A double blind randomized pilot trial of naloxone in the treatment of acute ischemic stroke

Opioid Antagonist in the Treatment of Ischemic Stroke

Stroke is a leading cause of death and disability, and novel treatments need to be found, particularly drugs with neuroprotective and restorative effects. Lately, there has been an increased interest in the relationship between opioids and ischemic stroke. To further appreciate this association between opioids and stroke, we conducted a systematic review to investigate anti-opioid medication’s effectiveness in treating ischemic stroke. We used PubMed advanced-strategy and Google Scholar searches and only included full-text clinical trials on humans and written in the English language. After applying the inclusion/exclusion criteria, seven clinical trials were reviewed. Only one of the naloxone and nalmefene clinical trials showed statistically favorable results. Overall, the nalmefene clinical trials used more updated measures (NIHSS, GOS) to evaluate recovery and functional status in ischemic stroke patients than the naloxone clinical trials. There was less bias in the nalmefene clinical trials. Animal and in vitro studies have showed promising results. Additional research should be conducted with new clinical trials of both drugs with larger samples in patients less than 70 years old and moderate to severe infarcts.

Opioids in Post-stroke Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Post-stroke pain is one of the most common sequelae of stroke, which stands among the leading causes of death and adult-acquired disability worldwide. The role and clinical efficacy of opioids in post-stroke pain syndromes is still debated.

Objectives: Due to the important gap in knowledge on the management of post-stroke pain, this systematic review aimed at assessing the efficacy of opioids in post-stroke pain syndromes.

Methods: A literature search was conducted on databases relevant for medical scientific literature, i.e. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases from databases inception until August 31^st, 2020 for clinical trials assessing the effects of opioids and opioid antagonists on pain reduction and pain related symptoms in patients with post-stroke pain syndromes. Studies assessing the effects of other medications (e.g., tricyclic antidepressant, pregabalin) or non - pharmacological management strategies (e.g., neurostimulation techniques) were excluded. The selected studies have been subjected to examination of the risk of bias.

Results: The literature search retrieved 83,435 results. After duplicates removal, 34,285 articles were title and abstract screened. 25 full texts were assessed and 8 articles were identified to be eligible for inclusion in the qualitative summary and narrative analysis, of which three were placebo-controlled and two were dose-response. Among placebo-controlled studies, two evaluated the analgesic effect of morphine and one assessed the effects of the opioid antagonist naloxone on patients with central post-stroke pain. With regard to dose-response studies, both were on patients with central post-stroke pain, one assessing the efficacy of levorphanol, and the other on naloxone. Seven out of eight included studies showed an overall slight analgesic effect of opioids, with less consistent effects on other pain-related symptoms (e.g., mood, quality of life). The randomized controlled trials were subjected to meta-analysis and rating of the quality of evidence for the two outcomes considered according to GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations) system. The overall results are inconclusive because of the small number of studies and of patients.

Conclusions: The limited number of the included studies and their heterogeneity in terms of study design do not support the efficacy of opioids in post-stroke pain and in pain-related outcomes. Large double-blind randomized clinical trials with objective assessment of pain and related symptoms are needed to further investigate this topic.

High-dose naloxone: Effects by late administration on pain and hyperalgesia following a human heat injury model. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial with an enriched enrollment design

Severe chronic postsurgical pain has a prevalence of 4–10% in the surgical population. The underlying nociceptive mechanisms have not been well characterized. Following the late resolution phase of an inflammatory injury, high-dose μ-opioid-receptor inverse agonists reinstate hypersensitivity to nociceptive stimuli. This unmasking of latent pain sensitization has been a consistent finding in rodents while only observed in a limited number of human volunteers. Latent sensitization could be a potential triggering venue in chronic postsurgical pain. The objective of the present trial was in detail to examine the association between injury-induced secondary hyperalgesia and naloxone-induced unmasking of latent sensitization. Healthy volunteers (n = 80) received a cutaneous heat injury (47°C, 420 s, 12.5 cm²). Baseline secondary hyperalgesia areas were assessed 1 h post-injury. Utilizing an enriched enrollment design, subjects with a magnitude of secondary hyperalgesia areas in the upper quartile (‘high-sensitizers’ [n = 20]) and the lower quartile (‘low-sensitizers’ [n = 20]) were selected for further study. In four consecutive experimental sessions (Sessions 1 to 4), the subjects at two sessions (Sessions 1 and 3) received a cutaneous heat injury followed 168 h later (Sessions 2 and 4) by a three-step target-controlled intravenous infusion of naloxone (3.25 mg/kg), or normal saline. Assessments of secondary hyperalgesia areas were made immediately before and stepwise during the infusions. Simple univariate statistics revealed no significant differences in secondary hyperalgesia areas between naloxone and placebo treatments (P = 0.215), or between ‘high-sensitizers’ and ‘low-sensitizers’ (P = 0.757). In a mixed-effects model, secondary hyperalgesia areas were significantly larger following naloxone as compared to placebo for ‘high-sensitizers’ (P < 0.001), but not ‘low-sensitizers’ (P = 0.651). Although we could not unequivocally demonstrate naloxone-induced reinstatement of heat injury-induced hyperalgesia, further studies in clinical postsurgical pain models are warranted.

