4.6 Review

Comparative clinical effects of hydromorphone and morphine: a meta-analysis

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA
Volume 107, Issue 3, Pages 319-328

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1093/bja/aer232

Keywords

opioid; pharmacology

Categories

Funding

  1. Mundipharma Research, Limburg, Germany
  2. Astellas
  3. AWD
  4. Dr Kade
  5. Galderma
  6. Grunenthal
  7. Nycomed
  8. Merz
  9. Pfizer
  10. DFG
  11. BMBF
  12. EU
  13. 'Deutsche Gesellschaft zum Studium des Schmerzes e.V.' (Boppard, Germany)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We have conducted a meta-analysis of the clinical effects of morphine and hydromorphone to compare their benefit in analgesia. Embase and Medline were searched with an end-date of June 2009 for randomized, controlled trials or observational studies that addressed comparative analgesic and side-effects or particular side-effects. Two researchers independently identified included studies and extracted the data. Estimates of opioid effects were combined by using a random-effects model. Meta-analysis of eight studies suggested that hydromorphone (494 patients) provides slightly better (P=0.012) clinical analgesia than morphine (510 patients). The effect-size was small (Cohen's d=0.266) and disappeared when one study was removed, although the advantage of hydromorphone was more evident in studies of better quality (Jadad's rating). Side-effects were similar, for example, nausea (P=0.383, nine studies, 456 patients receiving hydromorphone and 460 morphine); vomiting (P=0.306, six studies, 246 patients receiving hydromorphone and 239 morphine); or itching (P=0.249, eight studies, 405 patients receiving hydromorphone, 410 morphine). This suggests some advantage of hydromorphone over morphine for analgesia. Additional potential clinical pharmacological advantages with regard to side-effects, such as safety in renal failure or during acute analgesia titration, are based on limited evidence and require substantiation by further studies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available