Intrathecal morphine for chronic benign pain

[What became of Prialt®? : Observational study on the use of ziconotide in the treatment of chronic pain]

Hintergrund

Prialt® ist seit Februar 2005 von der europäischen Arzneimittelbehörde zugelassen und ist neben Morphin das einzige Analgetikum, welches über die offizielle Marktzulassung in der intrathekalen Schmerztherapie verfügt. Da es nicht über Opioidrezeptoren wirkt, galt es zum Zeitpunkt der Markteinführung als nebenwirkungs- und risikoärmer in der Behandlung chronischer Schmerzen als Morphin. Trotzdem gilt es noch heute als Orphan Drug und Studien über den Langzeiteinsatz und hierunter aufgetretene Nebenwirkungen sind rar.

Fragestellung

Welchen Stellenwert nimmt Prialt® verglichen mit anderen intrathekal verabreichten Analgetika ein? Wie wirken sich die Startdosis und die Geschwindigkeit der Aufdosierung auf die schmerzlindernde Wirkung und das Auftreten von Nebenwirkungen in der Langzeittherapie aus?

Material und Methoden

Zum einen wurden anhand von Arztbriefen retrospektiv alle Patienten erfasst, die zwischen Februar 2005 und dem Ende des Beobachtungszeitraums im Oktober 2018 Ziconotid in Monotherapie in der Neurochirurgie des Universitätsklinikums Jena erhielten. Zum anderen wurden diese Patienten anhand eines erstellten Fragebogens hinsichtlich ihrer Erfahrung mit Ziconotid befragt.

Ergebnisse

Bei allen zwölf in die Studie eingeschlossenen Teilnehmern kam es zu mindestens einer Arzneimittelnebenwirkung. Am häufigsten wurde über Vergesslichkeit und Sensibilitätsstörungen mit jeweils 25 % berichtet. Ein Drittel der Patienten musste die Behandlung aufgrund von Nebenwirkungen beenden. Die mittlere Initialdosis betrug 1,98 µg/Tag.

Diskussion

Trotz leitliniengerechter Behandlung hat sich Ziconotid am Universitätsklinikum Jena nicht gegen Morphin und andere Opioidanalgetika in der intrathekalen Schmerztherapie durchgesetzt. Die Gründe hierfür sind vielfältig, wobei die enge therapeutische Breite, das häufige Auftreten von Nebenwirkungen und die schwierige therapeutische Handhabung, vor allem im ambulanten Setting, von besonderer Bedeutung sind.

Treatment of restless legs syndrome with a pump; efficacy and complications

OBJECTIVES

Restless legs syndrome (RLS) has a prevalence of 2.5%-15% in the general population. For those who suffer from a medically refractory RLS, intrathecal morphine treatment has been shown to be effective. The aim of this retrospective study was to investigate efficacy, complications and side effects in patients treated over several years with an implantable pump. A comparison was done to a group of patients treated with a similar pump system due to spasticity.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The charts of ten patients with severe or very severe RLS have been reviewed. These patients have received an intrathecal drug delivery system during 2000-2016. To compare the rate of complications, a control group of 20 patients treated with intrathecal baclofen due to spasticity was included in the study. Their time of treatment corresponded to the RLS patients.

RESULTS

The severity of symptoms related to RLS decreased significantly after treatment. Doses required ranged from 68 to 140 µg/d. Two cases of side effects were detected; one case with nausea and dizziness and one case with headache and fatigue. The rate of mechanical, infectious and other complications was similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In light of the decrease in symptom severity and the low rate of side effects, intrathecal morphine can be considered an adequate treatment for those suffering from medically refractory RLS. The occurrence of complications did not differ between subjects with RLS and spasticity.

Intrathecal drug delivery for pain management: recent advances and future developments

Introduction: Chronic pain conditions of malignant and non-malignant etiology afflict a large group of the population and pose a vast economic burden on society. Intrathecal drug therapy is a viable treatment option in such patients who have failed conservative medical measures and less invasive pain management procedures. However, the clinical growth of intrathecal therapy in managing intractable chronic pain conditions continues to face many challenges and is likely underutilized secondary to its high-complexity and lack of understanding. Areas covered: This review will briefly discuss the history of intrathecal drug delivery systems (IDDS), cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) flow dynamics, types of IDDS, indications and patient profile suitable for this therapy, and risks and complications related to IDDS. We will also discuss challenges faced by physicians utilizing this therapy and the future changes that are needed for making this treatment modality more efficacious. Expert opinion: IDDS offer an effective therapy for pain control in patients suffering from chronic intractable pain conditions. These devices provide a safer alternative to oral opioid medications with reduced systemic side effects. Adherence to best practices and continued clinical and basic science research is important to ensure continuing success of this therapy.

