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pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain, including studies published in peer-reviewed journals since January , 1966, and unpublished trials retrieved from ClinicalTrials.gov and websites of pharmaceutical companies.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 Studies published in peer-reviewed journals reported greater eff ects than did unpublished studies (r² 9·3%, p=0·009).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: Although there is a real need for more randomized controlled trials for both drugs, publications clearly demonstrate excellent risk/benefit ratios, safety, tolerance and continued efficacy throughout long-term treatment.
Abstract: Background: Pain localization is one of the hallmarks for the choice of first-line treatment in neuropathic pain. This literature review has been conducted to provide an overview of the current knowledge regarding the etiology and pathophysiology of localized neuropathic pain (LNP), its assessment and the existing topical pharmacological treatments.
Materials and methods: Literature review was performed using Medline from 2010 to December 2016, and all studies involving LNP and treatments were examined. A multidisciplinary expert panel of five pain specialists in this article reports a consensus on topical approaches that may be recommended to alleviate LNP and on their advantages in clinical practice.
Results: Successive international recommendations have included topical 5% lidocaine and 8% capsaicin for LNP treatment. The expert panel considers that these compounds can be a first-line treatment for LNP, especially in elderly patients and patients with comorbidities and polyphar-macy. Regulatory LNP indications should cover the whole range of LNP and not be restricted to specific etiologies or sites. Precautions for the use of plasters must be followed cautiously.
Conclusion: Although there is a real need for more randomized controlled trials for both drugs, publications clearly demonstrate excellent risk/benefit ratios, safety, tolerance and continued efficacy throughout long-term treatment. A major advantage of both plasters is that they have proven efficacy and may reduce the risk of adverse events such as cognitive impairment, confusion , somnolence, dizziness and constipation that are often associated with systemic neuropathic pain treatment and reduce the quality of life. Topical modalities also may be used in combination with other drugs and analgesics with limited drug–drug interactions.
55 citations
Cites background from "Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pai..."
...Recent NP treatment guidelines highlight 5% lidocaine-medicated plaster as a possible first-line treatment for frail and elderly patients.(13) A recent review of various studies concluded that 5% lidocaine-medicated plaster and capsaicin 8% patch were effective in elderly patients with polypharmacy....
[...]
TL;DR: This article reviews the current literature regarding the prevalence and consequences, as well as the pathophysiology, of unexplained painful physical symptoms (UPPS) in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and proposes dysfunction of the descending serotonergic and noradrenergic pathways that normally suppress ascending sensations as a core mechanism of UPPS.
Abstract: Patients with major depression often report pain. In this article, we review the current literature regarding the prevalence and consequences, as well as the pathophysiology, of unexplained painful physical symptoms (UPPS) in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). UPPS are experienced by approximately two-thirds of depressed patients. The presence of UPPS makes a correct diagnosis of depression more difficult. Moreover, UPPS are a predictor of a poor response to treatment and a more chronic course of depression. Pain, in the course of depression, also has a negative impact on functioning and quality of life. Frequent comorbidity of depression and UPPS has inspired the formulation of an hypothesis regarding a shared neurobiological mechanism of both conditions. Evidence from neuroimaging studies has shown that frontal-limbic dysfunction in depression may explain abnormal pain processing, leading to the presence of UPPS. Increased levels of proinflamatory cytokines and substance P in patients with MDD may also clarify the pathophysiology of UPPS. Finally, dysfunction of the descending serotonergic and noradrenergic pathways that normally suppress ascending sensations has been proposed as a core mechanism of UPPS. Psychological factors such as catastrophizing also play a role in both depression and chronic pain. Therefore, pharmacological treatment and/or cognitive therapy are recommended in the treatment of depression with UPPS. Some data suggest that serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) are more effective than selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in the alleviation of depression and UPPS. However, the pooled analysis of eight randomised clinical trials showed similar efficacy of duloxetine (an SNRI) and paroxetine (an SSRI) in reducing UPPS in depression. Further integrative studies examining genetic factors (e.g. polymorphisms of genes for interleukins, serotonin transporter and receptors), molecular factors (e.g. cytokines, substance P) and neuroimaging findings (e.g. functional studies during painful stimulation) might provide further explanation of the pathophysiology of UPPS in MDD and therefore facilitate the development of more effective methods of treatment.
