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pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain, including studies published in peer-reviewed journals since January , 1966, and unpublished trials retrieved from ClinicalTrials.gov and websites of pharmaceutical companies.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 Studies published in peer-reviewed journals reported greater eff ects than did unpublished studies (r² 9·3%, p=0·009).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 current state of knowledge regarding venom peptides that target GPCRs to produce analgesia, and their development as therapeutic compounds are reviewed.
Abstract: Chronic pain is a complex and debilitating condition associated with a large personal and socioeconomic burden. Current pharmacological approaches to treating chronic pain such as opioids, antidepressants and anticonvulsants exhibit limited efficacy in many patients and are associated with dose-limiting side effects that hinder their clinical use. Therefore, improved strategies for the pharmacological treatment of pathological pain are urgently needed. G-protein coupled receptors (GPCRs) are ubiquitously expressed on the surface of cells and act to transduce extracellular signals and regulate physiological processes. In the context of pain, numerous and diverse families of GPCRs expressed in pain pathways regulate most aspects of physiological and pathological pain and are thus implicated as potential targets for therapy of chronic pain. In the search for novel compounds that produce analgesia via GPCR modulation, animal venoms offer an enormous and virtually untapped source of potent and selective peptide molecules. While many venom peptides target voltage-gated and ligand-gated ion channels to inhibit neuronal excitability and blunt synaptic transmission of pain signals, only a small proportion are known to interact with GPCRs. Of these, only a few have shown analgesic potential in vivo. Here we review the current state of knowledge regarding venom peptides that target GPCRs to produce analgesia, and their development as therapeutic compounds.
12 citations
Cites background from "Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pai..."
...In addition to their numerous dose-limiting side effects, first-line analgesics are only effective in about 40–60% of neuropathic pain patients and a large proportion become refractory to these treatments over time [17,58]....
[...]
TL;DR: Combining tDCS with mirror therapy results in a robust long-lasting analgesic effect and may contribute to the understanding of the underlying mechanisms of phantom pain.
Abstract: OBJECTIVE Current analgesic treatments for phantom pain are not optimal. One well-accepted yet limited nonpharmacological option is mirror therapy, which is thought to counterbalance abnormal plasticity. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is an emerging approach believed to affect the membrane potential and activity threshold of cortical neurons. tDCS analgesic effectiveness, however, is mild and short, rendering it a noneffective stand-alone treatment. This study aimed to assess if a combination of mirror therapy with tDCS results in a superior analgesic effect as compared with mirror therapy alone in patients suffering from phantom pain due to recent amputation. DESIGN Following ethical approval, eligible patients provided informed consent and were randomly assigned to a study treatment group that continued for 2 weeks (once daily): 1) mirror therapy; 2) mirror therapy and sham tDCS; or 3) mirror therapy and tDCS. Assessments were done before treatment; at the end of treatment weeks 1 and 2; and at 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months following treatment. The primary outcome measure was pain intensity. Secondary measures were derived from the Short Form McGill Pain Questionnaire and the Brief Pain Inventory. RESULTS Thirty patients were recruited, and 29 patients completed the study. Three months following treatment, pain intensity was significantly (P<0.001) reduced in the combined treatment group (reduction of 5.4±3.3 points) compared with the other study arms (mirror therapy, 1.2±1.1; mirror therapy and sham tDCS, 2.7±3.2). All secondary outcome results were in line with these findings. CONCLUSIONS Combining tDCS with mirror therapy results in a robust long-lasting analgesic effect. These encouraging findings may contribute to the understanding of the underlying mechanisms of phantom pain.
12 citations
TL;DR: BoNT-A is effective for NP; however, small-scale RCTs to date have been limited in evidence, and methods for future RPTs are developed to establish Bo NT-A as the first-line agent.
