MEDLINE/PubMed Journal Browser Search

Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

Title: Efficacy and safety profile of a single dose of hydromorphone compared with morphine in older adults with acute, severe pain: a prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial.
Author: Chang AK, Bijur PE, Baccelieri A, Gallagher EJ.
Journal: Am J Geriatr Pharmacother; 2009 Feb; 7(1):1-10. PubMed ID: 19281935.
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: Older adults (ie, those aged > or =65 years) are the fastest growing segment of the US population, with an estimated approximately 71 million expected by 2030. Over the past 10 years, there has been an 11% increase in the number of emergency department (ED) visits by older adults, and pain is their most common chief complaint. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to compare weight-based IV hydromorphone and IV morphine in adults aged > or =65 years presenting to the ED with acute, severe pain. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial of older adults with acute, severe pain at an adult, urban academic ED. Patients were randomly allocated to receive a single dose of 0.0075-mg/kg IV hydromorphone or 0.05-mg/kg IV morphine. The primary outcome was the between-group difference in decrease in pain from baseline to 30 minutes after the medications were infused. Patients' degree of pain was measured on a numerical rating scale (NRS) where "0" was defined as "no pain" and "10" was defined as "the worst pain possible." Adverse effects, pain reduction at 10 minutes and 2 hours postbaseline, patient evaluations of satisfaction and pain relief at 30 minutes postbaseline, and use of additional analgesics and antiemetics were tracked as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 194 patients were randomized to treatment; 183 patients (hydromorphone group, n = 93; morphine group, n = 90 [overall mean (SD) age, 75 (8) years]) had sufficient data for analysis at the primary end point of 30 minutes postbaseline. The mean decrease in pain from baseline to 30 minutes in patients allocated to IV hydromorphone was 3.8 versus 3.3 NRS units in patients allocated to IV morphine. This difference of 0.5 NRS unit (95% CI, -0.2 to 1.3) was neither clinically nor statistically significant. A majority of patients in both groups (57.0% randomized to hydromorphone and 58.9% randomized to morphine) failed to achieve a > or =50% reduction in pain within 30 minutes of treatment. The incidence of adverse effects from baseline to 30 minutes was not statistically different in the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: A single dose of IV hydromorphone at 0.0075 mg/kg was neither clinically nor statistically different from IV morphine at 0.05 mg/kg for the treatment of acute, severe pain at 30 minutes postbaseline in these older adults in the ED. The incidence of adverse effects was not statistically different. Our data suggest that hydromorphone and morphine in the doses given had similar efficacy and safety profiles in these older adults. Neither regimen provided > or =50% pain relief for the majority of patients. Future investigations of acute pain management in older adults should examine the efficacy and safety of higher initial (loading) doses of opioids titrated at frequent intervals until adequate analgesia is achieved.

[Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]