Methadone: a new old drug with promises and pitfalls

Evaluation of the Therapeutic Potential of Amantadine in a Vincristine-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy Model in Rats

This study aimed to evaluate the therapeutic potential of amantadine in a vincristine-induced peripheral neuropathy model in rats. Forty-eight male Wistar rats were used. The treated groups received oral amantadine at doses of 2, 5, 12, 25 and 50 mg/kg, with daily applications for 14 days. The mechanical paw withdrawal threshold was measured using a digital analgesimeter. Immunohistochemical analysis of IL-6, TNFα, MIP1α, IL-10, CX3CR1, CXCR4, SOD, CAT and GPx, and enzymatic activity analysis of CAT, SOD and GPx were performed, in addition to quantitative PCR of Grp78, Chop, Ho1, Perk, Bax, Bcl-xL, Casp 3, Casp 9, IL-6, IL-10, IL-18 and IL-1β. The results showed an increase in nociceptive thresholds in animals that received 25 mg/kg and 50 mg/kg amantadine. Immunohistochemistry showed a decrease in the immunostaining of IL-6, TNFα, MIP1α and CX3CR1, and an increase in IL-10. CAT and SOD showed an increase in both immunochemistry and enzymatic analysis. qPCR revealed a reduced expression of genes related to endoplasmic reticulum stress and regulation in the expression of immunological and apoptotic markers. Amantadine demonstrated antinociceptive, anti-inflammatory and antioxidant effects in the vincristine-induced peripheral neuropathy model in rats, suggesting that amantadine may be considered an alternative approach for the treatment of vincristine-induced peripheral neuropathic pain.

The other side of the coin: Positive view on the role of opioids in cancer

Opioids have been used for medicinal purposes as an analgesic and recreational purposes as a euphorigenic throughout human history. Cancer patients are often treated with different doses of opioids concurrently with anti-cancer drugs for pain relief without exhibiting excessive adverse effects. The intersection of the biology of pain, opioid therapy, and disease progression represents the crux of the matters and is of potentially great importance in cancer care. For more than 20 years, multiple investigations have focused on the stimulatory effects of opioids on cancer cell growth, while in-depth studies on the inhibitory effects on cancer cell growth development have usually been neglected. This paper reviews the evidence regarding opioid therapies and their anti-cancer effects on various malignancies. Likewise, we have a glimpse into the molecular mechanisms necessary for pinpointing their positive or negative impacts on malignancies to raise awareness and stimulate more excellent dialogue regarding their carcinogenic/anticarcinogenic roles.

A Systematic Review of NMDA Receptor Antagonists for Treatment of Neuropathic Pain in Clinical Practice

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy of N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (NMDAR) antagonists for neuropathic pain (NeuP) and review literature to determine if specific pharmacologic agents provide adequate NeuP relief.

METHODS

Literature was reviewed on PubMed using a variety of key words for 8 NMDAR antagonists. These key words include: "Ketamine and Neuropathy," "Ketamine and Neuropathic Pain," "Methadone and Neuropathy," "Methadone and Neuropathic Pain," "Memantine and Neuropathic pain," "Memantine and Neuropathy," "Amantadine and Neuropathic Pain," "Amantadine and Neuropathy," "Dextromethorphan and Neuropathic Pain," "Dextromethorphan and Neuropathy," "Carbamazepine and Neuropathic Pain," "Carbamazepine and Neuropathy," "Valproic Acid and Neuropathy," "Valproic Acid and Neuropathic Pain," "Phenytoin and Neuropathy," and "Phenytoin and Neuropathic Pain." With the results, the papers were reviewed using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting in Systematic and Meta-Analyses) guideline.

RESULTS

A total of 58 randomized controlled trials were reviewed among 8 pharmacologic agents, which are organized by date and alphabetical order. Of the trials for ketamine, 15 showed some benefit for analgesia. Methadone had 3 positive trials, while amantadine and memantine each only had 2 trials showing NeuP analgesic properties. Dextromethorphan and valproic acid both had 4 randomized controlled trials that showed some NeuP treatment benefit while carbamazepine had over 8 trials showing efficacy. Finally, phenytoin only had 1 trial that showed clinical response in treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

There are a variety of NMDAR antagonist agents that should be considered for treatment of NeuP. Nevertheless, continued and further investigation of the 8 pharmacologic agents is needed to continue to evaluate their efficacy for treatment of NeuP.

