BACKGROUND: This is an update of an earlier review that considered both neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia (Issue 6, 2014), which has now been split into separate reviews for the two conditions. This review considers neuropathic pain only.Opioid drugs, including oxycodone, are commonly used to treat neuropathic pain, and are considered effective by some professionals. Most reviews have examined all opioids together. This review sought evidence specifically for oxycodone, at any dose, and by any route of administration. Separate reviews consider other opioids.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of oxycodone for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE from inception to 6 November 2013 for the original review and from January 2013 to 21 December 2015 for this update. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and two online clinical trial registries. This update differs from the earlier review in that we have included studies using oxycodone in combination with naloxone, and oxycodone used as add-on treatment to stable, but inadequate, treatment with another class of drug.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing any dose or formulation of oxycodone with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality and potential bias. Where pooled analysis was possible, we used dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and numbers needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods.We assessed the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and created a 'Summary of findings' table.
MAIN RESULTS: The updated searches identified one additional published study, and one clinical trial registry report. We included five studies reporting on 687 participants; 637 had painful diabetic neuropathy and 50 had postherpetic neuralgia. Two studies used a cross-over design and three used a parallel group design; all studies used a placebo comparator, although one study used an active placebo (benztropine). Modified-release oxycodone (oxycodone MR) was titrated to effect and tolerability. One study used a fixed dose combination of oxycodone MR and naloxone. Two studies added oxycodone therapy to ongoing, stable treatment with either pregabalin or gabapentin. All studies had one or more sources of potential major bias.No study reported the proportion of participants experiencing 'substantial benefit' (at least 50% pain relief or who were very much improved). Three studies (537 participants) in painful diabetic neuropathy reported outcomes equivalent to 'moderate benefit' (at least 30% pain relief or who were much or very much improved), which was experienced by 44% of participants with oxycodone and 27% with placebo (number needed to treat for one additional beneficial outcome (NNT) 5.7).All studies reported group mean pain scores at the end of treatment. Three studies reported a greater pain intensity reduction and better patient satisfaction with oxycodone MR alone than with placebo. There was a similar result in the study adding oxycodone MR to stable, ongoing gabapentin, but adding oxycodone MR plus naloxone to stable, ongoing pregabalin did not show any additional effect.More participants experienced adverse events with oxycodone MR alone (86%) than with placebo (63%); the number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNH) was 4.3. Serious adverse events (oxycodone 3.4%, placebo 7.0%) and adverse event withdrawals (oxycodone 11%, placebo 6.4%) were not significantly different between groups. Withdrawals due to lack of efficacy were less frequent with oxycodone MR (1.1%) than placebo (11%), with a number needed to treat to prevent one withdrawal of 10. The add-on studies reported similar results.We downgraded the quality of the evidence to very low for all outcomes, due to limitations in the study methods, heterogeneity in the pain condition and study methods, and sparse data.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was only very low quality evidence that oxycodone (as oxycodone MR) is of value in the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy or postherpetic neuralgia. There was no evidence for other neuropathic pain conditions. Adverse events typical of opioids appeared to be common.
Methods: We screened MEDLINE, Scopus and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) up until October 2013, as well as the reference sections of original studies and systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of opioids in CNP. We included double-blind randomized placebo-controlled studies of at least 4 weeks duration. Using a random effects model, absolute risk differences (RD) were calculated for categorical data and standardized mean differences (SMD) for continuous variables.
Results: We included 12 RCTs with 1192 participants. The included diagnostic entities were painful diabetic neuropathy (four studies), postherpetic neuralgia (three studies), mixed polyneuropathic pain (two studies), and lumbar root, spinal cord injury and postamputation pain (one study each). Mean study duration was 6 (4–12) weeks. Four studies tested morphine, three studies tramadol, two studies oxycodone and one study tapentadol. These are the pooled results of studies with a parallel or cross-over design: opioids were superior to placebo in reducing pain intensity (SMD − 0.64 [95 % confidence interval, CI − 0.81, − 0.46], p < 0.0001; 11 studies with 1040 participants). Opioids were not superior to placebo in 50 % pain reduction (RD 0.16 [95 % CI − 0.04, 0.35], p = 0.11; one study with 93 participants). Opioids were not superior to placebo in reports of much or very much improved pain (RD 0.17 [95 % CI − 0.01, 0.36], p = 0.07; one study with 53 participants). Opioids were superior to placebo in improving physical functioning (SMD − 0.28 [95 % CI − 0.43, − 0.13], p < 0.0001; seven studies with 680 participants). Patients dropped out less frequently due to lack of efficacy with opioids than with placebo (RD − 0.07 [95 % CI − 0.13, − 0.02], p = 0.008; six studies with 656 participants). Patients dropped out due to adverse events more frequently with opioids than with placebo (RD 0.08 [95 % CI 0.05, 0.12], p < 0.0001; ten studies with 1018 participants; number needed to harm 11 [95 % CI 8–17]). There was no significant difference between opioids and placebo in terms of the frequency of serious adverse events (SAE) or deaths.
Background: The efficacy and safety of opioid therapy in chronic neuropathic pain (CNP) is under debate. We updated a recent Cochrane systematic review on the efficacy, tolerability and safety of opioids in CNP.
Conclusion: In short-term studies (4–12 weeks) in CNP, opioids were superior to placebo in terms of efficacy and inferior in terms of tolerability. Opioids and placebo did not differ in terms of safety. The conclusion relating to the safety of opioids compared to placebo in CNP is limited by the low number of SAE and deaths. Short-term opioid therapy may be considered in selected CNP patients.
The English full-text version of this article is freely available at SpringerLink (under “Supplementary Material”).
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.
BACKGROUND: Multiple treatments for painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy are available. PURPOSE: To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of oral and topical analgesics for diabetic neuropathy. DATA SOURCES: Multiple electronic databases between January 2007 and April 2014, without language restriction. STUDY SELECTION: Parallel or crossover randomized, controlled trials that evaluated pharmacologic treatments for adults with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy. DATA EXTRACTION: Duplicate extraction of study data and assessment of risk of bias. DATA SYNTHESIS: 65 randomized, controlled trials involving 12 632 patients evaluated 27 pharmacologic interventions. Approximately one half of these studies had high or unclear risk of bias. Nine head-to-head trials showed greater pain reduction associated with serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) than anticonvulsants (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.34 [95% credible interval {CrI}, -0.63 to -0.05]) and with tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) than topical capsaicin 0.075%. Network meta-analysis showed that SNRIs (SMD, -1.36 [CrI, -1.77 to -0.95]), topical capsaicin (SMD, -0.91 [CrI, -1.18 to -0.08]), TCAs (SMD, -0.78 [CrI, -1.24 to -0.33]), and anticonvulsants (SMD, -0.67 [CrI, -0.97 to -0.37]) were better than placebo for short-term pain control. Specifically, carbamazepine (SMD, -1.57 [CrI, -2.83 to -0.31]), venlafaxine (SMD, -1.53 [CrI, -2.41 to -0.65]), duloxetine (SMD, -1.33 [CrI, -1.82 to -0.86]), and amitriptyline (SMD, -0.72 [CrI, -1.35 to -0.08]) were more effective than placebo. Adverse effects included somnolence and dizziness with TCAs, SNRIs, and anticonvulsants; xerostomia with TCAs; and peripheral edema and burning sensation with pregabalin and capsaicin. LIMITATION: Confidence in findings was limited because most evidence came from indirect comparisons of trials with short (<=3 months) follow-up and unclear or high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: Several medications may be effective for short-term management of painful diabetic neuropathy, although their comparative effectiveness is unclear. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research.
BACKGROUND: Painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (pDPN) is prevalent among persons with diabetes and increases over time. Published guidelines recommend a number of medications to treat this condition providing clinicians with a variety of treatment options. This study provides a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of published pharmacologic therapies for pDPN.
METHODS: The published literature was systematically searched to identify randomized, controlled trials of all available pharmacologic treatments for pDPN (recommended or nonrecommended) reporting predefined efficacy and safety outcomes. Bayesian fixed-effect mixed treatment comparison methods were used to assess relative therapeutic efficacy and harms.
