Adverse effects associated with non-opioid and opioid treatment in patients with chronic pain.

Chronic pain is a debilitating condition that is associated with many common diseases; this places a major burden on the healthcare system. There are currently numerous analgesic agents available for the treatment of chronic pain. In general, the oral non-opioid analgesic, paracetamol, is recommended for the initial treatment of mild to moderate pain. Therapeutic doses of paracetamol do not appear to result in hepatotoxicity, although overdose may lead to acute liver failure. Current data suggest that paracetamol has acceptable gastrointestinal tolerability. Another class of non-opioid analgesic with confirmed efficacy for the treatment of chronic mild to moderate pain are non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), although this efficacy is offset by the potential of adverse gastrointestinal events. In particular, non-selective NSAIDs, also known as cyclooxygenase (COX) inhibitors, carry an increased risk of serious upper gastrointestinal complications, including ulcers, perforation and bleeding. The introduction of COX-2 inhibitors provided a NSAID-based option with improved gastrointestinal safety, but increased risk of cardiovascular effects. Opioids are powerful analgesic agents used to treat moderate to severe chronic pain. However, treatment with opioids is associated with a number of common adverse effects, including constipation, nausea or vomiting, pruritus, somnolence or cognitive impairment, dry mouth, tolerance or dependence and urinary retention. Although there are multiple strategies in place to manage adverse events that arise from both non-opioid and opioid analgesic therapy, a better understanding of the mechanisms involved in the development of specific drug-related adverse effects is required along with proper prescribing practices and adequate physician/patient education. Balanced against the adverse effects of pain management medications, there is a need to be mindful of the widespread, often serious, adverse consequences of poorly managed pain itself.

Adverse effects associated with non-opioid and opioid treatment in patients with chronic pain.

Chronic pain is a debilitating condition that is associated with many common diseases; this places a major burden on the healthcare system. There are currently numerous analgesic agents available for the treatment of chronic pain. In general, the oral non-opioid analgesic, paracetamol, is recommended for the initial treatment of mild to moderate pain. Therapeutic doses of paracetamol do not appear to result in hepatotoxicity, although overdose may lead to acute liver failure. Current data suggest that paracetamol has acceptable gastrointestinal tolerability. Another class of non-opioid analgesic with confirmed efficacy for the treatment of chronic mild to moderate pain are non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), although this efficacy is offset by the potential of adverse gastrointestinal events. In particular, non-selective NSAIDs, also known as cyclooxygenase (COX) inhibitors, carry an increased risk of serious upper gastrointestinal complications, including ulcers, perforation and bleeding. The introduction of COX-2 inhibitors provided a NSAID-based option with improved gastrointestinal safety, but increased risk of cardiovascular effects. Opioids are powerful analgesic agents used to treat moderate to severe chronic pain. However, treatment with opioids is associated with a number of common adverse effects, including constipation, nausea or vomiting, pruritus, somnolence or cognitive impairment, dry mouth, tolerance or dependence and urinary retention. Although there are multiple strategies in place to manage adverse events that arise from both non-opioid and opioid analgesic therapy, a better understanding of the mechanisms involved in the development of specific drug-related adverse effects is required along with proper prescribing practices and adequate physician/patient education. Balanced against the adverse effects of pain management medications, there is a need to be mindful of the widespread, often serious, adverse consequences of poorly managed pain itself.

Recommendations for the management of mixed cryoglobulinemia syndrome in hepatitis C virus-infected patients.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review was to define a core set of recommendations for the treatment of HCV-associated mixed cryoglobulinemia syndrome (MCS) by combining current evidence from clinical trials and expert opinion. METHODS: Expert physicians involved in studying and treating patients with MCS formulated statements after discussing the published data. Their attitudes to treatment approaches (particularly those insufficiently supported by published data) were collected before the consensus conference by means of a questionnaire, and were considered when formulating the statements. RESULTS: An attempt at viral eradication using pegylated interferon plus ribavirin should be considered the first-line therapeutic option in patients with mild-moderate HCV-related MCS. Prolonged treatment (up to 72 weeks) may be considered in the case of virological non-responders showing clinical and laboratory improvements. Rituximab (RTX) should be considered in patients with severe vasculitis and/or skin ulcers, peripheral neuropathy or glomerulonephritis. High-dose pulsed glucocorticoid (GC) therapy is useful in severe conditions and, when necessary, can be considered in combination with RTX; on the contrary, the majority of conference participants discouraged the chronic use of low-medium GC doses. Apheresis remains the elective treatment for severe, life-threatening hyper-viscosity syndrome; its use should be limited to patients who do not respond to (or who are ineligible for) other treatments, and emergency situations. Cyclophosphamide can be considered in combination with apheresis, but the data supporting its use are scarce. Despite the limited available data, colchicine is used by many of the conference participants, particularly in patients with mild-moderate MCS refractory to other therapies. Careful monitoring of the side effects of each drug, and its effects on HCV replication and liver function tests is essential. A low-antigen-content diet can be considered as supportive treatment in all symptomatic MCS patients. Although there are no data from controlled trials, controlling pain should always be attempted by tailoring the treatment to individual patients on the basis of the guidelines used in other vasculitides. CONCLUSION: Although there are few controlled randomised trials of MCS treatment, increasing knowledge of its pathogenesis is opening up new frontiers. The recommendations provided may be useful as provisional guidelines for the management of MCS.

Anti-polymer antibodies are correlated with pain and fatigue severity in patients with fibromyalgia syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the prevalence of antipolymer antibody (APA) in patients with fibromyalgia (FM) and to examine its association with FM severity symptoms. METHODS: The study population consisted of 79 FM patients and 75 controls: 32 with psoriatic arthritis and 43 with rheumatoid arthritis APA levels were indirectly assayed using a commercial ELISA kit from Corgenix (Westmister, Colorado, USA). Optical density (OD) values were recorded on duplicates of each of the reference and patient samples. Among clinical variables we investigated pain, measured according to visual analog scales (VAS: 0-100), fatigue, stiffness, anxiety, depression, all measured by VAS (0-100), and health status measured by Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ). RESULTS: Sixteen of the 79 FM patients (20.3%) and 12/78 controls (15.4%) were positive for APAs (P = 0.536). Following ROC analysis, area under curve (AUC) was 0.49 (95% CI: 0.40, 0.58). Focusing on FM patients, we observed a correlation between APA titre and pain (tau: - 0.221; P = 0.020) and fatigue (tau: - 0.205; P = 0.032) at univariate analysis. Binomial regression analysis, controlling for clinical and demographic variables, showed that pain (PPR: 0.923; P = 0.007) and fatigue (PPR: 0.948; P = 0.024) were significantly associated with APA test sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: APA test exhibited a low sensitivity in FM patients and it did not distinguish this group of patients from the controls enrolled in this study. Interestingly, positive APA test prevalence increased with less severe pain or fatigue.