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pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain, including studies published in peer-reviewed journals since January , 1966, and unpublished trials retrieved from ClinicalTrials.gov and websites of pharmaceutical companies.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 Studies published in peer-reviewed journals reported greater eff ects than did unpublished studies (r² 9·3%, p=0·009).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: Taken together, these elements of the history and physical can help the clinician create a neuropathy differential diagnosis that targets the most likely etiologies.
Abstract: Disorders of the peripheral nervous system cause characteristic motor, sensory, and autonomic symptoms and signs that should be recognized by the clinician. Once identified, these clinical deficits can be further characterized by their pattern of involvement and temporal evolution. Taken together, these elements of the history and physical can help the clinician create a neuropathy differential diagnosis that targets the most likely etiologies. Although an in-depth understanding of the specific causes of neuropathy is important, the knowledge is applied most efficiently when the basic concepts of neuropathy are well understood.
5 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, a pilot, open-label, randomised controlled trial in individuals with PDPN inadequately controlled on at least dual neuropathic pain treatments recruited from primary and secondary care was conducted.
Abstract: Background Frequency Rhythmic Electrical Modulated System (FREMS) is a non-invasive treatment for chronic pain conditions, but its place in the treatment algorithm for painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (PDPN) is unknown. Methods A pilot, open-label, randomised controlled trial in individuals with PDPN inadequately controlled on at least dual neuropathic pain treatments recruited from primary and secondary care. Participants were randomised 1:1 to FREMS + usual care (n = 13) versus usual care (n = 12). Primary outcome was change from baseline in perceived pain (assessed by visual analogue scale) at 12 weeks between treatment groups. Results Of 25 participants, 14 (56%) were men, and 21 (84%) were White Europeans. Median (IQR) age and duration of diabetes were 64 (56, 68) and 14 (10, 20) years, respectively. At 12 weeks, FREMS showed improvements in perceived pain compared with baseline, although the change was not statistically significant from control group (-4.0[-5.0,0.4] vs. 0[-0.3,0.7], p = 0.087). There were significant improvements in pain with FREMS, assessed by McGill Pain questionnaire (p = 0.042) and Douleur neuropathique-4 questionnaire (p = 0.042). More participants on FREMS had greater than 30 percent reductions in perceived pain compared with controls [7/13(54%) vs 0/12(0%), p = 0.042] and significant improvements in Patient Global Impression of Change (p = 0.005). FREMS intervention had moderate benefits in quality of life, sleep, depression and pain medication use, but these were not statistically significant. Conclusions FREMS might be used to treat individuals with PDPN inadequately controlled on two classes of neuropathic pain medications and is associated with improvements in pain severity and perceived impact of treatment. A larger, appropriately designed trial assessing its impact in this population is needed.
5 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the chronic phase of the monoiodoacetate (MIA)-induced rodent model of knee joint pain was evaluated by measuring paw withdrawal thresholds (PWTs) in the hindpaws pre-MIA injection twice weekly until study completion on day 42.
Abstract: For patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee, pain is the most debilitating symptom. Although it has been proposed that the chronic phase of the monoiodoacetate (MIA)-induced rodent model of knee joint pain may be superior to other chronic or acute OA models for assessing the analgesic efficacy of novel molecules, relatively few pharmacological studies have been conducted in the chronic phase of this model. Hence this study was designed to use pharmacological methods to characterize the chronic phase of the MIA-induced rat model of knee joint OA pain. Rats received a single intraarticular injection of MIA at 2.5 mg or vehicle (saline) into the left (ipsilateral) knee joint. Pain behaviour was assessed by measuring paw withdrawal thresholds (PWTs) in the hindpaws pre-MIA injection twice-weekly until study completion on day 42. Mechanical allodynia was fully developed in the ipsilateral hindpaws (PWTs ≤ 6g) from day 7 and it persisted until day 42. MIA-injected rats with PWTs ≤ 6g in the ipsilateral hindpaws received single doses of one of four clinically-available drugs that represent four distinct pharmacological classes, viz gabapentin, amitriptyline, meloxicam and morphine, according to a ‘washout’ protocol with at least 48 h between successive doses. Gabapentin evoked dose-dependent anti-allodynia as did morphine whereas amitriptyline and meloxicam were inactive. Our findings are aligned with clinical data showing that gabapentin and morphine alleviated OA pain in the knee. The lack of efficacy of amitriptyline is consistent with the loss of descending diffuse noxious inhibitory controls reported by others in this model.
5 citations
TL;DR: A consensus statement is agreed that neuropathic pain is pharmacoresistant when the patient does not reach the 50% reduction of pain or an improvement of at least 2 points in the Patient Global Impression of Change, thus improving patient care and helping clinical research.
Abstract: To improve patient care and help clinical research, the Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group of the Italian Neurological Society appointed a task force to elaborate a consensus statement on pharmacoresistant neuropathic pain. The task force included 19 experts in neuropathic pain. These experts participated in a Delphi survey consisting of three consecutive rounds of questions and a face-to-face meeting, designed to achieve a consensus definition of pharmacoresistant neuropathic pain. In the three rounds of questions, the participants identified and described the main distinguishing features of pharmacoresistance. In the face-to-face meeting the participants discussed the clinical features determining pharmacoresistance. They finally agreed that neuropathic pain is pharmacoresistant when “the patient does not reach the 50% reduction of pain or an improvement of at least 2 points in the Patient Global Impression of Change, having used all drug classes indicated as first, second, or third line in the most recent and widely agreed international guidelines, for at least 1 month after titration to the highest tolerable dose.” Our consensus statement might be useful for identifying eligible patients for invasive treatments, and selecting patients in pharmacological trials, thus improving patient care and helping clinical research.
5 citations
TL;DR: The GAPP-2 study hopes to provide evidence that the combination of morphine and gabapentin will provide better analgesia than morphine alone and will be safe and obtain confirmation of the recommended pediatric dose.
Abstract: Following publication of the original article [1], we have been notified that the tagging of one of the author names was done incorrectly in the XML version of the paper. Original and corrected tagging can be seen below.
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