RESULTS: Data from 58 studies including 29 interventions and 11,883 patients were analyzed. Pain reduction over that of placebo on the 11-point numeric rating scale ranged from -3.29 for sodium valproate (95% credible interval [CrI] = [-4.21, -2.36]) to 1.67 for Sativex (-0.47, 0.60). Estimates for most treatments were clustered between 0 and -1.5 and were associated with more study data and smaller CrIs. Pregabalin (≥ 300 mg/day) was the most effective on the 100-point visual analog scale (-21.88; [-27.06, -16.68]); topiramate was the least (-3.09; [-3.99, -2.18]). Relative risks (RRs) of 30% pain reduction ranged from 0.78 (Sativex) to 1.84 (lidocaine 5% plaster). Analysis of the RR ratio of these 2 treatments reveals marginal significance for Sativex (3.27; [1.07, 9.81]), indicating the best treatment is only slightly better than the worst. Relative risks of 50% pain reduction ranged from 0.98 (0.56, 1.52) (amitriptyline) to 2.25 (1.51, 3.00) (alpha-lipoic acid). RR ratio for these treatments was not statistically different (3.39; [0.88, 3.34]). Fluoxetine had the lowest risk of adverse events (0.94; [0.62, 1.23]); oxycodone had the highest (1.55; [1.45, 1.64]). Discontinuation RRs were clustered around 0.8 to 1.5, with those on the extreme having greater uncertainty.
CONCLUSIONS: Selecting an appropriate pDPN therapy is key given the large number of available treatments. Comparative results revealed relative equivalence among many of the studied interventions having the largest overall sample sizes and highlight the importance of standardization of methods to effectively assess pain.
BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 3, 2006, which included 23 trials. The use of opioids for neuropathic pain remains controversial. Studies have been small, have yielded equivocal results, and have not established the long-term profile of benefits and risks for people with neuropathic pain.
OBJECTIVES: To reassess the efficacy and safety of opioid agonists for the treatment of neuropathic pain.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (to 24th October 2012), MEDLINE (1966 to 24th October 2012 ), and EMBASE (1980 to 24th October 2012) for articles in any language, and reference lists of reviews and retrieved articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which opioid agonists were given to treat central or peripheral neuropathic pain of any etiology. Pain was assessed using validated instruments, and adverse events were reported. We excluded studies in which drugs other than opioid agonists were combined with opioids or opioids were administered epidurally or intrathecally.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and included demographic variables, diagnoses, interventions, efficacy, and adverse effects.
MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-one trials met our inclusion criteria, studying 10 different opioids: 23 studies from the original 2006 review and eight additional studies from this updated review.
Seventeen studies (392 participants with neuropathic pain, average 22 participants per study) provided efficacy data for acute exposure to opioids over less than 24 hours. Sixteen reported pain outcomes, with contradictory results; 8/16 reported less pain with opioids than placebo, 2/16 reported that some but not all participants benefited, 5/16 reported no difference, and 1/16 reported equivocal results. Six studies with about 170 participants indicated that mean pain scores with opioid were about 15/100 points less than placebo.
Fourteen studies (845 participants, average 60 participants per study) were of intermediate duration lasting 12 weeks or less; most studies lasted less than six weeks. Most studies used imputation methods for participant withdrawal known to be associated with considerable bias; none used a method known not to be associated with bias. The evidence, therefore, derives from studies predominantly with features likely to overestimate treatment effects, i.e. small size, short duration, and potentially inadequate handling of dropouts. All demonstrated opioid efficacy for spontaneous neuropathic pain. Meta-analysis demonstrated at least 33% pain relief in 57% of participants receiving an opioid versus 34% of those receiving placebo. The overall point estimate of risk difference was 0.25 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13 to 0.37, P < 0.0001), translating to a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 4.0 (95% CI 2.7 to 7.7). When the number of participants achieving at least 50% pain relief was analyzed, the overall point estimate of risk difference between opioids (47%) and placebo (30%) was 0.17 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.33, P = 0.03), translating to an NNTB of 5.9 (3.0 to 50.0). In the updated review, opioids did not demonstrate improvement in many aspects of emotional or physical functioning, as measured by various validated questionnaires. Constipation was the most common adverse event (34% opioid versus 9% placebo: number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 4.0; 95% CI 3.0 to 5.6), followed by drowsiness (29% opioid versus 14% placebo: NNTH 7.1; 95% CI 4.0 to 33.3), nausea (27% opioid versus 9% placebo: NNTH 6.3; 95% CI 4.0 to 12.5), dizziness (22% opioid versus 8% placebo: NNTH 7.1; 95% CI 5.6 to 10.0), and vomiting (12% opioid versus 4% placebo: NNTH 12.5; 95% CI 6.7 to 100.0). More participants withdrew from opioid treatment due to adverse events (13%) than from placebo (4%) (NNTH 12.5; 95% CI 8.3 to 25.0). Conversely, more participants receiving placebo withdrew due to lack of efficacy (12%) versus (2%) receiving opioids (NNTH -11.1; 95% CI -20.0 to -8.3).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Since the last version of this review, new studies were found providing additional information. Data were reanalyzed but the results did not alter any of our previously published conclusions. Short-term studies provide only equivocal evidence regarding the efficacy of opioids in reducing the intensity of neuropathic pain. Intermediate-term studies demonstrated significant efficacy of opioids over placebo, but these results are likely to be subject to significant bias because of small size, short duration, and potentially inadequate handling of dropouts. Analgesic efficacy of opioids in chronic neuropathic pain is subject to considerable uncertainty. Reported adverse events of opioids were common but not life-threatening. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to establish unbiased estimates of long-term efficacy, safety (including addiction potential), and effects on quality of life.
