Predictors of response to a low-FODMAP diet in patients with functional gastrointestinal disorders and lactose or fructose intolerance.

BACKGROUND: Diets low in fermentable sugars (low-FODMAP diets) are increasingly adopted by patients with functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGID), but outcome predictors are unclear. AIM: To identify factors predictive of an efficacious response to a low-FODMAP diet in FGID patients with fructose or lactose intolerance thereby gaining insights into underlying mechanisms. METHODS: Fructose and lactose breath tests were performed in FGID patients to determine intolerance (positive symptom score) and malabsorption (increased hydrogen or methane concentrations). Patients with fructose or lactose intolerance consumed a low-FODMAP diet and global adequate symptom relief was assessed after 6-8 weeks and correlated with pre-diet clinical symptoms and breath test results. RESULTS: A total of 81% of 584 patients completing the low-FODMAP diet achieved adequate relief, without significant differences between FGID subgroups or types of intolerance. Univariate analysis yielded predictive factors in fructose intolerance (chronic diarrhoea and pruritus, peak methane concentrations and fullness during breath tests) and lactose intolerance (peak hydrogen and methane concentrations and flatulence during breath tests). Using multivariate analysis, symptom relief was independently and positively predicted in fructose intolerance by chronic diarrhoea [odds ratio (95% confidence intervals): 2.62 (1.31-5.27), P = 0.007] and peak breath methane concentrations [1.53 (1.02-2.29), P = 0.042], and negatively predicted by chronic nausea [0.33 (0.16-0.67), P = 0.002]. No independent predictive factors emerged for lactose intolerance. CONCLUSIONS: Adequate global symptom relief was achieved with a low-FODMAP diet in a large majority of functional gastrointestinal disorders patients with fructose or lactose intolerance. Independent predictors of a satisfactory dietary outcome were only seen in fructose intolerant patients, and were indicative of changes in intestinal host or microbiome metabolism.

Dysfunctional endogenous pain modulation in patients with functional dyspepsia.

BACKGROUND: Endogenous pain modulation (EPM) is central to the processing of sensory information. Visceral and somatic EPM are abnormal in irritable bowel syndrome, but have not been studied in functional dyspepsia (FD). METHODS: Visceral EPM was assessed in 34 FD patients and 42 healthy controls. Gastric pain was induced with oral capsaicin and EPM was studied by adding heterotopic thermal foot stimulation or distraction by STROOP test. Somatic EPM was assessed using foot heat stimulation with heterotopic hand electrical stimulation. KEY RESULTS: Endogenous pain modulation by distraction reduced mean gastric pain by 11.9 on the 0-100 visual analog scale (95% CI: 3.8-20.1) in controls (p = 0.006) and by 2.0 (-6.18 to 10.44) in FD (p = 0.6), with greater EPM in controls than in FD (difference -13.3 [-26.1 to -0.5]; p = 0.04). Endogenous pain modulation by heterotopic foot stimulation reduced gastric pain by 6.5 (-0.7 to 13.6) in controls (p = 0.07) and by 7.1 (-2.29 to 16.47) in FD (p = 0.1), with no significant difference in EPM between controls and FD (-2.0 [-14.5 to 10.5]; p = 0.75). In patients with prominent FD pain, greater pain correlated with decreased visceral EPM by distraction (r = 0.51, p = 0.04). Somatic EPM by heterotopic stimulation significantly decreased foot pain in controls (p = 0.004), but not in FD (p = 0.80). CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: In FD, visceral pain modulation by distraction was dysfunctional compared to controls. Somatic pain modulation was also decreased in FD. These data and the correlation of abnormal pain modulation by distraction with clinical pain in pain-predominant FD suggest a potential pathophysiological significance of abnormal pain modulation in FD.

Fructose and lactose intolerance and malabsorption testing: the relationship with symptoms in functional gastrointestinal disorders.

