judgment whether orally administered morphine can be replaced by rectally administered morphine. The parent drug and glucuronide metabolites were measured simultaneously using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) and native fluorescence detection. The mean morphine area under the curve (AUC) value (0-8 h) was smaller (434.3 +/- 170.2 nmolL(-1)h) in the oral administration than in the rectal administration (574.8 +/- 285.0 nmolL(-1)h) (p < 0.05). The rectal administration resulted in less production of M3G and M6G. There were no significant differences in the mean steady state concentrations (C(ss)) of morphine, M3G, and M6G between the oral and rectal administrations (p > 0.05). The median AUC ratio--M3G/M and M6G/M, 12.58 and 1.85--following MSR rectal administration was smaller than following MST oral administration in 6 patients (19.97 and 2.59; p < 0.05), whereas the median AUC ratio M3G/M6G in the rectal dosing was 6.24 (range 5.2-7.6) was almost the same as the median ratio M3G/M6G in the oral dosing was 6.49 (range 5.8-8.5; p > 0.1). Four of the 6 patients had a greater Cmax of M3G and M6G after oral administration than after rectal administration. The same 4 had lower fluctuation rates for morphine, M3G (p < 0.05), and M6G (p < 0.05) after rectal administration. Therefore, during chronic morphine treatment, it still seems difficult to decide whether oral administration can be replaced by rectal administration.     

硫酸吗啡控释片直肠给药控制晚期癌症疼痛的疗效观察

目的观察硫酸吗啡控释片（MST）直肠给药对晚期癌症疼痛的镇痛疗效。方法果用MST直肠给药控制48例晚期癌症患者的中重度疼痛。结果MST直肠给药有效率（CR＋PR）为91．7％（44／48），轻度缓解（MR）为8．3％（4／48）。治疗后疼痛程度明显减轻，直肠给药前后疼痛级数相比有极显著性差异（P〈0．001），生活质量也明显提高。副作用与口服给药基本相同。结论MST直肠给药具有良好的镇痛效果，尤其适用于因各种原因导致的不能口服给药的晚期癌症患者。     

硫酸吗啡缓释片口服和直肠给药治疗重度癌性疼痛的临床观察

目的 观察硫酸吗啡缓释片口服给药和直肠给药对重度癌性疼痛的临床疗效及不良反应. 方法 将84例重度癌性疼痛的患者随机分为口服给药组（n=42）和直肠给药组（n=42）,给予硫酸吗啡缓释片,进行止痛效果及不良反应的对比. 结果 治疗2周末,直肠给药组有效率为88.1%（37/42）,口服给药组有效率为83.3%（35/42）,2组比较,差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）;口服给药组不良反应的发生率为40.5%（17/42）,直肠给药组为21.4%（9/42）,2组比较,差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）. 结论 硫酸吗啡缓释片直肠给药的止痛疗效与口服给药相同,安全性2者基本相当.     

北京产硫酸吗啡控释片的人体相对生物利用度研究

目的·· :研究正常人单剂量口服北京产硫酸吗啡控释片的人体相对生物利用度 ,及多次给药的稳态血药浓度和波动性。方法·· :正常健康志愿者19例,随机自身交叉口服北京产硫酸吗啡控释片和进口片30mg;晚期癌痛病人27例次 ,随机(部分病人自身交叉)多次口服北京产硫酸吗啡控释片和进口片至稳态。采用GC -MS测定血药浓度。结果··:求得北京产硫酸吗啡控释片和进口片的Cmax 为14.65ng·ml-1±s3.08ng·ml-1 和14.71ng·ml-1±s2.13ng·ml -1,Tmax 为3.84h±s0.50h和3.84h±s0.37h,曲线下面积AUC为76.67ng·h·ml -1±s8.32ng·h·ml-1 和80.06ng·h·ml-1±s10.89ng·h·ml-1,北京产硫酸吗啡控释片的相对生物利用度为96.89%±s15.33 % ;达稳态时谷浓度分别为15.11ng·ml -1±s8.98ng·ml -1和12.52ng·ml -1±s10.14ng·ml -1 ,峰浓度分别为24.06ng·ml -1±s11.18ng·ml -1和20.32ng·ml -1±s13.18ng·ml -1,血药浓度的波动系数( %)为47.96±s19.91和46.89±s18.77。结论··:北京产硫酸吗啡控释片的人体相对生物利用度符合要求 ,多次给药的稳态血药浓度和波动性与进口片无显著性差异。     

Co‐Administration of Dextromethorphan and Morphine: Reduction of Post‐Operative Pain and Lack of Influence on Morphine Metabolism

