Home  About us  Contact
 

Strong Opioids (strong + opioid)

Distribution by Scientific Domains
Medical Sciences100%

Selected Abstracts

The role of methadone in cancer pain treatment , a review

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PRACTICE, Issue 7 2009
W. Leppert
Summary Background:, Methadone is an opioid analgesic of step 3 of the World Health Organization (WHO) analgesic ladder. Aim and Methods:, To outline pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, drug interactions, equianalgesic dose ratio with other opioids, dosing rules, adverse effects and methadone clinical studies in patients with cancer pain. A review of relevant literature on methadone use in cancer pain was conducted. Results:, Methadone is used in opioid rotation and administered to patients with cancer pain not responsive to morphine or other strong opioids when intractable opioid adverse effects appear. Methadone is considered as the first strong opioid analgesic and in patients with renal impairment. Methadone possesses different pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics in comparison to other opioids. The advantages of methadone include multimode analgesic activity, high oral and rectal bioavailability, long lasting analgesia, lack of active metabolites, excretion mainly with faeces, low cost and a weak immunosuppressive effect. The disadvantages include long and changeable plasma half-life, high bound to serum proteins, metabolism through P450 system, numerous drug interactions, lack of clear equianalgesic dose ratio to other opioids, QT interval prolongation, local reactions when administered subcutaneously. Conclusions:, Methadone is an important opioid analgesic at step 3 of the WHO analgesic ladder. Future controlled studies may focus on establishment of methadone equianalgesic dose ratio with other opioids and its role as the first strong opioid in comparative studies with analgesia, adverse effects and quality of life taken into consideration. [source]

Management of Noncancer Pain in Community-Dwelling Persons with Dementia

JOURNAL OF AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY, Issue 12 2006
Joseph W. Shega MD
OBJECTIVES: To explore the pharmacological treatment of noncancer pain in persons with dementia and identify predictors associated with insufficient analgesia. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of an observational cohort study. SETTING: Academic outpatient geriatric clinic in Chicago, Illinois. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 115 dyads, mostly African American, consisting of community-dwelling persons with dementia and their caregivers. MEASUREMENTS: Patient report of demographics, noncancer pain, function, cognition, and depression. Caregiver report of patient agitation and over-the-counter and prescription medications. RESULTS: Sixty-two of 115 (54%) patients reported pain "on an average day." The caregivers of more than half of persons with dementia who reported pain "on an average day" did not report analgesic use. The majority of caregivers who reported analgesic use reported that patients took a World Health Organization Class I medication. No patients had been prescribed a Class III (strong opioid) drug. Fifty-three of 115 (46%) patients had potentially insufficient analgesia. In the logistic regression, insufficient analgesia was associated with greater age, Mini-Mental State Examination score of less than 10, and impairment in daily functioning. Insufficient analgesia was 1.07 times as likely (95% confidence interval (CI)=1.01,1.14) for each additional year of age, 3.0 times as likely (95% CI=1.05,9.10) if the subject had advanced dementia, and 2.5 times as likely (95% CI=1.01,6.25) if the patient had any impairment in activities of daily living. CONCLUSION: In this convenience sample from a geriatric clinic, many persons with dementia and noncancer pain were not receiving pharmacological treatment. Those at greatest risk for insufficient analgesia were older, had moderate to severe dementia, and experienced impairments in activities of daily living. [source]

Improved Cancer Pain Treatment Using Combined Fentanyl-TTS and Tramadol

PAIN PRACTICE, Issue 4 2007
Franco Marinangeli MD
,,Abstract: The aim of the study was to facilitate dose escalation of strong opioids. In this randomized open-label study the influence of tramadol on dose adjustment of transdermal fentanyl in advanced cancer pain control was prospectively evaluated. Seventy patients affected by intractable cancer disease with visual analog scale (VAS) score >3 were enrolled. Thirty-five patients were treated conventionally with increasing transdermal fentanyl dosage as required (group F) and 35 patients received oral tramadol added to their transdermal fentanyl before each increment of the transdermal opioid dosage (group T). Pain control was equally satisfactory in the two groups. VAS scores at baseline (T: 4.36 ± 1.53; F: 4.51 ± 1.36; n.s.) and at the end of the study (T: 1.8 ± 1.6; F: 1.6 ± 1.5; n.s.) did not differ. However, in the tramadol group this level of pain control was achieved with much slower dose escalation of fentanyl. The mean application time of the fentanyl-Transdermal Therapeutic System patch for each dosage (25, 50, 75 ,g/hour) was significantly greater in patients receiving tramadol. No patient in group T escalated to the 100 ,g/hour patch, while in 12 patients of group F the 100 ,g/hour patch was applied after a 75 ,g/hour patch mean application period of 18.6 ± 4.7 days. The number of fentanyl-TTS dosage changes was significantly lower in group T (1.2 ± 0.4 vs. 2.3 ± 0.5; P < 0.05). The mean total duration of treatment in group T, was 37.1 ± 11.6 days. The amount of fentanyl used at study end was 56.6 ± 11.2 ,g/hour plus 141.1 ± 151.9 mg tramadol per day (median: 200 mg/day) in group T patients compared with 84.1 ± 12.2 ,g/hour in group F patients (P < 0.05). The combination of a strong opioid with a weak opioid to treat severe cancer pain allowed a more gradual increase of analgesic delivery than was possible using fentanyl-TTS alone, minimizing periods of under- and overdosing. In addition, it considerably slowed the pace of fentanyl dose escalation. In conclusion, this TTS fentanyl-tramadol analgesic protocol provides a useful alternative to the usual treatment of cancer pain with fentanyl-TTS alone, especially in case of quick progression of disease and pain.,, [source]

