4.6 Article

MorphiDex® (morphine sulfate/dextromethorphan hydrobromide combination) in the treatment of chronic pain:: Three multicenter, randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trials fail to demonstrate enhanced opioid analgesia or reduction in tolerance

期刊

PAIN
卷 115, 期 3, 页码 284-295

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2005.03.004

关键词

morphine; dextromethorphan; N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist; opioid tolerance

向作者/读者索取更多资源

While many pre-clinical and clinical studies have suggested that the addition of N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists, such as dextromethorphan (DM), to opioid analgesics, such as morphine (MS), may enhance the analgesic effects and prevent the tolerance that may result from chronic opioid administration, others have not. The potential for reduced doses, enhanced opioid analgesia. and decreased analgesic tolerance associated with the MS/DM combination were evaluated in a series of three large, randomized, double-blind. parallel group. phase 3, multicenter trials each of 3 months duration in patients with chronic, non-malignant. non-neuropathic pain, To evaluate these unique endpoints. novel study designs were employed. In Study A, patients received fixed doses of MS or MS/DM. based on the stable dose of MS/DM attained during a Run-in-period-, changes from baseline in average daily pain intensity were compared, In Studies B and C, patients self-titrated doses of MS or MS/DM, based on stable doses of MS or other opioids attained during Run-in periods, to maintain pain relief percentage changes from baseline in MS (or MS-equivalent) doses were compared. No statistically significant differences between treatment groups in any primary or secondary efficacy variables were demonstrated in an), trial. These results suggest that adding the NMDA antagonist, dextromethorphan, to opioids does not add any clinical benefit. (c) 2005 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier B.V, All rights reserved.

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