OBJECTIVE This study determined the antihyperalgesic effect of CNSB002, a sodium channel blocker with antioxidant properties given alone and in combinations with morphine in rat models of inflammatory and neuropathic pain. DESIGN Dose response curves for nonsedating doses of morphine and CNSB002 given intraperitoneally alone and together in combinations were constructed for antihyperalgesic effect using paw withdrawal from noxious heat in two rat pain models: carrageenan-induced paw inflammation and streptozotocin (STZ)-induced diabetic neuropathy. RESULTS The maximum nonsedating doses were: morphine, 3.2 mg/kg; CNSB002 10.0 mg/kg; 5.0 mg/kg CNSB002 with morphine 3.2 mg/kg in combination. The doses calculated to cause 50% reversal of hyperalgesia (ED50) were 7.54 (1.81) and 4.83 (1.54) in the carrageenan model and 44.18 (1.37) and 9.14 (1.24) in the STZ-induced neuropathy model for CNSB002 and morphine, respectively (mg/kg; mean, SEM). These values were greater than the maximum nonsedating doses. The ED50 values for morphine when given in combination with CNSB002 (5 mg/kg) were less than the maximum nonsedating dose: 0.56 (1.55) in the carrageenan model and 1.37 (1.23) in the neuropathy model (mg/kg; mean, SEM). The antinociception after morphine (3.2 mg/kg) was increased by co-administration with CNSB002 from 28.0 and 31.7% to 114.6 and 56.9% reversal of hyperalgesia in the inflammatory and neuropathic models, respectively (P < 0.01; one-way analysis of variance-significantly greater than either drug given alone). CONCLUSIONS The maximum antihyperalgesic effect achievable with nonsedating doses of morphine may be increased significantly when the drug is used in combination with CNSB002.

BACKGROUND There is good evidence of selective outcome reporting in published reports of randomized trials. METHODS We examined reporting practices for trials of gabapentin funded by Pfizer and Warner-Lambert's subsidiary, Parke-Davis (hereafter referred to as Pfizer and Parke-Davis) for off-label indications (prophylaxis against migraine and treatment of bipolar disorders, neuropathic pain, and nociceptive pain), comparing internal company documents with published reports. RESULTS We identified 20 clinical trials for which internal documents were available from Pfizer and Parke-Davis; of these trials, 12 were reported in publications. For 8 of the 12 reported trials, the primary outcome defined in the published report differed from that described in the protocol. Sources of disagreement included the introduction of a new primary outcome (in the case of 6 trials), failure to distinguish between primary and secondary outcomes (2 trials), relegation of primary outcomes to secondary outcomes (2 trials), and failure to report one or more protocol-defined primary outcomes (5 trials). Trials that presented findings that were not significant (P > or = 0.05) for the protocol-defined primary outcome in the internal documents either were not reported in full or were reported with a changed primary outcome. The primary outcome was changed in the case of 5 of 8 published trials for which statistically significant differences favoring gabapentin were reported. Of the 21 primary outcomes described in the protocols of the published trials, 6 were not reported at all and 4 were reported as secondary outcomes. Of 28 primary outcomes described in the published reports, 12 were newly introduced. CONCLUSIONS We identified selective outcome reporting for trials of off-label use of gabapentin. This practice threatens the validity of evidence for the effectiveness of off-label interventions.

OBJECTIVE To summarize the available evidence on the use of anticonvulsant drugs for the treatment of various conditions of neuropathic pain. METHODS This is a systematic review on quantity and quality of evidence for using anticonvulsants in the management of neuropathic pain. Medical Subject Heading terms searched were "anticonvulsants" and "pain." Data sources used were the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Medline 1966 to May 2006, Embase 1980 to May 2006, and CINAHL 1982 to May 2006. Additional studies were identified by hand searching the reference lists of retrieved papers and by autoalerts subsequent to May 2006. Randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses included. Non-English papers excluded. Evidence and evidence gaps with regard to specific conditions and drugs identified. RESULTS Concise summary of all existing evidence or lack thereof was produced. A succinct table is presented of the efficacy of specific drugs for specific conditions and the nature and quality of evidence. The paper outlines the incidence of specific neuropathic pain conditions within various population groups and assesses the quantity of available evidence in regard to the frequency that those conditions are likely to occur. DISCUSSION Gaps in the evidence are striking. Recommendations directly supported by the evidence by drug and by condition are made.

