Opioids are common medications used to treat moderate and severe pain in cancer patients.However,as their significant individual variation in efficacy and medication risk among patients,the dosage of opioids often needs to be accurately titrated or conversed mutually to alleviate pain and avoid adverse reactions caused by overtreatment.Currently,the common calculation used in opioid dosage includes opioid titration,opioid dosage calculation of outbreak pain,opioid rotation between different drugs or formulations,dosage adjustment associated with liver and renal insufficiency,et al. In order to provide reference for clinical rational drug use, we reviewed those dose calculations of opioids based on domestic and foreign reports.
Key words:
Opioid drugs
;
Drug dosage
;
Cancer pain
当疼痛或毒副作用使得患者无法维持某种阿片药物治疗时,更换阿片种类或者剂型是一种更好的选择。理论上从一种阿片类药物转换为另一种阿片类药物需要重新滴定,但是从临床治疗的便利性出发,目前最常采用的转换方法仍然是以吗啡为参照,通过不同阿片类药物与吗啡进行等效镇痛剂量换算。等效剂量的换算从一些采用快速滴定方案的交叉性研究结果中获得,美国国立综合癌症网络(National Comprehensive Cancer Network,NCCN)《成人癌痛临床指南(2020.V1版)》[17]基于此提供了不同阿片类药物口服及肠外给药的等效剂量以及相对效能换算表,见表2。此方法清晰明了,换算公式简洁,被广泛用于阿片药物之间的剂量换算。
表2
Tab.2
表2
表2
不同阿片类药物口服及肠外给药的等效剂量以及相对效能换算
Tab.2
Conversion of equivalent doses and relative efficacy of different opioids for oral and parenteral administration
阿片受体 激动剂
肠外剂量
口服剂量
转换系数 (静脉:口服)
镇痛持续 时间/h
mg
可待因
-
200
-
3~4
芬太尼
0.1
-
-
-
氢可酮
-
30~45
-
3~5
氢吗啡酮
1.5
7.5
5
2~3
左吗喃
2
4
2
3~6
美沙酮
-
-
-
-
吗啡
10
30
3
3~4
羟考酮
-
15~20
-
3~5
羟吗啡酮
1
10
10
3~6
曲马多
100
300
3
-
表2
不同阿片类药物口服及肠外给药的等效剂量以及相对效能换算
Tab.2
Conversion of equivalent doses and relative efficacy of different opioids for oral and parenteral administration
RUSSELLK,PORTENOY.Treatment of cancer pain[J].Lancet,2011,377(9784):2236-2247.
In patients with active cancer, the management of chronic pain is an essential element in a comprehensive strategy for palliative care. This strategy emphasises multidimensional assessment and the coordinated use of treatments that together mitigate suffering and provide support to the patient and family. This review describes this framework, an approach to pain assessment, and widely accepted techniques to optimise the safety and effectiveness of opioid drugs and other treatments. The advances of recent decades suggest a future that includes increased evidence-based targeting of specific analgesic interventions within an individualised plan of care that is appropriate throughout the course of illness.
CORLIO,ROBERTOA,GRECO MT,et al.Assessing the response to opioids in cancer patients:a methodological proposal and the results[J].Supp Care Cancer,2015,23(7):1867-1873.
U.S.Food and Drug Administration.Extended-release(ER)and long acting(LA) opioid analgesics risk evaluation and mitigation strategy(REMS)[EB/OL].[2019-03-12]..
CARACENIA,HANKSG,KAASAS,et al.Use of opioid analgesics in the treatment of cancer pain:evidence-based recommendations from the EAPC[J].Lancet Oncol,2012,13(2):58-68.
[本文引用:2]
[7]
张力.浅析缓释药物为背景的滴定方案[N].中国医学论坛报,2014-10-23(A10).
[本文引用:1]
[8]
梁军.盐酸羟考酮缓释片简化剂量滴定方案解析[N].中国医学论坛报,2015-05-28(B12).
[本文引用:1]
[9]
DEANDREAS,CORLIO,CONSONNID,et al.Prevalence of breakthrough cancer pain:a systematic review and a pooled analysis of published literature[J].J Pain Symptom Manage,2014,47(1):57-76.
