BackgroundBalancing between opioid analgesia and respiratory depression continues to challenge clinicians in perioperative, emergency department, and other acute care settings. Morphine and... Show moreBackgroundBalancing between opioid analgesia and respiratory depression continues to challenge clinicians in perioperative, emergency department, and other acute care settings. Morphine and hydromorphone are postoperative analgesic standards. Nevertheless, their comparative effects and side effects, timing, and respective variabilities remain poorly understood. This study tested the hypothesis that IV morphine and hydromorphone differ in onset, magnitude, duration, and variability of analgesic and ventilatory effects.MethodsThe authors conducted a randomized crossover study in healthy volunteers. Forty-two subjects received a 2-h IV infusion of hydromorphone (0.05 mg/kg) or morphine (0.2 mg/kg) 1 to 2 weeks apart. The authors measured arterial opioid concentrations, analgesia in response to heat pain (maximally tolerated temperature, and verbal analog pain scores at discrete preset temperatures to determine half-maximum temperature effect), dark-adapted pupil diameter and miosis, end-expired carbon dioxide, and respiratory rate for 12 h after dosing.ResultsFor morphine and hydromorphone, respectively, maximum miosis was less (3.9 [3.4 to 4.2] vs. 4.6 mm [4.0 to 5.0], P < 0.001; median and 25 to 75% quantiles) and occurred later (3.1 ± 0.9 vs. 2.3 ± 0.7 h after infusion start, P < 0.001; mean ± SD); maximum tolerated temperature was less (49 ± 2 vs. 50 ± 2°C, P < 0.001); verbal pain scores at end-infusion at the most informative stimulus (48.2°C) were 82 ± 4 and 59 ± 3 (P < 0.001); maximum end-expired CO2 was 47 (45 to 50) and 48 mmHg (46 to 51; P = 0.007) and occurred later (5.5 ± 2.8 vs. 3.0 ± 1.5 h after infusion start, P < 0.001); and respiratory nadir was 9 ± 1 and 11 ± 2 breaths/min (P < 0.001), and occurred at similar times. The area under the temperature tolerance-time curve was less for morphine (1.8 [0.0 to 4.4]) than hydromorphone (5.4°C-h [1.6 to 12.1] P < 0.001). Interindividual variability in clinical effects did not differ between opioids.ConclusionsFor morphine compared to hydromorphone, analgesia and analgesia relative to respiratory depression were less, onset of miosis and respiratory depression was later, and duration of respiratory depression was longer. For each opioid, timing of the various clinical effects was not coincident. Results may enable more rational opioid selection, and suggest hydromorphone may have a better clinical profile. Show less
Evers, A.W.M.; Colloca, L.; Blease, C.; Gaab, J.; Jensen, K.B.; Atlas, L. Y.; ... ; Kirsch, I. 2021
Introduction: Clinical and laboratory studies demonstrate that placebo and nocebo effects influence various symptoms and conditions after the administration of both inert and active treatments.... Show moreIntroduction: Clinical and laboratory studies demonstrate that placebo and nocebo effects influence various symptoms and conditions after the administration of both inert and active treatments. Objective: There is an increasing need for up-to-date recommendations on how to inform patients about placebo and nocebo effects in clinical practice and train clinicians how to disclose this information. Methods: Based on previous clinical recommendations concerning placebo and nocebo effects, a 3-step, invitation-only Delphi study was conducted among an interdisciplinary group of internationally recognized experts. The study consisted of open- and closed-ended survey questions followed by a final expert meeting. The surveys were subdivided into 3 parts: (1) informing patients about placebo effects, (2) informing patients about nocebo effects, and (3) training clinicians how to communicate this information to the patients. Results: There was consensus that communicating general information about placebo and nocebo effects to patients (e.g., explaining their role in treatment) could be beneficial, but that such information needs to be adjusted to match the specific clinical context (e.g., condition and treatment). Experts also agreed that training clinicians to communicate about placebo and nocebo effects should be a regular and integrated part of medical education that makes use of multiple formats, including face-to-face and online modalities. Conclusions: The current 3-step Delphi study provides consensus-based recommendations and practical considerations for disclosures about placebo and nocebo effects in clinical practice. Future research is needed on how to optimally tailor information to specific clinical conditions and patients' needs, and on developing standardized disclosure training modules for clinicians. Show less
Background: Placebo and nocebo effects occur in clinical or laboratory medical contexts after administration of an inert treatment or as part of active treatments and are due to psychobiological... Show moreBackground: Placebo and nocebo effects occur in clinical or laboratory medical contexts after administration of an inert treatment or as part of active treatments and are due to psychobiological mechanisms such as expectancies of the patient. Placebo and nocebo studies have evolved from predominantly methodological research into a far-reaching interdisciplinary field that is unravelling the neurobiological, behavioural and clinical underpinnings of these phenomena in a broad variety of medical conditions. As a consequence, there is an increasing demand from health professionals to develop expert recommendations about evidence-based and ethical use of placebo and nocebo effects for clinical practice. Methods: A survey and interdisciplinary expert meeting by invitation was organized as part of the 1st Society for Interdisciplinary Placebo Studies (SIPS) conference in 2017. Twenty-nine internationally recognized placebo researchers participated. Results: There was consensus that maximizing placebo effects and minimizing nocebo effects should lead to better treatment outcomes with fewer side effects. Experts particularly agreed on the importance of informing patients about placebo and nocebo effects and training health professionals in patient-clinician communication to maximize placebo and minimize nocebo effects. Conclusions: The current paper forms a first step towards developing evidence-based and ethical recommendations about the implications of placebo and nocebo research for medical practice, based on the current state of evidence and the consensus of experts. Future research might focus on how to implement these recommendations, including how to optimize conditions for educating patients about placebo and nocebo effects and providing training for the implementation in clinical practice. Show less