Cancer pain treatment according to the guidelines of World Health Organization (WHO) is effective and safe in majority of patients. 818 neuropathic cancer pain patients were enrolled in the study and pain was managed according to WHO analgesic ladder and followed up to six months. Main adjuvant drugs used were amitryptaline (29.9%), gabapentin (29.9%) and gabapentine with dexamethasone in (19.9%) and dexamethasone alone in (20.2%) patients. Opioids prescribed were mainly tramadol, codeine sulphate and morphine. 52% patients received morphine as rescue analgesic. At the end of six months 53.2% patients had no pain and 41.9% of patients had mild pain as compared to 0% and 10.2% patients respectively at the first visit. 4.9% of patients had moderate pain even after the treatment. Neuropathic cancer pain can be relieved by multimodal treatment following WHO guidelines as majority of cancer patients suffered multiple types of pain.

BACKGROUND Previous systematic reviews concluded that tricyclics antidepressants are superior to gabapentin for neuropathic pain, but were based on indirect comparisons from placebo-controlled trials. PURPOSE To evaluate gabapentin versus tricyclic antidepressants for diabetic neuropathy and post-herpetic neuralgia, using direct and indirect comparisons. DATA SOURCES MEDLINE (1966 to March Week 4 2008), the Cochrane central register of controlled trials (1st quarter 2008), and reference lists. STUDY SELECTION We selected randomized trials directly comparing gabapentin versus tricyclic antidepressants or comparing either of these medications versus placebo. DATA EXTRACTION Studies were reviewed, abstracted, and quality-rated by two independent investigators using predefined criteria. DATA SYNTHESIS We performed a meta-analysis of head-to-head trials using a random effects model and compared the results to an adjusted indirect analysis of placebo-controlled trials. RESULTS In three head-to-head trials, there was no difference between gabapentin and tricyclic antidepressants for achieving pain relief (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.29). In adjusted indirect analyses, gabapentin was worse than tricyclic antidepressants for achieving pain relief (RR = 0.41, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.74). The discrepancy between direct and indirect analyses was statistically significant (p = 0.008). Placebo-controlled tricyclic trials were conducted earlier than the gabapentin trials, reported lower placebo response rates, had more methodological shortcomings, and were associated with funnel plot asymmetry. CONCLUSIONS Though direct evidence is limited, we found no difference in likelihood of achieving pain relief between gabapentin and tricyclic antidepressants for diabetic neuropathy and post-herpetic neuralgia. Indirect analyses that combine data from sets of trials conducted in different eras can be unreliable.

Despite great advances in the fields of pain management and palliative care, pain directly or indirectly associated with a cancer diagnosis remains significantly undertreated. The present paper reviews the current standard for cancer pain management and highlights new treatments and targeted interventional techniques.

The management of chronic low back pain (CLBP) has proven very challenging in North America, as evidenced by its mounting socioeconomic burden. Choosing among available nonsurgical therapies can be overwhelming for many stakeholders, including patients, health providers, policy makers, and third-party payers. Although all parties share a common goal and wish to use limited health-care resources to support interventions most likely to result in clinically meaningful improvements, there is often uncertainty about the most appropriate intervention for a particular patient. To help understand and evaluate the various commonly used nonsurgical approaches to CLBP, the North American Spine Society has sponsored this special focus issue of The Spine Journal, titled Evidence-Informed Management of Chronic Low Back Pain Without Surgery. Articles in this special focus issue were contributed by leading spine practitioners and researchers, who were invited to summarize the best available evidence for a particular intervention and encouraged to make this information accessible to nonexperts. Each of the articles contains five sections (description, theory, evidence of efficacy, harms, and summary) with common subheadings to facilitate comparison across the 24 different interventions profiled in this special focus issue, blending narrative and systematic review methodology as deemed appropriate by the authors. It is hoped that articles in this special focus issue will be informative and aid in decision making for the many stakeholders evaluating nonsurgical interventions for CLBP.

