Pain

Opioid pain management should be reserved for just 21 of the 87 most common dermatologic procedures, an expert panel of dermatologists has recommended.

sdominick/iStock/Getty Images

Rotation flaps, interpolation flaps, wedge resections, cartilage alar-batten grafts, and Mustarde flaps were among the 20 procedures that can be managed with up to 10 oral oxycodone 5-mg equivalents, according to the panel. Only the Abbe procedure might warrant dispensing up to 15 oxycodone 5-mg pills, Justin McLawhorn, MD, and colleagues wrote in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. The recommended amount of opioids are in addition to nonopioid analgesics, the guidelines point out.

All the other procedures can – and should – be managed with a combination of acetaminophen and ibuprofen, either alone or in an alternating dose pattern, said Dr. McLawhorn, of the department of dermatology at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, and coauthors.

But limited opioid prescribing is an important part of healing for patients who undergo the most invasive procedures, they wrote. “The management of complications, including adequate pain control, should be tailored to each patient on a case-by-case basis. Moreover, any pain management plan should not strictly adhere to any single guideline, but rather should be formed with consideration of the expected pain from the procedure and/or closure and consider the patient’s expectations for pain control.”

The time is ripe for dermatologists to make a stand in combating the opioid crisis, according to a group email response to questions from Dr. McLawhorn, Thomas Stasko, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, and Lindsey Collins, MD, also of the University of Oklahoma.

“The opioid crisis has reached epidemic proportions. More than 70,000 Americans have died from an opioid overdose in 2017,” they wrote. “Moreover, recent data suggest that nearly 6% of postsurgical, opioid-naive patients become long-term users of opioids. The lack of specific evidence-based recommendations likely contributes to a wide variety in prescribing patterns and a steady supply of unused opioids. Countering the opioid crisis necessitates a restructuring of the opioid prescribing practices that addresses pain in a procedure-specific manner. These recommendations are one tool in the dermatologists’ arsenal that can be used as a reference to help guide opioid management and prevent excessive opioid prescriptions at discharge following dermatologic interventions.”

Unfortunately, they added, dermatologists have inadvertently fueled the opioid abuse fire.

“It is difficult to quantify which providers are responsible for the onslaught of opioids into our communities,” the authors wrote in the email interview. “However, we can deduce, based on recent opioid prescribing patterns, that dermatologists provide approximately 500,000 unused opioid pills to their communities on an annual basis. This is the result of a wide variation in practice patterns and narratives that have been previously circulated in an attempt to mitigate the providers’ perception of the addictive nature of opioid analgesics. Our hope is that by addressing pain in a procedure-specific manner, we can help to limit the excessive number of unused opioid pills that are provided by dermatologists and ultimately decrease the rate of opioid-related complications, including addiction and death.”

Still, patients need and deserve effective pain management after a procedure. In the guidelines, the investigators wrote that a “one-size-fits-all” approach “does not account for the mechanism of pain, the invasiveness of the procedure, or the anatomic structures that are manipulated. As a result, current guidelines cannot accurately predict the quantity of opioids that are necessary to manage postoperative pain.”

The panel brought together experts in general dermatology, dermatologic surgery, cosmetics, and phlebology to develop a consensus on opioid prescribing guidelines for 87 of the most common procedures. Everyone on the panel was a member of the American College of Mohs Surgery, American Academy of Dermatology, or the American Vein and Lymphatic Society. The panel conducted a literature review to determine which procedures might require opioids and which would not. At least 75% of the panel had to agree on a reasonable but effective opioid amount; they were then polled as to whether they might employ that recommendation in their own clinical practice.

The recommendations are aimed at patients who experienced no peri- or postoperative complications.

The panel agreed that acetaminophen and ibuprofen – alone, in combination, or with opioids – were reasonable choices for all the 87 procedures. In such instances, acetaminophen 1 g can be staggered with ibuprofen 400 mg every 4 or 8 hours.

“I think providers will encounter a mixed bag of preconceived notions regarding patients’ expectations for pain control,” Dr. McLawhorn and coauthors wrote in the interview. “The important point for providers to make is to emphasize the noninferiority of acetaminophen and/or ibuprofen in controlling acute pain for patients who are not dependent on opioids for the management of chronic pain. Our experience in caring for many surgical patients has shown that patients are usually receptive to the use of nonopioid analgesics as many are familiar with their addictive potential because of the uptick in the publicity of the opioid-related complications.”

In cases where opioids might be appropriate, the panel unanimously agreed that dose limits be imposed. For 15 of the 87 procedures, the panel recommend a maximum prescription of 10 oxycodone 5-mg equivalents. Only one other – the Abbe flap – might warrant more, with a maximum of 15 oxycodone 5-mg pills at discharge.

Sometimes called a “lip switch,” the Abbe flap is reconstruction for full-thickness lip defects. It is a composite flap that moves skin, muscle, mucosa, and blood supply from the lower lip to reconstruct a defect of the upper lip. This reconstruction attempts to respect the native anatomic landmarks of the lip and allow for a better functional outcome.

“Because of the extensive nature of the repair and the anatomic territories that are manipulated, including the suturing of the lower lip to the upper lip with delayed separation, adequate pain control may require opioid analgesics in the immediate postoperative period,” the team wrote in the interview.

The panel could not agree on pain management strategies for five other procedures: Karapandzic flaps, en bloc nail excisions, facial resurfacing with deep chemical peels, and small- or large-volume liposuction. This was partly because of a lack of personal experience. Only 8 of the 40 panelists performed Karapandzic flaps. The maximum number of 5-mg oxycodone tablets any panelist prescribed for Karapandzic flaps and en bloc nail excisions was 20.

Facial resurfacing was likewise an uncommon procedure for the panel, with just 11 members performing this using deep chemical peels. However, five of those panelists said that opioids were routinely needed for postoperative pain with a maximum of 15 oxycodone 5-mg equivalents. And just four panelists performed liposuction, for which they used a maximum of 15 oxycodone 5-mg equivalents.

“However,” they wrote in the guidelines, “these providers noted that the location where the procedure is performed strongly influences the need for opioid pain management, with small-volume removal in the neck, arms, or flanks being unlikely to require opioids for adequate pain control, whereas large-volume removal in the thighs, knees, and hips may routinely require opioids.”

Addressing patient expectations is a very important part of pain management, the panel noted. “Patients will invariably experience postoperative pain after cutaneous surgeries or other interventions, often peaking within 4 hours after surgery. Wound tension, size and type of repair, anatomical location/nerve innervation, and patient pain tolerance are all factors that contribute to postoperative discomfort and should be considered when developing a postoperative pain management plan.”

Ultimately, according to Dr. McLawhorn and coauthors, the decision to use opioids at discharge for postoperative pain control should be an individual one based on patients’ comorbidities and expectations.

“Admittedly, many of the procedures listed within the recommendations may result in a rather large or complex defect that requires an equally large or complex repair,” they wrote in the interview. “However, proper education of the patient and provider regarding the risks of addiction with the use of opioids even short term should be discussed as part of every preoperative consultation. Furthermore, the patient and the provider must discuss their expectations for postoperative pain interventions for adequate pain control.”

[email protected]

SOURCE: McLawhorn J et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019 Nov 12. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2019.09.080.

Opioid pain management should be reserved for just 21 of the 87 most common dermatologic procedures, an expert panel of dermatologists has recommended.

sdominick/iStock/Getty Images

Rotation flaps, interpolation flaps, wedge resections, cartilage alar-batten grafts, and Mustarde flaps were among the 20 procedures that can be managed with up to 10 oral oxycodone 5-mg equivalents, according to the panel. Only the Abbe procedure might warrant dispensing up to 15 oxycodone 5-mg pills, Justin McLawhorn, MD, and colleagues wrote in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. The recommended amount of opioids are in addition to nonopioid analgesics, the guidelines point out.

All the other procedures can – and should – be managed with a combination of acetaminophen and ibuprofen, either alone or in an alternating dose pattern, said Dr. McLawhorn, of the department of dermatology at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, and coauthors.

But limited opioid prescribing is an important part of healing for patients who undergo the most invasive procedures, they wrote. “The management of complications, including adequate pain control, should be tailored to each patient on a case-by-case basis. Moreover, any pain management plan should not strictly adhere to any single guideline, but rather should be formed with consideration of the expected pain from the procedure and/or closure and consider the patient’s expectations for pain control.”

The time is ripe for dermatologists to make a stand in combating the opioid crisis, according to a group email response to questions from Dr. McLawhorn, Thomas Stasko, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, and Lindsey Collins, MD, also of the University of Oklahoma.

“The opioid crisis has reached epidemic proportions. More than 70,000 Americans have died from an opioid overdose in 2017,” they wrote. “Moreover, recent data suggest that nearly 6% of postsurgical, opioid-naive patients become long-term users of opioids. The lack of specific evidence-based recommendations likely contributes to a wide variety in prescribing patterns and a steady supply of unused opioids. Countering the opioid crisis necessitates a restructuring of the opioid prescribing practices that addresses pain in a procedure-specific manner. These recommendations are one tool in the dermatologists’ arsenal that can be used as a reference to help guide opioid management and prevent excessive opioid prescriptions at discharge following dermatologic interventions.”

Unfortunately, they added, dermatologists have inadvertently fueled the opioid abuse fire.

“It is difficult to quantify which providers are responsible for the onslaught of opioids into our communities,” the authors wrote in the email interview. “However, we can deduce, based on recent opioid prescribing patterns, that dermatologists provide approximately 500,000 unused opioid pills to their communities on an annual basis. This is the result of a wide variation in practice patterns and narratives that have been previously circulated in an attempt to mitigate the providers’ perception of the addictive nature of opioid analgesics. Our hope is that by addressing pain in a procedure-specific manner, we can help to limit the excessive number of unused opioid pills that are provided by dermatologists and ultimately decrease the rate of opioid-related complications, including addiction and death.”

Still, patients need and deserve effective pain management after a procedure. In the guidelines, the investigators wrote that a “one-size-fits-all” approach “does not account for the mechanism of pain, the invasiveness of the procedure, or the anatomic structures that are manipulated. As a result, current guidelines cannot accurately predict the quantity of opioids that are necessary to manage postoperative pain.”

The panel brought together experts in general dermatology, dermatologic surgery, cosmetics, and phlebology to develop a consensus on opioid prescribing guidelines for 87 of the most common procedures. Everyone on the panel was a member of the American College of Mohs Surgery, American Academy of Dermatology, or the American Vein and Lymphatic Society. The panel conducted a literature review to determine which procedures might require opioids and which would not. At least 75% of the panel had to agree on a reasonable but effective opioid amount; they were then polled as to whether they might employ that recommendation in their own clinical practice.

The recommendations are aimed at patients who experienced no peri- or postoperative complications.

The panel agreed that acetaminophen and ibuprofen – alone, in combination, or with opioids – were reasonable choices for all the 87 procedures. In such instances, acetaminophen 1 g can be staggered with ibuprofen 400 mg every 4 or 8 hours.

“I think providers will encounter a mixed bag of preconceived notions regarding patients’ expectations for pain control,” Dr. McLawhorn and coauthors wrote in the interview. “The important point for providers to make is to emphasize the noninferiority of acetaminophen and/or ibuprofen in controlling acute pain for patients who are not dependent on opioids for the management of chronic pain. Our experience in caring for many surgical patients has shown that patients are usually receptive to the use of nonopioid analgesics as many are familiar with their addictive potential because of the uptick in the publicity of the opioid-related complications.”

In cases where opioids might be appropriate, the panel unanimously agreed that dose limits be imposed. For 15 of the 87 procedures, the panel recommend a maximum prescription of 10 oxycodone 5-mg equivalents. Only one other – the Abbe flap – might warrant more, with a maximum of 15 oxycodone 5-mg pills at discharge.

Sometimes called a “lip switch,” the Abbe flap is reconstruction for full-thickness lip defects. It is a composite flap that moves skin, muscle, mucosa, and blood supply from the lower lip to reconstruct a defect of the upper lip. This reconstruction attempts to respect the native anatomic landmarks of the lip and allow for a better functional outcome.

“Because of the extensive nature of the repair and the anatomic territories that are manipulated, including the suturing of the lower lip to the upper lip with delayed separation, adequate pain control may require opioid analgesics in the immediate postoperative period,” the team wrote in the interview.

The panel could not agree on pain management strategies for five other procedures: Karapandzic flaps, en bloc nail excisions, facial resurfacing with deep chemical peels, and small- or large-volume liposuction. This was partly because of a lack of personal experience. Only 8 of the 40 panelists performed Karapandzic flaps. The maximum number of 5-mg oxycodone tablets any panelist prescribed for Karapandzic flaps and en bloc nail excisions was 20.

Facial resurfacing was likewise an uncommon procedure for the panel, with just 11 members performing this using deep chemical peels. However, five of those panelists said that opioids were routinely needed for postoperative pain with a maximum of 15 oxycodone 5-mg equivalents. And just four panelists performed liposuction, for which they used a maximum of 15 oxycodone 5-mg equivalents.

“However,” they wrote in the guidelines, “these providers noted that the location where the procedure is performed strongly influences the need for opioid pain management, with small-volume removal in the neck, arms, or flanks being unlikely to require opioids for adequate pain control, whereas large-volume removal in the thighs, knees, and hips may routinely require opioids.”

Addressing patient expectations is a very important part of pain management, the panel noted. “Patients will invariably experience postoperative pain after cutaneous surgeries or other interventions, often peaking within 4 hours after surgery. Wound tension, size and type of repair, anatomical location/nerve innervation, and patient pain tolerance are all factors that contribute to postoperative discomfort and should be considered when developing a postoperative pain management plan.”

Ultimately, according to Dr. McLawhorn and coauthors, the decision to use opioids at discharge for postoperative pain control should be an individual one based on patients’ comorbidities and expectations.

“Admittedly, many of the procedures listed within the recommendations may result in a rather large or complex defect that requires an equally large or complex repair,” they wrote in the interview. “However, proper education of the patient and provider regarding the risks of addiction with the use of opioids even short term should be discussed as part of every preoperative consultation. Furthermore, the patient and the provider must discuss their expectations for postoperative pain interventions for adequate pain control.”

[email protected]

SOURCE: McLawhorn J et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019 Nov 12. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2019.09.080.

Opioid pain management should be reserved for just 21 of the 87 most common dermatologic procedures, an expert panel of dermatologists has recommended.

sdominick/iStock/Getty Images

Rotation flaps, interpolation flaps, wedge resections, cartilage alar-batten grafts, and Mustarde flaps were among the 20 procedures that can be managed with up to 10 oral oxycodone 5-mg equivalents, according to the panel. Only the Abbe procedure might warrant dispensing up to 15 oxycodone 5-mg pills, Justin McLawhorn, MD, and colleagues wrote in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. The recommended amount of opioids are in addition to nonopioid analgesics, the guidelines point out.

All the other procedures can – and should – be managed with a combination of acetaminophen and ibuprofen, either alone or in an alternating dose pattern, said Dr. McLawhorn, of the department of dermatology at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, and coauthors.

But limited opioid prescribing is an important part of healing for patients who undergo the most invasive procedures, they wrote. “The management of complications, including adequate pain control, should be tailored to each patient on a case-by-case basis. Moreover, any pain management plan should not strictly adhere to any single guideline, but rather should be formed with consideration of the expected pain from the procedure and/or closure and consider the patient’s expectations for pain control.”

The time is ripe for dermatologists to make a stand in combating the opioid crisis, according to a group email response to questions from Dr. McLawhorn, Thomas Stasko, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, and Lindsey Collins, MD, also of the University of Oklahoma.

“The opioid crisis has reached epidemic proportions. More than 70,000 Americans have died from an opioid overdose in 2017,” they wrote. “Moreover, recent data suggest that nearly 6% of postsurgical, opioid-naive patients become long-term users of opioids. The lack of specific evidence-based recommendations likely contributes to a wide variety in prescribing patterns and a steady supply of unused opioids. Countering the opioid crisis necessitates a restructuring of the opioid prescribing practices that addresses pain in a procedure-specific manner. These recommendations are one tool in the dermatologists’ arsenal that can be used as a reference to help guide opioid management and prevent excessive opioid prescriptions at discharge following dermatologic interventions.”

Unfortunately, they added, dermatologists have inadvertently fueled the opioid abuse fire.

“It is difficult to quantify which providers are responsible for the onslaught of opioids into our communities,” the authors wrote in the email interview. “However, we can deduce, based on recent opioid prescribing patterns, that dermatologists provide approximately 500,000 unused opioid pills to their communities on an annual basis. This is the result of a wide variation in practice patterns and narratives that have been previously circulated in an attempt to mitigate the providers’ perception of the addictive nature of opioid analgesics. Our hope is that by addressing pain in a procedure-specific manner, we can help to limit the excessive number of unused opioid pills that are provided by dermatologists and ultimately decrease the rate of opioid-related complications, including addiction and death.”

Still, patients need and deserve effective pain management after a procedure. In the guidelines, the investigators wrote that a “one-size-fits-all” approach “does not account for the mechanism of pain, the invasiveness of the procedure, or the anatomic structures that are manipulated. As a result, current guidelines cannot accurately predict the quantity of opioids that are necessary to manage postoperative pain.”

The panel brought together experts in general dermatology, dermatologic surgery, cosmetics, and phlebology to develop a consensus on opioid prescribing guidelines for 87 of the most common procedures. Everyone on the panel was a member of the American College of Mohs Surgery, American Academy of Dermatology, or the American Vein and Lymphatic Society. The panel conducted a literature review to determine which procedures might require opioids and which would not. At least 75% of the panel had to agree on a reasonable but effective opioid amount; they were then polled as to whether they might employ that recommendation in their own clinical practice.

The recommendations are aimed at patients who experienced no peri- or postoperative complications.

The panel agreed that acetaminophen and ibuprofen – alone, in combination, or with opioids – were reasonable choices for all the 87 procedures. In such instances, acetaminophen 1 g can be staggered with ibuprofen 400 mg every 4 or 8 hours.

“I think providers will encounter a mixed bag of preconceived notions regarding patients’ expectations for pain control,” Dr. McLawhorn and coauthors wrote in the interview. “The important point for providers to make is to emphasize the noninferiority of acetaminophen and/or ibuprofen in controlling acute pain for patients who are not dependent on opioids for the management of chronic pain. Our experience in caring for many surgical patients has shown that patients are usually receptive to the use of nonopioid analgesics as many are familiar with their addictive potential because of the uptick in the publicity of the opioid-related complications.”

In cases where opioids might be appropriate, the panel unanimously agreed that dose limits be imposed. For 15 of the 87 procedures, the panel recommend a maximum prescription of 10 oxycodone 5-mg equivalents. Only one other – the Abbe flap – might warrant more, with a maximum of 15 oxycodone 5-mg pills at discharge.

Sometimes called a “lip switch,” the Abbe flap is reconstruction for full-thickness lip defects. It is a composite flap that moves skin, muscle, mucosa, and blood supply from the lower lip to reconstruct a defect of the upper lip. This reconstruction attempts to respect the native anatomic landmarks of the lip and allow for a better functional outcome.

“Because of the extensive nature of the repair and the anatomic territories that are manipulated, including the suturing of the lower lip to the upper lip with delayed separation, adequate pain control may require opioid analgesics in the immediate postoperative period,” the team wrote in the interview.

The panel could not agree on pain management strategies for five other procedures: Karapandzic flaps, en bloc nail excisions, facial resurfacing with deep chemical peels, and small- or large-volume liposuction. This was partly because of a lack of personal experience. Only 8 of the 40 panelists performed Karapandzic flaps. The maximum number of 5-mg oxycodone tablets any panelist prescribed for Karapandzic flaps and en bloc nail excisions was 20.

Facial resurfacing was likewise an uncommon procedure for the panel, with just 11 members performing this using deep chemical peels. However, five of those panelists said that opioids were routinely needed for postoperative pain with a maximum of 15 oxycodone 5-mg equivalents. And just four panelists performed liposuction, for which they used a maximum of 15 oxycodone 5-mg equivalents.

“However,” they wrote in the guidelines, “these providers noted that the location where the procedure is performed strongly influences the need for opioid pain management, with small-volume removal in the neck, arms, or flanks being unlikely to require opioids for adequate pain control, whereas large-volume removal in the thighs, knees, and hips may routinely require opioids.”

Addressing patient expectations is a very important part of pain management, the panel noted. “Patients will invariably experience postoperative pain after cutaneous surgeries or other interventions, often peaking within 4 hours after surgery. Wound tension, size and type of repair, anatomical location/nerve innervation, and patient pain tolerance are all factors that contribute to postoperative discomfort and should be considered when developing a postoperative pain management plan.”

Ultimately, according to Dr. McLawhorn and coauthors, the decision to use opioids at discharge for postoperative pain control should be an individual one based on patients’ comorbidities and expectations.

“Admittedly, many of the procedures listed within the recommendations may result in a rather large or complex defect that requires an equally large or complex repair,” they wrote in the interview. “However, proper education of the patient and provider regarding the risks of addiction with the use of opioids even short term should be discussed as part of every preoperative consultation. Furthermore, the patient and the provider must discuss their expectations for postoperative pain interventions for adequate pain control.”

[email protected]

SOURCE: McLawhorn J et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019 Nov 12. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2019.09.080.

A 44-year-old woman presents with an 8-year history of intermittent heartburn, and in the past year she has been experiencing her symptoms daily. She says the heartburn is constant and is worse immediately after eating spicy or acidic foods. She says she has had no dysphagia, weight loss, or vomiting. Her symptoms have persisted despite taking a histamine (H)₂-receptor antagonist twice daily plus a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) before breakfast and dinner for more than 3 months.

She has undergone upper endoscopy 3 times in the past 8 years. Each time, the esophagus was normal with a regular Z-line and normal biopsy results from the proximal and distal esophagus.

The patient believes she has severe gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and asks if she is a candidate for fundoplication surgery.

HEARTBURN IS A SYMPTOM; GERD IS A CONDITION

A distinction should be made between heartburn—the symptom of persistent retrosternal burning and discomfort—and gastroesophageal reflux disease—the condition in which reflux of stomach contents causes troublesome symptoms or complications.¹ While many clinicians initially diagnose patients who have heartburn as having GERD, there are many other potential causes of their symptoms.

For patients with persistent heartburn, an empiric trial of a once-daily PPI is usually effective, but one-third of patients continue to have heartburn.^2,3 The most common cause of this PPI-refractory heartburn is functional heartburn, a functional or hypersensitivity disorder of the esophagus.⁴

PATHOPHYSIOLOGY IS POORLY UNDERSTOOD

DIAGNOSTIC EVALUATION

Clinicians have several tests available for diagnosing these conditions.

Upper endoscopy

Upper endoscopy is recommended for patients with heartburn that does not respond to a 3-month trial of a PPI.⁹ Endoscopy is also indicated in any patient who has any of the following “alarm symptoms” that could be due to malignancy or peptic ulcer:

• Dysphagia
• Odynophagia
• Vomiting
• Unexplained weight loss or anemia
• Signs of gastrointestinal bleeding
• Anorexia
• New onset of dyspepsia in a patient over age 60.

During upper endoscopy, the esophagus is evaluated for reflux esophagitis, Barrett esophagus, and other inflammatory disorders such as infectious esophagitis. But even if the esophageal mucosa appears normal, the proximal and distal esophagus should be biopsied to rule out an inflammatory disorder such as eosinophilic or lymphocytic esophagitis.

If endoscopic and esophageal biopsy results are inconclusive, a workup for an esophageal motility disorder is the next step. Dysphagia is the most common symptom of these disorders, although the initial presenting symptom may be heartburn or regurgitation that persists despite PPI therapy.

Manometry is used to test for motility disorders such as achalasia and esophageal spasm.¹⁰ After applying a local anesthetic inside the nares, the clinician inserts a flexible catheter (about 4 mm in diameter) with 36 pressure sensors spaced at 1-cm intervals into the nares and passes it through the esophagus and lower esophageal sphincter. The patient then swallows liquid, and the sensors relay the esophageal response, creating a topographic plot that shows esophageal peristalsis and lower esophageal sphincter relaxation.

Achalasia is identified by incomplete lower esophageal sphincter relaxation combined with 100% failed peristalsis in the body of the esophagus. Esophageal spasms are identified by a shortened distal latency, which corresponds to premature contraction of the esophagus during peristalsis.¹¹

Esophageal pH testing

Measuring esophageal pH levels is an important step to quantify gastroesophageal reflux and determine if symptoms occur during reflux events. According to the updated Porto GERD consensus group recommendations,¹² a pH test is positive if the acid exposure time is greater than 6% of the testing period. Testing the pH differentiates between GERD (abnormal acid exposure), reflux hypersensitivity (normal acid exposure, strong correlation between symptoms and reflux events), and functional heartburn (normal acid exposure, negative correlation between reflux events and symptoms).⁵ For this test, a pH probe is placed in the esophagus transnasally or endoscopically. The probe records esophageal pH levels for 24 to 96 hours in an outpatient setting. Antisecretory therapy needs to be withheld for 7 to 10 days before the test.

Transnasal pH probe. For this approach, a thin catheter is inserted through the nares and advanced until the tip is 5 cm proximal to the lower esophageal sphincter. (The placement is guided by the results of esophageal manometry, which is done immediately before pH catheter placement.) The tube is secured with clear tape on the side of the patient’s face, and the end is connected to a portable recorder that compiles the data. The patient pushes a button on the recorder when experiencing heartburn symptoms. (A nurse instructs the patient on proper procedure.) After 24 hours, the patient either removes the catheter or has the clinic remove it. The pH and symptom data are downloaded and analyzed.

Transnasal pH testing can be combined with impedance measurement, which can detect nonacid reflux or weakly acid reflux. However, the clinical significance of this measurement is unclear, as multiple studies have found total acid exposure time to be a better predictor of response to therapy than weakly acid or nonacid reflux.¹²

Wireless pH probe. This method uses a disposable, catheter-free, capsule device to measure esophageal pH. The capsule, about the size of a gel capsule or pencil eraser, is attached to the patient’s esophageal lining, usually during upper endoscopy. The capsule records pH levels in the lower esophagus for 48 to 96 hours and transmits the data wirelessly to a receiver the patient wears. The patient pushes buttons on the receiver to record symptom-specific data when experiencing heartburn, chest pain, regurgitation, or cough. The capsule detaches from the esophagus spontaneously, generally within 7 days, and is passed out of the body through a bowel movement.

Diagnosing functional heartburn

CASE CONTINUED: NORMAL RESULTS ON TESTING

Based on these results, her condition is diagnosed as functional heartburn, consistent with the Rome IV criteria.⁵

Patient education is key

Patient education about the pathogenesis, natural history, and treatment options is the most important aspect of treating any functional gastrointestinal disorder. This includes the “brain-gut connection” and potential mechanisms of dysregulation. Patient education along with assessment of symptoms should be part of every visit, especially before discussing treatment options.

Patients whose condition is diagnosed as functional heartburn need reassurance that the condition is benign and, in particular, that the risk of progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma is minimal in the absence of Barrett esophagus.¹³ Also important to point out is that the disorder may spontaneously resolve: resolution rates of up to 40% have been reported for other functional gastrointestinal disorders.¹⁴

Antisecretory medications may work for some

A PPI or H₂-receptor antagonist is the most common first-line treatment for heartburn symptoms. Although most patients with functional heartburn experience no improvement in symptoms with an antisecretory agent, a small number report some relief, which suggests that acid-suppression therapy may have an indirect impact on pain modulation in the esophagus.¹⁵ In patients who report symptom relief with an antisecretory agent, we suggest continuing the medication tapered to the lowest effective dose, with repeated reassurance that the medication can be discontinued safely at any time.

Antireflux surgery should be avoided

Antireflux surgery should be avoided in patients with normal pH testing and no objective finding of reflux, as this is associated with worse subjective outcomes than in patients with abnormal pH test results.¹⁶

Neuromodulators

It is important to discuss with patients the concept of neuromodulation, including the fact that antidepressants are often used because of their effects on serotonin and norepinephrine, which decrease visceral hypersensitivity.

The selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor citalopram has been shown to reduce esophageal hypersensitivity,¹⁷ and a tricyclic antidepressant has been shown to improve quality of life.¹⁸ These results have led experts to recommend a trial of a low dose of either type of medication.¹⁹ The dose of tricyclic antidepressant often needs to be increased sequentially every 2 to 4 weeks.

Interestingly, melatonin 6 mg at bedtime has also shown efficacy for functional heartburn, potentially due to its antinociceptive properties.²⁰

Alternative and complementary therapies

Many esophageal centers use cognitive behavioral therapy and hypnotherapy as first-line treatment for functional esophageal disorders. Here again, it is important for the patient to understand the rationale of therapy for functional gastrointestinal disorders, given the stigma in the general population regarding psychotherapy.

Cognitive behavioral therapy has been used for functional gastrointestinal disorders for many years, as it has been shown to modulate visceral perception.²¹ Although published studies are limited, research regarding other functional esophageal disorders suggests that patients who commit to long-term behavioral therapy have had a significant improvement in symptoms.²²

The goal of esophageal-directed behavioral therapy is to promote focused relaxation using deep breathing techniques, which can help patients manage esophageal hypervigilance, especially if symptoms continue despite neuromodulator therapy. Specifically, hypnotherapy has been shown to modulate functional chest pain through the visceral sensory pathway and also to suppress gastric acid secretion.^21,23 A study of a 7-week hypnotherapy program reported significant benefits in heartburn relief and improved quality of life in patients with functional heartburn.²⁴ The data support the use of behavioral therapies as first-line therapy or as adjunctive therapy for patients already taking a neuromodulator.

CASE FOLLOW-UP: IMPROVEMENT WITH TREATMENT

During a follow-up visit, the patient is given several printed resources, including the Rome Foundation article on functional heartburn.⁵ We again emphasize the benign nature of functional heartburn, noting the minimal risk of progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma, as she had no evidence of Barrett esophagus on endoscopy. And we discuss the natural course of functional heartburn, including the spontaneous resolution rate of about 40%.

For treatment, we present her the rationale for using neuromodulators and reassure her that these medications are for treatment of visceral hypersensitivity, not for anxiety or depression. After the discussion, the patient opts to start amitriptyline therapy at 10 mg every night at bedtime, increasing the dose by 10 mg every 2 weeks until symptoms improve, up to 75–100 mg every day.

After 3 months, the patient reports a 90% improvement in symptoms while on amitriptyline 30 mg every night. She is also able to taper her antisecretory medications once symptoms are controlled. We plan to continue amitriptyline at the current dose for 6 to 12 months, then discuss a slow taper to see if her symptoms spontaneously resolve.

A 44-year-old woman presents with an 8-year history of intermittent heartburn, and in the past year she has been experiencing her symptoms daily. She says the heartburn is constant and is worse immediately after eating spicy or acidic foods. She says she has had no dysphagia, weight loss, or vomiting. Her symptoms have persisted despite taking a histamine (H)₂-receptor antagonist twice daily plus a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) before breakfast and dinner for more than 3 months.

She has undergone upper endoscopy 3 times in the past 8 years. Each time, the esophagus was normal with a regular Z-line and normal biopsy results from the proximal and distal esophagus.

The patient believes she has severe gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and asks if she is a candidate for fundoplication surgery.

HEARTBURN IS A SYMPTOM; GERD IS A CONDITION

A distinction should be made between heartburn—the symptom of persistent retrosternal burning and discomfort—and gastroesophageal reflux disease—the condition in which reflux of stomach contents causes troublesome symptoms or complications.¹ While many clinicians initially diagnose patients who have heartburn as having GERD, there are many other potential causes of their symptoms.

For patients with persistent heartburn, an empiric trial of a once-daily PPI is usually effective, but one-third of patients continue to have heartburn.^2,3 The most common cause of this PPI-refractory heartburn is functional heartburn, a functional or hypersensitivity disorder of the esophagus.⁴

PATHOPHYSIOLOGY IS POORLY UNDERSTOOD

DIAGNOSTIC EVALUATION

Clinicians have several tests available for diagnosing these conditions.

Upper endoscopy

Upper endoscopy is recommended for patients with heartburn that does not respond to a 3-month trial of a PPI.⁹ Endoscopy is also indicated in any patient who has any of the following “alarm symptoms” that could be due to malignancy or peptic ulcer:

• Dysphagia
• Odynophagia
• Vomiting
• Unexplained weight loss or anemia
• Signs of gastrointestinal bleeding
• Anorexia
• New onset of dyspepsia in a patient over age 60.

During upper endoscopy, the esophagus is evaluated for reflux esophagitis, Barrett esophagus, and other inflammatory disorders such as infectious esophagitis. But even if the esophageal mucosa appears normal, the proximal and distal esophagus should be biopsied to rule out an inflammatory disorder such as eosinophilic or lymphocytic esophagitis.

If endoscopic and esophageal biopsy results are inconclusive, a workup for an esophageal motility disorder is the next step. Dysphagia is the most common symptom of these disorders, although the initial presenting symptom may be heartburn or regurgitation that persists despite PPI therapy.

Manometry is used to test for motility disorders such as achalasia and esophageal spasm.¹⁰ After applying a local anesthetic inside the nares, the clinician inserts a flexible catheter (about 4 mm in diameter) with 36 pressure sensors spaced at 1-cm intervals into the nares and passes it through the esophagus and lower esophageal sphincter. The patient then swallows liquid, and the sensors relay the esophageal response, creating a topographic plot that shows esophageal peristalsis and lower esophageal sphincter relaxation.

Achalasia is identified by incomplete lower esophageal sphincter relaxation combined with 100% failed peristalsis in the body of the esophagus. Esophageal spasms are identified by a shortened distal latency, which corresponds to premature contraction of the esophagus during peristalsis.¹¹

Esophageal pH testing

Measuring esophageal pH levels is an important step to quantify gastroesophageal reflux and determine if symptoms occur during reflux events. According to the updated Porto GERD consensus group recommendations,¹² a pH test is positive if the acid exposure time is greater than 6% of the testing period. Testing the pH differentiates between GERD (abnormal acid exposure), reflux hypersensitivity (normal acid exposure, strong correlation between symptoms and reflux events), and functional heartburn (normal acid exposure, negative correlation between reflux events and symptoms).⁵ For this test, a pH probe is placed in the esophagus transnasally or endoscopically. The probe records esophageal pH levels for 24 to 96 hours in an outpatient setting. Antisecretory therapy needs to be withheld for 7 to 10 days before the test.

Transnasal pH probe. For this approach, a thin catheter is inserted through the nares and advanced until the tip is 5 cm proximal to the lower esophageal sphincter. (The placement is guided by the results of esophageal manometry, which is done immediately before pH catheter placement.) The tube is secured with clear tape on the side of the patient’s face, and the end is connected to a portable recorder that compiles the data. The patient pushes a button on the recorder when experiencing heartburn symptoms. (A nurse instructs the patient on proper procedure.) After 24 hours, the patient either removes the catheter or has the clinic remove it. The pH and symptom data are downloaded and analyzed.

Transnasal pH testing can be combined with impedance measurement, which can detect nonacid reflux or weakly acid reflux. However, the clinical significance of this measurement is unclear, as multiple studies have found total acid exposure time to be a better predictor of response to therapy than weakly acid or nonacid reflux.¹²

Wireless pH probe. This method uses a disposable, catheter-free, capsule device to measure esophageal pH. The capsule, about the size of a gel capsule or pencil eraser, is attached to the patient’s esophageal lining, usually during upper endoscopy. The capsule records pH levels in the lower esophagus for 48 to 96 hours and transmits the data wirelessly to a receiver the patient wears. The patient pushes buttons on the receiver to record symptom-specific data when experiencing heartburn, chest pain, regurgitation, or cough. The capsule detaches from the esophagus spontaneously, generally within 7 days, and is passed out of the body through a bowel movement.

Diagnosing functional heartburn

CASE CONTINUED: NORMAL RESULTS ON TESTING

Based on these results, her condition is diagnosed as functional heartburn, consistent with the Rome IV criteria.⁵

Patient education is key

Patient education about the pathogenesis, natural history, and treatment options is the most important aspect of treating any functional gastrointestinal disorder. This includes the “brain-gut connection” and potential mechanisms of dysregulation. Patient education along with assessment of symptoms should be part of every visit, especially before discussing treatment options.

Patients whose condition is diagnosed as functional heartburn need reassurance that the condition is benign and, in particular, that the risk of progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma is minimal in the absence of Barrett esophagus.¹³ Also important to point out is that the disorder may spontaneously resolve: resolution rates of up to 40% have been reported for other functional gastrointestinal disorders.¹⁴

Antisecretory medications may work for some

A PPI or H₂-receptor antagonist is the most common first-line treatment for heartburn symptoms. Although most patients with functional heartburn experience no improvement in symptoms with an antisecretory agent, a small number report some relief, which suggests that acid-suppression therapy may have an indirect impact on pain modulation in the esophagus.¹⁵ In patients who report symptom relief with an antisecretory agent, we suggest continuing the medication tapered to the lowest effective dose, with repeated reassurance that the medication can be discontinued safely at any time.

Antireflux surgery should be avoided

Antireflux surgery should be avoided in patients with normal pH testing and no objective finding of reflux, as this is associated with worse subjective outcomes than in patients with abnormal pH test results.¹⁶

Neuromodulators

It is important to discuss with patients the concept of neuromodulation, including the fact that antidepressants are often used because of their effects on serotonin and norepinephrine, which decrease visceral hypersensitivity.

The selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor citalopram has been shown to reduce esophageal hypersensitivity,¹⁷ and a tricyclic antidepressant has been shown to improve quality of life.¹⁸ These results have led experts to recommend a trial of a low dose of either type of medication.¹⁹ The dose of tricyclic antidepressant often needs to be increased sequentially every 2 to 4 weeks.

Interestingly, melatonin 6 mg at bedtime has also shown efficacy for functional heartburn, potentially due to its antinociceptive properties.²⁰

Alternative and complementary therapies

Many esophageal centers use cognitive behavioral therapy and hypnotherapy as first-line treatment for functional esophageal disorders. Here again, it is important for the patient to understand the rationale of therapy for functional gastrointestinal disorders, given the stigma in the general population regarding psychotherapy.

Cognitive behavioral therapy has been used for functional gastrointestinal disorders for many years, as it has been shown to modulate visceral perception.²¹ Although published studies are limited, research regarding other functional esophageal disorders suggests that patients who commit to long-term behavioral therapy have had a significant improvement in symptoms.²²

The goal of esophageal-directed behavioral therapy is to promote focused relaxation using deep breathing techniques, which can help patients manage esophageal hypervigilance, especially if symptoms continue despite neuromodulator therapy. Specifically, hypnotherapy has been shown to modulate functional chest pain through the visceral sensory pathway and also to suppress gastric acid secretion.^21,23 A study of a 7-week hypnotherapy program reported significant benefits in heartburn relief and improved quality of life in patients with functional heartburn.²⁴ The data support the use of behavioral therapies as first-line therapy or as adjunctive therapy for patients already taking a neuromodulator.

CASE FOLLOW-UP: IMPROVEMENT WITH TREATMENT

During a follow-up visit, the patient is given several printed resources, including the Rome Foundation article on functional heartburn.⁵ We again emphasize the benign nature of functional heartburn, noting the minimal risk of progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma, as she had no evidence of Barrett esophagus on endoscopy. And we discuss the natural course of functional heartburn, including the spontaneous resolution rate of about 40%.

For treatment, we present her the rationale for using neuromodulators and reassure her that these medications are for treatment of visceral hypersensitivity, not for anxiety or depression. After the discussion, the patient opts to start amitriptyline therapy at 10 mg every night at bedtime, increasing the dose by 10 mg every 2 weeks until symptoms improve, up to 75–100 mg every day.

After 3 months, the patient reports a 90% improvement in symptoms while on amitriptyline 30 mg every night. She is also able to taper her antisecretory medications once symptoms are controlled. We plan to continue amitriptyline at the current dose for 6 to 12 months, then discuss a slow taper to see if her symptoms spontaneously resolve.

