Study on the efficacy and rotation pattern of Hydromorphone hydrochloride extended-release tablets in the treatment of chronic cancer-related pain
- VernacularTitle:盐酸氢吗啡酮缓释片治疗慢性癌痛的疗效及轮换模式研究
- Author:
Qiuling ZHAO
1
;
Yanling CHEN
1
;
Liangliang DONG
1
;
Juan CHEN
1
;
Shengqiang HUANG
1
;
Lin YANG
1
Author Information
1. Clinical Oncology School of Fujian Medical University，Fujian Cancer Hospital，Fuzhou 350014，China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Hydromorphone hydrochloride extended-release tablets;
opioid drugs;
drug rotation;
chronic cancer-related pain;
analgesic therapy;
adverse drug reactions
- From:
China Pharmacy
2026;37(12):1590-1595
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Hydromorphone hydrochloride extended-release tablets （HHERT） in the treatment of chronic cancer-related pain （CCRP） in real-world settings， and to explore the effectiveness and reasons for rotation patterns between HHERT and other opioid drugs （OOD）. METHODS Data were retrospectively collected from 142 CCRP patients receiving strong opioid therapy at Fujian Cancer Hospital from January to December 2025. Patients were divided into the continuous HHERT group and the drug rotation group based on medication status. The efficacy and incidence of adverse reactions were compared between the two groups. The drug rotation group was further subdivided into the OOD-HHERT group （rotated from OOD to HHERT） and the HHERT-OOD group （rotated from HHERT to OOD）. Dose conversion coefficients were compared with guideline recommendations， and pain relief status， rotation types and reasons for rotation were analyzed between the two subgroups. RESULTS In the 142 CCRP patients， 107 achieved pain relief， with an overall response rate of 75.35%. After 4 weeks of treatment， there was a statistically significant difference in efficacy between the continuous HHERT group and the drug rotation group （ P ＜0.05）. A total of 110 adverse reactions occurred in 86 patients， with an overall adverse reactions of 77.46%， there were no statistically significant differences between the continuos HHERT group and the drug rotation group in the incidence of drug adverse reactions （ P ＞0.05）. 99 experienced opioid rotation， with an overall rotation rate of 69.72%. The pain relief rates after rotation were 74.36% in the HHERT-OOD group and 73.33% in the OOD-HHERT group， indicating comparable efficacy （ P ＞0.05）. In 31 patients （31.31%）， the dose conversion coefficients did not conform to guideline recommendations. There was a significant difference in the distribution of rotation types between the two groups （ P ＜0.05）： the HHERT-OOD group was dominated by route of administration changes， while the OOD-HHERT group was dominated by unchanged route of administration. The proportion of rotations due to restricted route of administration and drug supply shortage was significantly higher in the HHERT-OOD group than that in the OOD-HHERT group （ P ＜0.05）； the proportion of rotations due to inadequate analgesic effect was significantly higher in the OOD-HHERT group than that in the HHERT-OOD group （ P ＜0.05）. CONCLUSIONS In real-world settings， both HHERT and opioid rotation strategies demonstrate favorable analgesic effects in the treatment of CCRP. Rotation patterns are primarily driven by practical factors such as inadequate analgesic effect and restricted route of administration. It is necessary to standardize dose conversion standards and indications for opioid rotation to improve individualized cancer pain management.
