BACKGROUND: Cancer pain significantly impacts individuals\' quality of life, with opioids being employed as the primary means for pain relief. Nevertheless, concerns persist regarding the adverse reactions and effectiveness of opioids such as morphine. Hydromorphone, recognized as a potent opioid, is a viable alternative for managing cancer-related pain. The goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the effectiveness and safety characteristics of hydromorphone in comparison to other opioids, as well as different methods of administering this medication within the scope of cancer pain treatment.
METHODS: The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched on December 25th, 2023. Following the PRISMA guidelines, a systematic investigation of databases was carried out, and suitable studies were chosen according to predetermined criteria (PICO framework). The meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model.
RESULTS: This review included 18 RCTs with 2271 patients who compared hydromorphone with morphine, oxycodone, or fentanyl, as well as other types of hydromorphone. Hydromorphone demonstrated efficacy similar to that of morphine and oxycodone in reducing cancer pain intensity, decreasing additional analgesic consumption, and improving quality of life. However, morphine showed slight superiority over hydromorphone in reducing breakthrough pain. Adverse events were comparable between hydromorphone and morphine or oxycodone. Patient-controlled and clinician-controlled hydromorphone administration routes yielded similar outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes of this study substantiate the efficacy of hydromorphone in the management of cancer-related pain, demonstrating similar levels of effectiveness and safety as morphine and oxycodone. These findings are consistent with prior comprehensive analyses, suggesting that hydromorphone is a feasible choice for alleviating cancer-associated pain. Additional investigations are warranted to determine its efficacy in distinct patient cohorts and for different modes of administration.
BACKGROUND: Prospero registration ID: CRD42024517513. Link: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails .

BACKGROUND: Supervised injectable opioid treatment (SIOT) is an evidence-based intervention targeting opioid-dependent people for whom existing treatments have been ineffective. This project will primarily assess the feasibility and the acceptability of time-limited SIOT using injectable hydromorphone delivered in an existing Australian public opioid treatment programme, with secondary outcomes of safety, cost, changes in drug use and other health outcomes. If feasible, the goal is to scale up the intervention to be more widely available in Australia.
METHODS: Between 20 and 30 participants will be offered two times per day hydromorphone to inject under direct observation, in addition to their current opioid agonist treatment (OAT), for up to 2 years. At the end of 2 years of supervised hydromorphone treatment, participants will be continued on standard OAT only. Informed consent will be obtained from all participants included in the study. This is a single-site, uncontrolled, open-label study where quantitative and qualitative interview data will be collected at baseline, 12 months and lastly at 3 months following their final hydromorphone dose. The main outcome measures are feasibility, as assessed by recruitment, retention and participation in treatment, and acceptability to participants, clinic staff and other stakeholders assessed by qualitative interviews. Secondary outcome measures of safety, as assessed by adverse events, and cost will also be assessed, as well as a range of other drug and health outcomes.
BACKGROUND: This study received ethical approval from the St Vincent\'s Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (2019/ETH00418). This will be the first study of time-limited SIOT in the Australian setting. All results will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals, scientific conferences and local practice meetings. A preliminary report on outcomes will also be presented to local health policy makers. A consumer and community forum will also be held to feedback results to a broader audience.
BACKGROUND: ACTRN12621001729819.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical trials support injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) for individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) for whom other pharmacological management approaches are not well-suited. However, despite substantial research indicating that person-centered care improves engagement, retention and health outcomes for individuals with OUD, structural requirements (e.g. drug policies) often dictate how iOAT must be delivered, regardless of client preferences. This study aimed to quantify clients\' iOAT delivery preferences to improve client engagement and retention.
METHODS: Cross-sectional preference elicitation survey.
METHODS: Metro Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
METHODS: 124 current and former iOAT clients.
METHODS: Participants completed a demographic questionnaire package and an interviewer-led preference elicitation survey (case 2 best-worst scaling task). Latent class analysis was used to identify distinct preference groups and explore demographic differences between preference groups.
RESULTS: Most participants (n = 100; 81%) were current iOAT clients. Latent class analysis identified two distinct groups of client preferences: (1) autonomous decision-makers (n = 73; 59%) and (2) shared decision-makers (n = 51; 41%). These groups had different preferences for how medication type and dosage were selected. Both groups prioritized access to take-home medication (i.e. carries), the ability to set their own schedule, receiving iOAT in a space they like and having other services available at iOAT clinics. Compared with shared decision-makers, fewer autonomous decision-makers identified as a cis-male/man and reported flexible preferences.
