Cited by 99Pain Management and Opioid UsePain Mechanisms and TreatmentsAnesthesia and Pain Management

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Amitriptyline in neuropathic cancer pain in patients on morphine therapy: a randomized placebo‐controlled, double‐blind crossover study

Abstract

Aims and Background: Amitriptyline is the most common analgesic adjuvant used in cancer patients with neuropathic pain, even though no specific studies have demonstrated a benefit. A randomized placebo-controlled, double-blind crossover study was designed to evidence the effects of amitriptyline in patients with neuropathic cancer pain. Methods: Sixteen advanced cancer patients with neuropathic pain on systemic morphine therapy, no longer receiving oncologic treatment, presenting moderate pain (about 4 or more, but less than 7, on a numerical scale of 0-10) in the last week, and given a stable morphine dose in the last 2 days were admitted to the study. During the first week of study, patients were administered 25 mg of amitriptyline or equivalent drops of placebo at night for 3 days and 50 mg for the following 4 days. Doses for patients aged more than 65 years were 15 mg (first 3 days) and 30 mg (3 days after). After a week, a crossover took place for the second week, with the other treatment at an inverse sequence. Opioid consumption, pain intensity, symptoms and adverse effects, mood, sleep, patient's preference, quality of life before starting the study, the first week after and the second week after were recorded. Results: No significant benefits in analgesia were found in the global pain intensity of the previous week of treatment, the least pain intensity or the pain evaluated just after a week of treatment, at the moment of the visit, when amitriptyline was compared with placebo. A significant difference was evidenced for the worst pain (P < 0.035). No differences in opioid doses during the period of study were found. Drowsiness, confusion and dry mouth were significantly more intense with amitriptyline than with placebo (P < 0.036, 0.003, and 0.034, respectively). There were no substantial differences between the two treatments in Spitzer's quality of life score and for each item. No differences in patients' preference for the two treatment periods were found. The analgesic effects of amitriptyline were slight and associated with adverse effects. Conclusions: In light of the results obtained in the study, the extensive use of the drug for cancer pain should be questioned.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/030089160208800310

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Drowsiness was significantly higher with amitriptyline (25-30mg) than placebo in cancer patients with neuropathic pain.

    “In a study of cancer patients with neuropathic pain (Mercadante et al., 2002), it was found that drowsiness was significantly higher with amitriptyline (25-30mg) than placebo.”

    From Antidepressants and their effect on sleep (2005) · cites this paper as Mercadante et al., 2002

  • In cancer patients, drowsiness was significantly more intense with amitriptyline than placebo.

    “Drowsiness sig more intense with AMI vs. PLC (p=.036)”

    From Antidepressants and their effect on sleep (2005) · cites this paper as Mercadante, 2002

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 17

  1. 10.1016/S0304-3959(96)03140-5 · DOI
  2. 10.1097/00002508-199712000-00010 · DOI
  3. 10.1016/0140-6736(92)90545-E · DOI
  4. 10.1016/0304-3959(92)90144-Z · DOI
  5. 10.1016/0304-3959(87)90049-2 · DOI
  6. 10.1055/s-2008-1041078 · DOI
  7. 10.1016/0021-9681(81)90058-8 · DOI
  8. 10.1016/0304-3959(93)90035-N · DOI
  9. 10.1016/S0304-3959(99)00154-2 · DOI
  10. 10.1016/S0140-6736(87)92172-6 · DOI
  11. 10.1016/0304-3959(90)91068-T · DOI
  12. 10.1177/082585979100700411 · DOI
  13. 10.1136/bmj.314.7083.763 · DOI
  14. 10.1080/09699260.1997.11746767 · DOI
  15. 10.1016/S0304-3959(97)00041-9 · DOI
  16. 10.1016/S0304-3959(98)00138-9 · DOI
  17. Kalso E., 1995, Pain, 64, 293

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Mercadante, S., Arcuri, E., Tirelli, W., Villari, P., & Casuccio, A.
Affiliations
  • Società per l’Assistenza al Malato Oncologico Terminale (IT)
  • Instituto Nazionale Tumori Regina Elena (IT)
  • La Maddalena (IT)
  • University of Palermo (IT)
Corresponding author
Mercadante, Sebastiano
Venue
Tumori Journal
Published
2002-05
Volume
88
Issue
3
Pages
239-242
ISSN
  • 0300-8916 (ISSN-L)
  • 2038-2529
OpenAlex
W983461377
Cited by
99
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 5
FWCI
5.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Tumori Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Nova Science Publishers (Nova Science Publishers, Inc.) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology (medical) › Pain Mechanisms and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Anesthesia and Pain Management
Keywords
amitriptyline, neuropathic cancer pain, morphine, adjuvant analgesics, advanced cancer, opioid consumption, adverse effects, sleepiness, quality of life, placebo-controlled crossover trial
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Amitriptyline, Analgesics, Opioid, Double-Blind Method, Drug Administration Schedule, Drug Therapy, Combination, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Morphine, Neoplasms, Neuralgia, Pain Measurement, Quality of Life, Treatment Outcome, Cross-Over Studies, Analgesics, Non-Narcotic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review