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pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain, including studies published in peer-reviewed journals since January , 1966, and unpublished trials retrieved from ClinicalTrials.gov and websites of pharmaceutical companies.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 Studies published in peer-reviewed journals reported greater eff ects than did unpublished studies (r² 9·3%, p=0·009).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 used mixed-effects models for repeated measures to evaluate the efficacy of pregabalin vs placebo in subgroups with induced-pain phenotypes (i.e., hyperalgesia or allodynia) in data from a recent, multinational randomized clinical trial (N = 539) that identified phenotypic subgroups through the use of a structured clinical exam.
Abstract: Abstract Objective Currently available treatments for neuropathic pain are only modestly efficacious when assessed in randomized clinical trials and work for only some patients in the clinic. Induced-pain or gain-of-function phenotypes have been shown to predict response to analgesics (vs placebos) in patients with neuropathic pain. However, the predictive value of these phenotypes has never been studied in post-traumatic neuropathic pain. Methods Mixed-effects models for repeated measures were used to evaluate the efficacy of pregabalin vs placebo in subgroups with induced-pain phenotypes (i.e., hyperalgesia or allodynia) in data from a recent, multinational randomized clinical trial (N = 539) that identified phenotypic subgroups through the use of a structured clinical exam. Results The difference in mean pain score between the active and placebo groups (i.e., delta) after 15 weeks of treatment for the subgroup with hyperalgesia was –0.76 (P = 0.001), compared with 0.19 (P = 0.47) for the subgroup that did not have hyperalgesia. The treatment-by-phenotype interaction, which tests whether subgroups have statistically different treatment responses, was significant (P = 0.0067). The delta for the subgroup with allodynia was –0.31 (P = 0.22), compared with –0.30 (P = 0.22) for the subgroup that did not have allodynia (treatment-by-phenotype interaction P = 0.98). Conclusions These data suggest that hyperalgesia, but not allodynia, predicts response to pregabalin in patients with chronic post-traumatic neuropathic pain. This study extends the growing data supporting the utility of induced-pain phenotypes to predict response to analgesics in post-traumatic neuropathic pain. Sensory phenotyping in large, multisite trials through the use of a structured clinical exam has the potential to accelerate the development of new analgesics and improve the generalizability of clinical trial results.
2 citations
01 Jan 2022
TL;DR: In this article , the authors proposed a hypothesis generating approach for early detection, prevention, and description of pathophysiological mechanisms, not only for painful and painless diabetic peripheral neuropathy, but also for diabetic neuropathy in general.
Abstract: The natural history and pathophysiology of diabetic painful and painless neuropathy remain an enigma to most clinicians, researchers, and persons with diabetes. The condition is clinically very well observed and described hundreds of years ago already, but a lack of robust clinical endpoints and methodologies continues to hamper diagnostics, therapeutics, and research investigations. Adding to this, signs and symptoms may differ widely from one person to another, seemingly associated with gender, age, type of diabetes, and other complications of diabetes. Some suffer only sensory loss, while others also experience uncomfortable, at times excruciating pain, and some go completely free in spite of many years of diabetes. Currently recommendations and conventional screening programs hamper the implementation of timely preventative measures in the individual person with diabetes and allows progression of complications. There is a clear need for robust and validated test methods and clinical endpoints to detect painful and painless peripheral neuropathy separately before it becomes clinically significant, and more so to target and focus on small fiber neuropathy as the location of earliest detectable neuropathy impairment. Theoretically, this could be a key to better compare and understand the associations, causative, or reflective, between painful and painless neuropathies. But, most of all it could prove to be invaluable for early detection and prevention of peripheral neuropathy. Recently, however, novel technologies have shone some light on possible associations between painful and painless diabetic neuropathy offering a new understanding of these joint conditions. This is hypothesis generating and gives hope for coming clinical studies aimed at early detection, prevention, and description of pathophysiological mechanisms, not only for painful and painless diabetic peripheral neuropathy, but also for diabetic neuropathy in general.
2 citations
TL;DR: Interventional, nuclear medicine, radiotherapy, and mini-invasive techniques can be safe and effective for relieving pain and modifying health-related QoL in BM patients.
Abstract: Context Bone metastasis (BM) is a frequent complication of cancer, representing the third most common site of secondary spread in solid cancers behind the lung and liver. Bone metastasis is found in up to 90% of prostate and breast cancer patients. They can cause significant complications, such as pathological fractures and paralysis of the spine, which decrease daily functioning and quality of life (QoL) and worsen prognosis. The growing life expectancy of cancer patients due to improvements in systemic therapies may further increase BM's eventuality and clinical burden in cancer patients. Evidence Acquisition Four physicians from five different specialties were interviewed and resumed the most relevant literature of the last 20 years focusing on pain treatment in BM patients. Results Treatment for BM ideally involves various types of specialists and assessments. The disease status and patient background should be considered, requiring holistic care and expertise from various medical specialties. Conclusions Interventional, nuclear medicine, radiotherapy, and mini-invasive techniques can be safe and effective for relieving pain and modifying health-related QoL in BM patients.
2 citations
TL;DR: Scrambler therapy (ST) is a noninvasive method of transcutaneous neuromodulation that has 510(K) clearance from the United States Food and Drug Administration for treating acute pain, postoperative pain, and intractable chronic pain this article .
Abstract: Scrambler therapy (ST) is a noninvasive method of transcutaneous neuromodulation that has 510(K) clearance from the United States Food and Drug Administration for treating acute pain, postoperative pain, and intractable chronic pain. Since its inception, ST has been used to treat many chronic pain syndromes in a variety of patient populations. We synthesized the available literature for ST to delineate its overall evidence basis.We performed a systematic review based on conventional Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses methods by surveying multiple data sources from January 1950 through October 2021. Two review authors, independently and in a standardized, unblinded fashion, conducted a systematic review to identify relevant studies and extract the necessary outcome measures. A conservative search strategy was implemented to identify all ST studies for the treatment of chronic pain syndromes. Primary outcome parameters collected were analgesic benefit, adverse effects, and other metrics such as sensorimotor testing.A total of 21 studies met the final criteria for study inclusion and comprised randomized controlled trials (n = 8), prospective observational studies (n = 10), and retrospective cohort studies (n = 3). Nearly all the reported studies explored the use of ST for the treatment of neuropathic pain, with chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy being the most studied condition. Most studies were limited by small cohorts but reported ST being safe, well tolerated, and providing clinically meaningful pain reduction. The duration of posttreatment follow-up ranged from ten to 14 days (concordant with completion of typical ST protocols) to three months. Secondary benefits such as medication reduction and improvement of sensory and motor symptoms were noted by some studies.ST is regarded as a safe intervention with potential for significant analgesic benefit for neuropathic pain conditions. Although the available evidence is most robust for treating chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy, ST has also been shown to be effective in treating other neuropathic pain syndromes. Evidence for ST use in nociceptive pain conditions is limited but appears promising. The favorable safety profile and increasing evidence basis for ST warrant more extensive recognition and consideration for use in clinical care.
2 citations
01 Jan 2021
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