Should Codeine Still be Considered a WHO Essential Medicine?

Authors

  • Boni Singu School of Pharmacy, University of Namibia https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5663-522X
  • Roger K Verbeeck School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Namibia, Windhoek, Namibia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18433/jpps31639

Abstract

Codeine continues to be widely used as an analgesic, antidiarrhoeal and antitussive agent. Its analgesic effect depends on its biotransformation to morphine, a strong opioid. The highly variable biotransformation of codeine to morphine, catalysed by CYP2D6, underlies the pronounced interindividual variability of its analgesic response. Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that codeine administered alone has the poorest analgesic effect among all commonly used analgesics in acute postoperative pain. Moreover, it is highly unlikely that the low dose of codeine contributes to the pain-relieving effect of the non-opioid component in combination analgesic products. In addition, there is a lack of reliable clinical evidence to support the use of codeine as an antitussive in acute or chronic cough. Codeine use, through its active metabolite morphine, has the potential to lead to abuse and dependence. The World Health Organization (WHO) removed codeine from the essential medicines list for children in 2011. Based on the available information in the scientific literature on the efficacy and safety of codeine, the WHO should seriously consider removing it also from the list of essential medicines for adults, which would be a strong signal for all health professionals to prescribe and dispense codeine with the utmost caution.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Boni Singu, School of Pharmacy, University of Namibia

Lecturer

School of Pharmacy

University of Namibia

Downloads

Published

2021-06-26

How to Cite

Singu, B., & Verbeeck, R. K. (2021). Should Codeine Still be Considered a WHO Essential Medicine?. Journal of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences, 24(3), 329–335. https://doi.org/10.18433/jpps31639

Issue

Section

Commentaries