Prescribing of pain medication in palliative care.

PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND DRUG SAFETY, Issue 1 2009
A survey in general practice
Abstract Purpose To examine what pain and adjuvant medication is prescribed in palliative care patients at home in The Netherlands. Methods In a nationwide, representative, prospective study in general practice in The Netherlands, prescribed medication was registered in 95 general practices with a listed population of 374,070 patients. The GPs identified those who received palliative care in a retrospective survey of the 2169 patients who died within the 1-year study period. We analysed the analgesics, laxatives and anti-emetics that were prescribed during the last 3 months of life for these patients. Results The response rate of the survey was 74%. 425 patients received palliative care and 73% of them were prescribed pain medication: 55% a non-opioid analgesic (paracetamol, NSAIDs), 21% a weak opioid (tramadol, codeine), and 51% a strong opioid. Relatively more younger than older patients were prescribed strong opioids, and more cancer than non-cancer patients were prescribed an analgesic. During the last 3 months of life, the proportion of patients prescribed a non-opioid or a weak opioid increased gradually. The proportion of patients prescribed a strong opioid increased considerably nearing the patient's death. About one third of the non-cancer patients were prescribed strong opioids, mostly commencing in the last 2 weeks before death. In 48% of all patients with an opioid prescription, the GP did not prescribe a laxative. Conclusions Weak opioids and laxatives are frequently omitted from pain regimens in palliative care at home in The Netherlands. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source]

Opioid analgesic prescribing and use , an audit of analgesic prescribing by general practitioners and The Multidisciplinary Pain Centre at Royal Brisbane Hospital

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY, Issue 6 2001
L. M. Nissen
Aims, This study evaluated the use of and need for opioids in patients attending the Multidisciplinary Pain Centre at the Royal Brisbane Hospital (RBH). Methods, All consecutive in-patient admissions in 1998 were reviewed. A 10-point scoring system based on the World Health Organization (WHO) analgesic ladder was devised to facilitate comparison of analgesic prescribing on admission and at the time of discharge. A conversion table was used to standardize opioid analgesic doses to an oral morphine equivalent. Results, Of the 370 patients reviewed, 233 (81%) were by their general practitioners. Records of 288 (78%) were available for full review and 270 (94%) of these had noncancer pain. On admission, 239 (83%) were taking an opioid analgesic, with 135 (47%) taking strong opioids (e.g. morphine, oxycodone, methadone). There was a significant decrease in the mean total daily oral morphine equivalent prescribed on discharge 36.9 mg (95% CI: 33.4, 40.4) compared with that on admission 88.7 mg (95% CI: 77.6, 99.8) (P < 0.001). There was a significant decrease (P < 0.05) in the proportion of patients taking a primary opioid on discharge 153 (58%) compared with admission 239 (83%), although the proportion of patients taking a strong opioid on discharge 150 (52%) compared with admission 135 (47%) was not significantly different (P > 0.05). The proportion of patients taking a laxative showed a significant increase on discharge 110 (73%) compared with admission 38 (28%) (P < 0.05). Conclusions, Our analgesic prescribing scoring system and opioid conversion table have the potential to be developed further as tools for assessing opioid analgesic prescribing. The significant decrease in total daily oral morphine equivalents signifies the value of prescribing in accordance with the WHO analgesic ladder, and the necessity of general practitioner education. The management of chronic pain is complex, and it requires interventions additional to pharmacological therapy. Evaluation by a multidisciplinary team, coupled with experience in and an understanding of analgesic prescribing and rehabilitation provides an effective basis for improving the management of patients with chronic pain. [source]