Methadone for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

This review replaces an earlier review, "Methadone for chronic non-cancer pain in adults". This review serves to update the original and includes only studies of neuropathic pain. Methadone belongs to a class of analgesics known as opioids, that are considered the cornerstone of therapy for moderate-to-severe postsurgical pain and pain due to life-threatening illnesses; however, their use in neuropathic pain is controversial. Methadone has many characteristics that differentiate it from other opioids, which suggests that it may have a different efficacy and safety profile.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of methadone for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases: CENTRAL (CRSO), MEDLINE (Ovid), and Embase (Ovid), and two clinical trial registries. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved articles. The date of the most recent search was 30 November 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing methadone (in any dose, administered by any route, and in any formulation) with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently considered trials for inclusion in the review, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. There were insufficient data to perform pooled analyses. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each outcome using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three studies, involving 105 participants. All were cross-over studies, one involving 19 participants with diverse neuropathic pain syndromes, the other two involving 86 participants with postherpetic neuralgia. Study phases ranged from 20 days to approximately eight weeks. All administered methadone orally, in doses ranging from 10 mg to 80 mg daily. Comparators were primarily placebo, but one study also included morphine and tricyclic antidepressants.The included studies had several limitations related to risk of bias, particularly incomplete reporting, selective outcome reporting, and small sample sizes.There were very limited data for our primary outcomes of participants with at least 30% or at least 50% pain relief. Two studies reported that 11/29 participants receiving methadone achieved 30% pain relief versus 7/29 participants receiving placebo. Only one study presented data in a manner that allowed us to calculate the number of participants with at least 50% pain relief. None of the 19 participants achieved a 50% reduction in pain intensity, either when receiving methadone or when receiving placebo. No study provided data for our other primary outcomes of Patient Global Impression of Change scale (PGIC) much or very much improved (equivalent to at least 30% pain relief) and PGIC very much improved (equivalent to at least 50% pain relief).For secondary efficacy outcomes, one study reported maximum and mean pain intensity and pain relief, and reported statistically significant improvements versus placebo for all outcomes with 20 mg daily doses of methadone, but not with 10 mg daily doses. The second study reported differences in pain reduction between methadone (n = 26) and morphine (n = 38) and found morphine to be statistically superior. The third study reported the number of responders (variously defined) for several pain and functional outcomes and found methadone to be statistically superior to placebo for the outcomes of categorical pain intensity and evoked pain. In the two studies that reported data, 0/29 participants withdrew due to lack of efficacy, whereas 4/29 participants withdrew due to adverse events while taking methadone versus 3/29 while taking placebo.One study reported incidences for several individual adverse events, but found a statistically significant increased incidence for methadone over placebo for only one event, dizziness. The other studies did not report data in a manner that enabled us to analyze adverse events. There were no serious adverse events or deaths reported.We assessed the quality of the evidence as very low for all efficacy and safety outcomes using GRADE, primarily because of the heterogeneity of study designs and populations, short durations, cross-over methodology, and few participants and events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The three studies provide very limited, very low quality evidence of the efficacy and safety of methadone for chronic neuropathic pain, and there were too few data for pooled analysis of efficacy or harm, or to have confidence in the results of the individual studies. No conclusions can be made regarding differences in efficacy or safety between methadone and placebo, other opioids, or other treatments.

Nephrotoxicity of methadone: a systematic review

Background

Methadone is commonly administered for chronic pain relief and treatment of opioid dependence. Concurrent with its increased consumption, toxicities and fatalities have increased. One of the adverse effects of opioid analgesics, including methadone, is that of nephrotoxicity. Opioids can have an effect on renal function through several different mechanisms.

Methods

We searched common bibliographical databases for the terms methadone, toxicity, poisoning, kidney, renal, and nephrotoxicity and summarize our findings in this review.

Results

Methadone can have both direct and indirect effects on the kidney. These effects include rhabdomyolysis (leading to acute kidney injury), volumetric changes, renal lipidosis and amyloidosis, kidney growth during pregnancy, and kidney transplant rejection.

Conclusion

Improved understanding of the effects of methadone on kidney function can promote safer and more confident use of the drug.

Refining the excretion factors of methadone and codeine for wastewater analysis - Combining data from pharmacokinetic and wastewater studies

Analysing drug residues in wastewater (wastewater analysis) to monitor the consumption of those drugs in the population has become a complementary method to epidemiological surveys. In this method, the excretion factor of a drug (or the percentage of drug metabolites excreted through urine) is a critical parameter for the back-estimation of the consumption of a drug. However, this parameter is usually derived from a small database of human pharmacokinetic studies. This is true for methadone and codeine, the two most commonly used opioids and also common substances of abuse. Therefore, we aimed to refine the current excretion factors used for estimating methadone and codeine by analysing published data from the literature on the excretion of methadone, its main metabolite, 2-ethylidene-1,5-dimethyl-3,3-diphenylpyrrolidine (EDDP), and codeine. Our review included both human drug pharmacokinetic studies and wastewater analysis studies. We found that while the commonly used excretion factor of methadone (~27.5%) was relatively accurate, the excretion factor of EDDP, a better biomarker for methadone consumption in sewer epidemiology, should be twice that of methadone (i.e. 55%) instead of the current equal or half values. For codeine, the excretion factor should be ~30% instead of 63.5% or 10% as previously used in wastewater analysis studies. Data from wastewater analysis studies could be used in this way to refine the excretion factors of the drugs of interest.

