中国科技论文统计源期刊 中文核心期刊  
美国《化学文摘》《国际药学文摘》
《乌利希期刊指南》
WHO《西太平洋地区医学索引》来源期刊  
日本科学技术振兴机构数据库(JST)
第七届湖北十大名刊提名奖  
医药导报, 2021, 40(1): 56-60
doi: 10.3870/j.issn.1004-0781.2021.01.009
癌症疼痛患者阿片类药物剂量计算的临床推荐
Clinical Recommended Dose for Opioids in the Treatment of Cancer Pain Patient
赵阳昱1,, 张程亮2, 谢永忠1, 褚倩3,

摘要:

阿片类药物是肿瘤患者中重度疼痛的主要治疗药物,但由于该类药物存在较大的个体差异性和用药风险,正确进行阿片类药物剂量滴定和换算在有效减轻患者疼痛的同时还可避免过度治疗造成的不良反应。目前临床上常用的阿片类药物剂量计算有阿片初始剂量的滴定,爆发痛剂量计算,不同阿片药物以及不同剂型的换算,肝、肾功能不全患者阿片类药物的给药剂量等。该文结合国内外研究报道,对上述几种剂量计算进行了综述,为临床合理用药提供参考。

关键词: 阿片类药物 ; 药物剂量 ; 癌症疼痛

Abstract:

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

开放科学(资源服务)标识码(OSID)

疼痛是肿瘤患者最常见的并发症之一,从生理、心理等多个方面给患者带来痛苦。阿片类药物具有镇痛作用强、用药剂量无天花板效应的特点,目前已成为肿瘤患者中、重度疼痛的一线治疗药物。大多数患者单药治疗即可达到满意的疗效,但是仍然有20%~25%的患者并不能得到有效的疼痛缓解[1,2]。由于晚期肿瘤患者病情复杂,阿片类药物存在较大的个体差异和不良反应,在实际应用过程中需要根据病情制定个体化给药方案,以获得镇痛效果好、不良反应小的最佳治疗效果。其中,阿片类药物在临床中根据不同情况进行剂量计算或调整是医师和药师在癌症疼痛(简称癌痛)规范化治疗中的常规且非常重要的工作[3]。目前临床上常用的阿片类药物剂量计算包括初始给药剂量滴定,爆发痛药物剂量计算,不同阿片类药物之间的剂量换算,肝、肾功能不全患者的给药剂量调整等。笔者就阿片类药物在不同的治疗方案中如何选择合适的剂量进行综述。

1 阿片常规治疗的剂量计算

根据WHO的推荐,阿片类药物作为中、重度癌痛患者的疼痛治疗应当遵循首选口服给药、缓释制剂为基础按时给药、即释制剂控制爆发性疼痛、根据疼痛的控制情况个体化调整给药剂量的治疗原则。其中涉及到的常规剂量计算如下。

1.1 阿片滴定

由于阿片类药物存在较大的个体差异,因此需要通过滴定来确定未耐受/耐受患者的最佳给药剂量。FDA对阿片类药物耐受的定义为:口服吗啡60 mg·d-1或羟考酮30 mg·d-1,每小时芬太尼透皮贴剂25 μg,或使用等剂量的其他阿片类药物,持续1周或更长时间即为阿片类药物耐受[4,5]。短效阿片类药物滴定法推荐:对于阿片类药物未耐受患者,口服即释吗啡5~10 mg;对于阿片类药物耐受患者,口服前24 h给药总剂量的10%~20%,并在给药后60 min评估疗效和不良反应,计算出有效控制疼痛所需服用阿片类药物的24 h总量,根据需要再转换为缓控释制剂。

短效阿片类药物滴定法滴定过程较繁琐,滴定周期较长,欧洲姑息治疗学会发布的《欧洲癌痛阿片类药物治疗镇痛指南》[6]推荐吗啡、羟考酮的短、长效制剂均可用于滴定,张力[7]和梁军[8]等结合临床经验制订了以缓释吗啡10~30 mg,或缓释羟考酮10~20 mg(中度疼痛10 mg,重度疼痛20 mg)为背景的阿片类药物未耐受患者滴定方案,取得了满意效果。对于阿片类药物耐受患者,则推荐直接将前24 h阿片类药物总剂量换算等效剂量缓释吗啡或缓释羟考酮,分成2份,每12 h给药。

