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pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain, including studies published in peer-reviewed journals since January , 1966, and unpublished trials retrieved from ClinicalTrials.gov and websites of pharmaceutical companies.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 Studies published in peer-reviewed journals reported greater eff ects than did unpublished studies (r² 9·3%, p=0·009).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: In this article , the authors explored the patient-specific characteristics of chronic posttraumatic/postsurgical pain (CPSP) after fracture-related surgery and found that exposure to both trauma and surgery, with the potential for repeated bone and nerve damage, may increase the risk of CPSP after fracture related surgery.
Abstract: Chronic posttraumatic/postsurgical pain (CPSP) is common after traumatic or surgical damage. Exposure to both trauma and surgery, with the potential for repeated bone and nerve damage, may increase the risk of CPSP after fracture-related surgery. But the (long-term) incidences of CPSP and neuropathic CPSP and the ensuing burdens are unknown. Therefore, the patients were prospectively assessed within 1 year, and the patient-specific characteristics were explored.Between 2017 and 2018, 127 patients (age: 52.9 ± 17.1 years, male: 55.1%) with traumatic fractures needing osteosynthesis (extremities: 91.3%) were assessed posttrauma (before surgery), postsurgery at days 1 to 5, 6 weeks, 3 and 12 months. The primary outcomes are as follows: incidence at 3 and 12 months of CPSP (defined as pain intensity on a numerical rating scale [NRS: 0-10] ≥3), secondary exploration: neuropathic CPSP (NRS ≥3 and Douleur Neuropathique 4 interview [DN4i] score ≥3 [Douleur Neuropathique interview: 0-7]); burden: quality of life (QoL, the EuroQOL five dimensions questionnaire [EQ-5D-3L] descriptive system); and inter alia, the number of analgesics (trial registration: DRKS00011601).The incidence of CPSP was 57.1% (52/91, n/N) at 3 and 42.7% (35/82) at 12 months postsurgery, including neuropathic CPSP 7.7% (4/52) and 17.1% (6/35), respectively. Descriptively, posttraumatic higher pain intensity at rest (difference of 0.9 ± 1.8 NRS) and the need for more frequent analgesics (by 34.3%) were associated with CPSP a year after surgery compared to those without. As soon as week 6, these patients had developed descriptively a 15% more impaired QoL, with 25% more impairment after 1 year. The patients with CPSP presented with at least 1 neuropathic symptom 12 months later in 68.6% (24/35) of cases, mainly with an early posttraumatic occurrence (without fulfilling the definition of neuropathic CPSP).After early fracture-related surgery, high incidences of CPSP (43%) were prospectively observed 1 year postsurgery, up to approximately 1 in 5 patients who had neuropathic CPSP. At the same time, CPSP was accompanied with an impacted QoL and analgesic dependence, both indicating clinical relevance. Moreover, the high incidence and the early posttraumatic occurrence of more intense pain suggest that the initial fracture-related trauma, rather than the surgical trauma, may predominantly trigger CPSP at Y1 (1 year). Therefore, these exploratory results set the direction of required future research. A future clinical hypothesis might be: treat first what hurts first.
5 citations
TL;DR: A mechanistic model of OIH in which both 6TM and 7TM MORs undergoing membrane redistribution upon opioid exposure is proposed which eventually facilitates the neurons more sensitive to nociceptive stimulation than that of the preceding opioid exposure.
5 citations
TL;DR: LPP1 has antiallodynic properties and is an interesting lead structure in the search for novel analgesics used in neuropathic pain, indicating for neurodegenerative processes induced by CCI.
Abstract: Purpose: There is a strong medical demand to search for novel, more efficacious and safer than available, analgesics for the treatment of neuropathic pain. This study investigated antinociceptive activity of intraperitoneally administered 3-[4-(3-trifluoromethyl-phenyl)-piperazin-1-yl]-dihydrofuran-2-one (LPP1) and pregabalin in the chronic constriction injury (CCI) model of neuropathic pain in mice and evaluated these drugs’ influence on motor coordination. In addition, microscopic examinations of the sciatic nerve were performed to assess, if a surgical method or drug treatment caused changes in the structure of this nerve. Moreover, the alterations of nerve growth factor (NGF) content after drug treatment were assessed.Methods: Antiallodynic and antihyperalgesic activities of LPP1 and pregabalin were assessed in the von Frey and hot plate tests. Motor-impairing properties were evaluated in the rotarod test. Microscopic examinations of the sciatic nerve were performed using electron microscope. ...
5 citations
Cites background from "Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pai..."
...First, on the basis of its high analgesic efficacy demonstrated in randomized clinical trials (Finnerup et al., 2015; O’Connor & Dworkin, 2009), preclinical models (Gustafsson & Sandin, 2009; Okazaki et al., 2013; Villarinho et al., 2013), as well as its leading position in the guidelines for the…...
[...]
...…& Sandin, 2009; Okazaki et al., 2013; Villarinho et al., 2013), as well as its leading position in the guidelines for the pharmacological management of neuropathic pain (Finnerup et al., 2015), which all strongly recommended this drug as one of first-line treatments for this chronic pain state....
[...]
...management of neuropathic pain (Finnerup et al., 2015), which all strongly recommended this drug as one of first-line...
[...]
...First, on the basis of its high analgesic efficacy demonstrated in randomized clinical trials (Finnerup et al., 2015; O’Connor & Dworkin, 2009), preclinical models (Gustafsson & Sandin,...
[...]
TL;DR: Post-hoc moderated mediation analyses suggested that MBSR patients with longer histories of diabetes might increase their mindfulness levels more, which in turn leads to improved pain severity and physical HRQoL.
Abstract: Painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (PDPN) is a chronic pain condition with modest response to pharmacotherapy. Participation in mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) leads to improvements in pain-related outcomes but the mechanisms of change are unknown. The present study examined the mediators and moderators of change in 62 patients with PDPN who participated in a randomized controlled trial comparing MBSR to waitlist. Changes in mindfulness and pain catastrophizing were tested simultaneously as mediators. Increased mindfulness mediated the association between participation in MBSR and improved pain severity, pain interference, and the physical component of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) 3 months later. The mediation effect of pain catastrophizing was not significant. Linear moderated trends were also found. Post-hoc moderated mediation analyses suggested that MBSR patients with longer histories of diabetes might increase their mindfulness levels more, which in turn leads to improved pain severity and physical HRQoL. These results allow for a deeper understanding of pathways by which MBSR benefits patients with PDPN.
5 citations
TL;DR: In this short narrative review, several of the main chronic pain registries are presented and the strengths and weaknesses of this approach are presented.
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