Variability, pain genes and the pain practitioner

Effects of functional polymorphisms of opioid receptor mu 1 and catechol-O-methyltransferase on the neural processing of pain

AIM

Pain is reconstructed by brain activities and its subjectivity comes from an interplay of multiple factors. The current study aims to understand the contribution of genetic factors to the neural processing of pain. Focusing on the single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) of opioid receptor mu 1 (OPRM1) A118G (rs1799971) and catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) val158met (rs4680), we investigated how the two pain genes affect pain processing.

METHOD

We integrated a genetic approach with functional neuroimaging. We extracted genomic DNA information from saliva samples to genotype the SNP of OPRM1 and COMT. We used a percept-related model, in which two different levels of perceived pain intensities ("low pain: mildly painful" vs "high pain: severely painful") were employed as experimental stimuli.

RESULTS

Low pain involves a broader network relative to high pain. The distinct effects of pain genes were observed depending on the perceived pain intensity. The effects of low pain were found in supramarginal gyrus, angular gyrus, and anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) for OPRM1 and in middle temporal gyrus for COMT. For high pain, OPRM1 affected the insula and cerebellum, while COMT affected the middle occipital gyrus and ACC.

CONCLUSION

OPRM1 primarily affects sensory and cognitive components of pain processing, while COMT mainly influences emotional aspects of pain processing. The interaction of the two pain genes was associated with neural patterns coding for high pain and neural activation in the ACC in response to pain. The proteins encoded by the OPRM1 and COMT may contribute to the firing of pain-related neurons in the human ACC, a critical center for subjective pain experience.

Strategies for interventional therapies in cancer-related pain-a crossroad in cancer pain management

PURPOSE

Interventional therapies are important to consider when facing cancer pain refractory to conventional therapies. The objective of the current review is to introduce these effective strategies into dynamic interdisciplinary pain management, leading to an exhaustive approach to supportive oncology.

METHODS

Critical reflection based on literature analysis and clinical practice.

RESULTS

Interventional therapies act on the nervous system via neuromodulation or surgical approaches, or on primitive or metastatic lesions via interventional radiotherapy, percutaneous ablation, or surgery. Interventional therapies such as neuromodulations are constantly evolving with new technical works still in development. Nowadays, their usage is better defined, depending on clinical situations, and their impact on quality of life is proven. Nevertheless their availability and acceptability still need to be improved. To start with, a patient's interdisciplinary evaluation should cover a wide range of items such as patient's performance and psychological status, ethical considerations, and physiochemical and pharmacological properties of the cerebrospinal fluid for intrathecal neuromodulation. This will help to define the most appropriate strategy. In addition to determining the pros and cons of highly specialized interventional therapies, their relevance should be debated within interdisciplinary teams in order to select the best strategy for the right patient, at the right time.

CONCLUSIONS

Ultimately, the use of the interventional therapies can be limited by the requirement of specific trained healthcare teams and technical support, or the lack of health policies. However, these interventional strategies need to be proposed as soon as possible to each patient requiring them, as they can greatly improve quality of life.

Intrathecal Therapy for Cancer-Related Pain

Objective. The increasing incidence of cancer survivorship has shifted treatment of cancer-related pain from short-term analgesia to long-term chronic pain management. As a result, alternatives to oral analgesics, such as intrathecal therapy, may be beneficial for patients with cancer-related pain. The authors review the use of intrathecal therapy in the management of cancer-related pain.

Methods. The Medline database was searched for English-language articles that included “ziconotide” or “morphine” AND (“cancer” OR “malignant”) AND “intrathecal” in title or abstract. Available abstracts from scientific congresses in the areas of neuromodulation and oncology were also reviewed.

Results. Intrathecal therapy provides pain relief with reduced systemic concerns in patients with cancer-related pain. Patients should undergo multidisciplinary evaluation and, in most cases, drug trialing before intrathecal pump implantation. Morphine, an opioid (µ-opioid receptor antagonist), and ziconotide, a nonopioid (selective N-type calcium channel inhibitor), are both approved for intrathecal analgesia; however, tolerance and safety concerns may deter the use of intrathecal morphine. Ziconotide has also shown efficacy for reduction of cancer-related pain; however, proper dosing and titration must be used to prevent adverse events. There is little information available on use of intrathecal therapies specifically in cancer survivors.

Conclusions. Treatment of cancer-related pain has shifted toward chronic pain management strategies, especially among cancer survivors. Intrathecal therapy provides an alternate route of administration of chronic pain medications (e.g., morphine and ziconotide) for cancer patients with and without active disease, although additional research is needed to support effectiveness in cancer survivors.

Pulsed radiofrequency for chronic intractable lumbosacral radicular pain: a six-month cohort study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

There is little evidence concerning the medical management of lumbosacral radicular pain. The prognosis for patients suffering pain for more than 3 months is poor. Pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) treatment of the dorsal root ganglion (DRG) has been suggested as a minimally invasive treatment. We studied the effect on pain and quality of life of PRF treatment of the DRG in patients with chronic, severe lumbosacral radicular pain.

METHODS

Patients with lumbosacral radicular pain were screened to select a homogeneous population. PRF treatment of the DRG was performed at L5 or S1. Evaluation was carried out at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months. Pain reduction and "fully recovered" or "much improvement," in terms of the global perceived effect, were the primary outcomes. Quality of life (RAND-36), disability (Oswestry Disability Index), and the neuropathic pain scales leeds assessment of neuropathic symptoms and signs (LANSS) and DN4 were registered at each time point. Medication use was scored with the Medication Quantification Scale.

RESULTS

Out of 461 screened patients, 65 were included. According to the intention to treat analysis, clinical success was achieved in 56.9%, 52.3%, and 55.4% of the patients at respectively 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months. DN4, Oswestry Disability Index and physical component for the RAND-36 quality of life improved significantly while the mental component remained unchanged. The number of patients on opioids was reduced.

CONCLUSIONS

PRF treatment of the DRG may be considered for patients with chronic, severe lumbosacral radicular pain refractory to conventional medical management.