Philip J. Siddall

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pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain, including studies published in peer-reviewed journals since January, 1966, and unpublished trials retrieved from ClinicalTrials.gov and websites of pharmaceutical companies.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 Studies published in peer-reviewed journals reported greater effects than did unpublished studies (r(2) 9·3%, p=0·009).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.

A longitudinal study of the prevalence and characteristics of pain in the first 5 years following spinal cord injury

&NA; A longitudinal cohort study of 100 people with traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) was performed to determine the prevalence and severity of different types of pain (musculoskeletal, visceral, neuropathic at‐level, neuropathic below‐level) at 5 years following SCI. Prospective data on the characteristics of pain up to 6 months following injury had been collected previously and allowed comparisons between the presence of pain at different time points. In addition, we sought to determine the relationship between the presence of pain and physical factors related to the injury such as level of lesion, completeness and clinical SCI syndrome. We also obtained information regarding mood, global self‐rated health and the impact of pain on function. Of the 100 subjects in the original cohort, 73 were available for follow up. When all types of pain were included, 59 of the 73 subjects (81%) reported the presence of pain. Musculoskeletal pain was the most common type of pain experienced and was present in 43 subjects (59%), at‐level neuropathic pain was present in 30 subjects (41%), below‐level neuropathic pain was present in 25 subjects (34%) and visceral pain was present in four subjects (5%). Overall, 58% reported their pain as severe or excruciating and those with visceral pain were most likely to rate their pain in these categories. There was no relationship between the presence of pain overall and level or completeness of lesion, or type of injury. However, tetraplegics were more likely to report below‐level neuropathic pain. This study prospectively demonstrates the differing time courses of different types of pain over the first 5 years following SCI. There was a strong correlation between the presence of both types of neuropathic pain at 5 years and earlier time points but both visceral pain and musculoskeletal pain demonstrated a poor correlation between time points. Chronic visceral pain occurs in a small percentage of patients and does not correlate with the presence of visceral pain early following injury. Those with neuropathic pain early following their injury are likely to continue to experience ongoing pain and the pain is likely to be severe. In contrast, chronic musculoskeletal pain is more common but less likely to be severe and cannot be predicted by the presence of pain in the first 6 months following injury.

Pain following spinal cord injury

Chronic pain is an important problem following spinal cord injury (SCI) and is a major impediment to effective rehabilitation. The reported prevalence of chronic SCI pain is variable but averages 65% with around one third of these people rating their pain as severe. The mechanisms responsible for the presence of pain are poorly understood. However, evidence from clinical observations and the use of animal models of SCI pain suggests that a number of processes may be important. These include functional and structural plastic changes in the central nervous system following injury, with changes in receptor function and loss of normal inhibition resulting in an increased neuronal excitability. A number of specific types of SCI pain can be distinguished based on descriptors, location and response to treatment. Nociceptive pain can arise from musculoskeletal structures and viscera and neuropathic pain can arise from spinal cord and nerve damage. The role of psychological and environmental factors also needs to be considered. Accurate identification of these pain types will help in selecting appropriate treatment approaches. Current treatments employ a variety of pharmacological, surgical, physical and psychological approaches. However, evidence for many of the treatments in use is still limited. It is hoped that future research will identify effective treatment strategies that accurately target specific mechanisms.Spinal Cord (2001) 39, 63–73.

Persistent pain as a disease entity: implications for clinical management.

Pain has often been regarded merely as a symptom that serves as a passive warning signal of an underlying disease process. Using this model, the goal of treatment has been to identify and address the pathology causing pain in the expectation that this would lead to its resolution. However, there is accumulating evidence to indicate that persistent pain cannot be regarded as a passive symptom. Continuing nociceptive inputs result in a multitude of consequences that impact on the individual, ranging from changes in receptor function to mood dysfunction, inappropriate cognitions, and social disruption. These changes that occur as a consequence of continuing nociceptive inputs argue for the consideration of persistent pain as a disease entity in its own right. As with any disease, the extent of these changes is largely determined by the internal and external environments in which they occur. Thus genetic, psychological and social factors may all contribute to the perception and expression of persistent pain. Optimal outcomes in the management of persistent pain may be achieved not simply by attempting to remove the cause of the pain, but by addressing both the consequences and contributors that together comprise the disease of persistent pain.

Pain report and the relationship of pain to physical factors in the first 6 months following spinal cord injury.

A prospective, longitudinal study of 100 people with traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) was performed to determine the time of onset. prevalence and severity of different types of pain (musculoskeletal, visceral, neuropathic at level, neuropathic below level) at 2, 4, 8, 13 and 26 weeks following SCI. In addition, we sought to determine the relationship between physical factors such as level of lesion, completeness and clinical SCI syndrome and the presence of pain. At 6 months following SCI, 40% of people had musculoskeletal pain, none had visceral pain, 36% had neuropathic at level pain and 19% had neuropathic below level pain. When all types of pain were included, at 6 months following injury, 64% of people in the study had pain, and 21% of people had pain that was rated as severe. Those with neuropathic below level pain were most likely to report their pain as severe or excruciating. There was no relationship between the presence of pain overall and level or completeness of lesion, or type of injury. Significant differences were found, however, when specific types of pain were examined. Musculoskeletal pain was more common in people with thoracic level injuries. Neuropathic pain associated with allodynia was more common in people who had incomplete spinal cord lesions, cervical rather than thoracic spinal cord lesions, and central cord syndrome. Therefore, this study suggests that most people continue to experience pain 6 months following spinal cord injury and 21% of people continue to experience severe pain. While the presence or absence of pain overall does not appear to be related to physical factors following SCI, there does appear to be a relationship between physical factors and pain when the pain is classified into specific types.

