Literature DB >> 22374345

Serum concentrations of opioids when comparing two switching strategies to methadone for cancer pain.

Kristin Moksnes1, Stein Kaasa, Ørnulf Paulsen, Jan Henrik Rosland, Olav Spigset, Ola Dale.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Our aim was to compare pharmacological aspects of two switching strategies from morphine/oxycodone to methadone; the stop and go (SAG) strategy in which methadone is started directly after the initial opioid has been stopped, and the 3-days switch (3DS), in which morphine/oxycodone is gradually changed to methadone by cross-tapering over 3 days.
METHODS: Forty-two cancer patients with pain and/or opioid side effects were assessed in this randomised trial. Trough serum concentrations of methadone, morphine, morphine-6-glucuronide (M6G), and oxycodone were measured on days 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 14. Primary outcome was number of patients with methadone concentrations in apparent C(SS) on day 4. Secondary outcomes were exposure to opioids during the first 3 days, interindividual variation of opioid concentrations, and correlation between methadone concentrations and pain intensity (PI) day 3.
RESULTS: Thirty-five patients received methadone (16 in the SAG group, 19 in the 3DS group). The median preswitch morphine equivalent doses were 620 (range 350-2000) mg/day in the SAG group and 800 (range 90-3600) mg/day in the 3DS group (p = 0.43);42% reached C(SS) for methadone in the SAG group on day 4 compared with 22% in the 3DS group (p = 0.42). The SAG group was significantly less exposed to morphine/M6G/oxycodone and significantly more exposed to methadone in the first 3 days. Methadone showed a low correlation with PI. More patients dropped out after intervention in the SAG group than in the 3DS group (38% vs. 5%; p = 0.032). One SAG patient suffered from respiratory depression on day 5.
CONCLUSION: The SAG group was initially more exposed to methadone and less to the replaced opioids but without observed clinical benefit and with a higher dropout rate. Patients switched to methadone should be followed closely for the first 5 days, regardless of switching strategy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22374345     DOI: 10.1007/s00228-012-1228-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol        ISSN: 0031-6970            Impact factor:   2.953


  38 in total

Review 1.  Recruiting vulnerable populations for research: revisiting the ethical issues.

Authors:  Laura Bond Sutton; Judith A Erlen; JoAnn M Glad; Laura A Siminoff
Journal:  J Prof Nurs       Date:  2003 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.104

2.  Dose ratio between morphine and methadone in patients with cancer pain: a retrospective study.

Authors:  P G Lawlor; K S Turner; J Hanson; E D Bruera
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1998-03-15       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 3.  The rediscovery of methadone for cancer pain management.

Authors:  O T Ayonrinde; D T Bridge
Journal:  Med J Aust       Date:  2000-11-20       Impact factor: 7.738

4.  Plasma concentrations of morphine, morphine-6-glucuronide and morphine-3-glucuronide and their relationship with analgesia and side effects in patients with cancer-related pain.

Authors:  Columba Quigley; Simon Joel; Naina Patel; Amina Baksh; Maurice Slevin
Journal:  Palliat Med       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 4.762

5.  Opioid rotation in patients with cancer pain. A retrospective comparison of dose ratios between methadone, hydromorphone, and morphine.

Authors:  E Bruera; J Pereira; S Watanabe; M Belzile; N Kuehn; J Hanson
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1996-08-15       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 6.  Pain assessment: global use of the Brief Pain Inventory.

Authors:  C S Cleeland; K M Ryan
Journal:  Ann Acad Med Singapore       Date:  1994-03       Impact factor: 2.473

7.  The Norwegian brief pain inventory questionnaire: translation and validation in cancer pain patients.

Authors:  Pål Klepstad; Jon Håvard Loge; Petter C Borchgrevink; Tito R Mendoza; Charles S Cleeland; Stein Kaasa
Journal:  J Pain Symptom Manage       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 3.612

8.  The mu1, mu2, delta, kappa opioid receptor binding profiles of methadone stereoisomers and morphine.

Authors:  K Kristensen; C B Christensen; L L Christrup
Journal:  Life Sci       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 5.037

9.  Switching from morphine to oral methadone in treating cancer pain: what is the equianalgesic dose ratio?

Authors:  C Ripamonti; L Groff; C Brunelli; D Polastri; A Stavrakis; F De Conno
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  Influences on the pharmacokinetics of oxycodone: a multicentre cross-sectional study in 439 adult cancer patients.

Authors:  Trine Naalsund Andreassen; Pål Klepstad; Andrew Davies; Kristin Bjordal; Staffan Lundström; Stein Kaasa; Ola Dale
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2010-12-08       Impact factor: 2.953

View more
  4 in total

1.  Long-term low-dose morphine for patients with moderate cancer pain is predominant factor effecting clinically meaningful pain reduction.

Authors:  Ru-Jun Zheng; Yan Fu; Jiang Zhu; Jiu-Ping Xu; Qiu-Fen Xiang; Lin Chen; Hua Zhong; Jun-Ying Li; Chun-Hua Yu
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2018-05-31       Impact factor: 3.603

Review 2.  Oxycodone for cancer-related pain.

Authors:  Mia Schmidt-Hansen; Michael I Bennett; Stephanie Arnold; Nathan Bromham; Jennifer S Hilgart; Andrew J Page; Yuan Chi
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2022-06-09

Review 3.  Oxycodone for cancer-related pain.

Authors:  Mia Schmidt-Hansen; Michael I Bennett; Stephanie Arnold; Nathan Bromham; Jennifer S Hilgart
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2017-08-22

4.  Managing cancer pain at the end of life with multiple strong opioids: a population-based retrospective cohort study in primary care.

Authors:  Wei Gao; Martin Gulliford; Michael I Bennett; Fliss E M Murtagh; Irene J Higginson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-01-27       Impact factor: 3.240

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.