Simon Haroutounian

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pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain, including studies published in peer-reviewed journals since January, 1966, and unpublished trials retrieved from ClinicalTrials.gov and websites of pharmaceutical companies.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 Studies published in peer-reviewed journals reported greater effects than did unpublished studies (r(2) 9·3%, p=0·009).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

Abstract The redefinition of neuropathic pain as “pain arising as a direct consequence of a lesion or disease affecting the somatosensory system,” which was suggested by the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) Special Interest Group on Neuropathic Pain (NeuPSIG) in 2008, has been widely accepted. In contrast, the proposed grading system of possible, probable, and definite neuropathic pain from 2008 has been used to a lesser extent. Here, we report a citation analysis of the original NeuPSIG grading paper of 2008, followed by an analysis of its use by an expert panel and recommendations for an improved grading system. As of February, 2015, 608 eligible articles in Scopus cited the paper, 414 of which cited the neuropathic pain definition. Of 220 clinical studies citing the paper, 56 had used the grading system. The percentage using the grading system increased from 5% in 2009 to 30% in 2014. Obstacles to a wider use of the grading system were identified, including (1) questions about the relative significance of confirmatory tests, (2) the role of screening tools, and (3) uncertainties about what is considered a neuroanatomically plausible pain distribution. Here, we present a revised grading system with an adjusted order, better reflecting clinical practice, improvements in the specifications, and a word of caution that even the “definite” level of neuropathic pain does not always indicate causality. In addition, we add a table illustrating the area of pain and sensory abnormalities in common neuropathic pain conditions and propose areas for further research.

Primary afferent input critical for maintaining spontaneous pain in peripheral neuropathy.

Summary The role of afferent sensory input in neuropathic pain was examined in 2 groups. Peripheral nerve blocks abolished spontaneous and evoked pain in all patients. Systemic lidocaine was more effective in pain due to polyneuropathy than nerve injury. Central sensitization does not act as an autonomous spontaneous pain‐generating mechanism. Peripheral sensory input is critical in maintaining pain after peripheral nerve damage. ABSTRACT Central sensitization after peripheral nerve injury may result in ectopic neuronal activity in the spinal cord dorsal horn, implying a potential autonomous pain‐generating mechanism. This study used peripheral nerve blockade and systemic lidocaine administration, with detailed somatosensory assessment, to determine the contribution of primary afferent input in maintaining peripheral neuropathic pain. Fourteen patients with neuropathic pain (7 with unilateral foot pain due to peripheral nerve injury and 7 with bilateral pain in the feet due to distal polyneuropathy) underwent comprehensive characterization of somatosensory function by quantitative sensory testing. Patients were then administered an ultrasound‐guided peripheral nerve block with lidocaine and intravenous lidocaine infusion in randomized order. The effect of these interventions on spontaneous pain intensity and on evoked cold, warm, pinprick, and brush responses was assessed at each session. All patients had sensory disturbances at baseline. The peripheral nerve block resulted in a complete abolition of ipsilateral pain within 10 min (median) in all patients, with lidocaine plasma concentrations being too low to account for a systemic effect of the drug. Intravenous lidocaine infusion reduced the spontaneous pain by 45.5% (±31.7%), and it reduced mechanical and thermal hypersensitivity in most patients who displayed such signs. However, the improvement in evoked hypersensitivity was not related to the effect of the drug on spontaneous pain intensity. This study demonstrated that regardless of the individual somatosensory phenotype and signs of central sensitization, primary afferent input is critical for maintaining neuropathic pain in peripheral nerve injury and distal polyneuropathy.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of ketamine for the prevention of persistent post-surgical pain

While post‐operative pain routinely resolves, persistent post‐surgical pain (PPSP) is common in certain surgeries; it causes disability, lowers quality of life and has economic consequences. The objectives of this systematic review and meta‐analysis were to evaluate the effectiveness of ketamine in reducing the prevalence and severity of PPSP and to assess safety associated with its use.

The Effect of Medicinal Cannabis on Pain and Quality-of-Life Outcomes in Chronic Pain: A Prospective Open-label Study.