BACKGROUND: The association of fructose and lactose intolerance and malabsorption with the symptoms of different functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGID) remains unclear. AIM: To investigate the prevalence of fructose and lactose intolerance (symptom induction) and malabsorption and their association with clinical gastrointestinal (GI) as well as non-GI symptoms in FGID and the outcome of dietary intervention. METHODS: Fructose and lactose intolerance (defined by positive symptom index) and malabsorption (defined by increased hydrogen/methane) were determined in 1372 FGID patients in a single centre using breath testing. Results were correlated with clinical symptoms in different FGID Rome III subgroups. The effectiveness of a targeted saccharide-reduced diet was assessed after 6-8 weeks. RESULTS: Intolerance prevalence across all FGIDs was 60% to fructose, 51% to lactose and 33% to both. Malabsorption occurred in 45%, 32% and 16% respectively. There were no differences in intolerance or malabsorption prevalence between FGID subgroups. FGID symptoms correlated with symptoms evoked during testing (r = 0.35-0.61. P < 0.0001), but not with malabsorption. Non-GI symptoms occurred more commonly in patients with intolerances. Methane breath levels were not associated with constipation using several cut-off thresholds. Adequate symptom relief was achieved in >80% of intolerant patients, irrespective of malabsorption. CONCLUSIONS: Fructose and lactose intolerances are common in FGID and associated with increased non-GI symptoms, but not with specific FGID subtypes. Symptoms experienced during breath testing, but not malabsorption, correlate with FGID symptoms. Effective symptom relief with dietary adaptation is not associated with malabsorption. Mechanisms relating to the generation of GI and non-GI symptoms due to lactose and fructose in FGID need to be explored further.

Combat-training increases intestinal permeability, immune activation and gastrointestinal symptoms in soldiers.

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms are common in soldiers in combat or high-pressure operational situations and often lead to compromised performance. Underlying mechanisms are unclear, but neuroendocrine dysregulation, immune activation and increased intestinal permeability may be involved in stress-related GI dysfunction. AIM: To study the effects of prolonged, intense, mixed psychological and physical stress on intestinal permeability, systemic inflammatory and stress markers in soldiers during high-intensity combat-training. METHODS: In 37 male army medical rapid response troops, GI symptoms, stress markers, segmental intestinal permeability using the 4-sugar test (sucrose, lactulose, mannitol and sucralose) and immune activation were assessed during the 4th week of an intense combat-training and a rest period. RESULTS: Combat-training elicited higher stress, anxiety and depression scores (all P < 0.01) as well as greater incidence and severity of GI symptoms [irritable bowel syndrome symptom severity score (IBS-SSS), P < 0.05] compared with rest. The IBS-SSS correlated with depression (r = 0.41, P < 0.01) and stress (r = 0.40, P < 0.01) ratings. Serum levels of cortisol, interleukin-6, and tumour necrosis factor-α, and segmental GI permeability increased during combat-training compared with rest (all P < 0.05). The lactulose:mannitol ratio was higher in soldiers with GI symptoms (IBS-SSS ≥75) during combat-training than those without (IBS-SSS <75) (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged combat-training not only induces the expected increases in stress, anxiety and depression, but also GI symptoms, pro-inflammatory immune activation and increased intestinal permeability. Identification of subgroups of individuals at high-risk of GI compromise and of long-term deleterious effects of operational stress as well as the development of protective measures will be the focus of future studies.

Visceral and somatic sensory function in functional dyspepsia.

BACKGROUND: Visceral hypersensitivity is one of the proposed underlying mechanisms in functional dyspepsia (FD). It is not clear whether visceral hypersensitivity in FD is a manifestation of a central sensitization also encompassing somatic sensitization. Transient receptor potential vanilloid-1 (TRPV(1)) pathways are involved in gastric mechanosensory physiology and the TRPV(1) receptor agonist, capsaicin, has been used as a chemical stimulant. METHODS: In this double-blind, randomized study we evaluated both visceral and somatic sensory function in 34 FD patients and 42 healthy controls using quantitative sensory testing. Visceral pain sensitivity was assessed using a validated gastric pain model with oral capsaicin capsule titration and somatic pain sensitivity was determined by foot heat and hand electric stimulation. KEY RESULTS: The median capsaicin dose required to attain moderate pain was 0.5mg in FD and 1mg in controls (P = 0.03). At these doses, mean pain intensities on a 0-100 visual analog scale were greater for FD than controls [56.9 (95% confidence intervals, 52.2-61.5) vs 45.1 (41.6-48.6), resp.] (P = 0.005). Overall, mean somatic sensory and pain thresholds were similar in FD and control groups, but in a subgroup of FD pain hypersensitivity was seen on the hand and on the foot at different stimulation thresholds. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: A majority of patients with FD have visceral chemo-hypersensitivity involving TRPV(1) pathways. A substantial subgroup also has somatic hypersensitivity as evidence of central sensitization.

