Managing chronic whiplash associated pain with a combination of low-dose opioid (remifentanil) and NMDA-antagonist (ketamine)

Current Concept of Quantitative Sensory Testing and Pressure Pain Threshold in Neck/Shoulder and Low Back Pain

In recent years, several published articles have shown that quantitative sensory testing (QST) and pressure pain threshold (PPT) are useful in the analysis of neck/shoulder and low back pain. A valid reference for normal PPT values might be helpful for the clinical diagnosis of abnormal tenderness or muscle pain. However, there have been no reliable references for PPT values of neck/shoulder and back pain because the data vary depending on the devices used, the measurement units, and the area examined. In this article, we review previously published PPT articles on neck/shoulder and low back pain, discuss the measurement properties of PPT, and summarize the current data on PPT values in patients with chronic pain and healthy volunteers. We also reveal previous issues related to PPT evaluation and discuss the future of PPT assessment for widespread use in general clinics. We outline QST and PPT measurements and what kinds of perceptions can be quantified with the PPT. Ninety-seven articles were selected in the present review, in which we focused on the normative values and abnormal values in volunteers/patients with neck/shoulder and low back pain. We conducted our search of articles using PubMed and Medline, a medical database. We used a combination of “Pressure pain threshold” and “Neck shoulder pain” or “Back pain” as search terms and searched articles from 1 January 2000 to 1 June 2022. From the data extracted, we revealed the PPT values in healthy control subjects and patients with neck/shoulder and low back pain. This database could serve as a benchmark for future research with pressure algometers for the wide use of PPT assessment in clinics.

WITHDRAWN: Medicinal and injection therapies for mechanical neck disorders

Withdrawn due to non‐compliance with The Cochrane Collaboration’s Commercial Sponsorship Policy

The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.

Reporting of sample size calculations in analgesic clinical trials: ACTTION systematic review

Sample size calculations determine the number of participants required to have sufficiently high power to detect a given treatment effect. In this review, we examined the reporting quality of sample size calculations in 172 publications of double-blind randomized controlled trials of noninvasive pharmacologic or interventional (ie, invasive) pain treatments published in European Journal of Pain, Journal of Pain, and Pain from January 2006 through June 2013. Sixty-five percent of publications reported a sample size calculation but only 38% provided all elements required to replicate the calculated sample size. In publications reporting at least 1 element, 54% provided a justification for the treatment effect used to calculate sample size, and 24% of studies with continuous outcome variables justified the variability estimate. Publications of clinical pain condition trials reported a sample size calculation more frequently than experimental pain model trials (77% vs 33%, P < .001) but did not differ in the frequency of reporting all required elements. No significant differences in reporting of any or all elements were detected between publications of trials with industry and nonindustry sponsorship. Twenty-eight percent included a discrepancy between the reported number of planned and randomized participants. This study suggests that sample size calculation reporting in analgesic trial publications is usually incomplete. Investigators should provide detailed accounts of sample size calculations in publications of clinical trials of pain treatments, which is necessary for reporting transparency and communication of pre-trial design decisions.

PERSPECTIVE

In this systematic review of analgesic clinical trials, sample size calculations and the required elements (eg, treatment effect to be detected; power level) were incompletely reported. A lack of transparency regarding sample size calculations may raise questions about the appropriateness of the calculated sample size.

Physician-delivered injection therapies for mechanical neck disorders: a systematic review update (non-oral, non-intravenous pharmacological interventions for neck pain)

Background:

Controversy persists regarding medicinal injections for mechanical neck disorders (MNDs).

Objectives:

To determine the effectiveness of physician-delivered injections on pain, function/disability, quality of life, global perceived effect and patient satisfaction for adults with MNDs.

Search Methods:

We updated our previous searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE from December 2006 through to March 2012.

Selection Criteria:

We included randomized controlled trials of adults with neck disorders treated by physician-delivered injection therapies.

Data Collection and Analysis:

Two authors independently selected articles, abstracted data and assessed methodological quality. When clinical heterogeneity was absent, we combined studies using random-effects models.

