Advertisement

Drugs

, Volume 53, Supplement 2, pp 40–49 | Cite as

Efficacité et tolérance du tramadol dans les douleurs néoplasiques

Etude comparative par rapport à la buprénorphine
  • A. V. Bono
  • S. Cuffari
Article

Résumé

Afin de comparer l’effet antalgique et la tolérance du tramadol et de la buprénorphine, 60 patients (44 hommes, 16 femmes, âge moyen 61,4 ans) tous présentant des tumeurs à un stade avancé, ont été traités, par voie orale, dans un essai contrôlé croisé avec séquences randomisées.

Les patients ont pris les deux traitements, chaque molécule pendant une semaine, avec une fenêtre thérapeutique de 24 heures entre les deux.

Le tramadol a été prescrit à une dose orale quotidienne de 300mg, et la buprénorphine en sublingual à 0,6 mg/jour. L’état général a été évalué (à l’aide de l’échelle de Karnofsky) ainsi que l’intensité de la douleur, avant et dans les 4 heures suivant la prise des deux médicaments. Chaque patient a également rempli un livret d’évaluation quotidien afin de recueillir le niveau de la douleur une heure après la prise, l’évolution de la douleur au cours de la journée et son intensité par rapport à celle de la journée précédente. Ils ont également évalué la durée et la qualité du sommeil.

L’échelle de Karnofsky a révélé peu d’écarts entre les deux traitements, mais toutes les autres variables ont montré une nette amélioration de la douleur, indiquant ainsi l’effet antalgique significatif des deux molécules.

La buprénorphine et le tramadol ont produit un effet analgésique comparable, mais l’amélioration avec le tramadol était significative dans les 60 minutes suivant la prise (p < 0,05 par rapport à l’évaluation initiale) et plus forte (p < 0,05 aux 2ème, 4ème, 6ème et 7ème jours par rapport à la buprénorphine).

A la fin du traitement par le tramadol, une amélioration du sommeil a également été constatée, tant au niveau quantitatif que qualitatif (tous deux p < 0,05). L’évaluation finale a été largement en faveur du tramadol, en ce qui concerne l’efficacité (p < 0,05) et la tolérance (p < 0,01).

De ce fait, le tramadol a été mieux toléré, provoquant des effets indésirables moins nombreux et moins forts que la buprénorphine, amenant un seul patient à interrompre le traitement par rapport à 18 patients sous buprénorphine.

Efficacy and Tolerability of Tramadol in Neoplastic Pain

A Comparative Study with Buprenorphine

English Abstract

Opioid analgesics represent one of the most important tools in a sequential pharmacological approach to oncological pain relief. They are recommended by the WHO when nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) no longer provide adequate analgesia.

However, the use of opioids is limited because of their numerous and often severe adverse effects. This aspect of opioids has motivated continuous research projects aimed at discovering drugs that can provide maximum pain relief but with improved tolerability.

Tramadol is a new, centrally acting analgesic with a dual mechanism of action. It shows a selective interaction with μ receptors, which are responsible for nociception, and has weak pharmacodynamic activity on other opioid receptors. At the same time, it acts synergistically on neuroamine transmission by inhibiting synaptic noradrenaline (norepinephrine) reuptake and inducing intrasynaptic serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine; 5-HT) release.

From a pharmacokinetic standpoint, tramadol offers high bioavailability, with similar patterns after oral or parenteral administration (half-life 5 to 7 hours, time to peak plasma concentration 3.1 hours, and approximately 20% plasma protein binding).

Although the efficacy of tramadol is comparable to that of other drugs with similar modes of action, the incidence of side effects such as constipation and respiratory depression is lower. The frequency of euphoria and dysphoria is negligible, resulting in little risk of abuse or dependence.

It therefore seemed appropriate to further investigate the efficacy and tolerability of tramadol, defined as having only weak potency, in comparison with a widely used opioid, in oncological pain. Buprenorphine was selected as an opioid with a potency equivalent to half that of morphine, but with tolerability that is partially limited by the fact that it frequently gives rise to adverse reactions considered typical of stronger opioids.

To compare the analgesic effect and tolerability of tramadol and buprenorphine, 60 patients (44 men, 16 women; average age 61.4 years), all presenting with advanced tumours, were treated orally in a controlled crossover trial with randomised sequences.

Patients took both drugs, each for a week, with a 24-hour washout period between treatments.

Tramadol was prescribed at the daily dose of 300mg, orally, and buprenorphine at 0.6 mg/day, as a sublingual preparation.

Assessments were made of Karnofsky performance status and severity of pain before and during the 4 hours after taking the 2 drugs. Each patient also completed a daily diary recording the severity of pain 1 hour after the dose, the evolution of pain during the day and its severity compared with that on the previous day. They also assessed the duration and quality of sleep.