A 44-year-old woman presents with an 8-year history of intermittent heartburn, and in the past year she has been experiencing her symptoms daily. She says the heartburn is constant and is worse immediately after eating spicy or acidic foods. She says she has had no dysphagia, weight loss, or vomiting. Her symptoms have persisted despite taking a histamine (H)₂-receptor antagonist twice daily plus a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) before breakfast and dinner for more than 3 months.

She has undergone upper endoscopy 3 times in the past 8 years. Each time, the esophagus was normal with a regular Z-line and normal biopsy results from the proximal and distal esophagus.

The patient believes she has severe gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and asks if she is a candidate for fundoplication surgery.

HEARTBURN IS A SYMPTOM; GERD IS A CONDITION

A distinction should be made between heartburn—the symptom of persistent retrosternal burning and discomfort—and gastroesophageal reflux disease—the condition in which reflux of stomach contents causes troublesome symptoms or complications.¹ While many clinicians initially diagnose patients who have heartburn as having GERD, there are many other potential causes of their symptoms.

For patients with persistent heartburn, an empiric trial of a once-daily PPI is usually effective, but one-third of patients continue to have heartburn.^2,3 The most common cause of this PPI-refractory heartburn is functional heartburn, a functional or hypersensitivity disorder of the esophagus.⁴

PATHOPHYSIOLOGY IS POORLY UNDERSTOOD

DIAGNOSTIC EVALUATION

Clinicians have several tests available for diagnosing these conditions.

Upper endoscopy

Upper endoscopy is recommended for patients with heartburn that does not respond to a 3-month trial of a PPI.⁹ Endoscopy is also indicated in any patient who has any of the following “alarm symptoms” that could be due to malignancy or peptic ulcer:

• Dysphagia
• Odynophagia
• Vomiting
• Unexplained weight loss or anemia
• Signs of gastrointestinal bleeding
• Anorexia
• New onset of dyspepsia in a patient over age 60.

During upper endoscopy, the esophagus is evaluated for reflux esophagitis, Barrett esophagus, and other inflammatory disorders such as infectious esophagitis. But even if the esophageal mucosa appears normal, the proximal and distal esophagus should be biopsied to rule out an inflammatory disorder such as eosinophilic or lymphocytic esophagitis.

If endoscopic and esophageal biopsy results are inconclusive, a workup for an esophageal motility disorder is the next step. Dysphagia is the most common symptom of these disorders, although the initial presenting symptom may be heartburn or regurgitation that persists despite PPI therapy.

Manometry is used to test for motility disorders such as achalasia and esophageal spasm.¹⁰ After applying a local anesthetic inside the nares, the clinician inserts a flexible catheter (about 4 mm in diameter) with 36 pressure sensors spaced at 1-cm intervals into the nares and passes it through the esophagus and lower esophageal sphincter. The patient then swallows liquid, and the sensors relay the esophageal response, creating a topographic plot that shows esophageal peristalsis and lower esophageal sphincter relaxation.

Achalasia is identified by incomplete lower esophageal sphincter relaxation combined with 100% failed peristalsis in the body of the esophagus. Esophageal spasms are identified by a shortened distal latency, which corresponds to premature contraction of the esophagus during peristalsis.¹¹

Esophageal pH testing

Measuring esophageal pH levels is an important step to quantify gastroesophageal reflux and determine if symptoms occur during reflux events. According to the updated Porto GERD consensus group recommendations,¹² a pH test is positive if the acid exposure time is greater than 6% of the testing period. Testing the pH differentiates between GERD (abnormal acid exposure), reflux hypersensitivity (normal acid exposure, strong correlation between symptoms and reflux events), and functional heartburn (normal acid exposure, negative correlation between reflux events and symptoms).⁵ For this test, a pH probe is placed in the esophagus transnasally or endoscopically. The probe records esophageal pH levels for 24 to 96 hours in an outpatient setting. Antisecretory therapy needs to be withheld for 7 to 10 days before the test.

Transnasal pH probe. For this approach, a thin catheter is inserted through the nares and advanced until the tip is 5 cm proximal to the lower esophageal sphincter. (The placement is guided by the results of esophageal manometry, which is done immediately before pH catheter placement.) The tube is secured with clear tape on the side of the patient’s face, and the end is connected to a portable recorder that compiles the data. The patient pushes a button on the recorder when experiencing heartburn symptoms. (A nurse instructs the patient on proper procedure.) After 24 hours, the patient either removes the catheter or has the clinic remove it. The pH and symptom data are downloaded and analyzed.

Transnasal pH testing can be combined with impedance measurement, which can detect nonacid reflux or weakly acid reflux. However, the clinical significance of this measurement is unclear, as multiple studies have found total acid exposure time to be a better predictor of response to therapy than weakly acid or nonacid reflux.¹²

Wireless pH probe. This method uses a disposable, catheter-free, capsule device to measure esophageal pH. The capsule, about the size of a gel capsule or pencil eraser, is attached to the patient’s esophageal lining, usually during upper endoscopy. The capsule records pH levels in the lower esophagus for 48 to 96 hours and transmits the data wirelessly to a receiver the patient wears. The patient pushes buttons on the receiver to record symptom-specific data when experiencing heartburn, chest pain, regurgitation, or cough. The capsule detaches from the esophagus spontaneously, generally within 7 days, and is passed out of the body through a bowel movement.

Diagnosing functional heartburn

CASE CONTINUED: NORMAL RESULTS ON TESTING

Based on these results, her condition is diagnosed as functional heartburn, consistent with the Rome IV criteria.⁵

Patient education is key

Patient education about the pathogenesis, natural history, and treatment options is the most important aspect of treating any functional gastrointestinal disorder. This includes the “brain-gut connection” and potential mechanisms of dysregulation. Patient education along with assessment of symptoms should be part of every visit, especially before discussing treatment options.

Patients whose condition is diagnosed as functional heartburn need reassurance that the condition is benign and, in particular, that the risk of progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma is minimal in the absence of Barrett esophagus.¹³ Also important to point out is that the disorder may spontaneously resolve: resolution rates of up to 40% have been reported for other functional gastrointestinal disorders.¹⁴

Antisecretory medications may work for some

A PPI or H₂-receptor antagonist is the most common first-line treatment for heartburn symptoms. Although most patients with functional heartburn experience no improvement in symptoms with an antisecretory agent, a small number report some relief, which suggests that acid-suppression therapy may have an indirect impact on pain modulation in the esophagus.¹⁵ In patients who report symptom relief with an antisecretory agent, we suggest continuing the medication tapered to the lowest effective dose, with repeated reassurance that the medication can be discontinued safely at any time.

Antireflux surgery should be avoided

Antireflux surgery should be avoided in patients with normal pH testing and no objective finding of reflux, as this is associated with worse subjective outcomes than in patients with abnormal pH test results.¹⁶

Neuromodulators

It is important to discuss with patients the concept of neuromodulation, including the fact that antidepressants are often used because of their effects on serotonin and norepinephrine, which decrease visceral hypersensitivity.

The selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor citalopram has been shown to reduce esophageal hypersensitivity,¹⁷ and a tricyclic antidepressant has been shown to improve quality of life.¹⁸ These results have led experts to recommend a trial of a low dose of either type of medication.¹⁹ The dose of tricyclic antidepressant often needs to be increased sequentially every 2 to 4 weeks.

Interestingly, melatonin 6 mg at bedtime has also shown efficacy for functional heartburn, potentially due to its antinociceptive properties.²⁰

Alternative and complementary therapies

Many esophageal centers use cognitive behavioral therapy and hypnotherapy as first-line treatment for functional esophageal disorders. Here again, it is important for the patient to understand the rationale of therapy for functional gastrointestinal disorders, given the stigma in the general population regarding psychotherapy.

Cognitive behavioral therapy has been used for functional gastrointestinal disorders for many years, as it has been shown to modulate visceral perception.²¹ Although published studies are limited, research regarding other functional esophageal disorders suggests that patients who commit to long-term behavioral therapy have had a significant improvement in symptoms.²²

The goal of esophageal-directed behavioral therapy is to promote focused relaxation using deep breathing techniques, which can help patients manage esophageal hypervigilance, especially if symptoms continue despite neuromodulator therapy. Specifically, hypnotherapy has been shown to modulate functional chest pain through the visceral sensory pathway and also to suppress gastric acid secretion.^21,23 A study of a 7-week hypnotherapy program reported significant benefits in heartburn relief and improved quality of life in patients with functional heartburn.²⁴ The data support the use of behavioral therapies as first-line therapy or as adjunctive therapy for patients already taking a neuromodulator.

CASE FOLLOW-UP: IMPROVEMENT WITH TREATMENT

During a follow-up visit, the patient is given several printed resources, including the Rome Foundation article on functional heartburn.⁵ We again emphasize the benign nature of functional heartburn, noting the minimal risk of progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma, as she had no evidence of Barrett esophagus on endoscopy. And we discuss the natural course of functional heartburn, including the spontaneous resolution rate of about 40%.

For treatment, we present her the rationale for using neuromodulators and reassure her that these medications are for treatment of visceral hypersensitivity, not for anxiety or depression. After the discussion, the patient opts to start amitriptyline therapy at 10 mg every night at bedtime, increasing the dose by 10 mg every 2 weeks until symptoms improve, up to 75–100 mg every day.

After 3 months, the patient reports a 90% improvement in symptoms while on amitriptyline 30 mg every night. She is also able to taper her antisecretory medications once symptoms are controlled. We plan to continue amitriptyline at the current dose for 6 to 12 months, then discuss a slow taper to see if her symptoms spontaneously resolve.

Most tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) have US Food and Drug Administration approval for treatment of depression and anxiety disorders, but they are also a viable off-label option that should be considered by clinicians in specialties beyond psychiatry, especially for treating pain syndromes. Given the ongoing epidemic of opioid use disorder, increasing attention has been drawn to alternative strategies for chronic pain management, renewing an interest in the use of TCAs.

This review summarizes the pharmacologic properties of TCAs, their potential indications in conditions other than depression, and safety considerations.

BRIEF HISTORY OF TRICYCLICS

TCAs were originally designed in the 1950s and marketed later for treating depression. Due to their adverse effects and lethality in overdose quantities, over time they have been largely replaced by selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) in depression management. However, TCAs have been applied to conditions other than depression with varying degrees of efficacy and safety.

TCA PHARMACOLOGY

TCAs are absorbed in the small intestine and undergo first-pass metabolism in the liver. They bind extensively to proteins, leading to interactions with other protein-bound drugs. They are widely distributed throughout the systemic circulation because they are highly lipophilic, resulting in systemic effects including central nervous system manifestations.

Peak plasma concentration is at about 2 to 6 hours, and elimination half-life is around 24 hours for most agents, providing a long duration of action. Clearance depends on cytochrome P450 oxidative enzymes.¹

MECHANISMS OF ACTION

TCAs inhibit reuptake of norepinephrine and serotonin, resulting in accumulation of these neurotransmitters in the presynaptic cleft. They also block postsynaptic histamine, alpha-adrenergic, and muscarinic-acetylcholine receptors, causing a variety of adverse effects, including dry mouth, confusion, cognitive impairment, hypotension, orthostasis, blurred vision, urinary retention, drowsiness, and sedation.¹

Research suggests that TCAs relieve pain centrally through a descending pathway that inhibits transmission of pain signals in the spinal cord, as well as peripherally through complex anti-neuroimmune actions.² Norepinephrine appears to play a more important role in this process than serotonin, although both are deemed necessary for the “dual action” often cited in pain management,¹ which is also the rationale for widespread use of SNRIs to control pain.

Table 1 compares neurotransmitter reuptake mechanisms, adverse effect profiles, and typical dosages for depression for commonly prescribed TCAs.

POTENTIAL USES

Headache and migraine

TCAs have been shown to be effective for managing and preventing chronic headache syndromes.^3,4 Amitriptyline has been the most studied of the TCAs for both chronic daily and episodic migraine headache, showing the most efficacy among diverse drug classes (angiotensin II receptor blockers, anticonvulsants, beta-blockers, SSRIs) compared with placebo. However, in head-to-head trials, amitriptyline was no more effective than SSRIs, venlafaxine, topiramate, or propranolol.⁴ Jackson et al⁴ suggested that prophylactic medication choices should be tailored to patient characteristics and expected adverse effects, and specifically recommended that TCAs—particularly amitriptyline—be reserved for patients who have both migraine and depression.

Neuropathic pain

Neuropathic pain is defined as pain secondary to a lesion or disease of the somatosensory nervous system⁵ and is the pathomechanistic component of a number of conditions, including postherpetic neuralgia,⁶ diabetic and nondiabetic painful polyneuropathy,⁷ posttraumatic or postsurgical neuropathic pain⁸ (including plexus avulsion and complex regional pain syndrome⁹), central poststroke pain,¹⁰ spinal cord injury pain,¹¹ and multiple sclerosis-associated pain.¹²

As a group, TCAs appear to have a role as first-line agents for managing these varied neuropathic pain syndromes. In a recent meta-analysis,¹³ 16 (89%) of 18 placebo-controlled trials of TCAs (mainly amitriptyline at 25–150 mg/day) for these pain conditions were positive, with a combined number needed to treat of 3.6, suggesting a role for TCAs in these conditions. Of note, the TCAs desipramine¹⁴ and nortriptyline¹⁵ have demonstrated little evidence of efficacy in neuropathic pain syndromes.

Chronic low back pain

Chronic low back pain is a leading cause of loss of work, excessive healthcare expenditure, and disability in the United States. It can be due to numerous spinal conditions, including degenerative disk disease, spinal stenosis, lumbar spondylosis, and spinal arthropathy.

TCAs have been used to treat chronic low back pain for decades and have been repeatedly shown to be more effective than placebo in reducing pain severity.^16,17 A double-blind controlled trial¹⁸ from 1999 compared the effects of the TCA maprotiline (up to 150 mg daily), the SSRI paroxetine (up to 30 mg daily), and placebo and found a statistically significant reduction in back pain with maprotiline compared with paroxetine and placebo. However, a 2008 meta-analysis suggested little evidence that TCAs were superior to placebo.¹⁹

Evidence of TCA efficacy for back pain was reported in 2018 with a well-designed 6-month double-blind randomized controlled trial²⁰ comparing low-dose amitriptyline (25 mg) with an active comparator (benztropine 1 mg). The authors reported that amitriptyline was effective in reducing pain and pain-related disability without incurring serious adverse effects. They suggested continued use of TCAs for chronic low back pain if complicated with pain-related disability, insomnia, depression, or other comorbidity, although they called for further large-scale studies. They also cautioned that patients started the trial with symptoms similar to the adverse effects of TCAs themselves; this has implications for monitoring of symptoms as well as TCA adverse effects while using these drugs.

Fibromyalgia is a common, frustrating, noninflammatory pain syndrome characterized by diffuse hyperalgesia and multiple comorbidities.²¹ Although sleep hygiene, exercise, cognitive-behavioral therapy, some gabapentinoids (pregabalin), and a combination of these therapies have demonstrated efficacy, TCAs also offer robust benefits.

A meta-analysis of 9 placebo-controlled TCA trials showed large effect sizes for pain reduction, fatigue reduction, improved sleep quality, and reduced stiffness and tenderness, with the most significant of these improvements being for sleep.²² A separate meta-analysis calculated that the number needed to treat with amitriptyline for a positive outcome is 4.9.²³ Recent systematic reviews have supported these findings, listing TCAs as second-line agents after pregabalin, duloxetine, and milnacipran.²⁴

Of note, TCA monotherapy rarely produces a complete response in patients with moderate to severe fibromyalgia, chronic widespread pain, or significant comorbidities (depression, anxiety). Supplementation with cognitive-behavioral therapy, physical therapy, functional restoration, and other modalities is strongly recommended.

Abdominal and gastrointestinal pain

TCAs have been applied to a number of gastrointestinal syndromes with or without pain. Patients with irritable bowel syndrome have long been known to benefit from TCAs; the number needed to treat for symptomatic benefit over placebo is 3.5.^25,26

Although there is no substantial evidence that TCAs are useful in reducing active inflammation in inflammatory bowel disease, a study involving 81 patients found that residual noninflammatory gastrointestinal symptoms (such as diarrhea and pain) responded to TCAs, including nortriptyline and amitriptyline, with greater benefit for ulcerative colitis than for Crohn disease.²⁷

TCAs have also shown prophylactic benefit in cyclic vomiting syndrome, with a clinical response in over 75% of patients in controlled cohort studies.²⁸

The efficacy of TCAs in other abdominal or gastrointestinal syndromes is unclear or modest at best.²⁹ However, few alternative treatments exist for these conditions. Amitriptyline may help symptoms of functional dyspepsia,³⁰ but nortriptyline has proven ineffective in gastroparesis.³¹ Nonetheless, some authors²⁹ suggest considering TCAs on an individualized basis, with proper monitoring, in many if not most functional gastrointestinal disorders, especially when paired with behavioral therapies.

Pelvic and urogynecologic symptoms

Chronic pelvic pain affects up to 24% of women³² and 5% to 10% of men.³³ TCAs have shown efficacy in treating chronic pelvic pain with or without comorbid depression.³⁴ Amitriptyline and to a lesser extent nortriptyline are the TCAs most often prescribed. Pain relief appears to be independent of antidepressant effects and may be achieved at low doses; initial dosing ranges from 10 to 25 mg at bedtime, which may be increased to 100 mg as tolerated.³⁴

Based on a randomized, double-blind trial,³⁵ amitriptyline was recommended as a treatment option for interstitial cystitis or bladder pain, with the greatest symptom improvement in patients tolerating a daily dose of 50 mg.

Another study³⁶ randomized 56 women with chronic pelvic pain to amitriptyline or  gabapentin, or a combination of the drugs for 24 months. Although each regimen resulted in significant reduction in pain, fewer adverse effects occurred with gabapentin than amitriptyline. Poor compliance and early discontinuation of amitriptyline were common due to anticholinergic effects.

In small uncontrolled studies,³⁷ about half of women with chronic pelvic pain became pain-free after 8 weeks of treatment with nortriptyline and imipramine.

Randomized controlled studies are needed to confirm potential benefits of TCAs in chronic urologic and pelvic pain.

Insomnia

Insomnia affects 23% to 56% of people in the United States, Europe, and Asia³⁸ and is the reason for more than 5.5 million primary care visits annually.³⁹ TCAs (especially doxepin, maprotiline, and amitriptyline⁴⁰) have been shown to be an effective treatment, with an 82% increase in somnolence compared with placebo, as well as measurably improved total sleep time, enhanced sleep efficiency, reduced latency to persistent sleep, and decreased wake times after sleep onset.³⁸

Dosing should be kept at a minimum to minimize harsh anticholinergic effects and avoid daytime sedation. Patients should be advised to take new doses or dose escalations earlier in the night to ensure less hangover sedation the next morning.

For patients with insomnia and comorbid depression, the American Academy of Sleep Medicine suggests the addition of a low dose (eg, 10–25 mg) of a TCA at nighttime to complement preexisting, full-dose, non-TCA antidepressants, while monitoring for serotonin syndrome and other potential but exceedingly rare drug-drug interactions.⁴¹

Psychiatric indications other than depression

Beyond the known benefits in major depressive disorder, TCAs have been shown to be effective for obsessive-compulsive disorder, panic disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, bulimia nervosa, and childhood enuresis.⁴² Given the shortage of mental health clinicians and the high prevalence of these conditions, nonpsychiatrist physicians should be familiar with the therapeutic potential of TCAs for these indications.

ADVERSE EFFECTS

Adverse effects vary among TCAs. Common ones include blurred vision, dry mouth, constipation, urinary retention, hypotension, tachycardia, tremor, weight gain, and sexual dysfunction.⁴³ Tertiary amines are generally more sedating than secondary amines and cause more anticholinergic effects (Table 1).