CONCLUSIONS: Injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) clients surveyed in Vancouver, Canada, appear to prefer greater autonomy than they currently have in choosing OAT medication type, dosage and treatment schedule.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the effects of patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) with and without low-basal infusion on postoperative hypoxaemia.
METHODS: A randomised parallel-group non-inferiority trial.
METHODS: The trial was conducted at a grade-A tertiary hospital from December 2021 to August 2022.
METHODS: 160 adults undergoing gastrointestinal tumour surgery and receiving postoperative PCIA.
METHODS: Participants randomly received a low-basal (0.1 mg/hour of hydromorphone) or no-basal infusion PCIA for postoperative 48 hours.
METHODS: Primary outcome was area under curve (AUC) per hour for hypoxaemia, defined as pulse oxygen saturation (SpO2) <95%. Secondary outcomes included: AUC per hour at SpO2<90% and <85%, hydromorphone consumption, ambulation time and analgesic outcomes up to 48 hours after surgery.
RESULTS: Among 160 randomised patients, 159 completed the trial. An intention-to-treat analysis showed that AUC per hour (SpO2<95%) was greater in the low-basal infusion group compared with the no-basal infusion group, with a median difference of 0.097 (95% CI 0.001 to 0.245). Non-inferiority (margin: ratio of means (ROM) of 1.25) was not confirmed since the ROM between the two groups was 2.146 (95% CI 2.138 to 2.155). Hydromorphone consumption was higher in the low-basal group than in the no-basal group (median: 5.2 mg versus 1.6 mg, p<0.001). Meanwhile, there were no differences in the AUC values at the other two hypoxaemia thresholds, in ambulation time, or pain scores between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Among the patients receiving hydromorphone PCIA after gastrointestinal tumour resection, low-basal infusion was inferior to no-basal infusion PCIA for postoperative hypoxaemia at SpO2<95% up to 48 hours after surgery.
BACKGROUND: ChiCTR2100054317.

BACKGROUND: The number of persons using opioids has increased worldwide in the last decade, particularly the use of opioid analgesics in North America and Africa. In Germany, the prevalence of heroin addiction has remained relatively stable.
METHODS: Narrative review of the literature.
RESULTS: Opioid-assisted maintenance treatment (OMT) with the established substances methadone, levomethadone, slow-release morphine and buprenorphine is recommended as the first-line treatment for heroin dependence. The OMT reduces the use of heroin, mortality and individual suffering and improves the quality of life and physical health. A diamorphine and heroine-assisted treatment is an option for people who do not benefit from conventional OMT. An alternative to the use of diamorphine could be treatment with hydromorphone hydrochloride. The regulations on carrying out maintenance treatment in the Controlled Substances Prescription Act and the guidelines of the Federal Medical Association in Germany have been loosened based on the experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic, for example with respect to take-home prescriptions. There is an ongoing intensive discussion on how to deal with the decreasing number of outpatient clinics offering OMT.
CONCLUSIONS: The first-line treatment for opioid addiction is opioid-assisted substitution treatment, including diamorphine and heroin-assisted treatment. Long-acting depot medications and implants still play a subordinate role.
UNASSIGNED: HINTERGRUND: Die Zahl opioidkonsumierender Personen ist weltweit seit mehr als einem Jahrzehnt ansteigend, insbesondere der Konsum von Opioidanalgetika in Nordamerika und Afrika. In Deutschland ist die Anzahl heroinabhängiger Menschen weitgehend konstant.
METHODS: Narrative Literaturübersicht.
UNASSIGNED: Die opioidgestützte Substitutionsbehandlung mit den etablierten Substanzen Methadon, Levomethadon, retardiertes Morphin und Buprenorphin ist die Therapie der ersten Wahl bei Menschen mit Heroinabhängigkeit. Hierunter werden der Heroinkonsum, die Mortalität und die Belastungen der Betroffenen gesenkt sowie die Lebensqualität und die körperliche Gesundheit verbessert. Für Personen, die von diesen Therapien nicht profitieren, ist eine diamorphin-/heroingestützte Behandlung indiziert. Eine Alternative zum Einsatz von Diamorphin könnte in Zukunft eine Behandlung mit Hydromorphonhydrochlorid sein. Basierend auf den Erfahrungen der COVID-19(„coronavirus disease 2019“)-Pandemie wurde die Regelungen zur Durchführung der Substitutionsbehandlung in der Betäubungsmittel-Verschreibungsverordnung bzw. den Richtlinien der Bundesärztekammer z. B. im Hinblick auf die Take-Home-Verschreibung etwas gelockert. Es gibt eine intensive Diskussion, wie dem Trend der abnehmenden Zahl opioidsubstituierender Ärzt:innen entgegengesteuert werden kann.
