Primary studies included in this systematic review

loading
28 articles (28 References) Revert Studify

Primary study

Unclassified

Tramadol in Neuropathic Pain After Spinal Cord Injury: A Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Trial.

Authors Norrbrink C , Lundeberg T
Journal The Clinical journal of pain
Year 2009
Links Pubmed DOI

This article is included in 7 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (7 references)

Loading references information
OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of tramadol for relieving neuropathic pain after spinal cord injury (SCI). METHODS: Thirty-six patients with SCI and neuropathic pain were enrolled in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, and 35 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis based on all patients taking at least 1 dose of study medication. Of the intention-to-treat population, 23 were randomized to treatment with tramadol and 12 to placebo. Patients were given study medication for 4 weeks, starting with 3 times 50 mg tramadol daily or 3 times 1 tablet of placebo. RESULTS: At evaluation, 4 weeks after the treatment initiation, ratings of pain intensity were lower in those randomized to tramadol compared with those on placebo. Pain severity scores on the Multidimensional Pain Inventory had also decreased in patients on tramadol. No between-group differences in pain affect were observed. Adverse events were substantial and caused 43% of those on tramadol and 17% on placebo to withdraw from the study. DISCUSSION: Tramadol might be tried for neuropathic pain after SCI after the use of gabapentin/pregabalin, and tricyclic antidepressants have been found to be insufficient. Titration should be slow and individual, to minimize the risk of adverse events.

Primary study

Unclassified

Levetiracetam in spinal cord injury pain: a randomized controlled trial.

Journal Spinal cord
Year 2009
Links Pubmed DOI

This article is included in 6 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (6 references)

Loading references information
Study design:A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover, multicenter trial. A 1-week baseline period was followed by two treatment periods of 5 weeks duration with levetiracetam increased from 500 mg b.i.d. to a maximum of 1500 mg b.i.d. separated by a 1-week washout period.OBJECTIVES:The objective of the study was primarily to evaluate the efficacy of the anticonvulsant levetiracetam in patients with spinal cord injury (SCI) at- and below-level pain and secondarily to evaluate the effect on spasm severity.SETTING:Outpatients at two spinal cord units and a pain center.METHODS:Patients were allowed to continue their usual pain treatment at a constant dose. The primary outcome measure was the change in median daily pain score (on a 0-10 point numeric rating scale) from 1-week baseline period to the last week of each treatment period. Secondary outcome measures included pain relief of at- and below-level pain, allodynia, spasms and spasticity.RESULTS:A total of 36 patients with SCI at- and or below-level pain were enrolled. Of these, 24 patients completed the trial. We found no effect of levetiracetam on the primary (P=0.46) or any of the secondary outcome measures. Only two patients continued levetiracetam treatment following the trial, and one patient was still in levetiracetam treatment at the 6-month follow-up. Levetiracetam was generally well tolerated with no serious adverse events.CONCLUSIONS:Levetiracetam does not relieve neuropathic pain or spasm severity following spinal cord injury.

Primary study

Unclassified

The use of botulinum toxin for spasticity after spinal cord injury.

Authors Marciniak C , Rader L , Gagnon C
Journal American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation / Association of Academic Physiatrists
Year 2008
Links Pubmed DOI

This article is included in 2 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (2 references)

Loading references information
OBJECTIVE: To describe the use and effects of botulinum toxin (BTX) injections in persons with spinal cord injury (SCI) and focal spasticity. DESIGN: Chart review of patients with SCI receiving their first injection of BTX for spasticity control at a freestanding urban rehabilitation hospital. Charts were reviewed for history and level of SCI, one of five self-identified goals (ambulation, positioning, upper-extremity function, hygiene, and pain control) before and after injection; site and doses of BTX used; and self-reported outcome on clinical follow-up. RESULTS: Charts of 28 adults receiving BTX were reviewed. All patients received BTX type A. Dosages of BTX ranged from 10 to 119 units per muscle. Improvement was noted for 56% in ambulation and 71% in positioning. Overall, upper-extremity function improved in 78%, hygiene improved in 66.6%, and pain decreased in 83.3%. Early use of BTX injections (less than a year after onset of symptoms) vs. late use of BTX injections did not influence effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: BTX seems to be an effective treatment for focal spasticity and for reducing disability in persons with SCI. Randomized trials are needed to confirm the value of this treatment in the setting of SCI.

Primary study

Unclassified

Pregabalin in patients with central neuropathic pain: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of a flexible-dose regimen.

