硫酸吗啡控释片直肠给药用于癌痛治疗

目的：研究硫酸吗啡控释片直肠给药用于癌痛病人的镇痛效果及副作用。方法：４０例癌症疼痛病人随枘发为两组,Ⅰ组直肠给药,Ⅱ组口服给药,均用硫酸吗啡控释片３０ｍｇ,每１２ｈ１次,观察两组的镇痛效果及副作用。结果：两组均有明显的镇痛效果。且疗效及副作用无明显差异。结论：硫酸吗啡控释片直肠给药是癌症病人安全、有效和简单的控制疼痛的方法。     

盐酸吗啡缓释片经直肠给药治疗癌性疼痛的临床研究

目的观察盐酸吗啡缓释片经直肠给药治疗癌性疼痛的疗效及副作用。方法选择癌性疼痛患者40例,随机分为A组（经直肠给药）和B组（口服给药）,盐酸吗啡缓释片30-90 mg,每12小时1次,记录各组的疗效及副作用。结果A组的有效率为90.0%（18/20）,B组的有效率为80.0%（16/20）,两组比较,差异无显著性（χ2=0.784,P=0.376）。治疗前A组VAS（Visual Ana-logue Scale）为7.65±1.09,B组为8.05±1.19,两组比较差异无显著性（t=1.108,P=0.275）。治疗后A组VAS为2.40±1.47,B组为2.55±1.73,两组比较差异无显著性（t=0.296,P=0.769）。副作用有头昏、恶心呕吐及腹胀便秘等,两组间比较差异无显著性（P〉0.05）。结论盐酸吗啡缓释片经直肠给药治疗癌性疼痛的疗效及副作用与口服给药无差别,对于不能口服给药的患者,经直肠给药是很好的选择。     

盐酸羟考酮缓释片不同给药途径治疗中重度癌痛的临床观察

目的:比较盐酸羟考酮缓释片直肠给药与口服给药两种途径治疗癌痛的临床疗效和不良反应。方法:选择2015年1月至2016年6月在勉县医院肿瘤血液科治疗的68例癌症伴有中、重度疼痛患者,随机分为观察组34例和对照组34例,两组患者均给予盐酸羟考酮缓释片进行治疗,观察组采用直肠给药,对照组采用口服给药。观察比较两组患者用药后缓解疼痛的疗效、患者生活质量的改善以及不良反应的发生情况。结果:观察组和对照组用药后的止痛有效率分别为85.3%和88.2%,两组1 h、12 h、1周、2周的NRS评分及疼痛缓解有效率比较差异均无统计学意义(P＞0.05);观察组和对照组KPS的改善率分别为91.2%和88.2%,差异亦无统计学意义(P＞0.05);但观察组便秘发生率(17.6%)和恶心呕吐发生率(11.8%)明显低于对照组（41.2%和26.5%）,差异均有统计学意义(P＜0.05)。结论:对中重度癌痛患者使用盐酸羟考酮缓释片经直肠途径给药与口服给药相比,具有相同的镇痛效果,但便秘和恶心呕吐的不良反应发生率明显减少。     

美施康定阴道给药治疗重度癌痛32例疗效观察

近年来,在对晚期癌症患者镇痛药的选择上已有很大发展,但对重度癌痛患者的疼痛控制仍然是个问题.临床验证美施康定口服及直肠给药治疗重度癌痛具有良好的疗效.但对于那些因持续恶心、呕吐、吞咽困难的患者不能口服给药,或因严重便秘、直肠造瘘而不能直肠给药的患者,探索如何有效控制癌痛的方法是必要的.我宁养院于2002年3月～2003年12月,对口服及直肠给药困难的32例女性患者采取阴道给药的方法予以镇痛治疗,现将临床观察结果报告如下.     

硫酸吗啡缓释片治疗重度癌痛的临床疗效观察

目的: 了解硫酸吗啡缓释片治疗重度癌痛的临床疗效及不良反应.方法: 硫酸吗啡缓释片治疗22例为实验组,盐酸吗啡注射液18例为对照组,用药后评价疼痛缓解度和不良反应.结果: 硫酸吗啡缓释片缓解率为90.9%,盐酸吗啡注射液缓解率为94.9%,不良反应两者均有恶心、呕吐、便秘等.结论: 硫酸吗啡缓释片具有口服给药方便,用药安全,是治疗重度癌痛的较佳选择.     

