https://rapm.bmj.com/content/rapm/43/5/456.full.pdf

Consensus Guidelines on the Use of Intravenous Ketamine Infusions for Acute Pain Management From the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, the American Academy of Pain Medicine, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists.

Gabapentin is an anti-epileptic agent but now it is also recommended as first line agent in neuropathic pain, particularly in diabetic neuropathy and post herpetic neuralgia. α2δ-1, an auxillary subunit of voltage gated calcium channels, has been documented as its main target and its specific binding to this subunit is described to produce different actions responsible for pain attenuation. The binding to α2δ-1 subunits inhibits nerve injury-induced trafficking of α1 pore forming units of calcium channels (particularly N-type) from cytoplasm to plasma membrane (membrane trafficking) of pre-synaptic terminals of dorsal root ganglion (DRG) neurons and dorsal horn neurons. Furthermore, the axoplasmic transport of α2δ-1 subunits from DRG to dorsal horns neurons in the form of anterograde trafficking is also inhibited in response to gabapentin administration. Gabapentin has also been shown to induce modulate other targets including transient receptor potential channels, NMDA receptors, protein kinase C and inflammatory cytokines. It may also act on supra-spinal region to stimulate noradrenaline mediated descending inhibition, which contributes to its anti-hypersensitivity action in neuropathic pain.

Implications and mechanism of action of gabapentin in neuropathic pain

Objective: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of pregabalin for the treatment of central neuropathic pain after spinal cord injury (SCI). Methods: Patients with chronic, below-level, neuropathic pain due to SCI were randomized to receive 150 to 600 mg/d pregabalin (n = 108) or matching placebo (n = 112) for 17 weeks. Pain was classified in relation to the neurologic level of injury, defined as the most caudal spinal cord segment with normal sensory and motor function, as above, at, or below level. The primary outcome measure was duration-adjusted average change in pain. Key secondary outcome measures included the change in mean pain score from baseline to end point, the percentage of patients with ≥30% reduction in mean pain score at end point, Patient Global Impression of Change scores at end point, and the change in mean pain-related sleep interference score from baseline to end point. Additional outcome measures included the Medical Outcomes Study–Sleep Scale and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Results: Pregabalin treatment resulted in statistically significant improvements over placebo for all primary and key secondary outcome measures. Significant pain improvement was evident as early as week 1 and was sustained throughout the treatment period. Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile of pregabalin and were mostly mild to moderate in severity. Somnolence and dizziness were most frequently reported. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that pregabalin is effective and well tolerated in patients with neuropathic pain due to SCI. Classification of evidence: This study provides Class I evidence that pregabalin, 150 to 600 mg/d, is effective in reducing duration-adjusted average change in pain compared with baseline in patients with SCI over a 16-week period ( p = 0.003, 95% confidence interval = −0.98, −0.20).

/pdf/a-randomized-trial-of-pregabalin-in-patients-with-4s18cunf6e.pdf

A randomized trial of pregabalin in patients with neuropathic pain due to spinal cord injury

Chronic pain is common, and the available treatments do not provide adequate relief for most patients. Neuromodulatory interventions that modify brain processes underlying the experience of pain have the potential to provide substantial relief for some of these patients. The purpose of this Review is to summarize the state of knowledge regarding the efficacy and mechanisms of noninvasive neuromodulatory treatments for chronic pain. The findings provide support for the efficacy and positive side-effect profile of hypnosis, and limited evidence for the potential efficacy of meditation training, noninvasive electrical stimulation procedures, and neurofeedback procedures. Mechanisms research indicates that hypnosis influences multiple neurophysiological processes involved in the experience of pain. Evidence also indicates that mindfulness meditation has both immediate and long-term effects on cortical structures and activity involved in attention, emotional responding and pain. Less is known about the mechanisms of other neuromodulatory treatments. On the basis of the data discussed in this Review, training in the use of self-hypnosis might be considered a viable 'first-line' approach to treat chronic pain. More-definitive research regarding the benefits and costs of meditation training, noninvasive brain stimulation and neurofeedback is needed before these treatments can be recommended for the treatment of chronic pain.

Neuromodulatory treatments for chronic pain: efficacy and mechanisms

Background
Neuropathic pain, which is due to nerve disease or damage, represents a significant burden on people and society. It can be particularly unpleasant and achieving adequate symptom control can be difficult. Non-pharmacological methods of treatment are often employed by people with neuropathic pain and may include transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS). This review supersedes one Cochrane Review 'Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for chronic pain' (Nnoaham 2014) and one withdrawn protocol 'Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for neuropathic pain in adults' (Claydon 2014). This review replaces the original protocol for neuropathic pain that was withdrawn.

Objectives
To determine the analgesic effectiveness of TENS versus placebo (sham) TENS, TENS versus usual care, TENS versus no treatment and TENS in addition to usual care versus usual care alone in the management of neuropathic pain in adults.

