4.7 Article

Opioids versus antidepressants in postherpetic neuralgia - A randomized, placebo-controlled trial

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 59, 期 7, 页码 1015-1021

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.59.7.1015

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [RR0052] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NINDS NIH HHS [NS 32386] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Tricyclic antidepressants (TCA) provide less than satisfactory pain relief for postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), and the role of opioids is controversial. Objective: To compare the analgesic and cognitive effects of opioids with those of TCA and placebo in the treatment of PHN. Methods: Seventy-six patients with PHN were randomized in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial. Each subject was scheduled to undergo three treatment periods (opioid, TCA, and placebo), approximately 8 weeks' duration each. Doses were titrated to maximal relief or intolerable side effects. The primary outcome measures were pain intensity (0 to 10 scale), pain relief (0 to 100%), and cognitive function. Analyses included patients who provided any pain ratings after having received at least a single dose of a study medication. Results: Fifty patients completed two periods, and 44 patients completed all three. Mean daily maintenance doses were morphine 91 mg or methadone 15 mg and nortriptyline 89 mg or desipramine 63 mg. Opioids and TCA reduced pain (1.9 and 1.4) more than placebo (0.2; p < 0.001), with no appreciable effect on any cognitive measure. The trend favoring opioids over TCA fell short of significance (p = 0.06), and reduction in pain with opioids did not correlate with that following TCA. Treatment with opioids and TCA resulted in greater pain relief (38 and 32%) compared with placebo (11%; p < 0.001). More patients completing all three treatments preferred opioids (54%) than TCA (30%; p = 0.02). Conclusions: Opioids effectively treat PHN without impairing cognition. Opioids and TCA act via independent mechanisms and with varied individual effect.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据