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pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain, including studies published in peer-reviewed journals since January , 1966, and unpublished trials retrieved from ClinicalTrials.gov and websites of pharmaceutical companies.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 Studies published in peer-reviewed journals reported greater eff ects than did unpublished studies (r² 9·3%, p=0·009).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: This narrative review presents the results of different prospective, randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses assessing the effects of different oral medications in the management of various peripheral neuropathic pain conditions and concludes that none of them were significantly superior.
Abstract: Epidemiological studies have shown that 6.9–10% of people suffer from neuropathic pain, a complex painful condition which is often undertreated. Data regarding the effectiveness of treatment option...
8 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, axonal swellings in cutaneous nerve fibres are related to type 2 diabetes mellitus, DSP and neuropathic pain in a well-defined cohort of patients diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes.
Abstract: Distal diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy (DSP) is a common complication of diabetes with many patients showing a reduction of intraepidermal nerve fibre density (IENFD) from skin biopsy, a validated and sensitive diagnostic tool for the assessment of DSP. Axonal swelling ratio is a morphological quantification altered in DSP. It is, however, unclear if axonal swellings are related to diabetes or DSP. The aim of this study was to investigate how axonal swellings in cutaneous nerve fibres are related to type 2 diabetes mellitus, DSP and neuropathic pain in a well-defined cohort of patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. A total of 249 participants, from the Pain in Neuropathy Study (UK) and the International Diabetic Neuropathy Consortium (Denmark), underwent a structured neurological examination, nerve conduction studies, quantitative sensory testing and skin biopsy. The study included four groups: healthy control study participants without diabetes (n = 45); participants with type 2 diabetes without DSP (DSP−; n = 31); and participants with evidence of DSP (DSP+; n = 173); the last were further separated into painless DSP+ (n = 74) and painful DSP+ (n = 99). Axonal swellings were defined as enlargements on epidermal-penetrating fibres exceeding 1.5 μm in diameter. Axonal swelling ratio is calculated by dividing the number of axonal swellings by the number of intraepidermal nerve fibres. Median (IQR) IENFD (fibres/mm) was: 6.7 (5.2–9.2) for healthy control participants; 6.2 (4.4–7.3) for DSP−; 1.3 (0.5–2.2) for painless DSP+; and 0.84 (0.4–1.6) for painful DSP+. Swelling ratios were calculated for all participants and those with IENFD > 1.0 fibre/mm. When only those participants with IENFD > 1.0 fibre/mm were included, the axonal swelling ratio was higher in participants with type 2 diabetes when compared with healthy control participants (p 1.0 fibre/mm, axonal swelling ratio is related to type 2 diabetes but is not related to DSP or painful DSP. Axonal swellings may be an early marker of sensory nerve injury in type 2 diabetes.
8 citations
TL;DR: Current dosing regimens of gabapentinoids in Pakistani patients with neuropathic pain were found to be efficacious at low dosages in comparison to international recommended dosages, and Gabapentin and pregabalin were both similar in terms of reducing pain score but onset of pain relief was relatively faster with preGabalin.
Abstract: Objective: To investigate the current dosing regimens of gabapentinoids in Pakistani patients with neuropathic pain and to compare their clinical efficacy and tolerability in terms of pain relief and adverse effects using difference in pain score as a treatment outcome.
Methods: This observational, prospective study was conducted in 320 patients with neuropathic pain from August 2016 to March 2018 at Basic Medical Sciences Institute (BMSI), Karachi in collaboration with Shifa International Hospital and Benazir Bhutto Hospital, Islamabad. Demographic data, treatment-related adverse effects and pain intensity was documented at recruitment and follow up visits at two, four and eight weeks. Discontinuation due to adverse effects and lack of efficacy were also recorded. Data was entered and analyzed using SPSS version 22.
Results: Mean age of patients was 52.57±12.47 and the most common ethnicity were Punjabi speaking population (66%). Diabetic neuropathy (51%) was the most common etiology followed by radicular pain (25%). Mean dosages of pregabalin and gabapentin were 114mg and 470mg respectively. Mean pain score was significantly reduced by gabapentinoids (<0.001). Dizziness, drowsiness and somnolence were frequent adverse effects. Common dosages for pregabalin and gabapentin were 75 mg/day and 300 mg/day respectively.