吗啡制剂在临床的合理应用

临床用于治疗癌痛的吗啡制剂主要是吗啡的长效制剂，即吗啡缓释或控释片，有人将吗啡长效制剂用于直肠给药，对那些由于持续的恶心，呕,右咽困难和意识减退等会妨碍口服给药的癌痛患者，用硫酸吗啡控释片直肠给药，可使病人保持无痛状态，本文认为口服的吗啡缓释或控释片直肠给药有效但并不安全，应合理使用各类吗啡制剂，积极鼓励并大力开发不同类型的麻醉药品制剂，以满足各类病人的不同需求。     

硫酸吗啡控释片与盐酸吗啡缓释片治疗121例中、重度癌痛患者的疗效比较

背景与目的:硫酸吗啡控释片、盐酸吗啡缓释片均是治疗中、重度癌痛的首选药物之一,两者在作用、代谢、不良反应等方面有一定差异.本研究的目的是比较硫酸吗啡控释片、盐酸吗啡缓释片治疗中、重度癌痛患者的疗效和不良反应.方法:对121例有中、重度癌痛的患者进行随机分组,其中61例采用硫酸吗啡控释片、60例采用盐酸吗啡缓释片治疗,观察两药疗效和不良反应.结果:硫酸吗啡控释片组中中度疼痛12例,重度疼痛的例,治疗后有效率91.80%;盐酸吗啡缓释片组中中度疼痛13例,重度疼痛47例,治疗后有效率91.67%,两组比较在镇痛效果上差异无统计学意义.消化道反应(恶心、呕吐、便秘),盐酸吗啡缓释片较硫酸吗啡控释片发生率高(66.66%vs.4.43%),差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).结论:硫酸吗啡控释片、盐酸吗啡缓释片用于治疗中、重度癌痛,疗效相近,安全性好,不良反应可耐受.对年龄大,既往有消化道疾病的患者,推荐使用硫酸吗啡控释片.     

硫酸吗啡控释片直肠给药控制癌痛疗效观察

目的 :评定硫酸吗啡控释片 (MST)直肠给药对中、重度癌性疼痛的镇痛疗效。方法 :采用自身对照法。 48例伴有中、重度癌性疼痛病人先口服MST6天 ,然后改为MST直肠给药 6天。结果 :MST直肠给药有效率和显著有效率 (明显缓解 完全缓解 )分别为 95 83%与 81 2 5 %。治疗后疼痛明显减轻 ,生活质量明显提高 ,直肠给药与口服给药相比疗效无显著差异 (P >0 0 5 )。副作用与口服给药相同 ,主要为嗜睡、恶心、呕吐、便秘。结论 :MST直肠给药具有良好镇痛效果 ,尤其适合于不能口服给药的晚期癌症患者。     

硫酸吗啡缓释片联合氟哌噻吨美利曲辛片治疗22例癌性疼痛

[目的]观察硫酸吗啡缓释片联合氟哌噻吨美利曲辛片治疗癌性疼痛的效果。[方法]44例晚期癌痛患者随机分为单药组和联合组,每组22例。单药组每12h口服硫酸吗啡缓释片30mg1次;联合组每12h口服硫酸吗啡缓释片30mg1次,每天口服氟哌噻吨美利曲辛片1片。用数字疼痛评估法（NRS）记录疼痛评分,根据综合性医院焦虑抑郁（HAD）情绪测定表评价患者焦虑抑郁情况。观察21d,评价两组患者疼痛缓解率、疼痛评分、硫酸吗啡缓释片使用剂量、不良反应及焦虑抑郁情况。[结果]两组治疗后各级癌痛缓解率、硫酸吗啡缓释片平均使用剂量以及各不良反应发生率均无显著性差异（P〉0.05）。治疗后联合组焦虑/抑郁评分分别为8.19±1.94和9.29±2.10,均较单药组的10.80±2.12和11.85±2.28低,均有统计学差异（P〈0.01）。[结论]硫酸吗啡缓释片联合氟哌噻吨美利曲辛片能进一步改善癌痛患者焦虑抑郁状况,氟哌噻吨美利曲辛片未减少硫酸吗啡缓释片治疗癌痛的剂量。     

