Estimate at your peril: Imputation methods for patient withdrawal can bias efficacy outcomes in chronic pain trials using responder analyses

Paracetamol (acetaminophen) with or without codeine or dihydrocodeine for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Paracetamol, either alone or in combination with codeine or dihydrocodeine, is commonly used to treat chronic neuropathic pain. This review sought evidence for efficacy and harm from randomised double-blind studies.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of paracetamol with or without codeine or dihydrocodeine for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase from inception to July 2016, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, and two online study registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing paracetamol, alone or in combination with codeine or dihydrocodeine, 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. We did not carry out any pooled analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

No study satisfied the inclusion criteria. Effects of interventions were not assessed as there were no included studies. We have only very low quality evidence and have no reliable indication of the likely effect.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the suggestion that paracetamol alone, or in combination with codeine or dihydrocodeine, works in any neuropathic pain condition.

Paracetamol (acetaminophen) or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, alone or combined, for pain relief in acute otitis media in children

BACKGROUND

Acute otitis media (AOM) is one of the most common childhood infectious diseases and a significant reason for antibiotic prescriptions in children worldwide. Pain from middle ear infection and pressure behind the eardrum is the key symptom of AOM. Ear pain is central to children's and parents' experience of the illness. Because antibiotics provide only marginal benefits, analgesic treatment including paracetamol (acetaminophen) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is regarded as the cornerstone of AOM management in children.

OBJECTIVES

Our primary objective was to assess the effectiveness of paracetamol (acetaminophen) or NSAIDs, alone or combined, compared with placebo or no treatment in relieving pain in children with AOM. Our secondary objective was to assess the effectiveness of NSAIDs compared with paracetamol in children with AOM.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Issue 7, July 2016; MEDLINE (Ovid, from 1946 to August 2016), Embase (from 1947 to August 2016), CINAHL (from 1981 to August 2016), LILACS (from 1982 to August 2016) and Web of Science (from 1955 to August 2016) for published trials. We screened reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews for additional trials. We searched WHO ICTRP, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Netherlands Trial Registry (NTR) for completed and ongoing trials (search date 19 August 2016).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effectiveness of paracetamol or NSAIDs, alone or combined, for pain relief in children with AOM. We also included trials of paracetamol or NSAIDs, alone or combined, for children with fever or upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs) if we were able to extract subgroup data on pain relief in children with AOM either directly or after obtaining additional data from study authors.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed methodological quality of the included trials and extracted data. We used the GRADE approach to rate the overall quality of evidence for each outcome of interest.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three RCTs (327 children) which were assessed at low to moderate risk of bias.One RCT included 219 children with AOM, and used a three-arm, parallel group, double-blind design to compare paracetamol versus ibuprofen versus placebo. All children also received antibiotics and those with fever > 39 °C could have received paracetamol (30 mg to 60 mg) additionally to the studied treatments.Another RCT involved 156 febrile children (26 of whom had AOM). The study design was a three-arm, parallel group, double-blind design and compared paracetamol versus ibuprofen versus ibuprofen plus paracetamol.The third RCT included 889 children with respiratory tract infections (82 of whom had AOM). This study applied a 3 x 2 x 2 factorial, open-label design and compared paracetamol versus ibuprofen versus ibuprofen plus paracetamol. Study participants were randomised to one of the three treatment groups as well as two dosing groups (regular versus as required) and two steam inhalation groups (steam versus no steam).Authors of two RCTs provided crude subgroup data on children with AOM. We used data from the remaining trial to inform comparison of paracetamol versus placebo (148 children) and ibuprofen versus placebo (146 children) assessments. Data from all included RCTs informed comparison of ibuprofen versus paracetamol (183 children); data from the two RCTs informed comparison of ibuprofen plus paracetamol versus paracetamol alone (71 children).We found evidence, albeit of low quality, that both paracetamol and ibuprofen as monotherapies were more effective than placebo in relieving pain at 48 hours (paracetamol versus placebo: proportion of children with pain 10% versus 25%, RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.85; number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) 7; ibuprofen versus placebo: proportion of children with pain 7% versus 25%, RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.70; NNTB 6). Very low quality evidence suggested that adverse events did not significantly differ between children treated with either paracetamol, ibuprofen or placebo.We found insufficient evidence of a difference between ibuprofen and paracetamol in relieving ear pain at 24 hours (2 RCTs, 39 children; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.18; very low quality evidence), 48 to 72 hours (3 RCTs, 183 children; RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.54; low quality evidence) and four to seven days (2 RCTs, 38 children; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.17 to 3.23; very low quality evidence).Data on the effectiveness of ibuprofen plus paracetamol versus paracetamol alone came from two RCTs that provided crude subgroup data for 71 children with AOM. The small sample provided imprecise effect estimates and we were consequently unable to draw any firm conclusions (very low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite explicit guideline recommendations on its use, current evidence on the effectiveness of paracetamol or NSAIDs, alone or combined, in relieving pain in children with AOM is limited. Low quality evidence indicates that both paracetamol and ibuprofen as monotherapies are more effective than placebo in relieving short-term ear pain in children with AOM. There is insufficient evidence of a difference between ibuprofen and paracetamol in relieving short-term ear pain in children with AOM, whereas data on the effectiveness of ibuprofen plus paracetamol versus paracetamol alone were insufficient to draw any firm conclusions. Further research is needed to provide insights into the role of ibuprofen as adjunct to paracetamol, and other analgesics such as anaesthetic eardrops, for children with AOM.

