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pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain, including studies published in peer-reviewed journals since January , 1966, and unpublished trials retrieved from ClinicalTrials.gov and websites of pharmaceutical companies.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 Studies published in peer-reviewed journals reported greater eff ects than did unpublished studies (r² 9·3%, p=0·009).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 paper , the authors present distinct pain phenotypes of hyperacute and late presenting neuropathic pain after spinal cord injury and highlight the challenges of pain assessments in the acute phase after injury.
2 citations
01 Oct 2022
TL;DR: In this article , the authors investigated the effect of high-voltage pulsed radiofrequency (HV-PRF) on the dorsal root ganglion (DRG) for neuropathic pain induced by spared nerve injury (SNI) in rats, especially the influence of this treatment on the DRG ultrastructure and voltage-gated sodium channel 1.7.
Abstract: To investigate the analgesic effect of high-voltage pulsed radiofrequency (HV-PRF) on the dorsal root ganglion (DRG) for neuropathic pain induced by spared nerve injury (SNI) in rats, especially the influence of this treatment on the DRG ultrastructure and voltage-gated sodium channel 1.7 (Nav1.7) level in the DRG.One hundred fifty adult male Sprague-Dawley rats were randomly divided into five groups: Sham, SNI, Free-PRF, standard-voltage PRF (SV-PRF), and HV-PRF. The 45V-PRF and 85V-PRF procedures applied to the left L5 DRG were performed in SV-PRF group and the HV-PRF group, respectively, on day 7 after SNI, whereas no PRF was concurrently delivered in Free-PRF group. The paw mechanical withdrawal threshold (PMWT) was detected before SNI (baseline) and on days 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 14, and 21. The changes of left L5 DRG ultrastructure were analyzed with transmission electron microscopy on days 14 and 21. The expression levels of Nav1.7 in left L5 DRG were detected by immunofluorescence and Western blot.Compared with the Free-PRF group, PMWT in the SV-PRF group and HV-PRF group were both significantly increased after PRF (all p < 0.05). Meanwhile, the PMWT was significantly higher in the HV-PRF group than that in the SV-PRF group on days 14 and 21 (all p < 0.05). There were statistically significant differences between the SV-PRF and Free-PRF groups (p < 0.05). Similarly, statistically significant difference was found between the HV-PRF and Free-PRF groups (p < 0.05). Especially, comparison of the SV-PRF group and the HV-PRF group revealed statistically significant difference (p < 0.05). The Nav1.7 levels were significantly downregulated in the SV-PRF group and HV-PRF groups compared to that in the Free-PRF group (all p < 0.01). A significantly lower Nav1.7 level was also found in the HV-PRF group compared to that in the SV-PRF group (p < 0.05).The HV-PRF produces a better analgesic effect than SV-PRF applied to the DRG in SNI rats. The underlying mechanisms may be associated with improving the histopathological prognosis and the downregulation of Nav1.7 levels in the DRG.
2 citations
TL;DR: In this article , the authors conducted a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of antidepressants for chronic pain conditions in January 2022, which included 176 studies with a total of 28,664 participants and found that duloxetine was consistently the highest-ranked antidepressant with moderate to high-certainty evidence.
Abstract: Chronic pain is common in adults, and often has a detrimental impact upon physical ability, well-being, and quality of life. Previous reviews have shown that certain antidepressants may be effective in reducing pain with some benefit in improving patients' global impression of change for certain chronic pain conditions. However, there has not been a network meta-analysis (NMA) examining all antidepressants across all chronic pain conditions.To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of antidepressants for adults with chronic pain (except headache).We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, AMED and PsycINFO databases, and clinical trials registries, for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of antidepressants for chronic pain conditions in January 2022.We included RCTs that examined antidepressants for chronic pain against any comparator. If the comparator was placebo, another medication, another antidepressant, or the same antidepressant at different doses, then we required the study to be double-blind. We included RCTs with active comparators that were unable to be double-blinded (e.g. psychotherapy) but rated them as high risk of bias. We excluded RCTs where the follow-up was less than two weeks and those with fewer than 10 participants in each arm. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors separately screened, data extracted, and judged risk of bias. We synthesised the data using Bayesian NMA and pairwise meta-analyses for each outcome and ranked the antidepressants in terms of their effectiveness using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). We primarily used Confidence in Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) and Risk of Bias due to Missing Evidence in Network meta-analysis (ROB-MEN) to assess the certainty of the evidence. Where it was not possible to use CINeMA and ROB-MEN due to the complexity of the networks, we used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. Our primary outcomes were substantial (50%) pain relief, pain intensity, mood, and adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were moderate pain relief (30%), physical function, sleep, quality of life, Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), serious adverse events, and withdrawal.This review and NMA included 176 studies with a total of 28,664 participants. The majority of studies were placebo-controlled (83), and parallel-armed (141). The most common pain conditions examined were fibromyalgia (59 studies); neuropathic pain (49 studies) and musculoskeletal pain (40 studies). The average length of RCTs was 10 weeks. Seven studies provided no useable data and were omitted from the NMA. The majority of studies measured short-term outcomes only and excluded people with low mood and other mental health conditions. Across efficacy outcomes, duloxetine was consistently the highest-ranked antidepressant with moderate- to high-certainty evidence. In duloxetine studies, standard dose was equally efficacious as high dose for the majority of outcomes. Milnacipran was often ranked as the next most efficacious antidepressant, although the certainty of evidence was lower than that of duloxetine. There was insufficient evidence to draw robust conclusions for the efficacy and safety of any other antidepressant for chronic pain. Primary efficacy outcomes Duloxetine standard dose (60 mg) showed a small to moderate effect for substantial pain relief (odds ratio (OR) 1.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.69 to 2.17; 16 studies, 4490 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and continuous pain intensity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.31, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.24; 18 studies, 4959 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). For pain intensity, milnacipran standard dose (100 mg) also showed a small effect (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.06; 4 studies, 1866 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Mirtazapine (30 mg) had a moderate effect on mood (SMD -0.5, 95% CI -0.78 to -0.22; 1 study, 406 participants; low-certainty evidence), while duloxetine showed a small effect (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.22 to -0.1; 26 studies, 7952 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); however it is important to note that most studies excluded participants with mental health conditions, and so average anxiety and depression scores tended to be in the 'normal' or 'subclinical' ranges at baseline already. Secondary efficacy outcomes Across all secondary efficacy outcomes (moderate pain relief, physical function, sleep, quality of life, and PGIC), duloxetine and milnacipran were the highest-ranked antidepressants with moderate-certainty evidence, although effects were small. For both duloxetine and milnacipran, standard doses were as efficacious as high doses. Safety There was very low-certainty evidence for all safety outcomes (adverse events, serious adverse events, and withdrawal) across all antidepressants. We cannot draw any reliable conclusions from the NMAs for these outcomes.Our review and NMAs show that despite studies investigating 25 different antidepressants, the only antidepressant we are certain about for the treatment of chronic pain is duloxetine. Duloxetine was moderately efficacious across all outcomes at standard dose. There is also promising evidence for milnacipran, although further high-quality research is needed to be confident in these conclusions. Evidence for all other antidepressants was low certainty. As RCTs excluded people with low mood, we were unable to establish the effects of antidepressants for people with chronic pain and depression. There is currently no reliable evidence for the long-term efficacy of any antidepressant, and no reliable evidence for the safety of antidepressants for chronic pain at any time point.
2 citations
TL;DR: Magnesium sulfate, copper sulfate and methadone dose-dependently decreased the nociceptive response evoked by formalin injection, which suggests that magnesium salts might be used to improve synergistically the efficacy of methamphetamineadone in neuropathy, which would allow to reduce the dose of methad one and its associated side effects.
Abstract: Analgesic efficacy of methadone in cancer and chronic non-cancer pains is greater than that of other opioids, probably because of its unique pharmacokinetics properties and also because it targets glutamatergic receptors in addition to µ-opioid receptors. However, methadone has drawbacks which are clearly related to dosing and treatment duration. The authors hypothesized that the antinociceptive efficacy of methadone could be synergistically potentiated by magnesium and copper salts in a preclinical mouse model of chronic pain, using the intraplantar formalin test as algesimetric tool. The spared nerve injury mice model was used to generate mononeuropathy. A low dose (0.25%) formalin was injected in the neuropathic limb in order to give rise only to Phase I response, resulting from direct activation by formalin of nociceptive primary afferents. Licking/biting of the formalin-injected limb was evaluated as nociceptive behavior during a 35-min observation period. Dose-response curves for intraperitoneal magnesium sulfate (10, 30, 100, and 300 mg/kg i.p.), copper sulfate (0.1, 0.3, 1, and 3 mg/kg i.p.) and methadone (0.1, 0.3, 1, and 3 mg/kg i.p.) allowed to combine them in equieffective doses and to determine their interaction by isobolographic analysis. Magnesium sulfate, copper sulfate and methadone dose-dependently decreased the nociceptive response evoked by formalin injection, the respective ED50 being 76.38, 1.18, and 0.50 mg/kg i.p. Isobolographic analysis showed a superadditive interaction for magnesium and methadone. Indeed, despite that both ED50 are obviously equieffective, the ED50 for the MgSO4/methadone combination contained less than one third of the methadone having the ED50 for methadone alone. For the CuSO4/methadone combination, the interaction was only additive. Extrapolated to clinical settings, the results suggest that magnesium salts might be used to improve synergistically the efficacy of methadone in neuropathy, which would allow to reduce the dose of methadone and its associated side effects.
2 citations
Cites background from "Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pai..."
...However, therapeutic guidelines relegate strong opioids, including methadone, to third-line therapy in neuropathic pain mainly because of safety concerns (Finnerup et al., 2015)....
[...]
TL;DR: To clarify the opinions of specialists about the usage of duloxetine and pregabalin for patients with CNP refractory to opioid therapy, a cross-sectional questionnaire-based survey is conducted.
Abstract: Cancer-related neuropathic pain (CNP) requires therapy involving multiple pharmaceuticals, including anticonvulsants and antidepressants; however, strong evidence to support this practice is limited. This study is a cross-sectional questionnaire-based survey. As the standard dose of adjuvant analgesics for CNP refractory to opioid therapy is not clear, the purpose of this study is to clarify the opinions of specialists about the usage of duloxetine and pregabalin for patients with CNP refractory to opioid therapy. Two hundred and eight certified palliative care specialists were surveyed and a total of 87 (42%) responses were analyzed. Twenty-five percent of specialists had considered increasing duloxetine doses up to 60 mg/day and 58% had considered increasing pregabalin doses up to 300 mg/day for CNP refractory to opioid therapy. However, 23% of the specialists succeeded in increasing duloxetine doses up to 60 mg/day and 17% in increasing pregabalin doses up to 300 mg/day, respectively.
2 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