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pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain, including studies published in peer-reviewed journals since January , 1966, and unpublished trials retrieved from ClinicalTrials.gov and websites of pharmaceutical companies.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 Studies published in peer-reviewed journals reported greater eff ects than did unpublished studies (r² 9·3%, p=0·009).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 conclusion, multimodal treatment of DSPN should consider the individual risk profile, pathogenetic treatment and pain management using pharmacotherapy (combinations, if required), as well as non‐pharmacological options.
Abstract: Diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy (DSPN) is encountered in approximately one-third of people with diabetes. This, in turn, might markedly impoverish their quality of life, mainly owing to neuropathic pain and foot ulcerations. Painful DSPN might be as frequent as 25% in diabetes patients. Symptoms as a result of DSPN typically comprise pain, paresthesia and numbness in the distal lower limbs. Asymptomatic DSPN might reach 50% among patients with this condition. Unfortunately, DSPN is still not adequately diagnosed and treated. Its management has three priorities: (i) lifestyle improvement, near-normoglycemia and multifactorial cardiovascular risk intervention; (ii) pathogenesis-oriented pharmacotherapy; and (iii) symptomatic alleviation of pain. Intensive diabetes therapy showed evidence for favorable effects on the incidence and deterioration of DSPN in type 1 diabetes, but not type 2 diabetes. Among pathogenesis-oriented treatments, α-lipoic acid, actovegin, benfotiamine and epalrestat are currently authorized to treat DSPN in several countries. Symptomatic therapy uses analgesics, notably antidepressants, opioids and anticonvulsants, reducing pain by ≥50% in approximately 50% of individuals, but might be limited, particularly by central nervous system-related adverse events. Local treatment with the capsaicin 8% patch might offer an alternative. In addition to pain relief, therapy should improve sleep, mobility and quality of life. In conclusion, multimodal treatment of DSPN should consider the individual risk profile, pathogenetic treatment and pain management using pharmacotherapy (combinations, if required), as well as non-pharmacological options.
37 citations
TL;DR: Data is reviewed demonstrating that the HCN2 isoform acts in an analogous way as a 'pacemaker for pain', in that its activity in nociceptive neurons is critical for the maintenance of electrical activity and for the sensation of chronic pain in pathological pain states.
Abstract: Nociception - the ability to detect painful stimuli - is an invaluable sense that warns against present or imminent damage. In patients with chronic pain, however, this warning signal persists in the absence of any genuine threat and affects all aspects of everyday life. Neuropathic pain, a form of chronic pain caused by damage to sensory nerves themselves, is dishearteningly refractory to drugs that may work in other types of pain and is a major unmet medical need begging for novel analgesics. Hyperpolarisation-activated cyclic nucleotide (HCN)-modulated ion channels are best known for their fundamental pacemaker role in the heart; here, we review data demonstrating that the HCN2 isoform acts in an analogous way as a 'pacemaker for pain', in that its activity in nociceptive neurons is critical for the maintenance of electrical activity and for the sensation of chronic pain in pathological pain states. Pharmacological block or genetic deletion of HCN2 in sensory neurons provides robust pain relief in a variety of animal models of inflammatory and neuropathic pain, without any effect on normal sensation of acute pain. We discuss the implications of these findings for our understanding of neuropathic pain pathogenesis, and we outline possible future opportunities for the development of efficacious and safe pharmacotherapies in a range of chronic pain syndromes.
37 citations
TL;DR: This review provides evidence from both clinical trials and experimental studies that questions the 'additive model' of RCTs, and discusses an interactive model that, in contrast to the additive model, considers interactions between placebo and drug-specific effects.
37 citations
TL;DR: The studies show that spinal nerve injury may increase µ-δ heterodimerization in uninjured DRG neurons and that µ- δ heteromers may be a potential therapeutic target for relieving neuropathic pain, even under conditions of morphine tolerance.
Abstract: Several reports support the idea that µ- and δ-opioid receptors (ORs) may exist as heterodimers in brain regions involved in pain signaling. The unique pharmacology of these heteromers may present a novel analgesic target. However, the role of µ-δ heteromers in sensory neurons involved in pain and opioid analgesia remains unclear, particularly during neuropathic pain. We examined the effects of spinal nerve injury on µ-δ heteromer expression in dorsal root ganglion (DRG) neurons and the effects of a µ-δ heteromer-targeting agonist, CYM51010, on neuropathic pain behavior in rats and mice. An L5 spinal nerve ligation (SNL) in rats significantly decreased µ-δ heteromer expression in L5 DRG but increased heteromer levels in uninjured L4 DRG. Importantly, in SNL rats, subcutaneous injection of CYM51010 inhibited mechanical hypersensitivity in a dose-related manner (EC50: 1.09 mg/kg) and also reversed heat hyperalgesia and attenuated ongoing pain (2 mg/kg, subcutaneously). HEK-293T cell surface-labeled with µ- and δ-ORs internalized both receptors after exposure to CYM51010. By contrast, in cells transfected with µ-OR alone, CYM51010 was significantly less effective at inducing receptor internalization. Electrophysiologic studies showed that CYM51010 inhibited the C-component and windup phenomenon in spinal wide dynamic range neurons of SNL rats. The pain inhibitory effects of CYM51010 persisted in morphine-tolerant rats but was markedly attenuated in µ-OR knockout mice. Our studies show that spinal nerve injury may increase µ-δ heterodimerization in uninjured DRG neurons, and that µ-δ heteromers may be a potential therapeutic target for relieving neuropathic pain, even under conditions of morphine tolerance.
37 citations
Cites background from "Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pai..."
...Opioids continue to have an important role in the management of severe acute pain and are currently recommended as third-line drugs for chronic neuropathic pain when anticonvulsant and antidepressant drugs do not provide adequate relief.(8,13) However, the use of opioids in patients with chronic pain is often limited by adverse effects, such as sedation, dizziness, cognitive dysfunction, and respiratory depression....
[...]
TL;DR: The utility of an algorithm for stratifying patients into clusters corresponding to specific combinations of neuropathic symptoms assessed with the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI) is investigated and a preliminary validation of a web-based version of the NPSI and algorithm for the stratification of patients is developed.
Abstract: The personalization of neuropathic pain treatment could be improved by identifying specific sensory phenotypes (ie, specific combinations of symptoms and signs) predictive of the response to different classes of drugs. A simple and reliable phenotyping method is required for such a strategy. We investigated the utility of an algorithm for stratifying patients into clusters corresponding to specific combinations of neuropathic symptoms assessed with the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI). Consistent with previous results, we first confirmed, in a cohort of 628 patients, the existence of a structure consisting of 3 clusters of patients characterized by higher NPSI scores for: pinpointed pain (cluster 1), evoked pain (cluster 2), or deep pain (cluster 3). From these analyses, we derived a specific algorithm for assigning each patient to one of these 3 clusters. We then assessed the clinical relevance of this algorithm for predicting treatment response, through post hoc analyses of 2 previous controlled trials of the effects of subcutaneous injections of botulinum toxin A. Each of the 97 patients with neuropathic pain included in these studies was individually allocated to one cluster, by applying the algorithm to their baseline NPSI responses. We found significant effects of botulinum toxin A relative to placebo in clusters 2 and 3, but not in cluster 1, suggesting that this approach was, indeed, relevant. Finally, we developed and performed a preliminary validation of a web-based version of the NPSI and algorithm for the stratification of patients in both research and daily practice.
37 citations
Cites background from "Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pai..."
...Neuropathic pain remains an unmet clinical need, with less than 50% of patients achieving partial pain relief with the drug treatments currently recommended.(3,19,27) This poor therapeutic outcome is probably related to multiple factors, including the possibility that the drugs currently used do not act on the most relevant pathophysiological targets....
[...]
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