The role of methadone in cancer pain treatment , a review

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PRACTICE, Issue 7 2009
W. Leppert
Summary Background:, Methadone is an opioid analgesic of step 3 of the World Health Organization (WHO) analgesic ladder. Aim and Methods:, To outline pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, drug interactions, equianalgesic dose ratio with other opioids, dosing rules, adverse effects and methadone clinical studies in patients with cancer pain. A review of relevant literature on methadone use in cancer pain was conducted. Results:, Methadone is used in opioid rotation and administered to patients with cancer pain not responsive to morphine or other strong opioids when intractable opioid adverse effects appear. Methadone is considered as the first strong opioid analgesic and in patients with renal impairment. Methadone possesses different pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics in comparison to other opioids. The advantages of methadone include multimode analgesic activity, high oral and rectal bioavailability, long lasting analgesia, lack of active metabolites, excretion mainly with faeces, low cost and a weak immunosuppressive effect. The disadvantages include long and changeable plasma half-life, high bound to serum proteins, metabolism through P450 system, numerous drug interactions, lack of clear equianalgesic dose ratio to other opioids, QT interval prolongation, local reactions when administered subcutaneously. Conclusions:, Methadone is an important opioid analgesic at step 3 of the WHO analgesic ladder. Future controlled studies may focus on establishment of methadone equianalgesic dose ratio with other opioids and its role as the first strong opioid in comparative studies with analgesia, adverse effects and quality of life taken into consideration. [source]

Opioid Rotation in the Management of Chronic Pain: Where Is the Evidence?

PAIN PRACTICE, Issue 2 2010
K.C.P. Vissers MD
Abstract The management of chronic pain remains a challenge because of its complexity and unpredictable response to pharmacological treatment. In addition, accurate pain management may be hindered by the prejudice of physicians and patients that strong opioids, classified as step 3 medications in the World Health Organization ladder for cancer pain management, are reserved for the end stage of life. Recent information indicates the potential value of strong opioids in the treatment of chronic nonmalignant pain. There are, up until now, insufficient data to provide indications about which opioid to use to initiate treatment or the dose to be used for any specific pain syndrome. The strong inter-patient variability in opioid receptor response and in the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic behavior of strong opioids justifies an individual selection of the appropriate opioid and stepwise dose titration. Clinical experience shows that switching from one opioid to another may optimize pain control while maintaining an acceptable side effect profile or even improving the side effects. This treatment strategy, described as opioid rotation or switch, requires a dose calculation for the newly started opioid. Currently, conversion tables and equianalgesic doses are available. However, those recommendations are often based on data derived from studies designed to evaluate acute pain relief, and sometimes on single dose studies, which reduces this information to the level of an indication. In daily practice, the clinician needs to titrate the optimal dose during the opioid rotation from a reduced calculated dose, based on the clinical response of the patient. Further research and studies are needed to optimize the equianalgesic dosing tables. [source]

Improved Cancer Pain Treatment Using Combined Fentanyl-TTS and Tramadol

PAIN PRACTICE, Issue 4 2007
Franco Marinangeli MD
,,Abstract: The aim of the study was to facilitate dose escalation of strong opioids. In this randomized open-label study the influence of tramadol on dose adjustment of transdermal fentanyl in advanced cancer pain control was prospectively evaluated. Seventy patients affected by intractable cancer disease with visual analog scale (VAS) score >3 were enrolled. Thirty-five patients were treated conventionally with increasing transdermal fentanyl dosage as required (group F) and 35 patients received oral tramadol added to their transdermal fentanyl before each increment of the transdermal opioid dosage (group T). Pain control was equally satisfactory in the two groups. VAS scores at baseline (T: 4.36 ± 1.53; F: 4.51 ± 1.36; n.s.) and at the end of the study (T: 1.8 ± 1.6; F: 1.6 ± 1.5; n.s.) did not differ. However, in the tramadol group this level of pain control was achieved with much slower dose escalation of fentanyl. The mean application time of the fentanyl-Transdermal Therapeutic System patch for each dosage (25, 50, 75 ,g/hour) was significantly greater in patients receiving tramadol. No patient in group T escalated to the 100 ,g/hour patch, while in 12 patients of group F the 100 ,g/hour patch was applied after a 75 ,g/hour patch mean application period of 18.6 ± 4.7 days. The number of fentanyl-TTS dosage changes was significantly lower in group T (1.2 ± 0.4 vs. 2.3 ± 0.5; P < 0.05). The mean total duration of treatment in group T, was 37.1 ± 11.6 days. The amount of fentanyl used at study end was 56.6 ± 11.2 ,g/hour plus 141.1 ± 151.9 mg tramadol per day (median: 200 mg/day) in group T patients compared with 84.1 ± 12.2 ,g/hour in group F patients (P < 0.05). The combination of a strong opioid with a weak opioid to treat severe cancer pain allowed a more gradual increase of analgesic delivery than was possible using fentanyl-TTS alone, minimizing periods of under- and overdosing. In addition, it considerably slowed the pace of fentanyl dose escalation. In conclusion, this TTS fentanyl-tramadol analgesic protocol provides a useful alternative to the usual treatment of cancer pain with fentanyl-TTS alone, especially in case of quick progression of disease and pain.,, [source]

Prescribing of pain medication in palliative care.

PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND DRUG SAFETY, Issue 1 2009
A survey in general practice
Abstract Purpose To examine what pain and adjuvant medication is prescribed in palliative care patients at home in The Netherlands. Methods In a nationwide, representative, prospective study in general practice in The Netherlands, prescribed medication was registered in 95 general practices with a listed population of 374,070 patients. The GPs identified those who received palliative care in a retrospective survey of the 2169 patients who died within the 1-year study period. We analysed the analgesics, laxatives and anti-emetics that were prescribed during the last 3 months of life for these patients. Results The response rate of the survey was 74%. 425 patients received palliative care and 73% of them were prescribed pain medication: 55% a non-opioid analgesic (paracetamol, NSAIDs), 21% a weak opioid (tramadol, codeine), and 51% a strong opioid. Relatively more younger than older patients were prescribed strong opioids, and more cancer than non-cancer patients were prescribed an analgesic. During the last 3 months of life, the proportion of patients prescribed a non-opioid or a weak opioid increased gradually. The proportion of patients prescribed a strong opioid increased considerably nearing the patient's death. About one third of the non-cancer patients were prescribed strong opioids, mostly commencing in the last 2 weeks before death. In 48% of all patients with an opioid prescription, the GP did not prescribe a laxative. Conclusions Weak opioids and laxatives are frequently omitted from pain regimens in palliative care at home in The Netherlands. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source]

Subacute pain and function after fast-track hip and knee arthroplasty

ANAESTHESIA, Issue 5 2009
L. Ø. Andersen
Summary In a well-defined fast-track setup for total hip and knee arthroplasty, with a multimodal analgesic regimen consisting of intra-operative local anaesthetic infiltration and oral celecoxib, gabapentin and paracetamol for 6 days postoperatively, we conducted a prospective, consecutive, observational study. The purpose was to describe the prevalence and intensity of subacute postoperative pain and opioid related side effects, use of analgesics and functional ability 1,10 and 30 days postoperatively. Fast-track total hip and knee arthroplasty with early discharge (< 3 days) resulted in acceptable levels of pain and postoperative nausea and vomiting with concomitant low use of opioids in > 95% of patients after discharge before day 10 after total hip arthroplasty. However, after total knee arthroplasty 52% patients reported moderate pain (VAS 30,59 mm), and 16% severe pain (VAS , 60 mm) when walking 1 month after surgery with a concomitant increase in the use of strong opioids. These results emphasise the need for improvement in analgesia after discharge following total knee arthroplasty, to facilitate rehabilitation. [source]

Opioid analgesic prescribing and use , an audit of analgesic prescribing by general practitioners and The Multidisciplinary Pain Centre at Royal Brisbane Hospital

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY, Issue 6 2001
L. M. Nissen
Aims, This study evaluated the use of and need for opioids in patients attending the Multidisciplinary Pain Centre at the Royal Brisbane Hospital (RBH). Methods, All consecutive in-patient admissions in 1998 were reviewed. A 10-point scoring system based on the World Health Organization (WHO) analgesic ladder was devised to facilitate comparison of analgesic prescribing on admission and at the time of discharge. A conversion table was used to standardize opioid analgesic doses to an oral morphine equivalent. Results, Of the 370 patients reviewed, 233 (81%) were by their general practitioners. Records of 288 (78%) were available for full review and 270 (94%) of these had noncancer pain. On admission, 239 (83%) were taking an opioid analgesic, with 135 (47%) taking strong opioids (e.g. morphine, oxycodone, methadone). There was a significant decrease in the mean total daily oral morphine equivalent prescribed on discharge 36.9 mg (95% CI: 33.4, 40.4) compared with that on admission 88.7 mg (95% CI: 77.6, 99.8) (P < 0.001). There was a significant decrease (P < 0.05) in the proportion of patients taking a primary opioid on discharge 153 (58%) compared with admission 239 (83%), although the proportion of patients taking a strong opioid on discharge 150 (52%) compared with admission 135 (47%) was not significantly different (P > 0.05). The proportion of patients taking a laxative showed a significant increase on discharge 110 (73%) compared with admission 38 (28%) (P < 0.05). Conclusions, Our analgesic prescribing scoring system and opioid conversion table have the potential to be developed further as tools for assessing opioid analgesic prescribing. The significant decrease in total daily oral morphine equivalents signifies the value of prescribing in accordance with the WHO analgesic ladder, and the necessity of general practitioner education. The management of chronic pain is complex, and it requires interventions additional to pharmacological therapy. Evaluation by a multidisciplinary team, coupled with experience in and an understanding of analgesic prescribing and rehabilitation provides an effective basis for improving the management of patients with chronic pain. [source]