Search

Introduction: Ganglionic local opioid analgesia (GLOA) at the superior cervical ganglion (SCG) is performed for pain control and is known to be an effective procedure. In this study, we evaluated the spread of the injectate in the area of the SCG. Our expectation was that there would be a correlation between the area and volume of the injectate spread and post-procedural outcome measures. Methods: This was a retrospective blinded review of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans. Assessors evaluated the anatomical area of fluid spread, the furthermost spread from midline, any hampered spread and contact of contrast fluid with other structures. The efficacy of GLOA and complications were estimated. Results: The main solution spread reached from the C1 to C3 vertebrae. The furthest spread in the lateral and sagittal planes was 21.2 and 15.2 mm, respectively. The furthest craniocaudal spread was 63.5 mm. In 53.3% and 33% of interventions, the solution was found in the parapharyngeal space and in its "medial compartment," respectively. A correlation was found between pain relief and both solution spread and volume of solution spread. No hampered spread was recorded. A negative correlation between pain reduction and number of GLOA was observed. Higher pre-procedural pain intensity was correlated with higher pain reduction. We estimated pain relief in 93% of procedures correctly. No correlation between post-procedural Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) scores and different needle approaches was found. Conclusion: For the transoral blocking technique, a strict laterodorsal needle direction is recommended to prevent possible block failures. A total volume of 2 ml injected into the parapharyngeal space and its "medial compartment" is recommended. Higher volumes may lead to uncontrolled distribution patterns. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT05257655; date of registration 2022-02-25; patient enrollment date from 2023-01-09 to 2023-08-31. Plain Language Summary: The injection of low-dose opioids (mainly buprenorphine or sufentanil) to different sympathetic ganglia has been termed "ganglionic local opioid analgesia" (GLOA). This form of therapy has been successfully used for numerous, often protracted diseases that severely impair the patient's quality of life, such as trigeminal neuralgia. For example, as part of a multimodal approach for pain management, GLOA at the superior cervical ganglion should be considered for pain treatment in patients suffering from trigeminal neuralgia with high pre-procedural pain scores. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To analyze the applicability of US-guided rectus sheath block and to find out the efficacy of analgesia provided using this method without the need for opioids in conventional Hypertrophic pyloric stenosis (HPS) surgery in infants. Background: This study describes the provision of intra- as well as postoperative analgesia by the use of an ultrasound-guided rectus sheath block in infants undergoing conventional HPS surgery under general anesthesia. Methods/Materials: The anesthetic protocols of 26 infants undergoing HPS surgery were reviewed retrospectively. Results: The weight of the infants ranged from 2.6 to 4.6 kg. The rectus sheath block was regarded as successful in all patients as there was no heart rate increase upon surgical skin incision in any of the patients. Two out of 26 (7.6%) babies needed additional intraoperative rescue analgesia and were administered fentanyl at 20 and 40 min after skin incision. Two more (a total of 4; 15.3%) babies required postoperative analgesia and were administered tramadol droplets and liquid ibuprofen at 15, 120 and 150 min postoperatively. Duration of surgery was significantly longer in those two patients who required intraoperative rescue analgesia (Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test: P < 0.05). These were also the only two patients who received one intra- and one postoperative dose of opioid each (7.6%). Conclusion: US-guided rectus sheath block seems to be a simple and quick method for the provision of intra- and postoperative analgesia in infants undergoing conventional HPS surgery. [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]

▪ 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]

Abstract: Background: In 2001, a transdermal matrix patch formulation of buprenorphine was approved for the treatment of moderate to severe cancer pain and severe pain that is unresponsive to nonopioid analgesics. The primary recommendation contained in the prescribing information was that transdermal patches be worn for a 3-day period before application of a new patch. Objective: This study was conducted to evaluate the potential for extending the time the buprenorphine patch is worn from 3 to 4 days. Methods: This single-center, randomized, open-label, crossover Phase III study compared the efficacy and tolerability of the buprenorphine transdermal patch applied for different durations, with patch changes every 3 days versus every 4 days (12 days each), in patients with chronic moderate or severe pain of malignant or nonmalignant origin. Study participants were aged >18 years, had already responded to at least 4 weeks of transdermal buprenorphine, and had achieved steady-state conditions for at least 2 weeks before enrollment. The primary end point was patients’ rating of the quality of treatment (analgesic efficacy and tolerability, rated on a 5-point scale: very good, good, satisfactory, poor, and inadequate) at the completion of each treatment regimen. Also recorded were physicians'' ratings of the quality of treatment; pain intensity, rated on an 11-point