Maija Haanpää

EFNS guidelines on the pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain: 2010 revision

Background and objectives:  This second European Federation of Neurological Societies Task Force aimed at updating the existing evidence about the pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain since 2005.

Recommendations for the Pharmacological Management of Neuropathic Pain: An Overview and Literature Update

The Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group of the International Association for the Study of Pain recently sponsored the development of evidence-based guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain. Tricyclic antidepressants, dual reuptake inhibitors of serotonin and norepinephrine, calcium channel alpha(2)-delta ligands (ie, gabapentin and pregabalin), and topical lidocaine were recommended as first-line treatment options on the basis of the results of randomized clinical trials. Opioid analgesics and tramadol were recommended as second-line treatments that can be considered for first-line use in certain clinical circumstances. Results of several recent clinical trials have become available since the development of these guidelines. These studies have examined botulinum toxin, high-concentration capsaicin patch, lacosamide, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, and combination therapies in various neuropathic pain conditions. The increasing number of negative clinical trials of pharmacological treatments for neuropathic pain and ambiguities in the interpretation of these negative trials must also be considered in developing treatment guidelines. The objectives of the current article are to review the Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group guidelines for the pharmacological management of neuropathic pain and to provide a brief overview of these recent studies.

NeuPSIG guidelines on neuropathic pain assessment

&NA; This is a revision of guidelines, originally published in 2004, for the assessment of patients with neuropathic pain. Neuropathic pain is defined as pain arising as a direct consequence of a lesion or disease affecting the somatosensory system either at peripheral or central level. Screening questionnaires are suitable for identifying potential patients with neuropathic pain, but further validation of them is needed for epidemiological purposes. Clinical examination, including accurate sensory examination, is the basis of neuropathic pain diagnosis. For more accurate sensory profiling, quantitative sensory testing is recommended for selected cases in clinic, including the diagnosis of small fiber neuropathies and for research purposes. Measurement of trigeminal reflexes mediated by A‐beta fibers can be used to differentiate symptomatic trigeminal neuralgia from classical trigeminal neuralgia. Measurement of laser‐evoked potentials is useful for assessing function of the A‐delta fiber pathways in patients with neuropathic pain. Functional brain imaging is not currently useful for individual patients in clinical practice, but is an interesting research tool. Skin biopsy to measure the intraepidermal nerve fiber density should be performed in patients with clinical signs of small fiber dysfunction. The intensity of pain and treatment effect (both in clinic and trials) should be assessed with numerical rating scale or visual analog scale. For future neuropathic pain trials, pain relief scales, patient and clinician global impression of change, the proportion of responders (50% and 30% pain relief), validated neuropathic pain quality measures and assessment of sleep, mood, functional capacity and quality of life are recommended.

A new definition of neuropathic pain

1. IntroductionIASP has recently published a new definition of neuropathic pain according to which neuropathic pain is defined as “pain caused by a lesion or disease of the somatosensory system” (www.iasp-pain.org/resources/painDefinition). This definition replaces the 17-year old definition that ap

EFNS guidelines on neuropathic pain assessment.

In September 2001, a Task Force was set up under the auspices of the European Federation of Neurological Societies with the aim of evaluating the existing evidence about the methods of assessing neuropathic pain and its treatments. This review led to the development of guidelines to be used in the management of patients with neuropathic pain. In the clinical setting a neurological examination that includes an accurate sensory examination is often sufficient to reach a diagnosis. Nerve conduction studies and somatosensory‐evoked potentials, which do not assess small fibre function, may demonstrate and localize a peripheral or central nervous lesion. A quantitative assessment of the nociceptive pathways is provided by quantitative sensory testing and laser‐evoked potentials. To evaluate treatment efficacy in a patient and in controlled trials, the simplest psychometric scales and quality of life measures are probably the best methods. A laboratory measure of pain that by‐passes the subjective report, and thus cognitive influences, is a hopeful aim for the future.

EFNS guidelines on neuropathic pain assessment: revised 2009

Background and purpose:  We have revised the previous EFNS guidelines on neuropathic pain (NP) assessment, which aimed to provide recommendations for the diagnostic process, screening tools and questionnaires, quantitative sensory testing (QST), microneurography, pain‐related reflexes and evoked potentials, functional neuroimaging and skin biopsy.

Assessment of Neuropathic Pain in Primary Care

Management of patients presenting with chronic pain is a common problem in primary care. Essentially, the classification of chronic pain falls into 3 broad categories: (1) pain owing to tissue disease or damage (nociceptive pain), (2) pain caused by somatosensory system disease or damage (neuropathic pain), and (3) pain without a known somatic background. Key challenges in developing a targeted holistic approach to treatment include appropriate diagnosis of the cause or causes of pain; identifying the type of pain and assessing the relative importance of its various components; and determining appropriate treatment. In clinical examination, sensory abnormalities are the crucial findings leading to a diagnosis of neuropathic pain, for which pharmacotherapy with antidepressants and anticonvulsants represents the cornerstone of medical treatment. Chronic neuropathic pain is underrecognized and undertreated, yet primary care physicians are uniquely placed on the frontlines of patient management, where they can play a pivotal role in treatment and prevention through diagnosis, therapy, follow-up, and referral. This review provides guidance in understanding and identifying the neuropathic contribution to pain presenting in primary care; assessing its severity through patient history, physical examination, and appropriate diagnostic tests; and establishing a rational treatment plan.

