4.4 Article

Once-daily OROS® hydromorphone for the management of chronic nonmalignant pain:: a dose-conversion and titration study

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PRACTICE
卷 61, 期 10, 页码 1671-1676

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1742-1241.2007.01500.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The use of opioid analgesics for patients with chronic nonmalignant pain is becoming more widely accepted, and long-acting formulations are an important treatment option. Aim: To assess conversion to extended-release OROS (R) hydromorphone from previous stable opioid agonist therapy in patients with chronic nonmalignant pain of moderate-to-severe intensity. Methods: In this open-label multicentre trial, patients were stabilised on their previous opioid therapy before being switched to OROS (R) hydromorphone at a ratio of 5 : 1 (morphine sulphate equivalent to hydromorphone hydrochloride). The OROS (R) hydromorphone dose was titrated over 3-16 days to achieve effective analgesia, and maintenance treatment continued for 14 days. Results: Study medication was received by 336 patients; 66% completed all study phases. Stabilisation of OROS (R) hydromorphone was achieved by 94.6% of patients, the majority in two or fewer titration steps (mean time, 4.2 days). Mean pain intensity scores, as determined by the Brief Pain Inventory, decreased during OROS (R) hydromorphone treatment (p <= 0.001). The percentage of patients rating their pain relief as 'good' or 'complete' increased, and the use of rescue analgesics for breakthrough pain decreased. The interference of pain with everyday activities (e.g. walking or work), and the effects on mood and enjoyment of life, also improved during the study (all p < 0.001). OROS (R) hydromorphone was well tolerated, and adverse events were those expected for opioid agonist therapy. Conclusion: Patients with chronic nonmalignant pain who had been receiving opioid therapy easily underwent conversion to OROS (R) hydromorphone, with no loss of efficacy or increase in adverse events.

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

4.4
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