Conclusion: Current dosing regimens of gabapentinoids in Pakistani patients with neuropathic pain were found to be efficacious at low dosages in comparison to international recommended dosages. Gabapentin and pregabalin were both similar in terms of reducing pain score but onset of pain relief was relatively faster with pregabalin. Dizziness, drowsiness and somnolence were frequently reported with both gabapentinoids; however, visual blurring, ataxia and weight gain were observed only with the use of pregabalin. Adverse effects are frequently observed with gabapentinoids which necessitates reverting back to low dosages or switching to other drugs for pain relief.
doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.35.6.652
How to cite this:Shaheen A, Alam SM, Ahmad A, Khan M. Clinical efficacy and tolerability of Gabapentinoids with current prescription patterns in patients with Neuropathic pain. Pak J Med Sci. 2019;35(6):1505-1510. doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.35.6.652
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
8 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the role of Lawsonia inermis extract in the chronic constriction injury (CCI)-induced neuropathic pain was investigated in 14 consecutive days after CCI surgery, and the spinal levels of malondialdehyde, total thiol, IL1-β, and TNF-α were estimated.
Abstract: The aim of this study was to determine the role of Lawsonia inermis (L. inermis) extract in the chronic constriction injury (CCI)-induced neuropathic pain. Following CCI surgery, L. inermis extract (250 mg/kg and 500 mg/kg) and gabapentin (100 mg/kg) were administered intraperitoneally for 14 consecutive days. Heat hyperalgesia and allodynia were assessed by radiant heat, aceton drop, and von frey filament tests, respectively. Rat pain behaviors were evaluated on -1sh, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 10th and 14th days post CCI surgery. At the end of the study, the spinal levels of malondialdehyde (MDA), total thiol, IL1-β, and TNF-α were estimated. Treatment of L. inermis extract reversed the decreased level of thiol and the elevation of MDA level in the spinal cord of CCI rats. Besides, L. inermis extract treatment decreased the elevation of inflammatory markers including IL1-β, and TNF-α in the spinal cord of CCI rats. These results indicated that L. inermis has potential neuroprotective effects against CCI induced neuropathic pain due to its anti-oxidant, and anti-inflammatory effects.
8 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors evaluated a battery of pain-stimulated, pain-depressed, and painindependent behaviors for preclinical pharmacological assessment of candidate analgesics in mice.
Abstract: This study evaluated a battery of pain-stimulated, pain-depressed, and pain-independent behaviors for preclinical pharmacological assessment of candidate analgesics in mice. Intraperitoneal injection of dilute lactic acid (IP acid) served as an acute visceral noxious stimulus to produce four pain-related behaviors in male and female ICR mice: stimulation of 1) stretching, 2) facial grimace, 3) depression of rearing, and 4) depression of nesting. Additionally, nesting and locomotion in the absence of the noxious stimulus were used to assess pain-independent drug effects. These six behaviors were used to compare effects of two mechanistically distinct but clinically effective positive controls (ketoprofen and oxycodone) and two negative controls that are not clinically approved as analgesics but produce either general motor depression (diazepam) or motor stimulation (amphetamine). We predicted that analgesics would alleviate all IP acid effects at doses that did not alter pain-independent behaviors, whereas negative controls would not. Consistent with this prediction, ketoprofen (0.1-32 mg/kg) produced the expected analgesic profile, whereas oxycodone (0.32-3.2 mg/kg) alleviated all IP acid effects except depression of rearing at doses lower than those that altered pain-independent behaviors. For the negative controls, diazepam (1-10 mg/kg) failed to block IP acid-induced depression of either rearing or nesting and only decreased IP acid-stimulated behaviors at doses that also decreased pain-independent behaviors. Amphetamine (0.32-3.2 mg/kg) alleviated all IP acid effects but only at doses that also stimulated locomotion. These results support utility of this model as a framework to evaluate candidate-analgesic effects in a battery of complementary pain-stimulated, pain-depressed, and pain-independent behavioral endpoints. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Preclinical assays of pain and analgesia often yield false-positive effects with candidate analgesics. This study used two positive-control analgesics (ketoprofen, oxycodone) and two active negative controls (diazepam, amphetamine) to validate a strategy for distinguishing analgesics from nonanalgesics by profiling drug effects in a battery of complementary pain-stimulated, pain-depressed, and pain-independent behaviors in male and female mice.
8 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