Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Aarhus University1, French Institute of Health and Medical Research2, Washington University in St. Louis3, Tufts Medical Center4, University of Rochester5, Queen's University6, Helsinki University Central Hospital7, Oslo University Hospital8, Karolinska Institutet9, Aarhus University Hospital10, University of the Witwatersrand11, Churchill Hospital12, Johns Hopkins University13, Imperial College London14, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust15, California Pacific Medical Center16, University of Edinburgh17, Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health18, University of Sydney19, Greenwich Hospital20, University of Dundee21, University of California, San Diego22
TL;DR: The results support a revision of the NeuPSIG recommendations for the pharmacotherapy of neuropathic pain and allow a strong recommendation for use and proposal as first-line treatment in neuropathicPain for tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors, pregabalin, and gabapentin.
Abstract: Summary Background New drug treatments, clinical trials, and standards of quality for assessment of evidence justify an update of evidence-based recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain. Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and E valuation (GRADE), we revised the Special Interest Group on Neuropathic Pain (NeuPSIG) recommendations for the pharmacotherapy of neuropathic pain based on the results of a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods Between April, 2013, and January, 2014, NeuPSIG of the International Association for the Study of Pain did a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised, double-blind studies of oral and topical pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain, including studies published in peer-reviewed journals since January , 1966, and unpublished trials retrieved from ClinicalTrials.gov and websites of pharmaceutical companies. We used number needed to treat (NNT) for 50% pain relief as a primary measure and assessed publication bias; NNT was calculated with the fi xed-eff ects Mantel-Haenszel method. Findings 229 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Analysis of publication bias suggested a 10% overstatement of treatment eff ects. Studies published in peer-reviewed journals reported greater eff ects than did unpublished studies (r² 9·3%, p=0·009). T rial outcomes were generally modest: in particular, combined NNTs were 6·4 (95% CI 5·2–8·4) for serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors, mainly including duloxetine (nine of 14 studies); 7·7 (6·5–9·4) for pregabalin; 7·2 (5·9–9·21) for gabapentin, including gabapentin extended release and enacarbil; and 10·6 (7·4–19·0) for capsaicin high-concentration patches. NNTs were lower for tricyclic antidepressants, strong opioids, tramadol, and botulinum toxin A, and undetermined for lidocaine patches. Based on GRADE, fi nal quality of evidence was moderate or high for all treatments apart from lidocaine patches; tolerability and safety, and values and preferences were higher for topical drugs; and cost was lower for tricyclic antidepressants and tramadol. These fi ndings permitted a strong recommendation for use and proposal as fi rst-line treatment in neuropathic pain for tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors, pregabalin, and gabapentin; a weak recommendation for use and proposal as second line for lidocaine patches, capsaicin high-concentration patches, and tramadol; and a weak recommendation for use and proposal as third line for strong opioids and botulinum toxin A. Topical agents and botulinum toxin A are recommended for peripheral neuropathic pain only. Interpretation Our results support a revision of the NeuPSIG recommendations for the pharmacotherapy of neuropathic pain. Inadequate response to drug treatments constitutes a substantial unmet need in patients with neuropathic pain. Modest effi cacy, large placebo responses, heterogeneous diagnostic criteria, and poor phenotypic profi ling probably account for moderate trial outcomes and should be taken into account in future studies. Funding NeuPSIG of the International Association for the Study of Pain.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: The impact, associated conditions, and evolution of chronic pain, along with the crucial role of every member of a multidisciplinary chronic pain clinic involved in the care of the children and adolescents with chronic non-cancer pain are discussed.
Abstract: Chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents has been described as "a modern public health disaster" that has generated significant medical and economic burdens within society. Seen as a disease in its own right, chronic pain has short and long-term consequences that impact not only the patient's health but also that of friends and families, due to significant parenting stress and disruptions in family life and structure. The evidence supporting pharmacological treatments and interventional procedures is limited, and no single strategy has been shown to be completely effective in children with chronic non-cancer pain. Therefore, considering the multifactorial nature of chronic pain, these patients should be treated with a multidisciplinary, balanced approach that seeks a primary outcome of improved functioning rather than of pain reduction. Using a bio-psycho-social approach, a multidisciplinary team, including a physiotherapist, nurse, social worker, psychologist, and physician, has been effective in achieving this outcome of improved functioning in children and adolescents with chronic pain. In this review, we discuss the impact, associated conditions, and evolution of chronic pain, along with the crucial role of every member of a multidisciplinary chronic pain clinic involved in the care of the children and adolescents with chronic non-cancer pain.
20 citations
TL;DR: Neither uncritical opioid prescription nor general rejection of opioids is justified in patients with chronic noncancer pain.
20 citations
Cites background from "Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pai..."
...Evidence-based alternatives for neuropathic pain are antidepressants and anticonvulsants, with many potential and relevant side effects.(13) The risks of NSAIDs used for musculoskeletal pain such as myocardial infarction(2) and gastrointestinal bleeding(42) are well known....
[...]
