宫颈癌症和神经性疼痛患者口服美沙酮与吗啡IR的前瞻性随机对照试验。

IF 1.1 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Indian Journal of Palliative Care Pub Date : 2023-04-01 Epub Date: 2023-05-30 DOI:10.25259/IJPC_58_2022
Aruna Adumala, Gayatri Palat, Archana Vajjala, Eva Brun, Mikael Segerlantz
{"title":"宫颈癌症和神经性疼痛患者口服美沙酮与吗啡IR的前瞻性随机对照试验。","authors":"Aruna Adumala,&nbsp;Gayatri Palat,&nbsp;Archana Vajjala,&nbsp;Eva Brun,&nbsp;Mikael Segerlantz","doi":"10.25259/IJPC_58_2022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>In India, cervical cancer is the most common cancer among women and makes up for up to 29% of all registered cancer in females. Cancer-related pain is one of the major distressing symptoms for all cancer patients. Pain is characterised as somatic or neuropathic, and the total pain experience is often mixed. Conventional opioids are the backbone of analgesic treatment but are most often not sufficient in alleviating neuropathic pain, common in cervical cancer. Accumulating evidence of the advantage of methadone compared to conventional opioids, due to agonist action at both μ and q opioid receptors, N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) antagonist activity and the ability to inhibit the reuptake of monoamines has been demonstrated. We hypothesised that, with these properties', methadone might be a good option for the treatment of neuropathic pain in patients with cervical cancer.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Patients with cervical cancer stages ll-lll were enrolled in this randomized controlled trial. A comparison was made between methadone versus immediate release morphine (IR morphine), with increasing doses until pain was controlled. Inclusion-period was from October 3<sup>rd</sup> to December 31<sup>st</sup> 2020, and the total patient-study period was 12 weeks. Pain intensity was assessed according to the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) and Douleur Neuropathique (DN4). The primary objective was to determine whether methadone was clinically superior versus noninferior to morphine as an analgesic for the treatment of cancer related neuropathic pain in women with cervical cancer.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 85 women were included; five withdrew and six died during the study period, leaving 74 patients completing the study. All participants showed a reduction in mean values of NRS and DN4 from the time of inclusion and to the end of the study period, for IR morphine and methadone 8.4-2.7 and 8.6-1.5, respectively (<i>P</i> < 0.001). The DN4 score mean reduction for Morphine and Methadone were 6.12-1.37 and 6.05-0, respectively (<i>P</i> < 0.001). Side effects were more common in the group of patients receiving IR morphine compared to the patients treated with methadone.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We found that Methadone had a superior analgesic effect with good overall tolerability compared with morphine as a first-line strong opioid for the management of cancer-related neuropathic pain.</p>","PeriodicalId":13319,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Palliative Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/f5/e7/IJPC-29-200.PMC10261940.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Oral Methadone versus Morphine IR for Patients with Cervical Cancer and Neuropathic Pain: A Prospective Randomised Controlled Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Aruna Adumala,&nbsp;Gayatri Palat,&nbsp;Archana Vajjala,&nbsp;Eva Brun,&nbsp;Mikael Segerlantz\",\"doi\":\"10.25259/IJPC_58_2022\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>In India, cervical cancer is the most common cancer among women and makes up for up to 29% of all registered cancer in females. Cancer-related pain is one of the major distressing symptoms for all cancer patients. Pain is characterised as somatic or neuropathic, and the total pain experience is often mixed. Conventional opioids are the backbone of analgesic treatment but are most often not sufficient in alleviating neuropathic pain, common in cervical cancer. Accumulating evidence of the advantage of methadone compared to conventional opioids, due to agonist action at both μ and q opioid receptors, N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) antagonist activity and the ability to inhibit the reuptake of monoamines has been demonstrated. We hypothesised that, with these properties', methadone might be a good option for the treatment of neuropathic pain in patients with cervical cancer.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Patients with cervical cancer stages ll-lll were enrolled in this randomized controlled trial. A comparison was made between methadone versus immediate release morphine (IR morphine), with increasing doses until pain was controlled. Inclusion-period was from October 3<sup>rd</sup> to December 31<sup>st</sup> 2020, and the total patient-study period was 12 weeks. Pain intensity was assessed according to the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) and Douleur Neuropathique (DN4). The primary objective was to determine whether methadone was clinically superior versus noninferior to morphine as an analgesic for the treatment of cancer related neuropathic pain in women with cervical cancer.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 85 women were included; five withdrew and six died during the study period, leaving 74 patients completing the study. All participants showed a reduction in mean values of NRS and DN4 from the time of inclusion and to the end of the study period, for IR morphine and methadone 8.4-2.7 and 8.6-1.5, respectively (<i>P</i> < 0.001). The DN4 score mean reduction for Morphine and Methadone were 6.12-1.37 and 6.05-0, respectively (<i>P</i> < 0.001). Side effects were more common in the group of patients receiving IR morphine compared to the patients treated with methadone.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We found that Methadone had a superior analgesic effect with good overall tolerability compared with morphine as a first-line strong opioid for the management of cancer-related neuropathic pain.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13319,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Indian Journal of Palliative Care\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/f5/e7/IJPC-29-200.PMC10261940.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Indian Journal of Palliative Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.25259/IJPC_58_2022\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/5/30 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Palliative Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25259/IJPC_58_2022","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/5/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:在印度,宫颈癌症是女性中最常见的癌症,占女性癌症登记总数的29%。癌症相关疼痛是所有癌症患者的主要痛苦症状之一。疼痛的特征是躯体或神经性的,总的疼痛体验往往是混合的。常规阿片类药物是镇痛治疗的支柱,但通常不足以缓解神经性疼痛,神经性疼痛在癌症中很常见。由于对μ和q阿片受体的激动剂作用、N-甲基-D-天冬氨酸(NMDA)拮抗剂活性和抑制单胺再摄取的能力,美沙酮与传统阿片类药物相比具有优势的证据越来越多。我们假设,有了这些特性,美沙酮可能是治疗癌症患者神经性疼痛的好选择。材料和方法:癌症ll-ll期患者被纳入本随机对照试验。将美沙酮与立即释放吗啡(IR吗啡)进行比较,增加剂量直到疼痛得到控制。纳入期为2020年10月3日至12月31日,患者总研究期为12周。根据数字评定量表(NRS)和Douler神经病(DN4)评估疼痛强度。主要目的是确定美沙酮作为治疗癌症妇女癌症相关神经性疼痛的镇痛药在临床上是否优于吗啡,而非吗啡。结果:共纳入85名女性;在研究期间,5名患者退出,6名患者死亡,剩下74名患者完成了研究。所有参与者从纳入时到研究期结束,IR吗啡和美沙酮的NRS和DN4平均值分别降低了8.4-2.7和8.6-1.5(P<0.001)。吗啡和美沙酮的DN4得分平均降低了6.12-1.37和6.05-0,与美沙酮组相比,IR吗啡组的副作用更为常见。结论:与吗啡作为一线强阿片类药物治疗癌症相关神经性疼痛相比,美沙酮具有优越的镇痛效果和良好的总体耐受性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Oral Methadone versus Morphine IR for Patients with Cervical Cancer and Neuropathic Pain: A Prospective Randomised Controlled Trial.

