Case Study: Complex Regional Pain Disorder In A White Male ✓ Solved

Case study: Complex Regional Pain Disorder in a white male w

Case study: Complex Regional Pain Disorder in a white male with hip pain. Review the case details and analyze three treatment decisions: 1) initiation of milnacipran (Savella) with titration schedule; 2) dose reduction to 25 mg twice daily; 3) change to 25 mg morning and 50 mg bedtime. For each decision, provide the rationale, expected outcomes, and reported results. Discuss ethical considerations (confidentiality, informed consent), explain multimodal management principles for CRPS including risks of opioids and drug interactions (e.g., serotonin syndrome), and counsel regarding realistic pain expectations. Write a 1000‑word paper addressing these points with in-text citations and include 10 credible references.

Paper For Above Instructions

Introduction and case summary

The patient is a white male with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) manifesting as persistent hip and leg pain after injury. Three sequential pharmacologic decisions were made: initiation of milnacipran (Savella) with progressive titration, reduction to 25 mg twice daily after side effects emerged, and later asymmetric dosing of 25 mg morning / 50 mg bedtime to target nocturnal worsening. The clinical plan must balance analgesic benefit, tolerability, patient function, safety monitoring, and ethical communication about realistic goals for a chronic neuropathic pain syndrome (Harden et al., 2010; Bruehl, 2015).

Decision 1: Initiation and titration of milnacipran (Savella)

Rationale: Milnacipran is an SNRI with some analgesic properties demonstrated in fibromyalgia and neuropathic pain contexts. SNRIs are recommended among first-line options for neuropathic pain syndromes because they modulate descending monoaminergic pain inhibition (Finnerup et al., 2015). Given the patient’s severe pain (9/10) and functional impairment, a trial of milnacipran with slow titration is a reasonable approach to assess efficacy while limiting adverse effects.

Expected outcomes: Reduced pain intensity, improved function and sleep; timeframe of benefit is typically several weeks. Close monitoring for hypertension, tachycardia, insomnia, nausea, sweating, and signs of serotonin excess is required (milnacipran prescribing information; Urits et al., 2018).

Reported results: After four weeks on the titration schedule, pain improved to 4/10 and crutch use decreased, indicating meaningful clinical response. However, the patient experienced adverse effects including increased blood pressure (147/92), tachycardia, sweating, insomnia, and nausea, consistent with known SNRI adverse effect profile (FDA Savella label; Urits et al., 2018).

Decision 2: Dose reduction to 25 mg twice daily

Rationale: Reducing dose is an appropriate response when efficacy is demonstrated but side effects compromise safety or tolerability. Dose reduction aims to retain analgesic benefit while decreasing sympathetic and adrenergic-mediated adverse events such as elevated BP and heart rate (milnacipran safety data).

Expected outcomes: Lower side-effect burden with some maintenance of pain control. Clinically, a trade-off is possible where analgesia decreases if the dose falls below efficacious thresholds (Finnerup et al., 2015).

Reported results: Four weeks after dose reduction the patient’s pain worsened to 7/10 and he required crutches again, though blood pressure and heart rate improved (124/85, 87 bpm). This illustrates the common clinical tension between tolerability and analgesia in neuropathic pain management (Bruehl, 2015).

Decision 3: Change to 25 mg AM / 50 mg PM

Rationale: As nocturnal pain was worse, an asymmetric dosing strategy increases nighttime coverage while limiting daytime side effects. Tailoring dosing schedules to symptom patterns is a pragmatic tactic when a medication is effective but poorly tolerated at uniform higher doses. This preserves some daytime tolerability while increasing analgesic exposure at night to improve sleep and overnight pain control (Urits et al., 2018).