Gabapentin for the prevention of postoperative pain after vaginal hysterectomy

&NA; Gabapentin alleviates and/or prevents acute nociceptive and inflammatory pain both in animals and volunteers, especially when given before trauma. Gabapentin might also reduce postoperative pain. To test the hypothesis that gabapentin reduces the postoperative need for additional pain treatment (postoperative opioid sparing effect of gabapentin in humans), we gave 1200 mg of gabapentin or 15 mg of oxazepam (active placebo) 2.5 h prior to induction of anaesthesia to patients undergoing elective vaginal hysterectomy in an active placebo‐controlled, double blind, randomised study. Gabapentin reduced the need for additional postoperative pain treatment (PCA boluses of 50 &mgr;g of fentanyl) by 40% during the first 20 postoperative hours. During the first 2 postoperative hours pain scores at rest and worst pain score (VAS 0–100 mm) were significantly higher in the active placebo group compared to the gabapentin‐treated patients. Additionally, pretreatment with gabapentin reduced the degree of postoperative nausea and incidence of vomiting/retching possibly either due to the diminished need for postoperative pain treatment with opioids or because of an anti‐emetic effect of gabapentin itself. No preoperative differences between the two groups were encountered with respect to the side effects of the premedication. However, 15 mg oxazepam was more effective in relieving preoperative anxiety than 1200 mg gabapentin.

A randomized controlled trial of perioperative administration of pregabalin for pain after laparoscopic hysterectomy

&NA; Pregabalin has anticonvulsant, antihyperalgesic, and anxiolytic properties. In this study we evaluated the control of pain after perioperative administration of pregabalin 300 or 600 mg, compared with diazepam 10 mg. Altogether 91 women scheduled for laparoscopic hysterectomy were randomized to receive diazepam 10 mg (D10), pregabalin 150 mg (P300) or 300 mg (P600) for premedication, and the dose was repeated after 12 h, except for the D10 group, in which the patients received placebo. Up until the 1st postoperative morning, analgesia was provided by oxycodone using patient controlled analgesia. The visual analogue scale scores for pain and side effects, and the amounts of the analgesics were recorded for three days after surgery. The doses of oxycodone during hours 0–12 after surgery were similar in the three groups, whereas the dose of oxycodone during hours 12–24 after surgery was smaller in the P600 group than in the P300 group (0.09 vs. 0.16 mg kg−1; P = 0.025). The total dose of oxycodone (0–24 h after surgery) was smaller in the P600 group than in the D10 group (0.34 vs. 0.45 mg kg−1; P = 0.046). The incidence of dizziness (70% vs. 35%; P = 0.012), blurred vision (63% vs. 14%; P = 0.002) and headache (31% vs. 7%; P = 0.041) were higher in the P600 group than in the D10 group. In conclusion, perioperative administration of pregabalin 600 mg decreases oxycodone consumption compared with diazepam 10 mg, but is associated with an increased incidence of adverse effects.

Premedication with pregabalin 75 or 150 mg with ibuprofen to control pain after day-case gynaecological laparoscopic surgery

BACKGROUND Multimodal pain management has been suggested to improve postoperative analgesia. In this study, we evaluated the quality of analgesia in women undergoing day-case gynaecological laparoscopic surgery, after premedication with pregabalin 75 mg (P75) or 150 mg (P150), compared with diazepam 5 mg (D5). All patients were given ibuprofen 800 mg orally. METHODS Altogether 90 consenting women were anaesthetized in a standardized fashion. Postoperative analgesia was provided by ibuprofen 800 mg twice a day with fentanyl i.v. on request in the recovery room (RR), and combination tablets with acetaminophen and codeine after the RR. The visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for pain and side-effects and the amounts of postoperative analgesics were recorded for 24 h after surgery. The areas under the curves (AUC) were calculated for the VAS scores for pain at rest, pain in motion, and pain at cough 1-8 and 1-24 h after surgery. RESULTS The median AUC values for VAS scores for pain at rest (P=0.048) and in motion (P=0.046) 1-8 h after surgery were lower in the P150 group than that in the D5 group. The amounts of rescue analgesics or the degree of drowsiness did not differ in the three study groups. CONCLUSIONS Analgesia was better after premedication with pregabalin 150 mg than after diazepam 5 mg, both with ibuprofen 800 mg, during the early recovery after day-case gynaecological laparoscopic surgery. Pregabalin 150 mg did not reduce the amount of postoperative analgesics required.