羟考酮缓释片和吗啡即释片在中重度癌痛滴定中疗效及安全性比较的Meta分析

目的 评价羟考酮缓释片与吗啡即释片在中重度癌痛患者滴定中的疗效及安全性。方法计算机检索中国知识基础设施工程（CNKI）、中文科技期刊全文数据库（VIP）、万方数字化期刊全文库（Wanfang）,以及结合手工检索。纳入羟考酮缓释片与吗啡即释片用于中重度癌痛滴定的前瞻性随机对照试验（RCT）,对纳入研究进行方法学偏倚风险评价,并对纳入研究的数据进行Meta分析。结果 根据纳入标准,共纳入12项 RCT,合计1131例患者。Meta分析结果显示：（1）1 h疼痛缓解率方面,羟考酮缓释片组显著优于吗啡即释片组,差异有统计学意义（RR=3.16, 95％CI：1.64～6.08, P=0.0006）;（2）4 h内疼痛缓解率方面,羟考酮缓释片组显著优于吗啡即释片组,差异有统计学意义（RR=2.44, 95％CI：1.49～3.97,P=0.0004）;（3）24 h疼痛缓解率方面,羟考酮缓释片组显著优于吗啡即释片组,差异有统计学意义（RR=1.13, 95％CI：1.04～1.24, P=0.005）;（4）滴定周期方面,羟考酮缓释片组较吗啡即释片组显著缩短,差异有统计学意义（MD=-0.77, 95％CI：-1.14～-0.40）, P＜0.0001）;（5）镇痛起效时间方面,羟考酮缓释片组较吗啡即释片组显著缩短,差异有统计学意义（MD=-29.63,95％CI：-45.54～-13.73,P=0.0003）;（6）便秘方面,羟考酮缓释片组显著低于吗啡即释片组,差异有统计学意义（RR=0.69,95％CI：0.52～0.92,P=0.01）;恶心呕吐方面,羟考酮缓释片组显著低于吗啡即释片组,差异有统计学意义（RR=0.57,95％CI：0.45～0.73, P＜0.00 001）;在其他不良反应方面比较未见差异有统计学意义（P＞0.05）。结论 羟考酮缓释片组在1 h、4 h内、24 h的疼痛缓解率及滴定周期和镇痛起效时间方面均显著优于吗啡即释片组,羟考酮缓释片可以更快速地完成剂量滴定,且便秘和恶心呕吐的发生率显著低于吗啡即释片,是中重度癌痛滴定的更好选择。     

硫酸吗啡控释片直肠给药控制癌痛疗效观察

目的：观察硫酸吗啡控释片（ＭＳＴ）直肠给药对中、重度癌性疼痛的镇痛疗效,并以口服ＭＳＴ做自身对照。方法：３９例伴有中、重度癌性疼痛的患者先口服ＭＳＴ５天,后改为ＭＳＴ直肠给药连用５天。结果：ＭＳＴ直肠给药有效率和显著有效率（明显缓释＋完全缓解）分别为９４．９％和８２．１％。治疗后疼痛程度明显减轻,生活质量明显提高,直肠给药与口服给药相比疗效无显著性差异（Ｐ〉０．０５）。与口服给药相同,主要为便秘、     

盐酸羟考酮缓释片联合即释吗啡片缓解癌痛的疗效及不良反应分析

目的：探析癌痛进行即释吗啡片与盐酸羟考酮缓释片联合治疗的临床效果及不良反应。方法将90例癌痛患者,根据随机数字表法分为研究组、对照组,每组45例。研究组进行即释吗啡片与盐酸羟考酮缓释片联合治疗,对照组仅进行盐酸羟考酮片治疗,2组均治疗10 d。治疗后比较2组的临床效果;比较2组的起效时间及治疗前后VAS疼痛评分;比较2组的临床不良反应情况。结果研究组的临床有效率为80．0％,显著高于对照组的53．3％,差异有统计学意义（P＜0．05）;研究组的起效时间及治疗后的疼痛评分显著优于对照组,差异有统计学意义（P＜0．05）;研究组、对照组的不良反应发生率分别为8．9％、4．4％,差异无统计学意义（P＞0．05）。结论癌痛患者进行即释吗啡片与盐酸羟考酮缓释片联合治疗,可显著缓解病痛,可靠安全,值得临床推广应用。     

胸部肿瘤病人术后罗哌卡因镇痛的研究

 目的观察罗哌卡因肋间神经阻滞对胸部肿瘤病人开胸手术后镇痛的效果。方法80例ASAⅠ~Ⅱ级行开胸手术的患者随机分为两组,实验组于关胸前用罗哌卡因行切口附近胸椎处肋间神经阻滞麻醉,对照组未行此处理。两组病人术后均采用静脉病人自控镇痛泵(PCA),术后测定不同时间点的视觉疼痛评分(VAS)、记录首次应用PCA的时间、术后48hPCA有效按压次数及镇痛药累积使用量,并记录每组病人术后因肺不张而行支气管镜吸痰的人次。结果罗哌卡因肋间阻滞可以大大减轻开胸术后伤口的疼痛,减少术后镇痛药物的用量及肺不张的发生。结论罗哌卡因肋间神经阻滞使用方便,镇痛效果好,可作为常规开胸术后的镇痛方法。     

癌痛麻醉药品药物利用调查分析

目的为临床癌痛患者麻醉药品的合理用药提供参考.方法统计处方中的相关信息,以药物利用指数作为判断合理用药的标准,分析各药的使用情况.结果在1073张处方中,使用癌痛麻醉药的男性患者多于女性,本市多于外市,肺癌患者居多.门诊美施康定片使用量最大.除芬太尼透皮贴剂外,美施康定片、美菲康片、吗啡片的药物利用指数均＜1.结论我院门诊癌痛麻醉药的使用基本合理,芬太尼透皮贴剂的使用尚需规范,合并使用癌痛麻醉药的合理性有待探讨.     

