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pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain, including studies published in peer-reviewed journals since January , 1966, and unpublished trials retrieved from ClinicalTrials.gov and websites of pharmaceutical companies.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 Studies published in peer-reviewed journals reported greater eff ects than did unpublished studies (r² 9·3%, p=0·009).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 paucity of data, heterogeneity and lack of appropriate control groups in the available literature precludes firm conclusions on the efficacy and safety of perineural steroids for CPIP.
Abstract: Purpose
To review the literature on the efficacy and safety of perineural steroid injections around the ilioinguinal, iliohypogastric, and genitofemoral nerves for chronic postoperative inguinal pain (CPIP).
14 citations
Cites background from "Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pai..."
...Aroori and colleagues used only amitriptyline at a maximum dose of 50 mg (maximum recommended daily dose for neuropathic pain is 100 mg) [47] and in another study carbamazepine was administered only if injections and redo-surgery failed [28]....
[...]
TL;DR: The biomarker is selective because it did not predict pain after laparoscopic hernia repair and was not associated with pain sensitivity to experimentally applied noxious thermal stimuli, and may advance current knowledge on pathophysiology of PMP and serve as a step forward in the prediction of clinical outcomes and personalized pain management.
Abstract: Chronic postmastectomy pain (PMP) imposes a major burden on the quality of life of the ever-increasing number of long-term survivors of breast cancer. An earlier report by Nissenbaum et al. claimed that particular polymorphisms in the gene CACNG2 are associated with the risk of developing ch
14 citations
25 Aug 2021
TL;DR: In this article, a review of the role of secondary mediators in the spinal dorsal horn is presented, focusing on activation of microglia and the release of tertiary mediators.
Abstract: Intractable neuropathic pain is a frequent consequence of nerve injury or disease. When peripheral nerves are injured, damaged axons undergo Wallerian degeneration. Schwann cells, mast cells, fibroblasts, keratinocytes and epithelial cells are activated leading to the generation of an “inflammatory soup” containing cytokines, chemokines and growth factors. These primary mediators sensitize sensory nerve endings, attract macrophages, neutrophils and lymphocytes, alter gene expression, promote post-translational modification of proteins and alter ion channel function in primary afferent neurons. This leads to increased excitability and spontaneous activity and the generation of secondary mediators including colony stimulating factor 1 (CSF-1), chemokine C-C motif ligand 21 (CCL-21), Wnt3a and Wnt5a. Release of these mediators from primary afferent neurons alters the properties of spinal microglial cells causing them to release tertiary mediators, in many situations via ATP-dependent mechanisms. Tertiary mediators such as BDNF, tumor necrosis factor (TNF-), interleukin 1 (IL-1 and other Wnt ligands facilitate the generation and transmission of nociceptive information by increasing excitatory glutamatergic transmission and attenuating inhibitory GABA and glycinergic transmission in the spinal dorsal horn. This review focusses on activation of microglia by secondary mediators, release of tertiary mediators from microglia and a description of their actions in the spinal dorsal horn. Attention is drawn to the substantial differences in the precise roles of various mediators in males compared to females. At least 25 different mediators have been identified but the similarity of their actions at sensory nerve endings, in the dorsal root ganglia and in the spinal cord means there is considerable redundancy in the available mechanisms. Despite this, behavioral studies show that interruption of the actions of any single mediator can relieve signs of pain in experimental animals. We draw attention this paradox. It is difficult to explain how inactivation of one mediator can relieve pain when so many parallel pathways are available.
14 citations
TL;DR: The pharmacological treatment of distal sensorimotor polyneuropathy (DSPN) among older subjects from the general population is evaluated.
Abstract: Purpose We evaluated the pharmacological treatment of distal sensorimotor polyneuropathy (DSPN) among older subjects from the general population. Methods The study included subjects aged 61 to 82 years from the KORA F4 survey (2006-2008). DSPN was defined as the presence of bilaterally impaired foot-vibration perception and/or bilaterally impaired foot-pressure sensation. Pain intensity was assessed with the painDETECT questionnaire. Results From the included 1076 older persons, 172 (16%) persons reported pain in the lower extremities and DSPN was present in 150 (14%) subjects. Forty-eight people with pain in the lower extremities reported DSPN. Only 38% of the subjects with DSPN reporting an average pain level of ≥4 during the past 4 weeks received medical treatment, predominantly nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs 20% and opioids 12%). The medication of choice for neuropathic pain, antidepressants, anticonvulsants, and opioids was relatively being underused. However, opioids and neuropathy preparations were prescribed preferably for subjects with painful DSPN. Conclusions In the older general population, only a small proportion of subjects with painful DSPN receive analgesic pharmacotherapy. Although not recommended by guidelines for the treatment of neuropathic pain, NSAIDs were the most frequently used class of analgesic drugs.
14 citations
27 Oct 2019
TL;DR: The characteristics of NeP in patients with spinal cord-related pain syndrome varied according to its level in relation to the affected spinal segment (at-level and/or below-level) and medications are sometimes ineffective and have potential adverse effects.
Abstract: Introduction In this study, we defined chronic neuropathic pain (NeP) in patients with diseases associated with spinal cord damage, such as spinal cord-related pain syndrome, and performed a nationwide survey investigating the prevalence, actual status, and features of this syndrome in Japan in order to gather basic information needed for planning control measures. Methods In this nationwide epidemiologic survey, a mail-in questionnaire was sent to 3,206 institutions throughout Japan certified by the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (2,065 institutions) and the Japan Neurosurgical Society (1,141 institutions). The survey included the number of patients, frequency, and type of allodynia, concomitant diseases, and types of and responses to treatment. Results Valid responses were obtained from 552 institutions on 3,401 patients. Of these, 1,719 (50.5%) patients experienced no pain, and thus the study involved the analysis of data of the remaining 1,682 patients with pain. The most frequent underlying conditions were cervical spondylotic myelopathy (26.7%), spinal cord injury (17.4%), and ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL) of the cervical spine (14.1%). Among the 1,682 patients, 62.5% reported at-level pain, among which 43.0% presented with allodynia. On the other hand, 38.7% presented with below-level pain. The majority of patients (73.4%) used nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and muscle relaxants (46.6%). The effectiveness of treatment was significantly higher in patients using anticonvulsants (31.1%) than in those using other medications. About a third of the patients stopped the treatment for either lack of effect or adverse effects. Conclusions The characteristics of NeP in patients with spinal cord-related pain syndrome varied according to its level in relation to the affected spinal segment (at-level and/or below-level). Unfortunately, medications are sometimes ineffective and have potential adverse effects. Further classification of allodynia is needed for effective symptom-based treatment.
14 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