Since the discoveries of Camillo Golgi and Ramón y Cajal, the precise cellular organization of the cerebellum has inspired major computational theories, which have then influenced the scientific thought not only on the cerebellar function but also on the brain as a whole. However, six major issues revealing a discrepancy between morphologically inspired hypothesis and function have emerged.(1) The cerebellar granular layer does not simply operate a simple combinatorial decorrelation of the inputs but performs more complex non-linear spatio-temporal transformations and is endowed with synaptic plasticity.(2) Transmission along the ascending axon and parallel fibers does not lead to beam formation but rather to vertical columns of activation.(3) The olivo-cerebellar loop could perform complex timing operations rather than error detection and teaching.(4) Purkinje cell firing dynamics are much more complex than for a linear integrator and include pacemaking, burst-pause discharges, and bistable states in response to mossy and climbing fiber synaptic inputs.(5) Long-term synaptic plasticity is far more complex than traditional parallel fiber LTD and involves also other cerebellar synapses.(6) Oscillation and resonance could set up coherent cycles of activity designing a functional geometry that goes far beyond pre-wired anatomical circuits. These observations clearly show that structure is not sufficient to explain function and that a precise knowledge on dynamics is critical to understand how the cerebellar circuit operates.

The aim of the trial was to assess alpidem efficacy in preventing and treating the benzodiazepine (BZ) withdrawal syndrome (WS). A multicentre, double-blind, randomized versus placebo, parallel group study of six-week duration was carried out in outpatients suffering from generalized anxiety or adjustment disorder with an anxious mood and taking non-hypnotic BZ as continuous course of therapy of at least one-year duration. At the entry, the patients abruptly discontinued BZs and were treated with 50 mg/bid/tid of alpidem or placebo. Withdrawal syndrome diagnosis was (regarding treatment allocation) formulated by an independent psychiatrist, according to DSM-III-R and an appropriate scale, the SESSB. One hundred seventy-three patients were randomized and 148 completed the study. Withdrawal syndrome occurred in 27 patients of the alpidem group (31.0%) and in 38 patients of the placebo group (44.2%). A severe WS was diagnosed in 11.1% of the patients in the alpidem group and in 31.6% of the placebo group. If not having been withdrawn from the market, alpidem could have been useful for the prevention of BZ withdrawal syndrome.

Posthypoxic myoclonus is a rare and devastating complication of near-fatal cardiopulmonary arrest. Despite treatment with available anti-myoclonic agents, some patients may recover cognitively but remain completely disabled by severe myoclonus. We report a 16-year-old patient with severe treatment-refractory posthypoxic myoclonus, which improved markedly with administration of the drug sodium oxybate.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are prescribed widely in Italy. They include nonspecific NSAIDs (NS-NSAIDs) and the newly marketed cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-2 specific inhibitors (COXIBs) celecoxib and rofecoxib. The objective of this study was to describe the prescribing patterns for NS-NSAIDs and COXIBs in a local Italian area, analysing an administrative database. PATIENTS AND METHODS We extracted from the database information on subjects who had received at least one reimbursed prescription of an NSAID during the period between 1 January 2001 and 31 December 2001, including age, sex, patient identification code, Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification system code, strength, formulation, number of packs prescribed, prescription date, and prescription of gastroprotective agents (GPAs) on the same day as the prescription of the NSAID. On the basis of the type of NSAID received, we divided the patients into five cohorts: oral NS-NSAIDs only during the observed year, injectable NS-NSAIDs only, celecoxib only, rofecoxib only, and a combination. For descriptive purposes, we defined three age groups:<40 years, 40-64 years, and >64 years. The duration of exposure to NSAID therapy was calculated using the most commonly prescribed dose for the different drugs. Subjects receiving >/=30 doses per year were defined as "regular users". Analyses included mean age, mean duration of exposure, percentage of regular users, and percentage of GPAs co-prescribed in the different cohorts. RESULTS NSAIDs were prescribed to 62 059 subjects from a resident population of 365 321 inhabitants; 43.8% received oral NS-NSAIDs only, 22.6% injectable NS-NSAIDs only, 7.2% celecoxib only, 5.2% rofecoxib only, and 22% different regimens of different types of NSAIDs. The mean duration of treatment increased with age in all cohorts; the mean age was 56 years in the NS-NSAID cohort, 61 years in the celecoxib cohort, and 62 years in the rofecoxib cohort (p = 0.01, COXIBs vs NS-NSAIDs). The mean duration of therapy was 11.4 days/year for injectable NS-NSAIDs, 43.8 days/year for rofecoxib, 50.5 days/year for oral NS-NSAIDs, and 53.7 days/year for celecoxib. Fifty-four percent of subjects in the oral NS-NSAID cohort were regular users versus 64% in the rofecoxib and 70% in the celecoxib groups (p = 0.001, COXIBs vs NS-NSAIDs). Co-prescription with GPAs was 9.5% for NS-NSAIDs, 8.4% for rofecoxib, and 7.7% for celecoxib. CONCLUSIONS Analysis of an administrative database in Italy showed a trend suggesting that COXIBs are prescribed to an older population and for a longer period of time than NS-NSAIDs, and that their use is less frequently associated with GPAs.

