Search

Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of tapentadol prolonged release (PR) vs. oxycodone/naloxone PR in non-opioid-pretreated patients with severe chronic low back pain with a neuropathic pain component. Methods Eligible patients (average pain intensity [numerical rating scale-3 ( NRS-3)] ≥6; pain DETECT positive/unclear) were randomized to twice-daily tapentadol PR 50 mg or oxycodone/naloxone PR 10 mg/5 mg. After a 21-day titration (maximum twice-daily doses: tapentadol PR 250 mg, or oxycodone/naloxone PR 40 mg/20 mg plus oxycodone PR 10 mg), target doses were continued for 9 weeks. The primary effectiveness endpoint was the change in NRS-3 from baseline to final evaluation; the exact repeated confidence interval ( RCI) for tapentadol PR minus oxycodone/naloxone PR was used to establish noninferiority (upper limit <1.3) and superiority (confirmatory analyses). Results For the primary effectiveness endpoint, tapentadol PR was noninferior to oxycodone/naloxone PR (97.5% RCI: [−1.820, −0.184]; P < 0.001). This exact RCI also yielded evidence of superiority for tapentadol PR vs. oxycodone/naloxone PR (significantly greater reduction in pain intensity; P = 0.003). Improvements (baseline to final evaluation) in pain DETECT and Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory scores were significantly greater with tapentadol PR vs. oxycodone/naloxone PR (all P ≤ 0.005). Conclusions The study was formally shown to be positive and demonstrated, in the primary effectiveness endpoint, the noninferiority for tapentadol PR vs. oxycodone/naloxone PR. The effectiveness of tapentadol PR was superior to that of oxycodone/naloxone PR by means of clinical relevance and statistical significance (confirmatory evidence of superiority). Tapentadol PR was associated with significantly greater improvements in neuropathic pain-related symptoms and global health status than oxycodone/naloxone PR and with a significantly better gastrointestinal tolerability profile. Tapentadol PR may be considered a first-line option for managing severe chronic low back pain with a neuropathic pain component. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To identify variables that influence pain reduction following peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNFS) in order to identify a potential responder profile. Methods: Exploratory univariate and multivariate (random forest) analyses were performed separately on 2 randomized controlled trials and a registry; all included patients with chronic back pain, mainly failed back surgery syndrome. An international expert panel judged the clinical relevance of variables to identify responders by consensus. Results: Variables identified that may help predict PNFS success in patients with back pain include patient and pain characteristics (age, time since onset of pain and spinal surgery, pain medication history, position and size of pain area, pain severity, mixed nociceptive/neuropathic pain, health‐related quality of life, depression, functional disability, and leg pain status), implant procedure variables (the number and position of leads, paresthesia coverage, and amount of pain relief during the trial), and programming (number of programs, cathodes, and anodes; pulse rate; pulse width; and percentage of device usage). Conclusions: While these analyses are exploratory and restricted to a limited sample size, they suggest variables that may play a role in predicting a therapeutic response. These results, however, are informative only and should be cautiously interpreted. Future research to validate the variables in a clinical study is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the increasing clinical use of transdermal buprenorphine, questions have persisted about the possibility of a ceiling effect for analgesia, its combination with other μ-opioid agonists, and the reversibility of side effects. In October 2008, a consensus group of experts met to review recent research into the pharmacology and clinical use of buprenorphine. The objective was to achieve consensus on the conclusions to be drawn from this work. It was agreed that buprenorphine clearly behaves as a full μ-opioid agonist for analgesia in clinical practice, with no ceiling effect, but that there is a ceiling effect for respiratory depression, reducing the likelihood of this potentially fatal adverse event. This is entirely consistent with receptor theory. In addition, the effects of buprenorphine can be completely reversed by naloxone. No problems are encountered when switching to and from buprenorphine and other opioids, or in combining them. Buprenorphine exhibits a pronounced antihyperalgesic effect that might indicate potential advantages in the treatment of neuropathic pain. Other beneficial properties are the compound's favorable safety profile, particularly in elderly patients and those with renal impairment, and its lack of effect on sex hormones and the immune system. The expert group agreed that these properties, as well as proven efficacy in severe pain and favorable tolerability, mean that buprenorphine can be considered a safe and effective option for treating chronic cancer and noncancer pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Stimulation of primary afferent neurons offers a new approach for the control of localized chronic pain. We describe the results with a new neurostimulation technique, subcutaneous target stimulation (STS), for the treatment of chronic focal noncancer pain. STS applies