Considerations and risks: Increasing the single bedtime dose may again raise risk for cardiovascular side effects and insomnia disturbance if stimulating; therefore, ongoing monitoring of blood pressure, heart rate, and cardiac symptoms is essential. Additionally, combination with serotonergic agents (e.g., adding SSRIs or tramadol) risks serotonin syndrome; tramadol should generally be avoided in CRPS neuropathic syndromes because of limited benefit and addiction risk (CDC, 2016; FDA warnings).

Expected results: Potentially improved nocturnal pain and sleep, with the need to watch for recurrence of side effects. If intolerable side effects recur or analgesia remains inadequate, alternative or adjunctive approaches should be considered.

Multimodal management and alternatives

CRPS typically requires multimodal, interdisciplinary care: physical therapy emphasizing graded use and desensitization, cognitive-behavioral strategies, occupational therapy, and interventional options (sympathetic blocks, neuromodulation) when indicated (Goebel, 2011; Bruehl, 2015). Pharmacologic alternatives or adjuncts include gabapentinoids, topical lidocaine, and judicious use of certain antidepressants. Evidence supports SNRIs and gabapentinoids as useful options for neuropathic components, but no single medication reliably eliminates CRPS pain (Finnerup et al., 2015; Urits et al., 2018).

Opioids and tramadol are generally discouraged as primary strategies because efficacy for neuropathic pain is limited and risks of tolerance, dependence, and harms are substantial (CDC Guideline, 2016). Combining tramadol with SNRIs increases serotonin syndrome risk and should be avoided (FDA safety communications).

Ethical considerations and communication

Ethical care requires maintaining confidentiality and obtaining informed consent for treatments and changes, discussing expected benefits, risks, and alternatives. Shared decision-making is crucial: patients must understand that CRPS often remains chronic and treatment goals focus on improving function and quality of life rather than complete pain elimination. Setting realistic expectations reduces frustration and supports adherence to multimodal plans (Harden et al., 2010).

Monitoring and follow-up plan

Monitor vital signs (BP, HR), sleep, mood, and adverse effects at regular intervals after dose adjustments. If milnacipran remains effective but problematic, consider adjunctive non-pharmacologic therapies and referral to a multidisciplinary pain clinic. If inadequate response persists, evaluate alternative medications (gabapentin/pregabalin), topical options, or interventional therapies after specialist consultation (Finnerup et al., 2015; Goebel, 2011).

Conclusion

The stepped decisions in this case reflect appropriate clinical reasoning: start low and titrate to efficacy, reduce dose for tolerability, then tailor dosing to symptom timing. Because CRPS is complex and often refractory, clinicians should combine medication strategies with physical therapy and psychosocial interventions, avoid routine opioid use, closely monitor for adverse events (including serotonin-related interactions), and engage patients in realistic goal-setting and informed consent.

References

  • Bruehl S. Complex regional pain syndrome. BMJ. 2015;351:h2730.
  • de Mos M, Huygen FJPM, Dieleman JP, et al. The incidence of complex regional pain syndrome: a population-based study. Pain. 2007;129(1-2):12-20.
  • Finnerup NB, Attal N, Haroutounian S, et al. Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Neurol. 2015;14(2):162-173.
  • Food and Drug Administration. Savella (milnacipran) prescribing information. U.S. FDA; 2010.
  • Goebel A. Complex regional pain syndrome in adults. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2011;50(10):1738-1748.
  • Harden RN, Bruehl S, Perez RS, et al. Validation of proposed diagnostic criteria (the "Budapest Criteria") for complex regional pain syndrome. Pain. 2010;150(2):268-274.
  • Urits I, Shen AH, Jones MR, Viswanath O, Kaye AD. Complex regional pain syndrome: current concepts and treatment options. Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2018;22(2):10.
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain — United States, 2016. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2016;65(RR-1):1-49.
  • U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Drug Safety Communication: FDA warns about the risk of serotonin syndrome when tramadol is used with other drugs that affect serotonin. FDA; 2017.
  • Finnerup NB, Sindrup SH, Jensen TS. The evidence for pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain. Pain. 2010;150(3):573-581.

Related Assignments