We describe a 63-year-old man in sinus rhythm (SR) with an ischaemic stroke involving basal ganglia region on the right side. The patient was known to be heterozygous for factor V Leiden (FVL) mutation. On diagnostic work-up, no arterial sources of embolism were found. Transoesophageal echocardiography evidenced a left atrial (LA) thrombosis without relevant cardiopathies. LA thrombosis is generally associated to atrial fibrillation, atrial enlargement, mitral valve stenosis and left ventricular dysfunction, whereas mitral regurgitation is considered protective. To our knowledge, this is the first report of cardioembolic stroke related to a LA thrombosis in a patient in SR without risk factors for thrombus formation except for FVL heterozygosity.

Born in Corteno, a tiny village in the province of Brescia, Camillo Golgi studied at the University of Pavia where he graduated in medicine in 1865 under the guidance of the psychiatrist Cesare Lombroso who sparked his vocation to study the brain. Golgi then began to learn histological techniques under the direction of the pathologist Giulio Bizzozero. In 1872 he moved to Abbiategrasso as chief of a hospital for chronic diseases. In a rudimentary laboratory he developed the silver-bichromate staining technique, the 'black reaction', which was a breakthrough for nervous tissue structure research. While in Abbiategrasso Golgi demonstrated the branching of the axons, and observed striatal and cortical lesions in a case of chorea. He returned to Pavia as Professor of Histology and General Pathology, and made a series of important discoveries that still bear his name: the Golgi tendon organ, the Golgi-Mazzoni corpuscles, another Golgi method to stain nerve cells based on the use of potassium dichromate and mercuric chloride, the canaliculi of the parietal cells of the gastric glands (Muller-Golgi tubules), the Golgi-Rezzonico myelin's annular apparatus (or Golgi-Rezzonico horny funnels), the cycle of malarian parasites (Golgi cycle), the relationship between recurrent malarian fever bouts and the multiplication of the Plasmodium in the blood (Golgi law), the relationship between the vascular pole of the Malpighian glomerulus and the distal tubule, the Golgi's pericellular nets and finally, and most importantly, the cytoplasmic 'internal reticular apparatus'(Golgi apparatus). In 1906 Golgi was awarded the Nobel prize for Medicine or Physiology. He died in Pavia on 21 January 1921.

HASH(0x4f61a00)

The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of atomoxetine hydrochloride (ATX) in the treatment of adults with atypical manifestations of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)(not otherwise specified [NOS]). We hypothesized that treatment with ATX will be safe and efficacious for the treatment of adults with ADHD-NOS. This was a 6-week, open-label, prospective treatment study of ATX monotherapy in 45 adult patients with ADHD-NOS assessed using standardized instruments for diagnosis and a robust oral daily dose of up to 1.2 mg/kg/day or 120 mg/day. Symptom severity was assessed with the adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Report Scale (AISRS) and Clinical Global Impression Scale. Treatment with ATX at an average daily dose of 78.7 +/- 27.8 mg was associated with a statistically and clinically significant reduction in ADHD symptoms relative to baseline as assessed through the (AISRS)(-12.1 +/- 8.4; P < 0.001). Using a categorical definition of response (CGI-I much or very much improved), a majority (N = 29; 64%) of subjects were rated as improved at study endpoint. Treatment with ATX was relatively well tolerated. These open-label results suggest that ATX may be safe and effective in the treatment of adults meeting criteria for ADHD-NOS and support the need for further controlled clinical trials of ATX in this population.

