Andrew S.C. Rice

Topical capsaicin (high concentration) for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.

BACKGROUNDnThis review is an update of Topical capsaicin (high concentration) for chronic neuropathic pain in adults last updated in Issue 2, 2013. Topical creams with capsaicin are used to treat peripheral neuropathic pain. Following application to the skin, capsaicin causes enhanced sensitivity, followed by a period with reduced sensitivity and, after repeated applications, persistent desensitisation. High-concentration (8%) capsaicin patches were developed to increase the amount of capsaicin delivered; rapid delivery was thought to improve tolerability because cutaneous nociceptors are defunctionalised quickly. The single application avoids noncompliance. Only the 8% patch formulation of capsaicin is available, with a capsaicin concentration about 100 times greater than conventional creams. High-concentration topical capsaicin is given as a single patch application to the affected part. It must be applied under highly controlled conditions, often following local anaesthetic, due to the initial intense burning sensation it causes. The benefits are expected to last for about 12 weeks, when another application might be made.nnnOBJECTIVESnTo review the evidence from controlled trials on the efficacy and tolerability of topically applied, high-concentration (8%) capsaicin in chronic neuropathic pain in adults.nnnSEARCH METHODSnFor this update, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two clinical trials registries, and a pharmaceutical companys website to 10 June 2016.nnnSELECTION CRITERIAnRandomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of at least 6 weeks duration, using high-concentration (5% or more) topical capsaicin to treat neuropathic pain.nnnDATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSISnTwo review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality and potential bias. Where pooled analysis was possible, we used dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and numbers needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods.Efficacy outcomes reflecting long-duration pain relief after a single drug application were from the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at specific points, usually 8 and 12 weeks. We also assessed average pain scores over weeks 2 to 8 and 2 to 12 and the number of participants with pain intensity reduction of at least 30% or at least 50% over baseline, and information on adverse events and withdrawals.We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created a Summary of findings table.nnnMAIN RESULTSnWe included eight studies, involving 2488 participants, two more studies and 415 more participants than the previous version of this review. Studies were of generally good methodological quality; we judged only one study at high risk of bias, due to small size. Two studies used a placebo control and six used 0.04% topical capsaicin as an active placebo to help maintain blinding. Efficacy outcomes were inconsistently reported, resulting in analyses for most outcomes being based on less than complete data.For postherpetic neuralgia, we found four studies (1272 participants). At both 8 and 12 weeks about 10% more participants reported themselves much or very much improved with high-concentration capsaicin than with active placebo, with point estimates of numbers needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTs) of 8.8 (95% confidence interval (CI) 5.3 to 26) with high-concentration capsaicin and 7.0 (95% CI 4.6 to 15) with active placebo (2 studies, 571 participants; moderate quality evidence). More participants (about 10%) had average 2 to 8-week and 2 to 12-week pain intensity reductions over baseline of at least 30% and at least 50% with capsaicin than control, with NNT values between 10 and 12 (2 to 4 studies, 571 to 1272 participants; very low quality evidence).For painful HIV-neuropathy, we found two studies (801 participants). One study reported the proportion of participants who were much or very much improved at 12 weeks (27% with high-concentration capsaicin and 10% with active placebo). For both studies, more participants (about 10%) had average 2 to 12-week pain intensity reductions over baseline of at least 30% with capsaicin than control, with an NNT of 11 (very low quality evidence).For peripheral diabetic neuropathy, we found one study (369 participants). It reported about 10% more participants who were much or very much improved at 8 and 12 weeks. One small study of 46 participants with persistent pain following inguinal herniorrhaphy did not show a difference between capsaicin and placebo for pain reduction (very low quality evidence).We downgraded the quality of the evidence for efficacy outcomes by one to three levels due to sparse data, imprecision, possible effects of imputation methods, and susceptibility to publication bias.Local adverse events were common, but not consistently reported. Serious adverse events were no more common with active treatment (3.5%) than control (3.2%). Adverse event withdrawals did not differ between groups, but lack of efficacy withdrawals were somewhat more common with control than active treatment, based on small numbers of events (six to eight studies, 21 to 67 events; moderate quality evidence, downgraded due to few events). No deaths were judged to be related to study medication.nnnAUTHORS CONCLUSIONSnHigh-concentration topical capsaicin used to treat postherpetic neuralgia, HIV-neuropathy, and painful diabetic neuropathy generated more participants with moderate or substantial levels of pain relief than control treatment using a much lower concentration of capsaicin. These results should be interpreted with caution as the quality of the evidence was moderate or very low. The additional proportion who benefited over control was not large, but for those who did obtain high levels of pain relief, there were usually additional improvements in sleep, fatigue, depression, and quality of life. High-concentration topical capsaicin is similar in its effects to other therapies for chronic pain.

