Ian Gilron

Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

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 Evaluation (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pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain, including studies published in peer-reviewed journals since January, 1966, and unpublished trials retrieved from ClinicalTrials.gov and websites of pharmaceutical companies.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 fixed-effects Mantel-Haenszel method. FINDINGS 229 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Analysis of publication bias suggested a 10% overstatement of treatment effects. Studies published in peer-reviewed journals reported greater effects than did unpublished studies (r(2) 9·3%, p=0·009). Trial 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, final 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 findings permitted a strong recommendation for use and proposal as first-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 efficacy, large placebo responses, heterogeneous diagnostic criteria, and poor phenotypic profiling 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.

Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults

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 Evaluation (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 fixed-effects Mantel-Haenszel method. FINDINGS 229 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Analysis of publication bias suggested a 10% overstatement of treatment effects. Studies published in peer-reviewed journals reported greater effects than did unpublished studies (r(2) 9·3%, p=0·009). Trial 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, final 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 findings permitted a strong recommendation for use and proposal as first-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 efficacy, large placebo responses, heterogeneous diagnostic criteria, and poor phenotypic profiling 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.

Neuropathic pain: a practical guide for the clinician

Neuropathic pain, caused by various central and peripheral nerve disorders, is especially problematic because of its severity, chronicity and resistance to simple analgesics. The condition affects 2%–3% of the population, is costly to the health care system and is personally devastating to the people who experience it. The diagnosis of neuropathic pain is based primarily on history (e.g., underlying disorder and distinct pain qualities) and the findings on physical examination (e.g., pattern of sensory disturbance); however, several tests may sometimes be helpful. Important pathophysiologic mechanisms include sodium-and calcium-channel upregulation, spinal hyperexcitability, descending facilitation and aberrant sympathetic–somatic nervous system interactions. Treatments are generally palliative and include conservative nonpharmacologic therapies, drugs and more invasive interventions (e.g., spinal cord stimulation). Individualizing treatment requires consideration of the functional impact of the neuropathic pain (e.g., depression, disability) as well as ongoing evaluation, patient education, reassurance and specialty referral. We propose a primary care algorithm for treatments with the most favourable risk–benefit profile, including topical lidocaine, gabapentin, pregabalin, tricyclic antidepressants, mixed serotonin–norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, tramadol and opioids. The field of neuropathic pain research and treatment is in the early stages of development, with many unmet goals. In coming years, several advances are expected in the basic and clinical sciences of neuropathic pain, which will provide new and improved therapies for patients who continue to experience this disabling condition.

Nortriptyline and gabapentin, alone and in combination for neuropathic pain: a double-blind, randomised controlled crossover trial

BACKGROUND Drugs for neuropathic pain have incomplete efficacy and dose-limiting side-effects when given as monotherapy. We assessed the efficacy and tolerability of combined nortriptyline and gabapentin compared with each drug given alone. METHODS In this double-blind, double-dummy, crossover trial, patients with diabetic polyneuropathy or postherpetic neuralgia, and who had a daily pain score of at least 4 (scale 0-10), were enrolled and treated at one study site in Canada between Nov 5, 2004, and Dec 13, 2007. 56 patients were randomised in a 1:1:1 ratio with a balanced Latin square design to receive one of three sequences of daily oral gabapentin, nortriptyline, and their combination. In sequence, a different drug was given to each randomised group in three treatment periods. During each 6-week treatment period, drug doses were titrated towards maximum tolerated dose. The primary outcome was mean daily pain at maximum tolerated dose. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN73178636. FINDINGS 45 patients completed all three treatment periods; 47 patients completed at least two treatment periods and were analysed for the primary outcome. Mean daily pain (0-10; numerical rating scale) was 5.4 (95% CI 5.0 to 5.8) at baseline, and at maximum tolerated dose, pain was 3.2 (2.5 to 3.8) for gabapentin, 2.9 (2.4 to 3.4) for nortriptyline, and 2.3 (1.8 to 2.8) for combination treatment. Pain with combination treatment was significantly lower than with gabapentin (-0.9, 95% CI -1.4 to -0.3, p=0.001) or nortriptyline alone (-0.6, 95% CI -1.1 to -0.1, p=0.02). At maximum tolerated dose, the most common adverse event was dry mouth, which was significantly less frequent in patients on gabapentin than on nortriptyline (p<0.0001) or combination treatment (p<0.0001). No serious adverse events were recorded for any patients during the trial. INTERPRETATION Combined gabapentin and nortriptyline seems to be more efficacious than either drug given alone for neuropathic pain, therefore we recommend use of this combination in patients who show a partial response to either drug given alone and seek additional pain relief. Future trials should compare other combinations to their respective monotherapies for treatment of such pain. FUNDING Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Research design considerations for confirmatory chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations.