Characterization of a reproducible gastric pain model using oral capsaicin titration in healthy volunteers.

BACKGROUND: Sensory sensitization is one of the main pathophysiological hypotheses in functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs). As sensitization may affect various sensory modalities, we aimed to develop a reproducible gastric pain model utilizing polymodal pathways for use in functional and other pain disorders. METHODS: In this double-blind, cross-over study 42 healthy subjects swallowed one capsule containing either capsaicin 0.5mg or nocebo every 15min until moderate pain (intensity >30 on 100mm visual analogue scale) was attained for at least 5min. Pain was rated every minute. Capsaicin titration was repeated thrice for reliability calculation. KEY RESULTS: Moderate pain in the upper abdomen was successfully achieved in 38 of 42 subjects (90%) with capsaicin titration and in one of 42 (2%) with nocebo. The median dosage required to induce moderate pain for at least 5min was two capsules (interquartile range 1-3) and the median gastric pain intensity was 47 (41-53). The median duration of moderate pain was 8min (5-12). Moderate pain was successfully reproduced with capsaicin in all subjects on study days 2 and 3, with an excellent Cronbach reliability coefficient of >0.8. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: Standardized gastric pain can be conveniently achieved in a majority of healthy subjects using a simple oral capsaicin titration, with minimal adverse events. The between-test reproducibility is high and nocebo responses are negligible. This technique stimulating a multimodal physiological pathway will be useful in the investigation of sensory changes in FGIDs, including functional dyspepsia.

The effects of dose and timing of esomeprazole administration on 24-h, daytime and night-time acid inhibition in healthy volunteers.

BACKGROUND: Symptoms of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD) may persist despite daily treatment with a proton pump inhibitor (PPI). AIM: To compare the pharmacodynamic effect of various esomeprazole dosage and timing regimens in healthy volunteers. METHODS: The effect of different esomeprazole dosage regimens [20 mg once daily (od) before breakfast or dinner; 20 mg twice daily (b.d.); 40 mg od before breakfast, dinner or at bedtime; and 40 mg b.d.] on 24-h, daytime and night-time acid inhibition was evaluated in a randomized, seven-way crossover study in healthy volunteers. Each regimen was taken for 5 days. RESULTS: Over the 24-h period (day 5), esomeprazole 20 mg b.d. was associated with superior acid inhibition vs. all 20 mg and 40 mg od regimens (P < 0.05), but was less effective than esomeprazole 40 mg b.d. (P < 0.05). Dosing with esomeprazole 20 mg or 40 mg od before breakfast gave improved 24-h and daytime acid inhibition vs. the corresponding administration before dinner or at bedtime (all P < 0.05). Night-time acid inhibition was improved when esomeprazole 40 mg od was administered before dinner or at bedtime vs. before-breakfast dosing (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Varying the dose and timing of esomeprazole administration may provide acid inhibition appropriate for the symptom pattern of individual patients with GERD.

Suppression of gastric acid with intravenous esomeprazole and omeprazole: results of 3 studies in healthy subjects.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the optimal pharmacodynamic dosing regimen for esomeprazole administered intravenously (i.v.) and to compare acid suppression with various esomeprazole i.v. and omeprazole i.v. dosing regimens. METHODS: A total of 90 healthy Helicobacter pylori-negative subjects participated in three randomized, crossover studies of esomeprazole i.v. Comparative acid output study: an open-label study that compared single 40 mg i.v. doses (administered over 30 min) of esomeprazole and omeprazole. Dose-ranging study: an open-label study that compared acid control with five different doses of esomeprazole i.v., administered over 24 h. Comparative pH study: a double-blind study that compared esomeprazole i.v. and omeprazole at doses of 80 mg (over 30 min) + 8 mg/h (for 23.5 h). RESULTS: In the comparative acid output study, estimated mean pentagastrin-stimulated acid output was reduced from 33.9 mmol/h at baseline to 5.4 mmol/h at 4 - 5.5 h with esomeprazole vs. 9.5 mmol/h with omeprazole (p < 0.001). In the dose-ranging study, the 80 + 8 mg/h regimen provided a greater mean time with pH > 6 (12.6 h) than the lower doses (11.0 and 10.7 h for 40 + 8 mg/h and 80 + 4 mg/h, respectively) and significantly more time with pH > 4 (21.5 vs. 19.7 and 19.2 h, respectively; p < 0.05). In the comparative pH study, the mean number of h with pH > 4 was similar between esomeprazole (21.4 h) and omeprazole (21.1 h). CONCLUSIONS: Esomeprazole was superior to omeprazole in reducing stimulated acid secretion. Control of intragastric pH was similar for esomeprazole and omeprazole at a dose of 80 + 8 mg/h. An esomeprazole i.v. dosage regimen of 80 + 8 mg/h appeared to be optimal for acid suppression in healthy subjects under study.

