Extended-release morphine sulfate in treatment of severe acute and chronic pain

Morphine is the archetypal opioid analgesic. Because it is a short-acting opioid, its use has been limited to the management of acute pain. The development of extended-release formulations have resulted in the increased utilization of morphine in chronic pain conditions. This review documents the history of morphine use in pain treatment, and describes the metabolism, pharmacodynamics, formulations, and efficacy of the currently available extended-release morphine medications

Morphinofobia: the situation among the general population and health care professionals in North-Eastern Portugal

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Morphinofobia among the general population (GP) and among health care professionals (HP) is not without danger for the patients: it may lead to the inappropriate management of debilitating pain. The aim of our study was to explore among GP and HP the representation and attitudes concerning the use of morphine in health care.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A cross-sectional study was done among 412 HP (physicians and nurses) of the 4 hospitals and 10 community health centers of Beira Interior (Portugal)and among 193 persons of the GP randomly selected in public places. Opinions were collected through a translated self-administered questionnaire.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A significant difference of opinion exists among GP and HP about the use of morphine. The word morphine first suggests drug to GP (36,2%) and analgesia to HP (32,9%.). The reasons for not using morphine most frequently cited are: for GP morphine use means advanced disease (56%), risk of addiction (50%), legal requirements (49,7%); for HP it means legal risks (56,3%) and adverse side effects of morphine such as somnolence - sedation (30,5%) The socio-demographic situation was correlated with the opinions about the use of morphine.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>False beliefs about the use of morphine exist among the studied groups. There seems to be a need for developing information campaigns on pain management and the use of morphine targeting. Better training and more information of HP might also be needed.</p

Morphine induces preconditioning via activation of mitochondrial KCa channels

PURPOSE: Mitochondrial calcium sensitive potassium (mK(Ca)) channels are involved in cardioprotection induced by ischemic preconditioning. In the present study we investigated whether morphine-induced preconditioning also involves activation of mK(Ca) channels. METHODS: Isolated rat hearts (six groups; each n = 8) underwent global ischemia for 30 min followed by a 60-min reperfusion. Control animals were not further treated. Morphine preconditioning (MPC) was initiated by two five-minute cycles of morphine 1 muM infusion with one five-minute washout and one final ten-minute washout period before ischemia. The mK(Ca) blocker, paxilline 1 muM, was administered, with and without morphine administration (MPC + Pax and Pax). As a positive control, we added an ischemic preconditioning group (IPC) alone and combined with paxilline (IPC + Pax). At the end of reperfusion, infarct sizes were determined by triphenyltetrazoliumchloride staining. RESULTS: Infarct size was (mean +/- SD) 45 +/- 9% of the area at risk in the Control group. The infarct size was less in the morphine or ischemic preconditioning groups (MPC: 23 +/- 8%, IPC: 20 +/- 5%; each P < 0.05 vs Control). Infarct size reduction was abolished by paxilline (MPC + Pax: 37 +/- 7%, P < 0.05 vs MPC and IPC + Pax: 36 +/- 6%, P < 0.05 vs IPC), whereas paxilline alone had no effect (Pax: 46 +/- 7%, not significantly different from Control). CONCLUSION: Cardioprotection by morphine-induced preconditioning is mediated by activation of mK(Ca) channel

A new analgesic method, two-minute sciatic nerve press, for immediate pain relief: a randomized trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Current analgesics have drawbacks such as delays in acquisition, lag-times for effect, and side effects. We recently presented a preliminary report of a new analgesic method involving a two-minute sciatic nerve press, which resulted in immediate short-term relief of pain associated with dental and renal diseases. The present study investigated whether this technique was effective for pain associated with other disease types, and whether the relief was effective for up to one hour.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial was conducted in four hospitals in Anhui Province, China. Patients with pain were sequentially recruited by participating physicians during clinic visits, and 135 patients aged 15 – 80 years were enrolled. Dental disease patients included those with acute pulpitis and periapical abscesses. Renal disease patients included those with kidney infections and/or stones. Tumor patients included those with nose, breast, stomach and liver cancers, while Emergency Room patients had various pathologies. Patients were randomly assigned to receive a "sciatic nerve press" in which pressure was applied simultaneously to the sciatic nerves at the back of both thighs, or a "placebo press" in which pressure was applied to a parallel region on the front of the thighs. Each fist applied a pressure of 11 – 20 kg for 2 minutes. Patients rated their level of pain before and after the procedure.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The "sciatic nerve press" produced immediate relief of pain in all patient groups. Emergency patients reported a 43.5% reduction in pain (p < 0.001). Significant pain relief for dental, renal and tumor patients lasted for 60 minutes (p < 0.001). The peak pain relief occurred at the 10 – 20^thminutes, and the relief decreased 47% by the 60^thminutes.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Two minutes of pressure on both sciatic nerves produced immediate significant short-term conduction analgesia. This technique is a convenient, safe and powerful method for the short-term treatment of clinical pain associated with a diverse range of pathologies.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Current Controlled Trials ACTRN012606000439549</p

Responsible, safe, and effective prescription of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: American society of interventional pain physicians (ASIPP) guidelines

Background: Opioid use, abuse, and adverse consequences, including death, have escalated at an alarming rate since the 1990s. In an attempt to control opioid abuse, numerous regulations and guidelines for responsible opioid prescribing have been developed by various organizations. However, the US opioid epidemic is continuing and drug dose deaths tripled during 1999 to 2015. Recent data show a continuing increase in deaths due to natural and semisynthetic opioids, a decline in methadone deaths, and an explosive increase in the rates of deaths involving other opioids, specifically heroin and illicit synthetic fentanyl. Contrary to scientific evidence of efficacy and negative recommendations, a significant proportion of physicians and patients (92%) believe that opioids reduce pain and a smaller proportion (57%) report better quality of life. In preparation of the current guidelines, we have focused on the means to reduce the abuse and diversion of opioids without jeopardizing access for those patients suffering from non-cancer pain who have an appropriate medical indication for opioid use. Objectives: To provide guidance for the prescription of opioids for the management of chronic non-cancer pain, to develop a consistent philosophy among the many diverse groups with an interest in opioid use as to how appropriately prescribe opioids, to improve the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain and to reduce the likelihood of drug abuse and diversion. These guidelines are intended to provide a systematic and standardized approach to this complex and difficult arena of practice, while recognizing that every clinical situation is unique. Methods: The methodology utilized included the development of objectives and key questions. The methodology also utilized trustworthy standards, appropriate disclosures of conflicts of interest, as well as a panel of experts from various specialties and groups. The literature pertaining to opioid use, abuse, effectiveness, and adverse consequences was reviewed, with a best evidence synthesis of the available literature, and utilized grading for recommendation as described by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)

Immediate and short-term pain relief by acute sciatic nerve press: a randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Despite much research, an immediately available, instantly effective and harmless pain relief technique has not been discovered. This study describes a new manipulation: a "2-minute sciatic nerve press", for rapid short-term relief of pain brought on by various dental and renal diseases.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This randomized, single-blind, placebo-controlled trial ran in three hospitals in Anhui Province, China, with an enrollment of 66 out of 111 solicited patients aged 16 to 74 years. Patients were recruited sequentially, by specific participating physicians at their clinic visits to three independent hospitals. The diseases in enrolled dental patients included dental caries, periodontal diseases and dental trauma. Renal diseases in recruits included kidney infections, stones and some other conditions. Patients were randomly assigned to receive the "2-minute sciatic nerve press" or the "placebo press". For the "2-minute sciatic nerve press", pressure was applied simultaneously to the sciatic nerves at the back of the thighs, using the fists while patients lay prone. For the "placebo press", pressure was applied simultaneously to a parallel spot on the front of the thighs, using the fists while patients lay supine. Each fist applied a pressure of 11 to 20 kg for 2 minutes, after which, patients arose to rate pain.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The "2-minute sciatic nerve press" produced greater pain relief than the "placebo press". Within the first 10 minutes after sciatic pressure, immediate pain relief ratings averaged 66.4% (p < 0.001) for the dental patients, versus pain relief of 20% for the placebo press, and, 52.2% (p < 0.01) for the renal patients, versus relief of 14% for the placebo press, in median. The method worked excellently for dental caries and periodontal diseases, but poorly for dental trauma. Forty percent of renal patients with renal colic did not report any pain relief after the treatment.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Two minutes of pressure on both sciatic nerves can produce immediate significant conduction analgesia, providing a convenient, safe and powerful way to overcome clinical pain brought on by dental diseases and renal diseases for short term purposes.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ACTR 12606000439549</p