BACKGROUND: An enriched enrollment randomized withdrawal (EERW) design excludes potential participants who are nonresponders or who cannot tolerate the experimental drug before random assignment. It is unclear whether EERW design has an influence on the efficacy and safety of opioids for chronic noncancer pain (CNCP).
OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to compare the results from EERW and non-EERW trials of opioids for CNCP. Secondary objectives were to compare weak versus strong opioids, subgroups of patients with different types of pain, and the efficacy of opiods compared with placebo versus other drugs.
METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL were searched up to July 2009, for randomized controlled trials of any opioid for CNCP. Metaanalyses and meta-regressions were conducted to compare the results. Treatment efficacy was assessed by effect sizes (small, medium and large) and the incidence of adverse effects was assessed by a clinically relevant mean difference of 10% or greater.
RESULTS: Sixty-two randomized trials were included. In 61 trials, the duration was less than 16 weeks. There was no difference in efficacy between EERW and non-EERW trials for both pain (P=0.6) and function (P=0.3). However, EERW trials failed to detect a clinically relevant difference for nausea, vomiting, somnolence, dizziness and dry skin⁄itching compared with non-EERW. Opioids were more effective than placebo in patients with nociceptive pain (effect size=0.60, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.72) and neuropathic pain (effect size=0.56, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.73).
CONCLUSION: EERW trial designs appear not to bias the results of efficacy, but they underestimate the adverse effects. The present updated meta- analysis shows that weak and strong opioids are effective for CNCP of both nociceptive and neuropathic origin.
Neuropathy is one of the most frequent complications of diabetes and pain, one of its more common and incapacitating symptoms. Recently there are reports of the use of opioids as an alternative of analgesic treatment. Objective: this work's objective has been to carry out a systematic review for determining the opioids power for managing pain in patients suffering from painful diabetic neuropathy. Methodology: a search and systematic selection was carried out of all clinical assays concerning the analgesic treatment of diabetic neuropathy using opioids published from January 1998 to June 2009. Randomized clinical trials compared with placebo were included which studied the analgesic effect of opioids in adultssuffering from painful diabetic neuropathy; they were evaluated so that improvement of pain could be objectively classified. Results: there were nine randomized clinical trials identified. Only five were finally included: two with tramadol and three with oxycodone. The data provided by these studies did not allow to perform a meta-analysis. Conclusions: the improvement of pain in patients treated with tramadol or oxicodone was statistically significant superior when compared to placebo. It is necessary to make future clinical randomized studies to evaluate the analgesic effectiveness of opioids in painful diabetic neuropathy, including the magnitude of individual improvement, the previous definition of the percentage of improvement that is considered clinically significant and a longer time of follow-up.