Esomeprazole 40 mg i.v. provides faster and more effective intragastric acid control than pantoprazole 40 mg i.v.: results of a randomized study.

BACKGROUND: Oral esomeprazole 40 mg provides greater acid control than oral pantoprazole 40 mg. AIM: To compare the effects on intragastric acid control of esomeprazole 40 mg administered intravenously with pantoprazole 40 mg intravenously. METHODS: Healthy Helicobacter pylori-negative male and female subjects were enrolled into this single-centre, open, randomized, two-way crossover study. Esomeprazole 40 mg intravenously and pantoprazole 40 mg intravenously were administered as 15-min infusions once daily at 09:00 hours for 5 days. Continuous 24-h intragastric pH monitoring was carried out at baseline and on days 1 and 5. RESULTS: pH-data were available for all 25 subjects who completed the study. Esomeprazole 40 mg intravenously resulted in 8.3 and 13.9 h with an intragastric pH > 4 on days 1 and 5 compared with 5.3 and 9.0 h, respectively for pantoprazole 40 mg intravenously (day 1: P < 0.001, day 5: P < 0.0001). During the first 4 h of dosing on day 1 corresponding values were 1.7 and 0.6 h respectively (P < 0.0001). A mean median pH above 4 on day 5 was only attained with esomeprazole 40 mg intravenously. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily dosing with esomeprazole 40 mg intravenously provides faster and more pronounced intragastric acid control than pantoprazole 40 mg intravenously.

Brain functional magnetic resonance imaging of rectal pain and activation of endogenous inhibitory mechanisms in irritable bowel syndrome patient subgroups and healthy controls.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Many patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) show intestinal hypersensitivity to distension and sensitisation after repeated intestinal distensions. Abnormalities in endogenous pain inhibitory mechanisms, such as diffuse noxious inhibitory controls (DNIC), may be implicated and were investigated during brain functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). PATIENTS AND METHODS: fMRI was performed in 10 female patients with IBS (five constipated (IBS-C) and five with diarrhoea (IBS-D)) and 10 female healthy controls during rectal balloon distension alone or during activation of DNIC by painful heterotopic stimulation of the foot with ice water. Rectal pain was scored with and without heterotopic stimulation (0 = none, 10 = maximal). RESULTS: Heterotopic stimulation decreased median rectal pain scores significantly in healthy controls (-1.5 (interquartile range -2 to -1); p = 0.001) but not in IBS-C (-0.7 (-1 to 0.5)), IBS-D (-0.5 (-1.5 to 0.5)), or in all IBS patients (0 (-1.5 to 1.3)). Brain activation changes during heterotopic stimulation differed highly significantly between IBS-C, IBS-D, and controls. The main centres affected were the amygdala, anterior cingulate cortex, hippocampus, insula, periaqueductal gray, and prefrontal cortex, which form part of the matrix controlling emotional, autonomic, and descending modulatory responses to pain. CONCLUSIONS: IBS-C and IBS-D appear to have differing abnormal endogenous pain inhibitory mechanisms, involving DNIC and other supraspinal modulatory pathways.

Treatment of severe pain from osteoarthritis with slow-release tramadol or dihydrocodeine in combination with NSAID's: a randomised study comparing analgesia, antinociception and gastrointestinal effects.

