Metabolic cycling in single yeast cells from unsynchronized steady-state populations limited on glucose or phosphate.

Oscillations in patterns of expression of a large fraction of yeast genes are associated with the "metabolic cycle," usually seen only in prestarved, continuous cultures of yeast. We used FISH of mRNA in individual cells to test the hypothesis that these oscillations happen in single cells drawn from unsynchronized cultures growing exponentially in chemostats. Gene-expression data from synchronized cultures were used to predict coincident appearance of mRNAs from pairs of genes in the unsynchronized cells. Quantitative analysis of the FISH results shows that individual unsynchronized cells growing slowly because of glucose limitation or phosphate limitation show the predicted oscillations. We conclude that the yeast metabolic cycle is an intrinsic property of yeast metabolism and does not depend on either synchronization or external limitation of growth by the carbon source.

Opioid antagonists, partial agonists, and agonists/antagonists: the role of office-based detoxification.

BACKGROUND: The opioid receptor antagonists naloxone and naltrexone are competitive antagonists at the mu, kappa, and sigma receptors with a higher affinity for the mu receptor and lacking any mu receptor efficacy. Buprenorphine is classified as a partial agonist. It has a high affinity, but low efficacy at the mu receptor where it yields a partial effect upon binding. It also, however, possesses kappa receptor antagonist activity making it useful not only as an analgesic, but also in opioid abuse deterrence, detoxification, and maintenance therapies. Naloxone is added to sublingual buprenorphine (Suboxone) to prevent the intravenous abuse of buprenorphine. The same product (sublingual buprenorphine) when used alone (i.e. without naloxone) is marketed as Subutex. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and update the available evidence regarding the use of agonist/antagonists to provide office-based opioid treatment for addiction. METHODS: A review using databases of EMBASE and MEDLINE (1992 to December 2007). These included systematic reviews, narrative reviews, prospective and retrospective studies, as well as cross-references from other articles. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was treatment retention. Other outcome measures included opioid-free urine drug testing, opioid craving, intensity of withdrawal, pain reduction, adverse effects, addiction severity index, and HIV risk behavior. RESULTS: The results found 17 studies, 1 systematic review, 12 RCTs, and 4 observational series, which document the efficacy and safety of buprenorphine alone and in combination with naloxone in detoxifying and maintaining abstinence from illicit drugs in patients with opioid addiction. CONCLUSION: Based on the present evaluation, it appears that opioid antagonists, partial agonists, and antagonists are useful in office-based opioid treatment for addiction.

Common and divergent features of galactose-1-phosphate and fructose-1-phosphate toxicity in yeast.

Metabolic dysregulation leading to sugar-phosphate accumulation is toxic in organisms ranging from bacteria to humans. By comparing two models of sugar-phosphate toxicity in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, we demonstrate that toxicity occurs, at least in part, through multiple, isomer-specific mechanisms, rather than a single general mechanism.

Use of immediate-release opioids as supplemental analgesia during management of moderate-to-severe chronic pain with buprenorphine transdermal system.

BACKGROUND: The buprenorphine transdermal system (BTDS) is approved in the US for the management of chronic pain. Due to its high affinity for µ-opioid receptors with a slow dissociation profile, buprenorphine may potentially displace or prevent the binding of competing µ-opioid-receptor agonists, including immediate-release (IR) opioids, in a dose-dependent manner. Health care professionals may assume that the use of IR opioids for supplemental analgesia during BTDS therapy is not acceptable. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This post hoc analysis evaluated the use of IR opioids as supplemental analgesia during the management of moderate-severe chronic pain with BTDS at 52 US sites (BUP3015S, NCT01125917). Patients were categorized into IR-opioid and no-IR-opioid groups. At each visit of the extension phase, adverse events, concomitant medications, and information from the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) were recorded. RESULTS: The most common supplemental IR opioids prescribed during BTDS treatment (n=354) were hydrocodone-acetaminophen and oxycodone-acetaminophen. The mean daily dose of IR opioids (morphine equivalents) for supplemental analgesia was 22 mg. At baseline, BPI - pain intensity and BPI - interference scores were higher for patients in the IR-opioid group. In both treatment groups, scores improved by week 4, and then were maintained throughout 6 months of the open-label extension trial. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: Patients who were prescribed IR opioids reported lower scores for BPI pain intensity and pain interference to levels similar to patients receiving BTDS without IR opioids, without increasing the rate or severity of treatment-emergent adverse events. Patients prescribed concomitant use of IR opioids with BTDS had greater treatment persistence. The results of this post hoc analysis provide support for the concomitant use of IR opioids for supplemental analgesia during the management of moderate-severe chronic pain with BTDS.