Despite widespread perceptions that TCAs are less tolerable than newer antidepressants, studies repeatedly suggest that they have an adverse-effect burden similar to that of SSRIs and SNRIs, although SSRIs have a greater tendency to produce nausea, whereas TCAs are more likely to cause constipation.⁴⁴

Discontinuation syndrome

Abrupt discontinuation or unintentionally missed doses of TCAs have been associated with a discontinuation syndrome in about 40% of users.⁴⁵ Patients should be warned about this possibility and the syndrome’s potential effects: dizziness, insomnia, headaches, nausea, vomiting, flulike achiness, and restlessness. Rebound depression, anxiety, panic, or other psychiatric symptoms may also occur. Symptoms generally present within 2 to 5 days after dose discontinuation and last 7 to 14 days.⁴⁵

However, all TCAs have a long half-life, allowing for sufficient coverage with once-daily dosing and thus carry a lower risk of discontinuation syndrome than many other antidepressants (78% with venlafaxine; 55% with paroxetine).⁴⁵

To discontinue therapy safely, the dosage should be reduced gradually. As is pharmacologically expected, the greatest likelihood of discontinuation syndrome is associated with longer duration of continuous treatment.

CONTRAINDICATIONS

Cardiac conduction abnormalities

TCAs should not be prescribed to patients who have right bundle branch block, a severe electrolyte disturbance, or other cardiac conduction deficit or arrhythmia that can prolong the QTc interval and elevate the risk of lethal arrhythmia.^46,47 Cardiac effects from TCAs are largely dose-dependent. Nevertheless, a baseline electrocardiogram can be obtained to assess cardiac risk, and dose escalation can proceed if results are normal (eg, appropriate conduction intervals, QTc ≤ 450 ms).

Advanced age

For elderly patients, TCAs should be prescribed with caution and sometimes not at all,⁴⁸ because anticholinergic effects may worsen preexisting urinary retention (including benign prostatic hyperplasia), narrow-angle glaucoma, imbalance and gait issues, and cognitive impairment and dementia. Dehydration and orthostatic hypotension are contraindications for TCAs, as they may precipitate falls or hypotensive shock.

Epilepsy

TCAs should also be used with caution in patients with epilepsy, as they lower the seizure threshold.

Concomitant monoamine oxidase inhibitor treatment

Giving TCAs together with monoamine oxidase inhibitor antidepressants should be avoided, given the risk of hypertensive crisis.

Suicide risk

TCAs are dangerous and potentially lethal in overdose and so should not be prescribed to suicidal or otherwise impulsive patients.

Pregnancy

TCAs are in pregnancy risk category C (animal studies show adverse effects on fetus; no adequate or well-controlled studies in humans; potential benefits may warrant use despite risks). Using TCAs during pregnancy has very rarely led to neonatal withdrawal such as irritability, jitteriness, and convulsions, as well as fetal QTc interval prolongation.⁴⁹

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that therapy for depression during pregnancy be individualized, incorporating the expertise of the patient’s mental health clinician, obstetrician, primary healthcare provider, and pediatrician. In general, they recommend that TCAs should be avoided if possible and that alternatives such as SSRIs or SNRIs should be considered.⁵⁰

TCAs are excreted in breast milk, but they have not been detected in the serum of nursing infants, and no adverse events have been reported.

OVERDOSE IS HIGHLY DANGEROUS

Severe morbidity and death are associated with TCA overdose, characterized by  convulsions, cardiac arrest, and coma (the “3 Cs”). These dangers occur at much higher rates with TCAs than with other antidepressants.⁴³ Signs and symptoms of toxicity develop rapidly, usually within the first hour of overdose. Manifestations of overdose include prolonged QTc, cardiac arrhythmias, tachycardia, hypertension, severe hypotension, agitation, seizures, central nervous system depression, hallucinations, seizures, and coma.

Overdose management includes activated charcoal, seizure control, cardioversion, hydration, electrolyte stabilization, and other intensive care.

OFF-LABEL TCA MANAGEMENT

Dosing recommendations for off-label use of TCAs vary based on the condition, the medication, and the suggestions of individual authors and researchers. In general, dosing ranges for pain and other nondepression indications may be lower than for severe depression (Table 2).¹

As with any pharmacologic titration, monitoring for rate-limiting adverse effects is recommended. We suggest caution, tailoring the approach to the patient, and routinely assessing for adverse effects and other safety considerations.

In addition, we strongly recommend supplementing TCA therapy with nonpharmacologic strategies such as lifestyle changes, dietary modifications, exercise, physical therapy, and mental health optimization.

Most tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) have US Food and Drug Administration approval for treatment of depression and anxiety disorders, but they are also a viable off-label option that should be considered by clinicians in specialties beyond psychiatry, especially for treating pain syndromes. Given the ongoing epidemic of opioid use disorder, increasing attention has been drawn to alternative strategies for chronic pain management, renewing an interest in the use of TCAs.

This review summarizes the pharmacologic properties of TCAs, their potential indications in conditions other than depression, and safety considerations.

BRIEF HISTORY OF TRICYCLICS

TCAs were originally designed in the 1950s and marketed later for treating depression. Due to their adverse effects and lethality in overdose quantities, over time they have been largely replaced by selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) in depression management. However, TCAs have been applied to conditions other than depression with varying degrees of efficacy and safety.

TCA PHARMACOLOGY

TCAs are absorbed in the small intestine and undergo first-pass metabolism in the liver. They bind extensively to proteins, leading to interactions with other protein-bound drugs. They are widely distributed throughout the systemic circulation because they are highly lipophilic, resulting in systemic effects including central nervous system manifestations.

Peak plasma concentration is at about 2 to 6 hours, and elimination half-life is around 24 hours for most agents, providing a long duration of action. Clearance depends on cytochrome P450 oxidative enzymes.¹

MECHANISMS OF ACTION

TCAs inhibit reuptake of norepinephrine and serotonin, resulting in accumulation of these neurotransmitters in the presynaptic cleft. They also block postsynaptic histamine, alpha-adrenergic, and muscarinic-acetylcholine receptors, causing a variety of adverse effects, including dry mouth, confusion, cognitive impairment, hypotension, orthostasis, blurred vision, urinary retention, drowsiness, and sedation.¹

Research suggests that TCAs relieve pain centrally through a descending pathway that inhibits transmission of pain signals in the spinal cord, as well as peripherally through complex anti-neuroimmune actions.² Norepinephrine appears to play a more important role in this process than serotonin, although both are deemed necessary for the “dual action” often cited in pain management,¹ which is also the rationale for widespread use of SNRIs to control pain.

Table 1 compares neurotransmitter reuptake mechanisms, adverse effect profiles, and typical dosages for depression for commonly prescribed TCAs.

POTENTIAL USES

Headache and migraine

TCAs have been shown to be effective for managing and preventing chronic headache syndromes.^3,4 Amitriptyline has been the most studied of the TCAs for both chronic daily and episodic migraine headache, showing the most efficacy among diverse drug classes (angiotensin II receptor blockers, anticonvulsants, beta-blockers, SSRIs) compared with placebo. However, in head-to-head trials, amitriptyline was no more effective than SSRIs, venlafaxine, topiramate, or propranolol.⁴ Jackson et al⁴ suggested that prophylactic medication choices should be tailored to patient characteristics and expected adverse effects, and specifically recommended that TCAs—particularly amitriptyline—be reserved for patients who have both migraine and depression.

Neuropathic pain

Neuropathic pain is defined as pain secondary to a lesion or disease of the somatosensory nervous system⁵ and is the pathomechanistic component of a number of conditions, including postherpetic neuralgia,⁶ diabetic and nondiabetic painful polyneuropathy,⁷ posttraumatic or postsurgical neuropathic pain⁸ (including plexus avulsion and complex regional pain syndrome⁹), central poststroke pain,¹⁰ spinal cord injury pain,¹¹ and multiple sclerosis-associated pain.¹²

As a group, TCAs appear to have a role as first-line agents for managing these varied neuropathic pain syndromes. In a recent meta-analysis,¹³ 16 (89%) of 18 placebo-controlled trials of TCAs (mainly amitriptyline at 25–150 mg/day) for these pain conditions were positive, with a combined number needed to treat of 3.6, suggesting a role for TCAs in these conditions. Of note, the TCAs desipramine¹⁴ and nortriptyline¹⁵ have demonstrated little evidence of efficacy in neuropathic pain syndromes.

Chronic low back pain

Chronic low back pain is a leading cause of loss of work, excessive healthcare expenditure, and disability in the United States. It can be due to numerous spinal conditions, including degenerative disk disease, spinal stenosis, lumbar spondylosis, and spinal arthropathy.

TCAs have been used to treat chronic low back pain for decades and have been repeatedly shown to be more effective than placebo in reducing pain severity.^16,17 A double-blind controlled trial¹⁸ from 1999 compared the effects of the TCA maprotiline (up to 150 mg daily), the SSRI paroxetine (up to 30 mg daily), and placebo and found a statistically significant reduction in back pain with maprotiline compared with paroxetine and placebo. However, a 2008 meta-analysis suggested little evidence that TCAs were superior to placebo.¹⁹

Evidence of TCA efficacy for back pain was reported in 2018 with a well-designed 6-month double-blind randomized controlled trial²⁰ comparing low-dose amitriptyline (25 mg) with an active comparator (benztropine 1 mg). The authors reported that amitriptyline was effective in reducing pain and pain-related disability without incurring serious adverse effects. They suggested continued use of TCAs for chronic low back pain if complicated with pain-related disability, insomnia, depression, or other comorbidity, although they called for further large-scale studies. They also cautioned that patients started the trial with symptoms similar to the adverse effects of TCAs themselves; this has implications for monitoring of symptoms as well as TCA adverse effects while using these drugs.

Fibromyalgia is a common, frustrating, noninflammatory pain syndrome characterized by diffuse hyperalgesia and multiple comorbidities.²¹ Although sleep hygiene, exercise, cognitive-behavioral therapy, some gabapentinoids (pregabalin), and a combination of these therapies have demonstrated efficacy, TCAs also offer robust benefits.

A meta-analysis of 9 placebo-controlled TCA trials showed large effect sizes for pain reduction, fatigue reduction, improved sleep quality, and reduced stiffness and tenderness, with the most significant of these improvements being for sleep.²² A separate meta-analysis calculated that the number needed to treat with amitriptyline for a positive outcome is 4.9.²³ Recent systematic reviews have supported these findings, listing TCAs as second-line agents after pregabalin, duloxetine, and milnacipran.²⁴

Of note, TCA monotherapy rarely produces a complete response in patients with moderate to severe fibromyalgia, chronic widespread pain, or significant comorbidities (depression, anxiety). Supplementation with cognitive-behavioral therapy, physical therapy, functional restoration, and other modalities is strongly recommended.

Abdominal and gastrointestinal pain

TCAs have been applied to a number of gastrointestinal syndromes with or without pain. Patients with irritable bowel syndrome have long been known to benefit from TCAs; the number needed to treat for symptomatic benefit over placebo is 3.5.^25,26

Although there is no substantial evidence that TCAs are useful in reducing active inflammation in inflammatory bowel disease, a study involving 81 patients found that residual noninflammatory gastrointestinal symptoms (such as diarrhea and pain) responded to TCAs, including nortriptyline and amitriptyline, with greater benefit for ulcerative colitis than for Crohn disease.²⁷

TCAs have also shown prophylactic benefit in cyclic vomiting syndrome, with a clinical response in over 75% of patients in controlled cohort studies.²⁸

The efficacy of TCAs in other abdominal or gastrointestinal syndromes is unclear or modest at best.²⁹ However, few alternative treatments exist for these conditions. Amitriptyline may help symptoms of functional dyspepsia,³⁰ but nortriptyline has proven ineffective in gastroparesis.³¹ Nonetheless, some authors²⁹ suggest considering TCAs on an individualized basis, with proper monitoring, in many if not most functional gastrointestinal disorders, especially when paired with behavioral therapies.

Pelvic and urogynecologic symptoms

Chronic pelvic pain affects up to 24% of women³² and 5% to 10% of men.³³ TCAs have shown efficacy in treating chronic pelvic pain with or without comorbid depression.³⁴ Amitriptyline and to a lesser extent nortriptyline are the TCAs most often prescribed. Pain relief appears to be independent of antidepressant effects and may be achieved at low doses; initial dosing ranges from 10 to 25 mg at bedtime, which may be increased to 100 mg as tolerated.³⁴

Based on a randomized, double-blind trial,³⁵ amitriptyline was recommended as a treatment option for interstitial cystitis or bladder pain, with the greatest symptom improvement in patients tolerating a daily dose of 50 mg.

Another study³⁶ randomized 56 women with chronic pelvic pain to amitriptyline or  gabapentin, or a combination of the drugs for 24 months. Although each regimen resulted in significant reduction in pain, fewer adverse effects occurred with gabapentin than amitriptyline. Poor compliance and early discontinuation of amitriptyline were common due to anticholinergic effects.

In small uncontrolled studies,³⁷ about half of women with chronic pelvic pain became pain-free after 8 weeks of treatment with nortriptyline and imipramine.

Randomized controlled studies are needed to confirm potential benefits of TCAs in chronic urologic and pelvic pain.

Insomnia

Insomnia affects 23% to 56% of people in the United States, Europe, and Asia³⁸ and is the reason for more than 5.5 million primary care visits annually.³⁹ TCAs (especially doxepin, maprotiline, and amitriptyline⁴⁰) have been shown to be an effective treatment, with an 82% increase in somnolence compared with placebo, as well as measurably improved total sleep time, enhanced sleep efficiency, reduced latency to persistent sleep, and decreased wake times after sleep onset.³⁸

Dosing should be kept at a minimum to minimize harsh anticholinergic effects and avoid daytime sedation. Patients should be advised to take new doses or dose escalations earlier in the night to ensure less hangover sedation the next morning.

For patients with insomnia and comorbid depression, the American Academy of Sleep Medicine suggests the addition of a low dose (eg, 10–25 mg) of a TCA at nighttime to complement preexisting, full-dose, non-TCA antidepressants, while monitoring for serotonin syndrome and other potential but exceedingly rare drug-drug interactions.⁴¹

Psychiatric indications other than depression

Beyond the known benefits in major depressive disorder, TCAs have been shown to be effective for obsessive-compulsive disorder, panic disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, bulimia nervosa, and childhood enuresis.⁴² Given the shortage of mental health clinicians and the high prevalence of these conditions, nonpsychiatrist physicians should be familiar with the therapeutic potential of TCAs for these indications.

ADVERSE EFFECTS

Adverse effects vary among TCAs. Common ones include blurred vision, dry mouth, constipation, urinary retention, hypotension, tachycardia, tremor, weight gain, and sexual dysfunction.⁴³ Tertiary amines are generally more sedating than secondary amines and cause more anticholinergic effects (Table 1).

Despite widespread perceptions that TCAs are less tolerable than newer antidepressants, studies repeatedly suggest that they have an adverse-effect burden similar to that of SSRIs and SNRIs, although SSRIs have a greater tendency to produce nausea, whereas TCAs are more likely to cause constipation.⁴⁴

Discontinuation syndrome

Abrupt discontinuation or unintentionally missed doses of TCAs have been associated with a discontinuation syndrome in about 40% of users.⁴⁵ Patients should be warned about this possibility and the syndrome’s potential effects: dizziness, insomnia, headaches, nausea, vomiting, flulike achiness, and restlessness. Rebound depression, anxiety, panic, or other psychiatric symptoms may also occur. Symptoms generally present within 2 to 5 days after dose discontinuation and last 7 to 14 days.⁴⁵

However, all TCAs have a long half-life, allowing for sufficient coverage with once-daily dosing and thus carry a lower risk of discontinuation syndrome than many other antidepressants (78% with venlafaxine; 55% with paroxetine).⁴⁵

To discontinue therapy safely, the dosage should be reduced gradually. As is pharmacologically expected, the greatest likelihood of discontinuation syndrome is associated with longer duration of continuous treatment.

CONTRAINDICATIONS

Cardiac conduction abnormalities

TCAs should not be prescribed to patients who have right bundle branch block, a severe electrolyte disturbance, or other cardiac conduction deficit or arrhythmia that can prolong the QTc interval and elevate the risk of lethal arrhythmia.^46,47 Cardiac effects from TCAs are largely dose-dependent. Nevertheless, a baseline electrocardiogram can be obtained to assess cardiac risk, and dose escalation can proceed if results are normal (eg, appropriate conduction intervals, QTc ≤ 450 ms).

Advanced age

For elderly patients, TCAs should be prescribed with caution and sometimes not at all,⁴⁸ because anticholinergic effects may worsen preexisting urinary retention (including benign prostatic hyperplasia), narrow-angle glaucoma, imbalance and gait issues, and cognitive impairment and dementia. Dehydration and orthostatic hypotension are contraindications for TCAs, as they may precipitate falls or hypotensive shock.

Epilepsy

TCAs should also be used with caution in patients with epilepsy, as they lower the seizure threshold.

Concomitant monoamine oxidase inhibitor treatment

Giving TCAs together with monoamine oxidase inhibitor antidepressants should be avoided, given the risk of hypertensive crisis.

Suicide risk

TCAs are dangerous and potentially lethal in overdose and so should not be prescribed to suicidal or otherwise impulsive patients.

Pregnancy

TCAs are in pregnancy risk category C (animal studies show adverse effects on fetus; no adequate or well-controlled studies in humans; potential benefits may warrant use despite risks). Using TCAs during pregnancy has very rarely led to neonatal withdrawal such as irritability, jitteriness, and convulsions, as well as fetal QTc interval prolongation.⁴⁹

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that therapy for depression during pregnancy be individualized, incorporating the expertise of the patient’s mental health clinician, obstetrician, primary healthcare provider, and pediatrician. In general, they recommend that TCAs should be avoided if possible and that alternatives such as SSRIs or SNRIs should be considered.⁵⁰

TCAs are excreted in breast milk, but they have not been detected in the serum of nursing infants, and no adverse events have been reported.

OVERDOSE IS HIGHLY DANGEROUS

Severe morbidity and death are associated with TCA overdose, characterized by  convulsions, cardiac arrest, and coma (the “3 Cs”). These dangers occur at much higher rates with TCAs than with other antidepressants.⁴³ Signs and symptoms of toxicity develop rapidly, usually within the first hour of overdose. Manifestations of overdose include prolonged QTc, cardiac arrhythmias, tachycardia, hypertension, severe hypotension, agitation, seizures, central nervous system depression, hallucinations, seizures, and coma.

Overdose management includes activated charcoal, seizure control, cardioversion, hydration, electrolyte stabilization, and other intensive care.

OFF-LABEL TCA MANAGEMENT

Dosing recommendations for off-label use of TCAs vary based on the condition, the medication, and the suggestions of individual authors and researchers. In general, dosing ranges for pain and other nondepression indications may be lower than for severe depression (Table 2).¹

As with any pharmacologic titration, monitoring for rate-limiting adverse effects is recommended. We suggest caution, tailoring the approach to the patient, and routinely assessing for adverse effects and other safety considerations.

In addition, we strongly recommend supplementing TCA therapy with nonpharmacologic strategies such as lifestyle changes, dietary modifications, exercise, physical therapy, and mental health optimization.

Most tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) have US Food and Drug Administration approval for treatment of depression and anxiety disorders, but they are also a viable off-label option that should be considered by clinicians in specialties beyond psychiatry, especially for treating pain syndromes. Given the ongoing epidemic of opioid use disorder, increasing attention has been drawn to alternative strategies for chronic pain management, renewing an interest in the use of TCAs.

This review summarizes the pharmacologic properties of TCAs, their potential indications in conditions other than depression, and safety considerations.

BRIEF HISTORY OF TRICYCLICS

TCAs were originally designed in the 1950s and marketed later for treating depression. Due to their adverse effects and lethality in overdose quantities, over time they have been largely replaced by selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) in depression management. However, TCAs have been applied to conditions other than depression with varying degrees of efficacy and safety.

TCA PHARMACOLOGY

TCAs are absorbed in the small intestine and undergo first-pass metabolism in the liver. They bind extensively to proteins, leading to interactions with other protein-bound drugs. They are widely distributed throughout the systemic circulation because they are highly lipophilic, resulting in systemic effects including central nervous system manifestations.

Peak plasma concentration is at about 2 to 6 hours, and elimination half-life is around 24 hours for most agents, providing a long duration of action. Clearance depends on cytochrome P450 oxidative enzymes.¹

MECHANISMS OF ACTION

TCAs inhibit reuptake of norepinephrine and serotonin, resulting in accumulation of these neurotransmitters in the presynaptic cleft. They also block postsynaptic histamine, alpha-adrenergic, and muscarinic-acetylcholine receptors, causing a variety of adverse effects, including dry mouth, confusion, cognitive impairment, hypotension, orthostasis, blurred vision, urinary retention, drowsiness, and sedation.¹

Research suggests that TCAs relieve pain centrally through a descending pathway that inhibits transmission of pain signals in the spinal cord, as well as peripherally through complex anti-neuroimmune actions.² Norepinephrine appears to play a more important role in this process than serotonin, although both are deemed necessary for the “dual action” often cited in pain management,¹ which is also the rationale for widespread use of SNRIs to control pain.

Table 1 compares neurotransmitter reuptake mechanisms, adverse effect profiles, and typical dosages for depression for commonly prescribed TCAs.

POTENTIAL USES

Headache and migraine

TCAs have been shown to be effective for managing and preventing chronic headache syndromes.^3,4 Amitriptyline has been the most studied of the TCAs for both chronic daily and episodic migraine headache, showing the most efficacy among diverse drug classes (angiotensin II receptor blockers, anticonvulsants, beta-blockers, SSRIs) compared with placebo. However, in head-to-head trials, amitriptyline was no more effective than SSRIs, venlafaxine, topiramate, or propranolol.⁴ Jackson et al⁴ suggested that prophylactic medication choices should be tailored to patient characteristics and expected adverse effects, and specifically recommended that TCAs—particularly amitriptyline—be reserved for patients who have both migraine and depression.

Neuropathic pain

Neuropathic pain is defined as pain secondary to a lesion or disease of the somatosensory nervous system⁵ and is the pathomechanistic component of a number of conditions, including postherpetic neuralgia,⁶ diabetic and nondiabetic painful polyneuropathy,⁷ posttraumatic or postsurgical neuropathic pain⁸ (including plexus avulsion and complex regional pain syndrome⁹), central poststroke pain,¹⁰ spinal cord injury pain,¹¹ and multiple sclerosis-associated pain.¹²

As a group, TCAs appear to have a role as first-line agents for managing these varied neuropathic pain syndromes. In a recent meta-analysis,¹³ 16 (89%) of 18 placebo-controlled trials of TCAs (mainly amitriptyline at 25–150 mg/day) for these pain conditions were positive, with a combined number needed to treat of 3.6, suggesting a role for TCAs in these conditions. Of note, the TCAs desipramine¹⁴ and nortriptyline¹⁵ have demonstrated little evidence of efficacy in neuropathic pain syndromes.

Chronic low back pain

Chronic low back pain is a leading cause of loss of work, excessive healthcare expenditure, and disability in the United States. It can be due to numerous spinal conditions, including degenerative disk disease, spinal stenosis, lumbar spondylosis, and spinal arthropathy.

TCAs have been used to treat chronic low back pain for decades and have been repeatedly shown to be more effective than placebo in reducing pain severity.^16,17 A double-blind controlled trial¹⁸ from 1999 compared the effects of the TCA maprotiline (up to 150 mg daily), the SSRI paroxetine (up to 30 mg daily), and placebo and found a statistically significant reduction in back pain with maprotiline compared with paroxetine and placebo. However, a 2008 meta-analysis suggested little evidence that TCAs were superior to placebo.¹⁹

Evidence of TCA efficacy for back pain was reported in 2018 with a well-designed 6-month double-blind randomized controlled trial²⁰ comparing low-dose amitriptyline (25 mg) with an active comparator (benztropine 1 mg). The authors reported that amitriptyline was effective in reducing pain and pain-related disability without incurring serious adverse effects. They suggested continued use of TCAs for chronic low back pain if complicated with pain-related disability, insomnia, depression, or other comorbidity, although they called for further large-scale studies. They also cautioned that patients started the trial with symptoms similar to the adverse effects of TCAs themselves; this has implications for monitoring of symptoms as well as TCA adverse effects while using these drugs.

Fibromyalgia is a common, frustrating, noninflammatory pain syndrome characterized by diffuse hyperalgesia and multiple comorbidities.²¹ Although sleep hygiene, exercise, cognitive-behavioral therapy, some gabapentinoids (pregabalin), and a combination of these therapies have demonstrated efficacy, TCAs also offer robust benefits.

A meta-analysis of 9 placebo-controlled TCA trials showed large effect sizes for pain reduction, fatigue reduction, improved sleep quality, and reduced stiffness and tenderness, with the most significant of these improvements being for sleep.²² A separate meta-analysis calculated that the number needed to treat with amitriptyline for a positive outcome is 4.9.²³ Recent systematic reviews have supported these findings, listing TCAs as second-line agents after pregabalin, duloxetine, and milnacipran.²⁴

Of note, TCA monotherapy rarely produces a complete response in patients with moderate to severe fibromyalgia, chronic widespread pain, or significant comorbidities (depression, anxiety). Supplementation with cognitive-behavioral therapy, physical therapy, functional restoration, and other modalities is strongly recommended.

Abdominal and gastrointestinal pain

TCAs have been applied to a number of gastrointestinal syndromes with or without pain. Patients with irritable bowel syndrome have long been known to benefit from TCAs; the number needed to treat for symptomatic benefit over placebo is 3.5.^25,26

Although there is no substantial evidence that TCAs are useful in reducing active inflammation in inflammatory bowel disease, a study involving 81 patients found that residual noninflammatory gastrointestinal symptoms (such as diarrhea and pain) responded to TCAs, including nortriptyline and amitriptyline, with greater benefit for ulcerative colitis than for Crohn disease.²⁷

TCAs have also shown prophylactic benefit in cyclic vomiting syndrome, with a clinical response in over 75% of patients in controlled cohort studies.²⁸

The efficacy of TCAs in other abdominal or gastrointestinal syndromes is unclear or modest at best.²⁹ However, few alternative treatments exist for these conditions. Amitriptyline may help symptoms of functional dyspepsia,³⁰ but nortriptyline has proven ineffective in gastroparesis.³¹ Nonetheless, some authors²⁹ suggest considering TCAs on an individualized basis, with proper monitoring, in many if not most functional gastrointestinal disorders, especially when paired with behavioral therapies.

Pelvic and urogynecologic symptoms

Chronic pelvic pain affects up to 24% of women³² and 5% to 10% of men.³³ TCAs have shown efficacy in treating chronic pelvic pain with or without comorbid depression.³⁴ Amitriptyline and to a lesser extent nortriptyline are the TCAs most often prescribed. Pain relief appears to be independent of antidepressant effects and may be achieved at low doses; initial dosing ranges from 10 to 25 mg at bedtime, which may be increased to 100 mg as tolerated.³⁴

Based on a randomized, double-blind trial,³⁵ amitriptyline was recommended as a treatment option for interstitial cystitis or bladder pain, with the greatest symptom improvement in patients tolerating a daily dose of 50 mg.

Another study³⁶ randomized 56 women with chronic pelvic pain to amitriptyline or  gabapentin, or a combination of the drugs for 24 months. Although each regimen resulted in significant reduction in pain, fewer adverse effects occurred with gabapentin than amitriptyline. Poor compliance and early discontinuation of amitriptyline were common due to anticholinergic effects.

In small uncontrolled studies,³⁷ about half of women with chronic pelvic pain became pain-free after 8 weeks of treatment with nortriptyline and imipramine.

Randomized controlled studies are needed to confirm potential benefits of TCAs in chronic urologic and pelvic pain.

Insomnia

Insomnia affects 23% to 56% of people in the United States, Europe, and Asia³⁸ and is the reason for more than 5.5 million primary care visits annually.³⁹ TCAs (especially doxepin, maprotiline, and amitriptyline⁴⁰) have been shown to be an effective treatment, with an 82% increase in somnolence compared with placebo, as well as measurably improved total sleep time, enhanced sleep efficiency, reduced latency to persistent sleep, and decreased wake times after sleep onset.³⁸

Dosing should be kept at a minimum to minimize harsh anticholinergic effects and avoid daytime sedation. Patients should be advised to take new doses or dose escalations earlier in the night to ensure less hangover sedation the next morning.

For patients with insomnia and comorbid depression, the American Academy of Sleep Medicine suggests the addition of a low dose (eg, 10–25 mg) of a TCA at nighttime to complement preexisting, full-dose, non-TCA antidepressants, while monitoring for serotonin syndrome and other potential but exceedingly rare drug-drug interactions.⁴¹

Psychiatric indications other than depression

Beyond the known benefits in major depressive disorder, TCAs have been shown to be effective for obsessive-compulsive disorder, panic disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, bulimia nervosa, and childhood enuresis.⁴² Given the shortage of mental health clinicians and the high prevalence of these conditions, nonpsychiatrist physicians should be familiar with the therapeutic potential of TCAs for these indications.

ADVERSE EFFECTS

Adverse effects vary among TCAs. Common ones include blurred vision, dry mouth, constipation, urinary retention, hypotension, tachycardia, tremor, weight gain, and sexual dysfunction.⁴³ Tertiary amines are generally more sedating than secondary amines and cause more anticholinergic effects (Table 1).

Despite widespread perceptions that TCAs are less tolerable than newer antidepressants, studies repeatedly suggest that they have an adverse-effect burden similar to that of SSRIs and SNRIs, although SSRIs have a greater tendency to produce nausea, whereas TCAs are more likely to cause constipation.⁴⁴

Discontinuation syndrome

Abrupt discontinuation or unintentionally missed doses of TCAs have been associated with a discontinuation syndrome in about 40% of users.⁴⁵ Patients should be warned about this possibility and the syndrome’s potential effects: dizziness, insomnia, headaches, nausea, vomiting, flulike achiness, and restlessness. Rebound depression, anxiety, panic, or other psychiatric symptoms may also occur. Symptoms generally present within 2 to 5 days after dose discontinuation and last 7 to 14 days.⁴⁵

However, all TCAs have a long half-life, allowing for sufficient coverage with once-daily dosing and thus carry a lower risk of discontinuation syndrome than many other antidepressants (78% with venlafaxine; 55% with paroxetine).⁴⁵

To discontinue therapy safely, the dosage should be reduced gradually. As is pharmacologically expected, the greatest likelihood of discontinuation syndrome is associated with longer duration of continuous treatment.

CONTRAINDICATIONS

Cardiac conduction abnormalities

TCAs should not be prescribed to patients who have right bundle branch block, a severe electrolyte disturbance, or other cardiac conduction deficit or arrhythmia that can prolong the QTc interval and elevate the risk of lethal arrhythmia.^46,47 Cardiac effects from TCAs are largely dose-dependent. Nevertheless, a baseline electrocardiogram can be obtained to assess cardiac risk, and dose escalation can proceed if results are normal (eg, appropriate conduction intervals, QTc ≤ 450 ms).

Advanced age

For elderly patients, TCAs should be prescribed with caution and sometimes not at all,⁴⁸ because anticholinergic effects may worsen preexisting urinary retention (including benign prostatic hyperplasia), narrow-angle glaucoma, imbalance and gait issues, and cognitive impairment and dementia. Dehydration and orthostatic hypotension are contraindications for TCAs, as they may precipitate falls or hypotensive shock.

Epilepsy

TCAs should also be used with caution in patients with epilepsy, as they lower the seizure threshold.

Concomitant monoamine oxidase inhibitor treatment

Giving TCAs together with monoamine oxidase inhibitor antidepressants should be avoided, given the risk of hypertensive crisis.

Suicide risk

TCAs are dangerous and potentially lethal in overdose and so should not be prescribed to suicidal or otherwise impulsive patients.

Pregnancy

TCAs are in pregnancy risk category C (animal studies show adverse effects on fetus; no adequate or well-controlled studies in humans; potential benefits may warrant use despite risks). Using TCAs during pregnancy has very rarely led to neonatal withdrawal such as irritability, jitteriness, and convulsions, as well as fetal QTc interval prolongation.⁴⁹

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that therapy for depression during pregnancy be individualized, incorporating the expertise of the patient’s mental health clinician, obstetrician, primary healthcare provider, and pediatrician. In general, they recommend that TCAs should be avoided if possible and that alternatives such as SSRIs or SNRIs should be considered.⁵⁰

TCAs are excreted in breast milk, but they have not been detected in the serum of nursing infants, and no adverse events have been reported.

OVERDOSE IS HIGHLY DANGEROUS

Severe morbidity and death are associated with TCA overdose, characterized by  convulsions, cardiac arrest, and coma (the “3 Cs”). These dangers occur at much higher rates with TCAs than with other antidepressants.⁴³ Signs and symptoms of toxicity develop rapidly, usually within the first hour of overdose. Manifestations of overdose include prolonged QTc, cardiac arrhythmias, tachycardia, hypertension, severe hypotension, agitation, seizures, central nervous system depression, hallucinations, seizures, and coma.

Overdose management includes activated charcoal, seizure control, cardioversion, hydration, electrolyte stabilization, and other intensive care.

OFF-LABEL TCA MANAGEMENT

Dosing recommendations for off-label use of TCAs vary based on the condition, the medication, and the suggestions of individual authors and researchers. In general, dosing ranges for pain and other nondepression indications may be lower than for severe depression (Table 2).¹

As with any pharmacologic titration, monitoring for rate-limiting adverse effects is recommended. We suggest caution, tailoring the approach to the patient, and routinely assessing for adverse effects and other safety considerations.

In addition, we strongly recommend supplementing TCA therapy with nonpharmacologic strategies such as lifestyle changes, dietary modifications, exercise, physical therapy, and mental health optimization.

In no way do I minimize the value of the imprimatur of FDA approval stating a drug, after appropriate preclinical and clinical studies, is deemed safe and effective. Whatever the agency’s shortcomings, the story of thalidomide (a drug never approved by the FDA) gives credence to the value of having a robust approval process. Arguments will likely continue forever as to whether the agency errs on the side of being too permissive or too restrictive in its approval process.

Nonetheless, I believe there are valid clinical reasons why we should continue to prescribe FDA-approved medications for nonapproved indications. In my practice, I treat some conditions that are sufficiently uncommon or heterogeneous in expression that large-scale clinical trials are logistically hard to carry out or deemed financially unviable by the corporate sponsor, even though clinical experience has informed us of a reasonable likelihood of efficacy. Sometimes drugs have “failed” in clinical trials, but experience and post hoc subset analysis of data have indicated a likely positive response in certain patients.

Although a drug that has been FDA approved has passed significant safety testing, the patients exposed to the drug when it was evaluated for treating a certain disease may be strikingly different from patients who have a different disease—the age, sex, comorbidities, and coprescribed medications may all differ significantly in the population of patients with the “off-label” disorder. Hence, appropriate caution is warranted, and if relevant, this should be explained to patients before giving them the medication.

In this issue of the Journal, 2 papers address the use of medications in an “off-label” manner. Schneider and colleagues discuss several frequent clinical uses of tricyclic antidepressants for reasons other than depression, and Modesto-Lowe and colleagues review the more controversial use of gabapentin in patients with alcohol use disorder. The hoped-for benefits in both circumstances are symptomatic, and both benefits and side effects are dose-related in ways not necessarily coinciding with those in the FDA-labeled indications.

My experience in using tricyclics as adjunctive treatment for fibromyalgia is that patients are quite sensitive to some of the side effects of the drugs (eg, oral dryness and fatigue), even in low doses. Moreover, we should expect only modest benefits, which should be explicitly described to the patient: improved quality of sleep with resultant decreased fatigue (while we watch closely for worsened fatigue from too-high dosing) and a modest reduction in pain over time as part of a multimodality treatment plan. I often find that practitioners who are less familiar with the use of these medications in this setting tend to start at lowish (but higher than often tolerated) doses, have patients take the medication too close to bedtime (resulting in some morning hangover sensation), fail to discuss the timing and degree of expected pain relief, don’t titrate the dose over time, and are not aware of the different responses that patients may experience with different medications within the same class. As with all prescribed medications, the benefits and ill effects must be frequently assessed, and particularly with these medications, one must be willing to discontinue them if appropriate outcomes are not achieved.

“Off-label” should not imply off the table as a therapeutic option. But it is incumbent on us to devote sufficient time to explain to each patient the anticipated side effects and hoped-for benefits, particularly since in most cases, we and our patients cannot refer to the results of definitive phase 3 clinical trials or patient online information sites that are totally relevant, reliable, data supported, and FDA reviewed.

In no way do I minimize the value of the imprimatur of FDA approval stating a drug, after appropriate preclinical and clinical studies, is deemed safe and effective. Whatever the agency’s shortcomings, the story of thalidomide (a drug never approved by the FDA) gives credence to the value of having a robust approval process. Arguments will likely continue forever as to whether the agency errs on the side of being too permissive or too restrictive in its approval process.

Nonetheless, I believe there are valid clinical reasons why we should continue to prescribe FDA-approved medications for nonapproved indications. In my practice, I treat some conditions that are sufficiently uncommon or heterogeneous in expression that large-scale clinical trials are logistically hard to carry out or deemed financially unviable by the corporate sponsor, even though clinical experience has informed us of a reasonable likelihood of efficacy. Sometimes drugs have “failed” in clinical trials, but experience and post hoc subset analysis of data have indicated a likely positive response in certain patients.

Although a drug that has been FDA approved has passed significant safety testing, the patients exposed to the drug when it was evaluated for treating a certain disease may be strikingly different from patients who have a different disease—the age, sex, comorbidities, and coprescribed medications may all differ significantly in the population of patients with the “off-label” disorder. Hence, appropriate caution is warranted, and if relevant, this should be explained to patients before giving them the medication.

In this issue of the Journal, 2 papers address the use of medications in an “off-label” manner. Schneider and colleagues discuss several frequent clinical uses of tricyclic antidepressants for reasons other than depression, and Modesto-Lowe and colleagues review the more controversial use of gabapentin in patients with alcohol use disorder. The hoped-for benefits in both circumstances are symptomatic, and both benefits and side effects are dose-related in ways not necessarily coinciding with those in the FDA-labeled indications.

My experience in using tricyclics as adjunctive treatment for fibromyalgia is that patients are quite sensitive to some of the side effects of the drugs (eg, oral dryness and fatigue), even in low doses. Moreover, we should expect only modest benefits, which should be explicitly described to the patient: improved quality of sleep with resultant decreased fatigue (while we watch closely for worsened fatigue from too-high dosing) and a modest reduction in pain over time as part of a multimodality treatment plan. I often find that practitioners who are less familiar with the use of these medications in this setting tend to start at lowish (but higher than often tolerated) doses, have patients take the medication too close to bedtime (resulting in some morning hangover sensation), fail to discuss the timing and degree of expected pain relief, don’t titrate the dose over time, and are not aware of the different responses that patients may experience with different medications within the same class. As with all prescribed medications, the benefits and ill effects must be frequently assessed, and particularly with these medications, one must be willing to discontinue them if appropriate outcomes are not achieved.

“Off-label” should not imply off the table as a therapeutic option. But it is incumbent on us to devote sufficient time to explain to each patient the anticipated side effects and hoped-for benefits, particularly since in most cases, we and our patients cannot refer to the results of definitive phase 3 clinical trials or patient online information sites that are totally relevant, reliable, data supported, and FDA reviewed.

In no way do I minimize the value of the imprimatur of FDA approval stating a drug, after appropriate preclinical and clinical studies, is deemed safe and effective. Whatever the agency’s shortcomings, the story of thalidomide (a drug never approved by the FDA) gives credence to the value of having a robust approval process. Arguments will likely continue forever as to whether the agency errs on the side of being too permissive or too restrictive in its approval process.

Nonetheless, I believe there are valid clinical reasons why we should continue to prescribe FDA-approved medications for nonapproved indications. In my practice, I treat some conditions that are sufficiently uncommon or heterogeneous in expression that large-scale clinical trials are logistically hard to carry out or deemed financially unviable by the corporate sponsor, even though clinical experience has informed us of a reasonable likelihood of efficacy. Sometimes drugs have “failed” in clinical trials, but experience and post hoc subset analysis of data have indicated a likely positive response in certain patients.

Although a drug that has been FDA approved has passed significant safety testing, the patients exposed to the drug when it was evaluated for treating a certain disease may be strikingly different from patients who have a different disease—the age, sex, comorbidities, and coprescribed medications may all differ significantly in the population of patients with the “off-label” disorder. Hence, appropriate caution is warranted, and if relevant, this should be explained to patients before giving them the medication.

