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pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain, including studies published in peer-reviewed journals since January , 1966, and unpublished trials retrieved from ClinicalTrials.gov and websites of pharmaceutical companies.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 Studies published in peer-reviewed journals reported greater eff ects than did unpublished studies (r² 9·3%, p=0·009).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: New randomized controlled trials about interventions for NeuP are necessary; they should address safety and use clear diagnostic criteria, and the majority of analyzed SRs were of medium quality.
Abstract: Numerous interventions for neuropathic pain (NeuP) are available, but its treatment remains unsatisfactory. We systematically summarized evidence from systematic reviews (SRs) of randomized controlled trials on interventions for NeuP. Five electronic databases were searched up to March 2015. Study quality was analyzed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews. The most common interventions in 97 included SRs were pharmacologic (59%) and surgical (15%). The majority of analyzed SRs were of medium quality. More than 50% of conclusions from abstracts on efficacy and approximately 80% on safety were inconclusive. Effective interventions were described for painful diabetic neuropathy (pregabalin, gabapentin, certain tricyclic antidepressants [TCAs], opioids, antidepressants, and anticonvulsants), postherpetic neuralgia (gabapentin, pregabalin, certain TCAs, antidepressants and anticonvulsants, opioids, sodium valproate, topical capsaicin, and lidocaine), lumbar radicular pain (epidural corticosteroids, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation [rTMS], and discectomy), cervical radicular pain (rTMS), carpal tunnel syndrome (carpal tunnel release), cubital tunnel syndrome (simple decompression and ulnar nerve transposition), trigeminal neuralgia (carbamazepine, lamotrigine, and pimozide for refractory cases, rTMS), HIV-related neuropathy (topical capsaicin), and central NeuP (certain TCAs, pregabalin, cannabinoids, and rTMS). Evidence about interventions for NeuP is frequently inconclusive or completely lacking. New randomized controlled trials about interventions for NeuP are necessary; they should address safety and use clear diagnostic criteria.
75 citations
TL;DR: This review summarizes the most recent findings on the role of histamine and the effects mediated by the four histamine receptors in response to the various stimuli associated with and promoting neuropathic pain and particularly focuses on mechanisms underlying histamine‐mediated analgesia.
Abstract: Histamine, acting via distinct histamine H1 , H2 , H3 , and H4 receptors, regulates various physiological and pathological processes, including pain. In the last two decades, there has been a particular increase in evidence to support the involvement of H3 receptor and H4 receptor in the modulation of neuropathic pain, which remains challenging in terms of management. However, recent data show contrasting effects on neuropathic pain due to multiple factors that determine the pharmacological responses of histamine receptors and their underlying signal transduction properties (e.g., localization on either the presynaptic or postsynaptic neuronal membranes). This review summarizes the most recent findings on the role of histamine and the effects mediated by the four histamine receptors in response to the various stimuli associated with and promoting neuropathic pain. We particularly focus on mechanisms underlying histamine-mediated analgesia, as we aim to clarify the analgesic potential of histamine receptor ligands in neuropathic pain. LINKED ARTICLES: This article is part of a themed section on New Uses for 21st Century. To view the other articles in this section visit http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bph.v177.3/issuetoc.
75 citations
Cites background from "Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pai..."
...A significant contributing factor to these limited therapeutic strategies is that neuropathic pain has different aetiology and pathophysiology to any other type of chronic pain, making the management of this type of chronic pain particularly difficult and challenging (Finnerup et al., 2015)....
[...]
TL;DR: Neuropathic cancer pain (NCP) is caused by nerve damage attributable to the cancer per se, and/or treatments including chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgery; the prevalence is reported to be as high as 40%.
Abstract: Neuropathic cancer pain (NCP) is caused by nerve damage attributable to the cancer per se, and/or treatments including chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgery; the prevalence is reported to be as high as 40%. The etiologies of NCP include direct nerve invasion or nerve compression by the cancer, neural toxicity, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy. NCP is subdivided into plexopathy, radiculopathy, and peripheral neuropathies, among several other categories. The clinical characteristics of NCP differ from those of nociceptive pain in terms of both the hypersensitivity symptoms (burning, tingling, and an electrical sensation) and the hyposensitivity symptoms (numbness and muscle weakness). Recovery requires several months to years, even after recovery from injury. Management is complex; NCP does not usually respond to opioids, although treatments may feature both opioids and adjuvant drugs including antidepressants, anticonvulsants, and anti-arrhythmic agents, all of which improve the quality-of-life. This review addresses the pathophysiology, clinical characteristics and management of NCP, and factors rendering pain control difficult.
75 citations
Cites background or methods from "Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pai..."
...Adjuvant analgesics such as antidepressants and/or anticonvulsants are required [50]....
[...]
...Based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) classification, drugs that may not be useful for patients with neuropathic pain include lacosamide, lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine, topiramate, and zonisamide [50]....
[...]
TL;DR: Given the emergence of obesity as a neuropathy risk factor, exercise and weight loss are potential interventions to treat and/or prevent neuropathy, although evidence supporting exercise currently outweighs data supporting weight loss.
Abstract: Frustratingly, disease-modifying treatments for diabetic neuropathy remain elusive. Glycaemic control has a robust effect on preventing neuropathy in individuals with type 1 but not in those with type 2 diabetes, which constitute the vast majority of patients. Encouragingly, recent evidence points to new metabolic risk factors and mechanisms, and thus also at novel disease-modifying strategies, which are desperately needed. Obesity has emerged as the second most important metabolic risk factor for neuropathy (diabetes being the first) from consensus findings of seven observational studies in populations across the world. Moreover, dyslipidaemia and altered sphingolipid metabolism are emergent novel mechanisms of nerve injury that may lead to new targeted therapies. Clinical history and examination remain critical components of an accurate diagnosis of neuropathy. However, skin biopsies and corneal confocal microscopy are promising newer tests that have been used as outcome measures in research studies but have not yet demonstrated clear clinical utility. Given the emergence of obesity as a neuropathy risk factor, exercise and weight loss are potential interventions to treat and/or prevent neuropathy, although evidence supporting exercise currently outweighs data supporting weight loss. Furthermore, a consensus has emerged advocating tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin-noradrenaline (norepinephrine) reuptake inhibitors and gabapentinoids for treating neuropathic pain. Out-of-pocket costs should be considered when prescribing these medications since their efficacy and tolerability are similar. Finally, the downsides of opioid treatment for chronic, non-cancer pain are becoming increasingly evident. Despite these data, current clinical practice frequently initiates and continues opioid prescriptions for patients with neuropathic pain before prescribing guideline-recommended treatments.
74 citations
TL;DR: How to harness resources to understand the pathophysiological drivers of NeuP, define its relationship with comorbidities such as anxiety, depression, and sleep disorders, and explore how to apply these findings to the prediction, diagnosis, and treatment of NeUP in the clinic are discussed.
74 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