Fentanyl for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Opioid drugs, including fentanyl, 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 fentanyl, at any dose, and by any route of administration. Other opioids are considered in separate reviews.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy of fentanyl for chronic neuropathic pain in adults, and the adverse events associated with its use in clinical trials.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase from inception to June 2016, together with the reference lists of retrieved articles, and two online study registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing fentanyl (in any dose, administered by any route, and in any formulation) 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. We did not carry out any pooled analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Only one study met our inclusion criteria. Participants were men and women (mean age 67 years), with postherpetic neuralgia, complex regional pain syndrome, or chronic postoperative pain. They were experiencing inadequate relief from non-opioid analgesics, and had not previously taken opioids for their neuropathic pain. The study used an enriched enrolment randomised withdrawal design. It was adequately blinded, but we judged it at unclear risk of bias for other criteria.Transdermal fentanyl (one-day fentanyl patch) was titrated over 10 to 29 days to establish the maximum tolerated and effective dose (12.5 to 50 µg/h). Participants who achieved a prespecified good level of pain relief with a stable dose of fentanyl, without excessive use of rescue medication or intolerable adverse events ('responders'), were randomised to continue with fentanyl or switch to placebo for 12 weeks, under double-blind conditions. Our prespecified primary outcomes were not appropriate for this study design, but the measures reported do give an indication of the efficacy of fentanyl in this condition.In the titration phase, 1 in 3 participants withdrew because of adverse events or inadequate pain relief, and almost 90% experienced adverse events. Of 258 participants who underwent open-label titration, 163 were 'responders' and entered the randomised withdrawal phase. The number of participants completing the study (and therefore continuing on treatment) without an increase of pain by more than 15/100 was 47/84 (56%) with fentanyl and 28/79 (35%) with placebo. Because only 63% responded sufficiently to enter the randomised withdrawal phase, this implies that only a maximum of 35% of participants entering the study would have had useful pain relief and tolerability with transdermal fentanyl, compared with 22% with placebo. Almost 60% of participants taking fentanyl were 'satisfied' and 'very satisfied' with their treatment at the end of the study, compared with about 40% with placebo. This outcome approximates to our primary outcome of moderate benefit using the Patient Global Impression of Change scale, but the group was enriched for responders and the method of analysis was not clear. The most common adverse events were constipation, nausea, somnolence, and dizziness.There was no information about other types of neuropathic pain, other routes of administration, or comparisons with other treatments.We downgraded the quality of the evidence to very low because there was only one study, with few participants and events, and there was no information about how data from people who withdrew were analysed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the suggestion that fentanyl works in any neuropathic pain condition.