numerical rating scale (from 0 = no pain to 10 = worst pain imaginable) and on the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) (maximum pain = 3.0); health status, assessed using the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), expressed as a percentage of the best health condition (100%); and pain relief (5-point scale: complete, good, satisfactory, slight, and none). Local skin tolerability was evaluated for objective and subjective dermatologic symptoms at the patch application sites. Patients recorded daily pain intensities at specified times of day and night, pain relief (5-point verbal rating scale), and sleep duration (<2 hours, >2–3 hours, >3-<6 hours, or >6 hours) in a diary. The safety profile was evaluated based on standard monitoring of adverse events, vital signs, and routine laboratory tests. Results: Forty-nine white patients (25 women, 24 men) were enrolled; their mean (SD) age was 61.6 (11.5) years, and their mean weight was 74.7 (16.7) kg. The most common source of pain was musculoskeletal disorders (40 patients), followed by nervous system disorders (10), neoplasms (9), injuries (5), and other causes (6). Forty-one patients completed the study; 2 patients discontinued because of adverse events, 1 because of lack of efficacy, and 5 for nonmedical reasons. Thirty-three patients provided data per protocol. Patients in the perprotocol population received a mean (SD) transdermal buprenorphine dose of 49.9 (38.9) pg/h. The proportion of patients in the per-protocol population rating the quality of treatment as adequate (combined ratings of very good, good, and satisfactory) was 93.9% (31/33) for both regimens. The physicians'' ratings indicated adequate quality of treatment in 93.8% (30/32) of patients applying 4 patches for 3 days each and 97.0% (32/33) of patients applying 3 patches for 4 days each. Mean (SD) pain intensity scores on the numerical rating scale were similar after completion of the 3− and 4-day regimens (3.73 [1.88] and 3.88 [1.75] points, respectively), as were MPQ scores (0.79 [0.67] and 0.79 [0.78]). The mean (SD) proportion of days with at least satisfactory pain relief was 83.9% (26.1%) and 85.6% (24.4%) for the 3- and 4-day regimens; the corresponding proportions of nights with at least satisfactory pain relief were 85.2% (26.6%) and 88.1% (21.4%). Continuously assessed pain intensities at specified times of day and night (numerical rating scale) did not differ significantly between regimens. Mean SF-36 health status scores did not differ significantly between regimens (total score: 37.7% [17.0%] and 37.7% [17.3%]). Mean rates of nights with good sleep quality were 28.5% (39.9%) for the 3-day regimen and 36.0% (42.6%) for the 4-day regimen. Local skin tolerability was comparable for the 3− and 4-day regimens, with objective findings (mainly erythema) at the patch-application sites in 17 of 32 and 11 of 33 patients, respectively, and subjective symptoms (mainly itching) in 16 of 32 and 13 of 33 patients. The most common adverse events in the safety population were nausea, dizziness/giddiness, and malaise/fatigue (3/49 [6.1%] each). Conclusion: Analgesic efficacy, patients'' satisfaction with the quality of treatment, and skin tolerability did not differ significantly between 3 and 4 days of patch application in these patients with chronic pain who had been previously stabilized on transdermal buprenorphine. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Background:: Tramadol is widely prescribed, even to the eldest patients. Although age-related differences in pharmacologic responsiveness are to be expected, the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic (PK) properties of tramadol have not been systematically compared between patients of various ages. Objective:: The aim of this study was to explore the effectiveness, PK properties, and safety profile of 2 galenic tramadol formulations in 3 similarly sized age groups with malignant and nonmalignant pain of moderate to severe intensity. Methods:: This prospective, age-group-controlled study was conducted at the ambulatory pain clinic of the Landeskrankenhaus Kärnten, Klagenfurt, Austria. Male and female adults with malignant and nonmalignant pain of moderate to severe intensity were eligible. Patients were stratified into similarly sized age groups, as follows: ≥75, 65-<75, and <65 years. Patients first received the immediate-release galenic formulation of tramadol (tramadol IR) until steady state was achieved, followed by the sustained-release formulation (tramadol SR) until steady state. Serum concentrations of tramadol and its active metabolite (O-desmethyl-tramadol [M1]) were measured using gas chromatography to estimate the age-related PK handling of the analgesic drug. Three validated scales were used to measure pain intensity during the study: a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS), an 11-point numeric analog scale (NAS), and a 4-point verbal rating scale (VRS). Tolerability was assessed by evaluating daily answers about the potential occurrence of adverse events (and respective details such as type and severity) from baseline until the end of the observation period. Results:: A total of 100 patients were enrolled (58 women, 42 men; mean [SD] age, 65.2 [15.0] years; ≥75, 30 patients; 65-<75, 31 patients; and <65 years, 39 patients). Predominant causes of pain were neoplasms (27.4% of causes) and injury and other external causes (20.8%), and diseases of the musculoskeletal and connective-tissues systems (19.8%). Fifty-five patients completed the study and provided all data as planned. Mean (SEM) steady-state tramadol IR doses were 250 (20.2), 277 (39.8), and 325 (33.1) mg/d in patients aged ≥75, 