Effects of tapentadol on pain, motor symptoms and cognitive functions in Parkinson\u2019s disease

Background: Pain is a common and undertreated non-motor symptom in patients with Parkinson\u2019s disease (PD). Opioids have been seldom used in PD because they could worsen cognitive and motor functions. Objective: We aimed to assess efficacy and tolerability of tapentadol in PD patients. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 21 PD patients treated with tapentadol extended release (ER) for chronic pain. Patients were evaluated before treatment and at 3 and 6 months during treatment for pain intensity (current, 24-hour average, and minimum and worst) with a 0-10 Numerical Rating Scale and the painDETECT questionnaire; for motor symptom severity with the Unified Parkinson\u2019s Disease Rating Scale part III and the Hoehn and Yahr scale; for cognitive functions with MiniMental Status Examination, Corsi\u2019s Block Tapping test, Digit Span, Digit-Symbol Substitution test, FAS test, Rey\u2019s Auditory Verbal Learning test, Trail Making-A and -B, and the 9 Hole-Peg Test; for anxiety and depression with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; and for the quality of life with the Short Form-12 for Quality of Life. Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and paired t-test, and by Friedman\u2019s and Wilcoxon\u2019s test. Statistical significance was taken in all cases as P < 0,05. Results: Pain intensity decreased over the course of treatment. No differences were found in PD symptom severity and dopaminergic drug dosages between pretreatment and treatment evaluations . No decrement in cognitive neuropsychological performances was found and an improvement was observed in Digit Span, Digit-Symbol Substitution test and FAS test. The levels of anxiety, depression and of quality of life improved. Overall tapentadol ER was well tolerated and most patients reported no or mild and short-lived gastroenterological and neurological side effects. Conclusions: These results indicate the potential efficacy and tolerability of medium-high dose of tapentadol ER for the treatment of pain in PD

Tapentadol: an effective option for the treatment of back pain

Back pain, including low back pain and neck pain, is the leading cause of disability worldwide. This type of pain is challenging to treat, since it presents both a nociceptive and a neuropathic component. The latter also contributes to the evolution of pain toward chronification. Treatment selection should therefore consider the ability to prevent this event. Tapentadol is characterized by a unique and innovative peculiar mechanism of action that makes it the first representative of a new class of central strong analgesics referred to as MOR-NRI. This molecule acts both on the nociceptive and neuropathic components of pain, and it can therefore be effective in the treatment of a mixed pain condition such as back pain. This narrative review discusses the rationale for the use of tapentadol in both low back pain and neck pain and presents available clinical data. Overall, data show that tapentadol prolonged release is a well-grounded treatment for chronic back pain, sustained by a strong mechanistic rationale and robust evidence. Given also the availability of long-term efficacy and safety data, we believe that this molecule should be considered as an elective therapy for chronic back pain

Erector Spinae Plane Block and Chronic Pain: An Updated Review and Possible Future Directions

: Chronic pain is a common, pervasive, and often disabling medical condition that affects millions of people worldwide. According to the Global Burden of Disease survey, painful chronic conditions are causing the largest numbers of years lived with disability worldwide. In America, more than one in five adults experiences chronic pain. Erector spinae plane block is a novel regional anesthesia technique used to provide analgesia with multiple possible uses and a relatively low learning curve and complication rate. Here, we review the erector spinae plane block rationale, mechanism of action and possible complications, and discuss its potential use for chronic pain with possible future directions for research

Variation in Structure and Process of Care in Traumatic Brain Injury: Provider Profiles of European Neurotrauma Centers Participating in the CENTER-TBI Study.

INTRODUCTION: The strength of evidence underpinning care and treatment recommendations in traumatic brain injury (TBI) is low. Comparative effectiveness research (CER) has been proposed as a framework to provide evidence for optimal care for TBI patients. The first step in CER is to map the existing variation. The aim of current study is to quantify variation in general structural and process characteristics among centers participating in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study. METHODS: We designed a set of 11 provider profiling questionnaires with 321 questions about various aspects of TBI care, chosen based on literature and expert opinion. After pilot testing, questionnaires were disseminated to 71 centers from 20 countries participating in the CENTER-TBI study. Reliability of questionnaires was estimated by calculating a concordance rate among 5% duplicate questions. RESULTS: All 71 centers completed the questionnaires. Median concordance rate among duplicate questions was 0.85. The majority of centers were academic hospitals (n = 65, 92%), designated as a level I trauma center (n = 48, 68%) and situated in an urban location (n = 70, 99%). The availability of facilities for neuro-trauma care varied across centers; e.g. 40 (57%) had a dedicated neuro-intensive care unit (ICU), 36 (51%) had an in-hospital rehabilitation unit and the organization of the ICU was closed in 64% (n = 45) of the centers. In addition, we found wide variation in processes of care, such as the ICU admission policy and intracranial pressure monitoring policy among centers. CONCLUSION: Even among high-volume, specialized neurotrauma centers there is substantial variation in structures and processes of TBI care. This variation provides an opportunity to study effectiveness of specific aspects of TBI care and to identify best practices with CER approaches

