Search

Background Methods Results Conclusion Gabapentin, a widely prescribed medication for various neuropathic pain conditions, has demonstrated efficacy in managing diverse neurological disorders. While conventional side effects are well‐documented, a growing body of evidence suggests the existence of atypical side effects, necessitating comprehensive exploration. This paper aims to systematically review and summarize the literature on the atypical side effects of gabapentin, shedding light on manifestations beyond the conventional spectrum.A systematic review was conducted, encompassing peer‐reviewed articles published up to the knowledge cutoff date in November 2023. Databases, specifically PubMed, were searched for relevant studies, focusing on atypical side effects such as myoclonus, ataxia, pediatric aggression, respiratory depression, pneumonia, pregnancy complications, sleep interference, encephalopathy, peripheral edema, suicidal ideation, dyskinesia, anorgasmia, and myopathy. Inclusion criteria comprised studies with a focus on gabapentin‐related atypical side effects, published in recognized journals and involving human subjects.The review identified a spectrum of atypical side effects associated with gabapentin use, ranging from neurological manifestations like myoclonus and ataxia to behavioral changes such as pediatric aggression and suicidal ideation. Additionally, respiratory complications, pregnancy‐related issues, sleep disturbances, and rare complications like encephalopathy and myopathy were observed. Literature synthesis provided insights into the incidence, clinical presentation, and potential mechanisms underlying these atypical side effects.This comprehensive review highlights the diverse range of atypical side effects associated with gabapentin use, expanding beyond conventional knowledge. Healthcare practitioners must be cognizant of these manifestations, recognizing their potential impact on patient well‐being. As clinical decision‐making relies on a thorough understanding of a medication's side effect profile, this review contributes to enhancing awareness and fostering informed practices in the prescription and management of gabapentin. Further research is warranted to elucidate the mechanisms and risk factors associated with these atypical side effects, refining our understanding of gabapentin's safety profile. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. Cancer-related abdominal and pelvic pain syndromes can be debilitating and difficult to treat. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of superior hypogastric plexus blockade or neurolysis (SHPN) for the treatment of cancer-related pelvic pain. Design. Retrospective study. Setting. MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. Methods. We enrolled 46 patients with cancer-related pelvic pain who underwent SHPN. A numeric rating scale (NRS) was used for pain intensity, and symptom burden was evaluated using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System at baseline, visit 1 (within one month), and visit 2 (within one to six months). Results. Forty-six patients who received SHPN showed a significant reduction in pain score from 6.9 to 5.6 at visit 1 (P=0.01). Thirty of the 46 patients continued to complete visit 2 follow-up, and the NRS score was consistently lower at 4.5 at visit 2 (P<0.0001), with anxiety and appetite improved significantly. There was no significant change in the morphine equivalent dose at visits 1 and 2. The efficacy of the block was not influenced by patients’ age, gender, type of cancer, cancer stage, regimen of chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy, diagnostic block, approach or laterality of procedure, or type or amount of neurolytic agent. Nonsmokers with high baseline pain scores were more likely to have improved treatment outcomes from SHPN at short-term follow-up. Adverse effects with SHPN were mild and well tolerated. Conclusions. SHPN was an effective and relatively safe procedure for pain associated with pelvic malignancies. There is a need for larger prospective trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. Because an increase of patients who misuse opioids has been identified in our cancer clinical setting through urine drug testing (UDT) and the Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patient's with Pain-Short Form (SOAPP-SF), we conducted this retrospective cohort study to identify patient characteristics that are associated with UDT that indicates noncompliance. Methods. Over a two-year period, 167 of 8,727 patients (2.4%) seen in the pain clinic and who underwent UDT were evaluated to determine compliance with prescribed opioid regimens. Descriptive clinical and demographic data were collected, and group differences based on compliance with opioid therapy were evaluated. Results. Fifty-eight percent of the patients were noncompliant with their prescribed opioid therapy. Noncompliant patients were younger than compliant patients, with a median age of 46 vs 49 years (P=0.0408). Noncompliant patients were more likely to have higher morphine equivalent daily doses; however, the difference was not statistically significant. Patients with a history of alcohol (ETOH) (P=0.0332), illicit drug use (P=0.1014), and smoking (P=0.4184) were more likely noncompliant. Univariate regression analysis showed that a history of ETOH use (P=0.034), a history of anxiety (P=0.027), younger age (P=0.07), and a SOAPP-SF score of 4 or higher (P=0.05) were associated with an abnormal UDT. Conclusions. History of ETOH use, anxiety, high SOAPP-SF score, and younger age were associated with UDT that indicates noncompliance. Given the very small percentage of UDT testing, it is quite likely that a significant number of patients who did not undergo UDT were also nonadherent with treatment recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Opioid use, abuse, and adverse consequences, including death, have escalated at an alarming rate since the 1990s. In an attempt to control opioid abuse, numerous regulations and guidelines for responsible opioid prescribing have been developed by various organizations. However, the US opioid epidemic is continuing and drug dose deaths tripled during 1999 to 2015. Recent data show a continuing increase in deaths due to natural and semisynthetic opioids, a decline in methadone deaths, and an explosive increase in the rates of deaths involving other opioids, specifically heroin and illicit synthetic fentanyl. Contrary to scientific evidence of efficacy and negative recommendations, a significant proportion of physicians and patients (92%) believe that opioids reduce pain and a smaller proportion (57%) report better quality of life. In preparation of the current guidelines, we have focused on the means to reduce the abuse and diversion of opioids without jeopardizing access for those patients suffering from non-cancer pain who have an appropriate medical indication for opioid use., Objectives: To provide guidance for the prescription of opioids for the management of chronic non-cancer pain, to develop a consistent philosophy among the many diverse groups with an interest in opioid use as to how appropriately prescribe opioids, to improve the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain and to reduce the likelihood of drug abuse and diversion. These guidelines are intended to provide a systematic and standardized approach to this complex and difficult arena of practice, while recognizing that every clinical situation is unique., Methods: The methodology utilized included the development of objectives and key questions. The methodology also utilized trustworthy standards, appropriate disclosures of conflicts of interest, as well as a panel of experts from various specialties and groups. The literature pertaining to opioid use, abuse, effectiveness, and adverse consequences was reviewed, with a best evidence synthesis of the available literature, and utilized grading for recommendation as described by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ).Summary of Recommendations:i. Initial Steps of Opioid Therapy 1. Comprehensive assessment and documentation. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong) 2. Screening for opioid abuse to identify opioid abusers. (Evidence: Level II-III; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 3. Utilization of prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs). (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate to strong) 4. Utilization of urine drug testing (UDT). (Evidence: Level II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 5. Establish appropriate physical diagnosis and psychological diagnosis if available. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong) 6. Consider appropriate imaging, physical diagnosis, and psychological status to collaborate with subjective complaints. (Evidence: Level III; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 7. Establish medical necessity based on average moderate to severe (≥ 4 on a scale of 0 - 10) pain and/or disability. (Evidence: Level II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 8. Stratify patients based on risk. (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 9. Establish treatment goals of opioid therapy with regard to pain relief and improvement in function. (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 10. Obtain a robust opioid agreement, which is followed by all parties. (Evidence: Level III; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate)ii. Assessment of Effectiveness of Long-Term Opioid Therapy 11. Initiate opioid therapy with low dose, short-acting drugs, with appropriate monitoring. (Evidence: Level II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 12. Consider up to 40 morphine milligram equivalent (MME) as low dose, 41 to 90 MME as a moderate dose, and greater than 91 MME as high dose. (Evidence: Level II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 13. Avoid long-acting opioids for the initiation of opioid therapy. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong) 14. Recommend methadone only for use after failure of other opioid therapy and only by clinicians with specific training in its risks and uses, within FDA recommended doses. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong) 15. Understand and educate the patients of the effectiveness and adverse consequences. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong) 16. Similar effectiveness for long-acting and short-acting opioids with increased adverse consequences of long-acting opioids. (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of recommendation: Moderate to strong) 17. Periodically assess pain relief and/or functional status improvement of ≥ 30% without adverse consequences. (Evidence: Level II; Strength of recommendation: Moderate) 18. Recommend long-acting or high dose opioids only in specific circumstances with severe intractable pain. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong)iii. Monitoring for Adherence and Side Effects 19. Monitor for adherence, abuse, and noncompliance by UDT and PDMPs. (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate to strong) 20. Monitor patients on methadone with an electrocardiogram periodically. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong). 21. Monitor for side effects including constipation and manage them appropriately, including discontinuation of opioids when indicated. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong)iv. Final Phase 22. May continue with monitoring with continued medical necessity, with appropriate outcomes. (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 23. Discontinue opioid therapy for lack of response, adverse consequences, and abuse with rehabilitation. (Evidence: Level III; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines were developed based on comprehensive review of the literature, consensus among the panelists, in consonance with patient preferences, shared decision-making, and practice patterns with limited evidence, based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to improve pain and function in chronic non-cancer pain on a long-term basis. Consequently, chronic opioid therapy should be provided only to patients with proven medical necessity and stability with improvement in pain and function, independently or in conjunction with other modalities of treatments in low doses with appropriate adherence monitoring and understanding of adverse events.Key words: Chronic pain, persistent pain, non-cancer pain, controlled substances, substance abuse, prescription drug abuse, dependency, opioids, prescription monitoring, drug testing, adherence monitoring, diversionDisclaimer: The guidelines are based on the best available evidence and do not constitute inflexible treatment recommendations. Due to the changing body of evidence, this document is not intended to be a "standard of care."

Unlabelled: Pancreatic and other upper abdominal organ malignancies can produce intense visceral pain syndromes that are frequently treated with splanchnic nerve neurolysis (SNN) or celiac plexus neurolysis (CPN). Although commonly performed with either alcohol or phenol, there is scant literature on the comparative effectiveness, duration of benefit, and complication profile comparing the 2 agents. This study presents a retrospective chart review of 93 patients who underwent SNN for cancer-related abdominal pain in order to describe patient characteristics, examine comparative efficacy, duration of benefit, and incidence of complications with alcohol vs. those of phenol. Consistent with previous studies, SNN reduced reported pain scores while not significantly reducing opioid consumption. No difference in pain outcomes was found comparing alcohol versus phenol based neurolytic techniques. Celiac axis tumor infiltration and pre-procedural local radiation therapy did not change the effectiveness of the procedure. Our data demonstrated that 44.57% of patients had = 30% pain reduction while 43.54% did not have pain reduction. Interestingly, the procedure produced significant improvements in anxiety, depression, difficulty thinking clearly, and feeling of well-being. In addition, no difference in complications was seen between the agents either. SNN was an effective and relatively safe procedure for the treatment of pain associated with pancreatic and other upper abdominal organ malignancies in our sample of patients. Choice of neurolytic agent can appropriately be left to the clinical judgment and local availability of the treating physician. The change in ancillary symptoms has a theoretical basis that supports a biopsychosocial model of pain since changes in one target area (pain) impact other related ones (depression and anxiety)., Key Words: Celiac plexus, splanchnic nerves, neurolysis, nerve block, alcohol, ethanol, phenol, pain, cancer pain, abdominal pain, visceral pain, symptom assessment.