Sensitized brain response to acute pain in patients using prescription opiates for chronic pain: A pilot study

Neuroimaging of opioid effects in humans across conditions of acute administration, chronic pain therapy, and opioid use disorder

Evidence of central nervous system (CNS) exogenous opioid effects in humans has been primarily gained through neuroimaging of three participant populations: individuals after acute opioid administration, those with opioid use disorder (OUD), and those with chronic pain receiving opioid therapy. In both the brain and spinal cord, opioids alter processes of pain, cognition, and reward. Opioid-related CNS effects may persist and accumulate with longer opioid use duration. Meanwhile, opioid-induced benefits versus risks to brain health remain unclear. This review article highlights recent accumulating evidence for how exogenous opioids impact the CNS in humans. While investigation of CNS opioid effects has remained largely disparate across contexts of opioid acute administration, OUD, and chronic pain opioid therapy, integration across these contexts may enable advancement toward effective interventions.

Balanced Opioid Prescribing via a Clinical Trade-Off: Pain Relief vs. Adverse Effects of Discomfort, Dependence, and Tolerance/Hypersensitivity

In the backdrop of the opioid epidemic, opioid prescribing has distinct medical and social challenges. Overprescribing contributes to the ongoing opioid epidemic, whereas underprescribing yields inadequate pain relief. Moreover, opioids have serious adverse effects including tolerance and increased sensitivity to pain, paradoxically inducing more pain. Prescribing trade-offs are recognized but not modeled in the literature. We study the prescribing decisions for chronic, acute, and persistent pain types to minimize the cumulative pain that incorporates opioid adverse effects (discomfort and dependence) and the risk of tolerance or hypersensitivity (THS) developed with opioid use. After finding closed-form solutions for each pain type, we analytically investigate the sensitivity of acute pain prescriptions and examine policies on incorporation of THS, patient handover, and adaptive treatments. Our analyses show that the role of adverse effects in prescribing decisions is as critical as that of the pain level. Interestingly, we find that the optimal prescription duration is not necessarily increasing with the recovery time. We show that not incorporating THS or information curtailment at patient handovers leads to overprescribing that can be mitigated by adaptive treatments. Last, using real-life pain and opioid use data from two sources, we estimate THS parameters and discuss the proximity of our model to clinical practice. This paper has a pain management framework that leads to tractable models. These models can potentially support balanced opioid prescribing after their validation in a clinical setting. Then, they can be helpful to policy makers in assessment of prescription policies and of the controversy around over- and underprescribing.

Spinal Cord Resting State Activity in Individuals With Fibromyalgia Who Take Opioids

Chronic pain coincides with myriad functional alterations throughout the brain and spinal cord. While spinal cord mechanisms of chronic pain have been extensively characterized in animal models and in vitro, to date, research in patients with chronic pain has focused only very minimally on the spinal cord. Previously, spinal cord functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) identified regional alterations in spinal cord activity in patients (who were not taking opioids) with fibromyalgia, a chronic pain condition. Here, in patients with fibromyalgia who take opioids (N = 15), we compared spinal cord resting-state fMRI data vs. patients with fibromyalgia not taking opioids (N = 15) and healthy controls (N = 14). We hypothesized that the opioid (vs. non-opioid) patient group would show greater regional alterations in spinal cord activity (i.e., the amplitude of low frequency fluctuations or ALFF, a measure of regional spinal cord activity). However, we found that regional spinal cord activity in the opioid group was more similar to healthy controls, while regional spinal cord activity in the non-opioid group showed more pronounced differences (i.e., ventral increases and dorsal decreases in regional ALFF) vs. healthy controls. Across patient groups, self-reported fatigue correlated with regional differences in spinal cord activity. Additionally, spinal cord functional connectivity and graph metrics did not differ among groups. Our findings suggest that, contrary to our main hypothesis, patients with fibromyalgia who take opioids do not have greater alterations in regional spinal cord activity. Thus, regional spinal cord activity may be less imbalanced in patients taking opioids compared to patients not taking opioids.

Brain Responses to Noxious Stimuli in Patients With Chronic Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Functional neuroimaging is a valuable tool for understanding how patients with chronic pain respond to painful stimuli. However, past studies have reported heterogenous results, highlighting opportunities for a quantitative meta-analysis to integrate existing data and delineate consistent associations across studies.

