Compound heterozygosity in sodium channel Nav1.7 in a family with hereditary erythermalgia

Hereditary erythermalgia is a painful and debilitating genetic disorder associated with mutations in voltage-gated sodium channel Nav1.7. We have previously reported a Canadian family segregating erythermalgia consistently with a dominant genetic etiology. Molecular analysis of the proband from the family detected two different missense mutations in Nav1.7. In the present study we have performed a long-term follow-up clinical study of disease progression in three affected family members. A more extensive molecular study has also been completed, analyzing the segregation of the two missense variants in the family. The two variants (P610T, L858F) segregate independently with respect to clinical presentation. Detailed genotype/phenotype correlation suggests that one of the two variants (L858F) is causal for erythermalgia. The second variant (P610T) may modify the phenotype in the proband. This is the second reported study of potential compound heterozygosity for coding polymorphisms in Nav1.7, the first being in a patient with paroxysmal extreme pain disorder.

A systematic review of the effect of waiting for treatment for chronic pain

In many countries timely access to care is a growing problem. As medical costs escalate health care resources must be prioritized. In this context there is an increasing need for benchmarks and best practices in wait-time management. The Canadian Pain Society struck a Task Force in December 2005 to identify benchmarks for acceptable wait-times for treatment of chronic pain. As part of the mandate a systematic review of the literature regarding the relationship between waiting times, health status and health outcomes for patients awaiting treatment for chronic pain was undertaken. Twenty-four studies met the inclusion criteria for the review. The current review supports that patients experience a significant deterioration in health related quality of life and psychological well being while waiting for treatment for chronic pain during the 6 months from the time of referral to treatment. It is unknown at what point this deterioration begins as results from the 14 trials involving wait-times of 10 weeks or less yielded mixed results with wait-times amounting to as little as 5 weeks, associated with deterioration. It was concluded that wait-times for chronic pain treatment of 6 months or longer are medically unacceptable. Further study is necessary to determine at what stage the deterioration begins from the onset of pain to treatment and the impact of waiting on treatment outcomes. Most important is the need to improve access to appropriate care for patients with chronic pain, an escalating public health care problem with significant human and economic costs.

Waiting for treatment for chronic pain - a survey of existing benchmarks: toward establishing evidence-based benchmarks for medically acceptable waiting times

As medical costs escalate, health care resources must be prioritized. In this context, there is an increasing need for benchmarks and best practices in wait time management. In December 2005, the Canadian Pain Society struck a Task Force to identify benchmarks for acceptable wait times for treatment of chronic pain. The task force mandate included a systematic review and survey to identify national or international wait time benchmarks for chronic pain, proposed or in use, along with a review of the evidence upon which they are based. An extensive systematic review of the literature and a survey of International Association for the Study of Pain Chapter Presidents and key informants has identified that there are no established benchmarks or guidelines for acceptable wait times for the treatment of chronic pain in use in the world. In countries with generic guidelines or wait time standards that apply to all outpatient clinics, there have been significant challenges faced by pain clinics in meeting the established targets. Important next steps are to ensure appropriate additional research and the establishment of international benchmarks or guidelines for acceptable wait times for the treatment of chronic pain. This will facilitate advocacy for improved access to appropriate care for people suffering from chronic pain around the world.

A case series of patients using medicinal marihuana for management of chronic pain under the Canadian Marihuana Medical Access Regulations

The Canadian Marihuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR) program allows Health Canada to grant access to marihuana for medical use to those who are suffering from grave and debilitating illnesses. This is a report on a case series of 30 patients followed at a tertiary care pain management center in Nova Scotia who have used medicinal marihuana for 1-5 years under the MMAR program. Patients completed a follow-up questionnaire containing demographic and dosing information, a series of 11-point numerical symptom relief rating scales, a side effect checklist, and a subjective measure of improvement in function. Doses of marihuana ranged from less than 1 to 5g per day via the smoked or oral route of administration. Ninety-three percent of patients reported moderate or greater pain relief. Side effects were reported by 76% of patients, the most common of which were increased appetite and a sense of well-being, weight gain, and slowed thoughts. Limitations of the study include self-selection bias, small size, and lack of a control group. The need for further study using controlled trials is discussed along with an overview of the MMAR program.