In this issue of the Journal, 2 papers address the use of medications in an “off-label” manner. Schneider and colleagues discuss several frequent clinical uses of tricyclic antidepressants for reasons other than depression, and Modesto-Lowe and colleagues review the more controversial use of gabapentin in patients with alcohol use disorder. The hoped-for benefits in both circumstances are symptomatic, and both benefits and side effects are dose-related in ways not necessarily coinciding with those in the FDA-labeled indications.

My experience in using tricyclics as adjunctive treatment for fibromyalgia is that patients are quite sensitive to some of the side effects of the drugs (eg, oral dryness and fatigue), even in low doses. Moreover, we should expect only modest benefits, which should be explicitly described to the patient: improved quality of sleep with resultant decreased fatigue (while we watch closely for worsened fatigue from too-high dosing) and a modest reduction in pain over time as part of a multimodality treatment plan. I often find that practitioners who are less familiar with the use of these medications in this setting tend to start at lowish (but higher than often tolerated) doses, have patients take the medication too close to bedtime (resulting in some morning hangover sensation), fail to discuss the timing and degree of expected pain relief, don’t titrate the dose over time, and are not aware of the different responses that patients may experience with different medications within the same class. As with all prescribed medications, the benefits and ill effects must be frequently assessed, and particularly with these medications, one must be willing to discontinue them if appropriate outcomes are not achieved.

“Off-label” should not imply off the table as a therapeutic option. But it is incumbent on us to devote sufficient time to explain to each patient the anticipated side effects and hoped-for benefits, particularly since in most cases, we and our patients cannot refer to the results of definitive phase 3 clinical trials or patient online information sites that are totally relevant, reliable, data supported, and FDA reviewed.

Cancer-related pain was more common among patients in 2019 than in 2018, as was the use of prescription opioids, according to the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Patients who have/had cancer were significantly more likely to report that they were currently experiencing cancer-related pain in 2019 (19%) than in 2018 (12%), but there was only a slight increase in patients who said that they had experienced cancer-related pain in the past, the society reported in its National Cancer Opinion Survey.

When asked about methods used to manage pain, nausea, and other symptoms, patients diagnosed with cancer most often said that they had not used anything in the last 12 months, although this response was significantly less common in 2019 (48%) than in 2018 (55%). Over-the-counter pain relievers were the most common method used (24% in 2019 and 22% in 2018), followed by vitamins/minerals/herbs (18% in 2019 and 17% in 2018), ASCO said.

Prescription opioids were the third most popular choice for symptom management both years, but use was significantly higher in 2019 (17%) than in 2018 (12%). Also showing a significant increase from 2018 to 2019 was use of medical marijuana, which went from 5% to 10%, ASCO said.

The survey was conducted online for ASCO by the Harris Poll from July 9 to Aug. 10, 2019. The total sample consisted of 4,815 U.S. adults, of whom 1,009 had been diagnosed with cancer.

[email protected]

Cancer-related pain was more common among patients in 2019 than in 2018, as was the use of prescription opioids, according to the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Patients who have/had cancer were significantly more likely to report that they were currently experiencing cancer-related pain in 2019 (19%) than in 2018 (12%), but there was only a slight increase in patients who said that they had experienced cancer-related pain in the past, the society reported in its National Cancer Opinion Survey.

When asked about methods used to manage pain, nausea, and other symptoms, patients diagnosed with cancer most often said that they had not used anything in the last 12 months, although this response was significantly less common in 2019 (48%) than in 2018 (55%). Over-the-counter pain relievers were the most common method used (24% in 2019 and 22% in 2018), followed by vitamins/minerals/herbs (18% in 2019 and 17% in 2018), ASCO said.

Prescription opioids were the third most popular choice for symptom management both years, but use was significantly higher in 2019 (17%) than in 2018 (12%). Also showing a significant increase from 2018 to 2019 was use of medical marijuana, which went from 5% to 10%, ASCO said.

The survey was conducted online for ASCO by the Harris Poll from July 9 to Aug. 10, 2019. The total sample consisted of 4,815 U.S. adults, of whom 1,009 had been diagnosed with cancer.

[email protected]

Cancer-related pain was more common among patients in 2019 than in 2018, as was the use of prescription opioids, according to the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Patients who have/had cancer were significantly more likely to report that they were currently experiencing cancer-related pain in 2019 (19%) than in 2018 (12%), but there was only a slight increase in patients who said that they had experienced cancer-related pain in the past, the society reported in its National Cancer Opinion Survey.

When asked about methods used to manage pain, nausea, and other symptoms, patients diagnosed with cancer most often said that they had not used anything in the last 12 months, although this response was significantly less common in 2019 (48%) than in 2018 (55%). Over-the-counter pain relievers were the most common method used (24% in 2019 and 22% in 2018), followed by vitamins/minerals/herbs (18% in 2019 and 17% in 2018), ASCO said.

Prescription opioids were the third most popular choice for symptom management both years, but use was significantly higher in 2019 (17%) than in 2018 (12%). Also showing a significant increase from 2018 to 2019 was use of medical marijuana, which went from 5% to 10%, ASCO said.

The survey was conducted online for ASCO by the Harris Poll from July 9 to Aug. 10, 2019. The total sample consisted of 4,815 U.S. adults, of whom 1,009 had been diagnosed with cancer.

[email protected]

ATLANTA – New guidelines for management of osteoarthritis of the hand, knee, and hip from the American College of Rheumatology and the Arthritis Foundation lay out a wide range of treatment options without an algorithm or hierarchy, making strong recommendations for nondrug interventions and for tailoring plans to individual patient-level factors.

Jeff Craven/MDedge News

Since the ACR last released OA management guidelines in 2012, a number of recommendations have been added, changed, and removed, and the structure of the guidelines has also changed. For instance, the new OA guidelines include a broad list of management options, Sharon L. Kolasinski, MD, chair of the ACR guidelines panel and professor of clinical medicine in the division of rheumatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“The new guideline emphasizes comprehensive management of patients with OA, rather than a stepwise algorithm in a linear manner,” she said.

There is also no hierarchy to the recommendations, apart from the strength of the recommendation. “For any individual patient, a single option may be chosen at a particular time point, perhaps with or without other options, and may be reused in the future. For a given intervention, there might be a period of time over which it’s useful, and then the option might be changed,” Dr. Kolasinski noted.

Dr. Kolasinski advised making treatment decisions based on a patient’s disease severity, whether the patient uses medical devices, and in consideration of patient risk factors. “A history of injuries, surgical history, access to care, personal beliefs and preferences should all be brought to bear on decision making for osteoarthritis management,” she said.

The guidelines also advise considering a patient’s overall well-being and factors related to a patient’s perception of pain and function, such as mood disorders, altered sleep, chronic pain, impaired coping measures, and stress level. “Comprehensive management requires a broad assessment of how pain and function are affecting the patient with OA as a whole and recognizing that multiple options are available. They might be used in combination or change over time,” Dr. Kolasinski said.

The new guidelines place a strong emphasis on educational, behavioral, psychosocial, mind-body, and physical approaches. There are strong recommendations for the use of exercise, including aerobic, strengthening, neuromuscular, and aquatic exercise. Weight loss also carries a strong recommendation for patients with hip and knee OA, with a focus on group-based exercise, education, fitness and exercise goals, and a multidisciplinary approach using self-efficacy and self-management programs. The panels made a strong recommendation for tai chi to improve hip and knee OA. There are also strong recommendations for orthoses; aids and assistive devices such as canes, first carpometacarpal (CMC) orthoses, and tibiofemoral knee braces. Other interventions, such as Kinesio tape for first CMC joint and knee OA, hand orthoses, and patellofemoral knee braces, carried a conditional recommendation. Other conditional recommendations made by the panel were for acupuncture, thermal interventions, and radiofrequency ablation for patients with knee OA. Balance training for hip and knee OA, yoga for knee OA, and cognitive-behavioral therapy all were conditionally recommended by the panel.

The panel strongly recommended against the use of transcutaneous nerve stimulation for hip and knee OA, Dr. Kolasinski noted. The panel also conditionally recommended against use of modified shoes and pulsed vibration therapy in knee OA; lateral or medial wedged insoles, massage, and manual therapy with exercise in hip or knee OA; and iontophoresis in first CMC OA.

Jeff Craven/MDedge News

Recommendations for, against pharmacologic approaches

The ACR has changed conditional recommendations for topical NSAIDs for knee and hand OA, oral NSAIDs, and intra-articular steroids for knee and hip OA into strong recommendations for the 2019 guidelines, Dr. Kolasinski said. While the 2012 guidelines conditionally recommended against topical capsaicin for knee OA, the new guidelines conditionally recommend it.

Other pharmacologic conditional recommendations included topical NSAIDs, chondroitin sulfate, and intra-articular corticosteroid injections for hand OA, acetaminophen, and duloxetine for knee OA.

With the new recommendations come changes that some rheumatologists and health care providers may find controversial. “I think that the practicing rheumatologist may be surprised that we have a recommendation against the use of hyaluronic acid in the knee as a conditional recommendation,” Dr. Kolasinski said. “The assessment of the literature at this point really reveals that there is equivalence between intra-articular hyaluronic acid injection and intra-articular saline injection, and so it was the feeling of the panel that, really, this was worth changing the recommendation from the 2012 guideline.”

The panel made strong recommendations against use of the following pharmacologic interventions:

• Bisphosphonates.
• Glucosamine sulfate.
• Combination glucosamine sulfate-chondroitin sulfate products.
• Hydroxychloroquine.
• Methotrexate.
• Intra-articular hyaluronic acid injections in hip OA.
• Chondroitin sulfate, platelet-rich plasma injections, and stem cell injections in hip and knee OA.
• Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors.
• Interleukin-1–receptor antagonists.

Additionally, the panel made a conditional recommendation against topical capsaicin on the hand, colchicine, fish oil, vitamin D, intra-articular hyaluronic acid injections in the first CMC, and intra-articular botulinum toxin and prolotherapy in hip and knee OA.

The panel did not recommend for or against use of yoga for hip and hand OA, topical lidocaine, pregabalin, gabapentin, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors apart from duloxetine, tricyclic antidepressants, and anti-nerve growth factor agents.

While the panel conditionally recommended against use of opioids, they made a conditional recommendation for use of tramadol opioids, and there was “a heated discussion about that distinction,” Dr. Neogi noted in a discussion session at the meeting. “There was a recent observational study that indicated that tramadol may have an increased risk of [all-cause] mortality, but there are lots of issues of confounding by indication in that study.”

The patient panel also raised strong concerns about the ACR and the Arthritis Foundation coming out against opioids for OA management in their guidelines. “They don’t want to damn opioids, but they’re also concerned about a specialty society coming out strongly against opioids in the concern that their physicians may limit their access to opioids if they’re in a situation where nothing else is helping them,” Dr. Neogi said.

Dr. Kolasinski noted the guidelines will be published online in Arthritis & Rheumatology in December, and will appear in print in February of next year.

Dr. Kolasinski reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Neogi reported relationships with EMD Serono, Merck, and Pfizer.

ATLANTA – New guidelines for management of osteoarthritis of the hand, knee, and hip from the American College of Rheumatology and the Arthritis Foundation lay out a wide range of treatment options without an algorithm or hierarchy, making strong recommendations for nondrug interventions and for tailoring plans to individual patient-level factors.

Jeff Craven/MDedge News

Since the ACR last released OA management guidelines in 2012, a number of recommendations have been added, changed, and removed, and the structure of the guidelines has also changed. For instance, the new OA guidelines include a broad list of management options, Sharon L. Kolasinski, MD, chair of the ACR guidelines panel and professor of clinical medicine in the division of rheumatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“The new guideline emphasizes comprehensive management of patients with OA, rather than a stepwise algorithm in a linear manner,” she said.

There is also no hierarchy to the recommendations, apart from the strength of the recommendation. “For any individual patient, a single option may be chosen at a particular time point, perhaps with or without other options, and may be reused in the future. For a given intervention, there might be a period of time over which it’s useful, and then the option might be changed,” Dr. Kolasinski noted.

Dr. Kolasinski advised making treatment decisions based on a patient’s disease severity, whether the patient uses medical devices, and in consideration of patient risk factors. “A history of injuries, surgical history, access to care, personal beliefs and preferences should all be brought to bear on decision making for osteoarthritis management,” she said.

The guidelines also advise considering a patient’s overall well-being and factors related to a patient’s perception of pain and function, such as mood disorders, altered sleep, chronic pain, impaired coping measures, and stress level. “Comprehensive management requires a broad assessment of how pain and function are affecting the patient with OA as a whole and recognizing that multiple options are available. They might be used in combination or change over time,” Dr. Kolasinski said.

The new guidelines place a strong emphasis on educational, behavioral, psychosocial, mind-body, and physical approaches. There are strong recommendations for the use of exercise, including aerobic, strengthening, neuromuscular, and aquatic exercise. Weight loss also carries a strong recommendation for patients with hip and knee OA, with a focus on group-based exercise, education, fitness and exercise goals, and a multidisciplinary approach using self-efficacy and self-management programs. The panels made a strong recommendation for tai chi to improve hip and knee OA. There are also strong recommendations for orthoses; aids and assistive devices such as canes, first carpometacarpal (CMC) orthoses, and tibiofemoral knee braces. Other interventions, such as Kinesio tape for first CMC joint and knee OA, hand orthoses, and patellofemoral knee braces, carried a conditional recommendation. Other conditional recommendations made by the panel were for acupuncture, thermal interventions, and radiofrequency ablation for patients with knee OA. Balance training for hip and knee OA, yoga for knee OA, and cognitive-behavioral therapy all were conditionally recommended by the panel.

The panel strongly recommended against the use of transcutaneous nerve stimulation for hip and knee OA, Dr. Kolasinski noted. The panel also conditionally recommended against use of modified shoes and pulsed vibration therapy in knee OA; lateral or medial wedged insoles, massage, and manual therapy with exercise in hip or knee OA; and iontophoresis in first CMC OA.

Jeff Craven/MDedge News

Recommendations for, against pharmacologic approaches

The ACR has changed conditional recommendations for topical NSAIDs for knee and hand OA, oral NSAIDs, and intra-articular steroids for knee and hip OA into strong recommendations for the 2019 guidelines, Dr. Kolasinski said. While the 2012 guidelines conditionally recommended against topical capsaicin for knee OA, the new guidelines conditionally recommend it.

Other pharmacologic conditional recommendations included topical NSAIDs, chondroitin sulfate, and intra-articular corticosteroid injections for hand OA, acetaminophen, and duloxetine for knee OA.

With the new recommendations come changes that some rheumatologists and health care providers may find controversial. “I think that the practicing rheumatologist may be surprised that we have a recommendation against the use of hyaluronic acid in the knee as a conditional recommendation,” Dr. Kolasinski said. “The assessment of the literature at this point really reveals that there is equivalence between intra-articular hyaluronic acid injection and intra-articular saline injection, and so it was the feeling of the panel that, really, this was worth changing the recommendation from the 2012 guideline.”

The panel made strong recommendations against use of the following pharmacologic interventions:

• Bisphosphonates.
• Glucosamine sulfate.
• Combination glucosamine sulfate-chondroitin sulfate products.
• Hydroxychloroquine.
• Methotrexate.
• Intra-articular hyaluronic acid injections in hip OA.
• Chondroitin sulfate, platelet-rich plasma injections, and stem cell injections in hip and knee OA.
• Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors.
• Interleukin-1–receptor antagonists.

Additionally, the panel made a conditional recommendation against topical capsaicin on the hand, colchicine, fish oil, vitamin D, intra-articular hyaluronic acid injections in the first CMC, and intra-articular botulinum toxin and prolotherapy in hip and knee OA.

The panel did not recommend for or against use of yoga for hip and hand OA, topical lidocaine, pregabalin, gabapentin, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors apart from duloxetine, tricyclic antidepressants, and anti-nerve growth factor agents.

While the panel conditionally recommended against use of opioids, they made a conditional recommendation for use of tramadol opioids, and there was “a heated discussion about that distinction,” Dr. Neogi noted in a discussion session at the meeting. “There was a recent observational study that indicated that tramadol may have an increased risk of [all-cause] mortality, but there are lots of issues of confounding by indication in that study.”

The patient panel also raised strong concerns about the ACR and the Arthritis Foundation coming out against opioids for OA management in their guidelines. “They don’t want to damn opioids, but they’re also concerned about a specialty society coming out strongly against opioids in the concern that their physicians may limit their access to opioids if they’re in a situation where nothing else is helping them,” Dr. Neogi said.

Dr. Kolasinski noted the guidelines will be published online in Arthritis & Rheumatology in December, and will appear in print in February of next year.

Dr. Kolasinski reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Neogi reported relationships with EMD Serono, Merck, and Pfizer.

ATLANTA – New guidelines for management of osteoarthritis of the hand, knee, and hip from the American College of Rheumatology and the Arthritis Foundation lay out a wide range of treatment options without an algorithm or hierarchy, making strong recommendations for nondrug interventions and for tailoring plans to individual patient-level factors.

Jeff Craven/MDedge News

Since the ACR last released OA management guidelines in 2012, a number of recommendations have been added, changed, and removed, and the structure of the guidelines has also changed. For instance, the new OA guidelines include a broad list of management options, Sharon L. Kolasinski, MD, chair of the ACR guidelines panel and professor of clinical medicine in the division of rheumatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“The new guideline emphasizes comprehensive management of patients with OA, rather than a stepwise algorithm in a linear manner,” she said.

There is also no hierarchy to the recommendations, apart from the strength of the recommendation. “For any individual patient, a single option may be chosen at a particular time point, perhaps with or without other options, and may be reused in the future. For a given intervention, there might be a period of time over which it’s useful, and then the option might be changed,” Dr. Kolasinski noted.

Dr. Kolasinski advised making treatment decisions based on a patient’s disease severity, whether the patient uses medical devices, and in consideration of patient risk factors. “A history of injuries, surgical history, access to care, personal beliefs and preferences should all be brought to bear on decision making for osteoarthritis management,” she said.

The guidelines also advise considering a patient’s overall well-being and factors related to a patient’s perception of pain and function, such as mood disorders, altered sleep, chronic pain, impaired coping measures, and stress level. “Comprehensive management requires a broad assessment of how pain and function are affecting the patient with OA as a whole and recognizing that multiple options are available. They might be used in combination or change over time,” Dr. Kolasinski said.

The new guidelines place a strong emphasis on educational, behavioral, psychosocial, mind-body, and physical approaches. There are strong recommendations for the use of exercise, including aerobic, strengthening, neuromuscular, and aquatic exercise. Weight loss also carries a strong recommendation for patients with hip and knee OA, with a focus on group-based exercise, education, fitness and exercise goals, and a multidisciplinary approach using self-efficacy and self-management programs. The panels made a strong recommendation for tai chi to improve hip and knee OA. There are also strong recommendations for orthoses; aids and assistive devices such as canes, first carpometacarpal (CMC) orthoses, and tibiofemoral knee braces. Other interventions, such as Kinesio tape for first CMC joint and knee OA, hand orthoses, and patellofemoral knee braces, carried a conditional recommendation. Other conditional recommendations made by the panel were for acupuncture, thermal interventions, and radiofrequency ablation for patients with knee OA. Balance training for hip and knee OA, yoga for knee OA, and cognitive-behavioral therapy all were conditionally recommended by the panel.

The panel strongly recommended against the use of transcutaneous nerve stimulation for hip and knee OA, Dr. Kolasinski noted. The panel also conditionally recommended against use of modified shoes and pulsed vibration therapy in knee OA; lateral or medial wedged insoles, massage, and manual therapy with exercise in hip or knee OA; and iontophoresis in first CMC OA.

Jeff Craven/MDedge News

Recommendations for, against pharmacologic approaches

The ACR has changed conditional recommendations for topical NSAIDs for knee and hand OA, oral NSAIDs, and intra-articular steroids for knee and hip OA into strong recommendations for the 2019 guidelines, Dr. Kolasinski said. While the 2012 guidelines conditionally recommended against topical capsaicin for knee OA, the new guidelines conditionally recommend it.

