The journal of pain : official journal of the American Pain Society
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study Comparative Study
Dose equivalence of immediate-release hydromorphone and once-daily osmotic-controlled extended-release hydromorphone: a randomized, double-blind trial incorporating a measure of assay sensitivity.
Dose selection of a once-daily, osmotic-controlled extended-release (ER) hydromorphone assumes that this drug and immediate-release (IR) hydromorphone are dose equivalent. This trial evaluated dose equivalence using a measure of assay sensitivity. Patients were converted to open-label IR hydromorphone, underwent dose titration, and those on a satisfactory dose entered a randomized, double-blind phase receiving 7 days of: 1) hydromorphone IR 5 times/day at approximately this dose; 2) once-daily hydromorphone ER at this dose; or 3) once-daily hydromorphone ER at one-half this dose. Efficacy was measured using breakthrough medication use, pain, sleep, and global assessments. Of 148 patients, 113 (76%) were randomized. IR and full-dose ER groups produced comparable effects on all measures. Although the prespecified primary analysis of the difference in total daily dose of breakthrough medication between the full-dose ER and half-dose ER groups was not significant, more patients in the half-dose ER group required an increase in breakthrough medication (P = .026) and the half-dose ER group both increased the number of breakthrough doses (P = .026) and had greater percent change in the total daily dose of breakthrough medication (P = .037) than the full-dose group, suggesting that switching from IR to ER hydromorphone at the same daily dose provides equivalent analgesia. ⋯ In a randomized, double-blind trial, the same total daily dose of immediate-release hydromorphone and once-daily osmotic-controlled extended-release hydromorphone had comparable effects. Detection of different effects between blinded dose levels was used as a measure of assay sensitivity. The measure of assay sensitivity can enhance the interpretation of dose equivalence or noninferiority trials.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study
Hyperalgesia in heroin dependent patients and the effects of opioid substitution therapy.
Evidence suggests that patients on opiate maintenance therapy for the treatment of addiction present with opioid-induced hyperalgesia. This study compared the experimental (cold-pressor, electrical stimulation) pain responses of 82 treatment-seeking heroin-dependent adults, randomized to methadone (METH, n = 11) or buprenorphine (BUP, n = 64) therapy, with matched drug free controls (n = 21). Heroin-dependent participants were evaluated at baseline (treatment entry), medication (METH or BUP) stabilization (4-8 weeks), and chronic administration (12-18 weeks), at trough (just prior to dosing) and peak (3 hours after dosing) plasma levels. Collection of the control group's pain responses occurred twice during a single session, 3 hours apart. Baseline comparisons indicate that heroin-dependent individuals demonstrate significantly shorter latencies to threshold and tolerance for cold-pressor pain than the control group. Across pain stimuli and time points, little change in pain responses was found over time, the exception being cold pressor pain tolerance, for which hyperalgesia significantly increased at trough METH/BUP levels in both groups as they stabilized in treatment. We conclude that heroin-dependent individuals are hyperalgesic, and that once stabilized in treatment, are not different in pain responses regardless of treatment agent. The effects of nonpharmacologic therapy and previous heroin use may explain increased hyperalgesia found with treatment. ⋯ To better understand the clinical phenomenon of opioid-induced hyperalgesia, this article describes experimental pain responses of heroin-dependent participants both prior to and over the course of maintenance therapy with methadone or buprenorphine. Hyperalgesia is present with illicit and treatment opioid use, and does not appear to appreciably improve over the course of treatment.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
Multicomponent cognitive-behavioral group therapy with hypnosis for the treatment of fibromyalgia: long-term outcome.
This study compared the efficacy of 2 psychological treatments for fibromyalgia with each other and with standard care. Ninety-three patients with fibromyalgia (FM) were randomly assigned to 1 of the 3 experimental conditions: 1) multicomponent cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT); 2) multicomponent CBT with hypnosis; and 3) pharmacological treatment (standard care control group). The outcome measures of pain intensity, catastrophizing, psychological distress, functionality, and sleep disturbances were assessed before treatment, immediately after treatment, and at 3- and 6-month follow-up visits. CBT and CBT with hypnosis participants received the standard pharmacological management plus 14 weekly, 120-minute-long sessions of psychological treatment. All but 1 session followed a group format; the remaining session was individual. The analyses indicated that: 1) patients with FM who received multicomponent CBT alone or multicomponent CBT with hypnosis showed greater improvements than patients who received only standard care; and 2) adding hypnosis enhanced the effectiveness of multicomponent CBT. This study presents new evidence about the efficacy of multicomponent CBT for FM and about the additional effects of hypnosis as a complement to CBT. The relevance and implications of the obtained results are discussed. ⋯ This article highlights the beneficial effects of adding hypnosis in a multicomponent cognitive-behavioral group treatment of fibromyalgia patients. Also, this research showed that by adding hypnosis the length of treatment did not increase.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
The interruptive effect of pain in a multitask environment: an experimental investigation.
Daily life is characterized by the need to stop, start, repeat, and switch between multiple tasks. Here, we experimentally investigate the effects of pain, and its anticipation, in a multitask environment. Using a task-switching paradigm, participants repeated and switched between 3 tasks, of which 1 predicted the possible occurrence of pain. Half of the participants received low intensity pain (N = 30), and half high intensity pain (N = 30). Results showed that pain interferes with the performance of a simultaneous task, independent of the pain intensity. Furthermore, pain interferes with the performance on a subsequent task. These effects are stronger with high intensity pain than with low intensity pain. Finally, and of particular importance in this study, interference of pain on a subsequent task was larger when participants switched to another task than when participants repeated the same task. ⋯ This article is concerned with the interruptive effect of pain on people's task performance by using an adapted task-switching paradigm. This adapted paradigm may offer unique possibilities to investigate how pain interferes with task performance while people repeat and switch between multiple tasks in a multitask environment.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
Test order of quantitative sensory testing facilitates mechanical hyperalgesia in healthy volunteers.
Quantitative sensory testing (QST) has become a widely used method to evaluate different submodalities of the somatic sensory system (predominantly) in patients with neuropathic pain. QST consists of 7 tests measuring 13 parameters in order to assess and quantify the perception of temperature, touch, pain, pressure, and vibration. The German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain implemented a standardized QST protocol including a defined testing order of the measurements. Accordingly, subjects tested with QST undergo thermal before mechanical testing. In the present study, we investigated the effect of testing order on the results of QST. Twenty healthy subjects were tested twice, 1 week apart with 2 different QST testing orders: the standardized testing order according to the German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain and a modified testing order in which mechanical stimuli were applied before thermal stimuli. For the test protocol that began with thermal testing, subjects exhibited signs of an increased mechanical perception: The mechanical pain sensitivity was significantly increased (P = .001, Wilcoxon test) for each pinprick stimulator and the mechanical pain threshold was lowered by a factor of 2 when compared with the modified testing order in which mechanical parameters were tested at the beginning of the session without prior thermal stimulation. Thermal parameters were the same for both test-order paradigms. These data indicate that preceding mild thermal stimulation might lead to a sensitization to mechanical stimuli and thus to mechanical hyperalgesia. Alternative habituation mechanisms in the modified testing order resulting from repeated pinprick stimulation at the beginning should also be debated. QST is a helpful diagnostic tool but interpretation should be done with consideration of interaction between test parameters. Reference data are only valid in the testing order from which they are obtained. ⋯ Present data showed that mechanical hyperalgesia followed thermal testing. This article demonstrates that the test order of quantitative sensory testing is relevant in interpreting the results obtained. Reference values are suitable in the test order from which they are obtained.