Combination of morphine with nortriptyline for neuropathic pain

Neuropathic Corneal Pain: Approaches for Management

Neuropathic pain is caused by a primary lesion or dysfunction of the nervous system and can occur in the cornea. However, neuropathic corneal pain (NCP) is currently an ill-defined disease. Patients with NCP are extremely challenging to manage, and evidence-based clinical recommendations for the management of patients with NCP are scarce. The objectives of this review are to provide guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of patients with NCP and to summarize current evidence-based literature in this area. We performed a systematic literature search of all relevant publications between 1966 and 2017. Treatment recommendations are, in part, based on methodologically sound randomized controlled trials (RCTs), demonstrating superiority to placebo or relevant control treatments, and on the consistency of evidence, degree of efficacy, and safety. In addition, the recommendations include our own extensive experience in the management of these patients over the past decade. A comprehensive algorithm, based on clinical evaluation and complementary tests, is presented for diagnosis and subcategorization of patients with NCP. Recommended first-line topical treatments include neuroregenerative and anti-inflammatory agents, and first-line systemic pharmacotherapy includes tricyclic antidepressants and an anticonvulsant. Second-line oral treatments recommended include an opioid-antagonist and opiate analgesics. Complementary and alternative treatments, such as cardiovascular exercise, acupuncture, omega-3 fatty acid supplementation, and gluten-free diet, may have additional benefits, as do potential noninvasive and invasive procedures in recalcitrant cases. Medication selection should be tailored on an individual basis, considering side effects, comorbidities, and levels of peripheral and centralized pain. Nevertheless, there is an urgent need for long-term studies and RCTs assessing the efficacy of treatments for NCP.

Nortriptyline Enhances Morphine-Conditioned Place Preference in Neuropathic Rats: Role of the Central Noradrenergic System

BACKGROUND

Combination drug therapy is commonly used to treat chronic pain conditions such as neuropathic pain, and antidepressant is often used together with opioid analgesics. While rewarding is an intrinsic property of opioid analgesics, it is unknown whether the use of an antidepressant would influence opioid reward, which may contribute to opioid addiction. In this study, we examined whether nortriptyline (a tricyclic antidepressant and a first-line medication for neuropathic pain) would enhance the morphine rewarding property in both naive and chronic constriction sciatic nerve injury (CCI) rats.

METHODS

The rewarding effect of these drugs was assessed using conditioned place preference (CPP). The real-time polymerase chain reaction, western blot, and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay analysis were used to investigate the function of central noradrenergic system.

RESULTS

In naive rats, coadministration of nortriptyline with morphine did not change the acquisition of morphine-induced CPP. However, nortriptyline enhanced the acquisition, delayed the extinction, and augmented the reinstatement of morphine-induced CPP in CCI rats. In CCI rats treated with both nortriptyline and morphine, the expression of α2A-adrenergic receptors, norepinephrine transporter, and tyrosine hydroxylase was markedly decreased in the locus coeruleus, whereas the norepinephrine concentration in the nucleus accumbens was remarkably increased.

CONCLUSIONS

These results demonstrate that nortriptyline enhanced morphine reward when both drugs were used to treat neuropathic pain in rats and that this behavioral phenotype is likely to be mediated by upregulation of the central noradrenergic system. These findings may have implications in opioid therapy commonly used for chronic pain management.

Medication Treatment Efficacy and Chronic Orofacial Pain

Chronic pain in the orofacial region has always been a vexing problem for dentists to diagnose and treat effectively. For trigeminal neuropathic pain, there are 3 medications (gabapentinoids, tricyclic antidepressants, and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors) to use plus topical anesthetics that have therapeutic efficacy. For chronic daily headaches (often migraine in origin), 3 prophylactic medications have reasonable therapeutic efficacy (β-blockers, tricyclic antidepressants, and antiepileptic drugs). The 3 Food and Drug Administration-approved drugs for fibromyalgia (pregabalin, duloxetine, and milnacipran) are not robust, with poor efficacy. For osteroarthritis, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs have therapeutic efficacy and when gastritis contraindicates them, corticosteriod injections are helpful.

Combination treatment of neuropathic pain: Danish expert recommendations based on a Delphi process

BACKGROUND

Current Danish treatment algorithms for pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain (NeP) are tricyclic antidepressants (TCA), gabapentin and pregabalin as first-line treatment for the most common NeP conditions. Many patients have insufficient pain relief on monotherapy, but combination therapy had not been included in guidelines until recently. Based on clinical empiricism and scientific evidence, a Delphi consensus process provided a consolidated guidance on pharmacological combination treatment of NeP.

METHODS

A two-round virtual internet-based Delphi process with 6 Danish pain specialists was undertaken. In the first round, questions were answered individually and anonymously, whereas in the second round, the panel openly discussed first round's summary of outcomes. Combinations of pharmacological pain treatments, that is, pregabalin/gabapentin, TCAs, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, opioids, other antiepileptics and cutaneous patches, were assessed based on both scientific and clinical practice experiences. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) grading system was used for evidence rating.

RESULTS

Combination of pregabalin/gabapentin with TCA is useful in patients who do not gain sufficient pain relief or tolerate either drug in high doses, or to improve sleep disturbance. Also, combination of pregabalin/gabapentin and SNRIs is reasonably well documented and experienced by some experts to result in sufficient pain relief and fewer side effects than monotherapy. Good evidence on efficacy was found for the combination of pregabalin/gabapentin or TCAs and opioids, which was also frequently used in clinical practice. The evidence for combining TCAs and SNRIs is insufficient, although sometimes used in clinical practice despite the risk of serotonin syndrome. For localized NeP, combination therapy with cutaneous patches should be considered. There was insufficient scientific evidence for any pharmacologic combination therapies with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors - as well as for other potential combinations.

CONCLUSIONS

The study revealed that combination therapy is widely used in clinical practice and supported by some scientific evidence. However, further studies are needed.

Pain Improvement With Novel Combination Analgesic Regimens (PAIN-CARE): Randomized Controlled Trial Protocol

BACKGROUND

Neuropathic pain (NP) (including painful diabetic neuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, etc) affects approximately 7% to 8% of the population and is associated with a devastating symptom burden as well as a profound economic impact for patients, their families, and the health care system. Current therapies have limited efficacy and dose-limiting adverse effects (AEs). Rational combination therapy with carefully selected NP drugs has shown potential for measurable improvements in pain relief, quality of life, and health care use. Today, over half of NP patients concurrently receive 2 or more analgesics but combination use is based on little evidence. Research is urgently needed to identify safer, more effective combinations.

OBJECTIVE

We hypothesize that analgesic combinations containing at least 1 nonsedating agent would be as safe but more effective than either monotherapy without increasing overall AEs because of additive pain relief. Pregabalin (PGB), a sedating anticonvulsant, is proven effective for NP; the antioxidant alpha-lipoic acid (ALA) is one of the only nonsedating systemic agents proven effective for NP. Thus, we will conduct a clinical trial to compare a PGB+ALA combination to each monotherapy for NP.

METHODS

Using a double-blind, double-dummy, crossover design, 54 adults with NP will be randomly allocated to 1 of 6 sequences of treatment with PGB, ALA and PGB+ALA combination. During each of 3 different treatment periods, participants will take 2 sets of capsules containing (1) ALA or placebo and (2) PGB or placebo for 31 days, followed by an 11-day taper/washout period. The primary outcome will be mean daily pain intensity (0-10) at maximally tolerated dose (MTD) during each period. Secondary outcomes, assessed at MTD, will include global improvement, adverse events, mood, and quality of life.

RESULTS

Participant recruitment is expected to begin September 1, 2017. The proposed trial was awarded external peer-reviewed funding by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (Canada) on July 15, 2016.

CONCLUSIONS

This trial will provide rigorous evidence comparing the efficacy of a PGB+ALA combination to PGB alone and ALA alone in the treatment of NP.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number ISRCTN14577546; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN14577546?q=&filters=conditionCategory:Signs%20and%20Symptoms,trialStatus: Ongoing,recruitmentCountry:Canada&sort=&offset=1&totalResults=2&page=1&pageSize=10&searchType=basic-search (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6qvHFDc6m).

Morphine for chronic neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Neuropathic pain, which is caused by a lesion or disease affecting the somatosensory system, may be central or peripheral in origin. Neuropathic pain often includes symptoms such as burning or shooting sensations, abnormal sensitivity to normally painless stimuli, or an increased sensitivity to normally painful stimuli. Neuropathic pain is a common symptom in many diseases of the nervous system. Opioid drugs, including morphine, are commonly used to treat neuropathic pain. Most reviews have examined all opioids together. This review sought evidence specifically for morphine; other opioids are considered in separate reviews.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of morphine for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase for randomised controlled trials from inception to February 2017. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and online clinical trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind trials of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing morphine (any route of administration) with placebo or another active treatment for neuropathic pain, with participant-reported pain assessment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality and potential bias. Primary outcomes were participants with substantial pain relief (at least 50% pain relief over baseline or very much improved on Patient Global Impression of Change scale (PGIC)), or moderate pain relief (at least 30% pain relief over baseline or much or very much improved on PGIC). Where pooled analysis was possible, we used dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) or harmful outcome (NNH). We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified five randomised, double-blind, cross-over studies with treatment periods of four to seven weeks, involving 236 participants in suitably characterised neuropathic pain; 152 (64%) participants completed all treatment periods. Oral morphine was titrated to maximum daily doses of 90 mg to 180 mg or the maximum tolerated dose, and then maintained for the remainder of the study. Participants had experienced moderate or severe neuropathic pain for at least three months. Included studies involved people with painful diabetic neuropathy, chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia criteria, phantom limb or postamputation pain, and lumbar radiculopathy. Exclusions were typically people with other significant comorbidity or pain from other causes.Overall, we judged the studies to be at low risk of bias, but there were concerns over small study size and the imputation method used for participants who withdrew from the studies, both of which could lead to overestimation of treatment benefits and underestimation of harm.There was insufficient or no evidence for the primary outcomes of interest for efficacy or harm. Four studies reported an approximation of moderate pain improvement (any pain-related outcome indicating some improvement) comparing morphine with placebo in different types of neuropathic pain. We pooled these data in an exploratory analysis. Moderate improvement was experienced by 63% (87/138) of participants with morphine and 36% (45/125) with placebo; the risk difference (RD) was 0.27 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.16 to 0.38, fixed-effects analysis) and the NNT 3.7 (2.6 to 6.5). We assessed the quality of the evidence as very low because of the small number of events; available information did not provide a reliable indication of the likely effect, and the likelihood that the effect will be substantially different was very high. A similar exploratory analysis for substantial pain relief on three studies (177 participants) showed no difference between morphine and placebo.All-cause withdrawals in four studies occurred in 16% (24/152) of participants with morphine and 12% (16/137) with placebo. The RD was 0.04 (-0.04 to 0.12, random-effects analysis). Adverse events were inconsistently reported, more common with morphine than with placebo, and typical of opioids. There were two serious adverse events, one with morphine, and one with a combination of morphine and nortriptyline. No deaths were reported. These outcomes were assessed as very low quality because of the limited number of participants and events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was insufficient evidence to support or refute the suggestion that morphine has any efficacy in any neuropathic pain condition.

Innovations in the Management of Musculoskeletal Pain With Alpha-Lipoic Acid (IMPALA Trial): Study protocol for a Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Crossover Trial of Alpha-Lipoic Acid for the Treatment of Fibromyalgia Pain

BACKGROUND

Fibromyalgia is a common disorder characterized by chronic widespread pain, sleep disturbance, fatigue, depression, and cognitive dysfunction, resulting in substantial disability. As current analgesics provide incomplete relief and disabling side effects that aggravate fatigue and cognitive dysfunction, there is a need for new pain treatments with better efficacy and tolerability. Alpha-lipoic acid (ALA) is an antioxidant proven effective in painful diabetic neuropathy with minimal side effects.

OBJECTIVE

We hypothesize that this agent will provide benefits in fibromyalgia because of several similarities with neuropathic pain and also because it does not cause sedation, fatigue, or mental-slowing. To test this, we have designed a clinical trial that will assess pain, side effects, and other outcomes in participants with fibromyalgia.

METHODS

Using a crossover design, 24 adults with fibromyalgia will be randomly allocated to 1 of the 2 sequences of ALA and placebo. Participants will take capsules containing ALA or placebo for 4 weeks followed by a 1-week washout followed by a second 4-week treatment and 1-week washout period. ALA (or matching placebo) capsules will be titrated to 1800 mg/day over each 4-week period. The primary outcome will be mean daily pain intensity (0-10) during week 4 of each period. Secondary outcomes, assessed during week 4 of each period, will include global improvement, adverse events, mood, and quality of life.

RESULTS

This trial was registered in the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial registry March 15, 2016 (Number ISRCTN58259979), and it attained ethics approval on December 3, 2016 (Queen's University Health Sciences & Affiliated Teaching Hospitals Research Ethics Board protocol number ANAE-287-15). The recruitment started in February 2017.

CONCLUSIONS

This trial will provide evidence for the efficacy of ALA in fibromyalgia.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN): 58259979; www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN58259979 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6og9JdiyZ).

Bottlenecks in the development of topical analgesics: molecule, formulation, dose-finding, and phase III design

Topical analgesics can be defined as topical formulations containing analgesics or co-analgesics. Since 2000, interest in such formulations has been on the rise. There are, however, four critical issues in the research and development phases of topical analgesics: 1) The selection of the active pharmaceutical ingredient. Analgesics and co-analgesics differ greatly in their mechanism of action, and it is required to find the most optimal fit between such mechanisms of action and the pathogenesis of the targeted (neuropathic) pain. 2) Issues concerning the optimized formulation. For relevant clinical efficacy, specific characteristics for the selected vehicle (eg, cream base or gel base) are required, depending on the physicochemical characteristics of the active pharmaceutical ingredient(s) to be delivered. 3) Well-designed phase II dose-finding studies are required, and, unfortunately, such trials are missing. In fact, we will demonstrate that underdosing is one of the major hurdles to detect meaningful and statistically relevant clinical effects of topical analgesics. 4) Selection of clinical end points and innovatively designed phase III trials. End point selection can make or break a trial. For instance, to include numbness together with tingling as a composite end point for neuropathic pain seems stretching the therapeutic impact of an analgesic too far. Given the fast onset of action of topical analgesics (usually within 30 minutes), enrichment designs might enhance the chances for success, as the placebo response might decrease. Topical analgesics may become promising inroads for the treatment of neuropathic pain, once sufficient attention is given to these four key aspects.

Long-Term Outcomes in the Management of Painful Diabetic Neuropathy

Background: Painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) is a frequent complication of diabetes mellitus. Current treatment recommendations are based on short-term trials, generally of ≤3 months’ duration. Limited data are available on the long-term outcomes of this chronic disease. The objective of this study was to determine the long-term clinical effectiveness of the management of chronic PDN at tertiary pain centres. Methods: From a prospective observational cohort study of patients with chronic neuropathic non-cancer pain recruited from seven Canadian tertiary pain centres, 60 patients diagnosed with PDN were identified for analysis. Data were collected according to Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials guidelines including the Brief Pain Inventory. Results: At 12-month follow-up, 37.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 23.0-53.3) of 43 patients with complete data achieved pain reduction of ≥30%, 51.2% (95% CI, 35.5-66.7) achieved functional improvement with a reduction of ≥1 on the Pain Interference Scale (0-10, Brief Pain Inventory) and 30.2% (95% CI, 17.2-46.1) had achieved both these measures. Symptom management included at least two medication classes in 55.3% and three medication classes in 25.5% (opioids, antidepressants, anticonvulsants). Conclusions: Almost one-third of patients being managed for PDN in a tertiary care setting achieve meaningful improvements in pain and function in the long term. Polypharmacy including analgesic antidepressants and anticonvulsants were the mainstays of effective symptom management.

Why depression and pain often coexist and mutually reinforce: Role of the lateral habenula

The interrelation of depression and pain is increasingly coming under scrutiny. Although the lateral habenula (LHb) is widely implicated in the pathogenesis of depression and pain, its role in the interaction of depression and pain remains unknown. Thus, the aim of current study was to investigate the role of LHb in rat depression-pain comorbidity. Single extracellular firing recording and immunofluorescence methods were used to compare firing rates and c-Fos expression of the LHb neurons in normal and model rats. Following subcutaneous injection of formalin into the hind paw to simulate natural pain, we assessed pain behavior in rats subjected to the chronic, unpredictable mild stress procedure (CUMS, a model of depression). Pain sensitivity in the model rats was increased over that of controls. These rats showed a significant increase in the firing activity of LHb neurons compared with normal rats. Significantly, about 73% of neurons with high discharge frequency in LHb of model rats were pain-activated neurons (PANs), and the firing rates of PANs were inhibited by intraperitoneal injection of a tricyclic antidepressant, clomipramine. Immunofluorescence showed that the percentage of c-Fos positive cells in LHb was significantly increased in rats receiving CUMS alone, rats receiving pain stimulation alone, and rats receiving both CUMS and pain stimulation, but especially the last. The interaction effect was inhibited by injection of clomipramine. The LHb lesion can improve both depression-like behavior and pain sensitivity in depression model rats with pain. These suggest that hyperactivity of the LHb neurons contributes to depression-pain comorbidity in rats.

Intravenous morphine titration as a rapid and efficient analgesia for adult patients with femoral shaft fractures after injury

This study aimed to compare the analgesic effects of intravenous ibuprofen and intravenous morphine titration for femoral shaft fractures in adult patients. In total, 293 participants were enrolled and randomly received intravenous ibuprofen or intravenous morphine titration. Their visual analogue scale (VAS) results were recorded every 5 minutes after the first administration. The VAS scores before and during transport were also measured. Meanwhile, the type and frequency of the adverse effects were also recorded in both groups. Patients treated with morphine showed a faster and greater reduction in the VAS than those in the ibuprofen group within 1 hour after the first administration. Interestingly, intravenous morphine titration provided consistent analgesia even during the further transport. No significant immediate adverse event was observed in all of the participants, except for sedation, which might be beneficial for keeping the patient quiet and might not be arbitrarily attributed to adverse effects. No addiction was noted in the morphine group. This study demonstrated that intravenous morphine titration is a faster and more efficient analgesia for femoral shaft fractures than ibuprofen in adult patients immediately after injury.