Objective.-To check the effectiveness of a true acupuncture treatment according to traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) in migraine without aura, comparing it to a standard mock acupuncture protocol, an accurate mock acupuncture healing ritual, and untreated controls.Background.-Migraine prevalence is high and affects a relevant rate of adults in the productive phase of their life.Acupuncture has been increasingly advocated and used in Western countries for migraine treatment, but the evidence of its effectiveness still remains weak. A large variability of treatments is present in published studies and no acupoint selection according to TCM has been investigated so far; therefore, the low level of evidence of acupuncture effectiveness might partly depend on inappropriate treatment.Design and Methods.-A prospective, randomized, controlled study was performed in 160 patients suffering from migraine without aura, assessed according to the ICD-10 classification. The patients were divided into the following 4 groups: (1) group TA, treated with true acupuncture (according to TCM) plus Rizatriptan; (2) group RMA, treated with ritualized mock acupuncture plus Rizatriptan; (3) group SMA, treated with standard mock acupuncture plus Rizatriptan; (4) group R, without prophylactic treatment with relief therapy only (Rizatriptan). The MIDAS Questionnaire was administered before treatment (T0), at 3 (T1) and 6 months (T2) from the beginning of treatment, and the MIDAS Index (MI) was calculated. Rizatriptan intake was also checked in all groups of patients at T0, T1, and T2. Group TA and RMA were evaluated according to TCM as well; then, the former was submitted to true acupuncture and the latter to mock acupuncture treatment resembling the same as TA. The statistical analysis was conducted with factorial ANOVA and multiple tests with a Bonferroni adjustment.Results.-A total of 127 patients completed the study (33 dropouts): 32 belonged to group TA, 30 to group RMA, 31 to group SMA, and 34 to group R. Before treatment the MI (T 0) was moderate to severe with no significant intergroup differences. All groups underwent a decrease of MI at T1 and T2, with a significant group difference at both T1 and T2 compared to T0 (P < .0001). Only TA provided a significant improvement at both T1 and T2 compared to R (P < .0001). RMA underwent a transient improvement of MI at T1. The Rizatriptan intake paralleled the MI in all groups.

ContextMyeloma bone disease (MBD) is a devastating complication of multiple myeloma that leads to severe pain.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of tapentadol prolonged release (PR) in the management of patients with MBD suffering from moderate-to-severe cancer pain.MethodsA 12-week prospective study was carried out in 25 opioid-naïve MBD patients. Patients initially received twice-daily doses of tapentadol PR 50 mg. Doses were then managed to maintain adequate relief or dose-limiting toxicity. The following parameters were recorded at weekly intervals for 4 weeks, and then at weeks 8 and 12: pain, opioid-related adverse effects, use of other analgesics, DN4 (Douleur Neuropathique 4) score. Quality of life (SF-36 [36-item short-form health survey]) was measured at baseline and at final evaluation.ResultsOf 25 patients, 22 completed the study. Pain intensity significantly decreased from baseline to all the week intervals (P<0.01). Quality of life significantly improved with respect to all SF-36 subscale parameters (P<0.01), and so did both the physical and mental status (P<0.01). Tapentadol PR significantly reduced DN4 mean value (P<0.01) and the number of patients with neuropathic component (DN4 ≥4) (P<0.01). After 8 weeks of treatment, all patients were negative for the DN4 score. Tapentadol PR was well tolerated, and the use of other analgesics was reduced during the study period.ConclusionTapentadol PR started in doses of 100 mg/day was effective and well tolerated in opioid-naïve MBD patients with moderate-to-severe pain. Tapentadol PR can be considered a first-choice opioid in cancer patients suffering from mixed pain with a neuropathic component.

Antidepressant drugs have been widely used for many years to treat neuropathic pain, despite the rationale for their use was still unclear. We review recent insights into their mechanism of action, focusing on central and peripheral analgesic actions. Beside the traditional monoaminergic hypothesis, other pharmacological actions have been studied: antidepressants interfere with the opioid system, interact with the NMDA receptors, and inhibit ion channel activity. Firm evidence from randomised controlled trials demonstrated that TCAs are the most effective drugs for treatment of different neuropathic pain conditions. They exhibit the lowest number needed to treat compare with all other drugs investigated. SSRIs failed to provide an adequate analgesia, due to their high selectivity. SSRIs are clearly less effective than TCAs (NNT: 6.7 vs 2.4) supporting the hypothesis that a balanced inhibition of noradrenaline and serotonin reuptake is more effective in relieving pain. On the basis of initial results Venlafaxine seems to be the most promising of the newer antidepressants as analgesic. Newer antidepressants show a better side effects profile, but further investigation are warranted to clarify their potential role in management of pain. Neuropathic pain remains a challenging condition to treat, as all currently available drugs fail to achieve adequate pain relief in a significant proportion of patients. TCAs should be currently considered the first choice in treatment of neuropathic pain and the gold standard against which to compare other potential new treatments.

The current literature describes the possible risks for bone fracture in chronic analgesics users. There are three main hypotheses that could explain the increased risk of fracture associated with central analgesics, such as opioids: 1) the increased risk of falls caused by central nervous system effects, including sedation and dizziness; 2) reduced bone mass density caused by the direct opioid effect on osteoblasts; and 3) chronic opioid-induced hypogonadism. The impact of opioids varies by sex and among the type of opioid used (less, for example, for tapentadol and buprenorphine). Opioid-associated androgen deficiency is correlated with an increased risk of osteoporosis; thus, despite that standards have not been established for monitoring and treating opioid-induced hypogonadism or hypoadrenalism, all patients chronically taking opioids (particularly at doses ≥100 mg morphine daily) should be monitored for the early detection of hormonal impairment and low bone mass density.