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pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain, including studies published in peer-reviewed journals since January, 1966, and unpublished trials retrieved from ClinicalTrials.gov and websites of pharmaceutical companies.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 Studies published in peer-reviewed journals reported greater effects than did unpublished studies (r(2) 9·3%, p=0·009).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.
Pharmacotherapy remains an important modality for the treatment of neuropathic pain. However, as monotherapy current drugs are associated with limited efficacy and dose-related side effects. Combining two or more different drugs may improve analgesic efficacy and, in some situations, reduce overall side effects (e.g. if synergistic interactions allow for dose reductions of combined drugs). This review evaluated the efficacy, tolerability and safety of various drug combinations for the treatment of neuropathic pain. We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of various drug combinations for neuropathic pain from CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and handsearches of other reviews and trial registries. The most recent search was performed on 9 April 2012. Double-blind, randomised studies comparing combinations of two or more drugs (systemic or topical) to placebo and/or at least one other comparator for the treatment of neuropathic pain. Data extracted from each study included: proportion of participants a) reporting â 30% pain reduction from baseline OR â moderate pain relief OR â moderate global improvement; b) dropping out of the trial due to treatment-emergent adverse effects; c) reporting each specific adverse effect (e.g. sedation, dizziness) of â moderate severity. The primary comparison of interest was between study drug(s) and one or both single-agent comparators. We combined studies if they evaluated the same drug class combination at roughly similar doses and durations of treatment. We used RevMan 5 to analyse data for binary outcomes. We identified 21 eligible studies: four (578 participants) evaluated the combination of an opioid with gabapentin or pregabalin; two (77 participants) evaluated an opioid with a tricyclic antidepressant; one (56 participants) of gabapentin and nortriptyline; one (120 participants) of gabapentin and alpha-lipoic acid, three (90 participants) of fluphenazine with a tricyclic antidepressant; three (90 participants) of an N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) blocker with an agent from a different drug class;A five (604 participants) of various topical medications; one (313 participants) of tramadol with acetaminophen; and another one (44 participants) of a cholecystokinin blocker (L-365,260) with morphine. The majority of combinations evaluated to date involve drugs, each of which share some element of central nervous system (CNS) depression (e.g. sedation, cognitive dysfunction). This aspect of side effect overlap between the combined agents was often reflected in similar or higher dropout rates for the combination and may thus substantially limit the utility of such drug combinations. Meta-analysis was possible for only one comparison of only one combination, i.e. gabapentin + opioid versus gabapentin alone. This meta-analysis involving 386 participants from two studies demonstrated modest, yet statistically significant, superiority of a gabapentin + opioid combination over gabapentin alone. However, this combination also produced significantly more frequent side effect-related trial dropouts compared to gabapentin alone. Multiple, good-quality studies demonstrate superior efficacy of two-drug combinations. However, the number of available studies for any one specific combination, as well as other study factors (e.g. limited trial size and duration), preclude the recommendation of any one specific drug combination for neuropathic pain. Demonstration of combination benefits by several studies together with reports of widespread clinical polypharmacy for neuropathic pain surely provide a rationale for additional future rigorous evaluations. In order to properly identify specific drug combinations which provide superior efficacy and/or safety, we recommend that future neuropathic pain studies of two-drug combinations include comparisons with placebo and both single-agent components. Given the apparent adverse impact of combining agents with similar adverse effect profiles (e.g. CNS depression), the anticipated development and availability of non-sedating neuropathic pain agents could lead to the identification of more favourable analgesic drug combinations in which side effects are not compounded.[CINAHL Note: The Cochrane Collaboration systematic reviews contain interactive software that allows various calculations in the MetaView.]
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review of available data from reports of randomized controlled trials on the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of drugs used to treat postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), a common type of neuropathic pain.
DATA SOURCES: The MEDLINE (1950-June 30, 2009) and EMBASE (1974-June 30, 2009) databases were used to identify source studies, in conjunction with a review of reference citations from identified published reports.
STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: We selected all English-language reports of randomized placebo-controlled trials of the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of drugs (oral or transdermal) used for treatment in patients with PHN. Studies with treatment duration less than 4 weeks were excluded. From each identified trial, we extracted information on (1) placebo-corrected percentage reductions in pain intensity from randomization to end of active treatment; (2) relative risks of withdrawal due to lack of efficacy; (3) relative risks of various adverse events; and (4) relative risks of withdrawal due to adverse events.
DATA SYNTHESIS: Twelve reports of randomized controlled trials in patients with PHN were identified, involving 8 different agents (amitriptyline, capsaicin, divalproex sodium, gabapentin, morphine, nortriptyline, pregabalin, tramadol). Most studies were small, involving fewer than 200 patients. Pain intensity was reported to have been reduced significantly with all drugs (range: 13.8% [tramadol] to 42.4% [amitriptyline]); data were pooled using techniques of meta-analysis when information was available from more than 1 trial. No clinical trial reported a significant reduction in risk of withdrawal as a result of lack of efficacy. Analysis of adverse events was greatly limited by erratic and inconsistent reporting and wide variation in sample sizes.
CONCLUSIONS: While available literature establishes the efficacy of 8 drugs in treatment of PHN, it does not provide adequate guidance as to which agents are best to treat this condition, in part because of inadequate reporting of data on tolerability and safety.
Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials on neuropathic pain treatment are accumulating, so an updated review of the available evidence is needed. Studies were identified using MEDLINE and EMBASE searches. Numbers needed to treat (NNT) and numbers needed to harm (NNH) values were used to compare the efficacy and safety of different treatments for a number of neuropathic pain conditions. One hundred and seventy-four studies were included, representing a 66% increase in published randomized, placebo-controlled trials in the last 5 years. Painful poly-neuropathy (most often due to diabetes) was examined in 69 studies, postherpetic neuralgia in 23, while peripheral nerve injury, central pain, HIV neuropathy, and trigeminal neuralgia were less often studied. Tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors, the anticonvulsants gabapentin and pregabalin, and opioids are the drug classes for which there is the best evidence for a clinical relevant effect. Despite a 66% increase in published trials only a limited improvement of neuropathic pain treatment has been obtained. A large proportion of neuropathic pain patients are left with insufficient pain relief. This fact calls for other treatment options to target chronic neuropathic pain. Large-scale drug trials that aim to identify possible subgroups of patients who are likely to respond to specific drugs are needed to test the hypothesis that a mechanism-based classification may help improve treatment of the individual patients.
New studies of the treatment of neuropathic pain have increased the need for an updated review of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials to support an evidence based algorithm to treat neuropathic pain conditions. Available studies were identified using a MEDLINE and EMBASE search. One hundred and five studies were included. Numbers needed to treat (NNT) and numbers needed to harm (NNH) were used to compare efficacy and safety of the treatments in different neuropathic pain syndromes. The quality of each trial was assessed. Tricyclic antidepressants and the anticonvulsants gabapentin and pregabalin were the most frequently studied drug classes. In peripheral neuropathic pain, the lowest NNT was for tricyclic antidepressants, followed by opioids and the anticonvulsants gabapentin and pregabalin. For central neuropathic pain there is limited data. NNT and NNH are currently the best way to assess relative efficacy and safety, but the need for dichotomous data, which may have to be estimated retrospectively for old trials, and the methodological complexity of pooling data from small cross-over and large parallel group trials, remain as limitations.
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.