Peripheral Neuropathic Pain: A mechanism-related organizing principle based on sensory profiles

Abstract Patients with neuropathic pain are heterogeneous in etiology, pathophysiology, and clinical appearance. They exhibit a variety of pain-related sensory symptoms and signs (sensory profile). Different sensory profiles might indicate different classes of neurobiological mechanisms, and hence subgroups with different sensory profiles might respond differently to treatment. The aim of the investigation was to identify subgroups in a large sample of patients with neuropathic pain using hypothesis-free statistical methods on the database of 3 large multinational research networks (German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain (DFNS), IMI-Europain, and Neuropain). Standardized quantitative sensory testing was used in 902 (test cohort) and 233 (validation cohort) patients with peripheral neuropathic pain of different etiologies. For subgrouping, we performed a cluster analysis using 13 quantitative sensory testing parameters. Three distinct subgroups with characteristic sensory profiles were identified and replicated. Cluster 1 (sensory loss, 42%) showed a loss of small and large fiber function in combination with paradoxical heat sensations. Cluster 2 (thermal hyperalgesia, 33%) was characterized by preserved sensory functions in combination with heat and cold hyperalgesia and mild dynamic mechanical allodynia. Cluster 3 (mechanical hyperalgesia, 24%) was characterized by a loss of small fiber function in combination with pinprick hyperalgesia and dynamic mechanical allodynia. All clusters occurred across etiologies but frequencies differed. We present a new approach of subgrouping patients with peripheral neuropathic pain of different etiologies according to intrinsic sensory profiles. These 3 profiles may be related to pathophysiological mechanisms and may be useful in clinical trial design to enrich the study population for treatment responders.

Can pragmatic trials help us better understand chronic pain and improve treatment

a California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute, San Francisco, CA, USA b Department of Anesthesiology & Perioperative Medicine, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada c Department of Biomedical & Molecular Sciences, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada d Department of Anesthesia, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark e Pain Research, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London & Pain Medicine, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK f Division of Population Health Sciences, University of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital & Medical School, Dundee, Scotland, UK g Sutter Health Research and Development, Concord, CA, USA h Departments of Anesthesiology and Psychiatry, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

Transparency in the reporting of in vivo pre-clinical pain research: The relevance and implications of the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments) guidelines

Abstract Clear reporting of research is crucial to the scientific process. Poorly designed and reported studies are damaging not only to the efforts of individual researchers, but also to science as a whole. Standardised reporting methods, such as those already established for reporting randomised clinical trials, have led to improved study design and facilitated the processes of clinical systematic review and meta-analysis. Such standards were lacking in the pre-clinical field until the development of the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments) guidelines. These were prompted following a survey which highlighted a widespread lack of robust and consistent reporting of pre-clinical in vivo research, with reports frequently omitting basic information required for study replication and quality assessment. The resulting twenty item checklist in ARRIVE covers all aspects of experimental design with particular emphasis on bias reduction and methodological transparency. Influential publishers and research funders have already adopted ARRIVE. Further dissemination and acknowledgement of the importance of these guidelines is vital to their widespread implementation. Conclusions and implications Wide implementation of the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting of in vivo preclinical research, especially pain research, are essential for a much needed increased transparency and quality in publishing such research. ARRIVE will also positively influence improvements in experimental design and quality, assist the conduct of accurate replication studies of important new findings and facilitate meta-analyses of preclinical research.

Gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUNDnGabapentin is commonly used to treat neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage). This review updates a review published in 2014, and previous reviews published in 2011, 2005 and 2000.nnnOBJECTIVESnTo assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of gabapentin in chronic neuropathic pain in adults.nnnSEARCH METHODSnFor this update we searched CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase for randomised controlled trials from January 2014 to January 2017. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and online clinical trials registries.nnnSELECTION CRITERIAnWe included randomised, double-blind trials of two weeks duration or longer, comparing gabapentin (any route of administration) with placebo or another active treatment for neuropathic pain, with participant-reported pain assessment.nnnDATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSISnTwo review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality and potential bias. Primary outcomes were participants with substantial pain relief (at least 50% pain relief over baseline or very much improved on Patient Global Impression of Change scale (PGIC)), or moderate pain relief (at least 30% pain relief over baseline or much or very much improved on PGIC). We performed a pooled analysis for any substantial or moderate benefit. Where pooled analysis was possible, we used dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) or harmful outcome (NNH). We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created Summary of findings tables.nnnMAIN RESULTSnWe included four new studies (530 participants), and excluded three previously included studies (126 participants). In all, 37 studies provided information on 5914 participants. Most studies used oral gabapentin or gabapentin encarbil at doses of 1200 mg or more daily in different neuropathic pain conditions, predominantly postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy. Study duration was typically four to 12 weeks. Not all studies reported important outcomes of interest. High risk of bias occurred mainly due to small size (especially in cross-over studies), and handling of data after study withdrawal.In postherpetic neuralgia, more participants (32%) had substantial benefit (at least 50% pain relief or PGIC very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (17%) (RR 1.8 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.1); NNT 6.7 (5.4 to 8.7); 8 studies, 2260 participants, moderate-quality evidence). More participants (46%) had moderate benefit (at least 30% pain relief or PGIC much or very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (25%) (RR 1.8 (95% CI 1.6 to 2.0); NNT 4.8 (4.1 to 6.0); 8 studies, 2260 participants, moderate-quality evidence).In painful diabetic neuropathy, more participants (38%) had substantial benefit (at least 50% pain relief or PGIC very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (21%) (RR 1.9 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.3); NNT 5.9 (4.6 to 8.3); 6 studies, 1277 participants, moderate-quality evidence). More participants (52%) had moderate benefit (at least 30% pain relief or PGIC much or very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (37%) (RR 1.4 (95% CI 1.3 to 1.6); NNT 6.6 (4.9 to 9.9); 7 studies, 1439 participants, moderate-quality evidence).For all conditions combined, adverse event withdrawals were more common with gabapentin (11%) than with placebo (8.2%) (RR 1.4 (95% CI 1.1 to 1.7); NNH 30 (20 to 65); 22 studies, 4346 participants, high-quality evidence). Serious adverse events were no more common with gabapentin (3.2%) than with placebo (2.8%) (RR 1.2 (95% CI 0.8 to 1.7); 19 studies, 3948 participants, moderate-quality evidence); there were eight deaths (very low-quality evidence). Participants experiencing at least one adverse event were more common with gabapentin (63%) than with placebo (49%) (RR 1.3 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.4); NNH 7.5 (6.1 to 9.6); 18 studies, 4279 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Individual adverse events occurred significantly more often with gabapentin. Participants taking gabapentin experienced dizziness (19%), somnolence (14%), peripheral oedema (7%), and gait disturbance (14%).nnnAUTHORS CONCLUSIONSnGabapentin at doses of 1800 mg to 3600 mg daily (1200 mg to 3600 mg gabapentin encarbil) can provide good levels of pain relief to some people with postherpetic neuralgia and peripheral diabetic neuropathy. Evidence for other types of neuropathic pain is very limited. The outcome of at least 50% pain intensity reduction is regarded as a useful outcome of treatment by patients, and the achievement of this degree of pain relief is associated with important beneficial effects on sleep interference, fatigue, and depression, as well as quality of life, function, and work. Around 3 or 4 out of 10 participants achieved this degree of pain relief with gabapentin, compared with 1 or 2 out of 10 for placebo. Over half of those treated with gabapentin will not have worthwhile pain relief but may experience adverse events. Conclusions have not changed since the previous update of this review.