Post-stroke Intranasal (+)-Naloxone Delivery Reduces Microglial Activation and Improves Behavioral Recovery from Ischemic Injury

Ischemic stroke is the leading cause of disability, and effective therapeutic strategies are needed to promote complete recovery. Neuroinflammation plays a significant role in stroke pathophysiology, and there is limited understanding of how it affects recovery. The aim of this study was to characterize the spatiotemporal expression profile of microglial activation and whether dampening microglial/macrophage activation post-stroke facilitates the recovery. For dampening microglial/macrophage activation, we chose intranasal administration of naloxone, a drug that is already in clinical use for opioid overdose and is known to decrease microglia/macrophage activation. We characterized the temporal progression of microglia/macrophage activation following cortical ischemic injury in rat and found the peak activation in cortex 7 d post-stroke. Unexpectedly, there was a chronic expression of phagocytic cells in the thalamus associated with neuronal loss. (+)-Naloxone, an enantiomer that reduces microglial activation without antagonizing opioid receptors, was administered intranasally starting 1 d post-stroke and continuing for 7 d. (+)-Naloxone treatment decreased microglia/macrophage activation in the striatum and thalamus, promoted behavioral recovery during the 14-d monitoring period, and reduced neuronal death in the lesioned cortex and ipsilateral thalamus. Our results are the first to show that post-stroke intranasal (+)-naloxone administration promotes short-term functional recovery and reduces microglia/macrophage activation. Therefore, (+)-naloxone is a promising drug for the treatment of ischemic stroke, and further studies should be conducted.

Effects of target-controlled infusion of high-dose naloxone on pain and hyperalgesia in a human thermal injury model: a study protocol: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial with an enriched design

Mu-opioid-receptor antagonists have been extensively studied in experimental research as pharmacological tools uncovering mechanisms of pain modulation by the endogenous opioid system. In rodents, administration of high doses of mu-opioid-receptor antagonists after the resolution of an inflammatory injury has demonstrated reinstatement of nociceptive hypersensitivity indicating unmasking of latent sensitization. In a recent human study, pain hypersensitivity assessed as secondary hyperalgesia area (SHA), was reinstated 7 days after a mild thermal injury, in 4 out of 12 subjects after a naloxone infusion.The aims of the present study are first, to replicate our previous findings in a larger-sized study; second, to examine if high sensitizers (subjects presenting with large SHA after a thermal injury) develop a higher degree of hypersensitivity after naloxone challenge than low sensitizers (subjects presenting with restricted SHA after a thermal injury); and third to examine a dose-response relationship between 3 stable naloxone concentrations controlled by target-controlled infusion, and the unmasking of latent sensitization.Healthy participants (n = 80) underwent a screening day (day 0) with induction of a thermal skin injury (47°C, 420 seconds, 12.5 cm). Assessment of SHA was performed 1 and 2 hours after the injury. Using an enriched design, only participants belonging to the upper quartile of SHA (Q4, high sensitizers; n = 20) and the lower quartile of SHA (Q1, low sensitizers; n = 20) continued the study, comprising 4 consecutive days-days 1 to 4. Thermal skin injuries were repeated on day 1 and day 3, whereas day 2 and day 4 (7 days after day 1 and day 3, respectively) were target-controlled infusion days in which the subjects were randomly allocated to receive either naloxone (3.25 mg/kg, 4 mg/mL) or placebo (normal saline) intravenous. The primary outcome was SHA assessed by weighted-pin instrument (128 mN) 0, 1, 2, and 165 to 169 hours after the thermal injury (day 1-4). The secondary outcomes were pin-prick pain thresholds assessed by weighted-pin instrument (8-512 mN) at primary and secondary hyperalgesia areas (days 1-4).The naloxone-induced unmasking of latent sensitization is an interesting model for exploring the transition from acute to chronic pain. The results from the present study may provide valuable information regarding future research in persistent postsurgical pain states.