Objectives: In India, cervical cancer is the most common cancer among women and makes up for up to 29% of all registered cancer in females. Cancer-related pain is one of the major distressing symptoms for all cancer patients. Pain is characterised as somatic or neuropathic, and the total pain experience is often mixed. Conventional opioids are the backbone of analgesic treatment but are most often not sufficient in alleviating neuropathic pain, common in cervical cancer. Accumulating evidence of the advantage of methadone compared to conventional opioids, due to agonist action at both μ and q opioid receptors, N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) antagonist activity and the ability to inhibit the reuptake of monoamines has been demonstrated. We hypothesised that, with these properties', methadone might be a good option for the treatment of neuropathic pain in patients with cervical cancer.

Material and methods: Patients with cervical cancer stages ll-lll were enrolled in this randomized controlled trial. A comparison was made between methadone versus immediate release morphine (IR morphine), with increasing doses until pain was controlled. Inclusion-period was from October 3rd to December 31st 2020, and the total patient-study period was 12 weeks. Pain intensity was assessed according to the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) and Douleur Neuropathique (DN4). The primary objective was to determine whether methadone was clinically superior versus noninferior to morphine as an analgesic for the treatment of cancer related neuropathic pain in women with cervical cancer.

Results: A total of 85 women were included; five withdrew and six died during the study period, leaving 74 patients completing the study. All participants showed a reduction in mean values of NRS and DN4 from the time of inclusion and to the end of the study period, for IR morphine and methadone 8.4-2.7 and 8.6-1.5, respectively (P < 0.001). The DN4 score mean reduction for Morphine and Methadone were 6.12-1.37 and 6.05-0, respectively (P < 0.001). Side effects were more common in the group of patients receiving IR morphine compared to the patients treated with methadone.

Conclusion: We found that Methadone had a superior analgesic effect with good overall tolerability compared with morphine as a first-line strong opioid for the management of cancer-related neuropathic pain.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Indian Journal of Palliative Care
Indian Journal of Palliative Care HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
57
期刊介绍: Welcome to the website of the Indian Journal of Palliative Care. You have free full text access to recent issues of the journal. The links connect you to •guidelines and systematic reviews in palliative care and oncology •a directory of palliative care programmes in India and IAPC membership •Palliative Care Formulary, book reviews and other educational material •guidance on statistical tests and medical writing.
期刊最新文献
Debunking Palliative Care Myths: Assessing the Performance of Artificial Intelligence Chatbots (ChatGPT vs. Google Gemini) Improving Palliative Care Research Reporting: A Guide to Reporting Guidelines Quality of Life Determinants among Breast Cancer Women Undergoing Treatment in Indonesia: A Cross-Sectional Study Physicians’ Perceived Barriers and Willingness to Initiate Advance Care Planning with Young Adults Living with Cardiometabolic Diseases A Multicentric Field Test to Study the Validity and Feasibility of the SHS-tool to Screen for Serious Health-related Suffering in Adult Patients with Cancer.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1