The pharmacotherapy of chronic pain: a review

The past two decades have contributed a large body of preclinical work that has assisted in our understanding of the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms that cause chronic pain. In this context, it has been recognized that effective treatment of pain is a priority and that treatment often involves the use of one or a combination of agents with analgesic action. The current review presents an evidence-based approach to the pharmacotherapy of chronic pain. Medline searches were done for all agents used as conventional treatment in chronic pain. Published papers up to June 2005 were included. The search strategy included randomized, controlled trials, and where available, systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Further references were found in reference sections of papers located using the above search strategy. Agents for which there were no controlled trials supporting efficacy in treatment of chronic pain were not included in the present review, except in cases where preclinical science was compelling, or where initial human work has been positive and where it was thought the reader would be interested in the scientific evidence to date.

A review of the use of methadone for the treatment of chronic noncancer pain

Methadone, although having been available for approximately half a century, is now receiving increasing attention in the management of chronic pain. This is due to recent research showing that methadone exhibits at least three different mechanisms of action including potent opioid agonism, N-methyl-D-aspartate antagonism and monoaminergic effects. This, along with methadone's excellent oral and rectal absorption, high bioavailability, long duration of action and low cost, make it a very attractive option for the treatment of chronic pain. The disadvantages of significant interindividual variation in pharmacokinetics, graduated dose equivalency ratios based on prerotation opioid dose when switching from another opioid, and the requirement for special exemption for prescribing methadone make it more complicated to use. The present review is intended to educate physicians interested in adding methadone to their armamentarium for assisting patients with moderate to severe pain.

Topical 2% amitriptyline and 1% ketamine in neuropathic pain syndromes: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled 3-week study evaluated the efficacy of topical 2% amitriptyline, 1% ketamine, and a combination of both in treating patients with neuropathic pain.

METHODS

Ninety-two patients with diabetic neuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, or postsurgical/posttraumatic neuropathic pain with allodynia, hyperalgesia, or pinprick hypesthesia were randomly assigned to receive one of four creams (placebo, 2% amitriptyline, 1% ketamine, or 2% amitriptyline-1% ketamine combined). The primary outcome measure was change in average daily pain intensity (baseline week vs. final week) using an 11-point numerical pain rating scale. Secondary outcomes included the McGill Pain Questionnaire, measures of allodynia and hyperalgesia, and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

A reduction in pain scores of 1.1-1.5 units was observed in all groups, and there was no difference between groups. Blood concentrations revealed no significant systemic absorption. Minimal side effects were encountered.

CONCLUSION

This randomized, placebo-controlled trial examining topical 2% amitriptyline, 1% ketamine, and a combination in the treatment of neuropathic pain revealed no difference between groups. Optimization of doses may be required, because another study has revealed that higher concentrations of these agents combined do produce significant analgesia.

Dimensions of catastrophic thinking associated with pain experience and disability in patients with neuropathic pain conditions

The objective of the present study was to examine the relative contributions of different dimensions of catastrophic thinking (i.e. rumination, magnification, helplessness) to the pain experience and disability associated with neuropathic pain. Eighty patients with diabetic neuropathy, post-herpetic neuralgia, post-surgical or post-traumatic neuropathic pain who had volunteered for participation in a clinical trial formed the basis of the present analyses. Spontaneous pain was assessed with the sensory and affective subscales of the McGill Pain Questionnaire. Pinprick hyperalgesia and dynamic tactile allodynia were used as measures of evoked pain. Consistent with previous research, individuals who scored higher on a measure of catastrophic thinking (Pain Catastrophizing Scale; PCS) also rated their pain as more intense, and rated themselves to be more disabled due to their pain. Follow up analyses revealed that the PCS was significantly correlated with the affective subscale of the MPQ but not with the sensory subscale. The helplessness subscale of the PCS was the only dimension of catastrophizing to contribute significant unique variance to the prediction of pain. The PCS was not significantly correlated with measures of evoked pain. Catastrophizing predicted pain-related disability over and above the variance accounted for by pain severity. The findings are discussed in terms of mechanisms linking catastrophic thinking to pain experience. Treatment implications are addressed.

