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pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain, including studies published in peer-reviewed journals since January , 1966, and unpublished trials retrieved from ClinicalTrials.gov and websites of pharmaceutical companies.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 Studies published in peer-reviewed journals reported greater eff ects than did unpublished studies (r² 9·3%, p=0·009).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
03 Jan 2020
TL;DR: Specific uses of opioid medications are reviewed, including use in the treatment of pain, which can lead to increased mortality in heart failure, myocardial infarction, pulmonary oedema, and COPD.
Abstract: The treatment of pain improves quality of life. Opioids are commonly prescribed painkillers. The side effects of opioids depend on the route of administration, dosage, drug metabolism, comorbid diseases and the patient’s general condition. Despite many beneficial effects, opioids can lead to increased mortality in heart failure, myocardial infarction, pulmonary oedema, and COPD. This article reviews specific uses of opioid medications. Opioids induce immunosuppression, and may undergo drug-drug interactions, especially during polytherapy or polypragmasia.
5 citations
Cites background from "Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pai..."
...DHC also works as a centrally acting cough suppressant, effective in cough alleviation in patients with lung cancer [34]....
[...]
TL;DR: Surgery showed substantial benefit in the treatment of PTTN, even when neuropathic pain was present, and the effect of different variables and the potential of buccal fat nerve wrapping should be evaluated further in future research.
5 citations
TL;DR: Qualitative data support the relevance of investigating and targeting psychosocial factors to manage neuropathic pain in people with HIV.
Abstract: Painful distal symmetrical polyneuropathy is common in HIV and is associated with reduced quality of life. Research has not explored the experience of neuropathic pain in people with HIV from a person-centred perspective. Therefore, a qualitative interview study was conducted to more deeply understand the experience and impact of neuropathic pain in this population. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 26 people with HIV and peripheral neuropathic pain symptoms. Interviews explored the impact of pain and participants' pain management strategies. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis. Four themes and 11 subthemes were identified. Theme 1 reflects the complex characterisation of neuropathic pain, including the perceived unusual nature of this pain and diagnostic uncertainty. Theme 2 centred on the interconnected impacts of pain on mood and functioning and includes how pain disrupts relationships and threatens social inclusion. Theme 3 reflects the struggle for pain relief, including participants' attempts to "exhaust all options" and limited success in finding lasting relief. The final theme describes how pain management is complicated by living with HIV; this theme includes the influence of HIV stigma on pain communication and pain as an unwanted reminder of HIV. These data support the relevance of investigating and targeting psychosocial factors to manage neuropathic pain in HIV.
5 citations
TL;DR: Dose-response analysis revealed a significant nonlinear relationship between gastric cancer risk and capsaicin intake, and the consumption of spicy foods and chili peppers is typically safe, however, high-quality proof is available to confirm this conclusion.
Abstract: Abstract Spicy foods and chili peppers contain the primary ingredient capsaicin, which has potential health benefits. However, their efficacy in some health outcomes is also fiercely disputed, and some side effects have been confirmed. To assess the quality and strength of the associations between spicy food and chili pepper consumption and different health outcomes. An umbrella review is performed in humans. Eleven systematic reviews and meta‐analyses with a total of 27 findings are identified. The health effect of consuming spicy food and chili peppers is unclear. Furthermore, the characteristics and context of different world regions and populations should be carefully considered. Direct correlations exist in esophageal cancer, gastric cancer, and gallbladder cancer. However, negative connections are reported in metabolism, mortality, and cardiovascular disease. Dose–response analysis reveals a significant nonlinear relationship between gastric cancer risk and capsaicin intake. The consumption of spicy foods and chili peppers is typically safe. However, high‐quality proof is available to confirm this conclusion.
5 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors highlight recent preclinical research focusing on promising cannabinoid-based approaches for the treatment of the 2 most common adverse effects of cancer chemotherapy: chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy and chemotherapyinduced nausea and vomiting.
Abstract: The use of cannabis is not unfamiliar to many cancer patients, as there is a long history of its use for cancer pain and/or pain, nausea, and cachexia induced by cancer treatment. To date, the US Food and Drug Administration has approved 2 cannabis-based pharmacotherapies for the treatment of cancer chemotherapy-associated adverse effects: dronabinol and nabilone. Over the proceeding decades, both research investigating and societal attitudes toward the potential utility of cannabinoids for a range of indications have progressed dramatically. The following monograph highlights recent preclinical research focusing on promising cannabinoid-based approaches for the treatment of the 2 most common adverse effects of cancer chemotherapy: chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Both plant-derived and synthetic approaches are discussed, as is the potential relative safety and effectiveness of these approaches in relation to current treatment options, including opioid analgesics.
5 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