1.Influence of body fat in cancer patients on residual content of used fentanyl matrix patches
Takeshi Chiba ; Yusuke Kimura ; Hiroaki Takahashi ; Tomohiko Tairabune ; Yoshiaki Nagasawa ; Kaoru Mori ; Yuji Yonezawa ; Atsuko Sugawara ; Sachiko Kawaguchi ; Hidenobu Kawamura ; Satoshi Nishizuka ; Kenzo Kudo ; Kunihiko Fujiwara ; Kenichiro Ikeda ; Go Wakabayashi ; Katsuo Takahashi
Palliative Care Research 2010;5(2):206-212
Purpose: The objective of this study was to investigate whether body fat rate (BFR) and triceps skinfold thickness (TSF) are associated with estimated fentanyl absorption in patients treated with the fentanyl transdermal matrix patch for moderate to severe cancer pain, by measuring the residual content of fentanyl in used matrix patches. Methods: Adult Japanese inpatients experiencing chronic cancer-related pain and receiving treatment for the first time with a transdermal fentanyl matrix patch (Durotep®MT patch) were included in the present study. During the initial application period, BFR was measured using a body fat scale, and TSF was measured by an experienced nurse with an adipometer. One patch was collected from each patient. The residual fentanyl content in used matrix patch was determined by high-performance liquid chromatography. The transdermal fentanyl delivery efficiency was estimated based on the fentanyl content of the used matrix patches. Results: Fifteen adult patients (5 males and 10 females) were included in this study. Nine patches with a release rate of 12.5μg/h and 6 patches with a release rate of 25μg/h were collected. The application site was the chest or upper arm. BFR and TSF both showed a significant positive correlation with delivery efficiency. Conclusion: In malnourished or low-body fat patients receiving DMP, pain intensity should be more carefully monitored, and fentanyl dose adjustment may be required. Additional parameters, such as nutritional status including body fat change, the degree of dry skin, and plasma fentanyl concentration, also require detailed evaluation. Palliat Care Res 2010; 5(2): 206-212
Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail