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pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain, including studies published in peer-reviewed journals since January , 1966, and unpublished trials retrieved from ClinicalTrials.gov and websites of pharmaceutical companies.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 Studies published in peer-reviewed journals reported greater eff ects than did unpublished studies (r² 9·3%, p=0·009).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: Prevalence estimates of neuropathic pain in women treated for early-stage breast cancer are higher than those reported for other types of cancer, and emphasise the need to assess the contribution of neuropathy pain after breast cancer treatment.
Abstract: Pain is common, but often poorly managed after breast cancer treatment. Screening questionnaires and the Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group (NeuPSIG) criteria are 2 clinical approaches used to determine whether pain has neuropathic components, which may enable better pain management. The aims of this review were (1) to synthesise data from the literature on neuropathic pain prevalence in women after breast cancer treatment; (2) to investigate whether the prevalence of neuropathic pain differed between studies using screening questionnaires and the NeuPSIG criteria. We searched for studies that administered a validated neuropathic pain screening questionnaire and/or the NeuPSIG criteria to women treated for early-stage (I-III) breast cancer. Thirteen studies using screening questionnaires (N = 3792) and 3 studies using components of the NeuPSIG criteria (N = 621) were included. Meta-analyses were conducted for questionnaire data but not for NeuPSIG criteria data because of inadequate homogeneity. Among all participants treated for early-stage breast cancer, pooled prevalence estimates (95% confidence interval) ranged between 14.2% (8.3-21.4) and 27.2% (24.7-88.4) for studies using screening questionnaires; studies using NeuPSIG criteria reported prevalence rates from 24.1% to 31.3%. Among those who reported pain after treatment, the pooled prevalence estimate (95% confidence interval) of neuropathic pain from screening questionnaires ranged from 32.6% (24.2-41.6) to 58.2% (24.7-88.4); studies using NeuPSIG criteria reported prevalence rates from 29.5% to 57.1%. These prevalence estimates are higher than those reported for other types of cancer, and emphasise the need to assess the contribution of neuropathic pain after breast cancer treatment. Trial registration PROSPERO registration CRD42015029987.
38 citations
TL;DR: A novel discussion on how knowledge of psychological, neurobiological, and genetic factors underlying well-controlled placebo effects may help improve the information that can be obtained from and potentially restore the utility of RCTs is discussed.
Abstract: Over the last decade, the apparent increase in placebo responses in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of neuropathic pain have complicated and potentially limited development and availability of new effective pain medication. Placebo analgesia and nocebo hyperalgesia effects are well described in nociceptive and idiopathic pain conditions, but less is known about the magnitude and mechanisms of placebo and nocebo effects in neuropathic pain. In neuropathic pain, placebo treatments have primarily been used as control conditions for active agents under investigation in RCTs and these placebo responses are typically not controlled for the natural history of pain and other confounding factors. Recently, mechanistic studies that control for the natural history of pain have investigated placebo and nocebo effects in neuropathic pain in their own right. Large placebo analgesia but no nocebo hyperalgesic effects have been found, and the underlying mechanisms are beginning to be elucidated. Here we review placebo and nocebo effects and the underlying mechanisms in neuropathic pain and compare them with those of nociceptive and idiopathic pain. This allows for a novel discussion on how knowledge of psychological, neurobiological, and genetic factors underlying well-controlled placebo effects may help improve the information that can be obtained from and potentially restore the utility of RCTs.
38 citations
TL;DR: Clinical trials have found 5% lidocaine patches to be effective and well tolerated for the treatment of post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN) with a minimal risk of toxicity or drug–drug interactions.
