Use Of Co-analgesics Research Articles

Comparison of pharmacotherapeutic analgesic response and safety profile of tapentadol with other opioids.

Tapentadol is a unique opioid analgesic due to its dual mechanism of action. Compared to other opioids with a classical mechanism of action, its analgesic potential is not far behind them, and its advantages are: a better safety profile in terms of a lower potential for drug-drug interactions and a lower potential for causing adverse events, and it is safe to use in sensitive populations. Tapentadol in the form of a immediate release formulation is an adequate drug of choice for achieving a pharmacotherapeutic analgesic response in acute pain conditions, while in the form of a extended release formulation it is an adequate pharmacotherapeutic analgesic solution for chronic pain syndromes of various etiology. Due to the specificity of the mechanism of action, tapentadol adequately relieves both pain components - nociceptive and neuropathic, and has an indication area for mixed pain syndrome as well. Based on this, the need for the use of co-analgesics is reduced, and thus the incidence of possible interactions and adverse events is reduced.

Mu-Opioid Receptor 1 and C-Reactive Protein Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms as Biomarkers of Pain Intensity and Opioid Consumption.

Children constitute a special group in pain therapy. Single nucleotide polymorphisms that are associated with differences in postoperative, inflammatory pain perception and opioid requirement are the A118G SNP in the mu-opioid receptor 1 (OPRM1) gene and the rs1205 CRP. This study aimed to determine connection between OPRM1 and rs1205 CRP SNPs in pediatric patients postoperatively and pain intensity, the opioid dose needed to control pain after scoliosis correction, and other clinical aspects. Genotypes of rs1205 CRP and OPRM1 polymorphisms in a sample of 31 patients were specified, and statistical analysis was performed in terms of age, genotype frequency, pain assessment, sufentanil flow, post-anesthesia care unit stay, and the use of coanalgesics. The frequency of A/A and A/G genotypes in the OPRM1 gene was in line with 1000Genomes data for the European population. Patients from the AG group of OPRM1 SNP more frequently required coanalgesics for adequate pain control; however, it was of weak statistical significance. Other parameters measured in the study were not statistically significant in relation to OPRM1 and CRP polymorphisms. The effect of SNPs on postoperative pain management and opioid therapy in children was not confirmed by this study. An expansion of the study sample and other opioid-related SNPs is required.

Retrospective evaluation of electronically recorded patient questionnaires of a university outpatient pain clinic with the painDETECT® questionnaire

Psychometric tests can provide important information for diagnostics and progression in chronic pain patients. Between 2008 and 2018, the electronic system painDETECT® was used in the outpatient pain clinic of the Hannover Medical School (MHH). The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the pain symptomatology data recorded using painDETECT® and the treatment procedures used in the patient cohort examined over aperiod of 15months. Astatistical analysis of baseline and follow-up data was performed. The analysis comprised pain-related parameters recorded by use of the painDETECT® system as well as outpatient records. Baseline data of 459patients (66% women) could be evaluated. The most common clinical pictures were spinal pain, headache, facial pain, and somatoform disorders, mostly with many years of previous treatment. Approximately 40% showed evidence of neuropathic pain components or central sensitization. With amean pain intensity of VAS6 (0-10), apredominantly high degree of chronicity was present. Approximately one third showed ahigh degree of pain-related functional impairment. Slightly more than half showed evidence of clinically relevant depression. Approximately 80% showed clinically relevant sleep disturbances. Follow-up data were available for 145patients (31.6%). The proportion of patients receiving anonpharmacological form of treatment increased by 44.1% (physical therapy) and by 24.1% (psychotherapeutic procedures) during the observation period. The use of co-analgesics increased by approximately 30% over the course. In the outpatient setting, an extension of treatment can be successful for high-grade chronic pain patients. Close structural networking with the clinics for rehabilitation medicine and for psychosomatics and psychotherapy at the MHH can be afavorable prerequisite for this.