The Relationship Between the Mechanisms of Action and Safety Profiles of Intrathecal Morphine and Ziconotide: A Review of the Literature

OBJECTIVE

To better characterize safety profiles associated with the intrathecal (IT) administration of morphine and ziconotide and discuss how they relate to mechanisms of action.

METHODS

Published data were evaluated to identify potential relationships between safety profiles of IT morphine and IT ziconotide and their mechanisms of action.

RESULTS

Potentially severe and clinically relevant adverse events (AEs) associated with IT morphine include respiratory depression, tolerance, and granuloma formulation, whereas IT ziconotide is associated with neuropsychiatric AEs, such as cognitive impairment, hallucinations, and changes in mood or consciousness, particularly with high doses and rapid titration. AEs associated with these IT therapies may result from spread of the medication out of the IT space into areas of the central and peripheral nervous systems and systemic circulation. AEs that occur usually can be managed and, in some cases, prevented. To mitigate risk, patients' histories should be reviewed to identify potential complicating factors (e.g., obesity or other risk factors for respiratory dysfunction in patients receiving IT morphine; a history of psychosis in patients receiving IT ziconotide). Also, treatment should be initiated at a low dose, titrated slowly, and patients should be closely monitored during treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

IT morphine and IT ziconotide are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for patients who do not respond to less invasive treatments, but the safety profiles of each may make them more or less appropriate for certain patient populations.

Practical considerations and patient selection for intrathecal drug delivery in the management of chronic pain

Chronic pain continues to pose substantial and growing challenges for patients, caregivers, health care professionals, and health care systems. By the time a patient with severe refractory pain sees a pain specialist for evaluation and management, that patient has likely tried and failed several nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic approaches to pain treatment. Although relegated to one of the interventions of "last resort", intrathecal drug delivery can be useful for improving pain control, optimizing patient functionality, and minimizing the use of systemic pain medications in appropriately selected patients. Due to its clinical and logistical requirements, however, intrathecal drug delivery may fit poorly into the classic pain clinic/interventional model and may be perceived as a "critical mass" intervention that is feasible only for large practices that have specialized staff and appropriate office resources. Potentially, intrathecal drug delivery may be more readily adopted into larger practices that can commit the necessary staff and resources to support patients' needs through the trialing, initiation, monitoring, maintenance, and troubleshooting phases of this therapy. Currently, two agents - morphine and ziconotide - are approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for long-term intrathecal delivery. The efficacy and safety profiles of morphine have been assessed in long-term, open-label, and retrospective studies of >400 patients with chronic cancer and noncancer pain types. The efficacy and safety profiles of ziconotide have been assessed in three double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of 457 patients, and safety has been assessed in 1,254 patients overall, with severe chronic cancer, noncancer, and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome pain types. Both agents are highlighted as first-line intrathecal therapy for the management of neuropathic or nociceptive pain. The purpose of this review is to discuss practical considerations for intrathecal drug delivery, delineate criteria for the identification and selection of candidates for intrathecal drug delivery, and consider which agent may be more appropriate for individual patients.

Phosphoproteomics and bioinformatics analyses of spinal cord proteins in rats with morphine tolerance

Introduction

Morphine is the most effective pain-relieving drug, but it can cause unwanted side effects. Direct neuraxial administration of morphine to spinal cord not only can provide effective, reliable pain relief but also can prevent the development of supraspinal side effects. However, repeated neuraxial administration of morphine may still lead to morphine tolerance.

