Clinical analgesic assay of repeated and single doses of heroin and hydromorphone. A multidimensional comparison of morphine and hydromorphone patient-controlled analgesia. Epidural hydromorphone for postcesarean analgesia. [Postoperative pain therapy with hydromorphone and metamizole. A prospective randomized study in intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (PCA)]. Comparative efficacy of patient-controlled administration of morphine, hydromorphone, or sufentanil for the treatment of oral mucositis pain following bone marrow transplantation. Comparison of epidural morphine, hydromorphone and fentanyl for postoperative pain control in children undergoing orthopaedic surgery. Safety and efficacy of hydromorphone as an analgesic alternative to morphine in acute pain: a randomized clinical trial. Morphine and hydromorphone epidural analgesia. A prospective, randomized comparison. Patient-controlled analgesia for mucositis pain in children: a three-period crossover study comparing morphine and hydromorphone.
A direct comparison of the analgesic activities of heroin and hydromorphone was carried out in cancer patients with postsurgical pain. Intramuscular doses of 5 and 10 mg of heroin were compared with 1 and 2 mg of hydromorphone in a randomized, double-blind, 4-point parallel group assay. Design innovations in the study provided that about half the patients would receive prior repeated doses of the same drug as the test medication, and half would receive the alternate medication. Both test drugs were found to be potent, relatively short acting analgesics with similar profiles of action. Hydromorphone was about 5 times as potent as heroin on a milligram basis. The comparison of those patients who had repeated doses of the same treatment prior to the test dose and those who had repeated doses of the alternate drug demonstrated no significant effect on the relative potency estimates. Side effect occurrence was similar for both drugs, with sleepiness the most prominent effect. The study supports the view that hydromorphone and heroin produce similar clinical effects, and that either drug may adequately substitute for the other. Covariate analysis indicated that time since last analgesic was positively related to analgesia, and amount of prior opioid had a negative relationship. To a lesser extent, increase in patient age was associated with an increase in analgesic scores. Taking these covariates into account served to increase the sensitivity of the analysis. Although patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) pumps have been in use for more than a decade, the optimal PCA analgesic has yet to be identified. Many drugs are used; however, morphine remains the "gold standard" of opioid analgesics worldwide. The present study evaluated morphine and hydromorphone (Dilaudid) PCA with respect to analgesic efficacy, side effects, mood, and cognitive function. Sixty-one opioid naive patients undergoing lower abdominal surgery participated in the double-blind protocol. Verbal rating scores, use of medication, and side effects for the two medications were recorded. Cognitive functioning was assessed by computation of Digit Symbol and Trails Making B Tests. Self-reported affective state (mood) was measured by Profile of Mood States (POMS) inventory. Both medications provided adequate analgesia without a difference in side effects. Cognitive performance was poorer in the hydromorphone group (P < 0.05). Patients receiving hydromorphone reported less anger/hostility (P < 0.01) and generally better mood elevations on the other subscales than those receiving morphine. A similar incidence of side effects and dose medication can be anticipated with morphine and hydromorphone. When considering cognitive effects, morphine had less adverse consequences, while hydromorphone appeared to result in improved mood. We conclude that hydromorphone may provide a suitable alternative to morphine. The efficacy of epidurally administered hydromorphone for postcesarean analgesia was evaluated in a prospective, randomized, double-blind study. Patients in group H (N = 26) received 1.0 mg of hydromorphone in preservative-free saline (total volume = 10 mL), administered epidurally. Patients in group B (N = 26) received 10 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine, administered epidurally. Both groups subsequently received intramuscular injections of hydromorphone as needed. There were significant differences between the two groups in pain score, patient assessment of analgesia quality, time to first analgesic intervention, and total dosage of hydromorphone during the first 24 hours. Nausea/vomiting and pruritus occurred more frequently in group H. No patient had a respiratory rate less than or equal to 10. There were no statistically significant differences between groups in mean times to first ambulation, first void, first passage of flatus, or hospital discharge. Most potent opioid analgesics available in Germany have been investigated for use in postoperative patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). To conclude an older comparative series, it was the aim of the present study to define analgesic potency, side effects and patient acceptance of hydromorphone and its interaction with the non-opioid analgesic metamizole. A total of 120 patients recovering from elective abdominal or orthopaedic surgery, performed under