Prospects for the use of co-analgesics in the therapy of osteoarthritis

Prospects for the use of co-analgesics in the therapy of osteoarthritis

Pain Management in Non-surgical Inpatients - Treatment Approaches and Competence for Pain Services

The number of non-surgical patients in the hospital setting with pain due to medical conditions or comorbidities and/or invasive procedures or treatments is high. Compared to perioperative pain management, the portion of patients and/or conditions that require more than an approach focused on pharmacological treatment of nociceptive pain is considerably higher. Rather, treatment often requires the differentiated use of co-analgesics, non-pharmacological treatments, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, psychological assessment and interventsions and educational approaches, ideally in the form of closely coordinated interdisciplinary treatment. The assessment and treatment of acute and especially chronic pain should follow the biopsychosocial concept of pain, especially if risk factors for chronification have been identified, if patients receive high-dose therapy with analgesics or have preexisting a chronic pain disorder.

Methadone for Pain Management: Past, Present and Future.

Methadone for pain management in this article describes briefly pain, methadone as a Level 3 World Health Organization ladder opioid in the context of India and rest of the world, as well as the relationship to past, present, and future possibilities of pain management. Acute pain is proportional to the injury most of the times, and such proportionality may not exist in chronic pain. Pain management over decades has changed because of knowledge and availability of molecules and compounds to reduce chronic pain. Naturally occurring opioids from “poppy” such as morphine and heroin were available through cultivation and trade for pain management and recreational use in different parts of the world for centuries. Methadone has been a synthetic molecule discovered in the 1930s in Germany. It has been used for harm reduction for opioid use disorder in the form of “methadone maintenance treatment”. This program exists since the 1950s while pain management started around the late 1970s in Europe and North America. More recently, the knowledge of acute and chronic pain at a molecular level, including ion channel modification, allowed the use of coanalgesics and opioids prudently. The concept of “total pain, neuroplasticity, and neurotransmitters” how they could be modified for better pain management with pharmaceuticals and nonpharmacological methods are being investigated, and evidence is being practiced clinically. In the present context, education for physicians, allied health professionals, patients, and family caregivers is important. Education to the physicians can skill and capacity build in the community and can be associated with educational research and peer-reviewed publications. The future remains promising, as innovations such as pharmacogenomics, nanotechnology, molecular, and quantum biology may create evidence, along with physical and psychological rehabilitation, to prevent and holistically better pain management.

Chronic and Refractory Pain: A Systematic Review of Pharmacologic Management in Oncology .

Chronic and refractory cancer pain are significant issues and can increase patient suffering and compromise quality of life. A variety of evidence-based pharmacologic strategies can be used routinely to control cancer pain. . The purpose of this study is to conduct a systematic review of the pharmacologic evidence in the management of chronic and refractory cancer pain. . The Oncology Nursing Society's Putting Evidence Into Practice pain team conducted a search of 184 systematic reviews, meta-analyses, research studies, and guidelines and classified the evidence into weight-of-evidence categories. . Opioids are the mainstay of cancer pain management, but evidence supports the use of coanalgesics and adjuvants to improve overall pain management. Complementary pharmacologic strategies, such as caffeine and herbal preparations, are under investigation, but additional research is needed to recommend these modalities. .

Effects of analgesics on olfactory function and the perception of intranasal trigeminal stimuli.