CORLIO,ROBERTOA.Pharmacological and clinical diff-erences among transmucosal fentanyl formulations for the treatment of breakthrough cancer pain:a review article[J].Min Anestesiol,2013,80(10):1123-1134.
[本文引用:2]
[13]
MASEL EK,LANDTHALERR,GNEISTM,et al.Fentanyl buccal tablet for breakthrough cancer pain in clinical practice:results of the non-interventional prospective study ErkentNIS[J].Support Care Cancer,2018,26(2):491-497.
AHMEDA,KHURANAH,GOGIAV,et al.Use of sustai-ned release oral morphine as a bridge in withdrawal of morphine in patients on high doses of oral immediate release morphine for cancer pain[J].Am J Hosp Pall Care,2010,27(6):413.
[本文引用:1]
[15]
ISTAE,TIBBOELD,VAN DICKM.Opioid and benzodia-zepine withdrawal syndrome:can we predict and prevent it?[J].Pediatr Crit Care Med,2015,16(2):195-196.
BRUERAE,PEREIRAJ,WATANABES,et al.Opioid rotation in patients with cancer pain:A retrospective comparison of dose ratios between methadone,hydromorphone,and morphine[J].Cancer,1996,78(4):852-857.
BACKGROUND: When a change of opioid is considered, equianalgesic dose tables are used. These tables generally propose a dose ratio of 5:1 between morphine and hydromorphone. In the case of a change from subcutaneous hydromorphone to methadone, dose ratios ranging from 1:6 to 1:10 are proposed. The purpose of this study was to review the analgesic dose ratios for methadone compared with hydromorphone. METHODS: In a retrospective study, 48 cases of medication changes from morphine to hydromorphone, and 65 changes between hydromorphone and methadone were identified. the reason for the change, the analgesic dose, and pain intensity were obtained. RESULTS: The dose ratios between morphine and hydromorphone and vice versa were found to be 5.33 and 0.28, respectively (similar to expected results). However, the hydromorphone/methadone ratio was found to be 1.14:1 (5 to 10 times higher than expected). Although the dose ratios of hydromorphone/morphine and vice versa did not change according to a previous opioid dose, the hydromorphone/methadone ratio correlated with total opioid dose (correlation coefficient = 0.41 P < 0.001) and was 1.6 (range, 0.3-14.4) in patients receiving more than 330 mg of hydromorphone per day prior to the change, versus 0.95 (range, 0.2-12.3) in patients receiving ae330 mg of hydromorphone per day (P = 0.023). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that only partial tolerance develops between methadone and hydromorphone. Methadone is much more potent than previously described and any change should start at a lower equivalent dose.
KLEPSTADP,KAASAS,JYSTADA,et al.Immediate-or sustained-release morphine for dose finding during start of morphine to cancer patients:a randomized,double-blind trial[J].Pain,2003,101(1/2):193-198.
[本文引用:1]
[22]
MUCC-LORUSSOP,BERMAN BS,SILBERSTEIN PT,et al.Controlled-release oxycodone compared with controlled-release morphine in the treatment of cancer pain:a randomized,double-blind,parallel-group study[J].Eur J Pain,1998,2(3):239-249.
BREITBARTW,CHANDLERS,EAGELB,et al.An alternative algorithm for dosing transdermal fentanyl for cancer-related pain[J].Oncology (Williston Park,N.Y.),2000,14(5):695-705.
[本文引用:1]
[26]
LISTON HL,MARKOWITZ JS,DEVANE CL.Drug glu-curonidation in clinical psychopharmacology[J].J Clin Psychopharm,2001,21(5):500.
[本文引用:1]
[27]
BLASCHKE TF,RUBINPC.Hepatic first-pass metabolism in liver disease[J].Clin Pharmac,1979,4(6):423-432.
[本文引用:1]
[28]
BOSILKOVSKAM,WALDERB,BESSONM,et al.Analgesics in patients with hepatic impairment:pharmacology and clinical implications[J].Drugs,2012,72(1):1645-1669.
[本文引用:1]
[29]
LAUNAY-VACHERV,OUDARDS,JANUSN,et al.Prevalence of renal insufficiency in cancer patients and implications for anticancer drug management[J].Cancer,2007,110(6):1376-1384.