&NA; There has been an increase in the number of chronic pain clinical trials in which the treatments being evaluated did not differ significantly from placebo in the primary efficacy analyses despite previous research suggesting that efficacy could be expected. These findings could reflect a true lack of efficacy or methodological and other aspects of these trials that compromise the demonstration of efficacy. There is substantial variability among chronic pain clinical trials with respect to important research design considerations, and identifying and addressing any methodological weaknesses would enhance the likelihood of demonstrating the analgesic effects of new interventions. An IMMPACT consensus meeting was therefore convened to identify the critical research design considerations for confirmatory chronic pain trials and to make recommendations for their conduct. We present recommendations for the major components of confirmatory chronic pain clinical trials, including participant selection, trial phases and duration, treatment groups and dosing regimens, and types of trials. Increased attention to and research on the methodological aspects of confirmatory chronic pain clinical trials has the potential to enhance their assay sensitivity and ultimately provide more meaningful evaluations of treatments for chronic pain.

A placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial of perioperative administration of gabapentin, rofecoxib and their combination for spontaneous and movement-evoked pain after abdominal hysterectomy

&NA; Current treatments for post‐injury movement‐evoked pain are inadequate. Non‐opioids may complement opioids, which preferentially reduce spontaneous pain, but most have incomplete efficacy as single agents. This trial evaluates efficacy of a gabapentin–rofecoxib combination following hysterectomy. In addition to IV‐PCA morphine, 110 patients received either placebo, gabapentin (1800 mg/day), rofecoxib (50 mg/day) or a gabapentin–rofecoxib combination (1800/50 mg/day) starting 1 h pre‐operatively for 72 h. Outcomes included pain at rest, evoked by sitting, peak expiration and cough, morphine consumption and peak expiratory flow (PEF). For placebo, gabapentin, rofecoxib and combination, 24 h pain (100 mm VAS) was: at rest—23.6 (P<0.05 vs. all treatments), 13.8, 14.4 and 12.1; during cough—50.7 (P<0.05 vs. all treatments), 41.5, 44.8 and 30.8; 48 h morphine consumption (mg) was: 130.4 (P<0.05 vs. all treatments), 81.7, 75.6 and 57.2 (P<0.05 vs. gabapentin and rofecoxib) and 48 h PEF (% baseline) was: 63.9 (P<0.05 vs. all treatments), 77.2, 76.7 and 87.5 (P<0.05 vs. gabapentin and rofecoxib). Adverse effects were similar in all groups except sedation which was more frequent with gabapentin. Combination and rofecoxib reduced pain interference with movement, mood and sleep (P<0.05) and combination was superior to gabapentin for all these three (P<0.05). These data suggest that a gabapentin–rofecoxib combination is superior to either single agent for postoperative pain. Other benefits include opioid sparing, reduced interference with movement, mood and sleep and increased PEF suggesting accelerated pulmonary recovery. Future research should identify optimal dose‐ratios for this and other analgesic combinations.

Gabapentin and pregabalin for chronic neuropathic and early postsurgical pain: current evidence and future directions.

Purpose of review Gabapentin and pregabalin bind to the alpha-2-delta calcium channel subunit and represent a novel analgesic drug class. The evidence base supporting their use for chronic neuropathic and early postsurgical pain is reviewed. Recent findings Multiple, large, high-quality trials have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of gabapentin and pregabalin in neuropathic pain. Treatment-related improvement of pain and sleep positively impact upon quality of life. Sedation, dizziness and ataxia are important and relatively common adverse effects, however. Accumulating evidence indicates that gabapentin, and possibly pregabalin, also exert important effects following surgery. Multiple high-quality trials have demonstrated analgesic and opioid-sparing efficacy with gabapentin following various surgical procedures. Gabapentin and pregabalin reduce movement-evoked pain and this can lead to enhanced functional postoperative recovery. Postoperative opioid sparing is of questionable relevance since few trials have shown reduced opioid-related adverse effects. Sedation, dizziness and ataxia have been reported in only a few trials. Future larger-scale perioperative trials focused on safety assessment are needed, however. Summary Gabapentin and pregabalin are efficacious treatments for neuropathic and postsurgical pain. Future research addressing several specific questions would serve to better delineate their optimal roles in treating these and other pain conditions.