Opioids are increasingly used in the treatment of chronic non-malignant pain. The aim of this open-label, randomised, parallel group study was to compare analgesia and side-effects of two commonly used opioid analgesics, tramadol and dihydrocodeine, in long-acting formulations in 60 osteoarthritis patients with strong pain despite NSAID's. Dose titration based on effect was performed with the respective immediate release solutions given additionally to tramadol 100 mg bid and dihydrocodeine 60 mg bid during the first 4 days of the 1 month treatment. Electrical sensation and pain thresholds over the osteoarthritic joint and at a distant location and gastrointestinal transit times were performed before and during treatment. Thirty patients with pain controlled by NSAID's alone formed the comparator group. Pain intensities at rest and during movement decreased highly significantly with tramadol and dihydrocodeine from median pre-treatment verbal ratings of over 3 (0=none, 4=unbearable) to 1 and below from the second treatment day onwards (ANOVA P<0.0001). Pain at rest was significantly lower with tramadol (ANOVA P=0.04), but ratings were similar during movement. Mean (95% CI) daily doses on days 1 and 28 were 209 (198-220) mg and 203 (191-206) mg of tramadol, and 129 (122-136) mg and 130 (121-134) mg of dihydrocodeine, respectively. Minor side-effects were more common with tramadol (P=0.04). Changes in bowel functions and symptoms were minor with both treatments, but the frequency of defaecation was lower and stools were harder with dihydrocodeine. Orocaecal transit time remained unchanged and similar to controls with both analgesics. Colonic transit times only increased significantly during treatment with dihydrocodeine. Sensation and pain thresholds were lower pre-treatment in both groups than in controls and increased during treatment. These antinociceptive effects were more marked in the tramadol group and distant from the osteoarthritic joint. We conclude rapid pain relief was achieved with both long-acting tramadol and dihydrocodeine with NSAID's in strong osteoarthritis pain. Minimal dose titration was required and side-effects were minor. Tramadol interfered less with intestinal function and showed greater antinociceptive action.

Helicobacter pylori and gastric erosions. Results of a prevalence study in asymptomatic volunteers.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Helicobacter pylori is considered to be the primary cause of most forms of gastritis, but its role as a causative agent in gastric erosions is unclear. The aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of gastric erosions and H. pylori infection in asymptomatic volunteers. METHODS: 175 asymptomatic subjects underwent upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Antral biopsies were taken for bacterial cultures, histology and quick urease (CLO) test. A (13)C-urea breath test was performed after endoscopy. NSAID intake, alcohol consumption and smoking habits were also recorded in each subject. RESULTS: 33 (19%) of 175 asymptomatic volunteers had macroscopic lesions on upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, 7 were H. pylori positive, 26 were H. pylori negative. Gastric erosions occurred in 8% (14 subjects) of all volunteers. 10 subjects were H. pylori negative and 4 H. pylori positive. In 11 volunteers, gastric erosions were restricted to the prepyloric antrum. Only 1 of 14 subjects had a history of NSAID intake and 6 subjects were alcohol abstainers. CONCLUSION: We conclude that gastric erosions occur in a considerable amount of asymptomatic volunteers. They are predominantly localized in the prepyloric antrum and are most likely not associated with H. pylori infection, NSAID intake, smoking or alcohol consumption.

Analgesic action of i.v. morphine-6-glucuronide in healthy volunteers.

The pharmacodynamics of morphine-6-glucuronide (M-6-G) i.v. were assessed in 12 healthy male volunteers in an open study. After a single bolus dose of M-6-G 5 mg i.v., we measured antinociceptive effects, using electrical and cold pain tests, and plasma concentrations of M-6-G, morphine-3-glucuronide (M-3-G) and morphine. Pain intensities during electrical stimulation (at 30, 60 and 90 min after injection) and ice water immersion (at 60 min) decreased significantly (P < 0.005) compared with baseline. Mean plasma peak concentrations of M-6-G were 139.3 (SD 38.9) ng ml-1, measured at 15 min. Our data demonstrate that M-6-G has significant analgesic activity.

Effects of morphine and tramadol on somatic and visceral sensory function and gastrointestinal motility after abdominal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Chronic nociceptive input induces sensitization and changes in regulatory reflexes in animal models. In humans, postoperative somatic and visceral sensitization and the secondary effects on reflex gut motility are unclear. METHODS: Somatic and visceral sensation and gastrointestinal motility were evaluated after abdominal hysterectomies in 50 patients who were randomized to receive double-blinded postoperative 48-h infusions of morphine or tramadol. Pain scores, rectal distension, skin electric sensation and pain tolerance thresholds, and gastrointestinal transit were assessed before and after operation, during and after analgesic infusions. RESULTS: Pain intensity scores decreased similarly with morphine and tramadol infusions (total doses, 66.8+/-20 mg and 732.4+/-152 mg [mean +/- SD], respectively). Skin pain tolerance thresholds in the incisional dermatome remained similar with morphine and tramadol throughout the study. During morphine infusions, pain tolerance thresholds on the shoulder increased (P<0.05) and then decreased after discontinuation on day 4 (P<0.02) compared with before operation. Rectal distension pain tolerance pressure thresholds increased after operation during morphine infusions (P<0.05). Similar but nonsignificant trends occurred with tramadol. Orocecal and colonic transit times increased after operation with both morphine and tramadol (P<0.005), but gastric emptying was prolonged only with morphine (P = 0.03). AU motility and sensory parameters had returned to preoperative levels by 1 month after operation. CONCLUSIONS: Pain control was equally effective with morphine and tramadol infusions. No somatic or visceral sensitization was evident during morphine and tramadol infusions, but pain tolerance thresholds as markers of antinociception were increased more during morphine infusions. The significant sensitization seen only after morphine discontinuation may be due to convergent visceral input. Gut motility was prolonged significantly by visceral surgery itself and also by morphine.