There is some evidence suggesting that analgesics have an impact on human chemosensory function, especially opioids and cannabinoids are known to interfere with olfactory function. However, largely unknown is the effect of a long-term use of analgesics on the intranasal trigeminal system so far. Here, we investigated olfactory function and the perception of intranasal trigeminal stimuli in pain patients with long-term use of analgesics compared to age-matched healthy controls. For this purpose, a psychophysical approach was chosen to measure these sensory functions in 100 chronic pain patients and 95 controls. Olfactory testing was performed using the 'Sniffin' Sticks' test kit, which involves tests for odour threshold, odour discrimination and odour identification. Further, participants were asked to rate the intensity of trigeminal stimuli by using a visual analogue scale. We observed that the chronic use of pain medication was associated with significantly reduced perception of intranasal trigeminal stimuli and olfactory function compared to age-matched controls without intake of analgesics. Results indicate that non-opioid and opioid drugs, or a combination of both did not differ in their effects on chemosensory function. Further, after eliminating the effect of a co-existing depression and the use of co-analgesics, the negative influence of analgesics on olfactory function and trigeminal perception was still evident. The observed effect might be mediated due to interaction with opioid receptors in trigeminal ganglia and nuclei or due to trigeminal/olfactory interaction. As a practical consequence, patients should be made aware of a possible impairment of their olfactory and trigeminal function under long-term analgesic treatment. WHAT DOES THIS STUDY ADD?: We observed that the chronic use of pain medication was associated with significantly reduced olfactory function and perception of intranasal trigeminal stimuli compared to age-matched controls without intake of analgesics. Non-opioid and opioid drugs did not differ in their effects on chemosensory function.

Analgesic effects of antidepressants alone and after their local co-administration with morphine in a rat model of neuropathic pain

BackgroundThe therapy of neuropathic pain may include the use of co-analgesics, such as antidepressants, however, their desired analgesic effect is associated with significant side effects. An alternative approach to this is their local administration which has been proposed, but there is little data regarding their local co-administration with morphine and the nature of the interaction between morphine and either doxepin or venlafaxine, two antidepressant drugs that have been recently used in neuropathic pain therapies. MethodsThis study was performed on rats after chronic constriction injury (CCI) to the sciatic nerve. The von Frey and Hargreaves’ tests were used to assess mechanical allodynia and thermal hyperalgesia, respectively, after intraplantar (ipl) or subcutaneous (sc) administration of amitriptyline, doxepin, or venlafaxine, or their ipl co-administration with morphine on day 12–16 after injury. ResultsThe ipl administration of amitriptyline (3, 15mg), doxepin (1, 5, 10, 15mg), or venlafaxine (2, 7mg) was effective in antagonizing CCI-induced allodynia. Their sc injection at a site distal to the injured side, did not induce alterations in pain thresholds, which supports the local mode of action. Of the three antidepressants used in this study, only ipl co-administration of amitriptyline with morphine significantly enhanced its effect in contrast to doxepin and venlafaxine, both of which weakened the analgesic effect of morphine. ConclusionsIn summary, the results suggest that when amitriptyline (but not doxepin or venlafaxine) is locally co-administered with morphine the effectiveness under neuropathic pain is enhanced, although additional studies are necessary to explain differential mechanisms of interaction of antidepressant drugs with morphine after local administration.

Equianalgesic Dosing: Principles of Practice for the Care Team

Opioids are the basis for managing cancer-related pain. Pain assessment and management are critical competencies for the clinical care team to improve quality of life for patients with cancer. Knowledge and application of evidence-based practice approaches to cancer pain relief, including the principles of equianalgesic dosing, opioid switching and rotation, and use of coanalgesics, can lead to improved patient outcomes.

The pain, agitation, and delirium practice guidelines for adult critically ill patients: a post-publication perspective.

The recently published Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Pain, Agitation, and Delirium in Adult Patients in the Intensive Care Unit differ from earlier guidelines in the following ways: literature searches were performed in eight databases by a professional librarian; psychometric validation of assessment scales was considered in their recommendation; discrepancies in recommendation votes by guideline panel members are available in online supplements; and all recommendations were made exclusively on the basis of evidence available until December of 2010. Pain recognition and management remains challenging in the critically ill. Patient outcomes improve with routine pain assessment, use of co-analgesics and administration as well as dose adjustment of opiates to patient needs. Thoracic epidurals help ease patients undergoing abdominal aortic surgery. Little data exists to guide clinicians as to the type or dose of co-analgesics; no opiate choice is associated with better patient outcomes. Lighter or no sedation is beneficial, and interruption is desirable in patients who require deep sedation for specific pathologic states. Delirium screening is probably useful; no treatment modality can be unequivocally recommended, and the benefit of prophylaxis is established only for early mobilization. The details of these recommendations, as well as more recent publications that complement the guidelines, are provided in this commentary.

