|
If you are seeing this message, you may be experiencing temporary network problems. Please wait a few minutes and refresh the page. If the problem persists, you may wish to report it to your local Network Manager.
It is also possible that your web browser is not configured or not able to display style sheets. In this case, although the visual presentation will be degraded, the site should continue to be functional. We recommend using the latest version of Microsoft or Mozilla web browser to help minimise these problems.
Wiley InterScience | ||||||||||||
  AnaesthesiaVolume 48 Issue 4, Pages 281 - 285 Published Online: 22 Feb 2007 Journal compilation © 2010 The Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland Journal of the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland
Abstract | References | Full Text: PDF (Size: 485K) | Related Articles | Citation Tracking  Dose-response for analgesic effect of amitriptyline in chronic pain Copyright 1993 The Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland KEYWORDS
Pain
• chronic •
Ataractics
• antidepressants • tricyclics • amitriptyline ABSTRACT
A randomised, double-blind, multiple dose, crossover study with three 3-week treatment periods was set up to compare the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of amitriptyline in oral doses of 25, 50 or 75 mg. Patients used diaries to assess their pain, and clinic assessments were made at the end of each treatment period. It was found that in 29 patients with chronic (more than 2 months) pain, amitriptyline 75 mg provided significantly greater efficacy than amitriptyline 25 or 50 mg. There was no significant difference in mood scores between the different doses of amitriptyline, but sleep was judged significantly better with 75 mg compared with 25 mg. The incidence of adverse effects was significantly higher with the 75 mg dose, and the principal adverse effects were dry mouth and drowsiness. In the context of chronic pain, the analgesic effect of amitriptyline was shown to have a dose-response unrelated to mood elevation, but there was a dose-response for the incidence of adverse effects. Accepted 14 September 1992 | 
|