TL;DR: The novel activation modulation mode of action of CBZ is extended to a second sodium channel subtype, NaV1.8-S242T, which corresponds to the NaV 1.7-S241T mutant channels, and individuals carrying the S241T mutation respond to treatment with CBZ.
Abstract: Neuropathic pain in patients carrying sodium channel gain-of-function mutations is generally refractory to pharmacotherapy. However, we have shown that pretreatment of cells with clinically achievable concentration of carbamazepine (CBZ; 30 μM) depolarizes the voltage dependence of activation in some NaV1.7 mutations such as S241T, a novel CBZ mode of action of this drug. CBZ reduces the excitability of dorsal root ganglion (DRG) neurons expressing NaV1.7-S241T mutant channels, and individuals carrying the S241T mutation respond to treatment with CBZ. Whether the novel activation-modulating activity of CBZ is specific to NaV1.7, and whether this pharmacogenomic approach can be extended to other sodium channel subtypes, are not known. We report here the novel NaV1.8-S242T mutation, which corresponds to the NaV1.7-S241T mutation, in a patient with neuropathic pain and diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Voltage-clamp recordings demonstrated hyperpolarized and accelerated activation of NaV1.8-S242T. Current-clamp recordings showed that NaV1.8-S242T channels render DRG neurons hyperexcitable. Structural modeling shows that despite a substantial difference in the primary amino acid sequence of NaV1.7 and NaV1.8, the S242 (NaV1.8) and S241 (NaV1.7) residues have similar position and orientation in the domain I S4-S5 linker of the channel. Pretreatment with a clinically achievable concentration of CBZ corrected the voltage dependence of activation of NaV1.8-S242T channels and reduced DRG neuron excitability as predicted from our pharmacogenomic model. These findings extend the novel activation modulation mode of action of CBZ to a second sodium channel subtype, NaV1.8.
20 citations
Cites background from "Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pai..."
...Although carbamazepine (CBZ), a Food and Drug Administration–approved antiepileptic NaV blocker, is not recommended as a first-line treatment of neuropathic pain (Finnerup et al., 2015), it is still used clinically in selected patients with some success....
[...]
...A recent systematic review (Finnerup et al., 2015) found that the evidence for efficacy of CBZ in neuropathic pain treatment was inconclusive and noted dose-limiting side effects....
[...]
TL;DR: CBDV was safe but failed to reduce neuropathic pain in patients with HIV, which may be explained by a lack of CB receptor activation, as indicated by preclinical experiments.
Abstract: HIV remains a major burden to the health care system and neuropathic pain is the most common neurological complication of HIV infection. Because current treatment strategies often lack satisfying pain relief, cannabinoids (CBs) are discussed as a new option. We investigated cannabidivarin (CBDV) as treatment for HIV-associated neuropathic pain. We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study. Patients underwent two successive treatment phases (4 weeks each) and were treated with CBDV (400 mg/day) or placebo in a randomized order. A 3-week washout phase was designed to eliminate potential carry-over effects. Patients were followed up for 3 weeks after the end of the second treatment phase. The primary end point was pain intensity on an 11-point numeric rating scale, recorded in a diary. Secondary end points were additional pain medication, pain characteristics, and quality of life. We included 32 patients. The mean pain intensity under CBDV was 0.62 points higher compared with placebo (P = 0.16, 95% confidence interval -0.27 to 1.51). CBDV did not influence the amount of additional pain medication, pain characteristics, or quality of life. The incidence of adverse events was similar during both treatments. No suspected unexpected adverse reactions occurred during either treatment. CBDV was safe but failed to reduce neuropathic pain in patients with HIV. This may be explained by a lack of CB receptor activation, as indicated by preclinical experiments. Although a larger patient number might be desirable, we would not expect a change in the conclusions because the present differences are far from statistical significance. Therefore, we would currently not consider CBDV as a clinically meaningful treatment option for neuropathic pain.
20 citations
TL;DR: A3AR agonists are effective in relieving visceral hypersensitivity induced by DNBS, suggesting a potential therapeutic role against abdominal pain.
Abstract: Pharmacological tools for chronic visceral pain management are still limited and inadequate. A3 adenosine receptor (A3AR) agonists are effective in different models of persistent pain. Recently, their activity has been related to the block of N-type voltage-gated Ca2+ channels (Cav2.2) in dorsal root ganglia (DRG) neurons. The present work aimed to evaluate the efficacy of A3AR agonists in reducing postinflammatory visceral hypersensitivity in both male and female rats. Colitis was induced by the intracolonic instillation of 2,4-dinitrobenzenesulfonic acid (DNBS; 30 mg in 0.25 mL 50% EtOH). Visceral hypersensitivity was assessed by measuring the visceromotor response and the abdominal withdrawal reflex to colorectal distension. The effects of A3AR agonists (MRS5980 and Cl-IB-MECA) were evaluated over time after DNBS injection and compared to that of the selective Cav2.2 blocker PD173212, and the clinically used drug linaclotide. A3AR agonists significantly reduced DNBS-evoked visceral pain both in the postinflammatory (14 and 21 days after DNBS injection) and persistence (28 and 35 days after DNBS) phases. Efficacy was comparable to effects induced by linaclotide. PD173212 fully reduced abdominal hypersensitivity to control values, highlighting the role of Cav2.2. The effects of MRS5980 and Cl-IB-MECA were completely abolished by the selective A3AR antagonist MRS1523. Furthermore, patch-clamp recordings showed that A3AR agonists inhibited Cav2.2 in dorsal root ganglia neurons isolated from either control or DNBS-treated rats. The effect on Ca2+ current was PD173212-sensitive and prevented by MRS1523. A3AR agonists are effective in relieving visceral hypersensitivity induced by DNBS, suggesting a potential therapeutic role against abdominal pain.