Other pharmacologic conditional recommendations included topical NSAIDs, chondroitin sulfate, and intra-articular corticosteroid injections for hand OA, acetaminophen, and duloxetine for knee OA.

With the new recommendations come changes that some rheumatologists and health care providers may find controversial. “I think that the practicing rheumatologist may be surprised that we have a recommendation against the use of hyaluronic acid in the knee as a conditional recommendation,” Dr. Kolasinski said. “The assessment of the literature at this point really reveals that there is equivalence between intra-articular hyaluronic acid injection and intra-articular saline injection, and so it was the feeling of the panel that, really, this was worth changing the recommendation from the 2012 guideline.”

The panel made strong recommendations against use of the following pharmacologic interventions:

• Bisphosphonates.
• Glucosamine sulfate.
• Combination glucosamine sulfate-chondroitin sulfate products.
• Hydroxychloroquine.
• Methotrexate.
• Intra-articular hyaluronic acid injections in hip OA.
• Chondroitin sulfate, platelet-rich plasma injections, and stem cell injections in hip and knee OA.
• Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors.
• Interleukin-1–receptor antagonists.

Additionally, the panel made a conditional recommendation against topical capsaicin on the hand, colchicine, fish oil, vitamin D, intra-articular hyaluronic acid injections in the first CMC, and intra-articular botulinum toxin and prolotherapy in hip and knee OA.

The panel did not recommend for or against use of yoga for hip and hand OA, topical lidocaine, pregabalin, gabapentin, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors apart from duloxetine, tricyclic antidepressants, and anti-nerve growth factor agents.

While the panel conditionally recommended against use of opioids, they made a conditional recommendation for use of tramadol opioids, and there was “a heated discussion about that distinction,” Dr. Neogi noted in a discussion session at the meeting. “There was a recent observational study that indicated that tramadol may have an increased risk of [all-cause] mortality, but there are lots of issues of confounding by indication in that study.”

The patient panel also raised strong concerns about the ACR and the Arthritis Foundation coming out against opioids for OA management in their guidelines. “They don’t want to damn opioids, but they’re also concerned about a specialty society coming out strongly against opioids in the concern that their physicians may limit their access to opioids if they’re in a situation where nothing else is helping them,” Dr. Neogi said.

Dr. Kolasinski noted the guidelines will be published online in Arthritis & Rheumatology in December, and will appear in print in February of next year.

Dr. Kolasinski reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Neogi reported relationships with EMD Serono, Merck, and Pfizer.

PHILADELPHIA – Elagolix has emerged as an effective second-tier treatment option for patients with dysmenorrhea attributed to endometriosis, Charles E. Miller, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

Jeff Craven/MDedge News

Although clinicians need prior authorization and evidence of treatment failure before prescribing Elagolix, the drug is a viable option as a second-tier treatment for patients with endometriosis-associated dysmenorrhea, said Dr. Miller, director of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery at Advocate Lutheran General Hospital in Park Ridge, Ill. “We have a drug that is very effective, that has a very low adverse event profile, and is tolerated by the vast majority of our patients.”

First-line options

NSAIDs are first-line treatment for endometriosis-related dysmenorrhea, with acetaminophen used in cases where NSAIDs are contraindicated or cause side effects such as gastrointestinal issues. Hormonal contraceptives also can be used as first-line treatment, divided into estrogen/progestin and progestin-only options that can be combined. Evidence from the literature has shown oral pills decrease pain, compared with placebo, but the decrease is not dose dependent, said Dr. Miller.

“We also know that if you use it continuously or prolonged, we find that there is going to be greater success with dysmenorrhea, and that ultimately you would use a higher-dose pill because of the greater risk of breakthrough when using a lesser dose in a continuous fashion,” he said. “Obviously if you’re not having menses, you’re not going to have dysmenorrhea.”

Other estrogen/progestin hormonal contraception such as the vaginal ring or transdermal patch also have been shown to decrease dysmenorrhea from endometriosis, with one study showing a reduction from 17% to 6% in moderate to severe dysmenorrhea in patients using the vaginal ring, compared with patients receiving oral contraceptives. In a separate randomized, controlled trial, “dysmenorrhea was more common in patch users, so it doesn’t appear that the patch is quite as effective in terms of reducing dysmenorrhea,” said Dr. Miller (JAMA. 2001 May 9. doi: 10.1001/jama.285.18.2347).

Compared with combination hormone therapy, there has been less research conducted on progestin-only hormone contraceptives on reducing dysmenorrhea from endometriosis. For example, there is little evidence for depot medroxyprogesterone acetate in reducing dysmenorrhea, but rather with it causing amenorrhea; one study showed a 50% amenorrhea rate at 1 year. “The disadvantage, however, in our infertile population is ultimately getting the menses back,” said Dr. Miller.

IUDs using levonorgestrel appear comparable with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists in reducing endometriosis-related pain; in one study, most women treated with either of these had visual analogue scores of less than 3 at 6 months of treatment. Between 68% and 75% of women with dysmenorrhea who receive an implantable contraceptive device with etonogestrel report decreased pain, and one meta-analysis reported 75% of women had “complete resolution of dysmenorrhea.” Concerning progestin-only pills, they can be used for endometriosis-related dysmenorrhea, but they are “problematic in that there’s a lot of breakthrough bleeding, and often times that is associated with pain,” said Dr. Miller.

Second-tier options

Injectable GnRH agonists are effective options as second-tier treatments for endometriosis-related dysmenorrhea, but patients are at risk of developing postmenopausal symptoms such as hot flashes, insomnia, spotting, and decreased libido. “One advantage to that is, over the years and particularly something that I’ve done with my endometriosis-related dysmenorrhea, is to utilize add-back with these patients,” said Dr. Miller, who noted that patients on 2.5 mg of norethindrone acetate and 0.5 mg of ethinyl estradiol“do very well” with that combination of add-back therapy.

Elagolix is the most recent second-tier treatment option for these patients, and was studied in the Elaris EM-I and Elaris EM-II trials in a once-daily dose of 150 mg and a twice-daily dose of 200 mg. In Elaris EM-1, 76% of patients in the 200-mg elagolix group had a clinical response, compared with 46% in the 150-mg group and 20% in the placebo group (N Engl J Med. 2017 Jul 6. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1700089). However, patients should not be on elagolix at 200 mg for more than 6 months, while patients receiving elagolix at 150 mg can stay on the treatment for up to 2 years.

Patients taking elagolix also showed postmenopausal symptoms, with 24% in the 150-mg group and 46% in the 200-mg group experiencing hot flashes, compared with 9% of patients in the placebo group. While 6% of patients in the 150-mg group and 10% in the 200-mg group discontinued because of adverse events, 1% and 3% of patients in the 150-mg and 200-mg group discontinued because of hot flashes or night sweats, respectively. “Symptoms are well tolerated, far different than in comparison with leuprolide acetate and GnRH agonists,” said Dr. Miller.

There also is a benefit to how patients recover from bone mineral density (BMD) changes after remaining on elagolix, Dr. Miller noted. In patients who received elagolix for 12 months at doses of 150 mg and 200 mg, there was an increase in lumbar spine BMD recovered 6 months after discontinuation, with patients in the 150-mg group experiencing a recovery close to baseline BMD levels. Among patients who discontinued treatment, there also was a quick resumption in menses for both groups: 87% of patients in the 150 mg group and 88% of patients in the 200-mg group who discontinued treatment after 6 months had resumed menses by 2 months after discontinuation, while 95% of patients in the 150-mg and 91% in the 200-mg group who discontinued after 12 months resumed menses by 2 months after discontinuation.

Dr. Miller reported relationships with AbbVie, Allergan, Blue Seas Med Spa, Espiner Medical, Gynesonics, Halt Medical, Hologic, Karl Storz, Medtronic, and Richard Wolf in the form of consultancies, grants, speakers’ bureau appointments, stock options, royalties, and ownership interests.

PHILADELPHIA – Elagolix has emerged as an effective second-tier treatment option for patients with dysmenorrhea attributed to endometriosis, Charles E. Miller, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

Jeff Craven/MDedge News

Although clinicians need prior authorization and evidence of treatment failure before prescribing Elagolix, the drug is a viable option as a second-tier treatment for patients with endometriosis-associated dysmenorrhea, said Dr. Miller, director of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery at Advocate Lutheran General Hospital in Park Ridge, Ill. “We have a drug that is very effective, that has a very low adverse event profile, and is tolerated by the vast majority of our patients.”

First-line options

NSAIDs are first-line treatment for endometriosis-related dysmenorrhea, with acetaminophen used in cases where NSAIDs are contraindicated or cause side effects such as gastrointestinal issues. Hormonal contraceptives also can be used as first-line treatment, divided into estrogen/progestin and progestin-only options that can be combined. Evidence from the literature has shown oral pills decrease pain, compared with placebo, but the decrease is not dose dependent, said Dr. Miller.

“We also know that if you use it continuously or prolonged, we find that there is going to be greater success with dysmenorrhea, and that ultimately you would use a higher-dose pill because of the greater risk of breakthrough when using a lesser dose in a continuous fashion,” he said. “Obviously if you’re not having menses, you’re not going to have dysmenorrhea.”

Other estrogen/progestin hormonal contraception such as the vaginal ring or transdermal patch also have been shown to decrease dysmenorrhea from endometriosis, with one study showing a reduction from 17% to 6% in moderate to severe dysmenorrhea in patients using the vaginal ring, compared with patients receiving oral contraceptives. In a separate randomized, controlled trial, “dysmenorrhea was more common in patch users, so it doesn’t appear that the patch is quite as effective in terms of reducing dysmenorrhea,” said Dr. Miller (JAMA. 2001 May 9. doi: 10.1001/jama.285.18.2347).

Compared with combination hormone therapy, there has been less research conducted on progestin-only hormone contraceptives on reducing dysmenorrhea from endometriosis. For example, there is little evidence for depot medroxyprogesterone acetate in reducing dysmenorrhea, but rather with it causing amenorrhea; one study showed a 50% amenorrhea rate at 1 year. “The disadvantage, however, in our infertile population is ultimately getting the menses back,” said Dr. Miller.

IUDs using levonorgestrel appear comparable with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists in reducing endometriosis-related pain; in one study, most women treated with either of these had visual analogue scores of less than 3 at 6 months of treatment. Between 68% and 75% of women with dysmenorrhea who receive an implantable contraceptive device with etonogestrel report decreased pain, and one meta-analysis reported 75% of women had “complete resolution of dysmenorrhea.” Concerning progestin-only pills, they can be used for endometriosis-related dysmenorrhea, but they are “problematic in that there’s a lot of breakthrough bleeding, and often times that is associated with pain,” said Dr. Miller.

Second-tier options

Injectable GnRH agonists are effective options as second-tier treatments for endometriosis-related dysmenorrhea, but patients are at risk of developing postmenopausal symptoms such as hot flashes, insomnia, spotting, and decreased libido. “One advantage to that is, over the years and particularly something that I’ve done with my endometriosis-related dysmenorrhea, is to utilize add-back with these patients,” said Dr. Miller, who noted that patients on 2.5 mg of norethindrone acetate and 0.5 mg of ethinyl estradiol“do very well” with that combination of add-back therapy.

Elagolix is the most recent second-tier treatment option for these patients, and was studied in the Elaris EM-I and Elaris EM-II trials in a once-daily dose of 150 mg and a twice-daily dose of 200 mg. In Elaris EM-1, 76% of patients in the 200-mg elagolix group had a clinical response, compared with 46% in the 150-mg group and 20% in the placebo group (N Engl J Med. 2017 Jul 6. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1700089). However, patients should not be on elagolix at 200 mg for more than 6 months, while patients receiving elagolix at 150 mg can stay on the treatment for up to 2 years.

Patients taking elagolix also showed postmenopausal symptoms, with 24% in the 150-mg group and 46% in the 200-mg group experiencing hot flashes, compared with 9% of patients in the placebo group. While 6% of patients in the 150-mg group and 10% in the 200-mg group discontinued because of adverse events, 1% and 3% of patients in the 150-mg and 200-mg group discontinued because of hot flashes or night sweats, respectively. “Symptoms are well tolerated, far different than in comparison with leuprolide acetate and GnRH agonists,” said Dr. Miller.

There also is a benefit to how patients recover from bone mineral density (BMD) changes after remaining on elagolix, Dr. Miller noted. In patients who received elagolix for 12 months at doses of 150 mg and 200 mg, there was an increase in lumbar spine BMD recovered 6 months after discontinuation, with patients in the 150-mg group experiencing a recovery close to baseline BMD levels. Among patients who discontinued treatment, there also was a quick resumption in menses for both groups: 87% of patients in the 150 mg group and 88% of patients in the 200-mg group who discontinued treatment after 6 months had resumed menses by 2 months after discontinuation, while 95% of patients in the 150-mg and 91% in the 200-mg group who discontinued after 12 months resumed menses by 2 months after discontinuation.

Dr. Miller reported relationships with AbbVie, Allergan, Blue Seas Med Spa, Espiner Medical, Gynesonics, Halt Medical, Hologic, Karl Storz, Medtronic, and Richard Wolf in the form of consultancies, grants, speakers’ bureau appointments, stock options, royalties, and ownership interests.

PHILADELPHIA – Elagolix has emerged as an effective second-tier treatment option for patients with dysmenorrhea attributed to endometriosis, Charles E. Miller, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

Jeff Craven/MDedge News

Although clinicians need prior authorization and evidence of treatment failure before prescribing Elagolix, the drug is a viable option as a second-tier treatment for patients with endometriosis-associated dysmenorrhea, said Dr. Miller, director of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery at Advocate Lutheran General Hospital in Park Ridge, Ill. “We have a drug that is very effective, that has a very low adverse event profile, and is tolerated by the vast majority of our patients.”

First-line options

NSAIDs are first-line treatment for endometriosis-related dysmenorrhea, with acetaminophen used in cases where NSAIDs are contraindicated or cause side effects such as gastrointestinal issues. Hormonal contraceptives also can be used as first-line treatment, divided into estrogen/progestin and progestin-only options that can be combined. Evidence from the literature has shown oral pills decrease pain, compared with placebo, but the decrease is not dose dependent, said Dr. Miller.

“We also know that if you use it continuously or prolonged, we find that there is going to be greater success with dysmenorrhea, and that ultimately you would use a higher-dose pill because of the greater risk of breakthrough when using a lesser dose in a continuous fashion,” he said. “Obviously if you’re not having menses, you’re not going to have dysmenorrhea.”

Other estrogen/progestin hormonal contraception such as the vaginal ring or transdermal patch also have been shown to decrease dysmenorrhea from endometriosis, with one study showing a reduction from 17% to 6% in moderate to severe dysmenorrhea in patients using the vaginal ring, compared with patients receiving oral contraceptives. In a separate randomized, controlled trial, “dysmenorrhea was more common in patch users, so it doesn’t appear that the patch is quite as effective in terms of reducing dysmenorrhea,” said Dr. Miller (JAMA. 2001 May 9. doi: 10.1001/jama.285.18.2347).

Compared with combination hormone therapy, there has been less research conducted on progestin-only hormone contraceptives on reducing dysmenorrhea from endometriosis. For example, there is little evidence for depot medroxyprogesterone acetate in reducing dysmenorrhea, but rather with it causing amenorrhea; one study showed a 50% amenorrhea rate at 1 year. “The disadvantage, however, in our infertile population is ultimately getting the menses back,” said Dr. Miller.

IUDs using levonorgestrel appear comparable with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists in reducing endometriosis-related pain; in one study, most women treated with either of these had visual analogue scores of less than 3 at 6 months of treatment. Between 68% and 75% of women with dysmenorrhea who receive an implantable contraceptive device with etonogestrel report decreased pain, and one meta-analysis reported 75% of women had “complete resolution of dysmenorrhea.” Concerning progestin-only pills, they can be used for endometriosis-related dysmenorrhea, but they are “problematic in that there’s a lot of breakthrough bleeding, and often times that is associated with pain,” said Dr. Miller.

Second-tier options

Injectable GnRH agonists are effective options as second-tier treatments for endometriosis-related dysmenorrhea, but patients are at risk of developing postmenopausal symptoms such as hot flashes, insomnia, spotting, and decreased libido. “One advantage to that is, over the years and particularly something that I’ve done with my endometriosis-related dysmenorrhea, is to utilize add-back with these patients,” said Dr. Miller, who noted that patients on 2.5 mg of norethindrone acetate and 0.5 mg of ethinyl estradiol“do very well” with that combination of add-back therapy.

Elagolix is the most recent second-tier treatment option for these patients, and was studied in the Elaris EM-I and Elaris EM-II trials in a once-daily dose of 150 mg and a twice-daily dose of 200 mg. In Elaris EM-1, 76% of patients in the 200-mg elagolix group had a clinical response, compared with 46% in the 150-mg group and 20% in the placebo group (N Engl J Med. 2017 Jul 6. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1700089). However, patients should not be on elagolix at 200 mg for more than 6 months, while patients receiving elagolix at 150 mg can stay on the treatment for up to 2 years.

Patients taking elagolix also showed postmenopausal symptoms, with 24% in the 150-mg group and 46% in the 200-mg group experiencing hot flashes, compared with 9% of patients in the placebo group. While 6% of patients in the 150-mg group and 10% in the 200-mg group discontinued because of adverse events, 1% and 3% of patients in the 150-mg and 200-mg group discontinued because of hot flashes or night sweats, respectively. “Symptoms are well tolerated, far different than in comparison with leuprolide acetate and GnRH agonists,” said Dr. Miller.

There also is a benefit to how patients recover from bone mineral density (BMD) changes after remaining on elagolix, Dr. Miller noted. In patients who received elagolix for 12 months at doses of 150 mg and 200 mg, there was an increase in lumbar spine BMD recovered 6 months after discontinuation, with patients in the 150-mg group experiencing a recovery close to baseline BMD levels. Among patients who discontinued treatment, there also was a quick resumption in menses for both groups: 87% of patients in the 150 mg group and 88% of patients in the 200-mg group who discontinued treatment after 6 months had resumed menses by 2 months after discontinuation, while 95% of patients in the 150-mg and 91% in the 200-mg group who discontinued after 12 months resumed menses by 2 months after discontinuation.

Dr. Miller reported relationships with AbbVie, Allergan, Blue Seas Med Spa, Espiner Medical, Gynesonics, Halt Medical, Hologic, Karl Storz, Medtronic, and Richard Wolf in the form of consultancies, grants, speakers’ bureau appointments, stock options, royalties, and ownership interests.

Women with ADHD, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), or both report higher rates of chronic pain, which should be accounted for in the treatment received, new research shows.

In some cases, treating the ADHD might lower the pain, reported Karin Asztély of the Sahlgrenska Academy Institute of Neuroscience, Göteborg, Sweden, and associates. The study was published in the Journal of Pain Research.

The research included 77 Swedish women with ADHD, ASD, or both from a larger prospective longitudinal study. From 2015 to 2018, when the women were aged 19-37 years, they were contacted by mail and phone, and interviewed about symptoms of pain. This included chronic widespread or regional symptoms of pain; widespread pain was pain that lasted more than 3 months and was described both above and below the waist, on both sides of the body, and in the axial skeleton. Any pain that lasted more than 3 months but did not meet those other requirements was listed as chronic regional pain.

Chronic pain of any kind was reported by 59 participants (76.6%). Chronic widespread pain was reported by 25 participants (32.5%), and chronic regional pain was reported by 34 (44.2%), both of which were higher than those seen in a cross-sectional survey, which showed prevalences of 11.9% and 23.9% of Swedish participants, respectively (J Rheumatol. 2001 Jun;28[6]:1369-77).

Among the limitations of the latest study is the small sample size and the absence of healthy controls; however, the researchers thought this was compensated for by the comparisons with previous research.

“Our findings highlight the importance of the health care professionals to address pain problems in this patient group and possible unrecognized ASD and/or ADHD in women with chronic pain,” they concluded.

The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Asztély et al. J Pain Res. 2019 Oct 18;12:2925-32.

Women with ADHD, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), or both report higher rates of chronic pain, which should be accounted for in the treatment received, new research shows.

In some cases, treating the ADHD might lower the pain, reported Karin Asztély of the Sahlgrenska Academy Institute of Neuroscience, Göteborg, Sweden, and associates. The study was published in the Journal of Pain Research.