standardised general anaesthesia, were randomised into 3 double-blind treatment groups to receive intravenous PCA demand doses of hydromorphone 283 micrograms (low dose, LD), 566 micrograms (high dose, HD) or a combination of hydromorphone 283 micrograms and metamizole 50 mg (low dose hydromorphone + metamizole, LM). Demand-independent low-dose background infusions were added to deliver hydromorphone at 67.9 micrograms/h in all groups, with additional metamizole at 12 mg/h in group LM. Lockout times were set to 2 min. After an average observation time of 24.5 +/- 2.6 h (mean, SD) since start of PCA, cumulative PCA hydromorphone doses in groups LD, HD and LM were 7.8 +/- 3.3, 12.1 +/- 4.8 and 7.5 +/- 2.0 mg, respectively, with the well known large inter-individual variability in all groups. Although hydromorphone consumption was significantly higher in group HD, self-reported pain intensities (VAS, retrospective pain scores) were quite comparable between the groups. Low dose, PCA bolus-linked metamizole did not significantly reduce hydromorphone consumption nor improve patient acceptance. Side-effects were typical for potent postoperative opioids, but never required special treatment; haemodynamic or respiratory complications were not observed in any patient. It can be concluded by comparison with other PCA opioid investigations performed under the same study protocol that hydromorphone is about 3-4 times as potent an analgesic as morphine under the conditions of intravenous postoperative PCA. Due to a favourable patient acceptance, hydromorphone can be recommended as a suitable alternative to other opioids for the treatment of postoperative pain. A total of 119 bone marrow transplant patients suffering from oral mucositis pain were enrolled in a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial comparing the efficacy of patient-controlled analgesia with morphine, hydromorphone and sufentanil. Patient ratings of pain and side-effects on visual analog scales were gathered daily from the start of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) therapy until the discontinuation of opioid treatment either because of resolution of oral mucositis pain, intolerable side-effects, inadequate pain control, or complications related to transplantation. Of the 119 enrolled subjects, 100 met the evaluable criteria of developing oral mucositis and remaining on the study for at least 2 days. Multivariate analysis of the outcome measures indicated that the analgesia achieved in all three opioid groups was nearly equivalent, while measures of side-effects, especially for the combination of sedation, sleep and mood disturbances, were statistically lower in the morphine group than in hydromorphone or sufentanil groups. Patients in the hydromorphone group exhibited the most variability in pain control. Event analysis also indicated significant differences in time to treatment failure between the three groups, with the morphine arm exhibiting clear superiority. The proportion of patients discontinued because of inadequate pain relief was much higher in the sufentanil group (7/36) as compared to the hydromorphone (0/34) or the morphine group (1/30). The daily opioid consumption pattern showed a continual dose escalation during the first week of therapy for all groups, coincident with worsening mucositis. Morphine consumption reached a plateau by day 5, whereas hydromorphone and sufentanil consumption continued to rise until days 7 and 9, respectively. Sufentanil dose requirement increased by approximately 10-fold compared to morphine and hydromorphone, whose requirements increased only 5-fold, suggesting the possibility of development of acute pharmacological tolerance in some patients with this phenylpiperidine opioid. This study provides support for the recommendation that morphine is the opioid of first choice when patient-controlled analgesia is employed for the treatment of severe oropharyngeal pain in bone marrow transplantation (BMT) patients. 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. We compare a standard weight-based dose of intravenous hydromorphone (Dilaudid) to a standard weight-based dose of intravenous morphine in adults presenting to the ED with acute severe pain.
                This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, clinical trial conducted in an academic medical center. Of the 198 adult patients presenting to the ED with acute severe pain who were randomized to receive either intravenous hydromorphone at 0.015 mg/kg or intravenous morphine at 0.1 mg/kg, 191 patients had sufficient data for analysis. The main outcome measure was the difference between the 2 groups in pain reduction at 30 minutes as measured on a validated numeric rating scale. Adverse effects, pain reduction at 5 minutes and 2 hours postbaseline, and additional analgesics and antiemetics were tracked as secondary outcome measures.
                The mean change of pain from baseline to 30 minutes postbaseline in patients allocated to intravenous hydromorphone was -5.5 numeric rating scale units versus -4.1 in patients allocated to intravenous morphine (difference -1.3; 95% confidence interval -2.2 to -0.5). Adverse effects were similar in both groups, with the exception of pruritus, which did not occur in patients receiving hydromorphone (0% versus 6% [difference -6%; 95% confidence interval -11% to -1%]). No patient required naloxone.