Methadone analgesia in the critically ill

PURPOSE

Methadone is increasingly used as an analgesic or a bridge to weaning other analgesics and sedatives in critically ill patients. This review discusses the pharmacology of methadone, summarizes available evidence for its use in the intensive care unit setting, and makes suggestions for appropriate use and monitoring.

MATERIALS/METHODS

Articles evaluating the efficacy, safety, and pharmacology of methadone were identified from a PubMed search through June 2015. References from selected articles were reviewed for additional material. Experimental and observational English-language studies that focused on the efficacy, safety, and pharmacology of methadone in critically-ill adults and children were selected.

RESULTS

Methadone is a synthetic opioid analgesic with potential advantages over other commonly used opioids. Limited evidence from critically ill pediatric, adult, and burn populations suggests that methadone protocols may expedite weaning opiate infusions, decrease the length of mechanical ventilation, and reduce the incidence of negative outcomes such as opiate withdrawal, delirium, and over-sedation.

CONCLUSIONS

Data from current literature supports a role for methadone analgesia in weaning opiates and potentially reducing the duration of mechanical ventilation in critically ill patients. More studies are needed to confirm these benefits and determine criteria for patient selection.

Opioid tolerance in methadone maintenance treatment: comparison of methadone and levomethadone in long-term treatment

Background

This study aimed to investigate the development of opioid tolerance in patients receiving long-term methadone maintenance treatment (MMT).

Methods

A region-wide cross-sectional study was performed focusing on dosage and duration of treatment. Differences between racemic methadone and levomethadone were examined. All 20 psychiatric hospitals and all 110 outpatient clinics in Berlin licensed to offer MMT were approached in order to reach patients under MMT fulfilling the DSM IV criteria of opiate dependence. In the study, 720 patients treated with racemic methadone or levomethadone gave information on the dosage of treatment. Out of these, 679 patients indicated the duration of MMT.

Results

Treatment with racemic methadone was reported for 370 patients (54.5 %), with levomethadone for 309 patients (45.5 %). Mean duration of MMT was 7.5 years. We found a significant correlation between dosage and duration of treatment, both in a conjoint analysis for the two substances racemic methadone and levomethadone and for each substance separately. These effects remained significant when only patients receiving MMT for 1 year or longer were considered, indicating proceeding tolerance development in long-term treatment. When correlations were compared between racemic methadone and levomethadone, no significant difference was found.

Conclusions

Our data show a tolerance development under long-term treatment with both racemic methadone and levomethadone. Tolerance development did not differ significantly between the two substances.

Categorising methadone: Addiction and analgesia

While methadone was first developed as an analgesic, and used for this purpose before it was adopted as a therapy for drug dependence, it is this latter use which has saturated its identity. Most of the literature and commentary on methadone discusses it in the context of methadone maintenance therapy (MMT). But one of the effects of the liberalization of opiate prescription for chronic pain which took place in the 1990s was the re-emergence of methadone as a painkiller. This article examines the relationship between methadone the painkiller and methadone the addiction treatment as it is constituted in recent medical research literature and treatment guidelines. It highlights the way medical discourse separates methadone into two substances with different effects depending on the problem that is being treated. Central to this separation is the classification of patients into addicts and non-addicts; and pain sufferers and non-pain sufferers. The article argues that despite this work of making and maintaining distinctions, the similarities in the way methadone is used and acts in these different medical contexts complicates these categories. The difficulties of keeping the 'two methadones' separate becomes most apparent in cases of MMT patients also being treated for chronic pain.

Methadone induction in primary care (ANRS-Methaville): a phase III randomized intervention trial

Background

In France, the rapid scale-up of buprenorphine, an opioid maintenance treatment (OMT), in primary care for drug users has led to an impressive reduction in HIV prevalence among injecting drug users (IDU) but has had no major effect on Hepatitis C incidence. To date, patients willing to start methadone can only do so in a methadone clinic (a medical centre for drug and alcohol dependence (CSAPA) or a hospital setting) and are referred to primary care physicians after dose stabilization. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of methadone in patients who initiated treatment in primary care compared with those who initiated it in a CSAPA, by measuring abstinence from street opioid use after one year of treatment.

