Gene/Protein Disease Symptom Drug Enzyme Compound
Pivot Concepts:   Target Concepts:
Query: UMLS:C0033774 (pruritus)
 14,546 document(s) hit in 31,850,051 MEDLINE articles (0.00 seconds)

We report the analgesic and adverse effects of intrathecally administered hyperbaric neostigmine, alone or combined with morphine, in two patients suffering from severe lower limb ischaemic pain (group 1), five patients undergoing Caesarean section (group 2) and 19 patients scheduled for orthopaedic surgery (group 3) under spinal anaesthesia. These patients were enrolled in three pilot studies undertaken before the initiation of the planned controlled studies. Hyperbaric neostigmine (50 micrograms in glucose 8%) produced analgesia lasting more than 6 h in patients of group 1, but the effect was accompanied by episodes of vomiting. A lower dose of hyperbaric neostigmine (25 micrograms), alone (two patients) or combined with morphine (50 micrograms) (one patient) produced no discernible analgesic effect but was followed by severe nausea and vomiting within 15 min of intrathecal injection in patients of group 2. Two patients who received hyperbaric morphine (100 micrograms) had analgesia for more than 24 h and exhibited mild pruritus. In patients of group 3, hyperbaric neostigmine alone (25 micrograms) produced analgesia of shorter duration than neostigmine (25 micrograms) plus morphine (50 micrograms) or morphine (100 micrograms). Neostigmine alone or combined with morphine was associated with adverse events, mainly nausea and vomiting that lasted up to 9-12 in some patients. Other adverse events observed included anxiety, somnolence and involuntary defaecation. Most patients who received the combination of neostigmine and morphine exhibited more severe nausea, vomiting and somnolence. The low clinical efficacy of intrathecally administered neostigmine alone or in combination with morphine impairs the design of a double-blind protocol and might restrict the clinical usefulness of the drug combination.
 ...
PMID:Analgesic and adverse effects of a low dose of intrathecally administered hyperbaric neostigmine alone or combined with morphine in patients submitted to spinal anaesthesia: pilot studies. 1020 66

Most of the modern non-sedating H1 receptor antagonists (antihistamines) penetrate the brain poorly, allowing the use of doses large enough to counteract allergic processes in peripheral tissues without important central effects. The antihistamines reviewed here are acrivastine, astemizole, cetirizine, ebastine, fexofenadine, loratadine, mizolastine, and terfenadine. However, these drugs are not entirely free from central effects, and there are at least quantitative differences between them. Although psychomotor and sleep studies in healthy subjects in the laboratory may predict that an antihistamine does not cause drowsiness, the safety margin can be narrow enough to cause a central sedating effect during actual treatment. This might result from a patient's individual sensitivity, disease-induced sedation, or drug dosages that are for various reasons relatively or absolutely larger (patient's weight, poor response, reduced drug clearance, interactions). Mild to even moderate sedation is not necessarily a major nuisance, particularly if stimulants need be added to the regimen (e.g. in perennial rhinitis). Furthermore, patients can adjust doses themselves if needed. Sedating antihistamines are not needed for long-term itching, because glucocorticoids are indicated and more effective. It is wise to restrict or avoid using antihistamines (astemizole, terfenadine) that can cause cardiac dysrhythmias, because even severe cardiotoxicity can occur in certain pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions. Histamine H1 receptor antagonists (antihistamines) are used in the treatment of allergic disorders. The therapeutic effects of most of the older antihistamines were associated with sedating effects on the central nervous system (CNS) and antimuscarinic effects causing dry mouth and blurred vision. Non-specific "quinidine-like" or local anaesthetic actions often led to cardiotoxicity in animals and man. Although such adverse effects varied from drug to drug, there was some degree of sedation with all old antihistamines. Non-sedating antihistamines have become available during the past 15 years. Some of them also have antiserotonin or other actions that oppose allergic inflammation, and they are not entirely free from sedative effects either. In small to moderate "clinical" concentrations they are competitive H1 receptor antagonists, although large concentrations of some of them exert non-competitive blockade. Daytime drowsiness and weakness are seldom really important, and they restrict patients' activities less than the old antihistamines. Some new antihistamines share with old antihistamines quinidine-like effects on the cardiac conducting tissues, and clinically significant interactions have raised the question of drug safety. This prodysrhythmic effect has also been briefly mentioned in comparisons of non-sedative H1 antihistamines.
 ...
PMID:Variations among non-sedating antihistamines: are there real differences? 1033 1

We have compared patient-controlled epidural fentanyl (PCEF) and patient-controlled i.v. morphine (PCIM) after Caesarean section in 84 patients, in a randomized, double-blind study. All patients had an epidural and an i.v. patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) device, one of which delivered normal saline. Group PCEF received epidural fentanyl 20 micrograms with a 10-min lockout. Group PCIM received i.v. morphine 1 mg with a 5-min lockout. PCA use was lower for PCEF patients (P = 0.0007). The highest pain score recorded at rest for PCEF patients was median 20 (interquartile range 10-33) mm compared with 32 (14-52) mm for PCIM patients (P = 0.02). The highest pain score recorded on coughing was 31 (21-41) mm with PCEF compared with 56 (30-71) mm for PCIM (P = 0.001). There was less nausea (P = 0.02) and drowsiness (P = 0.0003) with PCEF. There was no difference in the overall incidence and severity of pruritus (P = 0.77). However, pruritus started earlier with PCEF.
 ...
PMID:Patient-controlled analgesia: epidural fentanyl and i.v. morphine compared after caesarean section. 1043 17