Responsible, Safe, and Effective Prescription of Opioids for Chronic Non-Cancer Pain: American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Opioid use, abuse, and adverse consequences, including death, have escalated at an alarming rate since the 1990s. In an attempt to control opioid abuse, numerous regulations and guidelines for responsible opioid prescribing have been developed by various organizations. However, the US opioid epidemic is continuing and drug dose deaths tripled during 1999 to 2015. Recent data show a continuing increase in deaths due to natural and semisynthetic opioids, a decline in methadone deaths, and an explosive increase in the rates of deaths involving other opioids, specifically heroin and illicit synthetic fentanyl. Contrary to scientific evidence of efficacy and negative recommendations, a significant proportion of physicians and patients (92%) believe that opioids reduce pain and a smaller proportion (57%) report better quality of life. In preparation of the current guidelines, we have focused on the means to reduce the abuse and diversion of opioids without jeopardizing access for those patients suffering from non-cancer pain who have an appropriate medical indication for opioid use. OBJECTIVES: To provide guidance for the prescription of opioids for the management of chronic non-cancer pain, to develop a consistent philosophy among the many diverse groups with an interest in opioid use as to how appropriately prescribe opioids, to improve the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain and to reduce the likelihood of drug abuse and diversion. These guidelines are intended to provide a systematic and standardized approach to this complex and difficult arena of practice, while recognizing that every clinical situation is unique. METHODS: The methodology utilized included the development of objectives and key questions. The methodology also utilized trustworthy standards, appropriate disclosures of conflicts of interest, as well as a panel of experts from various specialties and groups. The literature pertaining to opioid use, abuse, effectiveness, and adverse consequences was reviewed, with a best evidence synthesis of the available literature, and utilized grading for recommendation as described by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ).Summary of Recommendations:i. Initial Steps of Opioid Therapy 1. Comprehensive assessment and documentation. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong) 2. Screening for opioid abuse to identify opioid abusers. (Evidence: Level II-III; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 3. Utilization of prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs). (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate to strong) 4. Utilization of urine drug testing (UDT). (Evidence: Level II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 5. Establish appropriate physical diagnosis and psychological diagnosis if available. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong) 6. Consider appropriate imaging, physical diagnosis, and psychological status to collaborate with subjective complaints. (Evidence: Level III; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 7. Establish medical necessity based on average moderate to severe (≥ 4 on a scale of 0 - 10) pain and/or disability. (Evidence: Level II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 8. Stratify patients based on risk. (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 9. Establish treatment goals of opioid therapy with regard to pain relief and improvement in function. (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 10. Obtain a robust opioid agreement, which is followed by all parties. (Evidence: Level III; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate)ii. Assessment of Effectiveness of Long-Term Opioid Therapy 11. Initiate opioid therapy with low dose, short-acting drugs, with appropriate monitoring. (Evidence: Level II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 12. Consider up to 40 morphine milligram equivalent (MME) as low dose, 41 to 90 MME as a moderate dose, and greater than 91 MME as high dose. (Evidence: Level II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 13. Avoid long-acting opioids for the initiation of opioid therapy. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong) 14. Recommend methadone only for use after failure of other opioid therapy and only by clinicians with specific training in its risks and uses, within FDA recommended doses. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong) 15. Understand and educate the patients of the effectiveness and adverse consequences. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong) 16. Similar effectiveness for long-acting and short-acting opioids with increased adverse consequences of long-acting opioids. (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of recommendation: Moderate to strong) 17. Periodically assess pain relief and/or functional status improvement of ≥ 30% without adverse consequences. (Evidence: Level II; Strength of recommendation: Moderate) 18. Recommend long-acting or high dose opioids only in specific circumstances with severe intractable pain. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong)iii. Monitoring for Adherence and Side Effects 19. Monitor for adherence, abuse, and noncompliance by UDT and PDMPs. (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate to strong) 20. Monitor patients on methadone with an electrocardiogram periodically. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong). 21. Monitor for side effects including constipation and manage them appropriately, including discontinuation of opioids when indicated. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong)iv. Final Phase 22. May continue with monitoring with continued medical necessity, with appropriate outcomes. (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 23. Discontinue opioid therapy for lack of response, adverse consequences, and abuse with rehabilitation. (Evidence: Level III; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines were developed based on comprehensive review of the literature, consensus among the panelists, in consonance with patient preferences, shared decision-making, and practice patterns with limited evidence, based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to improve pain and function in chronic non-cancer pain on a long-term basis. Consequently, chronic opioid therapy should be provided only to patients with proven medical necessity and stability with improvement in pain and function, independently or in conjunction with other modalities of treatments in low doses with appropriate adherence monitoring and understanding of adverse events.Key words: Chronic pain, persistent pain, non-cancer pain, controlled substances, substance abuse, prescription drug abuse, dependency, opioids, prescription monitoring, drug testing, adherence monitoring, diversionDisclaimer: The guidelines are based on the best available evidence and do not constitute inflexible treatment recommendations. Due to the changing body of evidence, this document is not intended to be a "standard of care."

