• Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. · Jun 2000

    Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical Trial

    Clinical efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics of a newly developed controlled release morphine sulphate suppository in patients with cancer pain.

    • F Moolenaar, W J Meijler, H W Frijlink, J Visser, and J H Proost.
    • Department of Pharmacokinetics and Drug Delivery, Groningen University Institute of Drug Exploration, The Netherlands. f.moolenaar@farm.rug.nl
    • Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2000 Jun 1;56(3):219-23.

    ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics of a newly developed controlled-release suppository (MSR) with MS Contin tablets (MSC) in cancer patients with pain.MethodsIn a double-blind, randomised, two-way cross-over trial, 25 patients with cancer pain were selected with a morphine (M) demand of 30 mg every 12 h. Patients were divided into two groups. Group 1 received active MSC (30 mg) and placebo MSR, followed by placebo MSC and active MSR (30 mg) each for a period of 5 days. Group 2 started with active MSR and placebo MSC, followed by active MSC and placebo MSR, each for a period of 5 days. Blood for determination of plasma concentration of morphine (M) and its 3- and 6-glucuronides (M3G, M6G) was collected, and area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC)0-12 h, peak plasma concentration (Cmax), time to reach Cmax (tmax), and CO and C12 of M, M6G and M3G were determined on day 5 and day 10. Intensity of pain experienced by each patient was assessed every 2 h on a 0-10 scale, while side effects and rescue medication were recorded.ResultsTwenty patients (ten patients in each group) completed the study. A pronounced inter-patient variability in plasma concentrations of M, M3G and M6G was observed after administration of both forms. Apart from the C0 and C12, no significant differences in AUC0-12 h, tmax and Cmax of morphine between the rectal and oral route of administration were found. In the case of the metabolites, it was found that AUC0-12 h and Cmax of M6G, and AUC0-12 h, Cmax, C0 and C12 of M3G after rectal administration were significantly lower than after oral administration. However, apart from the tmax of M6G, none of the pharmacokinetic parameters of M, M6G or M3G met the criteria for bioequivalence. There were no significant (P = 0.44) differences in pain intensity score between the oral and rectal forms within the two groups, regardless of the treatment sequence. No treatment differences in nausea, sedation or the demand on escape medication (acetaminophen tablets) between the rectal and oral forms were observed.ConclusionThe newly developed controlled-release M suppository is safe and effective and may be a useful alternative for oral morphine administration in patients with cancer pain.

      Pubmed     Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.