UNASSIGNED: Die Behandlung der Opioidabhängigkeit erfolgt als Regelbehandlung durch die opioidgestützte Substitutionsbehandlung, einschließlich der diamorphin-/heroingestützten Behandlung. Depot und Implantate spielen weiterhin nur eine untergeordnete Rolle.

BACKGROUND: Postpartum urinary retention is a common complication following caesarean section, with significant implications for patient comfort and recovery. Combined spinal and epidural anaesthesia is frequently employed for caesarean section, but postpartum urinary retention remains a clinical concern despite its benefits. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of hydromorphone hydrochloride combined with bupivacaine for combined spinal and epidural anaesthesia in reducing postpartum urinary retention.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients who received combined spinal and epidural anaesthesia for caesarean section. The control group received bupivacaine, whereas the hydromorphone hydrochloride combined with bupivacaine spinal-epidural anaesthesia (HB) group received hydromorphone hydrochloride combined with bupivacaine. Data on demographics, anaesthesia, operative characteristics, postoperative urinary retention and adverse events were collected and analysed.
RESULTS: The study enrolled 105 patients, with a control group (n = 51) receiving bupivacaine spinal-epidural anaesthesia and an observation group (n = 54) receiving hydromorphone hydrochloride combined with bupivacaine spinal-epidural anaesthesia. The incidence of postoperative urinary retention was significantly lower in the HB group than in the control group (3.70% vs. 17.65%, p = 0.044). Furthermore, the HB group exhibited a shorter time to first voiding after anaesthesia (5.72 ± 1.26 h vs. 6.28 ± 1.35 h, p = 0.029), lower peak postvoid residual volume (168.57 ± 25.09 mL vs. 180.43 ± 30.21 mL, p = 0.032), decreased need for postoperative catheterisation (5.56% vs. 21.57%, p = 0.034) and shorter duration of urinary catheterisation (10.92 ± 2.61 h vs. 12.04 ± 2.87 h, p = 0.039) than the control group. Correlation analysis supported a negative correlation between hydromorphone supplementation and parameters related to postoperative urinary retention. Multivariate regression analysis demonstrated a significant association between the duration of urinary catheterisation and the use of hydromorphone with the occurrence of postoperative urinary retention, providing further insights into the multifactorial nature of this postoperative complication.
CONCLUSIONS: The addition of hydromorphone hydrochloride to bupivacaine for combined spinal and epidural anaesthesia was associated with a reduced incidence of postpartum urinary retention and improved postoperative voiding parameters, without significantly increasing the risk of adverse events.

BACKGROUND: Combining hydromorphone with ropivacaine in ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane blocks enhances postoperative analgesia and reduces interleukin-6 expression in breast surgery patients.
METHODS: In this study, breast cancer patients undergoing modified radical mastectomy were randomized into 3 groups for anesthesia (30 patients in each group): standard general (group C), Erector Spinae Plane Block (ESPB) with ropivacaine (group R), and ESPB with ropivacaine plus hydromorphone (group HR). Diagnosis: Breast cancer patients. Postsurgery, pain levels, IL-6, anesthetic doses, additional analgesia needs, and recovery milestones were compared to evaluate the efficacy of the ESPB enhancements.
RESULTS: The 3 groups were not significantly different in baseline characteristics, operation time, number of cases with postoperative nausea, and serum IL-6 concentrations at T1 (the time of being returned to the ward after surgery). At T2 (at 6:00 in the next morning after surgery), the serum IL-6 concentration in group HR was significantly lower than that in groups R and C (P < .05); the intraoperative doses of remifentanil, sufentanil, and propofol were significantly lower in groups HR and R than those in group C (P < .05); Groups HR and R had significantly lower visual analog scale scores at T3 (4 hours postoperatively), T4 (12 hours postoperatively), and T5 (24 hours postoperatively) than those in group C (P < .05); the proportions of patients receiving postoperative remedial analgesia were significantly lower in groups HR and R than in group C (P < .05); groups HR and R had significantly lower proportions of patients with postoperative nausea than group C (P < .05); the time to the first anal exhaust and the time to the first ambulation after surgery were significantly shorter in groups HR and R than those in group C (P < .05).
CONCLUSIONS: Hydromorphone combined with ropivacaine for ESPB achieved a greater postoperative analgesic effect for patients receiving MRM under general anesthesia. The combined analgesia caused fewer adverse reactions and inhibited the expression level of the inflammatory factor IL-6 more effectively, thereby facilitating postoperative recovery. ESPB using hydromorphone with ropivacaine improved pain control post-MRM, reduced adverse effects, and more effectively suppressed IL-6, enhancing recovery.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the analgesic effect and adverse events of hydromorphone patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) without background dose versus sufentanil PCIA with background dose in patients after surgery.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis.
