[Use of rapid-onset fentanyl preparations beyond indication : A random questionnaire survey among congress participants and pain physicians]. / Nicht-indikationsgemäßer Einsatz schnell freisetzender Fentanylzubereitungen : Stichprobenartige Fragebogenerhebung bei Kongressteilnehmern und Schmerzmedizinern.

BACKGROUND: Despite publicised advice and warnings, there are only scant data on the non-indicated prescription of rapid-onset preparations of fentanyl (ROF) in non-cancer pain (NCP). Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation. OBJECTIVE: Initiated by the Working Group Cancer Pain and supported by the German Pain Society, a random sample survey was conducted to assess the non-indicated use of ROF. METHODS: The survey addressed attendees of pain conferences who were given the option to fill in the questionnaires outside the conference or online. Primary endpoints of the structured questionnaire were quantitative and qualitative items with regard to the prescription of ROF, while secondary endpoints were opioid-induced side effects. RESULTS: Obtaining a response rate of 44% (132/300) and an additional 51 online questionnaires revealed that 165 (90%) respondents had knowledge of non-indicated prescriptions or were involved in these. Of these, 65% were clinicians and 17% worked in an outpatient capacity. In all, 22% were trained pain or palliative physicians. Approximately 1205 patients were assessed indirectly. The main causes for dispensing ROF included NCP entities such as back pain (44%), neuropathic pain (33%), head or facial pain (12%), and dyspnea (5%) in cancer pain or lack of break-through pain or basic medication (44%). Sedation (32%), nausea/vomiting (31%), constipation (16%) and insufficient analgesia (31%) were the mostly commonly reported adverse effects. CONCLUSION: Despite the non-ambiguous indication for ROF, physicians often demonstrate inappropriate prescription behaviour. Iatrogenic misuse of ROF should be minimized. The rates of adverse effects of ROF seems to be in line with other opioids.

Management of chronic orofacial pain: a survey of general dentists in german university hospitals.

AIM: This survey assessed procedures performed by general dentists in German university hospitals treating patients with chronic orofacial pain (COP). METHODS: A standardized questionnaire was sent to dentists at all 42 German universities. Doctors were asked to describe demographics, diagnoses, etiologies, diagnostic, and treatment procedures for their patients seen over a 3-month period. RESULTS: A total of 34,242 patients from 19 responding university hospitals were enrolled. COP of greater than 6 months duration was identified in 1,767 patients (5.2%), of whom 64% were female, 76% were between 20 and 59 years old, 66.3% frequently changed doctors, and 29.5% demonstrated psychological comorbidities. The most common causes of COP were temporomandibular disorders, atypical odontalgia, and atypical facial pain accounting for 83.4% of the sample, with purported etiologies of surgery or trauma (52.4%), musculoskeletal disorders (24.2%), prosthetics (11.4%), or psychosomatic causes (11.7%). A secondary pain syndrome was found in 25% of patients. Before admission to the universities, 59.4% of patients reported inadequate pain control. Following admission, the number of patients receiving specialized therapies significantly increased from 40.6% to 88.2% (chi(2) test; P < 0.001), and improved pain was reported in 71.4% of patients. Multimodal therapy included treatment of malocclusion (47.1%), surgery (37.7%), analgesics (27.5%), and physiotherapy (22%). Specialized pain assessment (26.5%) or visual analog scales (16.9%) were applied irregularly and pain therapists were rarely consulted (8.9%). Despite the high psychological comorbidity (29.5%), psychological treatments were obtained for only 11%. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of COP is 5% in German University dental practices, where current guidelines of COP treatment are followed incompletely, and patients with psychological disorders are usually not treated. Interdisciplinary practice principles should be encouraged.

Managing cancer pain and symptoms of outpatients by rotation to sustained-release hydromorphone: a prospective clinical trial.

PURPOSE: In this prospective clinical trial we examined the technique of opioid rotation to oral sustained-release hydromorphone for controlling pain and symptoms in outpatients with cancer pain. METHODS: Before and after rotation, 50 patients were assessed by Numerical Analog Scales [Numerical Rating Scales (NRS)], or as categorical parameters, and analyzed by descriptive and confirmatory statistics (ANOVA, Wilcoxon, chi). RESULTS: Rotation was successful in 64% of patients experiencing pain (60%), and gastrointestinal (32%) and central (26%) symptoms under oral morphine (38%), transdermal fentanyl (22%), tramadol (20%), oxycodone (12%), or sublingual buprenorphine (8%). NRS of pain (4.1 to 3.2; P=0.015), gastrointestinal symptoms, especially defecation rates (P=0.04), and incidence of insomnia improved after an increase in morphine-equivalent doses from 108.9 to 137.6 mg/d without modifying concomitant analgesics or coanalgesics. CONCLUSIONS: Switching the opioid to oral hydromorphone may be a helpful technique to alleviate pain and several symptoms, but it is still not clear to what extent the underlying mechanisms, such as the technique of rotation itself, better dose adjustment, or using a different opioid have an impact.

Use of buprenorphine in children with chronic pseudoobstruction syndrome: case series and review of literature.

