Pain
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
Thoracic Sympathetic Block for the Treatment of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Type I: A double-blind randomized controlled study.
Pain relief in complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) remains a major challenge, in part due to the lack of evidence-based treatment trials specific for this condition. We performed a long-term randomized, double-blinded active-control study to evaluate the efficacy of thoracic sympathetic block (TSB) for upper limb type I CRPS. The study objective was to evaluate the analgesic effect of TSB in CRPS. ⋯ Quality of life was only slightly improved by TSB. No major adverse events occurred. Larger, multicentric trials should be performed to confirm these original findings.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
Longstanding Complex Regional Pain Syndrome is associated with activating autoantibodies against α-1a adrenoceptors.
Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a limb-confined posttraumatic pain syndrome with sympathetic features. The cause is unknown, but the results of a randomized crossover trial on low-dose intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG) treatment point to a possible autoimmune mechanism. We tested purified serum immunoglobulin G (IgG) from patients with longstanding CRPS for evidence of antibodies interacting with autonomic receptors on adult primary cardiomyocytes, comparing with control IgG from healthy and diseased controls, and related the results to the clinical response to treatment with low-dose IVIG. ⋯ To see if there were antibodies to the α-1a receptor, CRPS-IgG was applied to α-1a receptor-transfected rat-1 fibroblast cells. The CRPS serum IgG induced calcium flux, and fluorescence-activated cell sorting showed that there was serum IgG binding to the cells. The results suggest that patients with longstanding CRPS have serum antibodies to α-1a receptors, and that measurement of these antibodies may be useful in the diagnosis and management of the patients.
-
Understanding the molecular mechanisms associated with disease is a central goal of modern medical research. As such, many thousands of experiments have been published that detail individual molecular events that contribute to a disease. Here we use a semi-automated text mining approach to accurately and exhaustively curate the primary literature for chronic pain states. ⋯ We exploit the contextual data associated with our interactions to analyse subnetworks specific to inflammatory and neuropathic pain, and to various anatomical regions. Here, we identify potential targets for further study and several drug-repurposing opportunities. Finally, the network provides a framework for the interpretation of new data within the field of pain.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study
Spinal cord stimulation in patients with painful diabetic neuropathy: a multicentre randomised clinical trial.
Painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) is a peripheral neuropathic pain condition that is often difficult to relieve. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a proven effective therapy for various types of mixed neuropathic conditions, yet effectiveness of SCS treatment for PDN is not well established. To our knowledge, ours is the first multicentre randomized controlled trial investigating the effectiveness of SCS in patients with PDN. ⋯ After 6 months of treatment, the average VAS score was significantly reduced to 31 in the SCS group (P<.001) and remained 67 (P=.97) in the control group. The SF-MPQ and EuroQoL 5D questionnaires also showed that patients in the SCS group, unlike those in the control group, experienced reduced pain and improved health and quality of life after 6 months of treatment. In patients with refractory painful diabetic neuropathy, spinal cord stimulation therapy significantly reduced pain and improved quality of life.
-
Assessment of treatment safety is 1 of the primary goals of clinical trials. Organizations and working groups have created reporting guidelines for adverse events (AEs). Previous research examining AE reporting for pharmacologic clinical trials of analgesics in major pain journals found many reporting inadequacies, suggesting that analgesic trials are not adhering to existing AE reporting guidelines. ⋯ For example, using the ACTTION coding manual, we found that less than one-half of the trials reported specific AE assessment methods; approximately one-third of the trials reported withdrawals due to AEs for each study arm; and about one-fourth of the trials reported all specific AEs. We also examined differences in AE reporting across several trial characteristics, finding that AE reporting was generally more detailed in trials with patients versus those using healthy volunteers undergoing experimentally evoked pain. These results suggest that investigators conducting and reporting NP/NI clinical trials are not adequately describing the assessment and occurrence of AEs.