Effect of a high-dose target-controlled naloxone infusion on pain and hyperalgesia in patients following groin hernia repair: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Central sensitization is modulated by the endogenous opioid system and plays a major role in the development and maintenance of pain. Recent animal studies performed following resolution of inflammatory pain showed reinstatement of tactile hypersensitivity induced by administration of a mu-opioid-antagonist, suggesting latent sensitization is mediated by endogenous opioids. In a recent crossover study in healthy volunteers, following resolution of a first-degree burn, 4 out of 12 volunteers developed large secondary areas of hyperalgesia areas after a naloxone infusion, while no volunteer developed significant secondary hyperalgesia after the placebo infusion. In order to consistently demonstrate latent sensitization in humans, a pain model inducing deep tissue inflammation, as used in animal studies, might be necessary. The aim of the present study is to examine whether a high-dose target-controlled naloxone infusion can reinstate pain and hyperalgesia following recovery from open groin hernia repair and thus consistently demonstrate opioid-mediated latent sensitization in humans.

Methods/Design

Patients submitted to unilateral, primary, open groin hernia repair will be included in this randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, crossover study. The experimental days take place 6–8 weeks after surgery, time-points at which patients are expected to be almost pain- free. Prior to administration of naloxone or placebo, the primary outcome (a summated measure of pain: at rest, during transition from supine to standing position, and evoked by pressure algometry) and the secondary outcomes (secondary hyperalgesia/allodynia, pressure pain thresholds, assessed at the surgical site and at the mirror-site in the contralateral groin, and, opioid withdrawal symptoms) will be assessed. These assessments will be repeated at each step of the target-controlled infusion of placebo or naloxone at estimated median (95 % CI) plasma concentrations of 344 ng/ml (130;567), 1059 ng/ml (400;1752) and 3196 ng/ml (1205;5276).

Discussion

We aim to demonstrate opioid-mediated latent sensitization in a post-surgical setting, using pain as a clinical relevant variable. Impairment of the protective endogenous opioid system may play an important role in the transition from acute to chronic pain. In order to sufficiently block the endogenous opioid system, a high-dose target-controlled naloxone-infusion is used, in accordance with recent findings in animal studies.

Trial registration number

EUDRACT: 2015-000793-36 (Registration date: 16 February 2015)

Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01992146 (Registration date: 12 December 2014)

Does naloxone reinstate secondary hyperalgesia in humans after resolution of a burn injury? A placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized, cross-over study

INTRODUCTION

Development of secondary hyperalgesia following a cutaneous injury is a centrally mediated, robust phenomenon. The pathophysiological role of endogenous opioid signalling to the development of hyperalgesia is unclear. Recent animal studies, carried out after the resolution of inflammatory pain, have demonstrated reinstatement of tactile hypersensitivity following administration of μ-opioid-receptor-antagonists. In the present study in humans, we analyzed the effect of naloxone when given after the resolution of secondary hyperalgesia following a first-degree burn injury.

METHODS

Twenty-two healthy volunteers were included in this placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind, cross-over study. Following baseline assessment of thermal and mechanical thresholds, a first-degree burn injury (BI; 47°C, 7 minutes, thermode area 12.5 cm(2)) was induced on the lower leg. Secondary hyperalgesia areas around the BI-area, and separately produced by brief thermal sensitization on the contralateral thigh (BTS; 45°C, 3 minutes, area 12.5 cm(2)), were assessed using a polyamide monofilament at pre-BI and 1, 2, and 3 hours post-BI. At 72 hrs, BI and BTS secondary hyperalgesia areas were assessed prior to start of a 30 minutes intravenous infusion of naloxone (total dose 21 microg/kg) or placebo. Fifteen minutes after start of the infusion, BI and BTS secondary hyperalgesia areas were reassessed, along with mechanical and thermal thresholds.