The safety and side-effects profile of epidural administration of a hydrophilic (morphine), highly lipophilic (fentanyl) and a drug with intermediate hydrophilic and lipophilic activity (hydromorphone) were compared in 90 children undergoing orthopaedic procedures. Ninety patients were randomly assigned (30 in each group) to receive epidural morphine, hydromorphone, or fentanyl for postoperative analgesia. Respiratory effects, nausea, somnolence, urinary retention, pruritus and visual pain scales were evaluated and compared during a 30-h period following surgery. In the morphine group, 25% showed respiratory depression with oxygen saturation below 90% but there was no incidence of respiratory depression in the fentanyl or hydromorphone groups. Somnolence was prominent in some of the patients in all the groups, but was more prolonged in the morphine group. Statistically, there was no significant difference in nausea between the groups, but pruritus was more severe and frequent in the morphine group. The incidence of urinary retention in the morphine group was higher compared with the fentanyl and hydromorphone groups. In conclusion, epidural hydromorphone, demonstrating less side-effects, is preferable to morphine and fentanyl for epidural analgesia in children.
 ...
PMID:Comparison of epidural morphine, hydromorphone and fentanyl for postoperative pain control in children undergoing orthopaedic surgery. 1044 5

Two separate trials compared controlled-release (CR) oral oxycodone (administered every 12 hours) with immediate-release (IR) oxycodone (4 times a day) to determine whether patients with chronic pain could be titrated to stable pain control as readily with the CR as with the IR formulation. In one study, 48 patients with cancer pain were randomized to open-label titration with either CR or IR oxycodone (maximum dose, 400 mg/day) for a period of up to 21 days. In a study of similar design, 57 patients with low back pain were titrated with either CR or IR oxycodone (maximum dose, 80 mg/day) for a period of up to 10 days. The majority of patients in both studies were converted to oxycodone from other opioid analgesics. Results of both studies showed no difference between CR and IR oxycodone with respect to both the percentage of patients achieving stable pain control, the time to achieve stable pain control, and the degree of pain control achieved. Among cancer patients, 85% achieved stable analgesia, 92% with the CR formulation and 79% with the IR formulation. Among noncancer patients, 91% achieved stable pain control, 87% with the CR formulation and 96% with the IR formulation. The most commonly reported adverse effects in both studies were similar for the two formulations and were those anticipated with opioids: nausea, vomiting, constipation, somnolence, dizziness, and pruritus. Nausea and vomiting were the most frequently cited reasons for treatment discontinuations. These studies suggest that dose titration can be accomplished as readily with oral CR oxycodone as with IR oxycodone in patients with chronic, moderate to severe pain.
 ...
PMID:Can a controlled-release oral dose form of oxycodone be used as readily as an immediate-release form for the purpose of titrating to stable pain control? 1053 67

More than 2200 subjects were enrolled in the MorphiDex (MS:DM) development program, with a 1:1 (weight:weight) ratio of morphine sulfate (MS) to dextromethorphan hydrobromide (DM). Of the 1400 subjects exposed to MorphiDex, more than 350 subjects were treated for at least 6 months, and over 200 subjects were treated for a year or longer. The clinical population comprised an approximately equal number of men (46.2%) and women (53.8%), ranging in age from 16 to 96 years, and mostly Caucasian (91.8%). The most frequent (54.8%) daily dose of MorphiDex for subjects enrolled in the clinical program was 120 mg or less. Slow DM metabolizers took significantly lower daily doses of MorphiDex than rapid metabolizers without a significant difference in the incidence of adverse events. Plasma bromide concentrations were low and showed a wide margin of safety for both slow and rapid DM metabolizers. There were no clinically significant treatment-related changes in clinical laboratory tests, neurological examinations, or vital signs. The most common adverse events seen in the multiple dose controlled studies were nausea, dizziness, vomiting, somnolence, constipation, confusion, asthenia, headache, and pruritus. With long-term treatment, the prevalence of adverse events was greatest during the first month of MorphiDex exposure and then decreased over time. The incidence of constipation remained fairly constant over time.
 ...
PMID:Long-term safety of MorphiDex. 1068 40

