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pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain, including studies published in peer-reviewed journals since January , 1966, and unpublished trials retrieved from ClinicalTrials.gov and websites of pharmaceutical companies.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 Studies published in peer-reviewed journals reported greater eff ects than did unpublished studies (r² 9·3%, p=0·009).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
01 Jan 2015-Clinical cases in mineral and bone metabolism : the official journal of the Italian Society of Osteoporosis, Mineral Metabolism, and Skeletal Diseases
TL;DR: The best available therapeutic approach to CRPS is multimodal and is based on the use of several classes of drugs, associated to early physiotherapy, which is associated with clinically relevant and persistent benefits in CRPS patients.
Abstract: Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) is a multifactorial and disabling disorder with complex etiology and pathogenesis. Goals of therapy in CRPS should be pain relief, functional restoration, and psychological stabilization, but early interventions are needed in order to achieve these objectives. Several drugs have been used to reduce pain and to improve functional status in CRPS, despite the lack of scientific evidence supporting their use in this scenario. They include anti-inflammatory drugs, analgesics, anesthetics, anticonvulsants, antidepressants, oral muscle relaxants, corticosteroids, calcitonin, bisphosphonates, calcium channel blockers and topical agents. NSAIDs showed no value in treating CRPS. Glucocorticoids are the only anti-inflammatory drugs for which there is direct clinical trial evidence in early stage of CRPS. Opioids are a reasonable second or third-line treatment option, but tolerance and long term toxicity are unresolved issues. The use of anticonvulsants and tricyclic antidepressants has not been well investigated for pain management in CRPS. During the last years, bisphosphonates have been the mostly studied pharmacologic agents in CRPS treatment and there are good evidence to support their use in this condition. Recently, the efficacy of intravenous (IV) administration of neridronate has been reported in a randomized controlled trial. Significant improvements in VAS score and other indices of pain and quality of life in patients who received four 100 mg IV doses of neridronate versus placebo were reported. These findings were confirmed in the open-extension phase of the study, when patients formerly enrolled in the placebo group received neridronate at the same dosage, and these results were maintained at 1 year follow-up. The current literature concerning sympathetic blocks and sympathectomy techniques lacks evidence of efficacy. Low evidence was recorded for a free radical scavenger, dimethylsulphoxide (DMSO) cream (50%). The same level of efficacy was noted for vitamin C (500 mg per day for 50 days) in prevention of CRPS in patients affected by wrist fracture. In conclusion, the best available therapeutic approach to CRPS is multimodal and is based on the use of several classes of drugs, associated to early physiotherapy. Neridronate at appropriate doses is associated with clinically relevant and persistent benefits in CRPS patients.
17 citations
TL;DR: The current results indicate that the NHP could serve as a bridge species to improve translatability of preclinical findings into clinically useful treatments for oxaliplatin‐induced peripheral neuropathy.
Abstract: Oxaliplatin is a first-line treatment for colorectal cancer. However, shortly following treatment, cold-evoked hypersensitivity appears in the extremities and over time, the pain is such that oxaliplatin dosing may need to be markedly reduced or even terminated. There is currently a lack of efficacious treatments for oxaliplatin-induced peripheral neuropathy, which is due in part to the difficulty in translating findings obtained from preclinical rodent models of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. Nonhuman primates (NHP) are phylogenetically closer to humans than rodents and may show drug responses that parallel those of humans. A significant decrease in tail withdrawal latency to 10°C water ("cold hypersensitivity") was observed beginning 3 days after intravenous infusion of oxaliplatin (5 mg/kg) in Macaca fascicularis. A single treatment of duloxetine (30 mg/kg, p.o.) ameliorated oxaliplatin-induced cold hypersensitivity, whereas pregabalin (30 mg/kg, p.o.) and tramadol (30 mg/kg, p.o.) did not. By contrast, in rats, no significant cold hypersensitivity, or increased responsiveness to acetone applied to the hind paws, was observed 3 days after the first injection of oxaliplatin (5 mg/kg, i.p., once per day, two injections). Therefore, rats were tested after six treatments of oxaliplatin, 17 days after the first treatment. All analgesics (30 mg/kg, p.o.) significantly ameliorated cold hypersensitivity in rats. The activity of analgesics in the oxaliplatin-treated macaques parallel clinical findings. The current results indicate that the NHP could serve as a bridge species to improve translatability of preclinical findings into clinically useful treatments for oxaliplatin-induced peripheral neuropathy.