Considerations for improving assay sensitivity in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations

A number of pharmacologic treatments examined in recent randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have failed to show statistically significant superiority to placebo in conditions in which their efficacy had previously been demonstrated. Assuming the validity of previous evidence of efficacy and the comparability of the patients and outcome measures in these studies, such results may be a consequence of limitations in the ability of these RCTs to demonstrate the benefits of efficacious analgesic treatments vs placebo (“assay sensitivity”). Efforts to improve the assay sensitivity of analgesic trials could reduce the rate of falsely negative trials of efficacious medications and improve the efficiency of analgesic drug development. Therefore, an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials consensus meeting was convened in which the assay sensitivity of chronic pain trials was reviewed and discussed. On the basis of this meeting and subsequent discussions, the authors recommend consideration of a number of patient, study design, study site, and outcome measurement factors that have the potential to affect the assay sensitivity of RCTs of chronic pain treatments. Increased attention to and research on methodological aspects of clinical trials and their relationships with assay sensitivity have the potential to provide the foundation for an evidence‐based approach to the design of analgesic clinical trials and expedite the identification of analgesic treatments with improved efficacy and safety.

Systematic review of movement-evoked pain versus pain at rest in postsurgical clinical trials and meta-analyses: A fundamental distinction requiring standardized measurement ☆

&NA; To estimate frequency of movement‐evoked pain (MEP) measurement in human postsurgical investigations, we reviewed thoracotomy, knee arthroplasty, and hysterectomy clinical trials and meta‐analyses. Only 39% of trials measured MEP and 52% failed to identify pain outcome as pain at rest (PAR) or MEP. Temporal trending did not suggest that MEP measurement is becoming more frequent. Trials measuring both MEP and PAR suggest that MEP is 95–226% more intense than PAR in the first 3 postoperative days. Among trials measuring MEP, 38% did not specify the physical maneuver used to assess MEP. Five of 7 meta‐analyses reviewed (71%) did not distinguish between PAR and MEP, and none of the 7 meta‐analyses declared the 20–59% of reviewed trials that had failed to identify their pain outcome as PAR or MEP. These results suggest an unchanging neglect of MEP in postsurgical pain trials and frequent failure to identify pain outcome as PAR or MEP. This is an important problem because MEP is usually more severe than PAR; MEP exerts a more direct adverse impact on postsurgical functional recovery and several current and novel pain treatments differentially affect MEP vs PAR. Failure to distinguish between PAR and MEP and standardize their measurement threatens trial precision and ability to identify interventions with the most clinically relevant effects on pain. We therefore recommend developing consistent terminology regarding PAR and MEP, considering inclusion of MEP as a pain outcome in every postsurgical trial, and standardizing measurement of PAR and MEP on a procedure‐specific basis. An unchanging neglect for movement‐evoked pain (MEP) measurement in postsurgical trials is revealed; we recommend considering MEP as a pain outcome in every postsurgical trial and standardizing its measurement.

Combination pharmacotherapy for management of chronic pain: from bench to bedside

Chronic pain, a frequently neglected problem, is treated with different classes of drugs. Current agents are limited by incomplete efficacy and dose-limiting side-effects. Knowledge of pain processing implicates multiple concurrent mechanisms of nociceptive transmission and modulation. Thus, synergistic interactions of drug combinations might provide superior analgesia and fewer side-effects than monotherapy by targeting of multiple mechanisms. Several trials in neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia, arthritis, and other disorders have assessed various two-drug combinations containing antidepressants, anticonvulsants, non-steroidal anti-inflammatories, opioids, and other agents. In some trials, combined treatment showed superiority over monotherapy, but in others improved benefit or tolerability was not seen. Escalating efforts to develop novel analgesics that surpass the efficacy of current treatments have not yet been successful; therefore, combination therapy remains an important beneficial strategy. Methodological improvements in future translational research efforts are needed to maximise the potential of combination pharmacotherapy for pain.