Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33208831›Full record

Trial reportScientific reports2020

Experimental sleep disruption attenuates morphine analgesia: findings from a randomized trial and implications for the opioid abuse epidemic.

Michael T Smith, Chung Jung Mun, Bethany Remeniuk, Patrick H Finan, Claudia M Campbell, Luis F Buenaver, Mercedes Robinson, Brook Fulton, David Andrew Tompkins, Jean-Michel Tremblay and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

12 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Michael T SmithDivision of Behavioral Medicine, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, 5510 Nathan Shock Drive, Suite 100, Baltimore, MD, 21225, USA. msmith62@jhmi.edu.
Chung Jung MunDivision of Behavioral Medicine, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, 5510 Nathan Shock Drive, Suite 100, Baltimore, MD, 21225, USA.
Bethany RemeniukDivision of Behavioral Medicine, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, 5510 Nathan Shock Drive, Suite 100, Baltimore, MD, 21225, USA.
Patrick H FinanDivision of Behavioral Medicine, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, 5510 Nathan Shock Drive, Suite 100, Baltimore, MD, 21225, USA.
Claudia M CampbellDivision of Behavioral Medicine, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, 5510 Nathan Shock Drive, Suite 100, Baltimore, MD, 21225, USA.
Luis F BuenaverDivision of Behavioral Medicine, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, 5510 Nathan Shock Drive, Suite 100, Baltimore, MD, 21225, USA.
Mercedes RobinsonVirginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Roanoke, VA, 24016, USA.
Brook FultonDivision of Behavioral Medicine, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, 5510 Nathan Shock Drive, Suite 100, Baltimore, MD, 21225, USA.
David Andrew TompkinsDepartment of Psychiatry, UCSF School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA, 94110, USA.
Jean-Michel TremblayEdgybees Inc., Gaithersburg, MD, 20878, USA.
Eric C StrainDivision of Behavioral Medicine, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, 5510 Nathan Shock Drive, Suite 100, Baltimore, MD, 21225, USA.
Michael R IrwinCousins Center for Psychoneuroimmunology, UCLA Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior, Los Angeles, CA, 90024, USA.
Johns Hopkins University · USCarilion Clinic · USNeurobehavioral Systems · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

Mechanisms of Sleep Disruption HyperalgesiaR01DA032922 · NIDA · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI IRWIN, MICHAEL R, SMITH, MICHAEL T · 2012 to 2016
$2.7M
Optimizing Pain Treatment while Reducing Abuse Liability in Opioid DependenceK23DA029609 · NIDA · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI TOMPKINS, DAVID ANDREW · 2012 to 2016
$929k
Sleep disturbance as a putative mechanism for reward system dysfunctionK23DA035915 · NIDA · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI FINAN, PATRICK · 2014 to 2018
$838k
Evaluating dynamic associations between pain catastrophizing and the effect of cannabinoidsF32DA049393 · NIDA · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI MUN, CHUNG JUNG · 2019 to 2020
$127k
NIDA NIH HHS F32 DA049393NIDA NIH HHS K23 DA029609NIDA NIH HHS K23 DA035915NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA032922
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Preclinical studies demonstrate that sleep disruption diminishes morphine analgesia and modulates reward processing. We sought to translate these preclinical findings to humans by examining whether sleep disruption alters morphine's analgesic and hedonic properties. We randomized 100 healthy adults to receive morphine versus placebo after two nights of undisturbed sleep (US) and two nights of forced awakening (FA) sleep disruption. Sleep conditions were counterbalanced, separated by a two-week washout. The morning after both sleep conditions, we tested cold pressor pain tolerance before and 40-min after double-blind injection of .08 mg/kg morphine or placebo. The primary outcome was the analgesia index, calculated as the change in cold pressor hand withdrawal latency (HWL) before and after drug injection. Secondary outcomes were ratings of feeling "high," drug "liking," and negative drug effects. We found a significant sleep condition by drug interaction on the analgesia index (95% CI - 0.57, - 0.001). After US, subjects receiving morphine demonstrated significantly longer HWL compared to placebo (95% CI 0.23, 0.65), but not after FA (95% CI - 0.05, 0.38). Morphine analgesia was diminished threefold under FA, relative to US. After FA, females (95% CI - 0.88, - 0.05), but not males (95% CI - 0.23, 0.72), reported decreased subjective "high" effects compared to US. After FA, females (95% CI 0.05, 0.27), but not males (95% CI - 0.10, 0.11), administered morphine reported increased negative drug effects compared to US. These data demonstrate that sleep disruption attenuates morphine analgesia in humans and suggest that sleep disturbed males may be at greatest risk for problematic opioid use.

Indexed as

AdultAnalgesics, OpioidDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansMaleMorphineOpioid-Related DisordersPolysomnographyPsychomotor PerformanceSex FactorsSleepSleep Wake DisordersTreatment OutcomeAnalgesics, OpioidMorphine

Identifiers

PMID33208831
PMCPMC7674501
OpenAlexW3103924971

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.