Effect of tramadol and morphine on pain and gastrointestinal motor function in patients with chronic pancreatitis.

Tramadol and morphine were compared for treatment of severe chronic pancreatitis pain and their interaction with gut motor function. Oral tramadol or morphine doses were titrated double-blinded and randomized for five days in 25 patients and pain, side effects, bowel function, orocecal and colonic transit, anal resting pressure, and rectal distension thresholds were measured. Pain intensities (mean+/-SD, 0 = none, 100 = unbearable) before treatment and on day 4 were 75+/-19 and 8+/-13 with tramadol (P < 0.001), and 65+/-21 and 5+/-6 with morphine (P < 0.001). On day 4, 67% of patients with tramadol and 20% with morphine rated their analgesia as excellent (P < 0.001) with mean respective doses of 840 mg (range: 80-1920) and 238 mg (20-1125). Orocecal transit was unchanged after five days of tramadol, but increased with morphine (P < 0.05). More patients had prolonged colonic transit times with morphine by day 5 (P < 0.05). Rectal distension threshold pressures increased only with tramadol (P < 0.01). It is concluded tramadol and morphine are potent analgesics in severe chronic pancreatitis pain when individually titrated. Tramadol interfered significantly less with gastrointestinal function and was more often rated as an excellent analgesic than morphine.

The visceral and somatic antinociceptive effects of dihydrocodeine and its metabolite, dihydromorphine. A cross-over study with extensive and quinidine-induced poor metabolizers.

AIMS: Dihydrocodeine is metabolized to dihydromorphine via the isoenzyme cytochrome P450 2D6, whose activity is determined by genetic polymorphism. The importance of the dihydromorphine metabolites for analgesia in poor metabolizers is unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the importance of the dihydromorphine metabolites of dihydrocodeine in analgesia by investigating the effects of dihydrocodeine on somatic and visceral pain thresholds in extensive and quinidine-induced poor metabolizers. METHODS: Eleven healthy subjects participated in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, four-way cross-over study comparing the effects of single doses of placebo and slow-release dihydrocodeine 60 mg with and without premedication with quinidine sulphate 50 mg on electrical, heat and rectal distension pain tolerance thresholds. Plasma concentrations and urinary excretion of dihydrocodeine and dihydromorphine were measured. RESULTS: In quinidine-induced poor metabolizers the plasma concentrations of dihydromorphine were reduced between 3 and 4 fold from 1.5 h to 13.5 h after dosing (P < 0.005) and urinary excretion of dihydromorphine in the first 12 h was decreased from 0.91% to 0.28% of the dihydrocodeine dose (P < 0.001). Dihydrocodeine significantly raised the heat pain tolerance thresholds (at 3.3 h and 5 h postdosing, P < 0.05) and the rectal distension defaecatory urge (at 3.3 h and 10 h postdosing, P < 0.02) and pain tolerance thresholds (at 3.3 h and 5 h postdosing, P < 0.05) compared with placebo. Premedication with quinidine did not change the effects of dihydrocodeine on pain thresholds, but decreased the effect of dihydrocodeine on defaecatory urge thresholds (at 1.5 h, 3.3 h and 10 h postdosing, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In quinidine-induced poor metabolizers significant reduction in dihydromorphine metabolite production did not result in diminished analgesic effects of a single dose of dihydrocodeine. The metabolism of dihydrocodeine to dihydromorphine may therefore not be of clinical importance for analgesia. This conclusion must however, be confirmed with repeated dosing in patients with pain.