RESULTS

Secondary hyperalgesia areas were demonstrable in all volunteers 1-3 hrs post-BI, but were not demonstrable at 72 hrs post-burn in 73-86% of the subjects. Neither magnitude of secondary hyperalgesia areas nor the mechanical and thermal thresholds were associated with naloxone-treated compared to placebo-treated subjects.

CONCLUSION

Naloxone (21 microg/kg) did not reinstate secondary hyperalgesia when administered 72 hours after a first-degree burn injury and did not increase BTS-generated hyperalgesia. The negative results may be due to the low dose of naloxone or insufficient tissue injury to generate latent sensitization.

Molecular Mechanisms in the Pathogenesis and Treatment of Acute Ischemic Stroke

The management of acute ischemic stroke has not made significant strides since the introduction of recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (r-TPA) two decades ago. The use of other therapies, such as heparin, aspirin, dipyridamole, and/or clopidogrel, have only moderately aided in the treatment of this ischemic disease. Therefore, major medical innovative approaches are critically needed. Because of the side effects associated with r-TPA (specifically bleeding) and its limited 3-h therapeutic window, new studies using current developments encountered in the molecular biology of ischemia are being incorporated into the potential therapy of ischemic stroke. A review of the major advances in the field, including glutamate receptor blockade, magnesium infusion, inflammation blockade, apoptosis inhibition, and other therapies, is introduced with special emphasis on the molecular findings recognized as targets for a better and more effective treatment. As new therapies are being considered, the time of administration is becoming a central point of study for the application of novel therapeutic initiatives.

Clinical trials for cytoprotection in stroke

To date, many cytoprotective drugs have reached the stage of pivotal phase 3 efficacy trials in acute stroke patients. (Table 1) Unfortunately, throughout the neuroprotective literature, the phrase "failure to demonstrate efficacy" prevails as a common thread among the many neutral or negative trials, despite the largely encouraging results encountered in preclinical studies. The reasons for this discrepancy are multiple, and have been discussed by Dr. Zivin in his review. Many of the recent trials have addressed deficiencies of the previous ones with more rigorous trial design, including more specific patient selection criteria (ensure homogeneity of stroke location and severity), stratified randomization algorithms (time-to-treat), narrowed therapeutic time-window and pharmacokinetic monitoring. Current trials have also incorporated biologic surrogate markers of toxicity and outcome such as drug levels and neuroimaging. Lastly, multi-modal therapies and coupled cytoprotection/reperfusion strategies are being investigated to optimize tissue salvage. This review will focus on individual therapeutic strategies and we will emphasize what we have learned from these trials both in terms of trial design and the biologic effect (or lack thereof) of these agents.

Entry criteria and baseline characteristics predict outcome in acute stroke trials

Background and Purpose-We sought to study the range of entry criteria and baseline characteristics in acute stroke trials and to understand their effects on patient outcomes.

METHODS

-Randomized, placebo-controlled therapeutic trials in patients with acute ischemic stroke were identified. Entry criteria, baseline clinical characteristics, and outcome were extracted for the placebo group of each trial. The relationship between key variables was then determined.

RESULTS

-Across 90 placebo groups identified, there was great variation in entry criteria and outcome measures. This was associated with divergent outcomes; for example, in some studies most placebo group patients died, while in other studies nearly all had no disability. Entry criteria were significantly correlated with outcome; for example, higher age cutoff for study entry correlated with 3-month mortality. Entry criteria also predicted baseline clinical characteristics; for example, wider time window for study entry correlated directly with time to treatment and inversely with stroke severity (initial National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score). Baseline characteristics predicted outcome. Greater stroke severity predicted higher 3-month mortality rate; despite this, successful thrombolytic trials have enrolled more severe strokes than most trials. The mean age of enrollees also predicted 3-month mortality and was inversely related to percentage of patients with 3-month Barthel Index score >/=95. The strongest predictors of 3-month mortality were obtained with multivariate models.

CONCLUSIONS

-Acute stroke studies vary widely in entry criteria and outcome measures. Across multiple studies, differences in entry criteria, and the baseline clinical characteristics they predict, influence patient outcomes along a continuum. In some studies, enrolling a specific subset of patients may have improved the chances of identifying a treatment-related effect, while in others, such chances may have been reduced. These findings may be useful in the design of future stroke therapeutic trials.