Methods

To better understand the mechanism that causes morphine tolerance, we induced tolerance in rats at the spinal cord level by giving them twice-daily injections of morphine (20 µg/10 µL) for 4 days. We confirmed tolerance by measuring paw withdrawal latencies and maximal possible analgesic effect of morphine on day 5. We then carried out phosphoproteomic analysis to investigate the global phosphorylation of spinal proteins associated with morphine tolerance. Finally, pull-down assays were used to identify phosphorylated types and sites of 14-3-3 proteins, and bioinformatics was applied to predict biological networks impacted by the morphine-regulated proteins.

Results

Our proteomics data showed that repeated morphine treatment altered phosphorylation of 10 proteins in the spinal cord. Pull-down assays identified 2 serine/threonine phosphorylated sites in 14-3-3 proteins. Bioinformatics further revealed that morphine impacted on cytoskeletal reorganization, neuroplasticity, protein folding and modulation, signal transduction and biomolecular metabolism.

Conclusions

Repeated morphine administration may affect multiple biological networks by altering protein phosphorylation. These data may provide insight into the mechanism that underlies the development of morphine tolerance.

Intrathecal drug administration in chronic pain syndromes

Chronic pain may recur after initial response to strong opioids in both patients with cancer and patients without cancer or therapy may be complicated by intolerable side effects. When minimally invasive interventional pain management techniques also fail to provide satisfactory pain relief, continuous intrathecal analgesic administration may be considered. Only 3 products have been officially approved for long-term intrathecal administration: morphine, baclofen, and ziconotide. The efficacy of intrathecal ziconotide for the management of patients with severe chronic refractory noncancer pain was illustrated in 3 placebo-controlled trials. A randomized study showed this treatment option to be effective over a short follow-up period for patients with pain due to cancer or AIDS. The efficacy of intrathecal opioid administration for the management of chronic noncancer pain is mainly derived from prospective and retrospective noncontrolled trials. The effect of intrathecal morphine administration in patients with pain due to cancer was compared with oral or transdermal treatment in a randomized controlled trial, which found better pain control and fewer side effects with intrathecal opioids. Other evidence is derived from cohort studies. Side effects of chronic intrathecal therapy may either be technical (catheter or pump malfunction) or biological (infection). The most troublesome complication is, however, the possibility of granuloma formation at the catheter tip that may induce neurological damage. Given limited studies, the evidence for intrathecal drug administration in patients suffering from cancer-related pain is more compelling than that of chronic noncancer pain.

Patient safety in interventional pain procedures

The objective of this article was to present a systematic review of the safety issues encountered in interventional pain management. Patient safety is an important consideration in the practice of interventional pain management. Although there is a paucity of scientific articles addressing this topic, the authors have reviewed the literature and present a review of the topic, as well as strategies to minimize the risk to patients undergoing interventional spine procedures.

Treatment of chronic non-cancer pain

Chronic pain is a pervasive problem that affects the patient, their significant others, and society in many ways. The past decade has seen advances in our understanding of the mechanisms underlying pain and in the availability of technically advanced diagnostic procedures; however, the most notable therapeutic changes have not been the development of novel evidenced-based methods, but rather changing trends in applications and practices within the available clinical armamentarium. We provide a general overview of empirical evidence for the most commonly used interventions in the management of chronic non-cancer pain, including pharmacological, interventional, physical, psychological, rehabilitative, and alternative modalities. Overall, currently available treatments provide modest improvements in pain and minimum improvements in physical and emotional functioning. The quality of evidence is mediocre and has not improved substantially during the past decade. There is a crucial need for assessment of combination treatments, identification of indicators of treatment response, and assessment of the benefit of matching of treatments to patient characteristics.

Intrathecal drug therapy for long-term pain management

PURPOSE

The use, safety, and efficacy of intrathecal medication administration with implantable pumps for cancer and chronic pain management are reviewed.