A Triage Approach to Managing a Two Year Wait-List in a Chronic Pain Program

OBJECTIVE: Individuals with chronic pain referred to specialist chronic pain management programs frequently wait months to years for assessment and care. In the authors' pain management program, approximately 600 patients are on the waiting list. An innovative recommendation program to encourage and educate referring physicians to continue active care of pain during this waiting period was developed.

METHODS: All referrals to the Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre's Pain Management Unit for a one-year period were reviewed and triaged as either 'regular waiting list' or 'fast track'. Patients in the fast track group were seen within four months and required limited interventions or were urgent in nature. The regular waiting list group waited up to 27 months for assessment and development of a treatment plan. Treatment recommendations were faxed to the referring physician. A follow-up questionnaire was sent to each physician to assess whether these treatment recommendations were useful.

RESULTS: Recommendations were faxed for 297 patients. One hundred forty-nine physicians returned the follow-up questionnaire. Ninety-five physicians used the recommendations and 68 patients followed the recommendations. Seventy-nine physicians felt that the recommendations were helpful to them in their care of the patient. For 39 patients, the recommendations were helpful. The most frequently used recommendations were those on medications (eg, tricylic antidepressants, anticonvulsants, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and controlled-release opioids). Other modalities included participation in an interdisciplinary group program and physiotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS: A triage review process with recommendations faxed to referring physicians was developed and put into action for one year. The recommendations were used by 32% of the physicians (64% of responding physicians). Fifty-three per cent of responding physicians felt that the recommendations were helpful in the care of their patient. This process led to a benefit in care, as perceived by the physician, in 26% of patients (of physicians who returned the questionnaire [13% of all patients]) on the waiting list for a tertiary care pain management unit.

Patterns of cannabis use among patients with multiple sclerosis

To estimate the patterns and prevalence of cannabis use among patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), 220 patients were surveyed in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Seventy-two subjects (36%) reported ever having used cannabis for any purpose; 29 respondents (14%) reported continuing use of cannabis for symptom treatment. Medical cannabis use was associated with male gender, tobacco use, and recreational cannabis use. The symptoms reported by medical cannabis users to be most effectively relieved were stress, sleep, mood, stiffness/spasm, and pain.

A pilot study examining topical amitriptyline, ketamine, and a combination of both in the treatment of neuropathic pain

OBJECTIVE

The involvement of ongoing peripheral activity in the generation of nociceptive input in neuropathic pain suggests that topical drug delivery may be useful as a treatment strategy. This is a pilot study providing initial information regarding the use of novel topical preparations containing amitriptyline (AMI), ketamine (KET), and a combination of both in the treatment of neuropathic pain.

METHODS

The study design included a 2 day randomized, double blind, placebo controlled, 4 way cross-over trial of all treatments, followed by an open label treatment phase using the combination cream for 7 days. Twenty volunteers with chronic neuropathic pain were randomly assigned to treatment order and applied 5 mls of each topical treatment (1% AMI, 0.5% KET, combination AMI 1%/KET 0.5%, and placebo) for 2 days. Measures of pain at the end of each block included the short form McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) and visual analog scales (VAS) for present pain intensity and pain relief. Eleven subjects who judged subjective improvement from any treatment in the initial trial entered the open-label trial and used the combination cream for 7 days. Pain levels were recorded daily using the same measures. Blood levels for amitriptyline and ketamine were performed at 7 days to determine whether systemic absorption had occurred.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference from placebo after 2 days for any treatment during the double blind component of the trial. In the 11 subjects who used the combination cream, there was a statistically significant effect, with subjects reporting significantly greater analgesia by days 3 to 7 according to measures of pain and pain relief. Blood levels revealed that there was no significant systemic absorption of amitriptyline or ketamine. Only 2 subjects experienced side effects; these were minor and did not lead to discontinuation of the cream.

