Department for Anesthesiology and Pain Management, The People's Hospital of Jizhou District, Tianjin, Tianjin, China.
Center for Anesthesiology, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Aug 5;8(8):CD011108. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011108.pub3.
BACKGROUND: This is an update of the original Cochrane Review first published in Issue 10, 2016. For people with advanced cancer, the prevalence of pain can be as high as 90%. Cancer pain is a distressing symptom that tends to worsen as the disease progresses. Evidence suggests that opioid pharmacotherapy is the most effective of these therapies. Hydromorphone appears to be an alternative opioid analgesic which may help relieve these symptoms. OBJECTIVES: To determine the analgesic efficacy of hydromorphone in relieving cancer pain, as well as the incidence and severity of any adverse events. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and clinical trials registers in November 2020. We applied no language, document type or publication status limitations to the search. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared hydromorphone with placebo, an alternative opioid or another active control, for cancer pain in adults and children. Primary outcomes were participant-reported pain intensity and pain relief; secondary outcomes were specific adverse events, serious adverse events, quality of life, leaving the study early and death. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data. We calculated risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for binary outcomes on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis. We estimated mean difference (MD) between groups and 95% CI for continuous data. We used a random-effects model and assessed risk of bias for all included studies. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created three summary of findings tables. MAIN RESULTS: With four new identified studies, the review includes a total of eight studies (1283 participants, with data for 1181 participants available for analysis), which compared hydromorphone with oxycodone (four studies), morphine (three studies) or fentanyl (one study). All studies included adults with cancer pain, mean age ranged around 53 to 59 years and the proportion of men ranged from 42% to 67.4%. We judged all the studies at high risk of bias overall because they had at least one domain with high risk of bias. We found no studies including children. We did not complete a meta-analysis for the primary outcome of pain intensity due to skewed data and different comparators investigated across the studies (oxycodone, morphine and fentanyl). Comparison 1: hydromorphone compared with placebo We identified no studies comparing hydromorphone with placebo. Comparison 2: hydromorphone compared with oxycodone Participant-reported pain intensity We found no clear evidence of a difference in pain intensity (measured using a visual analogue scale (VAS)) in people treated with hydromorphone compared with those treated with oxycodone, but the evidence is very uncertain (3 RCTs, 381 participants, very low-certainty evidence). Participant-reported pain relief We found no studies reporting participant-reported pain relief. Specific adverse events We found no clear evidence of a difference in nausea (RR 1.13 95% CI 0.74 to 1.73; 3 RCTs, 622 participants), vomiting (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.94; 3 RCTs, 622 participants), dizziness (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.44; 2 RCTs, 441 participants) and constipation (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.19; 622 participants) (all very low-certainty evidence) in people treated with hydromorphone compared with those treated with oxycodone, but the evidence is very uncertain. Quality of life We found no studies reporting quality of life. Comparison 3: hydromorphone compared with morphine Participant-reported pain intensity We found no clear evidence of a difference in pain intensity (measured using the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) or VAS)) in people treated with hydromorphone compared with those treated with morphine, but the evidence is very uncertain (2 RCTs, 433 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Participant-reported pain relief We found no clear evidence of a difference in the number of clinically improved participants, defined by 50% or greater pain relief rate, in the hydromorphone group compared with the morphine group, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.18; 1 RCT, 233 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Specific adverse events At 24 days of treatment, morphine may reduce constipation compared with hydromorphone, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.17; 1 RCT, 200 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We found no clear evidence of a difference in nausea (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.30; 1 RCT, 200 participants), vomiting (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.31; 1 RCT, 200 participants) and dizziness (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.88; 1 RCT, 200 participants) (all very low-certainty evidence) in people treated with hydromorphone compared with those treated with morphine, but the evidence is very uncertain. Quality of life We found no studies reporting quality of life. Comparison 4: hydromorphone compared with fentanyl Participant-reported pain intensity We found no clear evidence of a difference in pain intensity (measured by numerical rating scale (NRS)) at 60 minutes in people treated with hydromorphone compared with those treated with fentanyl, but the evidence is very uncertain (1 RCT, 82 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Participant-reported pain relief We found no studies reporting participant-reported pain relief. Specific adverse events We found no studies reporting specific adverse events. Quality of life We found no studies reporting quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence of the benefits and harms of hydromorphone compared with other analgesics is very uncertain. The studies reported some adverse events, such as nausea, vomiting, dizziness and constipation, but generally there was no clear evidence of a difference between hydromorphone and morphine, oxycodone or fentanyl for this outcome. There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of hydromorphone for cancer pain in comparison with other analgesics on the reported outcomes. Further research with larger sample sizes and more comprehensive outcome data collection is required.
