The pharmacology of topical analgesics.

Pain management of patients continues to pose challenges to clinicians. Given the multiple dimensions of pain--whether acute or chronic, mild, moderate, or severe, nociceptive or neuropathic--a multimodal approach may be needed. Fortunately, clinicians have an array of nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic treatment choices; however, each modality must be chosen carefully, because some often used oral agents are associated with safety and tolerability issues that restrict their use in certain patients. In particular, orally administered nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, opioids, antidepressants, and anticonvulsants are known to cause systemic adverse effects in some patients. To address this problem, a number of topical therapies in various therapeutic classes have been developed to reduce systemic exposure and minimize the risks of patients developing adverse events. For example, topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug formulations produce a site-specific effect (ie, cyclo-oxygenase inhibition) while decreasing the systemic exposure that may lead to undesired effects in patients. Similarly, derivatives of acetylsalicylic acid (ie, salicylates) are used in topical analgesic formulations that do not significantly enter the patient's systemic circulation. Salicylates, along with capsaicin, menthol, and camphor, compose the counterirritant class of topical analgesics, which produce analgesia by activating and then desensitizing epidermal nociceptors. Additionally, patches and creams that contain the local anesthetic lidocaine, alone or co-formulated with other local anesthetics, are also used to manage patients with select acute and chronic pain states. Perhaps the most common topical analgesic modality is the cautious application of cutaneous cold and heat. Such treatments may decrease pain not by reaching the target tissue through systemic distribution, but by acting more directly on the affected tissue. Despite the tolerability benefits associated with avoiding systemic circulation, topically applied analgesics are associated with application-site reactions in patients, such as dryness, erythema, burning, and discoloration. Furthermore, some adverse events that have been observed in patients may be suggestive of some degree of systemic exposure. This article reviews the mechanisms of action, pharmacokinetics, and tolerability of topical treatments for the management of patient pain.

Personalized pharmacotherapy for treatment approaches focused at primary insomnia.

The treatment of primary insomnia may be complex and clinically challenging. A comprehensive multidimensional evaluation with a thorough history and physical examination coupled with appropriate testing/imaging will facilitate development of a working diagnosis. Optimal treatment strategies of challenging cases typically involve interdisciplinary team approaches (including a sleep medicine specialist) providing multimodal approaches to treatment, including nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic strategies. A stepped care approach to treatment may serve as a useful guide for health care providers unfamiliar with sleep disturbance issues. Treatment plans based on sound medical judgment, clinical insight, and a thorough and global understanding of particular patient's comorbid conditions may lead to optimal patient-specific/patient-focused/patient centered personalized care.

Topical therapy for osteoarthritis: clinical and pharmacologic perspectives.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have shown efficacy in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) pain but are also associated with a dose-dependent risk of gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, hematologic, hepatic, and renal adverse events (AEs). Topical NSAIDs were developed to provide analgesia similar to their oral counterparts with less systemic exposure and fewer serious AEs. Topical NSAIDs have long been available in Europe for the management of OA, and guidelines of the European League Against Rheumatism and the Osteoarthritis Research Society International specify that topical NSAIDs are preferred over oral NSAIDs for patients with knee or hand OA of mild-to-moderate severity, few affected joints, and/or a history of sensitivity to oral NSAIDs. In contrast, the guidelines of the American Pain Society and American College of Rheumatology have in the past recommended topical methyl salicylate and topical capsaicin, but not topical NSAIDs. This reflects the fact that the American guidelines were written several years before the first topical NSAID was approved for use in the United States. Neither salicylates nor capsaicin have shown significant efficacy in the treatment of OA. In October 2007, diclofenac sodium 1% gel (Voltaren Gel) became the first topical NSAID for OA therapy approved in the United States following a long history of use internationally. Topical diclofenac sodium 1% gel delivers effective diclofenac concentrations in the affected joint with limited systemic exposure. Clinical trial data suggest that diclofenac sodium 1% gel provides clinically meaningful analgesia in OA patients with a low incidence of systemic AEs. This review discusses the pharmacology, clinical efficacy, and safety profiles of diclofenac sodium 1% gel, salicylates, and capsaicin for the management of hand and knee OA.

The future of cannabinoids as analgesic agents: a pharmacologic, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamic overview.

