Low-dose methadone has an analgesic effect in neuropathic pain: a double-blind randomized controlled crossover trial.

The analgesic effectiveness and adverse effect incidence of a daily dose of 10 or 20 mg of oral methadone were evaluated in 18 patients with a diverse range of chronic neuropathic pain syndromes, who had all responded poorly to traditional analgesic regimens. Analgesia was seen after each dose of methadone. As compared with placebo, the 20 mg daily dose (given as 10 mg bd) resulted in statistically significant (P = 0.013-0.020) improvements in patient Visual Analogue Scale ratings of maximum pain intensity, average pain intensity and pain relief, recorded at the same time daily. The analgesic effects extended over 48 hours, as shown by statistically significant (P = 0.013-0.020) improvements in all three outcomes on the rest days instituted between each daily dose. Analgesic effects (lowered maximum pain intensity and increased pain relief, on the day of dosing only) were also seen when the lower daily dose of 10 mg methadone (given as 5 mg bd) was used, but these failed to reach statistical significance (P = 0.064 and 0.065, respectively). Interpatient analysis showed that the analgesic effects were not restricted to any particular type of neuropathic pain. Patient compliance was high throughout the trial. One patient withdrew during the 10 mg and six during the 20 mg methadone treatment periods. This is the first double-blind randomized controlled trial to demonstrate that methadone has an analgesic effect in neuropathic pain.

Long-term outcome of spinal cord stimulation and hardware complications.

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a treatment modality for medically intractable chronic pain. This study reports an 11-year experience with SCS assessing long-term pain relief and specifically evaluating complications and revisions. It took the form of a retrospective review of medical/surgical records with a postal questionnaire. The subjects were 102 patients with medically intractable chronic pain who underwent SCS implantation between 1989 and 2000. There were 64 revision operations carried out on 35 patients. These comprised electrode replacement/repositioning (29), generator replacement (23), cable failure (3) and implant removal (5). Five (4.9%) implants became infected and 2 required removal. Clinician-reported pain relief was substantial in 69 (68%) patients. This study adds to the weight of evidence that patients undergoing SCS derive significant benefits in terms of pain relief. However, revision rates remain high due to technical and biological factors.

Comparative effectiveness of different stimulation modes in relieving pain. Part I. A pilot study.

In this pilot study, to assess the optimal stimulation parameters, 3 different forms of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation were performed in 27 patients. Conventional continuous stimulation with a constant frequency of 70 Hz, burst stimulation (90 msec trains of pulses with an internal frequency of 100 Hz repeated at 2 Hz, each train consisting of 10 pulses), and frequency-modulated stimulation (continuous pulses changed from 90 Hz to 55 Hz over 90 msec) were randomly delivered to the patients for half an hour in 3 separate sessions. The patients were blind to the modes of stimulation. This pilot study demonstrated that patients preferred modulated stimulation modes such as frequency modulation and burst rather than conventional constant mode.

Comparative effectiveness of different stimulation modes in relieving pain. Part II. A double-blind controlled long-term clinical trial.

Part I of our earlier pilot study demonstrated that patients preferred modulated stimulation forms - frequency modulation and burst - rather than conventional continuous mode. To assess whether long-term therapeutic effects validate the immediate test results, this trial was performed in 14 patients with 21 pain conditions. Considering the results of the pilot study, the test stimulator was modified and 4 different forms of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation were randomly delivered to each patient who was blind to the modes of stimulation for 20 min. A second observer assessed the pain scores using visual analogue scales. The stimulation modes employed were: (1) conventional continuous stimulation (continuous pulses with a constant frequency of 70 Hz), (2) burst stimulation (80 msec long trains of pulses, each train consisting of 8 pulses, with an internal frequency of 90 Hz repeated 1.3 times a second), (3) high-rate frequency modulation, HRFM (continuous pulses changed from 90 Hz to 55 Hz over 90 msec, 1.3 times a second), (4) low-rate frequency modulation, LRFM (continuous pulses changed from 60 Hz to 20 Hz over 90 msec, 1.3 times a second). After the test treatment of 4 sessions in the clinic, depending on the pain scores and duration of pain relief recorded, the most effective stimulation mode was determined for each patient and a portable stimulator preset appropriately for that mode was given to be used at home, under our supervision, for 3 months. Fourteen pain conditions out of 21 (66%) responded well to the therapy; the majority preferred was the HRFM and burst-type stimulation.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)