The research included 77 Swedish women with ADHD, ASD, or both from a larger prospective longitudinal study. From 2015 to 2018, when the women were aged 19-37 years, they were contacted by mail and phone, and interviewed about symptoms of pain. This included chronic widespread or regional symptoms of pain; widespread pain was pain that lasted more than 3 months and was described both above and below the waist, on both sides of the body, and in the axial skeleton. Any pain that lasted more than 3 months but did not meet those other requirements was listed as chronic regional pain.

Chronic pain of any kind was reported by 59 participants (76.6%). Chronic widespread pain was reported by 25 participants (32.5%), and chronic regional pain was reported by 34 (44.2%), both of which were higher than those seen in a cross-sectional survey, which showed prevalences of 11.9% and 23.9% of Swedish participants, respectively (J Rheumatol. 2001 Jun;28[6]:1369-77).

Among the limitations of the latest study is the small sample size and the absence of healthy controls; however, the researchers thought this was compensated for by the comparisons with previous research.

“Our findings highlight the importance of the health care professionals to address pain problems in this patient group and possible unrecognized ASD and/or ADHD in women with chronic pain,” they concluded.

The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Asztély et al. J Pain Res. 2019 Oct 18;12:2925-32.

Women with ADHD, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), or both report higher rates of chronic pain, which should be accounted for in the treatment received, new research shows.

In some cases, treating the ADHD might lower the pain, reported Karin Asztély of the Sahlgrenska Academy Institute of Neuroscience, Göteborg, Sweden, and associates. The study was published in the Journal of Pain Research.

The research included 77 Swedish women with ADHD, ASD, or both from a larger prospective longitudinal study. From 2015 to 2018, when the women were aged 19-37 years, they were contacted by mail and phone, and interviewed about symptoms of pain. This included chronic widespread or regional symptoms of pain; widespread pain was pain that lasted more than 3 months and was described both above and below the waist, on both sides of the body, and in the axial skeleton. Any pain that lasted more than 3 months but did not meet those other requirements was listed as chronic regional pain.

Chronic pain of any kind was reported by 59 participants (76.6%). Chronic widespread pain was reported by 25 participants (32.5%), and chronic regional pain was reported by 34 (44.2%), both of which were higher than those seen in a cross-sectional survey, which showed prevalences of 11.9% and 23.9% of Swedish participants, respectively (J Rheumatol. 2001 Jun;28[6]:1369-77).

Among the limitations of the latest study is the small sample size and the absence of healthy controls; however, the researchers thought this was compensated for by the comparisons with previous research.

“Our findings highlight the importance of the health care professionals to address pain problems in this patient group and possible unrecognized ASD and/or ADHD in women with chronic pain,” they concluded.

The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Asztély et al. J Pain Res. 2019 Oct 18;12:2925-32.

VANCOUVER, B.C. – Marijuana and cannabidiol (CBD) use is quite common among patients with pelvic pain resulting from endometriosis, with over a third reporting either current or past use, according to a new survey.

VladK213/Getty Images

The finding comes as more and more companies are marketing CBD-containing products to women, with unsubstantiated claims about efficacy, according to Anna Reinert, MD, who presented the research at a meeting sponsored by AAGL.

Women self-reported that marijuana use was moderately effective, while the median value for CBD corresponded to “slightly effective.”

To investigate use patterns, Dr. Reinert and colleagues created a questionnaire with 55-75 questions, which followed a branching logic tree. Topics included pain history, demographics, and experience with marijuana and CBD for the purpose of controlling pelvic pain. The survey was sent to two populations: an endometriosis association mailing list, and patients at a chronic pain center in Phoenix.

About 24,500 surveys were sent out; 366 were received and analyzed. The response rate was much different between the two populations, at 1% in the endometriosis association and 16% of the clinic population. Dr. Reinert attributed the low response rate in the association sample to the continuing stigma surrounding marijuana use, citing much higher response rates to other surveys sent out by the association around the same time.

Overall, 63% of respondents said they had never used marijuana; 37% reported past or present use; 65% said they had never used CBD; and 35% reported past or present use. About 45% of marijuana users reported that its use was very effective, and 25% said it was moderately effective. About 22% of CBD users said it was very effective, and about 33% said it was moderately effective. The median values lay in the moderately effective range for marijuana, and in the slightly effective range for CBD.

The findings suggest a need for more research into the potential benefit and limitations of cannabis for pelvic pain from endometriosis, said Dr. Reinert, an obstetrician/gynecologist the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Until this study, evidence of efficacy of marijuana for this indication has been sparse. A report from the National Academy of Sciences showed that there is evidence that cannabis and cannabinoids have a therapeutic effect on chronic pain in adults (National Academies Press (US) 2017 Jan 12), but the report made no mention of gynecological applications. Despite this lack of evidence, surveys have shown that women of reproductive age use marijuana, and an analysis by the Ameritox Laboratory in a pain management population found that 13% of women and 19% of men tested positive for marijuana in their urine.

Still, “there is not research looking at marijuana for women with chronic health pain,” Dr. Reinert said at the meeting.

But that doesn’t stop companies from developing CBD vaginal suppositories and marketing them for menstrual pelvic discomfort, pain during sex, and other issues. Lay press articles often boost these claims, although some skeptical takes address the lack of evidence. Still, “there’s a lot on the more positive side,” she said.

That leads to a lot of interest among patients in using marijuana or CBD for symptom relief, which is part of the reason that Dr. Reinert’s team decided to examine its use and perceived efficacy. Another reason is that there is some biological basis to believe that cannabis could be helpful. There is some evidence that women with endometriosis have changes in their endocannabinoid system (Cannabis Cannabinoid Res. 2017;2:72-80), and there are clinical trials examining the impact of non-CBD, non-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) endocannabinoid ligands.

Dr. Reinert has no financial disclosures.

VANCOUVER, B.C. – Marijuana and cannabidiol (CBD) use is quite common among patients with pelvic pain resulting from endometriosis, with over a third reporting either current or past use, according to a new survey.

VladK213/Getty Images

The finding comes as more and more companies are marketing CBD-containing products to women, with unsubstantiated claims about efficacy, according to Anna Reinert, MD, who presented the research at a meeting sponsored by AAGL.

Women self-reported that marijuana use was moderately effective, while the median value for CBD corresponded to “slightly effective.”

To investigate use patterns, Dr. Reinert and colleagues created a questionnaire with 55-75 questions, which followed a branching logic tree. Topics included pain history, demographics, and experience with marijuana and CBD for the purpose of controlling pelvic pain. The survey was sent to two populations: an endometriosis association mailing list, and patients at a chronic pain center in Phoenix.

About 24,500 surveys were sent out; 366 were received and analyzed. The response rate was much different between the two populations, at 1% in the endometriosis association and 16% of the clinic population. Dr. Reinert attributed the low response rate in the association sample to the continuing stigma surrounding marijuana use, citing much higher response rates to other surveys sent out by the association around the same time.

Overall, 63% of respondents said they had never used marijuana; 37% reported past or present use; 65% said they had never used CBD; and 35% reported past or present use. About 45% of marijuana users reported that its use was very effective, and 25% said it was moderately effective. About 22% of CBD users said it was very effective, and about 33% said it was moderately effective. The median values lay in the moderately effective range for marijuana, and in the slightly effective range for CBD.

The findings suggest a need for more research into the potential benefit and limitations of cannabis for pelvic pain from endometriosis, said Dr. Reinert, an obstetrician/gynecologist the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Until this study, evidence of efficacy of marijuana for this indication has been sparse. A report from the National Academy of Sciences showed that there is evidence that cannabis and cannabinoids have a therapeutic effect on chronic pain in adults (National Academies Press (US) 2017 Jan 12), but the report made no mention of gynecological applications. Despite this lack of evidence, surveys have shown that women of reproductive age use marijuana, and an analysis by the Ameritox Laboratory in a pain management population found that 13% of women and 19% of men tested positive for marijuana in their urine.

Still, “there is not research looking at marijuana for women with chronic health pain,” Dr. Reinert said at the meeting.

But that doesn’t stop companies from developing CBD vaginal suppositories and marketing them for menstrual pelvic discomfort, pain during sex, and other issues. Lay press articles often boost these claims, although some skeptical takes address the lack of evidence. Still, “there’s a lot on the more positive side,” she said.

That leads to a lot of interest among patients in using marijuana or CBD for symptom relief, which is part of the reason that Dr. Reinert’s team decided to examine its use and perceived efficacy. Another reason is that there is some biological basis to believe that cannabis could be helpful. There is some evidence that women with endometriosis have changes in their endocannabinoid system (Cannabis Cannabinoid Res. 2017;2:72-80), and there are clinical trials examining the impact of non-CBD, non-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) endocannabinoid ligands.

Dr. Reinert has no financial disclosures.

VANCOUVER, B.C. – Marijuana and cannabidiol (CBD) use is quite common among patients with pelvic pain resulting from endometriosis, with over a third reporting either current or past use, according to a new survey.

VladK213/Getty Images

The finding comes as more and more companies are marketing CBD-containing products to women, with unsubstantiated claims about efficacy, according to Anna Reinert, MD, who presented the research at a meeting sponsored by AAGL.

Women self-reported that marijuana use was moderately effective, while the median value for CBD corresponded to “slightly effective.”

To investigate use patterns, Dr. Reinert and colleagues created a questionnaire with 55-75 questions, which followed a branching logic tree. Topics included pain history, demographics, and experience with marijuana and CBD for the purpose of controlling pelvic pain. The survey was sent to two populations: an endometriosis association mailing list, and patients at a chronic pain center in Phoenix.

About 24,500 surveys were sent out; 366 were received and analyzed. The response rate was much different between the two populations, at 1% in the endometriosis association and 16% of the clinic population. Dr. Reinert attributed the low response rate in the association sample to the continuing stigma surrounding marijuana use, citing much higher response rates to other surveys sent out by the association around the same time.

Overall, 63% of respondents said they had never used marijuana; 37% reported past or present use; 65% said they had never used CBD; and 35% reported past or present use. About 45% of marijuana users reported that its use was very effective, and 25% said it was moderately effective. About 22% of CBD users said it was very effective, and about 33% said it was moderately effective. The median values lay in the moderately effective range for marijuana, and in the slightly effective range for CBD.

The findings suggest a need for more research into the potential benefit and limitations of cannabis for pelvic pain from endometriosis, said Dr. Reinert, an obstetrician/gynecologist the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Until this study, evidence of efficacy of marijuana for this indication has been sparse. A report from the National Academy of Sciences showed that there is evidence that cannabis and cannabinoids have a therapeutic effect on chronic pain in adults (National Academies Press (US) 2017 Jan 12), but the report made no mention of gynecological applications. Despite this lack of evidence, surveys have shown that women of reproductive age use marijuana, and an analysis by the Ameritox Laboratory in a pain management population found that 13% of women and 19% of men tested positive for marijuana in their urine.

Still, “there is not research looking at marijuana for women with chronic health pain,” Dr. Reinert said at the meeting.

But that doesn’t stop companies from developing CBD vaginal suppositories and marketing them for menstrual pelvic discomfort, pain during sex, and other issues. Lay press articles often boost these claims, although some skeptical takes address the lack of evidence. Still, “there’s a lot on the more positive side,” she said.

That leads to a lot of interest among patients in using marijuana or CBD for symptom relief, which is part of the reason that Dr. Reinert’s team decided to examine its use and perceived efficacy. Another reason is that there is some biological basis to believe that cannabis could be helpful. There is some evidence that women with endometriosis have changes in their endocannabinoid system (Cannabis Cannabinoid Res. 2017;2:72-80), and there are clinical trials examining the impact of non-CBD, non-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) endocannabinoid ligands.

Dr. Reinert has no financial disclosures.

VANCOUVER – In patients undergoing hysterectomy, preoperative depression is associated with an increased risk of first-time persistent opioid use after surgery.

Liderina/Thinkstock

Women with depression had an 8% increased risk of perioperative opioid use but a 43% increased risk of persistent use, defined as at least one perioperative prescription followed by at least one prescription 90 days or longer after surgery.

Opioid prescriptions after surgery have been on the rise in recent years, and this has led to a focus on how chronic pain disorders are managed. But studies have shown that patients undergoing general surgery, both minor and major, are at increased risk of persistent opioid use, even after a single surgery, according to Erin Carey, MD, director of the division of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who presented the research at the meeting sponsored by AAGL.

“We also know that preoperative depression has been linked to adverse outcomes after hysterectomy, both acute postoperative pain in the first 2 days after surgery, and increasing the risk of chronic postoperative pain,” Dr. Carey said.

That prompted her and her team to look at whether preoperative depression might influence the risk of new persistent opioid use after hysterectomy. They analyzed data from the IBM Watson/Truven Health Analytics MarketScan database of claims-based data, which collects information from a variety of sources, including electronic medical records and workplace records such as absences, disability, and long-term disability.

“So it does allow for long-term tracking, which makes it optimal for this type of study,” said Dr. Carey.

The study included 382,078 hysterectomies performed between 2001 and 2015 on women who had continuous prescription plans 180 days before to 180 days after the procedure, excluding anyone who had an opioid prescription in the previous 180 days; 60% of the procedures were minimally invasive. About 20% of women were considered to have depression before the procedure, based on a diagnosis (55%), an antidepressant prescription (22%), or both (23%).

There were some differences at baseline between the two populations: Women with preoperative depression were more likely to have a comorbid pain disorder, compared with patients without depression (20% vs. 14%), another psychiatric disorder (2% vs. less than 1%), and a Charlson comorbidity (12% vs. 9%). They also were less likely to undergo a minimally invasive procedure than women without depression (66% vs. 79%). There was an increase in the prevalence of depression over time, from 16% to 23%.

Overall, 74% of women were prescribed an opioid during the perioperative period; 17% were filled before the hysterectomy was performed. Preoperative fills also increased over time, from 4% in 2001 to 21% in 2015.

Women with preoperative depression were at a slightly greater risk for perioperative opioid use (risk ratio, 1.08), but a greater risk for persistent postoperative opioid use (11% vs. 8%; RR, 1.43). The heightened risk for opioid use was similar whether the surgery was performed on an outpatient or inpatient basis.

The presence of other comorbidities in women with diagnosed depression or prescribed antidepressants complicates the findings, according to Dr. Carey. “There may be additional chronic pain factors that are confounding this data, but it is consistent with other data that de novo postoperative opioid dependence may be a higher risk for these patients, so it’s important for us to look at that critically.”

Dr. Carey has been a consultant for Teleflex Medical and a speaker for Med-IQ.

VANCOUVER – In patients undergoing hysterectomy, preoperative depression is associated with an increased risk of first-time persistent opioid use after surgery.

Liderina/Thinkstock

Women with depression had an 8% increased risk of perioperative opioid use but a 43% increased risk of persistent use, defined as at least one perioperative prescription followed by at least one prescription 90 days or longer after surgery.

Opioid prescriptions after surgery have been on the rise in recent years, and this has led to a focus on how chronic pain disorders are managed. But studies have shown that patients undergoing general surgery, both minor and major, are at increased risk of persistent opioid use, even after a single surgery, according to Erin Carey, MD, director of the division of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who presented the research at the meeting sponsored by AAGL.

“We also know that preoperative depression has been linked to adverse outcomes after hysterectomy, both acute postoperative pain in the first 2 days after surgery, and increasing the risk of chronic postoperative pain,” Dr. Carey said.

That prompted her and her team to look at whether preoperative depression might influence the risk of new persistent opioid use after hysterectomy. They analyzed data from the IBM Watson/Truven Health Analytics MarketScan database of claims-based data, which collects information from a variety of sources, including electronic medical records and workplace records such as absences, disability, and long-term disability.

“So it does allow for long-term tracking, which makes it optimal for this type of study,” said Dr. Carey.

The study included 382,078 hysterectomies performed between 2001 and 2015 on women who had continuous prescription plans 180 days before to 180 days after the procedure, excluding anyone who had an opioid prescription in the previous 180 days; 60% of the procedures were minimally invasive. About 20% of women were considered to have depression before the procedure, based on a diagnosis (55%), an antidepressant prescription (22%), or both (23%).

There were some differences at baseline between the two populations: Women with preoperative depression were more likely to have a comorbid pain disorder, compared with patients without depression (20% vs. 14%), another psychiatric disorder (2% vs. less than 1%), and a Charlson comorbidity (12% vs. 9%). They also were less likely to undergo a minimally invasive procedure than women without depression (66% vs. 79%). There was an increase in the prevalence of depression over time, from 16% to 23%.

Overall, 74% of women were prescribed an opioid during the perioperative period; 17% were filled before the hysterectomy was performed. Preoperative fills also increased over time, from 4% in 2001 to 21% in 2015.

Women with preoperative depression were at a slightly greater risk for perioperative opioid use (risk ratio, 1.08), but a greater risk for persistent postoperative opioid use (11% vs. 8%; RR, 1.43). The heightened risk for opioid use was similar whether the surgery was performed on an outpatient or inpatient basis.

The presence of other comorbidities in women with diagnosed depression or prescribed antidepressants complicates the findings, according to Dr. Carey. “There may be additional chronic pain factors that are confounding this data, but it is consistent with other data that de novo postoperative opioid dependence may be a higher risk for these patients, so it’s important for us to look at that critically.”

Dr. Carey has been a consultant for Teleflex Medical and a speaker for Med-IQ.

VANCOUVER – In patients undergoing hysterectomy, preoperative depression is associated with an increased risk of first-time persistent opioid use after surgery.

Liderina/Thinkstock

Women with depression had an 8% increased risk of perioperative opioid use but a 43% increased risk of persistent use, defined as at least one perioperative prescription followed by at least one prescription 90 days or longer after surgery.

Opioid prescriptions after surgery have been on the rise in recent years, and this has led to a focus on how chronic pain disorders are managed. But studies have shown that patients undergoing general surgery, both minor and major, are at increased risk of persistent opioid use, even after a single surgery, according to Erin Carey, MD, director of the division of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who presented the research at the meeting sponsored by AAGL.

“We also know that preoperative depression has been linked to adverse outcomes after hysterectomy, both acute postoperative pain in the first 2 days after surgery, and increasing the risk of chronic postoperative pain,” Dr. Carey said.

That prompted her and her team to look at whether preoperative depression might influence the risk of new persistent opioid use after hysterectomy. They analyzed data from the IBM Watson/Truven Health Analytics MarketScan database of claims-based data, which collects information from a variety of sources, including electronic medical records and workplace records such as absences, disability, and long-term disability.

“So it does allow for long-term tracking, which makes it optimal for this type of study,” said Dr. Carey.

The study included 382,078 hysterectomies performed between 2001 and 2015 on women who had continuous prescription plans 180 days before to 180 days after the procedure, excluding anyone who had an opioid prescription in the previous 180 days; 60% of the procedures were minimally invasive. About 20% of women were considered to have depression before the procedure, based on a diagnosis (55%), an antidepressant prescription (22%), or both (23%).

There were some differences at baseline between the two populations: Women with preoperative depression were more likely to have a comorbid pain disorder, compared with patients without depression (20% vs. 14%), another psychiatric disorder (2% vs. less than 1%), and a Charlson comorbidity (12% vs. 9%). They also were less likely to undergo a minimally invasive procedure than women without depression (66% vs. 79%). There was an increase in the prevalence of depression over time, from 16% to 23%.

Overall, 74% of women were prescribed an opioid during the perioperative period; 17% were filled before the hysterectomy was performed. Preoperative fills also increased over time, from 4% in 2001 to 21% in 2015.

Women with preoperative depression were at a slightly greater risk for perioperative opioid use (risk ratio, 1.08), but a greater risk for persistent postoperative opioid use (11% vs. 8%; RR, 1.43). The heightened risk for opioid use was similar whether the surgery was performed on an outpatient or inpatient basis.

The presence of other comorbidities in women with diagnosed depression or prescribed antidepressants complicates the findings, according to Dr. Carey. “There may be additional chronic pain factors that are confounding this data, but it is consistent with other data that de novo postoperative opioid dependence may be a higher risk for these patients, so it’s important for us to look at that critically.”

Dr. Carey has been a consultant for Teleflex Medical and a speaker for Med-IQ.