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pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain, including studies published in peer-reviewed journals since January , 1966, and unpublished trials retrieved from ClinicalTrials.gov and websites of pharmaceutical companies.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 Studies published in peer-reviewed journals reported greater eff ects than did unpublished studies (r² 9·3%, p=0·009).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
07 Aug 2020
14 citations
26 Apr 2018
TL;DR: The ECS-CP enables standardized reporting, based on patients’ pain and related characteristics, and so may improve the validity of comparisons across research study samples, and thus may improveThe validity of compared across researchStudy samples.
Abstract: Introduction: Undertreatment of cancer pain is associated with inadequate assessment and inconsistent or non-standardized classification, resulting in failure to both appreciate its multidimensiona...
14 citations
TL;DR: Evidence suggests that the analgesia afforded by SCS may be altered using certain neuropathic pain medications that also modulate neurotransmitters in these sensory tracts.
Abstract: Introduction
Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for the treatment of lower extremity pain is believed to the result of increased activity in the descending inhibitory and decreased activity in the ascending excitatory tracts. Evidence suggests that the analgesia afforded by SCS may be altered using certain neuropathic pain medications that also modulate neurotransmitters in these sensory tracts. We hypothesize that neuropathic pain medications may alter the response to SCS therapy.
Methods
One hundred and fifteen subjects undergoing SCS therapy for lower extremity pain were retrospectively examined. The pharmacologic profile, including stable use of neuropathic and opioid medications, were recorded. Three separate logistic regression models examined the odds ratio of primary outcomes; a successful SCS trial, a 50% decrease in pain or a 50% reduction in opioid use one year after implant.
Results
Neither the use of opioids or neuropathic pain medications were associated with changes in the odds of a successful SCS trial or a 50% pain reduction. A higher dose of chronic opioids use prior to a trial was associated with greater odds of having a 50% reduction in opioid use following implant. OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.01–1.02, p-value < 0.01).
Conclusions
The use of neuropathic pain medications did not change the odds of either a successful SCS trial, or of experiencing a 50% reduction in pain at one year. The association between higher opioid doses and greater odds of a 50% reduction in opioid use may be the reflective of SCS's ability to reduce opioid reliance in chronic pain patients.
14 citations
Cites background from "Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pai..."
...Medical indications for SCS therapy, such as CRPS and DPN, are commonly treated with neuropathic medications (23,24)....
[...]
TL;DR: It is suggested most HIV-SN cases are easily recognized using clinical screening tools, with physician assessment and/or specialized testing prioritized for atypical cases.
Abstract: HIV-associated sensory neuropathy (HIV-SN) is a common complication of HIV and remains highly prevalent even with modern HIV management strategies, causing debilitating pain in millions globally. We review HIV-SN diagnosis and management. We suggest most HIV-SN cases are easily recognized using clinical screening tools, with physician assessment and/or specialized testing prioritized for atypical cases. Management aims to prevent further nerve damage and optimize symptom control. Symptom relief is difficult and rarely complete, with a lack of proven pharmacological strategies. Work is needed to clarify optimal use of available medications. This includes understanding the marked placebo effect in HIV-SN analgesic trials and exploring 'responder phenotypes'. Limited data support nondrug strategies including hypnosis, meditation, psychology, physical activity and a positive therapeutic relationship.
14 citations
01 Sep 2016
TL;DR: The evidences behind pharmacogenetics to individualize therapy (boosting the efficacy and minimizing potential toxicity) and genes implicated in pain medicine are reviewed, in two parts: genetic variability with pain sensitivity and analgesic response; and pharmacological concepts applied on PGx.
Abstract: The experience of chronic pain is one of the commonest reasons for seeking medical attention, being a major issue in clinical practice. While pain is a universal experience, only a small proportion of people who felt pain develop pain syndromes. In addition, painkillers are associated with wide inter-individual variability in the analgesic response. This may be partly explained by the presence of single nucleotide polymorphisms in genes encoding molecular entities involved in pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics. However, uptake of this information has been slow due in large part to the lack of robust evidences demonstrating clinical utility. Furthermore, novel therapies, including targeting of epigenetic changes and gene therapy-based approaches are further broadening future options for the treatment of chronic pain. The aim of this article is to review the evidences behind pharmacogenetics (PGx) to individualize therapy (boosting the efficacy and minimizing potential toxicity) and genes implicated in pain medicine, in two parts: (i) genetic variability with pain sensitivity and analgesic response; and (ii) pharmacological concepts applied on PGx.
14 citations
Cites background from "Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pai..."
...[94] proposed a revision of the NeuPSIG (Special Interest Group on Neuropathic Pain, from the International Association for the Study of Pain) recommendations for the pharmacotherapy of neuropathic pain as follows: first-line treatment for tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin-noradrenalin reuptake inhibitors, pregabalin and gabapentin; second line for lidocaine patches, capsaicin high concentration patches and tramadol; third line for strong opioids and botulinum toxin A [94]....
[...]
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