OBJECTIVE

To identify differential brain responses to noxious stimuli in patients with chronic pain using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) while adhering to current best practices for neuroimaging meta-analyses.

DATA SOURCES

All fMRI experiments published from January 1, 1990, to May 28, 2019, were identified in a literature search of PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, and SCOPUS.

STUDY SELECTION

Experiments comparing brain responses to noxious stimuli in fMRI between patients and controls were selected if they reported whole-brain results, included at least 10 patients and 10 healthy control participants, and used adequate statistical thresholding (voxel-height P < .001 or cluster-corrected P < .05). Two independent reviewers evaluated titles and abstracts returned by the search. In total, 3682 abstracts were screened, and 1129 full-text articles were evaluated.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Thirty-seven experiments from 29 articles met inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. Coordinates reporting significant activation differences between patients with chronic pain and healthy controls were extracted. These data were meta-analyzed using activation likelihood estimation. Data were analyzed from December 2019 to February 2020.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

A whole-brain meta-analysis evaluated whether reported differences in brain activation in response to noxious stimuli between patients and healthy controls were spatially convergent. Follow-up analyses examined the directionality of any differences. Finally, an exploratory (nonpreregistered) region-of-interest analysis examined differences within the pain network.

RESULTS

The 37 experiments from 29 unique articles included a total of 511 patients and 433 controls (944 participants). Whole-brain meta-analyses did not reveal significant differences between patients and controls in brain responses to noxious stimuli at the preregistered statistical threshold. However, exploratory analyses restricted to the pain network revealed aberrant activity in patients.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, preregistered, whole-brain analyses did not reveal aberrant fMRI activity in patients with chronic pain. Exploratory analyses suggested that subtle, spatially diffuse differences may exist within the pain network. Future work on chronic pain biomarkers may benefit from focus on this core set of pain-responsive areas.

Transcranial magnetic stimulation, deep brain stimulation, and other forms of neuromodulation for substance use disorders: Review of modalities and implications for treatment

Given the high prevalence of individuals diagnosed with substance use disorder, along with the elevated rate of relapse following treatment initiation, investigating novel approaches and new modalities for substance use disorder treatment is of vital importance. One such approach involves neuromodulation which has been used therapeutically for neurological and psychiatric disorders and has demonstrated positive preliminary findings for the treatment of substance use disorder. The following article provides a review of several forms of neuromodulation which warrant consideration as potential treatments for substance use disorder. PubMed, PsycINFO, Ovid MEDLINE, and Web of Science were used to identify published articles and clinicaltrials.gov was used to identify currently ongoing or planned studies. Search criteria for Brain Stimulation included the following terminology: transcranial direct current stimulation, transcranial magnetic stimulation, theta burst stimulation, deep brain stimulation, vagus nerve stimulation, trigeminal nerve stimulation, percutaneous nerve field stimulation, auricular nerve stimulation, and low intensity focused ultrasound. Search criteria for Addiction included the following terminology: addiction, substance use disorder, substance-related disorder, cocaine, methamphetamine, amphetamine, alcohol, nicotine, tobacco, smoking, marijuana, cannabis, heroin, opiates, opioids, and hallucinogens. Results revealed that there are currently several forms of neuromodulation, both invasive and non-invasive, which are being investigated for the treatment of substance use disorder. Preliminary findings have demonstrated the potential of these various neuromodulation techniques in improving substance treatment outcomes by reducing those risk factors (e.g. substance craving) associated with relapse. Specifically, transcranial magnetic stimulation has shown the most promise with several well-designed studies supporting the potential for reducing substance craving. Deep brain stimulation has also shown promise, though lacks well-controlled clinical trials to support its efficacy. Transcranial direct current stimulation has also demonstrated promising results though consistently designed, randomized trials are also needed. There are several other forms of neuromodulation which have not yet been investigated clinically but warrant further investigation given their mechanisms and potential efficacy based on findings from other studied indications. In summary, given promising findings in reducing substance use and craving, neuromodulation may provide a non-pharmacological option as a potential treatment and/or treatment augmentation for substance use disorder. Further research investigating neuromodulation, both alone and in combination with already established substance use disorder treatment (e.g. medication treatment), warrants consideration.