SUMMARY

Implanted intrathecal drug-delivery systems (IDDSs) are used for long-term management of persistent, severe pain despite a multimodal approach with conventional pain treatment options. Currently, consensus papers published in the literature are used as guidelines for determining patient selection and medication administration, because there is a lack of supporting evidence from randomized, controlled, clinical trials. Pharmacists have a critical role in the safe use of intrathecal medication. Most of the medication concentrations and combinations administered through IDDSs are not commercially available and therefore must be compounded in a pharmacy. Medications commonly administered through IDDSs include opioids, local anesthetics, clonidine, baclofen, and ziconotide. It is important for pharmacists who prepare products for IDDSs to understand the pharmacology, adverse effects, and concentration limitations of each medication in order to prevent adverse events related to postoperative subarachnoid hemorrhage, infection, catheter-tip inflammatory masses, withdrawal, and overdose. Pharmacists play an important role in maintaining quality assurance of intrathecal drug use, including the use of standard procedures for ordering and compounding medications, documentation of patient education, and monitoring of patient outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The use of long-term intrathecal drug delivery for the treatment of intractable pain or intolerable medication adverse effects has expanded to include the treatment of patients with chronic or cancer-related pain. Important considerations for the use of intrathecal drug therapy include the appropriate selection of patients, delivery systems, and medications, as well as potential complications of therapy and quality-assurance measures necessary to ensure patient safety.

Systemic naloxone infusion may trigger spasticity in patients with spinal cord injury: case series

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Three patients with spinal cord injury (SCI) and 3 able-bodied (AB) patients were infused with naloxone during a study to examine their neuroendocrine function. An unanticipated side effect occurred during the naloxone infusion. All 3 patients with SCI, but none of the AB patients, experienced profoundly increased spasticity during the naloxone infusion. Our report describes this side effect, which has potential implications for the clinical treatment or scientific evaluation of individuals with SCI.

METHODS

All patients were in good general health and medication free for 11 days or longer before the study. Each patient was placed on a 30-hour protocol to analyze pulsatile release of gonadotropins. Physiologic saline was intravenously infused on day 1 to serve as a control period for naloxone infusion on day 2.

RESULTS

AB patients experienced no muscle spasm activity or any other side effects at any time during the study. In contrast, all 3 patients with SCI experienced a profoundly increased frequency and duration of spasticity in muscles innervated by the nerve roots caudal to their level of injury. In all 3 patients with SCI, spasticity increased only during the period of naloxone infusion. Within 1 hour of stopping naloxone, spasticity returned to baseline levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Naloxone infusion produced a differential effect on the muscle activity of men with SCI compared to AB men with intact spinal circuits. Consistent with previous studies, the results of this study indicate a relationship between opioid neuromodulation and spasticity after SCI.

A Review of Intrathecal Fentanyl and Sufentanil for the Treatment of Chronic Pain

Intrathecal infusion of morphine using implantable pumps is an accepted practice for long-term management of chronic pain. Despite clinical benefit, development of tolerance and side-effects associated with intrathecal morphine has prompted investigators to explore alternative opioids such as the potent anilinopiperidine analogs, fentanyl, and sufentanil. Relevant preclinical and clinical literature from the MEDLINE database was used primarily for this review. In vitro, both compounds are stable in solution, but studies have not been conducted using implantable pumps under simulated use conditions (e.g., long-term stability at body temperature). Preclinical studies of limited duration have demonstrated efficacy, but safety-toxicology studies have been limited to intermittent boluses of sufentanil only. Few clinical reports on the use of intrathecal sufentanil or fentanyl for chronic pain are available. Although results confirm potency and efficacy with intrathecal administration, further studies are needed to support the long-term use of either opioid in chronic pain management.

Drug Delivery Systems

Intrathecal drug delivery (IDD) is a proven and effective treatment alternative in carefully selected patients with chronic pain that cannot be controlled by a well-tailored drug regime and/or spinal cord stimulation (SCS), and may be specifically trialed in patients who fail to respond to SCS. While the lack of randomized controlled trials is often perceived as a limitation of IDD, many studies attest to the efficacy of this therapy, and a number are large-scale and with follow-up periods of up to five years. Good to excellent pain relief is achieved in many patients who have failed more conservative therapies, and there is often a reduced need for analgesia. The advent of patient-controlled analgesia allows flexibility of dosing according to the patient's needs. Consequently, quality of life improves in many patients and the majority express satisfaction with treatment. Some patients are able to return to work. The benefits of IDD (including a potent analgesic response with a more stable therapeutic drug level, decreased latency, increased duration of action, and decreased pharmacological complications) mean that side effects such as nausea, vomiting, sedation, and constipation are reduced. In addition, IDD demonstrates long-term cost-effectiveness when compared to conventional pain therapies, addressing a concern that affects many physicians in clinical practice today.