20 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: Moher et al. as mentioned in this paper introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses, which is used in this paper.
Abstract: David Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses
62,157 citations
Journal Article•
TL;DR: The QUOROM Statement (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses) as mentioned in this paper was developed to address the suboptimal reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become increasingly important in health care. Clinicians read them to keep up to date with their field,1,2 and they are often used as a starting point for developing clinical practice guidelines. Granting agencies may require a systematic review to ensure there is justification for further research,3 and some health care journals are moving in this direction.4 As with all research, the value of a systematic review depends on what was done, what was found, and the clarity of reporting. As with other publications, the reporting quality of systematic reviews varies, limiting readers' ability to assess the strengths and weaknesses of those reviews.
Several early studies evaluated the quality of review reports. In 1987, Mulrow examined 50 review articles published in 4 leading medical journals in 1985 and 1986 and found that none met all 8 explicit scientific criteria, such as a quality assessment of included studies.5 In 1987, Sacks and colleagues6 evaluated the adequacy of reporting of 83 meta-analyses on 23 characteristics in 6 domains. Reporting was generally poor; between 1 and 14 characteristics were adequately reported (mean = 7.7; standard deviation = 2.7). A 1996 update of this study found little improvement.7
In 1996, to address the suboptimal reporting of meta-analyses, an international group developed a guidance called the QUOROM Statement (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses), which focused on the reporting of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.8 In this article, we summarize a revision of these guidelines, renamed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses), which have been updated to address several conceptual and practical advances in the science of systematic reviews (Box 1).
Box 1
Conceptual issues in the evolution from QUOROM to PRISMA
46,935 citations
TL;DR: Funnel plots, plots of the trials' effect estimates against sample size, are skewed and asymmetrical in the presence of publication bias and other biases Funnel plot asymmetry, measured by regression analysis, predicts discordance of results when meta-analyses are compared with single large trials.
Abstract: Objective: Funnel plots (plots of effect estimates against sample size) may be useful to detect bias in meta-analyses that were later contradicted by large trials. We examined whether a simple test of asymmetry of funnel plots predicts discordance of results when meta-analyses are compared to large trials, and we assessed the prevalence of bias in published meta-analyses. Design: Medline search to identify pairs consisting of a meta-analysis and a single large trial (concordance of results was assumed if effects were in the same direction and the meta-analytic estimate was within 30% of the trial); analysis of funnel plots from 37 meta-analyses identified from a hand search of four leading general medicine journals 1993-6 and 38 meta-analyses from the second 1996 issue of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews . Main outcome measure: Degree of funnel plot asymmetry as measured by the intercept from regression of standard normal deviates against precision. Results: In the eight pairs of meta-analysis and large trial that were identified (five from cardiovascular medicine, one from diabetic medicine, one from geriatric medicine, one from perinatal medicine) there were four concordant and four discordant pairs. In all cases discordance was due to meta-analyses showing larger effects. Funnel plot asymmetry was present in three out of four discordant pairs but in none of concordant pairs. In 14 (38%) journal meta-analyses and 5 (13%) Cochrane reviews, funnel plot asymmetry indicated that there was bias. Conclusions: A simple analysis of funnel plots provides a useful test for the likely presence of bias in meta-analyses, but as the capacity to detect bias will be limited when meta-analyses are based on a limited number of small trials the results from such analyses should be treated with considerable caution. Key messages Systematic reviews of randomised trials are the best strategy for appraising evidence; however, the findings of some meta-analyses were later contradicted by large trials Funnel plots, plots of the trials9 effect estimates against sample size, are skewed and asymmetrical in the presence of publication bias and other biases Funnel plot asymmetry, measured by regression analysis, predicts discordance of results when meta-analyses are compared with single large trials Funnel plot asymmetry was found in 38% of meta-analyses published in leading general medicine journals and in 13% of reviews from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Critical examination of systematic reviews for publication and related biases should be considered a routine procedure
37,989 citations
TL;DR: An instrument to assess the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in pain research is described and its use to determine the effect of rater blinding on the assessments of quality is described.
15,740 citations
TL;DR: The advantages of the GRADE system are explored, which is increasingly being adopted by organisations worldwide and which is often praised for its high level of consistency.
Abstract: Guidelines are inconsistent in how they rate the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations. This article explores the advantages of the GRADE system, which is increasingly being adopted by organisations worldwide
13,324 citations