BACKGROUND Drugs for neuropathic pain have incomplete efficacy and dose-limiting side-effects when given as monotherapy. We assessed the efficacy and tolerability of combined nortriptyline and gabapentin compared with each drug given alone. METHODS In this double-blind, double-dummy, crossover trial, patients with diabetic polyneuropathy or postherpetic neuralgia, and who had a daily pain score of at least 4 (scale 0-10), were enrolled and treated at one study site in Canada between Nov 5, 2004, and Dec 13, 2007. 56 patients were randomised in a 1:1:1 ratio with a balanced Latin square design to receive one of three sequences of daily oral gabapentin, nortriptyline, and their combination. In sequence, a different drug was given to each randomised group in three treatment periods. During each 6-week treatment period, drug doses were titrated towards maximum tolerated dose. The primary outcome was mean daily pain at maximum tolerated dose. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN73178636. FINDINGS 45 patients completed all three treatment periods; 47 patients completed at least two treatment periods and were analysed for the primary outcome. Mean daily pain (0-10; numerical rating scale) was 5.4 (95% CI 5.0 to 5.8) at baseline, and at maximum tolerated dose, pain was 3.2 (2.5 to 3.8) for gabapentin, 2.9 (2.4 to 3.4) for nortriptyline, and 2.3 (1.8 to 2.8) for combination treatment. Pain with combination treatment was significantly lower than with gabapentin (-0.9, 95% CI -1.4 to -0.3, p=0.001) or nortriptyline alone (-0.6, 95% CI -1.1 to -0.1, p=0.02). At maximum tolerated dose, the most common adverse event was dry mouth, which was significantly less frequent in patients on gabapentin than on nortriptyline (p<0.0001) or combination treatment (p<0.0001). No serious adverse events were recorded for any patients during the trial. INTERPRETATION Combined gabapentin and nortriptyline seems to be more efficacious than either drug given alone for neuropathic pain, therefore we recommend use of this combination in patients who show a partial response to either drug given alone and seek additional pain relief. Future trials should compare other combinations to their respective monotherapies for treatment of such pain. FUNDING Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

AIM: The aim of this trial was to obtain further data on the efficacy and safety of benfluorex as an add-on therapy in type 2 diabetic patients insufficiently controlled by sulfonylurea monotherapy who had a limitation for the use of metformin during a 4-month extension period following a 4-month double-blind trial. METHODS: Patients who completed the 18-week double-blind period entered the 16-week extension period. Patients in the benfluorex group during the double-blind period continued benfluorex 450mg/day (B-B group), whilst patients in the placebo group switched to benfluorex 450mg/day (P-B group). The main efficacy criterion was HbA(1c), analyzed as the change from week 18 (W18) to the end of treatment using a two-sided Student paired t-test. Secondary criteria were fasting plasma glucose (FPG), insulin resistance and lipids. RESULTS: Between W18 and the end of treatment, HbA(1c) decreased in the P-B group from 8.53+/-1.37% to 7.49+/-1.04%(P<0.001) and remained stable in the B-B group from 7.52+/-1.07% to 7.53+/-1.14%(NS). In the P-B group, parameters of glycemic control showed improvements from W18 to week 34 (W34) which were similar to those observed from baseline to W18 in the B-B group. Overall, the target HbA(1c)(</=7%) was achieved in 36%(103 of 289) of patients and a decrease in HbA(1c) of at least 1% was seen in 44%(128 of 289) of patients. Digestive disorders were the most common adverse events and the incidence of diarrhoea was 4.9% in patients receiving benfluorex for 34 weeks. CONCLUSION: The beneficial effect of benfluorex as add-on therapy in lowering HbA(1c) at W18 was maintained at W34 without evidence for a loss of efficacy or an increased incidence of side effects over a 34-week follow-up.

OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of paroxetine in patients with burning mouth syndrome (BMS). DESIGN In a 12-week open-label, noncomparative, prospective study, 71 subjects with primary BMS were assigned to receive an initial dosage of paroxetine (10 or 20 mg/day). The dosage was increased to a maximum of 30 mg/day. Of these patients, 52 were available to examine the efficacy of treatment in this study. RESULTS The cumulative proportion of responders was 80.8%(42/52). Of those responding, complete remission of pain was observed in 70.4%(19/27) of patients by week 12. The effects of paroxetine were dose-dependent. The incidence of adverse reactions for the initial daily dosage of 10 mg (41%) was significantly lower than that for 20 mg (76%)(chi(2) test). No serious safety issues were observed. CONCLUSION About 80% of BMS patients experienced pain reduction with 12 weeks of paroxetine treatment with only minor transient side effects. These results suggest that paroxetine may be useful in the treatment of patients with BMS.