55 citations
Cites result from "Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pai..."
...While the SNRIs appear to be effective in the treatment of chronic pain, the evidence from studies with SSRIs is inconsistent [85]....
[...]
...Assessment of the efficacy of SNRIs in the treatment of pain in MDD was the aim of several studies....
[...]
...Advances in pharmacotherapy in the last decade of the 20th century led to the introduction of new classes of antidepressants, namely selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs)....
[...]
...Some data suggest that serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) are more effective than selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in the alleviation of depression and UPPS....
[...]
...The bulk of findings from clinical studies and their meta-analyses have provided evidence for the efficacy of amitriptyline and SNRIs in reducing pain and other symptoms of fibromyalgia [89–92]....
[...]
TL;DR: Gabapentinoid prescribing has increased dramatically since 2006, as have dangerous co-prescribing and death (including DRDs).
Abstract: Background Gabapentinoid drugs (gabapentin and pregabalin) are effective in neuropathic pain, which has a prevalence of ∼7% Concerns about increased prescribing have implications for patient safety, misuse, and diversion Drug-related deaths (DRDs) have increased and toxicology often implicates gabapentinoids We studied national and regional prescribing rates (2006–2016) and identified associated sociodemographic factors, co-prescriptions and mortality, including DRDs Methods National data from the Information Service Division, NHS Scotland were analysed for prescribing, sociodemographic, and mortality data from the Health Informatics Centre, University of Dundee DRDs in which gabapentinoids were implicated were identified from National Records of Scotland and Tayside Drug Death Databases Results From 2006 to 2016, the number of gabapentin prescriptions in Scotland increased 4-fold (164 630 to 694 293), and pregabalin 16-fold (27 094 to 435 490) In 2016 ‘recurrent users' (three or more prescriptions) had mean age 581 yr, were mostly females (625%), and were more likely to live in deprived areas Of these, 60% were co-prescribed an opioid, benzodiazepine, or both (opioid 499%, benzodiazepine 268%, both 171%) The age-standardised death rate in those prescribed gabapentinoids was double that in the Scottish population (relative risk 216, 95% confidence interval 208–225) Increases in gabapentinoids contributing to cause of DRDs were reported regionally and nationally (gabapentin 23% vs 15%; pregabalin 21% vs 7%) In Tayside, gabapentinoids were implicated in 22 (39%) of DRDs, 17 (77%) of whom had not received a prescription Conclusions Gabapentinoid prescribing has increased dramatically since 2006, as have dangerous co-prescribing and death (including DRDs) Older people, women, and those living in deprived areas were particularly likely to receive prescriptions Their contribution to DRDs may be more related to illegal use with diversion of prescribed medication
54 citations
TL;DR: This chapter attempts to discuss the progress in understanding, from the initial discovery of sensory nerves until the present day, of the potential role of neurogenic inflammation in disease and in turn of novel therapeutic targets.
Abstract: The term ‘neurogenic inflammation’ is commonly used, especially with respect to the role of sensory nerves within inflammatory disease. However, despite over a century of research, we remain unclear about the role of these nerves in the vascular biology of inflammation, as compared with their interacting role in pain processing and of their potential for therapeutic manipulation. This chapter attempts to discuss the progress in understanding, from the initial discovery of sensory nerves until the present day. This covers pioneering findings that these nerves exist, are involved in vascular events and act as important sensors of environmental changes, including injury and infection. This is followed by discovery of the contents they release such as the established vasoactive neuropeptides substance P and CGRP as well as anti-inflammatory peptides such as the opioids and somatostatin. The more recent emergence of the importance of the transient receptor potential (TRP) channels has revealed some of the mechanisms by which these nerves sense environmental stimuli. This knowledge enables a platform from which to learn of the potential role of neurogenic inflammation in disease and in turn of novel therapeutic targets.
54 citations
TL;DR: A suite of seven reviews on chronic non-cancer pain and cancer pain looking at antidepressants, antiepileptic drugs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, and paracetamol is designed in order to review the evidence for children's pain utilising pharmacological interventions.