OBJECTIVES: Abdominal pain is the most challenging symptom in chronic intestinal pseudoobstruction (CIPO) syndrome, because of its severity and the limited availability of suitable opioid formulations, especially in pediatric patients with digestive problems. Most of the children with CIPO cannot tolerate oral formulations. CASE REPORTS: We present 4 cases of children with CIPO and severe intractable abdominal pain, and report on the use of a recently available form of opioid, transdermal buprenorphine in a dosage of 5 mcg/h. DISCUSSION: CIPO and the unique pharmacological profile of buprenorphine are reviewed briefly.

Temperament and character personality profiles and personality disorders in chronic pain patients.

In his psychobiological model of personality, Cloninger developed a novel approach concerning the relationships between psychopathological syndromes and personality. We investigated 207 chronic pain patients (CPPs) and compared them to 105 pain-free control subjects. Participants were assessed using the Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI), the Structured-Clinical-Interview-II, the Beck Depression Inventory and the Spielberger Anxiety Inventory. The CPPs scored higher on the depression and state anxiety scales and 41% fulfilled the criteria of having at least one personality disorder (PD). We used a covariance analysis to control for depression and state anxiety and found that the CPPs scored higher on the Harm Avoidance Temperament Dimension and lower on the Self-Directedness and Cooperativeness Character Dimensions. In CPPs, the symptom counts of all PD subtypes were significantly related to low Self-Directedness and, to a lesser degree, low Cooperativeness. The PD symptoms in Cluster A were related to low Reward Dependence, those in Cluster B were related to high Novelty Seeking and the PD symptoms in Cluster C were related to high Harm Avoidance. In multiple hierarchical regression analyses, controlling for age, gender, depression and state anxiety, TCI scales predicted on average 23% in PD symptom counts. The Self-Directedness and Cooperativeness personality traits appeared to be significant predictors in determining the presence or absence of a PD by correctly classifying 75.8% of CPPs. The TCI provides further insight into the mechanisms underlying the development of chronic pain. This useful diagnostic instrument helps to economically and validly facilitate the identification of core PD features.

Pain management procedures used by dental and maxillofacial surgeons: an investigation with special regard to odontalgia.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the procedures used by German dental and maxillofacial surgeons treating patients suffering from chronic orofacial pain (COP). This study aimed to evaluate the ambulatory management of COP. METHODS: Using a standardized questionnaire we collected data of dental and maxillofacial surgeons treating patients with COP. Therapists described variables as patients' demographics, chronic pain disorders and their aetiologies, own diagnostic and treatment principles during a period of 3 months. RESULTS: Although only 13.5% of the 520 addressed therapists returned completely evaluable questionnaires, 985 patients with COP could be identified. An orofacial pain syndrome named atypical odontalgia (17.0 %) was frequent. Although those patients revealed signs of chronification, pain therapists were rarely involved (12.5%). For assessing pain the use of Analogue Scales (7%) or interventional diagnostics (4.6%) was uncommon. Despite the fact that surgical procedures are cofactors of COP therapists preferred further surgery (41.9%) and neglected the prescription of analgesics (15.7%). However, most therapists self-evaluated the efficacy of their pain management as good (69.7 %). CONCLUSION: Often ambulatory dental and maxillofacial surgeons do not follow guidelines for COP management despite a high prevalence of severe orofacial pain syndromes.

Propofol and sevoflurane in subanesthetic concentrations act preferentially on the spinal cord: evidence from multimodal electrophysiological assessment.

BACKGROUND: Animal experiments in recent years have shown that attenuation of motor responses by general anesthetics is mediated at least partly by spinal mechanisms. Less is known about the relative potency of anesthetic drugs in suppressing cortical and spinal electrophysiological responses in vivo in humans, particularly those, but not only those, connected with motor responses. Therefore, we studied the effects of sevoflurane and propofol in humans using multimodal electrophysiological assessment. METHODS: We studied nine healthy volunteers in two sessions during steady state sedation with 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 microg/l (targeted plasma concentration) propofol or 0.2 and 0.4 vol% (end-tidal) sevoflurane. Following a 15-min equilibration period, motor responses to transcranial magnetic stimulation and peripheral (H-reflex, F-wave) stimulation were recorded, while electroencephalography and auditory evoked responses were recorded in parallel. RESULTS: At concentrations corresponding to two thirds of C(50 awake), motor responses to transcranial magnetic stimulation were reduced by approximately 50%, H-reflex amplitude was reduced by 22%, F-wave amplitude was reduced by 40%, and F-wave persistence was reduced by 25%. No significant differences between sevoflurane and propofol were found. At this concentration, the Bispectral Index was reduced by 7%, and the middle-latency auditory evoked responses were attenuated only mildly (N(b) latency increased by 11%, amplitude P(a)N(b) did not change). In contrast, the postauricular reflex was suppressed by 77%. CONCLUSIONS: The large effect of both anesthetics on all spinal motor responses, compared with the small effect on electroencephalography and middle-latency auditory evoked responses, assuming that they represent cortical modulation, may suggest that the suppression of motor responses to transcranial magnetic stimulation is largely due to submesencephalic effects.