Methods/Design

The ANRS-Methaville study is a randomized multicenter non-inferiority control trial comparing methadone induction (lasting approximately 2 weeks) in primary care and in CSAPA. The model of care chosen for methadone induction in primary care was based on study-specific pre-training of all physicians, exclusion criteria and daily supervision of methadone during the initiation phase. Between January 2009 and January 2011, 10 sites each having one CSAPA and several primary care physicians, were identified to recruit patients to be randomized into two groups, one starting methadone in primary care (n = 147), the other in CSAPA (n = 48). The primary outcome of the study is the proportion of participants abstinent from street opioids after 1 year of treatment i.e. non-inferiority of primary care model in terms of the proportion of patients not using street opioids compared with the proportion observed in those starting methadone in a CSAPA.

Discussion

The ANRS-Methaville study is the first in France to use an interventional trial to improve access to OMT for drug users. Once the non-inferiority results become available, the Ministry of Health and agency for the safety of health products may change the the New Drug Application (NDA) of methadone and make methadone induction by trained primary care physicians possible.

The trial is registered with the French Agency of Pharmaceutical Products (AFSSAPS) under the number 2008-A0277-48, the European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials.

Number Eudract 2008-001338-28, the ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00657397 and the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register ISRCTN31125511.

Inhibitory action of methadone and its metabolites on erg-mediated K+ current in GH₃ pituitary tumor cells

Methadone (Mtd) is a widely used opioid drug associated with the side effect of hyperprolactinemia. The mechanism of how Mtd induces prolactin secretion remains unclear. The effects of Mtd and its two main metabolites (EDDP: (±)-2-ethyl-1,5-dimethyl-3,3-diphenylpyrrolinium percholarate and EMDP: 2-ethyl-5-methyl-3,3-dipnehyl-1-pyrroline) on ion currents were investigated in GH₃ pituitary tumor cells. Hyperpolarization-elicited K+ currents in GH₃ cells bathed in a high-K(+), Ca(2+)-free solution were studied to evaluate the effects of Mtd and other related compounds on the ether-à-go-go-related-gene (erg) K(+) current (I(K(erg))). Mtd suppressed the amplitude of I(K(erg)) in a concentration-dependent manner with an IC(50) value of 10.4 μM. With the aid of a minimal binding scheme, the inhibitory action of Mtd on I(K(erg)) was estimated with a dissociation constant of 8.2 μM. Mtd tended to increase the rate of I(K(erg)) deactivation in a voltage-dependent fashion. EDDP (10 μM) had no effect on I(K(erg)), while EMDP (10μM) slightly suppressed it. In GH₃ cells incubated with naloxone (30 μM), the Mtd-induced inhibition of I(K(erg)) remained unaltered. Under cell-attached voltage-clamp recordings, Mtd increased the frequency of spontaneous action currents with no change in current amplitude. Similarly, Mtd can suppress I(K(erg)) in differentiated NG108-15 cells; dynorphin A(1-13) did not reverse Mtd-induced inhibition of I(K(erg)). This study shows that Mtd has a depressant effect on I(K(erg)), and suggests its ability to affect membrane excitability and prolactin secretion. The cyclization of Mtd, in which EDDP and EMDP are formed, tends to be critical in removal of the Mtd binding to erg K+ channel.

Method for determination of methadone in exhaled breath collected from subjects undergoing methadone maintenance treatment

At present drugs of abuse testing using exhaled breath as specimen is only possible for alcohol. However, we recently discovered that using modern liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry technique amphetamine and methamphetamine is detectable in exhaled breath following intake in drug addicts. We therefore undertook to develop a method for determination of methadone in exhaled breath from patients undergoing methadone maintenance treatment. Exhaled breath was collected from 13 patients after intake of the daily methadone dose. The compounds were trapped by filtering the air through a C18 modified silica surface. After elution of any trapped methadone the extract was analysed by a combined liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry method. Recovery of trapped methadone from the filter surface was 96%, no significant matrix effect was observed, and the quantification using methadone-d3 as an internal standard was accurate (<10% bias) and precise (coefficient of variation 1.6-2.0%). Methadone was indisputably identified by means of the mass spectrometry technique in exhaled breath samples from all 13 patients. Identification was based on monitoring two product ions in selected reaction monitoring mode with correct relative ratio (+/-20%) and correct retention time. Excretion rates ranged from 0.39 to 78ng/min. No methadone was detected in 10 control subjects. This finding confirms that breath testing is a new possibility for drugs of abuse testing. Collection of exhaled breath specimen is likely to be more convenient and safe as compared to other matrices presently in use.