Epidural Interventions in the Management of Chronic Spinal Pain: American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) Comprehensive Evidence-Based Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Chronic spinal pain is the most prevalent chronic disease with employment of multiple modes of interventional techniques including epidural interventions. Multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies, systematic reviews, and guidelines have been published. The recent review of the utilization patterns and expenditures show that there has been a decline in utilization of epidural injections with decrease in inflation adjusted costs from 2009 to 2018. The American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) published guidelines for interventional techniques in 2013, and guidelines for facet joint interventions in 2020. Consequently, these guidelines have been prepared to update previously existing guidelines. OBJECTIVE: To provide evidence-based guidance in performing therapeutic epidural procedures, including caudal, interlaminar in lumbar, cervical, and thoracic spinal regions, transforaminal in lumbar spine, and percutaneous adhesiolysis in the lumbar spine. METHODS: The methodology utilized included the development of objective and key questions with utilization of trustworthy standards. The literature pertaining to all aspects of epidural interventions was viewed with best evidence synthesis of available literature and recommendations were provided. RESULTS: In preparation of the guidelines, extensive literature review was performed. In addition to review of multiple manuscripts in reference to utilization, expenditures, anatomical and pathophysiological considerations, pharmacological and harmful effects of drugs and procedures, for evidence synthesis we have included 47 systematic reviews and 43 RCTs covering all epidural interventions to meet the objectives.The evidence recommendations are as follows: Disc herniation: Based on relevant, high-quality fluoroscopically guided epidural injections, with or without steroids, and results of previous systematic reviews, the evidence is Level I for caudal epidural injections, lumbar interlaminar epidural injections, lumbar transforaminal epidural injections, and cervical interlaminar epidural injections with strong recommendation for long-term effectiveness.The evidence for percutaneous adhesiolysis in managing disc herniation based on one high-quality, placebo-controlled RCT is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term improvement in patients nonresponsive to conservative management and fluoroscopically guided epidural injections. For thoracic disc herniation, based on one relevant, high-quality RCT of thoracic epidural with fluoroscopic guidance, with or without steroids, the evidence is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term effectiveness.Spinal stenosis: The evidence based on one high-quality RCT in each category the evidence is Level III to II for fluoroscopically guided caudal epidural injections with moderate to strong recommendation and Level II for fluoroscopically guided lumbar and cervical interlaminar epidural injections with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term effectiveness.The evidence for lumbar transforaminal epidural injections is Level IV to III with moderate recommendation with fluoroscopically guided lumbar transforaminal epidural injections for long-term improvement. The evidence for percutaneous adhesiolysis in lumbar stenosis based on relevant, moderate to high quality RCTs, observational studies, and systematic reviews is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term improvement after failure of conservative management and fluoroscopically guided epidural injections. Axial discogenic pain: The evidence for axial discogenic pain without facet joint pain or sacroiliac joint pain in the lumbar and cervical spine with fluoroscopically guided caudal, lumbar and cervical interlaminar epidural injections, based on one relevant high quality RCT in each category is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term improvement, with or without steroids. Post-surgery syndrome: The evidence for lumbar and cervical post-surgery syndrome based on one relevant, high-quality RCT with fluoroscopic guidance for caudal and cervical interlaminar epidural injections, with or without steroids, is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term improvement. For percutaneous adhesiolysis, based on multiple moderate to high-quality RCTs and systematic reviews, the evidence is Level I with strong recommendation for long-term improvement after failure of conservative management and fluoroscopically guided epidural injections. LIMITATIONS: The limitations of these guidelines include a continued paucity of high-quality studies for some techniques and various conditions including spinal stenosis, post-surgery syndrome, and discogenic pain. CONCLUSIONS: These epidural intervention guidelines including percutaneous adhesiolysis were prepared with a comprehensive review of the literature with methodologic quality assessment and determination of level of evidence with strength of recommendations