Objectives:The objective of this prospective, open-label study was to determine the long-term effect of medicinal cannabis treatment on pain and functional outcomes in participants with treatment-resistant chronic pain. Patients and Methods:The primary outcome was the change in the pain symptom score on the S-TOPS (Treatment Outcomes in Pain Survey—Short Form) questionnaire at the 6-month follow-up in an intent-to-treat population. Secondary outcomes included the change in S-TOPS physical, social, and emotional disability scales, the pain severity, and pain interference on the Brief Pain Inventory, sleep problems, and the change in opioid consumption. Results:A total of 274 participants were approved for treatment; complete baseline data were available for 206 (intent-to-treat), and complete follow-up data for 176 participants. At follow-up, the pain symptom score improved from median 83.3 (95% confidence interval [CI], 79.2-87.5) to 75.0 (95% CI, 70.8-79.2) (P<0.001). The pain severity score (7.50 [95% CI, 6.75-7.75] to 6.25 [95% CI, 5.75-6.75]) and the pain interference score (8.14 [95% CI, 7.28-8.43] to 6.71 [95% CI, 6.14-7.14]) improved (both P<0.001), together with most social and emotional disability scores. Opioid consumption at follow-up decreased by 44% (P<0.001). Serious adverse effects led to treatment discontinuation in 2 participants. Discussion:The treatment of chronic pain with medicinal cannabis in this open-label, prospective cohort resulted in improved pain and functional outcomes, and a significant reduction in opioid use. Results suggest long-term benefit of cannabis treatment in this group of patients, but the study’s noncontrolled nature should be considered when extrapolating the results.

Patient phenotyping in clinical trials of chronic pain treatments: IMMPACT recommendations.

Abstract There is tremendous interpatient variability in the response to analgesic therapy (even for efficacious treatments), which can be the source of great frustration in clinical practice. This has led to calls for “precision medicine” or personalized pain therapeutics (ie, empirically based algorithms that determine the optimal treatments, or treatment combinations, for individual patients) that would presumably improve both the clinical care of patients with pain and the success rates for putative analgesic drugs in phase 2 and 3 clinical trials. However, before implementing this approach, the characteristics of individual patients or subgroups of patients that increase or decrease the response to a specific treatment need to be identified. The challenge is to identify the measurable phenotypic characteristics of patients that are most predictive of individual variation in analgesic treatment outcomes, and the measurement tools that are best suited to evaluate these characteristics. In this article, we present evidence on the most promising of these phenotypic characteristics for use in future research, including psychosocial factors, symptom characteristics, sleep patterns, responses to noxious stimulation, endogenous pain-modulatory processes, and response to pharmacologic challenge. We provide evidence-based recommendations for core phenotyping domains and recommend measures of each domain.

Systematic review of enriched enrolment, randomised withdrawal trial designs in chronic pain: a new framework for design and reporting.

Abstract Enriched enrolment, randomised withdrawal (EERW) pain trials select, before randomisation, patients who respond by demonstrating a predetermined degree of pain relief and acceptance of adverse events. There is uncertainty over the value of this design. We report a systematic review of EERW trials in chronic noncancer pain together with a critical appraisal of methods and potential biases in the methods used and recommendations for the design and reporting of future EERW trials. Electronic and other searches found 25 EERW trials published between 1995 and June 2014, involving 5669 patients in a randomised withdrawal phase comparing drug with placebo; 13 (median, 107 patients) had a randomised withdrawal phase of 6 weeks or less, and 12 (median, 334) lasted 12 to 26 weeks. Risks of bias included short duration, inadequate outcome definition, incomplete outcome data reporting, small size, and inadequate dose tapering on randomisation to placebo. Active treatment was usually better than placebo (22/25 trials). This review reduces the uncertainty around the value of EERW trials in pain. If properly designed, conducted, and reported, they are feasible and useful for making decisions about pain therapies. Shorter, small studies can be explanatory; longer, larger studies can inform practice. Current evidence is inadequate for valid comparisons in outcome between EERW and classical trials, although no gross differences were found. This systematic review provides a framework for assessing potential biases and the value of the EERW trials, and for the design of future studies by making recommendations for the conduct and reporting of EERW trials.

