Antidepressants for the treatment of chronic pain.

Department of Psychiatry, University Hospital Center and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Drugs (Impact Factor: 4.13). 02/2008; 68(18):2611-32. DOI: 10.2165/0003495-200868180-00007
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Chronic pain represents one of the most important public health problems and, in addition to classical analgesics, antidepressants are an essential part of the therapeutic strategy. This article reviews available evidence on the efficacy and safety of antidepressants in major chronic pain conditions; namely, neuropathic pain, headaches, low back pain, fibromyalgia, irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and cancer pain. Studies, reviews and meta-analyses published from 1991 to March 2008 were retrieved through MEDLINE, PsycINFO and the Cochrane database using numerous key words for pain and antidepressants. In summary, evidence supports the use of tricyclic antidepressants in neuropathic pain, headaches, low back pain, fibromyalgia and IBS. The efficacy of the newer serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors is less supported by evidence, but can be recommended in neuropathic pain, migraines and fibromyalgia. To date, evidence does not support an analgesic effect of serotonin reuptake inhibitors, but beneficial effects on well-being were reported in several chronic pain conditions. These results are discussed in the light of current insights in the neurobiology of pain, the reciprocal relationship between pain and depression, and future developments in this field of research.

Download full-text


Available from: Thierry Buclin, Jul 01, 2015
1 Follower
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Topical analgesics applied locally to skin or to specialized compartments modify pain by actions on sensory nerve endings and/or adjacent cellular elements. With this approach, there are low systemic drug levels, good tolerability and few drug interactions, and combination with oral formulations is feasible. The goal of this review is to provide an overview of the potential for topical analgesics to contribute to improved management of neuropathic pain. Mechanistic and preclinical studies indicate much potential for development of novel topical analgesics for neuropathic pain. In humans, two topical analgesics are approved for use in post-herpetic neuralgia (lidocaine 5% medicated plaster, capsaicin 8% patch), and there is evidence for efficacy in other neuropathic pain conditions. Comparative trials indicate similar efficacy between topical and oral analgesics. Not all individuals respond to topical analgesics, and there is interest in determining factors (patient factors, sensory characteristics) which might predict responsiveness to topical analgesics. There is a growing number of controlled trials and case reports of investigational agents (vasodilators, glutamate receptor antagonists, α2-adrenoreceptor agonists, antidepressants, centrally acting drugs), including combinations of several agents, indicating these produce pain relief in neuropathic pain. There is interest in compounding topical analgesics for neuropathic pain, but several challenges remain for this approach. Topical analgesics have the potential to be a valuable additional approach for the management of neuropathic pain.
    European journal of pain (London, England) 04/2014; 18(4). DOI:10.1002/j.1532-2149.2013.00400.x · 3.22 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Opioids have been discovered to have Toll-like receptor (TLR) activity, beyond actions at classical opioid receptors. This raises the question whether other pharmacotherapies for pain control may also possess TLR activity, contributing to or opposing their clinical effects. We document that tricyclics can alter TLR4 and TLR2 signaling. In silico simulations revealed that several tricyclics docked to the same binding pocket on the TLR accessory protein, myeloid differentiation protein 2 (MD-2), as do opioids. Eight tricyclics were tested for effects on TLR4 signaling in HEK293 cells over-expressing human TLR4. Six exhibited mild (desipramine), moderate (mianserin, cyclobenzaprine, imiprimine, ketotifen) or strong (amitriptyline) TLR4 inhibition, and no TLR4 activation. In contrast, carbamazepine and oxcarbazepine exhibited mild and strong TLR4 activation, respectively, and no TLR4 inhibition. Amitriptyline but not carbamazepine also significantly inhibited TLR2 signaling in a comparable cell line. Live imaging of TLR4 activation in RAW264.7 cells and TLR4-dependent interleukin-1 release from BV-2 microglia revealed that amitriptyline blocked TLR4 signaling. Lastly, tricyclics with no (carbamazepine), moderate (cyclobenzeprine), and strong (amitriptyline) TLR4 inhibition were tested intrathecally (rats) and amitriptyline tested systemically in wildtype and knockout mice (TLR4 or MyD88). While tricyclics had no effect on basal pain responsivity, they potentiated morphine analgesia in rank-order with their potency as TLR4 inhibitors. This occurred in a TLR4/MyD88-dependent manner as no potentiation of morphine analgesia by amitriptyline occurred in these knockout mice. This suggests that TLR2 and TLR4 inhibition, possibly by interactions with MD2, contributes to effects of tricyclics in vivo. These studies provide converging lines of evidence that several tricyclics or their active metabolites may exert their biological actions, in part, via modulation of TLR4 and TLR2 signaling and suggest that inhibition of TLR4 and TLR2 signaling may potentially contribute to the efficacy of tricyclics in treating chronic pain and enhancing the analgesic efficacy of opioids.
    Neuroscience 04/2010; 168(2):551-63. DOI:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2010.03.067 · 3.33 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study aims to better understand the contributions of occupation and work organization conditions to the development of chronic psychotropic drugs use among workers in Canada. The study is based on a secondary analysis of the longitudinal data of the National Population Health Survey (NPHS) of Statistics Canada which includes five cycles from 1994-1995 to 2002-2003. A panel of 6585 people from 15 to 55 years old and employed at cycle 1 and nested in 1413 neighbourhoods was selected. Multilevel models of regression were estimated on three levels: repeated measures (level 1=24,785 observations) were nested in the individuals (level 2=6585 individuals) and the individuals nested in the local communities (level 3=1413 neighborhoods). The prevalence of multiple episodes (two episodes and more between cycle 1 and cycle 5) of psychotropic drugs use was 6.7% (95%CI=6.0-7.4%). Only occupation and the number of working hours showed a significant contribution. Family and individual variables like marital status and personality traits (locus of control and sense of coherence) had a significant contribution, in addition to time, gender, age, physical health, number of cigarettes and stressful childhood events. Work contributes weakly to the risk of chronic psychotropic drugs use, whereas individual characteristics make a much more important contribution to the phenomenon.
    Revue d Épidémiologie et de Santé Publique 02/2010; 58(2):89-99. · 0.66 Impact Factor