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pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain, including studies published in peer-reviewed journals since January , 1966, and unpublished trials retrieved from ClinicalTrials.gov and websites of pharmaceutical companies.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 Studies published in peer-reviewed journals reported greater eff ects than did unpublished studies (r² 9·3%, p=0·009).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: Over the years, spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has proven to be a valuable last-resort treatment option for awide variety of refractory pain disorders, such as painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (PDPN), complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), and failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS).
Abstract: Neuropathic pain is a complex, heterogeneous disorder that affects approximately 8% of the total adult human population and comes with significant burden for both the patient and health care system.13 The international association for the study of pain defines neuropathic pain as “pain caused by a lesion or disease of the somatosensory nervous system” and classifies chronic neuropathic pain as a disease under International Classification of Diseases 11th Revision (ICD-11).89 Despite the development and use of many pharmacological drugs and guidelines for the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain over the years,8 a substantial amount of neuropathic pain patients remain undertreated or untreated, with less than 50% of patients responding to pharmacological treatment.30 The development of novel, last-resort interventional treatment therapies is crucial to also relief pain in these refractory patients.
Over the years, spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has proven to be a valuable last-resort treatment option (approximately 50% pain reduction in 50%-70% of patients) for a wide variety of refractory pain disorders, such as painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (PDPN),22,94 complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS),42,43 and failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS).53,77 The mechanism underlying Tonic SCS (see section 2) is partly understood, and evidence has been provided for a mechanism of action through both spinal (section 2.1) and supraspinal levels (section 2.2). Recently, new physiological targets for stimulation as well as novel SCS paradigms were introduced to bridge the gap between currently achieved pain relief (as obtained with Tonic SCS) and the desired pain relief. Literature on the effect of stimulation at new anatomical locations, such as dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRGS) (see section 3), and the use of new subsensory SCS paradigms such as high-frequency (HF) SCS (see section 4.2) and Burst SCS (see section 4.3) are discussed. This review ends with concluding remarks and future directions for research.
34 citations
01 Jan 2020
34 citations
TL;DR: Selective blockade of HCN1/HCN2 channels, over HCN4 isoform, was able to modulate electrophysiological properties of DRG neurons similarly to that reported for classical Ih blockers, ivabradine, resulting in a pain-relieving activity.
Abstract: A prominent role of hyperpolarization-activated, cyclic nucleotide-gated (HCN) channels has been suggested based on their expression and (dys)function in dorsal root ganglion (DRG) neurons, being likely involved in peripheral nociception. Using HCN blockers as antinociceptive drugs is prevented by the widespread distribution of these channels. However, tissue-specific expression of HCN isoforms varies significantly, HCN1 and HCN2 being considered as major players in DRG excitability. We characterized the pharmacological effect of a novel compound, MEL55A, able to block selectively HCN1/HCN2 isoforms, on DRG neuron excitability in-vitro and for its antiallodynic properties in-vivo. HEK293 cells expressing HCN1, HCN2, or HCN4 isoforms were used to verify drug selectivity. The pharmacological profile of MEL55A was tested on mouse DRG neurons by patch-clamp recordings, and in-vivo in oxaliplatin-induced neuropathy by means of thermal hypersensitivity. Results were compared to the non-isoform-selective drug, ivabradine. MEL55A showed a marked preference toward HCN1 and HCN2 isoforms expressed in HEK293, with respect to HCN4. In cultured DRG, MEL55A reduced Ih amplitude, both in basic conditions and after stimulation by forskolin, and cell excitability, its effect being quantitatively similar to that observed with ivabradine. MEL55A was able to relieve chemotherapy-induced neuropathic pain. In conclusion, selective blockade of HCN1/HCN2 channels, over HCN4 isoform, was able to modulate electrophysiological properties of DRG neurons similarly to that reported for classical Ih blockers, ivabradine, resulting in a pain-relieving activity. The availability of small molecules with selectivity toward HCN channel isoforms involved in nociception might represent a safe and effective strategy against chronic pain.
34 citations
Cites background from "Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pai..."
...The shortage of pharmacological agents able to treat neuropathic pain, a quite prevalent form of chronic pain, represents an increasingly medical burden (Finnerup et al., 2015)....
[...]
TL;DR: The effect of BTX-A in treating NP that complicates frequent disorders of the central and peripheral nervous system such as spinal cord injury, post-stroke shoulder pain, and painful diabetic neuropathy, which are commonly managed in a rehabilitation setting are addressed.
Abstract: Pain is a natural protective mechanism and has a warning function signaling imminent or actual tissue damage. Neuropathic pain (NP) results from a dysfunction and derangement in the transmission and signal processing along the nervous system and it is a recognized disease in itself. The prevalence of NP is estimated to be between 6.9% and 10% in the general population. This condition can complicate the recovery from stroke, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord lesions, and several neuropathies promoting persistent disability and poor quality of life. Subjects suffering from NP describe it as burning, itching, lancing, and numbness, but hyperalgesia and allodynia represent the most bothersome symptoms. The management of NP is a clinical challenge and several non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions have been proposed with variable benefits. Botulinum toxin (BTX) as an adjunct to other interventions can be a useful therapeutic tool for the treatment of disabled people. Although BTX-A is predominantly used to reduce spasticity in a neuro-rehabilitation setting, it has been used in several painful conditions including disorders characterized by NP. The underlying pharmacological mechanisms that operate in reducing pain are still unclear and include blocking nociceptor transduction, the reduction of neurogenic inflammation by inhibiting neural substances and neurotransmitters, and the prevention of peripheral and central sensitization. Some neurological disorders requiring rehabilitative intervention can show neuropathic pain resistant to common analgesic treatment. This paper addresses the effect of BTX-A in treating NP that complicates frequent disorders of the central and peripheral nervous system such as spinal cord injury, post-stroke shoulder pain, and painful diabetic neuropathy, which are commonly managed in a rehabilitation setting. Furthermore, BTX-A has an effect in relief pain that may characterize less common neurological disorders including post-traumatic neuralgia, phantom limb, and complex regional pain syndrome with focal dystonia. The use of BTX-A could represent a novel therapeutic strategy in caring for neuropathic pain whenever common pharmacological tools have been ineffective. However, large and well-designed clinical trials are needed to recommend BTX-A use in the relief of neuropathic pain.
34 citations
Cites methods from "Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pai..."
...A recent systematic review according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria (GRADE) [118] including the analysis of publication bias [119] and unpublished trials showed weak quality of evidence on the effectiveness of BTX-A in neuropathic pain and recommended this agent as a third-line treatment [120]....
[...]
TL;DR: Combination of pregabalin/gabapentin with TCA is useful in patients who do not gain sufficient pain relief or tolerate either drug in high doses, or to improve sleep disturbance, and the evidence for combining TCAs and SNRIs is insufficient, although sometimes used in clinical practice despite the risk of serotonin syndrome.
Abstract: Background Current Danish treatment algorithms for pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain (NeP) are tricyclic antidepressants (TCA), gabapentin and pregabalin as first-line treatment for the most common NeP conditions. Many patients have insufficient pain relief on monotherapy, but combination therapy had not been included in guidelines until recently. Based on clinical empiricism and scientific evidence, a Delphi consensus process provided a consolidated guidance on pharmacological combination treatment of NeP. Methods A two-round virtual internet-based Delphi process with 6 Danish pain specialists was undertaken. In the first round, questions were answered individually and anonymously, whereas in the second round, the panel openly discussed first round's summary of outcomes. Combinations of pharmacological pain treatments, that is, pregabalin/gabapentin, TCAs, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, opioids, other antiepileptics and cutaneous patches, were assessed based on both scientific and clinical practice experiences. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) grading system was used for evidence rating. Results Combination of pregabalin/gabapentin with TCA is useful in patients who do not gain sufficient pain relief or tolerate either drug in high doses, or to improve sleep disturbance. Also, combination of pregabalin/gabapentin and SNRIs is reasonably well documented and experienced by some experts to result in sufficient pain relief and fewer side effects than monotherapy. Good evidence on efficacy was found for the combination of pregabalin/gabapentin or TCAs and opioids, which was also frequently used in clinical practice. The evidence for combining TCAs and SNRIs is insufficient, although sometimes used in clinical practice despite the risk of serotonin syndrome. For localized NeP, combination therapy with cutaneous patches should be considered. There was insufficient scientific evidence for any pharmacologic combination therapies with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors - as well as for other potential combinations. Conclusions The study revealed that combination therapy is widely used in clinical practice and supported by some scientific evidence. However, further studies are needed.
34 citations
Cites background or methods from "Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pai..."
...Limited clinical experience Cutaneous patches I + A/C Casale et al,19 Meier et al20 and Irving et al21 Mixed evidence and results for localized NeP....
[...]
...Good evidence on efficacy was found for the combination of pregabalin/gabapentin and opioids in RCTs by Gilron et al16 (2400 mg gabapentin plus 60 mg morphine), Hanna et al17 (flexible moderate-dose gabapentin plus flexible moderate-dose oxycodone) and by Caraceni et al18 (fix-dose oxycodone plus moderate flexible-dose gabapentin [maximum 1800 mg]) in peripheral NeP....
[...]
...The scientific evidence is, however, divergent, dependent on the type of NeP....
[...]
...However, neither sodium channel blockers such as lamotrigine nor multiple modes of action drugs such as topiramate have any certain role in the treatment of NeP.(7) In general, this combination was seldom used by the experts....
[...]
...The combination of pregabalin/gabapentin and TCAs was the best documented and experts had good clinical experience with this combination in the management of NeP....
[...]
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