Faculty Bibliography

The repurposing of old drugs for new indications is becoming more accepted as a cost-efficient solution for complicated health problems. However, older drugs are often forgotten when they are not repositioned. This analysis makes a case for re-exploration of dermorphin for intrathecal use in postoperative pain and in a palliative context, with the goal of re-establishing this compound. Dermorphin was isolated from the skin of an Amazonian frog, characterized and identified as a bioactive heptapeptide by Vittorio Erspamer's research group in the early 1980s. It was traditionally called "Kambo" or "Sapo" by Amazon tribes and was used to improve their physical and psychic skills as hunters. Its structure is rather enigmatic, containing a D-amino acid, and its pharmacological activity in a number of assays was found to be quite impressive and superior to morphine. Moreover, it has been established as more selective and potent with long-lasting analgesia compared to morphine after intracerebroventricular administration in animal models. In 1985, the first clinical trial results of a randomized, placebo-controlled study in postoperative pain were reported, and dermorphin administered via the intrathecal route was again impressively superior over the placebo and the reference compound morphine. This milestone study was apparently minimally read by clinicians, as the study has never been referenced; only 15 pharmacological and review papers after 1985 mentioned the results, with not one being a clinical paper. The interest in dermorphin decreased after 1985, and the compound was never again introduced in the clinical setting. Considering the enormous pressure to find superior acting opioids, this is quite puzzling. We suggest new clinical studies to further evaluate the safety and efficacy of dermorphin, especially administered via the intrathecal route in postoperative pain or for palliative use in terminal patients.

In recent decades, there has been a revision of the role of institutional review boards with the intention of protecting human subjects from harm and exploitation in research. Informed consent aims to protect the subject by explaining all of the benefits and risks associated with a specific research project. To date, there has not been a review published analyzing issues of informed consent in research in the field of genetic/Omics in subjects with chronic pain, and the current review aims to fill that gap in the ethical aspects of such investigation. Despite the extensive discussion on ethical challenges unique to the field of genetic/Omics, this is the first attempt at addressing ethical challenges regarding Informed Consent Forms for pain research as the primary focus. We see this contribution as an important one, for while ethical issues are too often ignored in pain research in general, the numerous arising ethical issues that are unique to pain genetic/Omics suggest that researchers in the field need to pay even greater attention to the rights of subjects/patients. This article presents the work of the Ethic Committee of the Pain-Omics Group (www.painomics.eu), a consortium of 11 centers that is running the Pain-Omics project funded by the European Community in the 7th Framework Program theme (HEALTH.2013.2.2.1-5-Understanding and controlling pain). The Ethic Committee is composed of 1 member of each group of the consortium as well as key opinion leaders in the field of ethics and pain more generally.

EMA401 is an old molecule, synthesized by Parke-Davis in the last century and characterized at that time as an AT2R antagonist. Professor Maree Smith and her group from the University of Queensland (Australia) patented the drug and many related derivatives and other compounds with high affinity for the AT2R for the indication neuropathic pain in 2004, an example of drug repositioning. After some years of university work, the Australian biotech company Spinifex Pharmaceuticals took over further research and development and characterized the S-enantiomer, code name EMA401, and related compounds in a variety of animal models for neuropathic and cancer pain. EMA401 was selected as the lead compound, based on high selectivity for the AT2R and good oral bioavailability (33%). EMA401, however, was only administered once in a chronic neuropathic pain model, and no data have been published in other pain models, or during steady state, although such data were available for the racemate EMA400 and some related compounds (EMA200, EMA400). A pilot phase IIa study demonstrated the efficacy and safety of the drug taken twice daily as two capsules of 50 mg (400 mg/day). In 2015, Novartis took over the clinical development. Two phase IIb studies designed by Spinifex Pharmaceuticals were put on hold, probably because Novartis wanted to improve the clinical design or collect additional preclinical data. Further data are eagerly awaited, especially since EMA401 is first-in-class in neuropathic pain.

BACKGROUND:Despite growing interest in the therapeutic use of cannabis to manage chronic pain, only limited data that address these issues are available. In recent years, a number of nations have introduced specific laws to allow patients to use cannabis preparations to treat a variety of medical conditions. In 2015, the Italian government authorized the use of cannabis to treat several diseases, including chronic pain generally, spasticity in multiple sclerosis, cachexia and anorexia among AIDS and cancer patients, glaucoma, Tourette syndrome, and certain types of epilepsy. We present the first snapshot of the Italian experience with cannabis use for chronic pain over the initial year of its use. METHODS:This is a retrospective case series analysis of all chronic pain patients treated with oral or vaporized cannabis in six hubs during the initial year following the approval of the new Italian law (December 2015 to November 2016). We evaluated routes of administration, types of cannabis products utilized, dosing, and effectiveness and safety of the treatment. RESULTS:As only one of the six centers has extensively used cannabinoids for intractable chronic pain (614 patients of 659), only the population from Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana (Pisa) was considered. Cannabis tea was the primary mode of delivery, and in almost all cases, it was used in association with all the other pain treatments. Initial and follow-up cannabinoid concentrations were found to vary considerably. At initial follow-up, 76.2% of patients continued the treatment, and <15% stopped the treatment due to side effects (none of which were severe). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:We present the first analysis of Italian clinical practice of the use of cannabinoids for a large variety of chronic pain syndromes. From this initial snapshot, we determined that the treatment seems to be effective and safe, although more data and subsequent trials are needed to better investigate its ideal clinical indication.