Abstract: Background
Pain is a common feature of childhood and adolescence around the world, and for many young people, that pain is chronic. The World Health Organization guidelines for pharmacological treatments for children's persisting pain acknowledge that pain in children is a major public health concern of high significance in most parts of the world. While in the past pain was largely dismissed and was frequently left untreated, views on children's pain have changed over time and relief of pain is now seen as important.
We designed a suite of seven reviews on chronic non-cancer pain and cancer pain (looking at antidepressants, antiepileptic drugs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, and paracetamol) in order to review the evidence for children's pain utilising pharmacological interventions.
As the leading cause of morbidity in the world today, chronic disease (and its associated pain) is a major health concern. Chronic pain (that is pain lasting three months or longer) can arise in the paediatric population in a variety of pathophysiological classifications (nociceptive, neuropathic, or idiopathic) from genetic conditions, nerve damage pain, chronic musculoskeletal pain, and chronic abdominal pain, as well as for other unknown reasons.
Antidepressants have been used in adults for pain relief and pain management since the 1970s. The clinical impression from extended use over many years is that antidepressants are useful for some neuropathic pain symptoms, and that effects on pain relief are divorced and different from effects on depression; for example, the effects of tricyclic antidepressants on pain may occur at different, and often lower, doses than those on depression. Amitriptyline is one of the most commonly used drugs for treating neuropathic pain in the UK.
Objectives
To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of antidepressants used to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents aged between birth and 17 years, in any setting.
Search methods
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE via Ovid, and Embase via Ovid from inception to 6 September 2016. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and searched online clinical trial registries.
Selection criteria
Randomised controlled trials, with or without blinding, of any dose and any route, treating chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents, comparing any antidepressant with placebo or an active comparator.
Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility. We planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and number needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created three 'Summary of findings' tables.
Main results
We included four studies with a total of 272 participants (6 to 18 years of age) who had either chronic neuropathic pain, complex regional pain syndrome type 1, irritable bowel syndrome, functional abdominal pain, or functional dyspepsia. All of the studies were small. One study investigated amitriptyline versus gabapentin (34 participants), two studies investigated amitriptyline versus placebo (123 participants), and one study investigated citalopram versus placebo (115 participants). Due to a lack of available data we were unable to complete any quantitative analysis.
Risk of bias for the four included studies varied, due to issues with randomisation and allocation concealment (low to unclear risk); blinding of participants, personnel, and outcome assessors (low to unclear risk); reporting of results (low to unclear risk); and size of the study populations (high risk). We judged the remaining domains, attrition and other potential sources of bias, as low risk of bias.
Primary outcomes
No studies reported our primary outcomes of participant-reported pain relief of 30% or greater or 50% or greater (very low-quality evidence).
No studies reported on Patient Global Impression of Change (very low-quality evidence).
We rated the overall quality of the evidence (GRADE rating) as very low. We downgraded the quality of the evidence by three levels to very low because there was no evidence to support or refute.
Secondary outcomes
All studies measured adverse events, with very few reported (11 out of 272 participants). All but one adverse event occurred in the active treatment groups (amitriptyline, citalopram, and gabapentin). Adverse events in all studies, across active treatment and comparator groups, were considered to be a mild reaction, such as nausea, dizziness, drowsiness, tiredness, and abdominal discomfort (very low-quality evidence).
There were also very few withdrawals due to adverse events, again all but one from the active treatment groups (very low-quality evidence).
No serious adverse events were reported across any of the studies (very low-quality evidence).
There were few or no data for our remaining secondary outcomes (very low-quality evidence).
We rated the overall quality of the evidence (GRADE rating) for these secondary outcomes as very low. We downgraded the quality of the evidence by three levels to very low due to too few data and the fact that the number of events was too small to be meaningful.
Authors' conclusions
We identified only a small number of studies with small numbers of participants and insufficient data for analysis.
As we could undertake no meta-analysis, we are unable to comment about efficacy or harm from the use of antidepressants to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents. Similarly, we cannot comment on our remaining secondary outcomes: Carer Global Impression of Change; requirement for rescue analgesia; sleep duration and quality; acceptability of treatment; physical functioning; and quality of life.
There is evidence from adult randomised controlled trials that some antidepressants, such as amitriptyline, can provide some pain relief in certain chronic non-cancer pain conditions.
There is no evidence from randomised controlled trials to support or refute the use of antidepressants to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children or adolescents.
54 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