Abstract: Interest in and use of topical analgesics has been increasing, presumably due to their potential utility for relief of acute and chronic pain. Topically applied agents with analgesic properties can target peripheral nociceptive pathways while minimizing absorption into the plasma that leads to potential systemic adverse effects.Clinical trials have found 5% lidocaine patches to be effective and well tolerated for the treatment of post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN) with a minimal risk of toxicity or drug-drug interactions. With this patch formulation, the penetration of lidocaine into the skin produces an analgesic effect without producing a complete sensory block. Use of topical lidocaine is supported by clinical practice guidelines, including first-line treatment by the American Academy of Neurology (guidelines retired 2018), the European Federation of Neurological Societies and second-line by the Canadian Pain Society.FDA approved 5% lidocaine patches in 1999, and a 1.8% topical lidocaine system in 2018 - both indicated for the treatment of pain secondary to PHN. The 1.8% system offers a more efficient delivery of lidocaine that is bioequivalent to 5% lidocaine patches, but with a 19-fold decrease in drug load (i.e., 36 mg versus 700 mg) as well as superior adhesion that allows the patch to maintain contact with the skin during the 12-h administration period.Although topical lidocaine formulations have advanced over time and play an important role in the treatment of PHN, a variety of other conditions that respond to topical lidocaine have been reported in the literature including PHN, lower back pain, carpal tunnel syndrome, diabetic peripheral neuropathy, and osteoarthritis joint pain. Other neuropathic or nociceptive pain syndromes may respond to topical lidocaine in select cases and warrant further study. Clinicians should consider local anesthetics and other topical agents as part of their multimodal treatments of acute and chronic pain.
38 citations
TL;DR: Flavonoids hold future promise and can be effectively used in treating or mitigating peripheral neuropathic conditions, and future studies should focus on the structure-activity relationships among different categories of flavonoids and develop therapeutic products that enhance their antineuropathic effects.
Abstract: Neuropathic pain is a common symptom and is associated with an impaired quality of life. It is caused by the lesion or disease of the somatosensory system. Neuropathic pain syndromes can be subdivided into two categories: central and peripheral neuropathic pain. The present review highlights the peripheral neuropathic models, including spared nerve injury, spinal nerve ligation, partial sciatic nerve injury, diabetes-induced neuropathy, chemotherapy-induced neuropathy, chronic constriction injury, and related conditions. The drugs which are currently used to attenuate peripheral neuropathy, such as antidepressants, anticonvulsants, baclofen, and clonidine, are associated with adverse side effects. These negative side effects necessitate the investigation of alternative therapeutics for treating neuropathic pain conditions. Flavonoids have been reported to alleviate neuropathic pain in murine models. The present review elucidates that several flavonoids attenuate different peripheral neuropathic pain conditions at behavioral, electrophysiological, biochemical and molecular biological levels in different murine models. Therefore, the flavonoids hold future promise and can be effectively used in treating or mitigating peripheral neuropathic conditions. Thus, future studies should focus on the structure-activity relationships among different categories of flavonoids and develop therapeutic products that enhance their antineuropathic effects.
38 citations
Cites background from "Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pai..."
...For gabapentinoids, the number needed to treat neuropathic pain, in most of the meta-analyses fall between 7 and 10 [18]....
[...]
TL;DR: Sensory polyneuropathies are a heterogeneous group of disorders that range from the common diabetic neuropathy to the rare sensory neuronopathies and may include immunotherapy, mitigation of risk factors, symptomatic treatment, and gene therapy.
Abstract: Sensory polyneuropathies, which are caused by dysfunction of peripheral sensory nerve fibers, are a heterogeneous group of disorders that range from the common diabetic neuropathy to the rare sensory neuronopathies. The presenting symptoms, acuity, time course, severity, and subsequent morbidity vary and depend on the type of fiber that is affected and the underlying cause. Damage to small thinly myelinated and unmyelinated nerve fibers results in neuropathic pain, whereas damage to large myelinated sensory afferents results in proprioceptive deficits and ataxia. The causes of these disorders are diverse and include metabolic, toxic, infectious, inflammatory, autoimmune, and genetic conditions. Idiopathic sensory polyneuropathies are common although they should be considered a diagnosis of exclusion. The diagnostic evaluation involves electrophysiologic testing including nerve conduction studies, histopathologic analysis of nerve tissue, serum studies, and sometimes autonomic testing and cerebrospinal fluid analysis. The treatment of these diseases depends on the underlying cause and may include immunotherapy, mitigation of risk factors, symptomatic treatment, and gene therapy, such as the recently developed RNA interference and antisense oligonucleotide therapies for transthyretin familial amyloid polyneuropathy. Many of these disorders have no directed treatment, in which case management remains symptomatic and supportive. More research is needed into the underlying pathophysiology of nerve damage in these polyneuropathies to guide advances in treatment.
38 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