We performed a double-blinded, randomized, controlled trial in 15 patients to determine the efficacy of intrathecal morphine or clonidine, alone or combined, in the treatment of neuropathic pain after spinal cord injury. The combination of morphine and clonidine produced significantly more pain relief than placebo 4 h after administration; either morphine or clonidine alone did not produce as much pain relief. In addition, lumbar and cervical cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) concentrations, sampled at these levels at different times after administration were examined for a relationship between pain relief and CSF drug concentration. Lumbar CSF drug concentrations were initially several orders of magnitude larger than those in cervical CSF. After 1-2 h, the concentrations of morphine in cervical CSF markedly exceeded those of clonidine. The concentration of morphine in the cervical CSF and the degree of pain relief correlated significantly. We conclude that intrathecal administration of a mixture of clonidine and morphine is more effective than either drug administered alone and is related to the CSF-borne drug concentration above the level of spinal cord injury. If there is pathology that may restrict CSF flow, consideration should be given to intrathecal administration above the level of spinal cord damage to provide an adequate drug concentration in this region.

No abstract

This study addresses the problem of long-term opioid use by chronic pain patients. The study involved a secondary analysis of unanalyzed data from a published study of 2 versions of cognitive-behavioural therapy-based interdisciplinary treatment for chronic pain. In this study, we examined whether the use of opioids by 140 chronic pain patients could be ceased sustainably over 12 months after participation in the comprehensive interdisciplinary pain management program aimed at enhancing pain self-management. On admission to the treatment, there were no significant differences between those patients taking or not taking opioids on usual pain, pain interference in daily activities, pain-related disability, depression severity, as well as in pain cognitions. After the treatment, the use of opioids was significantly reduced, both in numbers taking any and in mean doses, and these gains were maintained over the 12-month follow-up. Finally, cessation of opioids during treatment was associated with more substantial and consistent improvements in usual pain, depression severity, pain interference, pain-related disability, and pain cognitions, relative to those who reduced their opioids but did not cease them. These findings support the idea of using training in pain self-management strategies as a viable alternative to long-term opioid use by patients with chronic pain.

The available evidence indicates that by themselves, oral opioids generally achieve only modest reductions in pain levels in patients with chronic noncancer pain. Functional outcomes are inconsistent across studies. There are questions about the timing of their use and patient selection. There are risks in trials of opioids only after other conservative interventions have been tried unsuccessfully. Also, in some patients, ongoing use of opioids risks repeated over-doing of pain-generating activities and reinforcing escape/avoidance responses that promote disability. These risks may be lessened by assessment of current use of pain self-management strategies among potential candidates for opioids. This offers advantages in promoting collaborative management of persisting pain as well as better pain and functional outcomes. In this view, opioids may be considered as one possible element of a management plan rather than the primary treatment.

Research suggests that a combination of a somatic and a psychosocial intervention for chronic noncancer pain should be associated with a better outcome than either alone. This study presents data on a series of 31 patients who underwent sequential treatment with an implantable device targeting pain relief and a cognitive-behavioral pain management program that targeted improved function. A combination of treatments was used as there was a suboptimal response to the initial treatment. There were improvements in a range of outcomes at a long-term follow-up. Significant improvements were found in disability, affective distress, self-efficacy, and catastrophizing, but not in average pain severity. Further analyses failed to demonstrate an order effect. These results support the view that combined somatic and psychosocial interventions can achieve better outcomes than either alone in selected chronic pain patients. This approach requires that psychological assessment is essential before the use of an implantable device. This may not only improve patient selection, but also identify psychosocial factors that may be modified to enhance the effectiveness of invasive interventions. In addition, consideration for an implantable device following a suboptimal response to treatment in a cognitive-behavioral pain management program should include a re-evaluation of the patients' beliefs and use of self-management (coping) strategies before deciding on further treatment options.

No abstract

In chronic pain management, the general consensus at present is that pethidine has no role to play. There is a myriad of other options including spinal implants, longacting opioid preparations for nociceptive pain or the newer drugs for neuropathic pain. In all cases ruling out new or undiagnosed pathology and early consideration of the role of psychosocial factors is important. Pethidine can be used to treat acute pain for a short time. After this time other options should be considered due to the risk of accumulation of norpethidine and the potential adverse sequelae. If pethidine is used in episodes of recurrent pain such as migraine, patients can become overly reliant on this medication. The resultant drug-seeking behaviour can be very difficult to treat.

No abstract