Variation in general supportive and preventive intensive care management of traumatic brain injury: a survey in 66 neurotrauma centers participating in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study

Abstract Background General supportive and preventive measures in the intensive care management of traumatic brain injury (TBI) aim to prevent or limit secondary brain injury and optimize recovery. The aim of this survey was to assess and quantify variation in perceptions on intensive care unit (ICU) management of patients with TBI in European neurotrauma centers. Methods We performed a survey as part of the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study. We analyzed 23 questions focused on: 1) circulatory and respiratory management; 2) fever control; 3) use of corticosteroids; 4) nutrition and glucose management; and 5) seizure prophylaxis and treatment. Results The survey was completed predominantly by intensivists (n = 33, 50%) and neurosurgeons (n = 23, 35%) from 66 centers (97% response rate). The most common cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) target was > 60 mmHg (n = 39, 60%) and/or an individualized target (n = 25, 38%). To support CPP, crystalloid fluid loading (n = 60, 91%) was generally preferred over albumin (n = 15, 23%), and vasopressors (n = 63, 96%) over inotropes (n = 29, 44%). The most commonly reported target of partial pressure of carbon dioxide in arterial blood (PaCO2) was 36–40 mmHg (4.8–5.3 kPa) in case of controlled intracranial pressure (ICP) < 20 mmHg (n = 45, 69%) and PaCO2 target of 30–35 mmHg (4–4.7 kPa) in case of raised ICP (n = 40, 62%). Almost all respondents indicated to generally treat fever (n = 65, 98%) with paracetamol (n = 61, 92%) and/or external cooling (n = 49, 74%). Conventional glucose management (n = 43, 66%) was preferred over tight glycemic control (n = 18, 28%). More than half of the respondents indicated to aim for full caloric replacement within 7 days (n = 43, 66%) using enteral nutrition (n = 60, 92%). Indications for and duration of seizure prophylaxis varied, and levetiracetam was mostly reported as the agent of choice for both seizure prophylaxis (n = 32, 49%) and treatment (n = 40, 61%). Conclusions Practice preferences vary substantially regarding general supportive and preventive measures in TBI patients at ICUs of European neurotrauma centers. These results provide an opportunity for future comparative effectiveness research, since a more evidence-based uniformity in good practices in general ICU management could have a major impact on TBI outcome

Variation in neurosurgical management of traumatic brain injury

Background: Neurosurgical management of traumatic brain injury (TBI) is challenging, with only low-quality evidence. We aimed to explore differences in neurosurgical strategies for TBI across Europe. Methods: A survey was sent to 68 centers participating in the Collaborative European Neurotrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study. The questionnaire contained 21 questions, including the decision when to operate (or not) on traumatic acute subdural hematoma (ASDH) and intracerebral hematoma (ICH), and when to perform a decompressive craniectomy (DC) in raised intracranial pressure (ICP). Results: The survey was completed by 68 centers (100%). On average, 10 neurosurgeons work in each trauma center. In all centers, a neurosurgeon was available within 30 min. Forty percent of responders reported a thickness or volume threshold for evacuation of an ASDH. Most responders (78%) decide on a primary DC in evacuating an ASDH during the operation, when swelling is present. For ICH, 3% would perform an evacuation directly to prevent secondary deterioration and 66% only in case of clinical deterioration. Most respondents (91%) reported to consider a DC for refractory high ICP. The reported cut-off ICP for DC in refractory high ICP, however, differed: 60% uses 25 mmHg, 18% 30 mmHg, and 17% 20 mmHg. Treatment strategies varied substantially between regions, specifically for the threshold for ASDH surgery and DC for refractory raised ICP. Also within center variation was present: 31% reported variation within the hospital for inserting an ICP monitor and 43% for evacuating mass lesions. Conclusion: Despite a homogeneous organization, considerable practice variation exists of neurosurgical strategies for TBI in Europe. These results provide an incentive for comparative effectiveness research to determine elements of effective neurosurgical care

Paracetamol for multimodal analgesia.

Pain and related disability remain a major social and therapeutic problem. Comorbidities and therapies increase drug interactions and side effects making pain management more compounded especially in the elderly who are the fastest-growing pain population. Multimodal analgesia consists of using two or more drugs and/or techniques that target different sites of pain, increasing the level of analgesia and decreasing adverse events from treatment. Paracetamol enhances multimodal analgesia in experimental and clinical pain states. Strong preclinical evidence supports that paracetamol has additive and synergistic interactions with anti-inflammatory, opioid and anti-neuropathic drugs in rodent models of nociceptive and neuropathic pain. Clinical studies in young and adult elderly patients confirm the utility of paracetamol in multimodal, non-opioid or opioid-sparing, therapies for the treatment of acute and chronic pain