Results:

We included 12 trials (667 participants). No high or moderate quality studies were found with evidence of benefit over control. Moderate quality evidence suggests little or no difference in pain or function/disability between nerve block injection of steroid and bupivacaine vs bupivacaine alone at short, intermediate and long-term for chronic neck pain. We found limited very low quality evidence of an effect on pain with intramuscular lidocaine vs control for chronic myofascial neck pain. Two low quality studies showed an effect on pain with anaesthetic nerve block vs saline immediately post treatment and in the short-term. All other studies were of low or very low quality with no evidence of benefit over controls.

Authors' Conclusions:

Current evidence does not confirm the effectiveness of IM-lidocaine injection for chronic mechanical neck pain nor anaesthetic nerve block for cervicogenic headache. There is moderate evidence of no benefit for steroid blocks vs controls for mechanical neck pain.

Whiplash Associated Disorders (WAD): Responses to pharmacological challenges and psychometric tests

Objectives The present study challenges chronic Whiplash Associated Disorders (WAD)-subjects to a pharmacological intravenous (i.v.) test with morphine, ketamine, and active placebo (midazolam). The aim was to describe the short-term responses to drugs and the assumed heterogeneity in the patterns of responses. We related the different responder groups to the results from psychometric tests. Methods The study includes 95 patients, all with chronic WAD and referred to our departments. They answered a questionnaire including the following psychometric instruments relevant for chronic pain: Beck Depression Inventory, Coping Strategies Questionnaire, Multidimensional Pain Inventory, Life Satisfaction Checklist, SF36 and EuroQol. The subjects also went through sessions with separate infusions of morphine (0.3 mg/kg), ketamine (0.3 mg/kg) and midazolam (0.05 mg/kg). Infusion time was 30 min followed by a 2-h post-infusion assessment. Assessments were made using a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain intensity and unpleasantness and by statements of per cent pain relieved. A categorical pain rating scale was also used. A positive response was defined as ≥50% decrease of the VAS-level on two consecutive assessment points during the test sessions, anything less was a non response. The placebo responders were defined as those with a positive response to the active placebo infusion. Results The tests were completed by 94 subjects and 26% of these were placebo responders. Among the placebo non responders, 47% responded to morphine, 41% to ketamine, 25% to both drugs and 37% to neither morphine nor ketamine (pain intensity assessments). Similar proportions were found in the assessments of pain unpleasantness and per cent pain relieved. Approximately one in four subjects (27%, pain intensity assessment) did not respond to any of the drugs tested. This relatively high proportion of non responders seemed to be worst cases in some aspects of the psychometric tests. Generally, this non responder group had a trend to score worse for most items in the psychometric tests with some reaching significance in a univariate analysis. This result was confirmed in a multivariate context, although the results indicated only small differences between the groups. All three substances showed significant pain relief compared to baseline on all assessment points. On most variables, morphine and ketamine were significantly more effective compared to the active placebo. Conclusions There are different subgroups among subjects with chronic WAD with variations in responses to i.v. morphine, ketamine, and midazolam (active placebo). Subjects with chronic WAD who did not respond to any of the drugs tested scored badly in some aspects of the psychometric instruments. Implications The present study confirms one aspect of the heterogeneity in the population with chronic WAD. The study does not elucidate precise pain mechanisms but taken together with other studies exploring other aspects, it stresses the importance of individualizing the assessment and treatment of subjects with chronic WAD. A common clinical experience is that depression, anxiety and maladaptive coping strategies often are obstacles for successful medical treatment of chronic pain. The present study supports this experience and emphasizes the need for assessment of psychometric variables when planning the treatment of chronic WAD.

Combination drug therapy for chronic pain: a call for more clinical studies

Chronic pain is a debilitating clinical condition associated with a variety of disease entities including diabetic neuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, low back pathology, fibromyalgia, and neurological disorders. For many general practitioners and specialists, managing chronic pain has become a daunting challenge. As a modality of multidisciplinary chronic pain management, medications are often prescribed in combinations, an approach referred to as combination drug therapy (CDT). However, many medications for pain therapy, including antidepressants and opioid analgesics, have significant side effects that can compound when used in combination and impact the effectiveness of CDT. To date, clinical practice of CDT for chronic pain has been based largely on clinical experiences. In this article, we will focus on (1) the scientific basis and rationales for CDT, (2) current clinical data on CDT, and (3) the need for more clinical studies to establish a framework for the use of CDT.