Search methods
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, AMED, CINAHL, Web of Science, PEDro, LILACS (up to September 2016) and various clinical trials registries. We also searched bibliographies of included studies for further relevant studies.

Selection criteria
We included randomised controlled trials where TENS was evaluated in the treatment of central or peripheral neuropathic pain. We included studies if they investigated the following: TENS versus placebo (sham) TENS, TENS versus usual care, TENS versus no treatment and TENS in addition to usual care versus usual care alone in the management of neuropathic pain in adults.

Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently screened all database search results and identified papers requiring full-text assessment. Subsequently, two review authors independently applied inclusion/exclusion criteria to these studies. The same review authors then independently extracted data, assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane standard tool and rated the quality of evidence using GRADE.

Main results
We included 15 studies with 724 participants. We found a range of treatment protocols in terms of duration of care, TENS application times and intensity of application. Briefly, duration of care ranged from four days through to three months. Similarly, we found variation of TENS application times; from 15 minutes up to hourly sessions applied four times daily. We typically found intensity of TENS set to comfortable perceptible tingling with very few studies titrating the dose to maintain this perception. Of the comparisons, we had planned to explore, we were only able to undertake a quantitative synthesis for TENS versus sham TENS. Insufficient data and large diversity in the control conditions prevented us from undertaking a quantitative synthesis for the remaining comparisons.

For TENS compared to sham TENS, five studies were suitable for pooled analysis. We described the remainder of the studies in narrative form. Overall, we judged 11 studies at high risk of bias, and four at unclear risk. Due to the small number of eligible studies, the high levels of risk of bias across the studies and small sample sizes, we rated the quality of the evidence as very low for the pooled analysis and very low individual GRADE rating of outcomes from single studies. For the individual studies discussed in narrative form, the methodological limitations, quality of reporting and heterogeneous nature of interventions compared did not allow for reliable overall estimates of the effect of TENS.

Five studies (across various neuropathic conditions) were suitable for pooled analysis of TENS versus sham TENS investigating change in pain intensity using a visual analogue scale. We found a mean postintervention difference in effect size favouring TENS of -1.58 (95% confidence interval (CI) -2.08 to -1.09, P < 0.00001, n = 207, six comparisons from five studies) (very low quality evidence). There was no significant heterogeneity in this analysis. While this exceeded our prespecified minimally important difference for pain outcomes, we assessed the quality of evidence as very low meaning we have very little confidence in this effect estimate and the true effect is likely to be substantially different from that reported in this review. Only one study of these five investigated health related quality of life as an outcome meaning we were unable to report on this outcome in this comparison. Similarly, we were unable to report on global impression of change or changes in analgesic use in this pooled analysis.

Ten small studies compared TENS to some form of usual care. However, there was great diversity in what constituted usual care, precluding pooling of data. Most of these studies found either no difference in pain outcomes between TENS versus other active treatments or favoured the comparator intervention (very low quality evidence). We were unable to report on other primary and secondary outcomes in these single trials (health-related quality of life, global impression of change and changes in analgesic use).

Of the 15 included studies, three reported adverse events which were minor and limited to 'skin irritation' at or around the site of electrode placement (very low quality evidence). Three studies reported no adverse events while the remainder did not report any detail with regard adverse events.

Authors' conclusions
In this review, we reported on the comparison between TENS and sham TENS. The quality of the evidence was very low meaning we were unable to confidently state whether TENS is effective for pain control in people with neuropathic pain. The very low quality of evidence means we have very limited confidence in the effect estimate reported; the true effect is likely to be substantially different. We make recommendations with respect to future TENS study designs which may meaningfully reduce the uncertainty relating to the effectiveness of this treatment modality.

/pdf/transcutaneous-electrical-nerve-stimulation-tens-for-1wh5f1t1rz.pdf

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for neuropathic pain in adults