Abstract: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted from January 2005 to June 2021 to update the evidence of Botulinum toxin A (BoNT-A) in neuropathic pain (NP) in addition to quality of life (QOL), mental health, and sleep outcomes. We conducted a Cochrane Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria analysis of RCTs from the following data sources: EMBASE, CINAHL, WHO International Clinical Trial Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane database, Cochrane Clinical Trial Register, Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, and EU Clinical Trials Register. Meta-analysis of 17 studies showed a mean final VAS reduction in pain in the intervention group of 2.59 units (95% confidence interval: 1.79, 3.38) greater than the mean for the placebo group. The overall mean difference for sleep, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) anxiety, HADS depression, and QOL mental and physical sub-scales were, respectively, 1.10 (95% CI: -1.71, 3.90), 1.41 (95% CI: -0.61, 3.43), -0.16 (95% CI: -1.95, 1.63), 0.85 (95% CI: -1.85, 3.56), and -0.71 (95% CI: -3.39, 1.97), indicating no significance. BoNT-A is effective for NP; however, small-scale RCTs to date have been limited in evidence. The reasons for this are discussed, and methods for future RCTs are developed to establish BoNT-A as the first-line agent.
12 citations
TL;DR: A drug design strategy based on the observation of (dis)similarities between the target CA active sites was planned with benzenesulfonamide derivatives and, for the first time, a phosphorus-based linker, and the most promising derivatives, after evaluation of their stability in acidic media, were tested in a mouse model of oxaliplatin-induced neuropathy.
Abstract: Human carbonic anhydrase (CA; EC 4.2.1.1) isoforms II and VII are implicated in neuronal excitation, seizures, and neuropathic pain (NP). Their selective inhibition over off-target CAs is expected to produce an anti-NP action devoid of side effects due to promiscuous CA modulation. Here, a drug design strategy based on the observation of (dis)similarities between the target CA active sites was planned with benzenesulfonamide derivatives and, for the first time, a phosphorus-based linker. Potent and selective CA II/VII inhibitors were identified among the synthesized phenyl(thio)phosphon(amid)ates 3-22. X-ray crystallography depicted the binding mode of phosphonic acid 3 to both CAs II and VII. The most promising derivatives, after evaluation of their stability in acidic media, were tested in a mouse model of oxaliplatin-induced neuropathy. The most potent compound racemic mixture was subjected to HPLC enantioseparation, and the identification of the eutomer, the (S)-enantiomer, allowed to halve the dose totally relieving allodynia in mice.
12 citations
TL;DR: The protocol StEPS generates a phenotypic profile of patients with neuropathy that captures the diversity of phenotypes in a shortened assessment protocol named Standardized Evaluation of Pain and Somatosensory Function (StEPS).
Abstract: Diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN) is a major cause of neuropathic pain and a frequent target condition in analgesic treatment trials. Differences in the clinical symptoms and signs associated with DPN suggest distinct pathophysiological mechanisms underlying nerve damage and dysfunction that are likely to have therapeutic relevance. The aim of this study was to develop a tool for the bedside assessment of painful neuropathies such as DPN that captures the diversity of phenotypes. Sixty-one patients with type 2 diabetes and painful neuropathy, 19 patients with painless DPN, 25 patients with type 2 diabetes but no clinical evidence of neuropathy, and 20 healthy control subjects completed a structured interview (47 items) and a standardized physical examination (39 items). After analyzing critical features of pain and painless symptoms and examining the outcome of physical tests of sensory function, we determined principal components of the phenotypic variance among patients. Increased sensitivity to mechanical or thermal stimuli and, to a lesser extent, the sensory quality of pain or paresthesia were the most discriminating elements of DPN phenotypes. Correlation patterns of symptoms and signs indicated the involvement of functionally distinct nerve fiber populations. We combined interview questions and physical tests identifying these differences in a shortened assessment protocol that we named Standardized Evaluation of Pain and Somatosensory Function (StEPS). The protocol StEPS generates a phenotypic profile of patients with neuropathy. Separate intensity ratings for spontaneous painful symptoms and pain evoked by standard stimuli support a detailed documentation of neuropathic pain and its response to analgesic treatment.
12 citations
Cites methods from "Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pai..."
...was chosen to match the minimum pain intensity required for inclusion in many analgesic treatment trials.(22,28) All subjects with DPN-P fulfilled the criteria for definite neuropathic pain....
[...]
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