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pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain, including studies published in peer-reviewed journals since January , 1966, and unpublished trials retrieved from ClinicalTrials.gov and websites of pharmaceutical companies.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 Studies published in peer-reviewed journals reported greater eff ects than did unpublished studies (r² 9·3%, p=0·009).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: This Clinical Update elaborates on the 2019 IASP Global Year Against Pain in the Vulnerable “Factsheet Pain in Children: Management” and reviews best evidence and practice.
69 citations
Cites background from "Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pai..."
...Adjuvant analgesics may improve pain control either in addition to basic analgesia and/or opioids, or they may also act as primary analgesics, especially in neuropathic and visceral pain treatment.(41,45) Figure 1....
[...]
TL;DR: It is shown that intrathecal delivery of K(+)-Cl(-) cotransporter-2 (KCC2) using lentiviral vectors produces a complete and long-lasting reversal of pain hypersensitivity induced by nerve injury.
68 citations
Cites background from "Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pai..."
...…for treating neuropathic pain, including anti-depressants, opioids, and gabapentinoids, have limited efficacy and often produce intolerable adverse effects (Finnerup et al., 2015; Sommer, 2015), the development of highly effective treatments with minimal off-target effects is urgently needed....
[...]
...Because all of the existing analgesics for treating neuropathic pain, including anti-depressants, opioids, and gabapentinoids, have limited efficacy and often produce intolerable adverse effects (Finnerup et al., 2015; Sommer, 2015), the development of highly effective treatments with minimal off-target effects is urgently needed....
[...]
TL;DR: It is demonstrated that CBD synergistically enhances the pain-relieving actions of THC in an animal neuropathic pain model, but has little impact on the THC-induced side effects, which suggests that low dose THC:CBD combination treatment has potential in the treatment of neuropathicPain.
Abstract: Cannabis and its psychoactive constituent Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) have efficacy against neuropathic pain, however, this is hampered by their side effects. It has been suggested that co-administration with another major constituent cannabidiol (CBD) might enhance the analgesic actions of THC and minimise its deleterious side effects. We examined the basis for this phytocannabinoid interaction in a mouse chronic constriction injury (CCI) model of neuropathic pain. Acute systemic administration of THC dose-dependently reduced CCI-induced mechanical and cold allodynia, but also produced motor incoordination, catalepsy, and sedation. Cannabidiol produced a lesser dose-dependent reduction in allodynia, but did not produce the cannabinoid side effects. When co-administered in a fixed ratio, THC and CBD produced a biphasic dose-dependent reduction in allodynia. At low doses, the THC:CBD combination displayed a 200-fold increase in anti-allodynic potency, but had lower efficacy compared with that predicted for an additive drug interaction. By contrast, high THC:CBD doses had lower potency, but greater anti-allodynic efficacy compared with that predicted for an additive interaction. Only the high dose THC:CBD anti-allodynia was associated with cannabinoid side effects and these were similar to those of THC alone. Unlike THC, the low dose THC:CBD anti-allodynia was not cannabinoid receptor mediated. These findings demonstrate that CBD synergistically enhances the pain-relieving actions of THC in an animal neuropathic pain model, but has little impact on the THC-induced side effects. This suggests that low dose THC:CBD combination treatment has potential in the treatment of neuropathic pain.
68 citations
TL;DR: It is shown that the TMEM97 gene is expressed in mouse and human dorsal root ganglion including populations of neurons that are involved in pain; however, the gene is also likely expressed in non-neuronal cells that may contribute to the observed behavioral effects.
Abstract: Neuropathic pain is an important medical problem with few effective treatments. The sigma 1 receptor (σ1R) is known to be a potential target for neuropathic pain therapeutics, and antagonists for this receptor are effective in preclinical models and are currently in phase II clinical trials. Conversely, relatively little is known about σ2R, which has recently been identified as transmembrane protein 97 (Tmem97). We generated a series of σ1R and σ2R/Tmem97 agonists and antagonists and tested them for efficacy in the mouse spared nerve injury (SNI) model. In agreement with previous reports, we find that σ1R ligands given intrathecally (IT) produce relief of SNI-induced mechanical hypersensitivity. We also find that the putative σ2R/Tmem97 agonists DKR-1005, DKR-1051, and UKH-1114 (Ki ∼ 46 nM) lead to relief of SNI-induced mechanical hypersensitivity, peaking at 48 h after dosing when given IT. This effect is blocked by the putative σ2R/Tmem97 antagonist SAS-0132. Systemic administration of UKH-1114 (10 mg/k...
67 citations
TL;DR: To deal successfully with the opioid crisis, novel analgesics whose mechanisms do not involve the mu opioid receptor but that have high analgesic potency and low risk of adverse effects are needed, particularly no abuse liability.
67 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