Expression of NALP1 in cerebellar granule neurons stimulates apoptosis.

NAcht Leucine-rich-repeat Protein 1 (NALP1) contains a putative nucleotide binding site, a region of leucine-rich repeats, and death domain folds at both termini providing protein/protein association functions such as caspase recruitment. We report here that NALP1 gene expression was induced in primary cerebellar granule neurons (CGN) upon injury. Up-regulation of NALP1 was also observed in a model of transient focal ischemia induced by middle cerebral artery occlusion. We investigated the biological consequence of over-expression of NALP1 in both HeLa cells and in CGN. Expression of recombinant NALP1 stimulated cell death in both HeLa cells and CGN by an apoptotic mechanism, demonstrated by the induction of apoptotic nuclear morphology and activation of the apoptotic enzyme caspase-3. Also described here are studies on the mechanism of action studies including deletion analyses and investigations of nucleotide binding, which begin to elucidate a regulatory function for NALP1 in neuronal apoptosis.

Visualization and analysis of mRNA molecules using fluorescence in situ hybridization in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.

The Fluorescence in situ Hybridization (FISH) method allows one to detect nucleic acids in the native cellular environment. Here we provide a protocol for using FISH to quantify the number of mRNAs in single yeast cells. Cells can be grown in any condition of interest and then fixed and made permeable. Subsequently, multiple single-stranded deoxyoligonucleotides conjugated to fluorescent dyes are used to label and visualize mRNAs. Diffraction-limited fluorescence from single mRNA molecules is quantified using a spot-detection algorithm to identify and count the number of mRNAs per cell. While the more standard quantification methods of northern blots, RT-PCR and gene expression microarrays provide information on average mRNAs in the bulk population, FISH facilitates both the counting and localization of these mRNAs in single cells at single-molecule resolution.

Office-based opioid dependence treatment.