26. Pain in Chronic Pancreatitis

Chronic pancreatitis is defined as a progressive inflammatory response of the pancreas that has lead to irreversible morphological changes of the parenchyma (fibrosis, loss of acini and islets of Langerhans, and formation of pancreatic stones) as well as of the pancreatic duct (stenosis and pancreatic stones). Pain is one of the most important symptoms of chronic pancreatitis. The pathogenesis of this pain can only partly be explained and it is therefore often difficult to treat this symptom. The management of pain induced by chronic pancreatitis starts with lifestyle changes and analgesics. For the pharmacological management, the three-step ladder of the World Health Organization extended with the use of co-analgesics is followed. Interventional pain management may consist of radiofrequency treatment of the nervi splanchnici, spinal cord stimulation, endoscopic stenting or stone extraction possibly in combination with lithotripsy, and surgery. To date, there are no randomized controlled trials supporting the efficacy of radiofrequency and spinal cord stimulation. The large published series reports justify a recommendation to consider these treatment options. Radiofrequency treatment, being less invasive than spinal cord stimulation, could be tested prior to considering spinal cord stimulation. There are several other treatment possibilities such as endoscopic or surgical treatment, pancreatic enzyme supplementation and administration of octreotide and antioxidants. All may have a role in the management of pain induced by chronic pancreatitis.

Prevalencia de dolor como motivo de consulta y su influencia en el sueño: experiencia en un centro de atención primaria

Objectives To determine the frequency of pain as a reason to visit a Primary Care doctor and to investigate the influence of pain on sleep disturbances. Design Cross-sectional descriptive study. Setting Urban Primary Health Care Centre. Participants The first five patients who came to the primary health care centre with an appointment were included. Those who came with pain were labelled as cases, the others as controls. Main measurements Socio-demographic variables, background, use of co-analgesics, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (a global PSQI score greater than 5 indicated “poor sleepers”). For the cases, pain intensity was also assessed, chronology and kind of pain, the system affected and treatment. Results A total of 206 patients were included and 31 excluded. The mean age was 50 years and 56% were women. Pain was the reason for consultation in 39% of the patients, of whom 78% had acute pain, 80% nociceptive, 75% incidental and 71% musculoskeletal. The average VAS score was 4.98. A total of 62% were receiving treatment according to the first step of the WHO pain ladder. Forty-five per cent of patients were categorized as “good sleepers”. The multivariate analysis showed that acute pain ( P = .022) and pain intensity ( P = .035) in men appeared as independent factors of sleep disturbances; in women there were no statistically significant variables. Conclusions In our study, a high percentage of patients came to the primary health care centre for pain, mainly musculoskeletal. In men, there is a clear relationship between sleep disturbances, pain intensity and acute pain. Further research is needed to study this topic in depth, in order to alleviate pain and improve the sleep quality in our patients.

Tumorschmerztherapie

Pain belongs to the most prevalent symptoms that require patients with urological tumours to seek medical help. The treatment of cancer pain requires standardized guidelines that are best reflected by the WHO's three-step ladder of cancer pain relief. This implies an individualized approach, a detailed history taking of underlying pain and thorough clinical examination, as well as a consistent and forceful therapy of constant and breakthrough pain episodes, using pharmacological substances and non-pharmacological techniques. This requires the choice of the correct drug, an application "by the clock", an individualized dose titration, and the use of co-analgesics. For constant "background" pain, slow release substances are needed, whilst fast acting pain medication is given on demand for breakthrough pain episodes. Besides symptomatic analgesic therapy, cancer pain therapy may also comprise tumor specific treatment modalities, whenever appropriate and requested by the patient. This comprises radiation therapy, e.g. for bone or soft tissue processes or brain metastases, as well as radionuclide techniques, surgical procedures, chemotherapy, new substances or antihormonal therapy. Furthermore, pain is considered a multimodal experience that requires the consideration of psychical and social factors. This chapter describes the different facets of cancer pain, its epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnostics and therapeutic principles.

