The role of morphine-6-glucuronide (M6G) in pain control

Morphine-6beta-D-glucuronide (M6G) is an analgesically active metabolite of morphine, accounting for approximate to10% of the morphine dose when administered by systemic routes to humans. Although M6G is more hydrophilic than morphine, it crosses the blood-brain barrier, albeit relatively slowly. For this reason, it is generally thought that, after chronic dosing, M6G contributes significantly to the analgesic effects of systemically administered morphine. Owing to its polar nature, M6G is cleared from the systemic circulation primarily via renal elimination. As M6G accumulates in patients with renal impairment, there is an increased risk of M6G-induced respiratory depression in renal failure patients who are being dosed chronically with systemic morphine. Consistent with its analgesic and respiratory depressant properties, M6G binds to the p-opioid receptor in a naloxone-reversible manner. Although the affinity of M6G for the mu-opioid receptor is similar to or slightly less than that of morphine, preclinical studies in rodents show that M6G is one to two orders of magnitude more potent than morphine when administered by central routes. This major discrepancy between the markedly higher intrinsic antinociceptive potency of M6G relative to morphine, despite their similar p-opioid receptor binding affinities, is difficult to reconcile. It has been proposed that M6G mediates its pain-relieving effects through a novel 'M6G opioid receptor', while others have argued that M6G may have higher efficacy than morphine for transduction of intracellular events. When administered by parenteral routes to rodents, M6G's antinociceptive potency is no more than twofold higher than morphine. In humans, the analgesic efficacy and respiratory depressant potency of M6G relative to morphine have been assessed in a number of short-term studies involving the intrathecal or intravenous routes of administration. For example, in hip replacement patients, intrathecal M6G provided excellent postoperative analgesia but the occurrence of late respiratory depression in 10% of these patients raised serious concern about safety. In postoperative patients, intravenous M6G administered by means of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), or bolus plus PCA, produced no analgesia in one study and limited analgesia in another. Similarly, there was a lack of significant analgesia in healthy volunteers who received intravenous M6G for the alleviation of experimental pain (carbon dioxide applied to the nasal mucosa). In contrast, satisfactory analgesia was produced by bolus doses of intravenous M6G administered to patients with cancer pain, and to healthy volunteers with experimentally-induced ischaemic, electrical or thermal (ice water) pain. Studies to date in healthy volunteers suggest that intravenous M6G may be a less potent respiratory depressant and have a lower propensity for producing nausea and vomiting than morphine. However, it is unclear whether equi-analgesic doses of M6G and morphine were compared. Clearly, more extensive short-term trials, together with studies involving chronic M6G administration, are necessary before the potential clinical utility of M6G as an analgesic drug in its own right can be determined.

Two knees or not two knees? Patient costs and outcomes following bilateral and unilateral total knee joint replacement surgery for OA

Aims: This study aims to address medical and non-medical direct costs and health outcomes of bilateral and unilateral total knee replacement from the patients' perspective during the first year post-surgery. Methods: Osteoarthritis patients undergoing primary unilateral total knee or bilateral total knee replacement (TKR) surgery at three Sydney hospitals were eligible. Patients completed questionnaires pre-operatively to record expenses during the previous three months and health status immediately prior to surgery. Patients then maintained detailed prospective cost diaries and completed SF-36 and WOMAC Index each three months for the first post-operative year. Results: Pre-operatively, no significant differences in health status were found between patients undergoing unilateral TKR and bilateral TKR. Both unilateral and bilateral TKR patients showed improvements in pain, stiffness and function from pre-surgery to 12 months post-surgery. Patients who had bilateral TKR spent an average of 12.3 days in acute hospital and patients who had unilateral TKR 13.6 days. Totally uncemented prostheses were used in 6% of unilateral replacements and 48% of bilateral replacements. In hospital, patients who had bilateral TKR experienced significantly more complications, mainly thromboembolic, than patients who had unilateral TKR. Regression analysis showed that for every one point increase in the pre-operative SF-36 physical score (i.e. improving physical status) out-of-pocket costs decreased by 94%. Out-of-pocket costs for female patients were 3.3 times greater than for males. Conclusion: Patients undergoing bilateral TKR and unilateral TKR had a similar length of stay in hospital and similar out-of-pocket expenditures. Bilateral replacement patients reported better physical function and general health with fewer health care visits one year post procedure. Patients requiring bilateral TKR have some additional information to aid their decision making. While their risk of peri-operative complications is higher, they have an excellent chance of good health outcomes at 12 months and are not going to be doubly 'out-of-pocket' for the experience. (C) 2004 OsteoArthritis Research Society International. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.