This systematic review summarizes existing evidence regarding the efficacy, safety, and abuse and misuse potential of opioids as treatment for chronic noncancer pain in older adults. Multiple databases were searched to identify relevant studies published in English (1/1/80-7/1/09) with a mean study population age of 60 and older. Forty-three articles were identified and retained for review (40 reported safety and efficacy data, the remaining 3 reported misuse or abuse outcome data). The weighted mean subject age was 64.1 (mean age range 60-73). Studies enrolled patients with osteoarthritis (70%), neuropathic pain (13%), and other pain-producing disorders (17%). The mean duration of treatment studies was 4 weeks (range 1.5-156 weeks), and only five (12%) lasted longer than 12 weeks. In meta-analyses, effect sizes were -0.557 ( P<.001) for pain reduction, -0.432 ( P<.001) for physical disability reduction, and 0.859 ( P=.31) for improved sleep. The effect size for the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Health Survey was 0.191 ( P=.17) for the physical component score and -0.220 ( P=.04) for the mental component score. Adults aged 65 and older were as likely as those younger than 65 to benefit from treatment. Common adverse events included constipation (median frequency of occurrence 30%), nausea (28%), and dizziness (22%) and prompted opioid discontinuation in 25% of cases. Abuse and misuse behaviors were negatively associated with older age. In older adults with chronic pain and no significant comorbidity, short-term use of opioids is associated with reduction in pain intensity and better physical functioning but poorer mental health functioning. The long-term safety, efficacy, and abuse potential of this treatment practice in diverse populations of older persons remain to be determined.
This is an update of an earlier review that considered both neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia (Issue 6, 2014), which has now been split into separate reviews for the two conditions. This review considers neuropathic pain only.Opioid drugs, including oxycodone, are commonly used to treat neuropathic pain, and are considered effective by some professionals. Most reviews have examined all opioids together. This review sought evidence specifically for oxycodone, at any dose, and by any route of administration. Separate reviews consider other opioids.
OBJECTIVES:
To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of oxycodone for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.
SEARCH METHODS:
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE from inception to 6 November 2013 for the original review and from January 2013 to 21 December 2015 for this update. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and two online clinical trial registries. This update differs from the earlier review in that we have included studies using oxycodone in combination with naloxone, and oxycodone used as add-on treatment to stable, but inadequate, treatment with another class of drug.
SELECTION CRITERIA:
We included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing any dose or formulation of oxycodone with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality and potential bias. Where pooled analysis was possible, we used dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and numbers needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods.We assessed the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and created a 'Summary of findings' table.
MAIN RESULTS:
The updated searches identified one additional published study, and one clinical trial registry report. We included five studies reporting on 687 participants; 637 had painful diabetic neuropathy and 50 had postherpetic neuralgia. Two studies used a cross-over design and three used a parallel group design; all studies used a placebo comparator, although one study used an active placebo (benztropine). Modified-release oxycodone (oxycodone MR) was titrated to effect and tolerability. One study used a fixed dose combination of oxycodone MR and naloxone. Two studies added oxycodone therapy to ongoing, stable treatment with either pregabalin or gabapentin. All studies had one or more sources of potential major bias.No study reported the proportion of participants experiencing 'substantial benefit' (at least 50% pain relief or who were very much improved). Three studies (537 participants) in painful diabetic neuropathy reported outcomes equivalent to 'moderate benefit' (at least 30% pain relief or who were much or very much improved), which was experienced by 44% of participants with oxycodone and 27% with placebo (number needed to treat for one additional beneficial outcome (NNT) 5.7).All studies reported group mean pain scores at the end of treatment. Three studies reported a greater pain intensity reduction and better patient satisfaction with oxycodone MR alone than with placebo. There was a similar result in the study adding oxycodone MR to stable, ongoing gabapentin, but adding oxycodone MR plus naloxone to stable, ongoing pregabalin did not show any additional effect.More participants experienced adverse events with oxycodone MR alone (86%) than with placebo (63%); the number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNH) was 4.3. Serious adverse events (oxycodone 3.4%, placebo 7.0%) and adverse event withdrawals (oxycodone 11%, placebo 6.4%) were not significantly different between groups. Withdrawals due to lack of efficacy were less frequent with oxycodone MR (1.1%) than placebo (11%), with a number needed to treat to prevent one withdrawal of 10. The add-on studies reported similar results.We downgraded the quality of the evidence to very low for all outcomes, due to limitations in the study methods, heterogeneity in the pain condition and study methods, and sparse data.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
There was only very low quality evidence that oxycodone (as oxycodone MR) is of value in the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy or postherpetic neuralgia. There was no evidence for other neuropathic pain conditions. Adverse events typical of opioids appeared to be common.
Systematic Review Question»Systematic review of interventions