CONCLUSION

This pilot study demonstrated a lack of effect for all treatments in the 2 day double blind placebo controlled trial, followed by analgesia in an open label trial in a subgroup of subjects who chose to use the combination cream for 7 days. Blood analysis revealed no significant systemic absorption of either agent after 7 days of treatment, and creams were well tolerated. A larger scale randomized trial over a longer interval is warranted to examine further effects observed in the open label trial.

Inhalation efficacy of RFI-641 in an African green monkey model of RSV infection

Human respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a major cause of acute upper and lower respiratory tract infections. RFI-641 is a novel RSV fusion inhibitor with potent in vitro activity. In vivo efficacy of RFI was determined in an African green monkey model of RSV infection involving prophylactic and therapeutic administration by inhalation exposure. Inhalation was with an RFI-641 nebulizer reservoir concentration of 15 mg/ml for 15 minutes (short exposure) or 2 hours (long exposure). Efficacy and RFI-641 exposure was determined by collection of throat swabs, nasal washes and bronchial alveolar lavage (BAL) on selected days. The short-exposure group (15 minutes) exhibited no effect on the nasal, throat or BAL samples. The throat and nasal samples for the long-exposure group failed to show a consistent reduction in viral titers. RFI-641 2 hours exposure-treated monkeys showed a statistically significantly log reduction for BAL samples of 0.73-1.34 PFU/ml (P-value 0.003) over all the sampling days. Analysis indicates that the long-exposure group titer was lower than the control titer on day 7 and when averaged across days. The results of this study demonstrate the ability of RFI-641 to reduce the viral load of RSV after inhalation exposure in the primate model of respiratory infection.

Cannabis use for chronic non-cancer pain: results of a prospective survey

There has been a surge in interest in medicinal cannabis in Canada. We conducted a questionnaire survey to determine the current prevalence of medicinal cannabis use among patients with chronic non-cancer pain, to estimate the dose size and frequency of cannabis use, and to describe the main symptoms for which relief was being sought. Over a 6-week period in mid-2001, 209 chronic non-cancer pain patients were recruited in an anonymous cross-sectional survey. Seventy-two (35%) subjects reported ever having used cannabis. Thirty-two (15%) subjects reported having used cannabis for pain relief (pain users), and 20 (10%) subjects were currently using cannabis for pain relief. Thirty-eight subjects denied using cannabis for pain relief (recreational users). Compared to never users, pain users were significantly younger (P=0.001) and were more likely to be tobacco users (P=0.0001). The largest group of patients using cannabis had pain caused by trauma and/or surgery (51%), and the site of pain was predominantly neck/upper body and myofascial (68% and 65%, respectively). The median duration of pain was similar in both pain users and recreational users (8 vs. 7 years; P=0.7). There was a wide range of amounts and frequency of cannabis use. Of the 32 subjects who used cannabis for pain, 17 (53%) used four puffs or less at each dosing interval, eight (25%) smoked a whole cannabis cigarette (joint) and four (12%) smoked more than one joint. Seven (22%) of these subjects used cannabis more than once daily, five (16%) used it daily, eight (25%) used it weekly and nine (28%) used it rarely. Pain, sleep and mood were most frequently reported as improving with cannabis use, and 'high' and dry mouth were the most commonly reported side effects. We conclude that cannabis use is prevalent among the chronic non-cancer pain population, for a wide range of symptoms, with considerable variability in the amounts used. Discussions between patients and health care providers concerning cannabis use may facilitate education and follow up, and would allow side effects and potential interactions with other medications to be monitored. Clinical trials of cannabis for chronic non-cancer pain are warranted.

Antidepressants as analgesics: a review of randomized controlled trials

This review provides an overview of 59 randomized placebo-controlled trials that examined the analgesic effect of antidepressants. To summarize, there is significant evidence that the tricyclic group of antidepressants is analgesic and that trazodone is not; the data regarding selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors are conflicting. To date, there are no randomized controlled trials examining the potential analgesic action of nefazodone or venlafaxine, but on the basis of initial clinical reports and its structural similarity to other analgesics, venlafaxine shows promise as an analgesic.