Journal Pain
Year 2008
Links Pubmed DOI

This article is included in 7 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (7 references)

Loading references information
The effective treatment of patients suffering from central neuropathic pain remains a clinical challenge, despite a standard pharmacological approach in combination with anticonvulsants and antidepressants. A randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial evaluated the effects of pregabalin on pain relief, tolerability, health status, and quality of life in patients with central neuropathic pain caused by brain or spinal cord injuries. At baseline and 4 weeks after the start of treatment subjects were evaluated with standard measures of efficacy: pain intensity measured by visual analog scale, health status (Pain Disability Index and EQ-5D) and quality of life (SF-36). Forty patients received escalating doses of either pregabalin (150, 300, and 600mg/day) or matching placebo capsules. In both groups, patients started with 1 capsule per day (either 150mg of pregabalin or placebo). If pain relief was insufficient, patients were titrated to a higher dose. There was a statistically significant decrease in mean pain score at endpoint for pregabalin treatment, compared with placebo (P=0.016). Follow-up observation showed no significant difference in Pain Disability Index scores between the two groups. The pregabalin group, however, showed a statistically significant improvement for the EQ-5D. Pregabalin treatment led to a significant improvement in the bodily pain domain of the SF36. In the other domains, more favorable scores were reported without reaching statistical significance. Pregabalin, in a flexible-dose regime, produced clinically significant reductions in pain, as well as improvements in health status in patients suffering from severe central neuropathic pain.

Publication Thread

Hagenbach et al [provisional name] (Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol for spinal cord injury [provisional name])

This thread includes 2 references

Primary study

Unclassified

Comparison of the effectiveness of amitriptyline and gabapentin on chronic neuropathic pain in persons with spinal cord injury.

blocked
Journal Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation
Year 2007
Links Pubmed DOI

This article is included in 9 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (9 references)

Loading references information
OBJECTIVE: To test the hypotheses that both amitriptyline and gabapentin are more effective in relieving neuropathic pain than an active placebo, diphenhydramine. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled, double blind, triple crossover 8-week trial. SETTING: Veterans Affairs medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Community dwelling adults with spinal cord injury (N=38) were recruited by telephone, letters, and flyers. INTERVENTION: Eight-week trial each of amitriptyline, gabapentin, and diphenhydramine. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain intensity measured with a 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS) and an 11-point (0-10) numeric rating scale (NRS) and depressive symptomatology measured with the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale-Short Form (CESD-SF). RESULTS: Baseline VAS scores for participants with low (< 10) CESD-SF scores was 4.61 and for those with high scores (> or = 10) it was 7.41. At week 8, in participants with high baseline CESD-SF scores, amitriptyline (mean, 4.21) was more effective than diphenhydramine (mean, 6.67; P=.035), and there was a nonsignificant trend suggesting that amitriptyline may be more effective than gabapentin (mean, 6.68; P=.061). Gabapentin was no more effective than diphenhydramine (P=.97). There was no significant difference among the medications for those with lower CESD-SF scores. Results could not be attributed to dropout rates, order or dose of medications, amount of medication taken for breakthrough pain, or side effects. CONCLUSIONS: Amitriptyline is more efficacious in relieving neuropathic pain than diphenhydramine at or below the level of spinal cord injury in people who have considerable depressive symptomatology.Copyright © 2007 by Elsevier Inc.

Primary study

Unclassified

Pregabalin in central neuropathic pain associated with spinal cord injury: A placebo-controlled trial.

Journal Neurology
Year 2006
Links Pubmed DOI

This article is included in 7 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (7 references) 1 Broad synthesis Broad syntheses (1 reference)

Loading references information
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate pregabalin in central neuropathic pain associated with spinal cord injury. METHODS: A 12-week, multicenter study of patients randomized to either flexible-dose pregabalin 150 to 600 mg/day (n = 70) or placebo (n = 67), administered BID. Patients were allowed to remain on existing, stable pain therapy. The primary efficacy variable was the endpoint mean pain score, derived from patients' last 7 days daily pain diary entries. Key secondary endpoints included pain responder rates, the SF-MPQ, sleep interference, mood, and the patient global measure of change. RESULTS: The mean baseline pain score was 6.54 in the pregabalin group and 6.73 in the placebo group. The mean endpoint pain score was lower in the pregabalin group (4.62) than the placebo group (6.27; p < 0.001), with efficacy observed as early as week 1 and maintained for the duration of the study. The average pregabalin dose after the 3-week stabilization phase was 460 mg/day. Pregabalin was significantly superior to placebo in endpoint assessments on the SF-MPQ. The >/=30% and >/=50% pain responder rates were higher with pregabalin than placebo (p < 0.05). Pregabalin was associated with improvements in disturbed sleep (p < 0.001) and anxiety (p < 0.05), and more patients reported global improvement at endpoint in the pregabalin group (p < 0.001). Mild or moderate, typically transient, somnolence and dizziness were the most common adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Pregabalin 150 to 600 mg/day was effective in relieving central neuropathic pain, improving sleep, anxiety, and overall patient status in patients with spinal cord injury.

Primary study

Unclassified

Intravenous lidocaine relieves spinal cord injury pain: a randomized controlled trial.