A controlled study of sustained-release morphine sulfate tablets in chronic pain from advanced cancer.

The purpose of this double-blind crossover study was to determine whether a sustained-release morphine sulfate (SRMS) tablet given orally every 12 hours could adequately replace immediate-release morphine sulfate solution (IRMS) given orally every 4 hours in hospitalized patients with chronic pain from advanced cancer. Of 33 patients entered, 27 completed the study and were included in the efficacy and safety analysis. Patients were initially randomized to receive either 30-mg SRMS tablets every 12 hours or IRMS at the same mg/24 hours dose, every 4 hours. After 2 days, a crossover was performed, and patients received the alternate treatment for 3 days. Pain and side effects were assessed using a standard 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS). There were no statistically significant differences between the two treatment groups for mean VAS pain scores or scores for sleepiness, nausea, depression, and anxiety. The incidence of breakthrough pain was similar for both treatment groups, as was the incidence of confusion and constipation. The results demonstrated that SRMS is a safe, effective analgesic preparation for patients who require oral opioids for cancer pain. The data also support the conclusion that sustained-release morphine tablets administered every 12 hours can replace an immediate-release morphine solution administered every 4 hours.     

Methadone versus morphine as a first-line strong opioid for cancer pain: a randomized, double-blind study.

PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness and side effects of methadone and morphine as first-line treatment with opioids for cancer pain. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients in international palliative care clinics with pain requiring initiation of strong opioids were randomly assigned to receive methadone (7.5 mg orally every 12 hours and 5 mg every 4 hours as needed) or morphine (15 mg sustained release every 12 hours and 5 mg every 4 hours as needed). The study duration was 4 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 103 patients were randomly assigned to treatment (49 in the methadone group and 54 in the morphine group). The groups had similar baseline scores for pain, sedation, nausea, confusion, and constipation. Patients receiving methadone had more opioid-related drop-outs (11 of 49; 22%) than those receiving morphine (three of 54; 6%; P =.019). The opioid escalation index at days 14 and 28 was similar between the two groups. More than three fourths of patients in each group reported a 20% or more reduction in pain intensity by day 8. The proportion of patients with a 20% or more improvement in pain at 4 weeks in the methadone group was 0.49 (95% CI, 0.34 to 0.64) and was similar in the morphine group (0.56; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.70). The rates of patient-reported global benefit were nearly identical to the pain response rates and did not differ between the treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Methadone did not produce superior analgesic efficiency or overall tolerability at 4 weeks compared with morphine as a first-line strong opioid for the treatment of cancer pain.     

盐酸曲马多缓释片对中重度癌痛镇痛的观察

目的观察盐酸曲马多缓释片对中重度癌症疼痛的镇痛效果。方法对WHO建议的第一阶梯止痛无效的40例中重度癌痛患者予盐酸曲马多缓释片口服，12小时一次，每次100毫克。结果该药有效率为92.%，缓解率为87.5%，完全缓解率为50%，均数缓解时间为9.9小时，不良反应发生率为45%。结论该药镇痛效果确切，服用方便，成瘾性极少，不良反应多能耐受，是二阶梯止痛药品中较理想的非吗啡类镇痛剂。     

Biweekly oxaliplatin combined with oral capecitabine (OXXEL regimen) as first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer patients: a Southern Italy Cooperative Oncology Group phase II study

Oxaliplatin 100 mg/m² iv on day 1, and capecitabine 1,000 mg/m² orally bid from day 1 (evening) to day 11 (morning) were administered every 2 weeks (OXXEL regimen) to 38 patients as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal carcinoma. A total of 318 cycles were administered, with a median of 8 (range, 4–12) cycles per patient. Response rate (RR) was 45% (95% confidence interval (CI), 29%–62%), with 7 complete responses and 10 partial responses; furthermore, 12 patients showed a stable disease, so that a disease control was achieved in 29 (76%) patients. RR was greater among patients with performance status 0 (52%), without weight loss (52%), younger than 65 years (50%), and previously unexposed to adjuvant chemotherapy (48%), while no correlation was found with the actually delivered oxaliplatin dose intensity. Overall, haematological side effects were negligible, with no case of grade 4 toxicity, and only one patient suffering from an episode of grade 3 neutropenic fever. Severe anaemia occurred in 4 (11%) patients, and grade 3 neuropathy affected 9 (24%) patients. Median progression-free survival was 7.9 (95% CI, 6.2–9.6) months, and median overall survival has not been reached yet. In conclusion, the OXXEL regimen resulted safe and active, and it deserves further evaluation in metastatic colorectal cancer patients.