BACKGROUND: Opioid misuse and abuse occurring in association with the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain are not new phenomena, but their increasing prevalence in recent years is unprecedented. Advancements in pharmaceutical technologies have provided opioid-related drugs, which lack the pure mu agonist activity characteristic of the typical opioid congeners. This absent or altered mu receptor activity imparts an opioid receptor antagonistic or partial agonistic pharmacologic action, which serves to modulate the development of opioid-induced tolerance and physical dependence and facilitate detoxification and withdrawal from opioids. Opioid antagonists and partial agonists are being used in abuse deterrent strategy regimens to prevent opioid tolerance and the development of dependence, as well as in the management of opioid detoxification and treatment of withdrawal. The specific opioid antagonists and partial agonists used in these various therapeutic modalities will be the focus of this review. OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the comparative therapeutic utility of opioid antagonists and partial agonists in preventing the development of opioid tolerance and treating opioid dependence, detoxification, and withdrawal. A primary focus is the use of opioid antagonists and partial agonists within an office-based practice. METHODS: A narrative review of the current literature involving the therapeutic use of opioid antagonists and partial agonists in the management of opioid tolerance, dependence, detoxification, and withdrawal. A computerized literature search in the PubMed, EMBASE, BioMed, and Cochrane Library review databases from 2008 through 2010 was performed. This search included systematic and narrative reviews, prospective and retrospective studies, as well as cross-references from bibliographies of notable primary and review articles and abstracts from scientific meetings. US Food and Drug Administration records and pharmaceutical manufacturers' product literature were also used in the search. CONCLUSION: Opioid dependency, whether it results from the misuse or abuse of prescription or street drugs, continues to be a significant public health issue. Passage of DATA 2000 and US Food and Drug Administration approval of buprenorphine and buprenorphine/ naloxone has revolutionized opioid dependence therapy. The traditional addiction medicine therapy regimen of methadone maintenance, with its inherent legal limitations and restrictions, has been challenged by an office-based dependence practice with buprenorphine serving as a prominent therapeutic tool.

American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) guidelines for responsible opioid prescribing in chronic non-cancer pain: Part I--evidence assessment.

BACKGROUND: Opioid abuse has continued to increase at an alarming rate since the 1990 s. As documented by different medical specialties, medical boards, advocacy groups, and the Drug Enforcement Administration, available evidence suggests a wide variance in chronic opioid therapy of 90 days or longer in chronic non-cancer pain. Part 1 describes evidence assessment. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of opioid guidelines as issued by the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) are to provide guidance for the use of opioids for the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain, to produce consistency in the application of an opioid philosophy among the many diverse groups involved, to improve the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain, and to reduce the incidence of abuse and drug diversion. The focus of these guidelines is to curtail the abuse of opioids without jeopardizing non-cancer pain management with opioids. RESULTS: 1) There is good evidence that non-medical use of opioids is extensive; one-third of chronic pain patients may not use prescribed opioids as prescribed or may abuse them, and illicit drug use is significantly higher in these patients. 2) There is good evidence that opioid prescriptions are increasing rapidly, as the majority of prescriptions are from non-pain physicians, many patients are on long-acting opioids, and many patients are provided with combinations of long-acting and short-acting opioids. 3) There is good evidence that the increased supply of opioids, use of high dose opioids, doctor shoppers, and patients with multiple comorbid factors contribute to the majority of the fatalities. 4) There is fair evidence that long-acting opioids and a combination of long-acting and short-acting opioids contribute to increasing fatalities and that even low-doses of 40 mg or 50 mg of daily morphine equivalent doses may be responsible for emergency room admissions with overdoses and deaths. 5) There is good evidence that approximately 60% of fatalities originate from opioids prescribed within the guidelines, with approximately 40% of fatalities occurring in 10% of drug abusers. 6) The short-term effectiveness of opioids is fair, whereas the long-term effectiveness of opioids is limited due to a lack of long-term (> 3 months) high quality studies, with fair evidence with no significant difference between long-acting and short-acting opioids. 7) Among the individual drugs, most opioids have fair evidence for short-term and limited evidence for long-term due to a lack of quality studies. 8) The evidence for the effectiveness and safety of chronic opioid therapy in the elderly for chronic non-cancer pain is fair for short-term and limited for long-term due to lack of high quality studies; limited in children and adolescents and patients with comorbid psychological disorders due to lack of quality studies; and the evidence is poor in pregnant women. 9) There is limited evidence for reliability and accuracy of screening tests for opioid abuse due to lack of high quality studies. 10) There is fair evidence to support the identification of patients who are non-compliant or abusing prescription drugs or illicit drugs through urine drug testing and prescription drug monitoring programs, both of which can reduce prescription drug abuse or doctor shopping. DISCLAIMER: The guidelines are based on the best available evidence and do not constitute inflexible treatment recommendations. Due to the changing body of evidence, this document is not intended to be a "standard of care."

