Comparison of continuous subcutaneous and intravenous hydromorphone infusions for management of cancer pain

Abstract

To compare the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous and intravenous infusion of opioid analgesics, a randomised, double-blind, crossover trial was carried out in inpatients. 15 patients with severe cancer pain received two 48 h infusions of hydromorphone--one subcutaneously and one intravenously in randomly allocated order. The study was made double-blind by the use of two infusion pumps throughout; during the active subcutaneous infusion the intravenous pump delivered saline and vice versa. Serial measurements of pain intensity, pain relief, mood, and sedation by means of visual analogue scales showed no clinically or statistically significant difference between the two infusion routes. Side-effects were slight, and the mean number of morphine injections for breakthrough pain did not differ significantly between the routes (4.8 [SD 4.5] for intravenous vs 5.3 [5.6] for subcutaneous). Plasma hydromorphone concentrations measured at 24 h and 48 h of infusion showed stable steady-state pharmacokinetics; the mean bioavailability from subcutaneous infusion was 78% of that with intravenous infusion. Because of the simplicity, technical advantages, and cost-effectiveness of continuous subcutaneous opioid infusion into the chest wall or trunk, intravenous opioid infusion for the management of severe cancer pain should be abandoned.