1.2 爆发痛药物剂量

癌症爆发痛(breakthrough cancer pain,BTcP)在肿瘤患者中发生率高,为40%~80%[9],目前国际上并无统一的定义,2009年英国和爱尔兰姑息医学协会的观点被普遍认可,其认为BTcP是基础疼痛控制充分、稳定的癌痛患者自发或由触发因素(可预料或不可预料)引起的短暂疼痛加重[10]。BTcP具有疼痛强度高、不可预测的特点,应尽早给予速效阿片类药物,目前常用的速效阿片类药物有口服吗啡即释片,静脉给药制剂和新型速效阿片类药物(rapid-onset opioids,ROOs)。口服吗啡即释片30~40 min开始产生镇痛效应,1 h达到最大镇痛效果,镇痛持续3~4 h,超前给药可以有效降低事件性BTcP的发生率。但典型的自发性BTcP达峰时间数分钟,疼痛持续30~60 min,疼痛的病程与口服吗啡即释片的药动学和药效学并不符合,此时选择静脉制剂或ROOs控制效果更佳。BTcP的口服或静脉药物用量建议为每日阿片类药物总量的10%~20%,如果24 h爆发痛次数>3次,需增加背景痛的药物剂量[11]

ROOs是基于芬太尼的黏膜制剂,起效迅速,镇痛效果强,符合BTcP的发作特点。临床研究发现ROOs临床疗效优于阿片类口服制剂,在治疗BTcP时患者满意程度高,36%患者在给药5 min内疼痛控制,68%患者在给药10 min内疼痛控制,95%患者在给药15 min内疼痛控制[12,13]。但由于临床研究有限,ROOs的起始给药剂量尚存争议,推荐从小剂量开始,通过滴定达到治疗剂量。不同ROOs的释药特性和作用特点见表1,临床医务人员可根据不同剂型特点选择合适的药物并根据上述爆发痛剂量确定原则进而确定剂量。

表1 不同ROOs的药物特性
Tab.1 Drug characteristics of different ROOs min
剂型 起效时间 持续时间 达峰时间
芬太尼黏膜口含剂 15~30 50 40
芬太尼口腔泡腾片 15 65 45
芬太尼舌下含片 10~15 70 40
芬太尼颊膜贴 15 65 60
芬太尼鼻喷雾剂 5~10 80~90 20
芬太尼喷鼻凝胶 5~10 70 20

表1 不同ROOs的药物特性

Tab.1 Drug characteristics of different ROOs min

1.3 阿片减量

随着化学治疗(化疗)、靶向治疗、免疫治疗等各种抗癌技术和镇痛药物临床治疗的不断进步,越来越多的患者在治疗中病情得到缓解,疼痛亦得到有效控制,但癌痛治疗中阿片依赖问题依然突出。 AHMED等[14]研究发现,逐渐停药法可有效降低阿片依赖的发生率。美国疼痛医学学会推荐[15]每天减少日剂量的10%,每3~5 d减少日剂量的20%,每周减少日剂量25%,直至日剂量相当于口服吗啡30 mg的药量,继续服用2 d后即可停药。美国退伍军人事务管理局于2003年提出的递减方案[16]则区分了短效阿片类药物和长效阿片类药物,短效阿片类药物每3~7 d减少剂量的10%,长效阿片类药物每天降低20%~50%直至日剂量为45 mg·d-1,然后每2~5 d减少15 mg,直至停药。

2 阿片类药物剂量转换
2.1 不同阿片类药物之间剂量换算

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 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

然而,阿片类药物在个体间存在较大的差异性,例如硫酸吗啡的个体生物利用度差异范围为15%~64%。不同药物之间的换算也并非一个固定比例,研究发现口服吗啡与羟考酮的等效转换比例可能为(1:1)~(2:1)[18,19];BRUERA等[20]研究发现,吗啡与美沙酮之间比例为(1:1)~(4:1)。因此,表2与阿片类药物临床实际转换间所取得的效果难免存在差异,在临床实际进行阿片类药物转换应用中,需要结合患者自身情况实施个体化评估和剂量调整。此外,考虑到阿片类药物的不完全交叉耐药性,当需要通过阿片转换使疼痛得到有效控制时,应减量25%~50%。如果之前的阿片剂量无效,可给予100%的等效镇痛剂量或加量25%[17 ]