Abstract: We investigated co‐analgesic effect of dextromethorphan in adolescent post‐operative patients with idiopathic scoliosis. In a double‐blind study, 60 patients with ASA physical status I–II were randomised into two groups. Group dextromethorphan (n = 30; age: 15.9 ± 2.4 years) was given oral dextromethorphan 30 or 45 mg 1 hr before surgery and 8, 20 and 32 hr after operation. Group placebo (n = 30; age: 16.5 ± 2.7 years) received placebo at identical times. Post‐operative analgesic requirements were assessed using nurse‐controlled analgesia system. Pain was assessed using numeric rating scale before first administration of morphine and at 2, 3, 4, 6, 24 and 48 hr after operation. Blood samples were taken 20 min. after the first use of morphine (within 1 hr after operation). The total use of analgesics during surgery was lower in the dextromethorphan group. The dose of morphine providing relief immediately after surgery, as well as total analgesic requirements in the first and second day after surgery did not differ between groups. Subjectively evaluated pain intensity score (numeric rating scale) was lower for the dextromethorphan patients in the first 4 hr, but not later after surgery. Plasma levels of morphine, morphine‐6‐glucuronide and morphine‐3‐glucuronide did not differ between groups. Dextromethorphan did not influence morphine glucuronidation, in terms of promotion of formation of any morphine glucuronides. In conclusion, in young patients subjected to spine surgery, addition of dextromethorphan to morphine reduced pain only in early post‐operative period. In such patients, co‐analgesic action of dextromethorphan was not associated with significant changes in plasma levels of morphine metabolites.     

吗啡控释剂口服和经直肠途径治疗癌痛的疗效分析

目的：比较口服、经直肠两种给药途径使用硫酸吗啡控释片治疗癌痛的疗效和不良反应。方法：将中重度癌痛患者81例随机分为A组41例口服给药,B组40例经直肠给药,比较两组的止痛效果和不良反应发生率。结果：A组和B组的疼痛缓解率分别为90.2%（37/41）和92.5%（37/40）,结果差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）;不良反应发生率除呼吸抑制外,其余不良反应发生率均有差异,且差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。结论：口服硫酸吗啡控释片和直肠使用吗啡控释剂的止痛疗效相近;但后者的不良反应发生率明显低于前者。     

Assessment of analgesia in human chronic pain. Randomized double-blind crossover study of once daily Repro-Dose morphine versus MST Continus

Objective: This study evaluated Repro-Dose morphine (RDM; Reliadol from Nycomed Pharma), a new once daily controlled-release morphine formulation, against twice daily MST Continus (MST) at steady state in patients with chronic opioid responsive pain. Methods: A randomized double-blind two-way crossover design was used to evaluate the efficacy and adverse effects of RDM once daily or MST twice daily, at the same total daily doses, in patients with chronic stable pain (dose range 20–120 mg per day). During the RDM limb of the study active drug was administered in the evening and placebo in the morning. Dextromoramide was provided as escape analgesia throughout the study. Following a 5-day screening period, during which stability of oral opioid dose was verified, patients underwent two 5-day treatment periods, (one MST, one RDM) in random sequence. Pain scores, escape analgesia requirements and side-effects were compared using data from days 3, 4 and 5 of each treatment period. Any events or medication changes occurring during the study period thought liable to influence analgesia were regarded as protocol violations. Overall assessment and period preference was assessed by direct questioning. RDM treatment was regarded as successful if the amount of escape medication required during the RDM period was equal to or less than that required during the MST period. Results: Forty-seven patients were included in the study, of whom 40 completed both periods [the intention to treat (ITT) population], 31 in strict accordance with the protocol [the per protocol (PP) population]. Results were similar for both populations. There was no significant difference in pain scores or incidence of adverse events occurring during the MST and RDM periods. For the ITT population, requirements for escape medication during the RDM period were less than, equal to or greater than those recorded during the MST period for 14, 15, and 11 patients, respectively. Twenty-nine of 40 patients (72.5%) were therefore RDM treatment successes (95% confidence interval 56.1–85.4%). The percentage of patients preferring RDM (45%) combined with those with no preference (32.5%) was significantly higher than those preferring MST (22.5%; P = 0.0003). Conclusions: Oral morphine administered as RDM once daily is at least as effective and well tolerated as MST twice daily, with over 70% of patients in this double-blind crossover study reporting that RDM was equal or superior to MST. Received: 6 April 1998 / Accepted in revised form: 23 January 1999     

芬太尼透皮贴剂联合吗啡皮下注射治疗晚期肝癌介入治疗后疼痛的护理观察

目的 观察芬太尼透皮贴剂联合吗啡皮下注射在晚期肝癌介入术后疼痛护理应用中的优势。方法 回顾性分析166例晚期肝癌介入治疗后疼痛治疗护理的临床资料,对89例芬太尼联合吗啡治疗组和77例吗啡治疗组在疼痛评分、缓解率两方面数据进行比较,并进行统计学分析;同时记录各组治疗中的副反应。结果 与吗啡治疗组比较,芬太尼联合组疼痛评分,在12 h（1.97±0.56 vs 3.23±1.49,P<0.05）以及24 h（1.63±0.44 vs 4.19±1.68,P<0.01）均有显著降低。与吗啡治疗组比较,芬太尼联合组介入治疗后疼痛总缓解率,在介入后12 h（92.1% vs 76.6%,P<0.05）以及24 h（97.8% vs 70.1%,P<0.05）均有显著缓解。结论 晚期肝癌介入治疗后联合使用吗啡皮下注射+芬太尼透皮贴剂外贴治疗,可以显著提高患者介入术后72 h内的疼痛缓解率。