Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26076171›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2015

A Randomized Controlled Trial on the Effect of Tapentadol and Morphine on Conditioned Pain Modulation in Healthy Volunteers.

Chris Martini, Monique van Velzen, Asbjørn Drewes, Leon Aarts, Albert Dahan, Marieke Niesters

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Observational
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Chris MartiniDepartment of Anesthesiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Monique van VelzenDepartment of Anesthesiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Asbjørn DrewesMech-Sense, Department of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.
Leon AartsDepartment of Anesthesiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Albert DahanDepartment of Anesthesiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Marieke NiestersDepartment of Anesthesiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Leiden University Medical Center · NLMech-Sense · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundModulatory descending pathways, originating at supraspinal sites that converge at dorsal horn neurons, influence pain perception in humans. Defects in descending pain control are linked to chronic pain states and its restoration may be a valuable analgesic tool. Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) is a surrogate marker of descending inhibition that reduces the perception of pain from a primary test stimulus during application of a conditioning stimulus. Here the effects of the analgesics tapentadol, a combined mu-opioid receptor agonist and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor, and morphine, a strong mu-opioid receptor agonist, were tested on CPM in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial in 12 healthy pain-free volunteers, to understand possible differences in mechanism of action between these opioids. METHODS AND

resultsOn three occasions CPM responses were obtained 60-90 and 120-150 min following intake of tapentadol (100 mg immediate release tablet), morphine (40 mg immediate release tablet) or placebo. At both time points, CPM was detectable after treatment with placebo and tapentadol (peak pain ratings reduced by 20-30% after application of the conditioning stimulus) but not after morphine. Compared to placebo morphine displayed significantly less CPM: mean treatment difference 18.2% (95% CI 3.4 to 32.9%) at 60-90 min after drug intake and 19.5% (95% CI 5.7 to 33.2%) at 120-150 min after drug intake (p = 0.001). No difference in CPM between placebo and tapentadol was detected: mean treatment difference 1.5% (95% CI -11.6 to 14.6%) at 60-90 min after drug intake and 1.5% (95% CI -16.0 to 18.9%) at 120-150 min after drug intake (p = 0.60).

conclusionsOur data show that in volunteers morphine affects CPM, while tapentadol was without effect despite identical experimental conditions. These data confirm that tapentadol's main mechanism of action is distinct from that of morphine and likely related to the effect of adrenergic stimulation on descending controls.

trial registrationNetherlands Trial Register NTR2716.

Indexed as

AdultAnalgesics, OpioidFemaleHealthy VolunteersHumansMaleMorphineNetherlandsPain PerceptionPhenolsPhysical StimulationTapentadolTreatment OutcomeAnalgesics, OpioidMorphinePhenolsTapentadol

Identifiers

PMID26076171
PMCPMC4467981
OpenAlexW2109309826

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.