American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) guidelines for responsible opioid prescribing in chronic non-cancer pain: Part 2--guidance.

RESULTS: Part 2 of the guidelines on responsible opioid prescribing provides the following recommendations for initiating and maintaining chronic opioid therapy of 90 days or longer. 1. A) Comprehensive assessment and documentation is recommended before initiating opioid therapy, including documentation of comprehensive history, general medical condition, psychosocial history, psychiatric status, and substance use history. ( EVIDENCE: good) B) Despite limited evidence for reliability and accuracy, screening for opioid use is recommended, as it will identify opioid abusers and reduce opioid abuse. ( EVIDENCE: limited) C) Prescription monitoring programs must be implemented, as they provide data on patterns of prescription usage, reduce prescription drug abuse or doctor shopping. ( EVIDENCE: good to fair) D) Urine drug testing (UDT) must be implemented from initiation along with subsequent adherence monitoring to decrease prescription drug abuse or illicit drug use when patients are in chronic pain management therapy. ( EVIDENCE: good) 2. A) Establish appropriate physical diagnosis and psychological diagnosis if available prior to initiating opioid therapy. ( EVIDENCE: good) B) Caution must be exercised in ordering various imaging and other evaluations, interpretation and communication with the patient, to avoid increased fear, activity restriction, requests for increased opioids, and maladaptive behaviors. ( EVIDENCE: good) C) Stratify patients into one of the 3 risk categories - low, medium, or high risk. D) A pain management consultation, may assist non-pain physicians, if high-dose opioid therapy is utilized. ( EVIDENCE: fair) 3. Essential to establish medical necessity prior to initiation or maintenance of opioid therapy. ( EVIDENCE: good) 4. Establish treatment goals of opioid therapy with regard to pain relief and improvement in function. ( EVIDENCE: good) 5. A) Long-acting opioids in high doses are recommended only in specific circumstances with severe intractable pain that is not amenable to short-acting or moderate doses of long-acting opioids, as there is no significant difference between long-acting and short-acting opioids for their effectiveness or adverse effects. ( EVIDENCE: fair) B) The relative and absolute contraindications to opioid use in chronic non-cancer pain must be evaluated including respiratory instability, acute psychiatric instability, uncontrolled suicide risk, active or history of alcohol or substance abuse, confirmed allergy to opioid agents, coadministration of drugs capable of inducing life-limiting drug interaction, concomitant use of benzodiazepines, active diversion of controlled substances, and concomitant use of heavy doses of central nervous system depressants. ( EVIDENCE: fair to limited) 6. A robust agreement which is followed by all parties is essential in initiating and maintaining opioid therapy as such agreements reduce overuse, misuse, abuse, and diversion. ( EVIDENCE: fair) 7. A) Once medical necessity is established, opioid therapy may be initiated with low doses and short-acting drugs with appropriate monitoring to provide effective relief and avoid side effects. ( EVIDENCE: fair for short-term effectiveness, limited for long-term effectiveness) B) Up to 40 mg of morphine equivalent is considered as low dose, 41 to 90 mg of morphine equivalent as a moderate dose, and greater than 91 mg of morphine equivalence as high dose. ( EVIDENCE: fair) C) In reference to long-acting opioids, titration must be carried out with caution and overdose and misuse must be avoided. ( EVIDENCE: good) 8. A) Methadone is recommended for use in late stages after failure of other opioid therapy and only by clinicians with specific training in the risks and uses. ( EVIDENCE: limited) B) Monitoring recommendation for methadone prescription is that an electrocardiogram should be obtained prior to initiation, at 30 days and yearly thereafter. ( EVIDENCE: fair) 9. In order to reduce prescription drug abuse and doctor shopping, adherence monitoring by UDT and PMDPs provide evidence that is essential to the identification of those patients who are non-compliant or abusing prescription drugs or illicit drugs. ( EVIDENCE: fair) 10. Constipation must be closely monitored and a bowel regimen be initiated as soon as deemed necessary. ( EVIDENCE: good) 11. Chronic opioid therapy may be continued, with continuous adherence monitoring, in well-selected populations, in conjunction with or after failure of other modalities of treatments with improvement in physical and functional status and minimal adverse effects. ( EVIDENCE: fair). DISCLAIMER: The guidelines are based on the best available evidence and do not constitute inflexible treatment recommendations. Due to the changing body of evidence, this document is not intended to be a "standard of care."