Journal Anesthesiology
Year 2005
Links Pubmed DOI

This article is included in 3 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (3 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND: Neuropathic pain in spinal cord injury is a common challenging therapeutic condition. The current study examines the analgesic effect of the sodium channel blocker lidocaine on neuropathic pain in patients with spinal cord injury and the predictive role of concomitant evoked pain on pain relief with lidocaine. METHODS: Twenty-four spinal cord injury patients with neuropathic pain at or below the level of injury were randomized and completed a double-blind crossover trial of 5 mg/kg lidocaine and placebo infused over 30 min. Twelve patients reported evoked pain, and 12 patients had no evoked pain. Spontaneous and evoked pains were assessed using a visual analog scale and quantitative sensory testing. RESULTS: Lidocaine significantly reduced spontaneous pain in all patients (P < 0.01) and in each of the two groups with (P < 0.01) and without (P = 0.048) evoked pain, with no difference in number of responders (pain reduction > or = 33%) between the patients with (n = 6) and without (n = 5) evoked pain. Lidocaine significantly relieved both at-level and below-level neuropathic pain and decreased brush-evoked dysesthesia but not cold allodynia, pinprick hyperalgesia, or pain evoked by repetitive pinprick. CONCLUSIONS: Lidocaine reduced neuropathic pain at and below the level of injury irrespective of the presence or absence of evoked pain. Results are consistent with a central-acting effect of sodium channel blockers acting on neuronal hyperexcitability. Agents (such as anticonvulsants or antiarrhythmics) with sodium channel-blocking properties may be a treatment option for spinal cord injury pain.

Primary study

Unclassified

The analgesic effect of intravenous ketamine and lidocaine on pain after spinal cord injury.

Journal Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica
Year 2004
Links Pubmed DOI

This article is included in 3 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (3 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND: Pain following spinal cord injury (SCI) is a therapeutic challenge. Only a few treatments have been assessed in randomized, controlled trials. The primary objective of the present study was to examine the analgesic effect of ketamine and lidocaine in a group of patients with neuropathic pain below the level of spinal cord injury. We also wanted to assess sensory abnormalities to see if this could help us to identify responders and if treatments resulted in changes of sensibility. METHODS: Ten patients with spinal cord injury and neuropathic pain below the level of injury were included. The analgesic effect of ketamine 0.4 mg kg(-1) and lidocaine 2.5 mg kg(-1) was investigated. Saline was used as placebo. The drugs were infused over 40 min. A randomized, double-blind, three-period, three-treatment, cross-over design was used. Systemic plasma concentrations of ketamine and lidocaine were assessed. Pain rating was performed using a visual analogue scale (VAS). Sensory function was assessed with a combination of traditional sensory tests and quantitative measurement of temperature thresholds. RESULTS: Response to treatment, defined as 50% reduction in VAS-score during infusion, was recorded in 5/10 in the ketamine, 1/10 in the lidocaine and 0/10 in the placebo groups. Neither ketamine nor lidocaine changed temperature thresholds or assessments of mechanical; dynamic and static sensibility. Nor could these sensory assessments predict response to treatment in this setting. Lidocaine and particularly ketamine were associated with frequent side-effects. CONCLUSION: Ketamine but not lidocaine showed a significant analgesic effect in patients with neuropathic pain after spinal cord injury. The pain relief was not associated with altered temperature thresholds or other changes of sensory function.

Primary study

Unclassified

Gabapentin is a first line drug for the treatment of neuropathic pain in spinal cord injury.

Journal Spine
Year 2004
Links Pubmed DOI

This article is included in 6 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (6 references)

Loading references information
<b>STUDY DESIGN: </b>Prospective, randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled, crossover clinical trial.<b>OBJECTIVES: </b>To determine the efficacy of gabapentin in the treatment of neuropathic pain related to spinal cord injury.<b>Summary Of Background Data: </b>Neuropathic pain is initiated or caused by a primary lesion or dysfunction in the nervous system. Neuropathic pain associated with spinal cord injury is quite refractory, and current treatments are not effective. Gabapentin, an anticonvulsant, has become the first choice in the treatment of neuropathic pain. The place of gabapentin in the treatment of spinal cord injury-related neuropathic pain was questioned in only a few recent reports; however, they are retrospectively designed, nonstandardized, and uncontrolled studies, or involve a very small series of patients using less than optimum doses.<b>METHODS: </b>A total of 18-week study period included a 4-week medication/placebo titration period. This was followed by a 4-week stable dosing period when the patients continued to receive maximum tolerated doses, a 2-week washout period, then a crossover of 4 weeks of medication/placebo titration, and another 4 weeks of stable dosing period. Twenty paraplegic patients (female/male: 7/13) with complete spinal cord injury at the thoracic and lumbar level, aged between 20 and 65 years, with neuropathic pain for more than 6 months were recruited for the study.<b>RESULTS: </b>All patients completed the study. Gabapentin reduced the intensity as well as the frequency of pain, relieved all neuropathic pain descriptors except the itchy, sensitive, dull, and cold types, and improved the quality of life (P &lt; 0.05).<b>CONCLUSIONS: </b>Gabapentin can be added to the list of first-line medications for the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain in spinal cord injury patients. It is a promising new agent and offers advantages over currently available treatments.