Neuropathic pain (pain associated with lesions or dysfunction of nervous system) is relatively common, occurring in about 1% of the population. Studies in animal models describe a number of peripheral and central pathophysiological processes after nerve injury that would be the basis of underlying neuropathic pain mechanism. A change in function, chemistry, and structures of neurons (neural plasticity) underlie the production of the altered sensitivity characteristics of neuropathic pain. Peripheral sensitization acts on the nociceptors, and central sensitization takes place at various levels ranging from the dorsal horn to the brain. In addition, abnormal interactions between the sympathetic and sensory pathways contribute to mechanisms mediating neuropathic pain. Despite recent advances in identification of peripheral and central sensitization mechanisms related to nervous system injury, the effective treatment of patients suffering from neuropathic pain remains a clinical challenge. Although numerous treatment options are available for relieving neuropathic pain, there is no consensus on the most appropriate treatment. However, recommendations can be proposed for first-line, second-line, and third-line pharmacological treatments based on the level of evidence for the different treatment strategies. Beside opioids, the available therapies shown to be effective in managing neuropathic pain include anticonvulsants, antidepressants, topical treatments (lidocaine patch, capsaicin), and ketamine. Tricyclic antidepressants are often the first drugs selected to alleviate neuropathic pain (first-line pharmacological treatment). Although they are very effective in reducing pain in several neuropathic pain disorders, treatment may be compromised (and outweighed) by their side effects. In patients with a history of cardiovascular disorders, glaucoma, and urine retention, pregabalin and gabapentine are emerging as first-line treatment for neuropathic pain. In addition these anti-epileptic drugs have a favourable safety profile with minimal concerns regarding drug interactions and showing no interference with hepatic enzymes. Despite the numerous treatment options available for relieving neuropathic pain, the most appropriate treatment strategy is only able to reduce pain in 70% of these patients. In the remaining patients, combination therapies using two or more analgesics with different mechanisms of action may also offer adequate pain relief. Although combination treatment is clinical practice and may result in greater pain relief, trials regarding different combinations of analgesics are lacking (which combination to use, occurrence of additive or supra-additive effects, sequential or concurrent treatment, adverse-event profiles of these analgesics, alone and in combination) are lacking. Additionally, 10% of patients still experience intractable pain and are refractory to all forms of pharmacotherapy. If medical treatments fail, invasive therapies such as intrathecal drug administration and neurosurgical interventions may be considered.

Mechanisms and treatment of neuropathic pain.

Neuropathic pain, pain arising as a direct consequence of a lesion or disease affecting the somatosensory system, is relatively common, occurring in about 1% of the population. Studies in animal models describe a number of peripheral and central pathophysiological processes after nerve injury that would be the basis of underlying neuropathic pain mechanism. Additionally, neuro-imaging (positron emission tomography and functional magnetic resonance imaging) provides insights in brain mechanisms corresponding with mechanistic processes including allodynia, hyperalgesia, altered sensation, and spontaneous pain. A change in function, chemistry, and structures of neurons (neural plasticity) underlie the production of the altered sensitivity characteristics of neuropathic pain. Peripheral processes in neuropathic pain involve production of mediators (cytokines, protons, nerve growth factor), alterations in calcium channels, sodium channels, hyperpolarisation-activated nucleotide-gated ion channels, and potassium channels, phenotypic switches and sprouting of nerves endings, and involvement of the sympathetic nervous system. Stimulation of the N-Methyl-D-Aspartate receptor, activation of microglia, oligodendrocytes, and astrocytes, increased production of nerve growth factor and brain-derived neurotrophic factor together with loss of spinal inhibitory control are responsible for central neuron hyperexcitability and maintenance of neuropathic pain. Recent advances, including functional imaging techniques, in identification of peripheral and central sensitization mechanisms related to nervous system injury have increased potential for affecting pain research from both diagnostic as well as therapeutic view. Key brain regions involved in generating pharmacologically induced analgesia may be identified. Despite the progress in pain research, neuropathic pain is challenge to manage. Although numerous treatment options are available for relieving neuropathic pain, there is no consensus on the most appropriate treatment. However, recommendations can be proposed for first-line, second-line, and third-line pharmacological treatments based on the level of evidence for the different treatment strategies. Available therapies shown to be effective in managing neuropathic pain include opioids and tramadol, anticonvulsants, antidepressants, topical treatments (lidocaine patch, capsaicin), and ketamine. Tricyclic antidepressants are often the first drugs selected to alleviate neuropathic pain (first-line pharmacological treatment). Although they are very effective in reducing pain in several neuropathic pain disorders, treatment may be compromised (and outweighed) by their side effects. In patients with a history of cardiovascular disorders, glaucoma, and urine retention, pregabalin and gabapentine are emerging as first-line treatment for neuropathic pain. In addition these anti-epileptic drugs have a favourable safety profile with minimal concerns regarding drug interactions and showing no interference with hepatic enzymes. Alternatively, opioids (oxycodone and methadone) and tramadol may alleviate nociceptive and neuropathic pain. Despite the numerous treatment options available for relieving neuropathic pain, no more than half of patients experience clinically meaningful pain relief, which is almost always partial but not complete relief. In addition, patients frequently experience burdensome adverse effects and as a consequence are often unable to tolerate the treatment. In the remaining patients, combination therapies using two or more analgesics with different mechanisms of action may also offer adequate pain relief. Although combination treatment is clinical practice and may result in greater pain relief, trials regarding different combinations of analgesics (which combination to use, occurrence of additive or supra-additive effects, sequential or concurrent treatment, adverse-event profiles of these analgesics, alone and in combination) are scarce. If medical treatments have failed, invasive therapies such as intrathecal drug administration and neurosurgical stimulation techniques (spinal cord stimulation, deep brain stimulation, and motor cortex stimulation) may be considered.

Jan H. Vranken

Papers

Mechanisms and treatment of neuropathic pain.

Elucidation of pathophysiology and treatment of neuropathic pain.