permanent electrical stimulation directly at the painful area via a percutaneous-placed subcutaneous lead. We reported the clinical outcomes of 111 patients with focal chronic, noncancer pain treated with STS in this first nationwide, multicenter retrospective analysis. The indications for STS were low back pain ( n = 29) and failed back surgery syndrome (back pain with leg pain) ( n = 37), cervical neck pain ( n = 15), and postherpetic neuralgia ( n = 12). Pain intensity was measured on a numerical rating scale (NRS) before and after implantation. Data on analgesic medication, stimulation systems, position, and type of leads and complications were obtained from the patients' records. After implantation, the mean pain intensity improved by more than 50% (mean NRS reduction from 8.2 to 4.0) in the entire patient group ( P = 0.0009). This was accompanied by a sustained reduction in demand for analgesics. In all the patients, the STS leads were positioned directly at the site of maximum pain. Lead dislocation occurred in 14 patients (13%), infections in 7 (6%), and in 6 cases (5%), lead fractures were observed. The retrospective data analysis revealed that STS effectively provided pain relief in patients suffering from refractory focal chronic noncancer pain and that STS is an alternative treatment option. Prospective controlled studies are required to confirm these retrospective findings. This article presents a new minimally invasive technique for therapy-resistant focal pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

▪ Abstract 1. The use of opioids in cancer pain: The criteria for selecting analgesics for pain treatment in the elderly include, but are not limited to, overall efficacy, overall side-effect profile, onset of action, drug interactions, abuse potential, and practical issues, such as cost and availability of the drug, as well as the severity and type of pain (nociceptive, acute/chronic, etc.). At any given time, the order of choice in the decision-making process can change. This consensus is based on evidence-based literature (extended data are not included and chronic, extended-release opioids are not covered). There are various driving factors relating to prescribing medication, including availability of the compound and cost, which may, at times, be the main driving factor. The transdermal formulation of buprenorphine is available in most European countries, particularly those with high opioid usage, with the exception of France; however, the availability of the sublingual formulation of buprenorphine in Europe is limited, as it is marketed in only a few countries, including Germany and Belgium. The opioid patch is experimental at present in U.S.A. and the sublingual formulation has dispensing restrictions, therefore, its use is limited. It is evident that the population pyramid is upturned. Globally, there is going to be an older population that needs to be cared for in the future. This older population has expectations in life, in that a retiree is no longer an individual who decreases their lifestyle activities. The “baby-boomers” in their 60s and 70s are “baby zoomers”; they want to have a functional active lifestyle. They are willing to make trade-offs regarding treatment choices and understand that they may experience pain, providing that can have increased quality of life and functionality. Therefore, comorbidities—including cancer and noncancer pain, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and postherpetic neuralgia—and patient functional status need to be taken carefully into account when addressing pain in the elderly. World Health Organization step III opioids are the mainstay of pain treatment for cancer patients and morphine has been the most commonly used for decades. In general, high level evidence data (Ib or IIb) exist, although many studies have included only few patients. Based on these studies, all opioids are considered effective in cancer pain management (although parts of cancer pain are not or only partially opioid sensitive), but no well-designed specific studies in the elderly cancer patient are available. Of the 2 opioids that are available in transdermal formulation—fentanyl and buprenorphine—fentanyl is the most investigated, but based on the published data both seem to be effective, with low toxicity and good tolerability profiles, especially at low doses. 2. The use of opioids in noncancer-related pain: Evidence is growing that opioids are efficacious in noncancer pain (treatment data mostly level Ib or IIb), but need individual dose titration and consideration of the respective tolerability profiles. Again no specific studies in the elderly have been performed, but it can be concluded that opioids have shown efficacy in noncancer pain, which is often due to diseases typical for an elderly population. When it is not clear which drugs and which regimes are superior in terms of maintaining analgesic efficacy, the appropriate drug should be chosen based on safety and tolerability considerations. Evidence-based medicine, which has been incorporated into best clinical practice guidelines, should serve as a foundation for the decision-making processes in patient care; however, in practice, the art of medicine is realized when we individualize care to the patient. This strikes a balance between the evidence-based medicine and anecdotal experience. Factual recommendations and expert opinion both have a value when applying... [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]