We assessed the efficacy and safety of a flexible-dose pregabalin regimen in patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) or postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) under clinical practice conditions. Further, the trial investigated the correlation of unspecific measures of change (patient and physician global impression of change, PGIC and CGIC) and specific measures of morbidity. The primary outcomes of this prospective, open-label, non-controlled study were the correlation between global status (PGIC and CGIC) and changes in pain, sleep, and anxiety scores as assessed on numerical or visual rating scales. A total of 217 outpatients were included in 53 centres. The most frequently used dosing regimen involved a starting dose of 150mg/d and dose escalation to 300mg/d after one week (mean: 301mg/d, administered in two doses). The significant changes on pain, sleep and anxiety scales (-40%,-43%,-42%) between baseline and study end after 4-week pregabalin treatment were paralleled by the changes in ratings in both the PGIC and CGIC. The correlation with both PGIC and CGIC was 0.60 for pain, 0.51 for sleep and 0.20 or 0.13 for the correlation of anxiety with PGIC and CGIC, respectively. All correlations with exception of the pair CGIC/anxiety reached statistical significance. In conclusion, pregabalin in a flexible-dose regimen improved pain, sleep, anxiety and general state, and was well tolerated. The efficacy and safety profile of pregabalin was consistent with the data from the controlled clinical trials. The PGIC and CGIC and the specific pain and sleep scores, but not the anxiety score were generally well correlated but not synonymous.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this trial was to evaluate the effects of alpha-lipoic acid (ALA) on positive sensory symptoms and neuropathic deficits in diabetic patients with distal symmetric polyneuropathy (DSP). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 181 diabetic patients in Russia and Israel received once-daily oral doses of 600 mg (n = 45)(ALA600), 1,200 mg (n = 47)(ALA1200), and 1,800 mg (ALA1800) of ALA (n = 46) or placebo (n = 43) for 5 weeks after a 1-week placebo run-in period. The primary outcome measure was the change from baseline of the Total Symptom Score (TSS), including stabbing pain, burning pain, paresthesia, and asleep numbness of the feet. Secondary end points included individual symptoms of TSS, Neuropathy Symptoms and Change (NSC) score, Neuropathy Impairment Score (NIS), and patients' global assessment of efficacy. RESULTS: Mean TSS did not differ significantly at baseline among the treatment groups and on average decreased by 4.9 points (51%) in ALA600, 4.5 (48%) in ALA1200, and 4.7 (52%) in ALA1800 compared with 2.9 points (32%) in the placebo group (all P < 0.05 vs. placebo). The corresponding response rates (>/=50% reduction in TSS) were 62, 50, 56, and 26%, respectively. Significant improvements favoring all three ALA groups were also noted for stabbing and burning pain, the NSC score, and the patients' global assessment of efficacy. The NIS was numerically reduced. Safety analysis showed a dose-dependent increase in nausea, vomiting, and vertigo. CONCLUSIONS: Oral treatment with ALA for 5 weeks improved neuropathic symptoms and deficits in patients with DSP. An oral dose of 600 mg once daily appears to provide the optimum risk-to-benefit ratio.

BACKGROUND The standard measure of efficacy used in migraine trials is a 4-point patient-rated headache pain intensity (HPI) scale. However, it has been suggested that using a stopwatch to measure the time to meaningful pain relief can provide a more precise measurement of treatment response. OBJECTIVE This study evaluated the sensitivity of a stopwatch method for detecting meaningful relief of headache pain and the correlation of this method with the HPI scale and a 5-point pain relief scale. METHODS In this open-label, parallel-group pilot study, patients were randomized to receive oral eletriptan 40 mg, eletriptan 80 mg, or rizatriptan 10 mg for the treatment of a single acute migraine attack. The effect of study treatment on migraine pain was assessed immediately before dosing and at 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, and 4 hours after dosing. At each time point, patients recorded the 3 types of pain assessment in a patient diary. HPI was rated using the standard 4-point International Headache Society pain intensity scale (from 0 = no pain to 3 = severe pain). Pain relief was rated on a 5-point pain relief scale (from 4 = no relief to 0 = complete relief). The time to the onset of meaningful pain relief was measured using a stopwatch. At 4 hours after dosing, patients provided a global rating of the overall efficacy of study medication on a 5-point scale (from 0 = poor to 4 = excellent). RESULTS Seventy-nine patients participated in the trial (78.5% female; mean [SD] age, 37.7 [9.8] years; 58.2% white). The median times to meaningful pain relief measured by stopwatch were 84, 72, and 93 minutes for eletriptan 40 mg, eletriptan 80 mg, and rizatriptan 10 mg, respectively (log-rank P = 0.029, eletriptan 80 mg vs rizatriptan 10 mg). At 90 minutes (approximating the median time to meaningful pain relief on the stopwatch), headache response rates using HPI scoring (mild to no pain) were 65%, 68%, and 52% in the respective treatment groups, with no significant difference between groups. On the pain relief scale, the corresponding mean (SD) scores at 90 minutes were 1.6 (1.2), 1.4 (1.3), and 2.0 (1.4)(P = NS). The pain relief-defined response (> or = 75% pain relief) at 90 minutes did not differ significantly between the 3 treatment groups (62%, 56%, and 48%). Detection of early improvement (0.5 and 1 hour) was similar with the HPI and pain relief scales. CONCLUSION The results of this open-label pilot study suggest the convergent validity of 3 pain-assessment methods in migraine, but indicate that the use of a stopwatch may be a more sensitive method for detecting between-group differences.