For thousands of years, physicians and their patients employed cannabis as a therapeutic agent. Despite this extensive historical usage, in the Western world, cannabis fell into disfavor among medical professionals because the technology available in the 1800s and early 1900s did not permit reliable, standardized preparations to be developed. However, since the discovery and cloning of cannabinoid receptors (CB1 and CB2) in the 1990s, scientific interest in the area has burgeoned, and the complexities of this fascinating receptor system, and its endogenous ligands, have been actively explored. Recent studies reveal that cannabinoids have a rich pharmacology and may interact with a number of other receptor systems-as well as with other cannabinoids-to produce potential synergies. Cannabinoids-endocannabinoids, phytocannabinoids, and synthetic cannabinoids-affect numerous bodily functions and have indicated efficacy of varying degrees in a number of serious medical conditions. Nevertheless, despite promising preclinical and early clinical data, particularly in the areas of inflammation and nociception, development challenges abound. Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and other CB1 receptor agonists can have an undesirable CNS impact, and, in many cases, dose optimization may not be realizable before onset of excessive side effects. In addition, complex botanically derived cannabinoid products must satisfy the demanding criteria of the U.S. Food and Drug Association's approval process. Recent agency guidance suggests that these obstacles are not insurmountable, although cannabis herbal material ("medical marijuana") may present fatal uncertainties of quality control and dosage standardization. Therefore, formulation, composition, and delivery system issues will affect the extent to which a particular cannabinoid product may have a desirable risk-benefit profile and acceptable abuse liability potential. Cannabinoid receptor agonists and/or molecules that affect the modulation of endocannabinoid synthesis, metabolism, and transport may, in the future, offer extremely valuable tools for the treatment of a number of currently intractable disorders. Further research is warranted to explore the therapeutic potential of this area.

Urine drug test interpretation: what do physicians know?

OBJECTIVE: To determine the level of urine drug test (UDT) interpretive knowledge of physicians who use these instruments to monitor adherence in their patients on chronic opioid therapy. METHODS: A seven-question instrument consisting of six five-option, single-best-answer multiple choice questions and one yes/no question was completed by 114 physicians (77 who employ UDT and 37 who do not) attending one of three regional opioid education conferences. We calculated frequencies and performed chi2 analyses to examine bivariate associations between UDT utilization and interpretive knowledge. RESULTS: The instrument was completed by 80 percent of eligible respondents. None of the physicians who employ UDT answered all seven questions correctly, and only 30 percent answered more than half correctly. Physicians who employ UDT performed no better on any of the questions than physicians who do not employ UDT. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians who employ UDT to monitor patients receiving chronic opioid therapy are not proficient in test interpretation. This study highlights the need for improved physician education; it is imperative for physicians to work closely with certified laboratory professionals when ordering and interpreting these tests.

A clinical and pharmacologic review of skeletal muscle relaxants for musculoskeletal conditions.

Muscle strains and other musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) are a leading cause of work absenteeism. Muscle pain, spasm, swelling, and inflammation are symptomatic of strains. The precise relationship between musculoskeletal pain and spasm is not well understood. The dictum that pain induces spasm, which causes more pain, is not substantiated by critical analysis. The painful muscle may not show EMG activity, and when there is, the timing and intensity often do not correlate with the pain. Clinical and physiologic studies show that pain tends to inhibit rather than facilitate reflex contractile activity. The decision to treat and choice of therapy are largely dictated by the duration, severity of symptoms, and degree of dysfunction. Trigger point injections are sometimes used with excellent results in the treatment of muscle spasm in myofacial pain and low-back pain. NSAIDs are used with much greater frequency than oral skeletal muscle relaxants (SMRs) or opioids in the treatment of acute MSDs. Unfortunately, remarkably little sound science guides the choice of drug for the treatment of acute, uncomplicated MSDs, and the evaluation of efficacy of one agent over another is complicated by numerous factors. Only a limited number of high-quality, randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) provide evidence of the effectiveness of NSAIDs or SMRs in the treatment of acute, uncomplicated MSDs. The quality of design, execution, and reporting of trials for the treatment of MSDs needs to be improved. The combination of an SMR and an NSAID or COX-2 inhibitor or the combination of SMR and tramadol/acetaminophen is superior to single agents alone.

Focus on the COX-1 and COX-2 agents: renal events of nonsteroidal and anti-inflammatory drugs-NSAIDs.

This article will focus upon some of the cautions used in the process of prescribing NSAIDs with a focus upon renal events, pharmacokinetics of COX-2 agents, and phytopharmaceuticals that present co-prescribing hematologic challenges. Prescribing any pharmacotherapeutic agent presents the clinician with the cognitive challenge between providing a therapeutic balance weighing potential benefits to be achieved through prescribing against the potential liabilities of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic iatrogenic events, and drug interactions. The following information is presented as a brief overview of the familiar arachidonic acid cascade followed by the renal events reported with non-COX-2-specific NSAIDs. The pharmacokinetics of the three currently available COX-2 NSAIDs are presented. Patient-specific risk assessments for renal function/dysfunction should be considered prior to or concurrent with initiation of any NSAID therapy coupled with periodic renal monitoring during treatment of those with patient risk factors. Phytopharmaceuticals, supplements, and over-the-counter agents should be discussed with the patient following patient disclosure of use and not omitted by the patient during presentation of their medication consumption with utilization history to their respective healthcare professionals.