Does age matter? The impact of rodent age on study outcomes

Rodent models produce data which underpin biomedical research and non-clinical drug trials, but translation from rodents into successful clinical outcomes is often lacking. There is a growing body of evidence showing that improving experimental design is key to improving the predictive nature of rodent studies and reducing the number of animals used in research. Age, one important factor in experimental design, is often poorly reported and can be overlooked. The authors conducted a survey to assess the age used for a range of models, and the reasoning for age choice. From 297 respondents providing 611 responses, researchers reported using rodents most often in the 6–20 week age range regardless of the biology being studied. The age referred to as ‘adult’ by respondents varied between six and 20 weeks. Practical reasons for the choice of rodent age were frequently given, with increased cost associated with using older animals and maintenance of historical data comparability being two important limiting factors. These results highlight that choice of age is inconsistent across the research community and often not based on the development or cellular ageing of the system being studied. This could potentially result in decreased scientific validity and increased experimental variability. In some cases the use of older animals may be beneficial. Increased scientific rigour in the choice of the age of rodent may increase the translation of rodent models to humans.

Stratifying patients with peripheral neuropathic pain based on sensory profiles: algorithm and sample size recommendations

Abstract In a recent cluster analysis, it has been shown that patients with peripheral neuropathic pain can be grouped into 3 sensory phenotypes based on quantitative sensory testing profiles, which are mainly characterized by either sensory loss, intact sensory function and mild thermal hyperalgesia and/or allodynia, or loss of thermal detection and mild mechanical hyperalgesia and/or allodynia. Here, we present an algorithm for allocation of individual patients to these subgroups. The algorithm is nondeterministic—ie, a patient can be sorted to more than one phenotype—and can separate patients with neuropathic pain from healthy subjects (sensitivity: 78%, specificity: 94%). We evaluated the frequency of each phenotype in a population of patients with painful diabetic polyneuropathy (n = 151), painful peripheral nerve injury (n = 335), and postherpetic neuralgia (n = 97) and propose sample sizes of study populations that need to be screened to reach a subpopulation large enough to conduct a phenotype-stratified study. The most common phenotype in diabetic polyneuropathy was sensory loss (83%), followed by mechanical hyperalgesia (75%) and thermal hyperalgesia (34%, note that percentages are overlapping and not additive). In peripheral nerve injury, frequencies were 37%, 59%, and 50%, and in postherpetic neuralgia, frequencies were 31%, 63%, and 46%. For parallel study design, either the estimated effect size of the treatment needs to be high (>0.7) or only phenotypes that are frequent in the clinical entity under study can realistically be performed. For crossover design, populations under 200 patients screened are sufficient for all phenotypes and clinical entities with a minimum estimated treatment effect size of 0.5.

Ultramicronized palmitoylethanolamide in spinal cord injury neuropathic pain: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

Abstract Neuropathic pain and spasticity after spinal cord injury (SCI) represent significant problems. Palmitoylethanolamide (PEA), a fatty acid amide that is produced in many cells in the body, is thought to potentiate the action of endocannabinoids and to reduce pain and inflammation. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel multicenter study was performed to investigate the effect of ultramicronized PEA (PEA-um) as add-on therapy on neuropathic pain in individuals with SCI. A pain diary was completed and questionnaires were completed before and after the 12-week treatment with either placebo or PEA-um. The primary outcome measure was the change in mean neuropathic pain intensity from the 1-week baseline period to the last week of treatment measured on a numeric rating scale ranging from 0 to 10. The primary efficacy analysis was the intention to treat (baseline observation carried forward). Secondary outcomes included a per protocol analysis and effects on spasticity, evoked pain, sleep problems, anxiety, depression, and global impression of change. We randomized 73 individuals with neuropathic pain due to SCI, of which 5 had a major protocol violation, and thus 68 were included in the primary analysis. There was no difference in mean pain intensity between PEA-um and placebo treatment (P = 0.46, mean reductions in pain scores 0.4 (−0.1 to 0.9) vs 0.7 (0.2-1.2); difference of means 0.3 (−0.4 to 0.9)). There was also no effect of PEA-um as add-on therapy on spasticity, insomnia, or psychological functioning. PEA was not associated with more adverse effects than placebo.