BACKGROUND: The Renal Insufficiency and Cancer Medications (IRMA) study is a French national observational study. The results from this study of nearly 5,000 patients demonstrated the high prevalence of renal impairment in a population of patients with solid tumors. METHODS: Every cancer patient who presented at oncology departments that participated in the study over at least 1 of 2 predefined periods during 2004 were included. Renal function was calculated using Cockcroft-Gault and abbreviated Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (aMDRD) formulae to estimate the prevalence of renal insufficiency (RI) according to the Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative-Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes definition and stratification. Anticancer drugs were studied with regard to their potential renal toxicity and dosage adjustment. RESULTS: Of the 4,684 patients from the 15 centers, 7.2% had serum creatinine levels >110 micromol/L. However, when they were assessed using Cockcroft-Gault and aMDRD formulae, 57.4% and 52.9% of patients had abnormal renal function or RI, respectively. Of the 7,181 anticancer drug prescriptions, 53.4% required dose adjustments for RI. Of the patients treated, 79.9% received at least 1 such drug. And 80.1% received potentially nephrotoxic drugs. CONCLUSIONS: RI was common in patients with cancer, and drug dosage adjustments often were necessary. Renal function should be evaluated in all cancer patients using either the Cockcroft-Gault formula or the aMDRD formula, including patients with normal serum creatinine levels. In patients who are at high risk for drug toxicity, the dosage should be adapted to renal function, and the use of nephrotoxic therapies should be avoided whenever possible.
MERCADANTES,BRUERAE.Opioid switching in cancer pain:From the beginning to nowadays[J].Critical Rev Oncology/hematology,2016,99(6):241-248.
[本文引用:1]
[34]
KLOKEM,RAPPM,BOSSEB,et al.Toxicity and/or insufficient analgesia by opioid therapy:risk factors and the impact of changing the opioid,a retrospective analysis of 273 patients observed at a single center[J].Support Care Cancer,2000,8(6):479-486.
REDDYA,YENNURAJALINGAMS,CRUZM,et al.Factors associated with survival after opioid rotation in cancer patients presenting to an outpatient supportive care center[J].J Pain Symptom Manage,2014,48(1):92-98.
CONTEXT: Data on cancer outpatients undergoing opioid rotation (OR) are limited. Understanding the characteristics of patients who do not follow up after OR could facilitate optimization of OR. OBJECTIVES: To compare the characteristics and overall survival of patients with and without follow-up after OR. METHODS: In this preliminary ad hoc analysis, we reviewed consecutive patients who presented to our supportive care center in 2008 for OR. Data about demographics, scores on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System and Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS), opioid use, and indications for OR were collected. Univariate logistic regression models were used to determine the factors associated with follow-up. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to evaluate survival. RESULTS: Of the 190 patients who underwent OR, 120 (63%) had a follow-up visit. Follow-up visits occurred more frequently in patients with localized disease (89%; 24/27; P = 0.0023), history of substance abuse (100%; 12/12; P = 0.0085), performance status = 2 (66%; 97/146; P = 0.0002), no delirium (67%; 118/177; P = 0.002), and uncontrolled pain as reason for OR (66%; 97/146; P = 0.036). Patients who underwent OR for opioid-induced neurotoxicity (44%; 15/34; P = 0.01) and had higher MDAS scores (P = 0.0009) were less likely to follow up. Both follow-up after OR (P < 0.001) and successful OR (P = 0.012) were associated with longer overall survival, with a difference in median survival of 4.3 and 3 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our preliminary study suggests that patients with advanced cancer, poorer performance status, opioid-induced neurotoxicity, and higher MDAS scores are less likely to follow up after OR and may have shorter overall survival and, therefore, require closer follow-up. Patients with unsuccessful OR also may have a shorter overall survival. Further studies are warranted.
MERCADANTES,VALLEA,PORZIOG,et al.Opioid switching in patients with advanced cancer followed at home.A retrospective analysis[J].J Pain Symptom Manage,2012,45(2):298-304.
Use of sustai-ned release oral morphine as a bridge in withdrawal of morphine in patients on high doses of oral immediate release morphine for cancer pain
Toxicity and/or insufficient analgesia by opioid therapy:risk factors and the impact of changing the opioid,a retrospective analysis of 273 patients observed at a single center