A comprehensive review of opioid-induced hyperalgesia.

Opioid-induced hyperalgesia (OIH) is defined as a state of nociceptive sensitization caused by exposure to opioids. The condition is characterized by a paradoxical response whereby a patient receiving opioids for the treatment of pain could actually become more sensitive to certain painful stimuli. The type of pain experienced might be the same as the underlying pain or might be different from the original underlying pain. OIH appears to be a distinct, definable, and characteristic phenomenon that could explain loss of opioid efficacy in some patients. Findings of the clinical prevalence of OIH are not available. However, several observational, cross-sectional, and prospective controlled trials have examined the expression and potential clinical significance of OIH in humans. Most studies have been conducted using several distinct cohorts and methodologies utilizing former opioid addicts on methadone maintenance therapy, perioperative exposure to opioids in patients undergoing surgery, and healthy human volunteers after acute opioid exposure using human experimental pain testing. The precise molecular mechanism of OIH, while not yet understood, varies substantially in the basic science literature, as well as clinical medicine. It is generally thought to result from neuroplastic changes in the peripheral and central nervous system (CNS) that lead to sensitization of pronociceptive pathways. While there are many proposed mechanisms for OIH, 5 mechanisms involving the central glutaminergic system, spinal dynorphins, descending facilitation, genetic mechanisms, and decreased reuptake and enhanced nociceptive response have been described as the important mechanisms. Of these, the central glutaminergic system is considered the most common possibility. Another is the hypothesis that N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors in OIH include activation, inhibition of the glutamate transporter system, facilitation of calcium regulated intracellular protein kinase C, and cross talk of neural mechanisms of pain and tolerance. Clinicians should suspect OIH when opioid treatment's effect seems to wane in the absence of disease progression, particularly if found in the context of unexplained pain reports or diffuse allodynia unassociated with the original pain, and increased levels of pain with increasing dosages. The treatment involves reducing the opioid dosage, tapering them off, or supplementation with NMDA receptor modulators. This comprehensive review addresses terminology and definition, prevalence, the evidence for mechanism and physiology with analysis of various factors leading to OIH, and effective strategies for preventing, reversing, or managing OIH.

Monitoring opioid adherence in chronic pain patients: assessment of risk of substance misuse.

BACKGROUND: Use of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) has increased in recent years because this pain had been undertreated. There was also a simultaneous increase in misuse and abuse of opioids. Deaths due to such abuse and misuse also have risen as seen in the many reports published every day in local papers as well as in the medical literature. So, it is imperative that patients who are prescribed these medications be monitored for adherence so misuse and abuse can be curtailed and opioids are available to those who genuinely need them for chronic pain control. There are various screening tools available to monitor such adherence, and there is an abundance of literature about it in addiction and psychiatric medicine. There is, though, a paucity of such literature as applied to pain medicine. OBJECTIVES: Our objectives for this review were twofold. We wanted to identify which screening tools are available to monitor opioid adherence and we wanted to see if there were prospective comparative studies of these tools to identify a single best tool that can be applied to all chronic non-cancer pain patients managed with opioids. STUDY DESIGN: We did a review of the current literature about monitoring of opioid adherence. We also looked at their use, validity, and comparative studies. METHODS: We performed a literature search using PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library. The search was conducted using the terms opioids, non-cancer pain, monitoring, and adherence. The databases from 1996 to November 2010 were reviewed. The search included prospective and retrospective studies, review articles, and FDA records. Bibliographies and cross references were reviewed when deemed appropriate. CONCLUSION: We found 52 publications, of which 22 met the criteria to be included in this manuscript. We found only one study that was prospective, and compared the various screening tools that are available to monitor opioid adherence. In the majority of the studies the number treated was small. There was not a single screening tool that can be applied universally to all patients who are on opioid therapy for chronic non-cancer pain.