2.2 不同阿片类药物剂型的剂量换算

临床上常用的阿片类药物剂型包括即释剂型,缓释剂型如吗啡缓释片、羟考酮缓释片和芬太尼透皮贴剂以及阿片复方制剂。KLEPSTAD等[21]研究发现,吗啡即释片与吗啡缓释片在轻中度癌痛患者的镇痛治疗效果上无明显差异。MUCC-LORUSSO等[22]的研究结果表明,吗啡控释片与羟考酮控释片显示出了相似的镇痛效应和便捷度。起始使用即释阿片类药物进行滴定的癌痛患者,24 h后即可转换为等效剂量的口服缓释阿片类药物。因此,目前对于吗啡和羟考酮即释和缓释口服剂型,临床认为剂量可等同。然而,在治疗应用中需注意部分缓释剂型具有独特的镇痛特征,如羟考酮控释片具有双相释放,双相吸收的特点(38%即释,62%缓释),因此既能迅速控制疼痛,也能持续缓解疼痛。

当临床上给予阿片类药物联合非甾体类药物镇痛治疗时,所有的非甾体类药物参照日最大剂量等效于5~10 mg口服吗啡剂量进行换算[23]。氨酚羟考酮(羟考酮5 mg:对乙酰氨基酚325 mg)是临床上较为常见的一种阿片类复方制剂,理论上氨酚羟考酮转化为其他阿片类药物需要重新滴定,但临床上有观点认为对乙酰氨基酚325 mg可以等效为口服吗啡3.25 mg,因此氨酚羟考酮可以等效为口服吗啡10.75~13.25 mg,或口服羟考酮6~9 mg[24]

芬太尼透皮贴剂与其他阿片的剂量换算是临床癌痛患者药物治疗的重要工作,虽然该药说明书里给出了芬太尼透皮贴剂与吗啡的等效镇痛换算剂量,但通过7年临床应用的随访观察发现,至少有一半使用了说明书推荐换算剂量的患者,口服吗啡转换为芬太尼透皮贴剂时镇痛剂量不足,而从芬太尼透皮贴剂转换为口服吗啡时镇痛剂量过高[25]。因此,NCCN(2020.V1)指南推荐不同阿片类药物通过等效剂量转换为吗啡,再根据200 mg·d-1口服吗啡=100 μg·h-1芬太尼透皮贴剂的比率进行换算[17]

3 肝、肾功能不全患者的阿片类药物剂量计算

许多阿片类物质通过肝脏氧化或葡萄糖醛酸化代谢,葡萄糖醛酸化是发生在肝脏内的一种解毒途径,葡萄糖醛酸与底物结合产生水溶性的代谢产物从体内排泄[26]。通过葡萄糖醛酸代谢的阿片类药物有吗啡、氢吗啡酮等,而芬太尼、曲马多、美沙酮等主要经细胞色素P450(CYP)酶系统代谢。当肝功能出现异常时由于首关作用的减少以及肝脏清除率的降低,口服阿片类药物的生物利用度显著增高[27],吗啡、氢吗啡酮等口服阿片类药物可能因药物蓄积,进而产生一系列神经毒副作用。 肝损伤患者使用阿片类药物的剂量调整见表3[28]。中、重度肝功能不全时,吗啡、羟考酮等阿片类药物应当禁用,芬太尼透皮贴剂是相对安全的选择,同时密切监测药物的不良反应[3]

表3 轻度肝功能不全时阿片类药物的剂量调整
Tab.3 Dosage adjustment of opioids in the paitents with mild hepatic insufficiency
药名 药动学变化 剂量调整
吗啡 口服生物利用度升高,半衰期 口服给药剂量减半,给药间隔
(t1/2)延长,清除率下降。 时间延长1倍。
羟考酮 血药浓度-时间曲线下面积增 降低给药剂量,延长给药间隔
大,t1/2延长,清除率下降。 时间。
氢吗啡酮 口服生物利用度升高,t1/2无变 降低给药剂量,延长给药间隔
化。 时间。
曲马多 血药浓度-时间曲线下面积增 降低给药剂量,延长给药间隔
大,t1/2延长,活性代谢产 时间。
物下降。
可待因 转换为吗啡的量下降。 避免使用。
芬太尼 无变化。 通常不需要调整。

表3 轻度肝功能不全时阿片类药物的剂量调整

Tab.3 Dosage adjustment of opioids in the paitents with mild hepatic insufficiency

约60%肿瘤患者肌酐清除率(creatinine clearance rate,CCR)<90 mL·min-1,20%肿瘤患者CCR<60 mL·min-1[29]。肾功能不全会影响阿片类药物的消除并导致阿片类药物母体或代谢产物在体内蓄积,根据肾功能情况合理调整给药剂量可以在保证疗效的同时降低毒副作用。目前国际上最常用的是以肾小球滤过率数值为标准的慢性肾功能不全分级,根据肾功能分级,对阿片类药物进行剂量调整,见表4[30]