65-<75, and 65 years, respectively (P = NS); tramadol SR, 278 (27.5), 306 (39.7), and 340 (35.1) mg/d (P = NS). Serum concentrations of tramadol and M1 were statistically similar across all 3 age groups. Overall, mean pain intensity scores, as measured using the VAS and NAS, were decreased from baseline (62.4 [2.0] mm and 6.22 [0.22] points, respectively) to steady state with tramadol IR (23.6 [2.9] mm and 2.65 [0.30] points) and tramadol SR (16.9 [2.5] mm and 1.91 [0.26] points) (all, P < 0.001). Pain intensity before and improvements during both treatment phases were similar across all 3 age groups. Results:: for pain intensity on the VRS also did not find age-related differences. The predominant adverse effects were nausea (27.0% of patients), dizziness and giddiness (18.0%), and malaise and fatigue (15.0%); no significant differences in adverse events were found between age groups. Conclusions:: The fate of tramadol and its active metabolite, and their clinical effects, have been examined here for the first time in a prospective cohort study, which compared patients aged <65 years, 65-<75 years, and ≥75 years. In contrast to expecta tions, it was concluded that tramadol IR and tramadol SR were both generally well tolerated and effective in the treatment of moderate to severe pain in any of the 3 age groups in these patients. Although the eldest group of patients consumed, on average, 20% less tramadol (P = NS) than the youngest group, the PK properties of both drugs were not changed when given to elderly patients. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Adequate pain therapy is an important aspect in the treatment of the elderly patient with rheumatoid disease. Problems with traditional NSAIDs include potentially serious gastrointestinal, cardiovascular and renal adverse effects, especially in the elderly. In addition, the selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors have been associated with renal and cardiovascular adverse effects which may limit their use in the elderly with renal or cardiovascular disease. Opioids provide a treatment option for the management of pain in elderly patients with rheumatoid disease in whom pain control under standard management is poor; however, various therapeutic difficulties are encountered in the heterogenous elderly population (increased risk of adverse effects, multimorbidity, and polypharmacy). Lower initial opioid dosage, prolonged dosage intervals and slower dosage titrations are advisable because of altered pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Kidney function should be tightly monitored and a timely use of laxatives is to be encouraged. Randomised clinical studies of opioids in musculoskeletal pain (e.g. osteoarthritis) have increasingly extended the scientific basis for their use. However, no randomised controlled clinical trials have examined the efficacy and the benefit/risk ratio of opioids in rheumatoid arthritis. Opioids also demonstrate an analgesic effect following local peripheral application. This opens the way to new therapeutic options in the future through the development of systemic peripherally selective opioids without CNS adverse effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Buprenorphine is a potent opioid analgesic that is available in sublingual and parenteral formulations. A new formulation, buprenorphine transdermal delivery system (TDS), has been developed.Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the analgesic efficacy and tolerability of the 3 available dosages of buprenorphine TDS (35.0, 52.5, and 70.0 μg/h) with placebo.Methods: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study. Patients with chronic, severe pain related to cancer or other diseases and inadequately controlled with weak opioids were randomized to receive buprenorphine TDS 35.0, 52.5, or 70.0 μg/h or placebo patch for up to 15 days. A new patch was applied every 72 hours, for a total of 5 patches. All patients were permitted rescue analgesia with sublingual buprenorphine tablets (0.2 mg) as required for breakthrough pain.Results: A total of 157 patients (86 women, 71 men; mean [SD] age, 58.7 [11.8] years) were initially enrolled in the study. Buprenorphine TDS was associated with significantly higher response rates than was placebo at the 35.0- and 52.5-μg/h dosages (36.6% and 47.5%, respectively, vs 16.2%; P=0.032 and P=0.003, respectively) and a numerically higher response rate at 70.0 μg/h (33.3%), although this difference did not reach statistical significance. Patients treated with buprenorphine TDS experienced a 56.7% reduction in use of sublingual rescue analgesic during the study compared with an 8% reduction with the placebo patch. A total of 43.5% of patients treated with buprenorphine TDS reported good or complete pain relief compared with 32.4% in the placebo group. Pain intensity decreased in a dose-dependent manner with buprenorphine TDS, and the duration of sleep uninterrupted by pain was improved by the end of the study. More than three fourths (78.8%) of patients in the placebo and buprenorphine TDS groups reported at least 1 adverse event (AE) during the study. The most common AEs were central nervous system and gastrointestinal symptoms. The majority of treatment-related AEs were mild or moderate in intensity and were typical of those occurring at the beginning of therapy with a strong opioid.Conclusions: Buprenorphine TDS was shown to be an effective analgesic against chronic, severe pain in this study population. Patients treated with this new formulation of buprenorphine showed improved duration of sleep and reduced need for additional oral analgesics. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]