背景:这是最初发表于 2016 年第 10 期的 Cochrane 综述的更新内容。对于晚期癌症患者,疼痛的发生率可能高达 90%。癌症疼痛是一种令人痛苦的症状,随着疾病的进展往往会恶化。有证据表明,阿片类药物疗法是最有效的治疗方法之一。氢吗啡酮似乎是一种替代阿片类镇痛药,可能有助于缓解这些症状。
目的:确定氢吗啡酮在缓解癌症疼痛方面的镇痛疗效,以及任何不良事件的发生率和严重程度。
检索方法:我们于 2020 年 11 月检索了 Cochrane 中心对照试验数据库(CENTRAL)、MEDLINE、Embase 和临床试验注册库。我们对检索没有语言、文件类型或出版状态的限制。
纳入标准:我们纳入了比较氢吗啡酮与安慰剂、其他阿片类药物或其他活性对照药物治疗成人和儿童癌症疼痛的随机对照试验(RCT)。主要结局是参与者报告的疼痛强度和疼痛缓解;次要结局是特定的不良事件、严重不良事件、生活质量、提前退出研究和死亡。
数据收集和分析:两名综述作者独立提取数据。我们根据意向治疗(ITT)原则计算了二分类结局的风险比(RR)和 95%置信区间(CI)。我们计算了组间均数差值(MD)和 95%CI 用于连续数据。我们使用随机效应模型评估所有纳入研究的偏倚风险。我们使用 GRADE 评估证据,并创建了三张总结结局表格。
主要结果:由于新纳入了四项研究,本综述共纳入八项研究(1283 名参与者,其中 1181 名参与者的数据可用于分析),比较了氢吗啡酮与羟考酮(四项研究)、吗啡(三项研究)或芬太尼(一项研究)。所有研究均纳入了癌症疼痛的成年人,平均年龄在 53 岁至 59 岁之间,男性比例在 42%至 67.4%之间。我们认为所有研究的总体偏倚风险都很高,因为它们在至少一个领域存在高偏倚风险。我们没有纳入包括儿童的研究。由于数据偏态和研究中调查的不同对照药物(羟考酮、吗啡和芬太尼),我们无法对疼痛强度这一主要结局进行荟萃分析。比较 1:氢吗啡酮与安慰剂我们没有发现比较氢吗啡酮与安慰剂的研究。比较 2:氢吗啡酮与羟考酮参与者报告的疼痛强度我们没有发现氢吗啡酮治疗组与羟考酮治疗组的疼痛强度(使用视觉模拟量表(VAS)测量)有明显差异,但证据非常不确定(3 项 RCT,381 名参与者,极低确定性证据)。参与者报告的疼痛缓解我们没有发现报告参与者报告的疼痛缓解的研究。特定的不良事件我们没有发现氢吗啡酮组与羟考酮组在恶心(RR 1.13,95%CI 0.74 至 1.73;3 项 RCT,622 名参与者)、呕吐(RR 1.18,95%CI 0.72 至 1.94;3 项 RCT,622 名参与者)、头晕(RR 0.91,95%CI 0.58 至 1.44;2 项 RCT,441 名参与者)和便秘(RR 0.92,95%CI 0.72 至 1.19;622 名参与者)方面有明显差异,证据非常不确定(所有极低确定性证据),但证据非常不确定。生活质量我们没有发现报告生活质量的研究。比较 3:氢吗啡酮与吗啡参与者报告的疼痛强度我们没有发现氢吗啡酮治疗组与吗啡治疗组的疼痛强度(使用简要疼痛量表(BPI)或 VAS 测量)有明显差异,但证据非常不确定(2 项 RCT,433 名参与者,极低确定性证据)。参与者报告的疼痛缓解我们没有发现氢吗啡酮组与吗啡组在临床上有更多的参与者报告疼痛缓解(定义为疼痛缓解率达到 50%或更高)的比例有明显差异,但证据非常不确定(RR 0.99,95%CI 0.84 至 1.18;1 项 RCT,233 名参与者,极低确定性证据)。特定的不良事件在 24 天的治疗期间,吗啡可能会比氢吗啡酮减少便秘,但是证据非常不确定(RR 1.56,95%CI 1.12 至 2.17;1 项 RCT,200 名参与者,极低确定性证据)。我们没有发现氢吗啡酮组与吗啡组在恶心(RR 0.94,95%CI 0.66 至 1.30;1 项 RCT,200 名参与者)、呕吐(RR 0.87,95%CI 0.58 至 1.31;1 项 RCT,200 名参与者)和头晕(RR 1.15,95%CI 0.71 至 1.88;1 项 RCT,200 名参与者)方面有明显差异,证据非常不确定(所有极低确定性证据),但证据非常不确定。生活质量我们没有发现报告生活质量的研究。比较 4:氢吗啡酮与芬太尼参与者报告的疼痛强度我们没有发现氢吗啡酮治疗组与芬太尼治疗组在 60 分钟时的疼痛强度(用数字评分量表(NRS)测量)有明显差异,但证据非常不确定(1 项 RCT,82 名参与者,极低确定性证据)。参与者报告的疼痛缓解我们没有发现报告参与者报告的疼痛缓解的研究。特定的不良事件我们没有发现报告特定不良事件的研究。生活质量我们没有发现报告生活质量的研究。
作者结论:氢吗啡酮与其他镇痛药相比的益处和危害的证据非常不确定。这些研究报告了一些不良反应,如恶心、呕吐、头晕和便秘,但一般来说,在这些结局方面,氢吗啡酮与吗啡、羟考酮或芬太尼之间没有明显的差异。需要进一步开展具有更大样本量和更全面结局数据收集的研究,以支持或反驳在报告的结局中使用氢吗啡酮治疗癌症疼痛。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021-8-5
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022-6-9
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022-5-19
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-6-5
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021-12-2
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025-6-9
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022-6-29
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022-4-26
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024-6-19
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025-1-29
Medicine (Baltimore). 2025-8-1
BMC Anesthesiol. 2024-8-9
Front Pain Res (Lausanne). 2023-9-22
Front Pediatr. 2022-4-25
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020-3-20
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019-10-3
Ann Oncol. 2018-10-1