4.6 Review

Pharmacotherapy of Pain in the Older Population: The Place of Opioids

期刊

FRONTIERS IN AGING NEUROSCIENCE
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fnagi.2016.00144

关键词

pain; opioids; older persons; aging; polypharmacy; adverse effect

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of Serbia [175023]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pain is a common symptom in older people. It is possible that pain is underreported in older persons due to an incorrect belief that it is an inevitable part of aging. Opioid analgesics are potent medications, with confirmed efficacy for the treatment of moderate to severe pain. These drugs are commonly used in older persons. However, there is insufficient evidence regarding safety of opioids in older patients. One of the reasons for this is the lack of randomized, controlled clinical trials. People of advanced age often have comorbidites and use other prescription drugs, as well as over-the-counter (OTC) compounds, thus making them more suceptible to the risk of interactions with opioids. Significant pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic changes that occur with advancing age increase the risk of adverse effects of opioids. There are also some discrepancies between guidelines, which recommend the use of lower doses of opioids in older patients, and the findings in the literature which suggest that pain is often undertreated in this age group. It seems that there are significant variations in the tolerability of different opioid analgesics in older people. Morphine, fentanyl, oxycodone, and buprenorphine are still the preferred evidence-based choices for add-on opioid therapy for these patients. However, the safety and efficacy of other opioids in older patients, especially if comorbidities and polypharmacy are present, is still questionable. This review addresses the most important aspects of the use of opioids in older persons, focusing on pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, adverse effects, and interactions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据