表4 肾功能不全时阿片类药物给药剂量调整
Tab.4 Dosage adjustment of opioids in the paitents with renal insufficiency
肾功能分级(CCR)/
(mL·min-1)
药物剂量调整
≥90 无需调整。
≥50~<90 无需调整。
≥10~<50 吗啡、氢吗啡酮、羟考酮减量50%,芬太尼减量25%或不
减量,美沙酮可不减量。
<10 吗啡、羟考酮禁用,氢吗啡酮减量75%,芬太尼和美沙酮
减量50%。

表4 肾功能不全时阿片类药物给药剂量调整

Tab.4 Dosage adjustment of opioids in the paitents with renal insufficiency

4 结束语

尽管阿片类药物在临床的治疗使用已有很长时间,但如何准确合理地给药仍然有待更多的临床研究。NCCN指南提供了详细的阿片类药物滴定和爆发痛治疗原则,对肿瘤患者的阿片类药物维持治疗提供重要参考依据。欧洲姑息治疗学会推荐长效阿片类药物可以直接滴定,简化了滴定的步骤,为临床快速滴定带来了极大的便利。然而由于患者在长期接受阿片类药物治疗中逐步产生的药物耐受性,以及治疗过程中出现的药物不良反应,单一阿片类药物剂量滴定并不能满足绝大多数患者的疼痛治疗,此时需要进行阿片类药物转换。上述的一些阿片剂量计算方法在临床被广泛应用和推广,取得了一定的效果。但值得注意的是,阿片类药物转换治疗的成功率仅为40%~80%[12]。由于相应的循证医学依据较少,特别是在面对复杂的临床治疗背景下,目前并无一个绝对统一的阿片类药物转换剂量标准[31]。临床医师或者药师需要认识到阿片类药物之间的转换率不应仅仅是一个公式计算,还应该进行更全面的评估,包括评估临床症状、疼痛原因、不良反应强度、合并疾病和药物相互作用,并排除任何可能会限制药物疗效的其他因素[32],例如糖皮质激素的使用可能会导致阿片类药物的转换率下降,肾衰竭患者使用亲水性的阿片类药物,可能需要更高的转换比率[33]。同时还需注意,因阿片类药物不良反应不耐受进行的阿片转换,可能需要较低的转换率,而因疼痛难以控制进行阿片转换时,可能需要更高的转换率[6]。此外,不同的疼痛类型也会影响阿片类药物的转换效果,相比于复杂性癌痛,急性癌痛患者接受阿片药物转换治疗效果更好[34,35]。当患者出现痛觉过敏时,增加原阿片类药物给药剂量并不能提高镇痛效果,相反会增加药物的不良反应,此时阿片药物转换是最适合的治疗方案[36]。同样对于合并有神经病理性疼痛的癌痛患者,通过阿片药物转换也可能难以达到满意的疗效,此时应考虑联合用药[37]

综上所述,阿片类药物的个体化剂量确定需要根据不同的镇痛阶段、不同药物或剂型、患者的病情和药物反应以及肝肾功能等综合考虑。目前临床主要依据癌痛相关指南推荐的阿片剂量滴定和调整方案。然而,该领域尚有待更多的大规模随机对照临床试验来充实循证医学证据,从而进一步完善阿片类药物在癌痛患者中的精准治疗。另外,由于临床病情变化的复杂多样,一些难治性癌痛仍缺乏准确的评估工具和治疗方案,也有待进一步研究,促进癌痛规范化治疗。