Interventional Pain Treatments for Cancer Pain

Cancer pain is prevalent and often multifactorial. For a segment of the cancer pain population, pain control remains inadequate despite full compliance with the WHO analgesic guidelines including use of co-analgesics. The failure to obtain acceptable pain or symptom relief prompted the inclusion of a fourth step to the WHO analgesic ladder, which includes advanced interventional approaches. Interventional pain-relieving therapies can be indispensable allies in the quest for pain reduction among cancer patients suffering from refractory pain. There are a variety of techniques used by interventional pain physicians, which may be grossly divided into modalities affecting the spinal canal (e.g., intrathecal or epidural space), called neuraxial techniques and those that target individual nerves or nerve bundles, termed neurolytic techniques. An array of intrathecal medications are infused into the cerebrospinal fluid in an attempt to relieve refractory cancer pain, reduce disabling adverse effects of systemic analgesics, and promote a higher quality of life. These intrathecal medications include opioids, local anesthetics, clonidine, and ziconotide. Intrathecal and epidural infusions can serve as useful methods of delivering analgesics quickly and safely. Spinal delivery of drugs for the treatment of chronic pain by means of an implantable drug delivery system (IDDS) began in the 1980s. Both intrathecal and epidural neurolysis can be effective in managing intractable cancer-related pain. There are several sites for neurolytic blockade of the sympathetic nervous system for the treatment of cancer pain. The more common sites include the celiac plexus, superior hypogastric plexus, and ganglion impar. Today, interventional pain-relieving approaches should be considered a critical component of a multifaceted therapeutic program of cancer pain relief.

Schmerztherapie in der gastroenterologischen Onkologie

Abdominal cancer is commonly associated with pain needing medical attention. Effective pain management is available to control pain. Oral opioids are the foundation of analgesic therapy. With adequate implementation of therapeutic guidelines into clinical practice including the use of co-analgesics, adjuvants and non-pharmacological treatment options the quality of life of abdominal cancer patients can be considerably improved. Only in a minority of patients with refractory pain more sophisticated options of pain management will be necessary, e. g., epidural, intrathecal or neurolytic techniques. In this situation the consultation of a pain therapist is recommended.

Patterns of high-dose morphine use in a home-care hospice service: should we be afraid of it?

Management of cancer pain is one of the most important goals of palliative care. Relieving pain is often problematic. High doses of morphine at home may be required to relieve patients' pain, and is therefore feared. The goals of the current study were to assess the feasibility of high-dose morphine use at home, to characterize the patients, and to examine whether the use of high-dose morphine might affect their survival. The authors retrospectively studied the medical charts of 661 outpatients, which were completed by a home-care hospice team. The authors collected data regarding demographic parameters, medical diagnosis, pain type, morphine dosage, use of rescue doses in addition to regular doses, use of coanalgesics and adjuvant treatments, and survival time as associated with morphine dosage. The authors also compared the data of patients receiving high-dose morphine with those of a group of patients receiving regular doses. The authors identified 435 patients (65.8%) who received morphine for pain relief. Of these, 396 patients (91%) received a dose of 5-299 mg of morphine per day), 32 patients (7.4%) received 300-599 mg of morphine per day), and 7 patients (1.6%) received very high doses (> or = 600 mg of morphine per day). Overall, 39 patients (9%) received > 299 mg per day. Morphine dosage was found to be inversely correlated (r) with age (r = -0.254; P < 0.001). Male patients required slightly higher dosages than female patients (62.5% of high-dose and 71% of very high-morphine groups, respectively). Primary gastrointestinal (P = 0.015) and lung (P = 0.027) carcinomas, as well as metastatic bone disease (P = 0.001), ovarian carcinoma (P = 0.037), and brain tumors (P = 0.0053) were associated with higher and very higher morphine dosages. Adverse effects were similar in the groups receiving regular, high, and very high doses of morphine. The median survival of patients treated with high doses of morphine was 27 days and was 37 days for those treated with very high doses. Patients treated with low doses of morphine survived for 18 days. Patients not treated with morphine survived for 22 days (P = 0.001 by Mantel-Cox analysis; P = 0.029 by Breslow analysis). The use of high and very high morphine doses at home proved safe and did not appear to affect the patients' life expectancy adversely. The use of high or very high-dose morphine should not be a barrier to providing palliative terminal care for home-care hospice patients.

