4.5 Article

Equianalgesic dose ratios for opioids: A critical review and proposals for long-term dosing

期刊

JOURNAL OF PAIN AND SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT
卷 22, 期 2, 页码 672-687

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0885-3924(01)00294-9

关键词

opioid; equianalgesic dose ratios; potency; rotation; switching; chronic pain; opioid toxicity; tolerance

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Clinicians involved in the opioid pharmacotherapy of cancer-related pain should be acquainted with a variety of opioids and be skilled in the selection of doses when the type, (of opioid or route of administration needs changing. The optimal dose should avoid underdosing or overdosing, both associated with negative outcomes for the patient. Although equianalgesic dose tables are generally used to determine the new doses in these circumstances, the evidence to support the ratios indicated in these tables largely refers to the context of single dose administration. The applicability of these ratios to the setting of chronic opioid administration has been questioned. A systematic search of published literature from 1966 to September 1999 was conducted to critically appraise the emerging evidence on equianalgesic dose ratios derived from studies of chronic opioid administration. There were six major findings: 1) there exists a general paucity of data related to long-term dosing and studies are heterogeneous in nature; 2) the ratios exhibit extremely wide ranges; 3) methadone is more potent than previously appreciated; 4) the ratios related to methadone are highly correlated with the dose of the previous opioid; 5) the ratio may change according to the direction the opioid switch; and 6) discrepancies exist with respect to both oxycodone and fentanyl. Overall, these findings have important clinical implications for clinicians and warrant consideration in the potential revision of current tables. The complexity of the clinical context in which many switches occur must be recognized and also appreciated in the design of future studies. (C) U.S. Cancer Pain Relief Committee, 2001.

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

4.5
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