Neuropathic Pain: Central vs. Peripheral Mechanisms

Purpose of ReviewOur goal is to examine the processes—both central and peripheral—that underlie the development of peripherally-induced neuropathic pain (pNP) and to highlight recent evidence for mechanisms contributing to its maintenance. While many pNP conditions are initiated by damage to the peripheral nervous system (PNS), their persistence appears to rely on maladaptive processes within the central nervous system (CNS). The potential existence of an autonomous pain-generating mechanism in the CNS creates significant implications for the development of new neuropathic pain treatments; thus, work towards its resolution is crucial. Here, we seek to identify evidence for PNS and CNS independently generating neuropathic pain signals.Recent FindingsRecent preclinical studies in pNP support and provide key details concerning the role of multiple mechanisms leading to fiber hyperexcitability and sustained electrical discharge to the CNS. In studies regarding central mechanisms, new preclinical evidence includes the mapping of novel inhibitory circuitry and identification of the molecular basis of microglia-neuron crosstalk. Recent clinical evidence demonstrates the essential role of peripheral mechanisms, mostly via studies that block the initially damaged peripheral circuitry. Clinical central mechanism studies use imaging to identify potentially self-sustaining infra-slow CNS oscillatory activity that may be unique to pNP patients.SummaryWhile new preclinical evidence supports and expands upon the key role of central mechanisms in neuropathic pain, clinical evidence for an autonomous central mechanism remains relatively limited. Recent findings from both preclinical and clinical studies recapitulate the critical contribution of peripheral input to maintenance of neuropathic pain. Further clinical investigations on the possibility of standalone central contributions to pNP may be assisted by a reconsideration of the agreed terms or criteria for diagnosing the presence of central sensitization in humans.

Structural and functional characterization of nerve fibres in polyneuropathy and healthy subjects

Abstract Objectives Quantification of intraepidermal nerve fibre density (IENFD) is an important small fibre measure in distal symmetric polyneuropathies (DSP), but quantitative evaluation of additional structural and functional factors may help in elucidating the underlying mechanisms, and in improving the diagnostic accuracy in DSP. The literature reports a weak or moderate relationship between IENFD and spontaneous and evoked pain in neuropathies, but the relationship between functional and structural small fibre parameters in patients with DSP is unclear. The objectives of the current study, therefore, were to determine morphological and functional parameters related to small nerve fibres in subjects with distal symmetric polyneuropathy (DSP) and healthy controls, and to characterize the interplay among these parameters in these two groups. Materials and Methods 17 patients with painful DSP (≤4 on 0-10 numerical rating scale) and with symptoms and signs of small fibre abnormality (with or without large fibre involvement) and 19 healthy control subjects underwent comprehensive functional and structural small fibre assessments that included quantitative sensory testing, response to 30 min topical application of 10% capsaicin and analysis of skin biopsy samples taken from the distal leg (IENFD, epidermal and dermal nerve fibre length densities (eNFLD, dNFLD) using global spatial sampling and axonal swelling ratios (swellings/IENFD and swellings/NFLD)). Results DSP patients had reduced sensitivity to cold (median -11.07°C vs. -2.60, P<0.001) and heat (median 46.7 vs. 37.70, P<0.001), diminished neurovascular (median 184 vs. 278 mean flux on laser Doppler, P=0.0003) and pain response to topical capsaicin (median 10 vs. 35 on 0-100 VAS, P=0.0002), and lower IENFD, eNFLD and dNFLD values combined with increased swelling ratios (all P< 0.001) compared to healthy controls. The correlation between structural and functional parameters was poor in DSP patients, compared with healthy controls. In healthy controls eNFLD and dNFLD, IENFD and eNFLD, IENFD and dNFLD all correlated well with each other (r = 0.81; P < 0.001, r = 0.58; P = 0.009, r = 0.60; P = 0.007, respectively). In DSP, on the other hand, only eNFLD and dNFLD showed significant correlation (r = 0.53, P = 0.03). A diagnostic approach of combined IENFD and eNFLD utilization increased DSP diagnostic sensitivity from 82.0% to 100% and specificity from 84.0% to 89.5%. Conclusions This study presents a rigorous comparison between functional and morphological parameters, including parameters such as eNFDL and dNFLD that have not been previously evaluated in this context. The correlation pattern between functional and structural small fibre parameters is different in patients with DSP when compared to healthy controls. The findings suggest a more direct relationship between structure and function of nerve fibres in healthy controls compared to DSP. Furthermore, the findings suggest that combining IENFD with measurement of NFLD improves the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of DSP. Implications Combining small fibre parameters may improve the diagnostic accuracy of DSP.