参考文献

[1] RUSSELL K,PORTENO Y.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.
DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60236-5      PMID:21704873      URL    
[本文引用:1]
[2] CORLI O,ROBERTO A,GRECO M T,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.
[本文引用:1]
[3] 覃旺军,任夏洋,李然,.癌症疼痛管理药学专家共识[J].中国疼痛医学杂志,2019,25(11):801-807.
[本文引用:2]
[4] 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]..
URL    
[本文引用:1]
[5] U.S.Food and Drug Administration.Transmucosal imme-diate release fentanyl(TIRF)risk evaluation and mitigation strategy(REMS)[EB/OL].[2019-12-12]..
URL    
[本文引用:1]
[6] CARACENI A,HANKS G,KAASA S,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] DEANDREA S,CORLI O,CONSONNI D,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.
PMID:23796584      URL    
[本文引用:1]
[10] 胡冰. 安徽省癌症疼痛诊疗专家共识(2019年版)[J].安徽医药,2019,24(5):1041-1047.
[本文引用:1]
[11] 王昆. 癌性爆发痛专家共识(2019年版)[J].中国肿瘤临床,2019,46(6):267-271.
[本文引用:1]
[12] CORLI O,ROBERTO A.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 E K,LANDTHALER R,GNEIST M,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.
PMID:28849261      URL    
[本文引用:1]
[14] AHMED A,KHURANA H,GOGIA V,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] ISTA E,TIBBOEL D,VAN DICK M.Opioid and benzodia-zepine withdrawal syndrome:can we predict and prevent it?[J].Pediatr Crit Care Med,2015,16(2):195-196.
DOI:10.1097/PCC.0000000000000327      PMID:25647131      URL    
[本文引用:1]
[16] U.S.Veterans Affairs Administration.Clinical practice guideline for management of opioid therapy for chronic pain[EB/OL].[2006-02-08]..
URL    
[本文引用:1]
[17] NCCN.Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology:Adult Cancer Pain[Z].Version 1.2020.
[本文引用:3]
[18] KALSO E,VAINIO A.Morphine and oxycodone hydrochlo-ride in the management of cancer pain[J].Clin Pharmacol Therapeut,1990,47(5):639-646.
[本文引用:1]
[19] ANDERSON R,SAIERS J H,ABRAM S,et al.Accuracy in equianalgesic dosing:conversion dilemmas[J].J Pain Symptom Manage,2001,21(5):397-406.
PMID:11369161      URL    
[本文引用:1]
[20] BRUERA E,PEREIRA J,WATANABE S,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.
[本文引用:1]
[21] KLEPSTAD P,KAASA S,JYSTAD A,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-LORUSSO P,BERMAN B S,SILBERSTEIN P T,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.
PMID:15102384      URL    
[本文引用:1]
[23] VARDY J,AGAR M.Nonopioid drugs in the treatment of cancer pain[J].J Clin Oncol,2014,32(16):1677-1690.
PMID:24799483      URL    
[本文引用:1]
[24] 胡夕春,王杰军,常建华,.癌症疼痛诊疗上海专家共识 (2017年版)[J].中国癌症杂志,2017,27(4):312-349.
[本文引用:1]
[25] BREITBART W,CHANDLER S,EAGEL B,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 H L,MARKOWITZ J S,DEVANE C L.Drug glu-curonidation in clinical psychopharmacology[J].J Clin Psychopharm,2001,21(5):500.
[本文引用:1]
[27] BLASCHKE T F,RUBIN PC.Hepatic first-pass metabolism in liver disease[J].Clin Pharmac,1979,4(6):423-432.
[本文引用:1]
[28] BOSILKOVSKA M,WALDER B,BESSON M,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-VACHER V,OUDARD S,JANUS N,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.
DOI:10.1002/cncr.22904      PMID:17634949      URL    
[本文引用:1]
[30] 朱红梅,陈浩飞,程祝强,.难治性癌痛专家共识(CRPC,2017年版)解读(二):癌性内脏痛[J].实用疼痛学杂志,2018,14(1):5-8.
[本文引用:1]
[31] 张帆,闵苏.阿片类药物滴定及转换在癌痛治疗中的研究进展[J].国际麻醉学与复苏杂志,2015,36(8):737-740.
[本文引用:1]
[32] MERCADANTE S,CARACENI A.Conversion ratios for opioid switching in the treatment of cancer pain:a systematic review[J].Pall Med,2011,25(5):504-515.
DOI:10.1177/0269216311406577      URL    
[本文引用:1]
[33] MERCADANTE S,BRUERA E.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] KLOKE M,RAPP M,BOSSE B,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.
PMID:11094993      URL    
[本文引用:1]
[35] REDDY A,YENNURAJALINGAM S,CRUZ M,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
DOI:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2013.08.010      PMID:24210704      URL    
[本文引用:1]
[36] MERCADANTE S,VALLE A,PORZIO G,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.
PMID:23102561      URL    
[本文引用:1]
[37] 中国抗癌协会癌症康复与姑息治疗专业委员会(CRPC)难治性癌痛学组.难治性癌痛专家共识(2017年版)[J].中国肿瘤临床,2017,44(16):787-793.
[本文引用:1]
资源
PDF下载数    
RichHTML 浏览数    
摘要点击数    

分享
导出

相关文章:
关键词(key words)
阿片类药物
药物剂量
癌症疼痛

Opioid drugs
Drug dosage
Cancer pain

作者
赵阳昱
张程亮
谢永忠
褚倩

ZHAO Yangyu
ZHANG Chengliang
XIE Yongzhong
CHU Qian