Despite the wide use of the World Health Organization (WHO) analgesic ladder for the relief of cancer pain, it is not uncommon to find patients presenting with severe pain to palliative care centres. This is more so in the developing world, where facilities for pain relief are few and the health care system is not well organized. It has been the practice in a pain and palliative care clinic in south India to give repeated boluses of 1.5 mg of morphine intravenously every 10 min to patients presenting with severe pain. An audit of the procedure was undertaken by a retrospective study of 793 case notes. Seventy-nine per cent of patients had total relief of their pain with intravenous morphine. Three per cent of patients experienced side-effects during the procedure. These included nausea and vomiting, itching, giddiness, restlessness, dyspnoea, chest pain, disorientation and a feeling of uneasiness. Thirty-two per cent of patients had drowsiness, which was one of the end-points of the procedure. It is concluded that intravenous morphine in repeated boluses of 1.5 mg every 10 min is a safe and effective method of managing cancer pain emergencies in a clinical setting in a developing country.
 ...
PMID:Intravenous morphine for emergency treatment of cancer pain. 1085 25

One hundred and eight children with acute, symptomatic, uncomplicated, falciparum malaria were randomized to receive chloroquine (for 3 days) plus chlorpheniramine alone (for seven days) (CQ-CP group; N = 55) or, in a sequential treatment, chloroquine plus chlorpheniramine for 3 days followed, on the fourth day, by a single oral dose of sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (25 mg sulfadoxine/kg) (CQ-CP-SP group; N = 53). The mean (S.D.) parasite-clearance time in the CQ-CP group [2.1 (0.7) days; range = 1-5 days] was similar to that in the CQ-CP-SP [2.1 (0.8) days; range = 1-5 days]. The fever-clearance times were also similar: 1.2 (0.1) days (range = 1-3 days) v. 1.1 (0.4) days (range = 1-3 days). The cure rates on days 14, 21 and 28 were 98.2%, 96.3% and 92.7%, respectively in the CQ-CP group, and 100%, 100% and 96.2%, respectively, in the CQ-CP-SP group. The rates of gametocyte carriage were low and similar (5.4% in the CQ-CP group and 3.8% in the CQ-CP-SP group) throughout the duration of the study. Both treatment regimens were relatively well tolerated, the main adverse reactions being similar: sleepiness (on day 1) and pruritus (on days 1-3). No adverse effect was attributable to SP. The results indicate that sequential treatment, for 3 days with CQ and CP, followed by a single dose of SP, is effective and well tolerated in children with acute, uncomplicated, falciparum malaria and may be an alternative treatment for CQ- and/or SP-resistant falciparum malaria. Treatment with a CQ-CP combination (CQ and CP for 3 days and then CP alone for another 4 days) is also effective but requires continuing administration after the signs and symptoms of acute malaria have disappeared.
 ...
PMID:Comparative efficacy of chloroquine plus chlorpheniramine alone and in a sequential combination with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine, for the treatment of acute, uncomplicated, falciparum malaria in children. 1088 64

Allergic rhinitis is a common disease with a lifetime prevalence of 20% among the United States population. The cost of medication alone to manage allergic rhinitis in the United States was estimated to be $3.1 billion. The two most commonly prescribed classes of medications are antihistamines and topical nasal steroids. The data on comparing the efficacy of a commonly used antihistamine (azelastine hydrochloride) with that of topical steroids, however, are conflicting. Therefore, the reported study was undertaken to determine the efficacy of azelastine with that of a topical nasal steroid (flunisolide) in treating patients for the symptoms of perennial allergic rhinitis. Forty-four subjects were enrolled in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study using Balaam's design. In one group, patients were treated with topical nasal corticosteroids or placebo. In the other group, patients were treated with the antihistamine nasal spray or placebo. Subjective data were collected by the use of questionnaires and a daily diary, which focused on nasal symptoms, sleep, and daytime sleepiness. The results demonstrated that the topical nasal corticosteroid performed superiorly to the antihistamine nasal spray in improving sleep, daytime sleepiness, sneezing, ocular and nasal pruritus, and nasal congestion. Thus, the topical nasal corticosteroid was found to be more effective than antihistamine nasal spray in reducing symptoms of allergic rhinitis. This study provides further support for the use of topical nasal corticosteroids as first-line treatment for perennial allergic rhinitis.
 ...
PMID:Efficacy of a steroid nasal spray compared with an antihistamine nasal spray in the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis. 1094 9

The authors evaluated the ability of fluoxetine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), to enhance the analgesic potency of morphine. Fifteen volunteers participated in this double-blind crossover study. All received combinations of morphine or saline with either fluoxetine 30 mg or placebo. The authors used individual morphine pharmacokinetics to program an infusion pump to achieve plasma morphine levels of 15, 30, and 60 ng/ml. Analgesia during morphine infusion was assessed using a model of electrical tooth stimulation. Subjective side effects, measurements of end-tidal CO2, O2 saturation, pupil size, and testing of psychomotor performance were obtained. Plasma morphine concentrations were not affected by fluoxetine. In comparison to placebo, oral fluoxetine resulted in less sedation during morphine infusion and less nausea during morphine washout. Morphine-induced pruritus, psychomotor function, and respiratory depression were unaffected by fluoxetine. Acute administration of 30 mg oral fluoxetine augmented analgesia by approximately 3% to 8% and reduced morphine-associated nausea, mood reduction, and drowsiness.
 ...
PMID:Morphine-fluoxetine interactions in healthy volunteers: analgesia and side effects. 1107 15


<< Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next >>