                For the treatment of acute, severe pain in the emergency department, intravenous hydromorphone at 0.015 mg/kg represents a feasible alternative to intravenous morphine at 0.1 mg/kg. Because evidence from uncontrolled, unblinded studies suggested fewer side effects from epidural hydromorphone than from epidural morphine, we employed a randomized, blinded study design to compare the side effects of lumbar epidural morphine and hydromorphone in 55 adult, non-obstetric patients undergoing major surgical procedures. A bolus dose of epidural study drug was given at least 1 h prior to the conclusion of surgery, followed by a continuous infusion of the same drug for two postoperative days. Infusions were titrated to patient comfort. Visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores, VAS sedation scores, and subjective ratings of nausea and pruritus were assessed twice daily. The two treatments provided equivalent analgesia. Sedation scores and prevalence of nausea did not differ significantly between groups. Prevalence of pruritus, however, differed significantly on postoperative day 1, with moderate to severe pruritus reported by 44.4% of patients in the morphine group versus 11.5% in the hydromorphone group (P < .01). On post-operative day 2, reports of pruritus by patients receiving morphine remained higher than those among the hydromorphone-treated subjects, although this difference was no longer statistically significant (32% vs. 16.7%, P = .18). We conclude that lumbar epidural morphine and hydromorphone afford comparable analgesia, but the occurrence of moderate to severe pruritus on the first postoperative day is reduced by the use of hydromorphone. (1) To test the safety and efficacy of a clinical protocol for administering opioid by using patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) for the management of mucositis pain in children after bone marrow transplantation, (2) to compare the efficacy, side-effect profile, and potency ratio of morphine with those of hydromorphone by using PCA as the method of opioid administration, and (3) to obtain pharmacokinetic data on hydromorphone and morphine in this population of children.
                In this double-blind, three-period crossover study, patients were randomly assigned to receive either morphine (group 1) or hydromorphone (group 2) initially by means of PCA on days 1, 2, and 3 (period 1), to be followed on days 4, 5, and 6 (period 2) with the alternative opioid, followed by the opioid used at the commencement of the study on days 7, 8, and 9 (period 3). A clinical protocol for calculating the PCA commencement opioid dose and subsequent opioid-dose escalation was tested by measures of safety and efficacy. Measures of pain intensity and opioid side effects were made during the three periods. On the last study day (day 10), patients received a continuous infusion of opioid derived from the previous 24-hour PCA opioid requirement, and blood specimens were collected and stored for subsequent opioid analysis.
                Ten patients were enrolled in this study. Rapid escalation in opioid requirement commonly occurred at the commencement of PCA, followed by a variable plateau phase and then deescalation of opioid requirement after mucositis resolution. The measures demonstrated the safety and efficacy of the clinical protocol. In the concentrations used, there was no statistical difference between the mean daily pain, sedation, nausea and vomiting, and pruritus scores for both opioids (Friedman test). The analysis of variance of the log-total opioid doses per patient during periods 1, 2, and 3 indicated that patients used 27% more hydromorphone than expected from its presumed 7:1 ratio relative to morphine potency used in the PCA infusions. The mean plasma hydromorphone concentration was 4.7 ng/ml (range, 1.9 to 8.9 ng/ml), and the mean clearance was 51.7 ml/min per kilogram of body weight (range, 28.6 to 98.2 ml/min per kilogram). The mean plasma morphine, morphine-6-glucuronide, and morphine-3-glucuronide concentrations were 40.0 ng/ml (range, 15 to 62.5), 168.2 ng/ml (range, 54.4 to 231.9), and 391.0 ng/ml (range, 149.4 to 921.7), respectively. The mean morphine clearance was 34.3 ml/min per kilogram of body weight (range, 19.3 to 58.3). The mean molar ratios of morphine-6-glucuronide/morphine, morphine-3-glucoronide/morphine, and morphine-3-glucuronide/morphine-6-glucuronide were 2.48 (range, 1.4 to 3.3), 5.82 (range, 3.4 to 9.1), and 2.46 (range, 1.1 to 3.3), respectively.
                The safety and efficacy of a clinical protocol for the administration of opioids by means of PCA for mucositis pain after bone marrow transplantation was demonstrated. In this small study, hydromorphone was not superior to morphine in terms of analgesia or the side-effect profile: a larger study would be needed to show a difference. The clearances of hydromorphone and morphine in the children studied were generally greater than those previously recorded, but this finding may be related to disease or treatment variables. Apart from clearance, the morphine pharmacokinetics in the study population were similar to those previously recorded. Hydromorphone may be less potent in this population of children than indicated by adult equipotency tables.
The studies were varied in terms of quality and methodology. However, the majority demonstrated that hydromorphone is a potent analgesic, that the effects of hydromorphone appear to be dose-related, and that adverse effects are similar to those of other mu opioid receptor agonists. Since the last version of this review, none of the new relevant studies have provided significant additional information.