Literature DB >> 10484858

A comparison of subcutaneous morphine and fentanyl in hospice cancer patients.

R Hunt1, B Fazekas, D Thorne, M Brooksbank.   

Abstract

This study compares subcutaneous (s.c.) morphine and fentanyl with respect to pain control and side effects using a 6-day randomized, double-blind, cross-over design. Results were obtained from 23 patients (12 males and 11 females: mean age of 70.5 years) who could tolerate morphine. Thirteen patients were randomized to receive morphine for the first 3 days followed by fentanyl; 10 received fentanyl first followed by morphine. There were no significant differences in the scores for pain between the two drugs, suggesting that fentanyl is equally efficacious and the conversion ratio of morphine 10 mg: fentanyl 150 micrograms is appropriate. Patients had more frequent bowel movements during days 4-6 while on the fentanyl arm [t-test, df (22), P = 0.015]. Other measures for nausea, delirium, and cognitive function showed no differences between the two drugs. This study highlights the need to further assess the role of various opioids in hospice patients, and emphasizes the requirement for sensitive and simple cognitive tests in this population.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10484858     DOI: 10.1016/s0885-3924(99)00051-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Pain Symptom Manage        ISSN: 0885-3924            Impact factor:   3.612


  9 in total

1.  A survey on physician knowledge and attitudes towards clinical use of morphine for cancer pain treatment in China.

Authors:  Su Yanjun; Wang Changli; Weng Ling; Jennifer Catherine Ai-Lian Woo; Kwauk Sabrina; Liu Chang; Zhang Lei
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2009-11-10       Impact factor: 3.603

Review 2.  Pharmacological options for the management of refractory cancer pain-what is the evidence?

Authors:  B Afsharimani; K Kindl; P Good; J Hardy
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2015-03-07       Impact factor: 3.603

3.  Dose calculation in opioid rotation: electronic calculator vs. manual calculation.

Authors:  Herbert Plagge; Wilhelm Ruppen; Norman Ott; Thomas Fabbro; Delia Bornand; Stefanie Deuster
Journal:  Int J Clin Pharm       Date:  2011-01-13

4.  Design, synthesis, and biological evaluation of 17-cyclopropylmethyl-3,14β-dihydroxy-4,5α-epoxy-6β-[(4'-pyridyl)carboxamido]morphinan derivatives as peripheral selective μ opioid receptor Agents.

Authors:  Yunyun Yuan; Orgil Elbegdorj; Jianyang Chen; Shashidhar K Akubathini; Feng Zhang; David L Stevens; Irina O Beletskaya; Krista L Scoggins; Zhenxian Zhang; Phillip M Gerk; Dana E Selley; Hamid I Akbarali; William L Dewey; Yan Zhang
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2012-11-09       Impact factor: 7.446

5.  [Delirium in a patient with cerebral metastasis].

Authors:  Barbara Wiener
Journal:  Wien Med Wochenschr       Date:  2008

Review 6.  Doctor Shopping Behavior and the Diversion of Prescription Opioids.

Authors:  Ronald Simeone
Journal:  Subst Abuse       Date:  2017-04-11

Review 7.  Practical management of opioid rotation and equianalgesia.

Authors:  Erwan Treillet; Sophie Laurent; Yacine Hadjiat
Journal:  J Pain Res       Date:  2018-10-29       Impact factor: 3.133

8.  The impact of opioid analgesics on the gastrointestinal tract function and the current management possibilities.

Authors:  Wojciech Leppert
Journal:  Contemp Oncol (Pozn)       Date:  2012-05-29

9.  Treatment with subcutaneous and transdermal fentanyl: results from a population pharmacokinetic study in cancer patients.

Authors:  Astrid W Oosten; João A Abrantes; Siv Jönsson; Peter de Bruijn; Evelien J M Kuip; Amílcar Falcão; Carin C D van der Rijt; Ron H J Mathijssen
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2016-01-14       Impact factor: 2.953

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.