Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29514333›Full record

ArticlePain medicine (Malden, Mass.)2019

Buprenorphine Maintenance Subjects Are Hyperalgesic and Have No Antinociceptive Response to a Very High Morphine Dose.

Peter Athanasos, Walter Ling, Felix Bochner, Jason M White, Andrew A Somogyi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Peter AthanasosDiscipline of Psychiatry, Flinders University, Bedford Park, Australia.
Walter LingIntegrated Substance Abuse Programs, University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Felix BochnerDiscipline of Pharmacology, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
Jason M WhiteSchool of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.
Andrew A SomogyiDiscipline of Pharmacology, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.

Funding

PAIN ANALGESIC RESPONSE IN OPIATE DEPENDENCER01DA013706 · NIDA · FRIENDS RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC. · PI LING, WALTER NMN · 2001 to 2003
$1.7M
NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA013706
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Acute pain management in opioid-dependent persons is complicated because of tolerance and opioid-induced hyperalgesia. Very high doses of morphine are ineffective in overcoming opioid-induced hyperalgesia and providing antinociception to methadone-maintained patients in an experimental setting. Whether the same occurs in buprenorphine-maintained subjects is unknown. Design: Randomized double-blind placebo-controlled. Subjects were tested on two occasions, at least five days apart, once with intravenous morphine and once with intravenous saline. Subjects were tested at about the time of putative trough plasma buprenorphine concentrations. Setting: Ambulatory. Subjects: Twelve buprenorphine-maintained subjects: once daily sublingual dose (range = 2-22 mg); no dose change for 1.5-12 months. Ten healthy controls. Methods: Intravenous morphine bolus and infusions administered over two hours to achieve two separate pseudo-steady-state plasma concentrations one hour apart. Pain tolerance was assessed by application of nociceptive stimuli (cold pressor [seconds] and electrical stimulation [volts]). Ten blood samples were collected for assay of plasma morphine, buprenorphine, and norbuprenorphine concentrations until three hours after the end of the last infusion; pain tolerance and respiration rate were measured to coincide with blood sampling times. Results: Cold pressor responses (seconds): baseline: control 34 ± 6 vs buprenorphine 17 ± 2 (P = 0.009); morphine infusion-end: control 52 ± 11(P = 0.04), buprenorphine 17 ± 2 (P > 0.5); electrical stimulation responses (volts): baseline: control 65 ± 6 vs buprenorphine 53 ± 5 (P = 0.13); infusion-end: control 74 ± 5 (P = 0.007), buprenorphine 53 ± 5 (P > 0.98). Respiratory rate (breaths per minute): baseline: control 17 vs buprenorphine 14 (P = 0.03); infusion-end: control 15 (P = 0.09), buprenorphine 12 (P < 0.01). Infusion-end plasma morphine concentrations (ng/mL): control 23 ± 1, buprenorphine 136 ± 10. Conclusions: Buprenorphine subjects, compared with controls, were hyperalgesic (cold pressor test), did not experience antinociception, despite high plasma morphine concentrations, and experienced respiratory depression. Clinical implications are discussed.

Indexed as

AdultAnalgesics, OpioidBuprenorphineDrug ToleranceFemaleHumansHyperalgesiaInjections, IntravenousMaleMethadoneMorphineOpiate Substitution TreatmentPain MeasurementPain ThresholdYoung AdultAnalgesics, OpioidBuprenorphineMethadoneMorphinenorbuprenorphine

Identifiers

PMID29514333
PMCPMC6329438

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.