PERSPECTIVE

More preclinical, clinical, and translational studies are needed to improve the efficacy of combination drug therapy that is an integral part of a comprehensive approach to the management of chronic pain.

Ketamine for the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain

IMPORTANCE OF THE FIELD

Worldwide the number of patients affected by chronic pain is growing and conventional treatment is often insufficient. Recently the importance of the N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor (NMDAR) in the mechanisms and maintenance of chronic pain was established. Ketamine (introduced in the 1960s as an anesthetic) is the most studied NMDAR antagonist in the treatment of various chronic pain syndromes.

AREAS COVERED IN THIS REVIEW

The pharmacology, safety and toxicology of ketamine are discussed. Further, electronic databases were scanned for prospective, randomized controlled trials that assessed ketamine's analgesic effect in patients with chronic pain. The focus of this review is on trials published after 2008 that applied long-term intravenous infusions.

WHAT THE READER WILL GAIN

While most studies on intravenous ketamine show acute analgesic effects, three recent trials on long-term ketamine treatment (days to weeks) demonstrate the effectiveness of ketamine in causing long-term (months) relief of chronic pain. Despite these positive results, further studies are needed on safety/toxicity issues. Other administration modes are less effective in causing long-term pain relief.

TAKE HOME MESSAGE

There is now evidence form a limited number of studies that pain relief lasting for months is observed after long-term intravenous ketamine infusion, suggesting a modulatory effect of ketamine in the process of chronic pain, possibly via blockade of upregulated NMDAR.

Clarithromycin, a potent inhibitor of CYP3A, greatly increases exposure to oral S-ketamine

BACKGROUND

Oral ketamine is used as an adjuvant in the treatment of refractory neuropathic and cancer-related pain. Drug interactions may alter the analgesic or other effects of ketamine.

AIM AND METHODS

The aim of the study was to investigate the effect of cytochrome P450 3A enzyme inhibition with clarithromycin on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of oral S-ketamine in a randomized controlled cross-over study with two phases. Ten healthy subjects were pre-treated with oral clarithromycin or placebo for 4 days. On day 4, they ingested an oral dose of 0.2mg/kg of S-ketamine syrup. Plasma concentrations of ketamine and norketamine were measured for 24h. Analgesic effects were evaluated in a cold pressor test and psychomotor effects were followed for 12h.

RESULTS

Clarithromycin increased the mean C(max) of ketamine by 3.6-fold (p<0.001) and the mean AUC(0-infinity) of ketamine by 2.6-fold (p=0.001). The relative amount of the CYP3A dependent metabolite norketamine was decreased by 54% by clarithromycin (p=0.004). Self-rated drug effect of S-ketamine was enhanced by clarithromycin (p<0.05) but other behavioral effects or cold pain scores were not affected.

CONCLUSIONS

Clarithromycin strongly increases plasma concentrations of oral S-ketamine probably by inhibiting its CYP3A-mediated N-demethylation. This increase is reflected as modest changes in behavioral effects of oral S-ketamine.

Endogenous opiates and behavior: 2007

This paper is the thirtieth consecutive installment of the annual review of research concerning the endogenous opioid system. It summarizes papers published during 2007 that studied the behavioral effects of molecular, pharmacological and genetic manipulation of opioid peptides, opioid receptors, opioid agonists and opioid antagonists. The particular topics that continue to be covered include the molecular-biochemical effects and neurochemical localization studies of endogenous opioids and their receptors related to behavior, and the roles of these opioid peptides and receptors in pain and analgesia; stress and social status; tolerance and dependence; learning and memory; eating and drinking; alcohol and drugs of abuse; sexual activity and hormones, pregnancy, development and endocrinology; mental illness and mood; seizures and neurologic disorders; electrical-related activity and neurophysiology; general activity and locomotion; gastrointestinal, renal and hepatic functions; cardiovascular responses; respiration and thermoregulation; and immunological responses.