The Karnofsky index changed little with either treatment, but all other variables showed worthwhile improvement, indicating the significant analgesic effect of both drugs.

Buprenorphine and tramadol had a similar analgesic effect, although the improvement with the test drug was significant within 1 hour of administration (p < 0.05 compared with baseline) and more marked (p < 0.05 on day 2 compared with buprenorpine).

At the end of tramadol treatment, sleep had also improved, both quantitatively and qualitatively (both p < 0.05). The final assessment was significantly in favour of tramadol as regards efficacy (p < 0.05) and patient acceptability (p < 0.01).

Thus, tramadol was better tolerated than buprenorphine, and caused fewer and milder adverse reactions. Only 1 patient discontinued tramadol, compared with 18 using reference therapy. Tramadol, although theoretically less potent, nevertheless brought about as much pain relief as the comparator opioid.

In conclusion, for this class of drug, tramadol provides an excellent balance between efficacy and tolerability, confirming preliminary studies.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Références

  1. 1.
    World Health Organization. Cancer pain relief. Geneva, 1986Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schug SA, Dunlop R, Zech D. Pharmacological management of cancer pain. Drugs 1992; 43(1): 44–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Symptom control in far advanced cancer. Twycross RG, Lack SA, editors. London, Pitmann Books Ltd, 1983Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hennies HH, Friderichs E, Schneider J. Receptor binding analgesic and antitussive potency of tramadol and other selected opioids. Arzneim Forsch Drug Res 1988; 38(11): 877Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Driessen B, Reimann B. Interaction of the central analgesic, tramadol, with the uptake and release of 5-hydroxytryptamine in the rat brain in vitro. Br J Pharmacol 1992; 105: 147–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Raffa RB, Nayak RK, Liao S, Minn FL. The mechanism(s) of action and pharmacokinetics of tramadol hydrochloride. Rev Contemp Pharmacother 1995; 6: 485–97Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Osipova NA, Novikov GA, Beresnev VA, et al. Analgesic effect of tramadol in cancer patients with chronic pain. A comparison with prolonged-action morphine sulfate. Curr Ther Res 1991; 50(6): 812–21Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vickers MD, Paravicini D. Comparison of tramadol with morphine for post-operative pain following abdominal surgery. Eur J Anaesth 1995; 12(3): 265–71Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kupers R, Callebaut V, Debois V, et al. Efficacy and safety of oral tramadol and pentazocine for post-operative pain following prolapsed intervertebral disc repair. Acta Anaesthesiol Belg 1995; 46: 31–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Raffa RB, Friderichs E, Reimann W, et al. Opioid and nonopioid components independently contribute to the mechanism of action of tramadol, an ‘atypical’ opioid analgesic. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1992; 260: 275–85PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Richter W, Barth H, Flohé L, et al. Clinical investigation of the development of dependence during oral therapy with tramadol. Arzneim Forsch Drug Res 1985; 35(11): 1742–4Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Abel SR. Tramadol: an alternative analgesic to traditional opioids and NSAIDs. J Pharm Care Pain Symptom Control 1995; 3(1): 5–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lee RC, McTavish D, Sorkin EM. Tramadol. A preliminary review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic potential in acute and chronic pain states. Drugs 1993; 46(2): 313–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Freye E. Opioid agonists, antagonists and mixed narcotic analgesics. Their use in post-operative and chronic pain management. Drugs Today 1989; 25(11): 741–54Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dayer P, Collart L, Desmeules J. The pharmacology of tramadol. Drugs 1994; 47 Suppl. 1: 3–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Downing JW, Leary WP, White ES. Buprenorphine: a new potent long-acting synthetic analgesic. Comparison with morphine. Br J Anaesth 1978; 49: 251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hovell BC. Comparison of buprenorphine, pethidine and pentazocine for the relief of pain after operation. Br J Anaesth 1977; 49: 913PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kay B. A double-blind comparison of morphine and buprenorphine in the prevention of pain after operation. Br J Anaesth 1978; 50: 605PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Roily G, Versichelen L. Buprenorphine as post-operative analgesic. Acta Anaesthesiol Belg 1976; 27: 183Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Alon E, Schulthess G, Axhausen Ch., et al. Double blind comparison of tramadol and buprenorphine in the control of postoperative pain. Anaesthesist 1981; 30: 623–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wilder-Smith CH, Schinke J, Osterwalder B, et al. Oral tramadol, a μ-opioid agonist and monoamine reuptake-blocker, and morphine for strong cancer-related pain. Ann Oncol 1994; 5: 141–6PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. V. Bono
    • 1
  • S. Cuffari
    • 2
  1. 1.Service d’UrologieHôpital di CircoloVarèseItalie
  2. 2.Service d’Anesthésie et de RéanimationHôpital di CircoloVarèseItalie

Personalised recommendations