Blood-oxygen-level-dependent (BOLD) signal changes in total cortex and subcortex, pain, reward, and vigilance regions during mechanical pressure pain after morphine administration

Morphine is the most common clinical choice in the management of severe pain. Although the molecular mechanisms of morphine have already been characterized, the cerebral circuits by which it attenuates the sensation of pain have not yet been studied in humans. The objective of this two-arm (morphine versus placebo), between-subjects study was to examine whether morphine affects pain via pain-related cortical circuits, but also via reward regions that relate to the motivational state, as well as prefrontal regions that relate to vigilance as a result of morphine's sedative effects. Cortical activity was measured by the blood-oxygen-level-dependent (BOLD) signal changes using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). ^ The novelty of this study is at three levels: (i) to develop a methodology that will assess the average BOLD signal across subjects for the pain, reward, and vigilance cortical systems; (ii) to examine whether the reward and/or sedative effects of morphine are contributing factors to cortical regions associated with the motivational state and vigilance; and (iii) to propose a neuroanatomical model related to the opioid-sensitive effects of reward and sedation as a function of cortical activity related to pain in an effort to assess future analgesics. ^ Consistent with our hypotheses, our findings showed that the decrease in total pain-related volume activated between the post- and the pre-treatment morphine group was about 78%, while the post-treatment placebo group displayed only a 5% decrease when compared to pre-treatment levels of activation. The volume increase in reward regions was 451% in the post-treatment compared to the pre-treatment morphine condition. Finally, the volumetric decrease in vigilance regions was 63% in the posttreatment compared to the pre-treatment morphine condition. ^ These findings imply that changes in the blood flow of the reward and vigilance regions may be contributing factors in producing the analgesic effect under morphine administration. Future studies need to replicate this study in a higher resolution fMRI environment and to assess the proposed neuroanatomical model in patient populations. The necessity of pain research is apparent, since pain cuts across different diseases especially chronic ones, and thus, is recognized as a vital public health developing area. ^

A RANDOMIZED TRIAL OF BILEVEL POSITIVE AIRWAY PRESSURE DEVICE AND HIGH FLOW OXYGEN FOR PERSISTENT DYSPNEA IN

Background: Dyspnea is a common and distressing symptom among patients with advanced cancer. The role of bilevel positive airway pressure (BIPAP) and Vapotherm in the relief of dyspnea have not been well defined. We aimed to determine and to compare the efficacy of BIPAP and VapoTherm for cancer related dyspnea. Methods: In this randomized, open-label, crossover study, we randomly assigned advanced cancer patients with persistent dyspnea >=3/10 to either Vapotherm for 2 hours followed by BiPAP for 2 hours, or BiPAP followed by Vaptherm. A variable washout period was instituted between interventions. The primary end point was change in numeric rating scale before and after each intervention. We planned to enroll 50 patients in total. Results: Among the 803 patients screened over the last 8 months, 62 (26%) were eligible, and 16 (2%) were enrolled so far. Five patients completed the entire study successfully, 4 discontinued the study prematurely due to prolonged relief of dyspnea, and 7 dropped out for various reasons, including inability to tolerate BiPAP (N=3), anxiety (N=2), fatigue (N=1) and pain requiring opioids (N=1). The median baseline numeric rating score for dyspnea was 7/10 (interquartile range (IQR) 5-8), and the median baseline Borg score was 4/10 (3-7). Interim analysis revealed that BiPAP was associated with a median change in numeric rating score of -3 (N=10, IQR -6.3 to -1, p=0.007) and modified Borg score of -1 (N=10, IQR -3 to 0.3, p=0.058), while Vapotherm was associated with a median change in numeric rating score of -2 (N=9, IQR -3 to -1, p=0.011) and modified Borg score of -2.5 (N=8, IQR -5.5 to -0.1, p=0.051). Among the 5 individuals who completed the entire study, 2 preferred Vapotherm, 2 favored BiPAP, and 1 liked both. The respiratory rate decreased and the oxygen saturation improved with both interventions. No significant toxicities were observed. Conclusions: We were successfully able to enroll patients onto this clinic trial. Our preliminary results suggest that BiPAP and Vapotherm are highly efficacious in providing relief for patients with persistent refractory dyspnea. A direct comparison of the two interventions will be done upon study completion. Further research is necessary to confirm our findings.