JPET

Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Beaver, W. T.
Right arrow Articles by Feise, G. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Beaver, W. T.
Right arrow Articles by Feise, G. A.

A comparison of the analgesic effect of intramuscular nalbuphine and morphine in patients with postoperative pain

WT Beaver and GA Feise

In a double-study, using patients' subjective reports as indices of analgesia, the relative analgesic potency of intramuscular nalbuphine and morphine was determined in 56 postoperative patients. A total of 28 crossover comparisons (utilizing the twin passover, balanced four-point incomplete block design) were performed in two sequentially related experiments, each assay comparing 4 and 8 mg of morphine with either 3 and 6 or 6 and 12 mg of nalbuphine. When both intensity and duration of analgesia are considered (i.e., total analgesic effect), nalbuphine was 0.8 to 0.9 times as potent as morphine. In terms of peak analgesic effect, nalbuphine was 0.7 to 0.8 times as potent. Both the time-effect curves and the relative potency estimates suggest that nalbuphine has a slightly longer duration of action than morphine at doses that are equianalgesic in terms of peak effect. Side effects of the type usually noted after the administration of potent injectable analgesics to postoperative patients were observed after both morphine and nalbuphine. Although nalbuphine is a potent narcotic antagonist, no psychotomimetic reactions were observed.

Volume 204, Issue 2, pp. 487-496, 02/01/1978
Copyright © 1978 by American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Drug Metab. Dispos.Home page
L.-H. Pao, C.-H. Hsiong, O. Y.-P. Hu, J.-J. Wang, and S.-T. Ho
IN VITRO AND IN VIVO EVALUATION OF THE METABOLISM AND PHARMACOKINETICS OF SEBACOYL DINALBUPHINE
Drug Metab. Dispos., March 1, 2005; 33(3): 395 - 402.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 The Annals of PharmacotherapyHome page
F. M Creekmore, R. A Lugo, and K. J Weiland
Postoperative Opiate Analgesia Requirements of Smokers and Nonsmokers
Ann. Pharmacother., June 1, 2004; 38(6): 949 - 953.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Emerg. Med. J.Home page
M Woollard, T Jones, K Pitt, and N Vetter
Hitting them where it hurts? Low dose nalbuphine therapy
Emerg. Med. J., November 1, 2002; 19(6): 565 - 570.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther.Home page
J. P. Zacny, K. Conley, and S. Marks
Comparing the Subjective, Psychomotor and Physiological Effects of Intravenous Nalbuphine and Morphine in Healthy Volunteers
J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., March 1, 1997; 280(3): 1159 - 1169.
[Abstract] [Full Text]

Home page
 Palliat MedHome page
G. Hanks and P. Hoskin
Review article : Opioid analgesics in the management of pain in patients with cancer. A review
Palliative Medicine, January 1, 1987; 1(1): 1 - 25.
[PDF]


Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
All ASPET Journals Molecular Pharmacology Pharmacological Reviews
Molecular Interventions Drug Metabolism and Disposition

Copyright © 1978 by the American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics.