Study of the prophylactic effect of droperidol, alizapride, propofol and promethazine on spinal morphine-induced pruritus

Mechanisms and treatment of opioid-induced pruritus: Peripheral and central pathways

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Pruritus (also known as itch) is defined as an unpleasant and irritating sensation of the skin that provokes an urge to scratch or rub. It is well known that opioid administration can cause pruritus, which is paradoxical as itch and pain share overlapping sensory pathways. Because opioids inhibit pain but can cause itching. Significant progress has been made to improve our understanding of the fundamental neurobiology of itch; however, much remains unknown about the mechanisms of opioid-induced pruritus. The prevention and treatment of opioid-induced pruritus remains a challenge in the field of pain management. The objective of this narrative review is to present and discuss the current body of literature and summarize the current understanding of the mechanisms underlying opioid-induced pruritus, and its relationship to analgesia, and possible treatment options.

RESULTS

The incidence of opioid-induced pruritus differs with different opioids and routes of administration, and the various mechanisms can be broadly divided into peripheral and central. Especially central mechanisms are intricate, even at the level of the spinal dorsal horn. There is evidence that opioid receptor antagonists and mixed agonist and antagonists, especially μ-opioid antagonists and κ-opioid agonists, are effective in relieving opioid-induced pruritus. Various treatments have been used for opioid-induced pruritus; however, most of them are controversial and have conflicting results.

CONCLUSION

The use of a multimodal analgesic treatment regimen combined with a mixed antagonist and κ agonists, especially μ-opioid antagonists, and κ-opioid agonists, seems to be the current best treatment modality for the management of opioid-induced pruritus and pain.

SIGNIFICANCE

Opioids remain the gold standard for the treatment of moderate to severe acute pain as well as cancer pain. It is well known that opioid-induced pruritus often does not respond to regular antipruritic treatment, thereby posing a challenge to clinicians in the field of pain management. We believe that our review makes a significant contribution to the literature, as studies on the mechanisms of opioid-induced pruritus and effective management strategies are crucial for the management of these patients.

Ondansetron for the Prevention of Pruritus in Women Undergoing Cesarean Delivery With Intrathecal Opioid: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Pruritus is a frequently reported and unpleasant side effect following intrathecal opioid use with frequency further increased among parturients. We have performed a systematic review to assess the overall efficacy of ondansetron for the prevention of pruritus in patients receiving intrathecal opioid as part of spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery.

METHODS

A literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases was conducted from date of inception to September 2022. Studies that included patients undergoing cesarean delivery with spinal anesthesia using intrathecal opioid were included. The primary outcome was the presence of pruritus, and the secondary outcome was time to onset of pruritus. Data from included studies were pooled for analysis using an appropriately determined random-effects model. Outcomes were presented using forest plots and 95% confidence intervals. Additional sensitivity and subgroup analysis were performed. Trial sequential analysis was conducted for the primary outcome.

RESULTS

Twenty-three randomized controlled trials with a total of 2586 patients were included: 1219 received ondansetron, 1030 received a placebo, and a further 337 received a different study drug and were excluded from analysis. Opioids used in the included studies were morphine, fentanyl, and sufentanil. Patients who received ondansetron showed a significant reduction in the incidence of pruritus compared to the control group (RR, 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.92; I 2 = 64%). There was no significant difference in pruritus onset between the groups (mean difference [MD], 17.54 minutes; 95% CI, -2.18 to 37.26; I 2 = 83%). The overall Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment of quality of evidence was low.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review has demonstrated a significant reduction in the incidence of pruritus following the use of ondansetron. This is in contrast to previously published meta-analyses. Studies included were of varying quality and some at high risk of bias with a high degree of statistical heterogeneity. Furthermore, high-quality and well-powered studies are required to confirm these findings.

Effects of oral morphine on experimentally evoked itch and pain: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

Pain and itch share similar neuronal networks; hence, it is difficult to explain why opioids can relieve pain but provoke itching. The present human volunteer study aimed to investigate the similarities and differences in responses to experimentally provoked pain and itching to explore the underlying fundamental mechanisms.

METHODS

Twenty-four healthy volunteers were enrolled in this single-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial. Three volar forearms and two mandibular areas were marked, and participants randomly received morphine (20 mg) or identical placebo tablets. Heat, cold, and pressure pain thresholds, and vasomotor responses were assessed at baseline and after oral morphine administration. Itch provocations were induced by intradermal application of 1 % histamine or a topical cowhage (non-histaminergic itch) to a marked area of the skin. The participants were subsequently asked to rate their itching and pain intensities. The assessments were repeated for all marked areas.

RESULTS

Morphine caused analgesia, as assessed by the significant modulation of cold and pressure pain thresholds (p<0.05). There were no significant differences in histaminergic or non-histaminergic itch or pain intensity between the morphine and placebo groups. Superficial blood perfusion (vasomotor response) following histamine provocation was significantly increased by morphine (p<0.05) in both areas. No correlation was found between the provoked itch intensity and analgesic efficacy in any area or group.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral administration of morphine caused analgesia without modulating itch intensities but increased neurogenic inflammation in response to histamine, suggesting that different opioid mechanisms in histaminergic and non-histaminergic neurons evoke neurogenic inflammation.

Pharmacological agents for prevention of pruritus in women undergoing Caesarean delivery with neuraxial morphine: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Neuraxial opioids provide effective analgesia for Caesarean delivery, however, pruritus can be a troubling side-effect. Effective agents to prevent pruritus are needed. Our objective was to perform an updated systematic review and network meta-analysis to provide clinicians with a comparison of relative efficacy of available interventions to reduce the incidence of pruritus, induced by either intrathecal or epidural single-shot morphine, in women undergoing Caesarean delivery.

METHODS

Databases systematically searched (up to January 2022) included PubMed MEDLINE, Web of Science, EBSCO CINAHL, Embase, LILACS, and two Cochrane databases. We included randomised, controlled trials involving adult female patients undergoing Caesarean delivery. We pooled trials comparing interventions used for preventing pruritus after Caesarean delivery and performed a Bayesian model network meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The final primary network included data from comparisons of 14 distinct interventions (including placebo) used to reduce the incidence of pruritus in 6185 participants. We judged five interventions to be 'definitely superior' to placebo: propofol, opioid agonist-antagonists (neuraxial), opioid antagonists, opioid agonist-antagonists (systemic), and serotonin antagonists. For the network evaluating the incidence of severe pruritus (warranting additional therapeutic treatment of pruritus), data were available for 14 interventions (including placebo) in 4489 patients. For this outcome, we judged three interventions to be 'definitely superior' to placebo: dopamine antagonists (neuraxial) and systemic and neuraxial opioid agonist-antagonists.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis found several interventions to be effective in reducing the incidence of pruritus. Although sub-hypnotic doses of propofol appear to have an antipruritic effect, replication of this finding and further investigation of optimal dosing are warranted.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL

PROSPERO (CRD42022367058).

Postoperative nausea and vomiting: is the big little problem becoming a smaller little problem?

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) has been identified as a big (very frequently encountered) little (not linked to life-threatening outcomes) problem. Traditional drugs (dexamethasone, droperidol or similar drugs, serotonin receptor antagonists) each have significant but limited effect, leading to an increasing use of combination therapies. High-risk patients, often identified through use of risk scoring systems, remain with a significant residual risk despite combining up to three traditional drugs. A recent correspondence in this Journal proposes the use of up to five anti-emetic drugs to further minimise the risk. This disruptive strategy was supported by favourable initial results, absence of side-effects and lower acquisition costs of the added new drugs (aprepitant and palonosetron) because of their recent loss of patent protection. These results are provocative and hypothesis generating, but need confirmation and do not warrant immediate changes in clinical practice. The next steps will also necessitate wider implementation of protocols protecting patients from PONV and a search for additional drugs and techniques aimed at treating established PONV.

Prevention and Treatment of Neuraxial Morphine-Induced Pruritus: A Scoping Review

The addition of morphine to neuraxial anaesthesia leads to improved postoperative analgesia and lower opioid consumption, but is often accompanied by pruritus. Studies on preventing or treating pruritus show contradictory results. Our objective was to identify effective drugs for the prevention or treatment of pruritus by a scoping review of clinical trials. A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase and Web of Science. We identified clinical trials investigating the prevention or treatment of neuraxial morphine-induced pruritus in adults. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses were screened for eligible studies. One-hundred-and-four articles were included covering 13 pharmacological groups. We conclude that dopamine antagonists, µ-opioid agonist/antagonists and neuraxial or orally administered µ-opioid antagonists prevent pruritus caused by neuraxial morphine regardless of the timing of administration. In the reviewed literature, 5HT3-antagonists prevent neuraxial morphine-induced pruritus when administered before morphine administration. For the treatment of neuraxial morphine-induced pruritus, only nalbuphine appears to be consistently effective. More research is needed to find the most effective doses and the optimal timing of the effective medication.

Evaluation of Therapies for Peripheral and Neuraxial Opioid-induced Pruritus based on Molecular and Cellular Discoveries

Opioids are a mainstay of treatment for pain worldwide. Pruritus, a common side effect of opioids, is a patient dissatisfier that limits their use in many clinical settings. Both parenteral and neuraxial administration of opioids frequently evoke pruritus. The ability of opioids to suppress pain while causing itch continues to perplex clinicians and researchers alike. Several mechanisms have been proposed to explain how opioids can give rise to pruritus, but specific knowledge gaps perpetuate debate. This review summarizes the clinical burden of opioid-induced pruritus and emphasizes recent discoveries of peripheral and central mechanisms for opioid-induced pruritus, particularly with respect to scientific and conceptual advances in spinal cord circuitry and mast cell biology. The mechanisms and effectiveness of existing medications used for clinical management of pruritus will be evaluated, and we will highlight the emerging preclinical utility of selective κ-opioid receptor agonists, such as nalfurafine, for the management of opioid-induced pruritus.

Morphine acts on spinal dynorphin neurons to cause itch through disinhibition

Morphine-induced itch is a very common and debilitating side effect that occurs in laboring women who receive epidural analgesia and in patients who receive spinal morphine for relief of perioperative pain. Although antihistamines are still widely prescribed for the treatment of morphine-induced itch, their use is controversial because the cellular basis for morphine-induced itch remains unclear. Here, we used animal models and show that neuraxial morphine causes itch through neurons and not mast cells. In particular, we found that spinal dynorphin (Pdyn) neurons are both necessary and sufficient for morphine-induced itch in mice. Agonism of the kappa-opioid receptor alleviated morphine-induced itch in mice and nonhuman primates. Thus, our findings not only reveal that morphine causes itch through a mechanism of disinhibition but also challenge the long-standing use of antihistamines, thereby informing the treatment of millions worldwide.

Medications for the prevention of pruritus in women undergoing cesarean delivery with Intrathecal morphine: A systematic review and bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

Intrathecal morphine-induced pruritus can cause significant discomfort in parturients and is refractory to conventional antipruritic treatment. This systematic review and network meta-analysis evaluates the effectiveness of the medications used for prevention of intrathecal (IT) morphine-induced pruritus after cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted from 1946 up to October 2019. We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared medications used for prevention of pruritus with a control group in women undergoing cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia with IT morphine. The primary outcome examined was the incidence of pruritus up to 24 h after cesarean delivery. Dichotomous data were extracted and summarized using odds ratios (OR) and 95% credible intervals (CrI) with Bayesian random effects network meta-analysis model. The GRADE approach was used to evaluate quality of the studies and effect evidence.

RESULTS

Of the 26 studies included in the systematic review, 21 studies with a total of 2594 patients were included in the network meta-analysis [prophylaxis, n = 1603 (62%) vs. control, n = 991 (38%)]. These studies investigated seven classes of drugs including serotonin-receptor antagonists, dopamine-receptor antagonists, opioid agonist-antagonists, opioid-receptor antagonists, histamine-receptor antagonists, propofol and celecoxib. The network meta-analysis showed that serotonin-receptor antagonists' prophylaxis [control vs. prophylaxis: 60% vs. 47%; OR (95% CrI): 2.69 (1.43-5.36)] and opioid agonist-antagonists prophylaxis [control vs. prophylaxis: 72% vs. 47%; OR (95% CrI): 4.57 (1.67-12.91)] decreased the incidence of pruritus compared to the control group. Although all included studies were at low risk of bias, the quality of the overall network meta-analysis pooled estimates was low.

CONCLUSION

This bayesian network meta-analysis of RCTs demonstrates serotonin-receptor antagonists and opioid agonist-antagonists may prevent pruritus in women undergoing cesarean delivery with intrathecal morphine compared to control group. However, further RCTs of adequate power and clearly defined end points are warranted.

The effect of intrathecal bupivacaine/morphine on quality of recovery in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a randomised controlled trial

Robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy causes discomfort in the immediate postoperative period. This randomised controlled trial investigated if intrathecal bupivacaine/morphine, in addition to general anaesthesia, could be beneficial for the postoperative quality of recovery. One hundred and fifty‐five patients were randomly allocated to an intervention group that received intrathecal 12.5 mg bupivacaine/300 μg morphine (20% dose reduction in patients > 75 years) or a control group receiving a subcutaneous sham injection and an intravenous loading dose of 0.1 mg.kg⁻¹ morphine. Both groups received standardised general anaesthesia and the same postoperative analgesic regimen. The primary outcome was a decrease in the Quality of Recovery‐15 (QoR‐15) questionnaire score on postoperative day 1. The intervention group (n = 76) had less reduction in QoR‐15 on postoperative day 1; median (IQR [range]) 10% (1–8 [−60% to 50%]) vs. 13% (5–24 [−6% to 50%]), p = 0.019, and used less morphine during the admission; 2 mg (1–7 [0–41 mg]) vs. 15 mg (12–20 [8–61 mg]), p < 0.001. Furthermore, they perceived lower pain scores during exertion; numeric rating scale (NRS) 3 (1–6 [0–9]) vs. 5 (3–7 [0–9]), p = 0.001; less bladder spasms (NRS 1 (0–2 [0–10]) vs. 2 (0–5 [0–10]), p = 0.001 and less sedation; NRS 2 (0–3 [0–10]) vs. 3 (2–6 [0–10]), p = 0.005. Moreover, the intervention group used less rescue medication. Pruritus was more severe in the intervention group; NRS 4 (1–7 [0–10]) vs. 0 (0–1 [0–10]), p = 0.000. We conclude that despite a modest increase in the incidence of pruritus, multimodal pain management with intrathecal bupivacaine/morphine remains a viable option for robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy.

Intrathecal Morphine for Laparoscopic Segmental Colonic Resection as Part of an Enhanced Recovery Protocol: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background and Objectives

Management of postoperative pain after laparoscopic segmental colonic resections remains controversial. We compared 2 methods of analgesia within an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) program. The goal of the study was to investigate whether administration of intrathecal bupivacaine/morphine would lead to an enhanced recovery.

Methods

A single-center, randomized, double-blind controlled trial was performed (NL43488.101.13). Patients scheduled for laparoscopic segmental intestinal resections were considered. Exclusion criteria were patients in whom contraindications to spinal anesthesia were present, conversion to open surgery, and gastric and rectal surgery. The intervention group received single-shot intrathecal bupivacaine/morphine (12.5 mg/300 μg), with an altered dose for older patients. The control group received a sham procedure and a bolus of piritramide (0.1 mg/kg). Both groups received standardized general anesthesia and a patient-controlled intravenous analgesia pump as postoperative analgesia. All patients were treated according to an ERAS protocol. A decrease in days to “fit for discharge” was the primary outcome.

Results

Fifty-six patients were enrolled. Intervention group patients were fit for discharge earlier (median of 3 vs 4 days, P = 0.044). Furthermore, there was a significant decrease in opioid use and lower pain scores on the first postoperative day in the intervention group. There were no differences in adverse events (except for more pruritus), time to mobilization, fluid administration, or patient satisfaction.

Conclusions

This randomized controlled trial shows that intrathecal morphine is a more effective method of postoperative analgesia in laparoscopic surgery than intravenous opioids within an ERAS program. Recovery is faster and less painful with intrathecal morphine. Other studies have confirmed these results, although data on faster recovery are new and require confirmation in future trials.

Clinical Trial Registration

This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT02284282.

Clinical analysis of the effect of anti-allergy treatment on pocket-related complications following pacemaker implantation

A total number of 339 patients who received a pacemaker implantation between June 2012 and June 2014 at Tongji Hospital of Tongji Medical College (Wuhan, China) were investigated in the present study. The aims of the present study were to explore the risk factors of pocket hematoma following pacemaker implantation, and to analyze the effect of anti-allergy treatment on pocket-related complications following pacemaker implantation. Predictors of hematoma occurrence were determined and analyzed via a Chi-square test. Patients suffering from pocket hematoma, which were indicated to be partially caused by an allergic reaction to the pacemaker component, were distinguished by routine blood parameters. Furthermore, the pacemaker component was distinguished by histopathological examinations in one patient. Promethazine (25 mg/day) was used to treat allergic patients. The results demonstrated that in patients with a history of allergies, the rate of pocket hematoma was significantly higher when compared with patients without a history of allergies (22.00 vs. 7.61%; P=0.027). A significantly increased incidence of hematoma was indicated in patients with a lower body mass index when compared with patients of normal weight (15.79 vs. 7.38%; P=0.042). Furthermore, implantation of larger-sized devices, such as an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and cardiac resynchronization therapy, were significantly predictive of hematoma development (29.63 vs. 8.01%; P=0.015). Patients with diabetes were also identified to exhibit a significantly high incidence of hematoma (22.22 vs. 8.25%; P=0.023). Promethazine administration significantly decreased the incidence of re-operating (P=0.017) and the duration of hospital stay (P=0.038) in patients whose pocket hematoma was caused by an allergy. In conclusion, promethazine may be a beneficial agent to treat pocket hematoma caused by allergic reactions following pacemaker surgery.

Intravenous Midazolam as More Effective Than Propofol for Preventing Pruritus After Intrathecal Sufentanil in Surgical Patients: A Randomized Blinded Trial

Background

Pruritus is a troublesome side effect of intrathecal opioids. Midazolam can reinforce GABA-mediated inhibition of the medullary dorsal horn neurons, and thus theoretically has potential to suppress opioid-induced pruritus.

Objectives

This prospective double-blinded randomized trial aimed at comparing the effects of propofol, midazolam, and a combination of the two on the prevention of pruritus induced by intrathecal sufentanil.

Methods

Eighty-four patients undergoing spinal anesthesia with 3 mL hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% and 5 μg sufentanil (1 mL) were randomly allocated to one of the three study groups: Group 1, who were administered 20 mg intravenous (IV) propofol bolus, then 50 μg/kg/min IV infusion; Group 2, who were administered 0.03 mg/kg IV midazolam bolus, then 0.02 mg/kg/h IV infusion; and Group 3, who were administered 10 mg IV propofol and 0.015 mg/kg IV midazolam bolus, then 25 μg/kg/min propofol and 0.01 mg/kg/h midazolam IV infusion. The incidence rates and severity of pruritus were assessed intraoperatively and postoperatively for 24 hours.

Results

The Ramsay Sedation Score was highest for the propofol group throughout the duration of the anesthetic process. Overall, 17 patients in the propofol group (60.7%), eight patients in the midazolam group (28.6%), and nine patients in the propofol-midazolam group (32.1%) developed pruritus (P = 0.027). Intraoperative pruritus was observed in seven patients in the propofol group (25%), two patients in the midazolam group (7.1%), and five patients in the midazolam-propofol group (17.9%) (P = 0.196). Postoperative pruritus developed in 12 patients in the propofol group (42.9%), six patients in the midazolam group (21.4%), and four patients in the midazolam-propofol group (14.3%) (P = 0.041). There was no significant difference between the groups with respect to the severity of pruritus (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

This study showed that in comparison with propofol, the administration of 0.03 mg/kg IV midazolam bolus followed by 0.02 mg/kg/h could be more effective in the prevention of intrathecal sufentanil-induced pruritus without increasing sedation and other side effects.

Neuraxial opioid-induced itch and its pharmacological antagonism

Given its profound analgesic nature, neuraxial opioids are frequently used for pain management. Unfortunately, the high incident rate of itch/pruritus after spinal administration of opioid analgesics reported in postoperative and obstetric patients greatly diminishes patient satisfaction and thus the value of the analgesics. Many endeavors to solve the mystery behind neuraxial opioid-induced itch had not been successful, as the pharmacological antagonism other than the blockade of mu opioid receptors remains elusive. Nevertheless, as the characteristics of all opioid receptor subtypes have become more understood, more studies have shed light on the potential effective treatments. This review discusses the mechanisms underlying neuraxial opioid-induced itch and compares pharmacological evidence in nonhuman primates with clinical findings across diverse drugs. Both nonhuman primate and human studies corroborate that mixed mu/kappa opioid partial agonists seem to be the most effective drugs in ameliorating neuraxial opioid-induced itch while retaining neuraxial opioid-induced analgesia.

Comparison of droperidol and ondansetron prophylactic effect on subarachnoid morphine-induced pruritus

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The prophylactic effect of ondansetron on subarachnoid morphine-induced pruritus is controversial, while evidence suggests that droperidol prevents pruritus. The aim of this study is to compare the effects of droperidol and ondansetron on subarachnoid morphine-induced pruritus.

METHODS

180 ASA I or II patients scheduled to undergo cesarean sections under subarachnoid anesthesia combined with morphine 0.2mg were randomized to receive, after the child's birth, metoclopramide 10mg (Group I - control), droperidol 2.5mg (Group II) or ondansetron 8mg (Group III). Postoperatively, the patients were assessed for pruritus (absent, mild, moderate or severe) or other side effects by blinded investigators. Patients were also blinded to their group allocation. The tendency to present more severe forms of pruritus was compared between groups. NNT was also determined.

RESULTS

Patients assigned to receive droperidol [Proportional odds ratio: 0.45 (95% confidence interval 0.23-0.88)] reported less pruritus than those who received metoclopramide. Ondansetron effect was similar to metoclopramide [Proportional odds ratio: 0.95 (95% confidence interval 0.49-1.83)]. The NNT for droperidol and ondansetron was 4.0 and 14.7, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Ondansetron does not inhibit subarachnoid morphine-induced pruritus.

[Comparison of droperidol and ondansetron prophylactic effect on subarachnoid morphine-induced pruritus]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The prophylactic effect of ondansetron on subarachnoid morphine-induced pruritus is controversial, while evidence suggests that droperidol prevents pruritus. The aim of this study is to compare the effects of droperidol and ondansetron on subarachnoid morphine-induced pruritus.

METHODS

180 ASA I or II patients scheduled to undergo cesarean sections under subarachnoid anesthesia combined with morphine 0.2mg were randomized to receive, after the child's birth, metoclopramide 10mg (Group I - control), droperidol 2.5mg (Group II) or ondansetron 8mg (Group III). Postoperatively, the patients were assessed for pruritus (absent, mild, moderate or severe) or other side effects by blinded investigators. Patients were also blinded to their group allocation. The tendency to present more severe forms of pruritus was compared between groups. NNT was also determined.

RESULTS

Patients assigned to receive droperidol [Proportional odds ratio: 0.45 (95% confidence interval 0.23-0.88)] reported less pruritus than those who received metoclopramide. Ondansetron effect was similar to metoclopramide [Proportional odds ratio: 0.95 (95% confidence interval 0.49-1.83)]. The NNT for droperidol and ondansetron was 4.0 and 14.7, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Ondansetron does not inhibit subarachnoid morphine-induced pruritus.

Neuraxial opioid-induced pruritus: An update

Pruritus is a troublesome side-effect of neuraxial (epidural and intrathecal) opioids. Sometimes it may be more unpleasant than pain itself. The prevention and treatment still remains a challenge. A variety of medications with different mechanisms of action have been used for the prevention and treatment of opioid-induced pruritus, with mixed results. The aim of this article is to review the current body of literature and summarize the current understanding of the mechanisms and the pharmacological therapies available to manage opioid-induced pruritus. The literature source of this review was obtained via PubMed, Medline and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews until 2012. The search results were limited to the randomized controlled trials, systemic reviews and non-systemic reviews.

Transversus abdominis plane block does not improve early or late pain outcomes after Cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

Cesarean delivery is a common surgical procedure with anticipated substantial postoperative pain. The addition of a transversus abdominis plane block (TAPB) to a multimodal analgesic regimen that includes intrathecal morphine may provide improved early pain outcomes and decrease the risk of chronic post-surgical pain. The purpose of this research was to assess the ability of an ultrasound-guided TAPB with low-dose ropivacaine to decrease early postoperative pain, opioid consumption, and risk of developing persistent pain when compared with a placebo block.

METHODS

Eighty-three women were randomly assigned to either a treatment (0.25% ropivacaine) or control group (0.9% saline) in this double-blind trial, and 74 women were included in the final analysis. Ultrasound-guided TAPBs were performed with an injection of 20 mL of study solution per side. The primary outcome measures of this study were: pain at rest and pain after movement measured with a numeric rating scale, results of the Quality of Recovery-40 (QoR-40) questionnaire, and opioid consumption at 24 hr. These were used with an a priori sample size calculation to detect a 30% reduction in pain scores, a 10% improvement in QoR-40 score, and a 50% reduction in opioid consumption. Health quality and physical functioning were assessed using the Short Form 36 (SF-36®) Health Survey at 30 days and six months.

RESULTS

Assessment at 24 hr after Cesarean delivery revealed no clinically important differences between groups in postoperative pain, QoR-40, or opioid consumption. There were no clinically important differences between groups regarding measures of nausea, pruritus, vomiting, urine retention (2, 24, and 48 hr postoperatively), 24-hr QoR-40 sub-dimensions, or the SF-36 Health Survey (30 days and six months postoperatively).

CONCLUSIONS

Ultrasound-guided TAPB did not improve postoperative pain, quality of recovery, or opioid consumption 24 hr following surgery. Similar health and functioning (SF-36) at 30 days and six months were reported by both groups. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01261637.

The effect of propofol on intrathecal morphine-induced pruritus and its mechanism

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have shown that a low dose of propofol IV bolus had a beneficial effect on intrathecal morphine-induced pruritus in humans. However, its exact mechanism has not been fully understood. In this study, we hypothesized that propofol relieved intrathecal morphine-induced pruritus in rats by upregulating the expression of cannabinoid-1 (CB[1]) receptors in anterior cingulate cortex (ACC).

METHODS

Twenty-four Sprague-Dawley rats were divided into a control group and 20, 40, 80 μg/kg morphine groups to create an intrathecal morphine-induced scratching model. The effects of propofol on intrathecal 40 μg/kg morphine-induced scratching responses were then evaluated. Sixty rats were randomly assigned to control, normal saline, intralipid, and propofol groups, with pruritus behavior observation or killed 8 minutes after venous injection of normal saline, intralipid, or propofol, and brain tissues were then collected for assay. Immunohistochemistry was then performed to identify the expression of CB (1) receptor in ACC, and the concentration of CB(1) receptor in ACC was determined by Western blot analysis.

RESULTS

Compared with the control group, rats in the 20, 40, 80 μg/kg morphine groups had higher mean scratching response rates after intrathecal morphine injection (P =0.020, 0.005, and 0.002, respectively). There was a statistical difference between 20 and 40 μg/kg morphine groups at 10 to 15 and 15 to 20 timepoints after intrathecal morphine injection (P = 0.049 and 0.017, respectively). Propofol almost abolished the scratching response that was induced by 40 μg/kg intrathecal morphine injection (F[2, 15] = 46.87, P < 0.001; F[22, 165] = 2.37, P = 0.001). Compared with the intralipid and normal saline groups, the scratching behavior was significantly attenuated in the propofol group (P < 0.001). Compared with control, normal saline, and intralipid groups, the protein expression of CB(1) receptor in ACC (Western blot) in the propofol group increased (0.86 ± 0.21, 0.94 ± 0.18, 0.86 ± 0.13, and 1.34 ± 0.32, respectively, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference among control, normal saline, and intralipid groups. Compared with the control, normal saline, and intralipid groups, the average number of neurons of CB(1) receptor in the ACC area were higher in the propofol group (21.0 ± 1.4, 19.3 ± 1.8, 24.8 ± 7.7, and 37.2 ± 3.3, respectively, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Morphine elicits dose-independent scratching responses after intrathecal injection in rats. Morphine 40 μg/kg intrathecal injection-induced scratching responses can be prevented by propofol. Increased protein expression of CB(1) receptors in ACC may contribute to the reversal of intrathecal morphine-induced scratching.

Prophylaxis and treatment of the side-effects of neuraxial morphine analgesia following cesarean delivery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Neuraxial morphine is commonly used for analgesia after cesarean delivery, but is frequently associated with postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and pruritus. This review describes the recent advances in the management of those side-effects.

RECENT FINDINGS

Neuraxial-morphine-induced side-effects are dose related; therefore, the minimum effective dose should be used. Dexamethasone, 5HT3 receptor antagonists, antihistamines, and anticholinergics reduce the incidence of PONV, whereas metoclopramide 10 mg does not appear to be effective for PONV prophylaxis in this patient population. Combination antiemetic therapy provides improved prophylaxis compared with monotherapy, but has seldom been studied in women undergoing cesarean delivery with neuraxial morphine. Studies of P6 acupressure reported inconsistent results. Polymorphism of the μ-opioid receptor may affect the severity of neuraxial-morphine-induced pruritus. Opioid antagonists and mixed agonist/antagonists appear to be the most useful for the management of opioid-induced pruritus. Prophylactic 5HT3 receptor antagonists and dexamethasone do not seem to be effective for reducing the incidence of pruritus. In contrast, ondansetron, pentazocine, and dimenhydrinate may be useful for treating established pruritus.

SUMMARY

PONV and pruritus are frequent side-effects of neuraxial morphine. Future studies investigating combination antiemetic therapy, long-acting antiemetics, and strategies to manage pruritus are needed.

Pruritus: an overview of current concepts

Pruritus is an integral part of the patient's symptoms in numerous dermatological and systemic diseases in humans and animals. Comparable to chronic pain, pruritus can have a dramatic impact on the quality of life of the patient. In recent years, pruritus has been defined as an autonomous, pain-independent sensation, and itch-specific neurons, mediators, spinal neurons and cortical areas have been identified. These observations have not only improved our understanding of the neurobiology of itch but will also lead to improved diagnosis and to the development of new and more efficient therapeutic options. This article reviews the role of itch fibres and their response to various mediators of pruritus including histamine, vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP), calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), and substance P (SP), and opioids. Substances that may be involved in the induction or modulation of itch may be termed pruritogenic mediators and examples discussed include proteases, lipid mediators, neuropeptides, opioids and various cytokines. There is no single, generally accepted clinical classification of chronic pruritus. In the past pruritus has been classified on the basis of the neuroanatomical origin and on the potential underlying disease. Therapeutic options for the management of pruritus are discussed including topical and systemic therapies, assuming that trigger factors have been eliminated where possible. Topical agents may include capsaicin, the calcineurin inhibitors tacrolimus and pimecrolimus, and cannabinoid agonists such as N-palmitoyl ethanolamine. Systemic therapies may include antihistamines, anticonvulsants, opiate receptor antagonist or agonists, antidepressants, ciclosporin, and UV light.

Chronic pruritus--pathogenesis, clinical aspects and treatment

Chronic pruritus is a major symptom in numerous dermatological and systemic diseases. Similar to chronic pain, chronic pruritus can have a dramatic impact on the quality of life and can worsen the general condition of the patient considerably. The pathogenesis of itch is diverse and involves a complex network of cutaneous and neuronal cells. In recent years, more and more itch-specific mediators and receptors, such as interleukin-31, gastrin-releasing peptide receptor or histamine H4 receptor have been identified and the concept of itch-specific neurons has been further characterized. Understanding of the basic principles is important for development of target-specific treatment of patients with chronic pruritus. In this review, we summarize the current knowledge about the pathophysiological principles of itch and provide an overview about current and future treatment options.

[Opioid-induced pruritus. Mechanisms and treatment regimens]

Substantial progress has been achieved in recent years in research on the interaction between pain and pruritus. Over and above the known inhibition of pruritus by painful stimuli (e.g. scratching), a foundation for the explanation of opioid-induced pruritus was laid through the discovery of pruritus-specific neuronal processing channels. Although traditionally the degranulating effect of opioids on mast cells was assumed to be the essential mechanism, it is now clear that opioids can also induce itching at the spinal level. Neurons of the dorsal horn of the pain system inhibit spinal itch neurons. If this inhibition is weakened by opioids, the disinhibited itch neurons become active and mediate itching, without stimulation of the primary afferent peripheral nerves. Spinal triggering of itching is observed in particular by activation of mu-opioid receptors (mu-OR), while kappa-OR surprisingly suppress itch. The therapeutic implications of this interaction will be described.

Effect of prophylactic 5-HT3 receptor antagonists on pruritus induced by neuraxial opioids: a quantitative systematic review

Pruritus is a frequent adverse event observed after neuraxial administration of opioids. Central 5-hydroxytryptamine subtype 3 (5-HT3) receptors may be activated in this process. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic 5-HT3 receptor antagonists on neuraxial opioid-induced pruritus. We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Collaboration Library databases. Studies were evaluated with the Oxford Validity Scale. Studies with a score of 3 or more and reporting prophylactic administration of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists vs placebo were included. Fifteen randomized double-blind controlled trials (n=1337) were selected. 5-HT3 antagonists (n=775) significantly reduced pruritus [odds ratio (OR) 0.44 (95% confidence interval, 95% CI, 0.29-0.68), P=0.0002, number-needed-to-treat (NNT) 6 (95% CI, 4-14)], the treatment request for pruritus [OR 0.58 (95% CI, 0.43-0.78), P=0.0003, NNT 10 (95% CI, 7-20)], the intensity of pruritus [weighted mean difference (WMD) -0.35 (95% CI, -0.59 to -0.10), P=0.007], the incidence and the intensity of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), and the need of rescue treatment [respectively, Peto odds ratio (Peto OR) 0.43 (95% CI, 0.31-0.58), P<0.00001, NNT 7 (95% CI, 6-10); WMD -0.12 (95% CI, -0.24 to 0.00), P=0.05 and OR 0.42 (95% CI, 0.20-0.86), P=0.02, NNT 8 (95% CI, 5-35)]. However, the funnel plot was asymmetric, suggesting a risk of publication bias. 5-HT3 receptor antagonists may be an effective strategy in preventing neuraxial opioid-induced pruritus and PONV. Further large randomized controlled trials are required to confirm these findings.

Endogenous opiates and behavior: 2006

This paper is the 29th consecutive installment of the annual review of research concerning the endogenous opioid system, now spanning 30 years of research. It summarizes papers published during 2006 that studied the behavioral effects of molecular, pharmacological and genetic manipulation of opioid peptides, opioid receptors, opioid agonists and opioid antagonists. The particular topics that continue to be covered include the molecular-biochemical effects and neurochemical localization studies of endogenous opioids and their receptors related to behavior (Section 2), and the roles of these opioid peptides and receptors in pain and analgesia (Section 3); stress and social status (Section 4); tolerance and dependence (Section 5); learning and memory (Section 6); eating and drinking (Section 7); alcohol and drugs of abuse (Section 8); sexual activity and hormones, pregnancy, development and endocrinology (Section 9); mental illness and mood (Section 10); seizures and neurological disorders (Section 11); electrical-related activity and neurophysiology (Section 12); general activity and locomotion (Section 13); gastrointestinal, renal and hepatic functions (Section 14); cardiovascular responses (Section 15); respiration and thermoregulation (Section 16); and immunological responses (Section 17).