High dose morphine use in the hospice setting. A database survey of patient characteristics and effect on life expectancy.

Pain control is one of the most important goals of end-of-life care, and the use of opioids for this purpose is extremely common in hospice settings. However, it is unknown how many of the patients require high dose morphine (HDM, >299 mg/day of oral morphine equivalent), what the characteristics of these patients are, and whether the use of HDM might affect their survival. The authors retrospectively studied the medical records of all 651 inpatients hospitalized at their center between January 1996 and December 1997. Information was collected regarding demographic parameters, medical diagnosis, pain mechanism, morphine dosage, use of rescue doses in addition to regular doses, use of coanalgesics and adjuvant treatments, and survival time in the hospice setting as associated with morphine dosage. The authors identified 453 patients (69.58%) who received morphine for pain relief, of whom 55 (12.14%) needed more than 299 mg/day. Morphine dosage was negatively associated with age (r = -0.35, P = 0.01). Male patients and nonwhite patients required slightly higher dosages than others. Primary breast and genitourinary cancers, as well as metastases to bone and spinal diseases, were associated with higher morphine dosages. Statistical analysis indicated a positive correlation between the log maximum of morphine dosage and the total number of rescue dosages (r = 0.307, P = 0.025). The median survival of patients on HDM was 15.6 days and did not differ from the survival of patients taking a lower dosage. A fairly strong correlation exists between morphine dosage and some clinicodemographic data. No significant dose-limiting adverse effects were observed, suggesting a high clinical safety profile. High morphine dosage does not affect patient survival. Awareness of the dosage factors will improve our ability to treat and predict probable HDM dosage, thus shortening the period until pain relief is reached.

Co-analgesics in the treatment of chronic pain

Opioids do not yield adequate analgesic effects in at least one-third of all patients suffering from chronic pain. Nonetheless, in contrast to former opinion there is no type of pain that is principally resistant to opioids, which means that the individual patient's response to opioid administration has to be investigated to determine adequate treatment. Opioids fail most frequently in cases of neuropathic, osseous or sympathetically maintained pain. In these cases there is an indication for early use of co-analgesics. The analgesic potency of anticonvulsives and tricyclic antidepressants has been best documented. A differential indication of the large number of possible coanalgesics should be determined with the help of a detailed pain history focussing on the pain quality. Similar to the WHO analgesic ladder used in (tumor) pain therapy, co-analgesic therapy should only be supplemented by invasive therapeutic procedures after various combinations and alternative substances have proven fruitless. Experience shows that this is necessary only for a small number of patients.

Therapy for symptomatic pain in advanced breast cancer

From 1983-1989, 106 patients with breast cancer were treated in our pain management unit on 6767 treatment days. Pain was caused by bone metastasis in 73% of patients. Neuropathic pain was reported by 32% of the patients. In all but four of these patients, new tumour growth was diagnosed. Patients were treated according to WHO analgesic guidelines with non-opioids on 16% of the days, non-opioids in combination with weak opioids on 36% and with strong opioids on 38% (orally 90%, parenterally 4% of the days). Due to the prevalence of bone pain non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs were given on 56% of the days. The high incidence of neuropathic pain led to frequent use of co-analgesics (antidepressants 17%, anticonvulsants 12%, steroids 12% of the days). Adjuvant therapy for symptoms other than pain was given on 86% of the days. Whilst 92% of patients reported more than moderate pain on admission, 45% obtained complete pain relief beginning from the first days of treatment. On 92% of the days, patients described their pain as moderate or less. Side effects were treated symptomatically and played a minor role in a reason to change therapy.