Topical capsaicin

2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Dillon Cleary ◽  
Brock Cardon
Keyword(s):  
1992 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
pp. 66-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hiroshi HACHISUKA ◽  
Syunji NAKANO ◽  
Masahiro KUSUHARA ◽  
Yoichiro SASAI

Molecules ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 778
Author(s):  
James N. Campbell ◽  
Randall Stevens ◽  
Peter Hanson ◽  
James Connolly ◽  
Diana S. Meske ◽  
...  

Capsaicin is a potent agonist of the TRPV1 channel, a transduction channel that is highly expressed in nociceptive fibers (pain fibers) throughout the peripheral nervous system. Given the importance of TRPV1 as one of several transduction channels in nociceptive fibers, much research has been focused on the potential therapeutic benefits of using TRPV1 antagonists for the management of pain. However, an antagonist has two limitations. First, an antagonist in principle generally only affects one receptor. Secondly, most antagonists must have an ongoing presence on the receptor to have an effect. Capsaicin overcomes both liabilities by disrupting peripheral terminals of nociceptive fibers that express TRPV1, and thereby affects all of the potential means of activating that pain fiber (not just TRPV1 function). This disruptive effect is dependent on the dose and can occur within minutes. Thus, unlike a typical receptor antagonist, continued bioavailability at the level of the receptor is not necessary. By disrupting the entire terminal of the TRPV1-expressing nociceptive fiber, capsaicin blocks all the activation mechanisms within that fiber, and not just TRPV1 function. Topical capsaicin, an FDA approved treatment for neuropathic pain, addresses pain from abnormal nociceptor activity in the superficial layers of the skin. Effects after a single administration are evident over a period of weeks to months, but in time are fully reversible. This review focuses on the rationale for using capsaicin by injection for painful conditions such as osteoarthritis (OA) and provides an update on studies completed to date.


CJEM ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (S1) ◽  
pp. S32-S33
Author(s):  
A. Ruberto ◽  
M. Sivilotti ◽  
S. Forrester ◽  
A. Hall ◽  
F. Crawford ◽  
...  

Introduction: One of the most common adverse effects of habitual cannabis use is hyperemesis—recurrent bouts of protracted vomiting, retching and abdominal pain superimposed on a baseline of daily nausea and anorexia. Largely anecdotal evidence supports the use of haloperidol, benzodiazepines or topical capsaicin over traditional antiemetics, yet little is known about the cause or optimal treatment of this newly recognized disorder. We report the results of one of the first clinical trials on so-called cannabis hyperemesis syndrome (NCT03056482). Methods: We approached adults with a working diagnosis of hyperemesis due to cannabis, provided they had ongoing emesis for >2 hours, a cyclic pattern of 3+ episodes in the last 2 years, and near daily use of cannabis by inhalation. We excluded those who were pregnant, deemed unreliable, or using opioids. Subjects provided written consent to be randomized during the index or any subsequent visit to either haloperidol (with a nested randomization to either 0.05 mg/kg or 0.1 mg/kg) or ondansetron 8 mg intravenously in a quadruple-blind fashion, and to be followed for 7 days. The primary outcome was the average reduction from baseline in abdominal pain and nausea (each measured on a 10-cm VAS) at 2 hours. While the original trial design allowed for crossover, the primary analysis used only the first treatment period since fewer than the prespecified threshold of 20% of subjects crossed over. Results: We enrolled 33 subjects, of whom 30 (16 men, 29+/-11 years old, using 1.5+/-0.9 g/day since age 19+/-2 years) were treated at least once (haloperidol 13, ondansetron 17). Haloperidol at either dose was superior to ondansetron (difference 2.3 cm [95%CI 0.6, 4.0]; p = 0.01), with similar improvements in both pain and nausea, as well as less rescue antiemetics (27% vs 61%; p = 0.04), and shorter time to ED departure (3.1+/-1.7 vs 5.6+/-4.5 hours; p = 0.03 Wilcoxon rank sum). There were two (haloperidol) vs six (ondansetron) return visits for ongoing nausea/vomiting, as well as two return visits for acute dystonia, both in the higher dose haloperidol group. Conclusion: Haloperidol is superior to ondansetron for the acute symptomatic treatment of patients with ongoing hyperemesis attributed to habitual cannabis use. The efficacy of this agent over ondansetron provides insight into the mechanism of this new disorder, now almost a daily diagnosis in many Canadian emergency departments.


2021 ◽  
Vol 43 ◽  
pp. 35-40
Author(s):  
Ali Pourmand ◽  
Gabriel Esmailian ◽  
Maryann Mazer-Amirshahi ◽  
Owen Lee-Park ◽  
Quincy K. Tran

2001 ◽  
Vol 120 (5) ◽  
pp. A130
Author(s):  
Joseph Lysy ◽  
Mima Sistieri-Ittah ◽  
Yardena Israelit ◽  
Avigail Shmueli ◽  
Eran Goldin

Pain ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 65 (2) ◽  
pp. 189-196 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Beydoun ◽  
D. B.S. Dyke ◽  
T. J. Morrow ◽  
K. L. Casey

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document