BACKGROUND Gabapentin and nortriptyline have not been compared in a randomized trial in post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN). The present study was, therefore, undertaken to determine their comparative efficacy and tolerability in the treatment of post-herpetic neuralgia. PATIENTS AND METHODS The study was a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial of 9 weeks duration. Adult PHN patients with history of > 8 weeks of PHN pain after healing of rash, a pain intensity of at least 40 mm on a 100 mm visual analog scale at screening and at randomization, and average pain score of at least 4 on the Likert scale during the baseline week were included in the study. Gabapentin and nortriptyline were given in incremental doses at 2-weekly intervals till a maximum tolerated dose was obtained. The primary efficacy parameter was change in pain score (11-point Likert scale) from baseline to the end of the study period. RESULTS 70 patients were available for intention-to-treat analysis. The average pain scores on the Likert scale were significantly reduced at the end of study in both the treatment groups with 47.6% and 42.8% reduction in pain scores in nortriptyline and gabapentin groups, respectively. Patients showed significant improvement in sleep scores in both the treatment groups nortriptyline (46.0%) and gabapentin (52.0%). The VAS and the SF-MPQ scores for pain were significantly reduced in both the groups. Gabapentin was, however, better tolerated as compared to nortriptyline. CONCLUSION Gabapentin was shown to be equally efficacious but was better tolerated compared to nortriptyline and can be considered a suitable alternative for the treatment of PHN.

OBJECTIVE Olanzapine-fluoxetine combination has shown efficacy in the acute treatment of depressive episodes in patients with bipolar I disorder. The present analyses examined the efficacy and safety of longer term treatment with olanzapine-fluoxetine combination or olanzapine monotherapy in a 6-month open-label extension study. METHOD 376 patients with DSM-IV bipolar I disorder, depressed, who completed an acute trial entered the open-label study and received 1 week of olanzapine monotherapy (5-20 mg/day). At all subsequent visits, patients could choose between olanzapine monotherapy or olanzapine-fluoxetine combination (6/25, 6/50, or 12/50 mg/day). Three treatment groups were defined retrospectively according to the medication course taken from week 1: olanzapine, olanzapine-fluoxetine combination, or switched. The efficacy measures were the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Clinical Global Impressions-Bipolar Version, and Young Mania Rating Scale. The study was conducted from July 2000 to May 2002. RESULTS Among patients who started in remission, MADRS total scores did not change significantly from baseline to endpoint in the olanzapine-fluoxetine combination (0.8) or olanzapine (0.3) groups, but increased slightly in the switched (2.3, p =.02) group. For patients who started in nonremission, MADRS total scores decreased significantly in all groups (olanzapine-fluoxetine combination:-5.7, p =.001; olanzapine:-11.6, p =.004; switched:-6.4, p =.015). The majority of patients who entered the study in nonremission achieved remission (MADRS total score < or = 12) during the trial (olanzapine-fluoxetine combination: 66.7%, olanzapine: 64.7%, switched: 62.5%). The overall rate of depressive relapse was 27.4%, and the overall incidence of mania emergence was 5.9%. CONCLUSIONS The present findings suggest that long-term treatment with olanzapine-fluoxetine combination may be a useful option for the management of depressive symptoms and carries a low risk of mania emergence.