METHODS: From June 2020 to May 2021, 1,594 eligible postoperative patients who received PCIA were included in this study. According to the types of opioids, patients were divided into two groups: the sufentanil group and the hydromorphone group. The Numerical Rating Scale, Functional Activity Scale, and Level of Sedation were used to evaluate the analgesic effects between the two groups. In addition, total patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) use, effective number of PCA compressions, and adverse effects of PCIA were compared between the two groups.
RESULTS: At 24 hours (h) after surgery, the Functional Activity Scale score in the sufentanil group was higher than that in the hydromorphone group (P < .05). Compared with the sufentanil group, total PCA use, total number of PCA compressions and effective number of PCA consumptions were significantly decreased in the hydromorphone group during a 48 hours period (P < .05). There were no statistical differences in Numerical Rating Scale score, Level of Sedation score, and adverse events between two groups at 24 hours and 48 hours after surgery.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with sufentanil PCIA with a background dose, under a similar analgesic effect, hydromorphone PCIA without a background dose provided lower PCA use. Our findings may provide useful evidence for more future studies related to postoperative analgesia.

Understanding the intricate relationship between cancer clinicopathological features and anesthetics dosage is crucial for optimizing patient outcomes and safety during surgery. This retrospective study investigates this relationship in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) undergoing video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS). A comprehensive analysis of medical records was undertaken for NSCLC patients who underwent VATS with intravenous compound inhalation general anesthesia. Patients were categorized based on histological, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and epidural anesthesia factors. Statistical analysis was performed to compare the differences between the groups. The results revealed compelling insights. Specifically, patients with lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) undergoing VATS exhibited higher dosages of rocuronium bromide and midazolam during general anesthesia, coupled with a shorter post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) stay compared to those with squamous cell carcinoma (sqCL). Furthermore, chemotherapy patients undergoing VATS demonstrated diminished requirements for phenylephrine and remifentanil in contrast to their non-chemotherapy counterparts. Similarly, radiotherapy patients undergoing VATS demonstrated a decreased necessity for rocuronium bromide compared to non-radiotherapy patients. Notably, patients who received epidural anesthesia in combination with general anesthesia manifested reduced hydromorphone requirements and prolonged hospital stays compared to those subjected to general anesthesia alone. In conclusion, the findings from this study indicate several important observations in diverse patient groups undergoing VATS. The higher dosages of rocuronium bromide and midazolam in LUAD patients point to potential differences in drug requirements among varying lung cancer types. Additionally, the observed shorter PACU stay in LUAD patients suggests a potentially expedited recovery process. The reduced anesthetic requirements of phenylephrine and remifentanilin chemotherapy patients indicate distinct responses to anesthesia and pain management. Radiotherapy patients requiring lower doses of rocuronium bromide imply a potential impact of prior radiotherapy on muscle relaxation. Finally, the combination of epidural anesthesia with general anesthesia resulted in reduced hydromorphone requirements and longer hospital stays, suggesting the potential benefits of this combined approach in terms of pain management and postoperative recovery. These findings highlight the importance of tailoring anesthesia strategies for specific patient populations to optimize outcomes in VATS procedures.

BACKGROUND: As rates of opioid use disorder in the general population have increased, some have questioned whether IV opioids should be used routinely for treatment of acute severe pain in the emergency department (ED).
OBJECTIVE: We determined the incidence of persistent opioid use among opioid-naïve patients exposed to IV opioids in the ED.
METHODS: This was a prospective observational cohort study conducted in two EDs in the Bronx, NY. Opioid-naïve adults with severe pain who received IV opioids in the ED were followed-up 6 months later by telephone interview and review of the state opioid prescription database. We defined persistent opioid use as filling 6 or more prescriptions for opioids in the 6 months following the ED visit or an average of one prescription per month.
RESULTS: We screened 1555 patients. Of these, 506 patients met entry criteria and provided analyzable data. Morphine was the IV opioid most frequently administered in the ED (478, 94%), followed by hydromorphone (20, 4%). Of the 506, 8 (2%) received both IV morphine and hydromorphone and 63 (12%) participants were prescribed an opioid for use after the ED visit. One patient/506 (0%) met our apriori criteria for persistent opioid use within 6 months.
CONCLUSIONS: Among 506 opioid naïve ED patients administered IV opioids for acute severe pain, only one used opioids persistently during the subsequent 6 months.