Coordinated regulation of sulfur and phospholipid metabolism reflects the importance of methylation in the growth of yeast.

A yeast strain lacking Met4p, the primary transcriptional regulator of the sulfur assimilation pathway, cannot synthesize methionine. This apparently simple auxotroph did not grow well in rich media containing excess methionine, forming small colonies on yeast extract/peptone/dextrose plates. Faster-growing large colonies were abundant when overnight cultures were plated, suggesting that spontaneous suppressors of the growth defect arise with high frequency. To identify the suppressor mutations, we used genome-wide single-nucleotide polymorphism and standard genetic analyses. The most common suppressors were loss-of-function mutations in OPI1, encoding a transcriptional repressor of phospholipid metabolism. Using a new system that allows rapid and specific degradation of Met4p, we could study the dynamic expression of all genes following loss of Met4p. Experiments using this system with and without Opi1p showed that Met4 activates and Opi1p represses genes that maintain levels of S-adenosylmethionine (SAM), the substrate for most methyltransferase reactions. Cells lacking Met4p grow normally when either SAM is added to the media or one of the SAM synthetase genes is overexpressed. SAM is used as a methyl donor in three Opi1p-regulated reactions to create the abundant membrane phospholipid, phosphatidylcholine. Our results show that rapidly growing cells require significant methylation, likely for the biosynthesis of phospholipids.

Fast-acting and nearly gratuitous induction of gene expression and protein depletion in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.

We describe the development and characterization of a system that allows the rapid and specific induction of individual genes in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae without changes in nutrients or temperature. The system is based on the chimeric transcriptional activator Gal4dbd.ER.VP16 (GEV). Upon addition of the hormone ß-estradiol, cytoplasmic GEV localizes to the nucleus and binds to promoters containing Gal4p consensus binding sequences to activate transcription. With galactokinase Gal1p and transcriptional activator Gal4p absent, the system is fast-acting, resulting in readily detectable transcription within 5 min after addition of the inducer. ß-Estradiol is nearly a gratuitous inducer, as indicated by genome-wide profiling that shows unintended induction (by GEV) of only a few dozen genes. Response to inducer is graded: intermediate concentrations of inducer result in production of intermediate levels of product protein in all cells. We present data illustrating several applications of this system, including a modification of the regulated degron method, which allows rapid and specific degradation of a specific protein upon addition of ß-estradiol. These gene induction and protein degradation systems provide important tools for studying the dynamics and functional relationships of genes and their respective regulatory networks.

Opioid induced hyperalgesia: clinical implications for the pain practitioner.

Opioids have been and continue to be used for the treatment of chronic pain. Evidence supports the notion that opioids can be safely administered in patients with chronic pain without the development of addiction or chemical dependency. However, over the past several years, concerns have arisen with respect to administration of opioids for the treatment of chronic pain, particularly non-cancer pain. Many of these involve legal issues with respect to diversion and prescription opioid abuse. Amongst these, opioid induced hyperalgesia (OIH) is becoming more prevalent as the population receiving opioids for chronic pain increases. OIH is a recognized complication of opioid therapy. It is a pro-nocioceptive process which is related to, but different from, tolerance. This focused review will elaborate on the neurobiological mechanisms of OIH as well as summarize the pre-clinical and clinical studies supporting the existence of OIH. In particular, the role of the excitatory neurotransmitter, N-methyl-D-aspartate appears to play a central, but not the only, role in OIH. Other mechanisms of OIH include the role of spinal dynorphins and descending facilitation from the rostral ventromedial medulla. The links between pain, tolerance, and OIH will be discussed with respect to their common neurobiology. Practical considerations for diagnosis and treatment for OIH will be discussed. It is crucial for the pain specialist to differentiate amongst clinically worsening pain, tolerance, and OIH since the treatment of these conditions differ. Tolerance is a necessary condition for OIH but the converse is not necessarily true. Office-based detoxification, reduction of opioid dose, opioid rotation, and the use of specific NMDA receptor antagonists are all viable treatment options for OIH. The role of sublingual buprenorphine appears to be an attractive, simple option for the treatment of OIH and is particularly advantageous for a busy interventional pain practice.