Pain
-
Pain sensitivity is an inherited factor that varies strongly between individuals. We investigated whether genetic polymorphisms in the candidate genes COMT, OPRM1, OPRD1, TAOK3, TRPA1, TRPV1, and SCN9A are contributing to experimental pain variability between children. Our study included 136 children and adolescents (8-18 years). ⋯ The combined genotype, based on expected pain sensitivity, OPRM1 118AA/COMT 472 GA or AA genotyped children, was associated with lower pain thresholds (ie, higher pain sensitivity) than were the OPRM1 118GA or GG/COMT 472GG genotyped children. This is the first study reporting on genetic variants and experimental thermal pain in children and adolescents. OPRM1 rs1799971 and the combined OPRM1/COMT genotype could serve as biomarkers for pain sensitivity.
-
We linked UK cancer registry data with the corresponding electronic primary care medical records of 6080 patients who died of cancer over a 7-year period in a large United Kingdom city. We extracted all prescriptions for analgesics issued to each patient in the linked cohort during the 12 months before death and analysed the extent and duration of strong opioid treatment with clinical and patient characteristics. Strong opioids were prescribed for 48% of patients in the last year of life. ⋯ The study provides the first detailed analysis of the relatively late onset and short duration of strong opioid treatment in patients with cancer before death in a representative UK cohort. This pattern of prescribing does not match epidemiological data which point to earlier onset of pain. Although persistent undertreatment of cancer pain is well documented, this study suggests that strategies for earlier pain assessment and initiation of strong opioid treatment in community-based patients with cancer could help to improve pain outcomes.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study
Efficacy and Tolerability of Buccal Buprenorphine in Opioid-Experienced Patients With Moderate to Severe Chronic Low Back Pain: Results of a Phase 3, Enriched Enrollment, Randomized Withdrawal Study.
A buccal film of buprenorphine (BBUP) was evaluated for safety and efficacy in a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, enriched-enrollment, randomized-withdrawal study in opioid-experienced patients (30 to ≤160 mg/d morphine sulfate equivalent) with moderate to severe chronic low back pain taking around-the-clock opioid analgesics. Patients' opioid doses were tapered to ≤30 mg morphine sulfate equivalent before open-label titration with BBUP (range, 150-900 μg every 12 hours). Patients who responded (received adequate analgesia that was generally well tolerated for 14 days) were randomized to receive buprenorphine (n = 254) or placebo (n = 257) buccal film. ⋯ A significantly larger percentage of patients receiving BBUP than placebo had pain reductions ≥30% and ≥50% (P < 0.001 for both). In the double-blind portion of the study, the only adverse event reported more frequently with BBUP than placebo and in ≥5% of patients was vomiting (5.5% vs 2.3%). These findings demonstrate the efficacy and tolerability of BBUP in opioid-experienced patients taking around-the-clock opioid treatment for chronic low back pain.
-
Cross-over trials are typically more efficient than parallel group trials in that the sample size required to yield a desired power is substantially smaller. It is important, however, to consider some issues specific to cross-over trials when designing and reporting them, and when evaluating the published results of such trials. This systematic review evaluated the quality of reporting and its evolution over time in articles of cross-over clinical trials of pharmacologic treatments for chronic pain published between 1993 and 2013. ⋯ These results and others presented in this article demonstrate deficiencies in reporting of cross-over trials for analgesic treatments. Clearer reporting in future trials could improve readers' ability to critically evaluate the results, use these data in meta-analyses, and plan future trials. Recommendations for proper reporting of cross-over trials that apply to any condition are provided.
-
A systematic literature review was undertaken to determine if conditioned pain modulation (CPM) is reliable. Longitudinal, English language observational studies of the repeatability of a CPM test paradigm in adult humans were included. Two independent reviewers assessed the risk of bias in 6 domains; study participation; study attrition; prognostic factor measurement; outcome measurement; confounding and analysis using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) critical assessment tool. ⋯ The absence of blinding, a lack of control for confounding factors, and lack of standardisation in statistical analysis are common. Conditioned pain modulation is a reliable measure; however, the degree of reliability is heavily dependent on stimulation parameters and study methodology and this warrants consideration for investigators. The validation of CPM as a robust prognostic factor in experimental and clinical pain studies may be facilitated by improvements in the reporting of CPM reliability studies.