Use of Corneal Confocal Microscopy to Evaluate Small Nerve Fibers in Patients With Human Immunodeficiency Virus

Importance Objective quantification of small fiber neuropathy in patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)–associated sensory neuropathy (HIV-SN) is difficult but needed for diagnosis and monitoring. In vivo corneal confocal microscopy (IVCCM) can quantify small fiber damage. Objective To establish whether IVCCM can identify an abnormality in corneal nerve fibers and Langerhans cells in patients with and without HIV-SN. Design, Setting, and Participants This prospective, cross-sectional cohort study was conducted between July 24, 2015, and September 17, 2015. Twenty patients who were HIV positive were recruited from adult outpatient clinics at Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust in England. These patients underwent IVCCM at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust in London, England, and the IVCCM images were analyzed at Weill Cornell Medicine–Qatar in Ar-Rayyan, Qatar. Patients were given a structured clinical examination and completed validated symptom questionnaires and the Clinical HIV-Associated Neuropathy Tool. Results from patients with HIV were compared with the results of the age- and sex-matched healthy control participants (nu2009=u200920). All participants were classified into 3 groups: controls, patients with HIV but without SN, and patients with HIV-SN. Main Outcomes and Measures Comparison of corneal nerve fiber density, corneal nerve branch density, corneal nerve fiber length, corneal nerve fiber tortuosity, and corneal Langerhans cell density between healthy controls and patients with HIV with and without SN. Results All 40 participants were male, and most (≥70%) self-identified as white. Of the 20 patients with HIV, 14 (70%) had HIV-SN. This group was older (mean [SD] age, 57.7 [7.75] years) than the group without HIV-SN (mean [SD] age, 42.3 [7.26] years) and the controls (mean [SD] age, 53.8 [10.5] years). Corneal nerve fiber density was reduced in patients with HIV compared with the controls (26.7/mm2 vs 38.6/mm2; median difference, −10.37; 95.09% CI, −14.27 to −6.25; Pu2009<u2009.001) and in patients with HIV-SN compared with those without (25.8/mm2 vs 30.7/mm2; median difference, −4.53; 95.92% CI, −8.85 to −0.26; Pu2009=u2009.03). Corneal nerve branch density and corneal nerve fiber length were reduced in patients with HIV, but no differences were identified between those with neuropathy and without neuropathy (corneal nerve branch density: 95.83/mm2 for the controls vs 72.37/mm2 for patients with HIV; median difference, −24.53; 95.32% CI, −50.62 to −3.13; Pu2009=u2009.01; and corneal nerve fiber length: 28.4 mm/mm2 for the controls vs 21.9 mm/mm2 for patients with HIV; median difference, −5.24; 95.09% CI, −8.83 to −1.38; Pu2009=u2009.001). Tortuosity coefficient was increased in patients with HIV compared with controls (16.44 vs 13.95; median difference, 2.34; 95.09% CI, 0.31 to 4.65; Pu2009=u2009.03) and in those with HIV-SN compared with those without (17.84 vs 14.18; median difference, 4.32; 95.92% CI, 0.68-9.23; Pu2009=u2009.01). No differences were identified in corneal Langerhans cell density (19.84 cells/mm2 for the controls vs 41.43 cells/mm2 for patients with HIV; median difference, 9.38; 95% CI, −12.51 to 26.34; Pu2009=u2009.53). Conclusions and Relevance In vivo corneal confocal microscopy could be used in the assessment of HIV-SN, but larger studies are required to confirm this finding.

The potential role of sensory testing, skin biopsy, and functional brain imaging as biomarkers in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT considerations

Valid and reliable biomarkers can play an important role in clinical trials as indicators of biological or pathogenic processes or as a signal of treatment response. Currently, there are no biomarkers for pain qualified by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration or the European Medicines Agency for use in clinical trials. This article summarizes an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials meeting in which 3 potential biomarkers were discussed for use in the development of analgesic treatments: 1) sensory testing, 2) skin punch biopsy, and 3) brain imaging. The empirical evidence supporting the use of these tests is described within the context of the 4 categories of biomarkers: 1) diagnostic, 2) prognostic, 3) predictive, and 4) pharmacodynamic. Although sensory testing, skin punch biopsy, and brain imaging are promising tools for pain in clinical trials, additional evidence is needed to further support and standardize these tests for use as biomarkers in pain clinical trials.nnnPERSPECTIVEnThe applicability of sensory testing, skin biopsy, and brain imaging as diagnostic, prognostic, predictive, and pharmacodynamic biomarkers for use in analgesic treatment trials is considered. Evidence in support of their use and outlining problems is presented, as well as a call for further standardization and demonstrations of validity and reliability.