Causes of opioid-related deaths are multifactorial, so solutions must address prescriber behaviors, patient contributory factors, nonmedical use patterns, and systemic failures. Clinical strategies to reduce opioid-related mortality should be empirically tested, should not reduce access to needed therapies, should address risk from methadone as well as other opioids, and should be incorporated into any risk evaluation and mitigation strategies enacted by regulators.

Our objective was to investigate the efficacy and safety of alvimopan, a peripherally acting mu-opioid receptor (PAM-OR) antagonist, in subjects with non-cancer pain and opioid-induced bowel dysfunction (OBD), and to identify at least one treatment regimen that improves OBD. Following a 2-week baseline period, 522 subjects reporting <3 spontaneous bowel movements (SBMs)/week (with >or=25% accompanied by a sensation of incomplete evacuation, straining, or lumpy hard stools), requiring analgesia equivalent to >or=30 mg oral morphine/day were randomized to alvimopan 0.5mg twice daily (BID), 1mg once daily (QD), 1mg BID, or placebo for 6 weeks. Compared with placebo, there was a statistically and clinically significant increase in mean weekly SBM frequency over the initial 3 weeks of treatment (primary endpoint) with alvimopan 0.5mg BID (+1.71 mean SBMs/week), alvimopan 1mg QD (+1.64) and alvimopan 1mg BID (+2.52); P<0.001 for all comparisons. Increased SBM frequency and additional treatment effects, including improvements in symptoms such as straining, stool consistency, incomplete evacuation, abdominal bloating/discomfort, and decreased appetite, were sustained over 6 weeks. The most frequently reported adverse events were abdominal pain, nausea, and diarrhea, occurring more frequently in the higher dosage groups. The alvimopan 0.5mg BID regimen demonstrated the best benefit-to-risk profile for managing OBD with alvimopan in this study population, with a side effect profile similar to that of placebo. There was no evidence of opioid analgesia antagonism. Competitive peripheral antagonism of opioids with alvimopan can restore GI function and relieve OBD without compromising analgesia.

Objective This article reviews the structural and functional changes in pain chronification and explores the association between memory and the development of chronic pain. Methods PubMed was searched using the terms “chronic pain,” “central sensitization,” “learning,” “memory,” “long-term potentiation,” “long-term depression,” and “pain memory.” Relevant findings were synthesized into a narrative of the processes affecting pain chronification. Results Pain pathways represent a complex sensory system with cognitive, emotional, and behavioral influences. Anatomically, the hippocampus, amygdala, and anterior cortex—central to the encoding and consolidation of memory—are also implicated in experiential aspects of pain. Common neurotransmitters and similar mechanisms of neural plasticity (eg, central sensitization, long-term potentiation) suggest a mechanistic overlap between chronic pain and memory. These anatomic and mechanistic correlates indicate that chronic pain and memory intimately interact on several levels. Longitudinal imaging studies suggest that spatiotemporal reorganization of brain activity accompanies the transition to chronic pain, during which the representation of pain gradually shifts from sensory to emotional and limbic structures. Conclusions The chronification of pain can be conceptualized as activity-induced plasticity of the limbic–cortical circuitry resulting in reorganization of the neocortex. The state of the limbic–cortical network determines whether nociceptive signals are transient or chronic by extinguishing pathways or amplifying signals that intensify the emotional component of nociceptive inputs. Thus, chronic pain can be seen as the persistence of the memory of pain and/or the inability to extinguish painful memories. Ideally, pharmacologic, physical, and/or psychological approaches should reverse the reorganization accompanying chronic pain.

FBT was efficacious and well tolerated in the treatment of BTP in opioid-treated patients with chronic low back pain.

Prescription opioids are prescribed increasingly for the management of chronic pain, and this has been accompanied by a dramatic rise in opioid-related abuse, addiction, and overdose deaths. Reports of abuse involving nonoral administration (e.g., snorting, injecting) of prescription opioids are increasing, although the epidemiology of oral versus nonoral abuse is not well understood. Available data indicate that oral abuse is far more common,with 72% to 97% of opioid abusers perferring oral administration. Factors associated with nonoral administration include longer duration of opioid abuse, male gender, and rural setting. Extended-release opioids, because of their relatively high drug load, may be attractive to experienced abusers seeking to manipulate the formulation to facilitate a rapid onset of effect. Putative abuse-deterrent formulations have been developed to decrease the likelihood or consequences of nonoral abuse. In addition, Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) are now required for prescribed extended-release/long-acting opioids by the US Food and Drug Administration, although their effectiveness in reducing the risk of abuse, addiction, and overdose has not been evaluated. Physicians should remain vigilant when prescribing opioids and should exercise appropriate patient selection, perform risk analysis and stratification, and maintain continuous patient monitoring to ensure the benefits outweigh these important risks.