The journal of pain : official journal of the American Pain Society
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
CHF3381, a N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist and monoamine oxidase-A inhibitor, attenuates secondary hyperalgesia in a human pain model.
CHF3381 is a new low-affinity, noncompetitive N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist and reversible monoamine oxidase-A (MAO-A) inhibitor. The analgesic activity of CHF3381 was investigated in the heat-capsaicin human pain model and compared with those of gabapentin. Twenty-seven young, healthy male volunteers received a single oral dose of CHF3381 (500 mg), gabapentin (1,200 mg), or placebo in a randomized, double-blind, crossover study design. Measurements were done before and 135 to 145 minutes after treatment administration and included area of secondary hyperalgesia around the sensitized skin of the forearm (45 degrees C for 5 minutes followed by topical capsaicin for 30 minutes), area of secondary hyperalgesia after thermal sensitization of the thigh (45 degrees C for 3 minutes), heat pain detection thresholds (degrees C), and pain on a visual analogue scale after long thermal stimulation (45 degrees C for 1 minute). Compared with placebo, both gabapentin and CHF3381 significantly reduced the area of secondary hyperalgesia on the dominant forearm. Median (and interquartile range) percent values over baseline were 86% after placebo (69% to 100%), 56% (41% to 76%) after gabapentin (P < .001), and 67% (49% to 88%) after CHF3381 (P < .009). Both drugs also significantly decreased the area of secondary hyperalgesia on the dominant thigh. The other pain variables were not significantly affected. Adverse events, mainly fatigue and dizziness, were mild to moderate. ⋯ This article presents the antihyperalgesic effect of CHF3381, a new NMDA receptor antagonist and reversible MAO-A inhibitor, in a human pain model and might guide the proper selection of CHF3381 doses to be used in Phase 2 studies in patients with neuropathic pain.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study
Comparison of clinical and evoked pain measures in fibromyalgia.
Evoked pain measures such as tender point count and dolorimetry are often used to determine tenderness in studies of fibromyalgia (FM). However, these measures frequently do not improve in clinical trials and are known to be influenced by factors other than pain such as distress and expectancy. The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether evoked pain paradigms that present pressure stimuli in a random fashion (eg, Multiple Random Staircase [MRS]) would track with clinical pain improvement in patients with FM better than traditional measures. Sixty-five subjects enrolled in a randomized clinical trial of acupuncture were observed longitudinally. Clinical pain was measured on a 101-point numerical rating scale (NRS) and the Short Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), whereas evoked pressure sensitivity was assessed via manual tender point count, dolorimetry, and MRS methods. Improvements in clinical pain and evoked pain were assessed irrespective of group assignment. Improvement was seen in clinical pain during the course of the trial as measured by both NRS (P = .032) and SF-MPQ (P = .001). The MRS was the only evoked pain measure to improve correspondingly with treatment (MRS, P = .001; tender point count and dolorimeter, P > .05). MRS change scores were correlated with changes in NRS pain ratings (P = .003); however, this association was not stronger than tender point or dolorimetry correlations with clinical pain improvement (P > .05). Pain sensitivity as assessed by random paradigms was associated with improvements in clinical FM pain. Sophisticated pain testing paradigms might be responsive to change in clinical trials. ⋯ Trials in fibromyalgia often use both clinical and experimental methods of pain assessment; however, these two outcomes are often poorly correlated. We explore the relationship between changes in clinical and experimental pain within FM patients. Pressure pain testing that applies stimuli in a random order is associated with improvements in clinical pain, but this association was not stronger than other experimental techniques.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
Cost-effectiveness of duloxetine versus routine treatment for U.S. patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain.
The purpose of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of duloxetine versus routine treatment in management of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP). Two hundred thirty-three patients with DPNP who completed a 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, multicenter duloxetine trial were re-randomized into a 52-week, open-label trial of duloxetine 60 mg twice daily versus routine treatment. Routine treatment included pain management therapies. Effectiveness was measured by using the bodily pain domain (BP) of the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 (SF-36). Costs were analyzed from 3 perspectives: third party payer (direct medical costs), employer (direct and indirect medical costs), and societal (patient's out-of-pocket costs and total medical costs). Costs of study medications were not included because of limited data. Bootstrap method was applied to calculate statistical inference of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Routine treatment most frequently used included gabapentin (56%), venlafaxine (36%), and amitripytline (15%). From employer and societal perspectives, duloxetine was cost-effective (ICER= -342 dollars and -429 dollars, respectively, per unit of SF-36 BP; both P
-
To evaluate the role of sigma receptors in the sexually dimorphic antianalgesic effect of agonist-antagonist kappa opioids, 2 neuroleptics, haloperidol, a sigma receptor antagonist, and chlorpromazine, which has minimal effect at sigma receptors, were administered with the agonist-antagonist kappa opioid nalbuphine in patients with postoperative pain. Before surgical extraction of bony impacted mandibular third molar teeth, patients received haloperidol (1 mg), chlorpromazine (10 mg), or placebo by oral administration. After surgery, the pain intensity did not differ significantly between the 3 treatment groups, suggesting lack of analgesic effect produced by either haloperidol or chlorpromazine. All patients were then administered nalbuphine (5 mg, intravenous). As previously reported, the group that did not receive a preoperative neuroleptic exhibited sexually dimorphic analgesia, with women experiencing greater analgesia than men. Antianalgesia was also observed, with men experiencing late onset increased pain compared with baseline, starting approximately 1 hour after nalbuphine administration. Both neuroleptics blocked nalbuphine antianalgesia, resulting in enhanced analgesia and elimination of the sex differences. Because chlorpromazine and haloperidol enhanced nalbuphine analgesia and eliminated sexual dimorphism, the receptor at which neuroleptics act to antagonize the "antianalgesia" might be a common site of action to both drugs. ⋯ This study demonstrates that neuroleptics can block the antianalgesic effect of agonist-antagonist kappa opioids. These findings could help inform the development of novel analgesics.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
Intravenous bolus of ultra-low-dose naloxone added to morphine does not enhance analgesia in emergency department patients.
There is some evidence from in vitro, animal, and postoperative clinical studies that low doses of opioid antagonists combined with morphine increase analgesia. The theoretical model of this effect posits that ultra-low doses of opioid antagonists selectively antagonize excitatory, but not inhibitory, opioid receptor-mediated signaling. To determine whether this effect occurs in emergency department patients presenting with severe acute pain, we conducted a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial to assess the relative analgesic effect of morphine administered with 3 different doses of naloxone versus morphine alone. Patients received 0.1 mg/kg morphine intravenously (IV) over 2 min plus one of 3 different doses of naloxone (0.1 ng/kg, 0.01 ng/kg, or 0.001 ng/kg) or normal saline. A 0 to 10 numerical rating scale (NRS) was used to measure pain intensity at baseline and every 30 min up to 4 hours. One hundred fifty-six patients with a median NRS of 10 (IQR: 8-10) were studied. There were no clinically or statistically significant differences in the mean pain intensity of patients in the 4 treatment groups over the 4-hour study period, nor were there differences in the administration of additional analgesics or incidence of side effects. ⋯ Ultra-low doses of naloxone in the 0.001 ng/kg to 0.1 ng/kg range do not enhance the analgesia provided by morphine alone among emergency department patients with acute, severe pain. This suggests that naloxone in these doses is not an effective adjunct to morphine for control of acute pain.