Classification of pain following spinal cord injury

Pain continues to be a significant management problem in people with spinal cord injuries. Despite this there is little consensus regarding the nature, terminology and definitions of the various types of pain that occur following spinal cord injury. This has led to large variations in the reported incidence and prevalence of pain following spinal cord injury. Treatment studies have been hampered by inconsistent and inaccurate identification of pain types. We believe that both research and management would benefit from an agreed upon classification system which accurately and reliably identifies the types of pain that occur following spinal cord injury. We have reviewed the literature on the classification of pain following spinal cord injury and have developed a classification system which adopts the strengths of previous systems and attempts to avoid the weaknesses inherent in others. Our proposed classification system of pain following spinal cord injury includes four major divisions: musculoskeletal, visceral, neuropathic and other types of pain. We have divided neuropathic pain on the basis of region into two subdivisions: neuropathic at level and neuropathic below level pain. We have further divided neuropathic at level pain into two categories: radicular and central, to indicate the presumed site of the lesion responsible for pain generation. We believe that our proposed classification system is comprehensive, simple and readily applicable in the clinical and research situation. It is our hope that this proposed classification will contribute to the eventual development of a universal system for the classification of pain following spinal cord injury.

The Efficacy of Intrathecal Morphine and Clonidine in the Treatment of Pain After Spinal Cord Injury

We performed a double-blinded, randomized, controlled trial in 15 patients to determine the efficacy of intrathecal morphine or clonidine, alone or combined, in the treatment of neuropathic pain after spinal cord injury. The combination of morphine and clonidine produced significantly more pain relief than placebo 4 h after administration; either morphine or clonidine alone did not produce as much pain relief. In addition, lumbar and cervical cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) concentrations, sampled at these levels at different times after administration were examined for a relationship between pain relief and CSF drug concentration. Lumbar CSF drug concentrations were initially several orders of magnitude larger than those in cervical CSF. After 1–2 h, the concentrations of morphine in cervical CSF markedly exceeded those of clonidine. The concentration of morphine in the cervical CSF and the degree of pain relief correlated significantly. We conclude that intrathecal administration of a mixture of clonidine and morphine is more effective than either drug administered alone and is related to the CSF-borne drug concentration above the level of spinal cord injury. If there is pathology that may restrict CSF flow, consideration should be given to intrathecal administration above the level of spinal cord damage to provide an adequate drug concentration in this region. Implications Neuropathic pain after spinal cord injury is very difficult to control adequately by using currently available techniques. We have performed a placebo-controlled, double-blinded study demonstrating that administration of a combination of morphine and clonidine into the spinal fluid can provide substantial pain relief in some people with this type of pain.

Neuropathic pain and primary somatosensory cortex reorganization following spinal cord injury.

Abstract The most obvious impairments associated with spinal cord injury (SCI) are loss of sensation and motor control. However, many subjects with SCI also develop persistent neuropathic pain below the injury which is often severe, debilitating and refractory to treatment. The underlying mechanisms of persistent neuropathic SCI pain remain poorly understood. Reports in amputees describing phantom limb pain demonstrate a positive correlation between pain intensity and the amount of primary somatosensory cortex (S1) reorganization. Of note, this S1 reorganization has also been shown to reverse with pain reduction. It is unknown whether a similar association between S1 reorganization and pain intensity exists in subjects with SCI. The aim of this investigation was to determine whether the degree of S1 reorganization following SCI correlated with on‐going neuropathic pain intensity. In 20 complete SCI subjects (10 with neuropathic pain, 10 without neuropathic pain) and 21 control subjects without SCI, the somatosensory cortex was mapped using functional magnetic resonance imaging during light brushing of the right little finger, thumb and lip. S1 reorganization was demonstrated in SCI subjects with the little finger activation point moving medially towards the S1 region that would normally innervate the legs. The amount of S1 reorganization in subjects with SCI significantly correlated with on‐going pain intensity levels. This study provides evidence of a link between the degree of cortical reorganization and the intensity of persistent neuropathic pain following SCI. Strategies aimed at reversing somatosensory cortical reorganization may have therapeutic potential in central neuropathic pain.

The international spinal cord injury pain basic data set.

Objective:To develop a basic pain data set (International Spinal Cord Injury Basic Pain Data Set, ISCIPDS:B) within the framework of the International spinal cord injury (SCI) data sets that would facilitate consistent collection and reporting of pain in the SCI population.Setting:International.Methods:The ISCIPDS:B was developed by a working group consisting of individuals with published evidence of expertise in SCI-related pain regarding taxonomy, psychophysics, psychology, epidemiology and assessment, and one representative of the Executive Committee of the International SCI Standards and Data Sets. The members were appointed by four major organizations with an interest in SCI-related pain (International Spinal Cord Society, ISCoS; American Spinal Injury Association, ASIA; American Pain Society, APS and International Association for the Study of Pain, IASP). The initial ISCIPDS:B was revised based on suggestions from members of the Executive Committee of the International SCI Standards and Data Sets, the ISCoS Scientific Committee, ASIA and APS Boards, and the Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group of the IASP, individual reviewers and societies and the ISCoS Council.Results:The final ISCIPDS:B contains core questions about clinically relevant information concerning SCI-related pain that can be collected by health-care professionals with expertise in SCI in various clinical settings. The questions concern pain severity, physical and emotional function and include a pain-intensity rating, a pain classification and questions related to the temporal pattern of pain for each specific pain problem. The impact of pain on physical, social and emotional function, and sleep is evaluated for each pain.