17 citations
Cites methods from "Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pai..."
...Nonhuman primates (NHP) are phylogenetically closer to humans than rodents and may show drug responses that parallel those of humans....
[...]
...Abbreviations BUN, blood urea nitrogen; CIPN, chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy; NHP, nonhuman primate....
[...]
...The behavioral assay used in the current study is a modification of the NHP tail withdrawal test (Dykstra and Woods 1986)....
[...]
...If such is the case, then preclinical testing of novel treatments for CIPN and elaborating clinical CIPN mechanism will need to incorporate animals such as NHP....
[...]
...The overall differential pharmacology between NHP and rodents suggests species-specific mechanisms of oxaliplatin-induced neuropathy....
[...]
TL;DR: A growing number of reports have highlighted the potential of stem cells for treating neuropathic pain (NP) as mentioned in this paper, highlighting its potential as a novel therapeutic approach, which can provide long-lasting pain relief to a limited percentage of patients and lack safe and effective treatment options.
Abstract: Neuropathic pain (NP) is a complex, debilitating, chronic pain state, heterogeneous in nature and caused by a lesion or disease affecting the somatosensory system. Its pathogenesis involves a wide range of molecular pathways. NP treatment is extremely challenging, due to its complex underlying disease mechanisms. Current pharmacological and nonpharmacological approaches can provide long-lasting pain relief to a limited percentage of patients and lack safe and effective treatment options. Therefore, scientists are focusing on the introduction of novel treatment approaches, such as stem cell therapy. A growing number of reports have highlighted the potential of stem cells for treating NP. In this review, we briefly introduce NP, current pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments, and preclinical studies of stem cells to treat NP. In addition, we summarize stem cell mechanisms—including neuromodulation in treating NP. Literature searches were conducted using PubMed to provide an overview of the neuroprotective effects of stem cells with particular emphasis on recent translational research regarding stem cell-based treatment of NP, highlighting its potential as a novel therapeutic approach.
17 citations
TL;DR: It was shown that all three treatment pathways and monotherapies had similar analgesic efficacy and combination treatment was well tolerated and led to improved pain relief in patients with suboptimal pain control with a monotherapy.
17 citations
TL;DR: Comparing the different models regarding these types of validity and reproducibility of CPSP animal models and discussing the robustness, reproducecibility, and problems regarding the design and reporting of the articles establishing these models are compared.
Abstract: Central poststroke pain (CPSP) is a severe type of neuropathic pain that can develop after stroke and is difficult to treat. Research into its underlying mechanisms and treatment options could benefit from a valid CPSP animal model. Nine different CPSP animal models have been published, but there are relatively few reports on successful reproductions of these models and so far only little advances in the understanding or the management of CPSP have been made relying on these models. In general, the construct validity (similarity in underlying mechanisms) of these CPSP animal models is relatively high, although this cannot be evaluated into depth because of lack of understanding the mechanisms through which thalamic stroke can lead to CPSP. The face validity (symptom similarity) is relatively low, mainly because pain in these models is tested almost exclusively through evoked mechanical/thermal hypersensitivity assessed by reflexive measures and given the conflicting results with similar tests in patients with CPSP. The predictive validity (similarity in treatment efficacy) has not been evaluated in most models and incorporates difficulties that are specific to CPSP. We compare the different models regarding these types of validity and discuss the robustness, reproducibility, and problems regarding the design and reporting of the articles establishing these models. We conclude with various proposals on how to improve the validity and reproducibility of CPSP animal models. Until further improvements are achieved, prudence is called for in interpreting results obtained through these models.
17 citations
Cites background or methods from "Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pai..."
...treatment of CPSP usually involves neuropathic analgesics and sometimes neuromodulation, but remains challenging as satisfactory pain relief is achieved only in a minority of patients.(22,24) Animal models are experimental preparations developed in...
[...]
...CPSP, the clinical efficacy of analgesics in CPSP is generally low.(24) With pregabalin for instance, the number needed to treat for a 50% pain reduction in CPSP was 27....
[...]
...With pregabalin for instance, the number needed to treat for a 50% pain reduction in CPSP was 27.(24,42)...
[...]
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