Pregabalin for pain in fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

This review updates part of an earlier Cochrane review on 'Pregabalin for acute and chronic pain in adults' (Moore 2009), and considers only fibromyalgia pain.Antiepileptic drugs have been used in pain management since the 1960s. Pregabalin is an antiepileptic drug also used in management of chronic pain conditions, including fibromyalgia. Pain response with pregabalin is associated with major benefits for other symptoms, and improved quality of life and function in people with chronic painful conditions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of pregabalin for pain in fibromyalgia in adults, compared with placebo or any active comparator.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE for randomised controlled trials from inception to May 2009 for the original review and to 16 March 2016 for this update. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and online clinical trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind trials of eight weeks' duration or longer, comparing pregabalin with placebo or another active treatment for relief of pain in fibromyalgia, and reporting on the analgesic effect of pregabalin, with subjective pain assessment by the participant.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality and potential bias. Primary outcomes were participants with moderate pain relief (at least 30% pain relief over baseline or much or very much improved on Patient Global Impression of Change scale (PGIC)) or substantial pain relief (at least 50% pain relief over baseline or very much improved on PGIC). Where pooled analysis was possible, we used dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and number needed to treat (NNT), using standard methods. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and created 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

Our searches identified two new published studies with classic design, and one new published study with an enriched enrolment randomised withdrawal (EERW) design.We included eight studies. Five (3283 participants) had a classic design in which participants were randomised at the start of the study to pregabalin (150, 300, 450, or 600 mg daily) or placebo, with assessment after 8 to 13 weeks of stable treatment. No studies included active comparators. Studies had low risk of bias, except that the last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation method used in analyses of the primary outcomes could overestimate treatment effect.Pregabalin increased the number of participants experiencing substantial benefit (at least 50% pain intensity reduction after 12 or 13 weeks' stable treatment (450 mg: RR 1.8, 95% CI 1.4 to 2.1, 1874 participants, 5 studies, high quality evidence)). Substantial benefit with pregabalin 300 to 600 mg was experienced by about 14% of participants with placebo, but about 9% more with pregabalin 300 to 600 mg (22% to 24%) (high quality evidence). Pregabalin increased the number of participants experiencing moderate benefit (at least 30% pain intensity reduction after 12 or 13 weeks' stable treatment) (450 mg: RR 1.5, 95% CI (1.3 to 1.7), 1874 participants, 5 studies, high quality evidence). Moderate benefit with pregabalin 300 to 600 mg was experienced by about 28% of participants with placebo, but about 11% more with pregabalin 300 to 600 mg (39% to 43%) (high quality evidence). A similar magnitude of effect was found using PGIC of 'very much improved' and 'much or very much improved'. NNTs for these outcomes ranged between 7 and 14 (high quality evidence).A small study (177 participants) compared nightly with twice-daily pregabalin, and concluded there was no difference in effect.Two studies (1492 participants began initial dose titration, 687 participants randomised) had an EERW design in which those with good pain relief after titration were randomised, double blind, to continuing the effective dose (300 to 600 mg pregabalin daily) or a short down-titration to placebo for 13 or 26 weeks. We calculated the outcome of maintained therapeutic response (MTR) without withdrawal, equivalent to a moderate benefit. Of those randomised, 40% had MTR with pregabalin and 20% with placebo (high quality evidence). The NNT was 5, but normalised to the starting population tested it was 12. About 10% of the initial population would have achieved the MTR outcome, similar to the result from studies of classic design. MTR had no imputation concerns.The majority (70% to 90%) of participants in all treatment groups experienced adverse events. Specific adverse events were more common with pregabalin than placebo, in particular dizziness, somnolence, weight gain, and peripheral oedema, with number needed to harm of 3.7, 7.4, 18, and 19 respectively for all doses combined (high quality evidence). Serious adverse events did not differ between active treatment groups and placebo (very low quality evidence). Withdrawals for any reason were more common with pregabalin than placebo only with the 600 mg dose in studies of classic design. Withdrawals due to adverse events were about 10% higher with pregabalin than placebo, but withdrawals due to lack of efficacy were about 6% lower (high quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Pregabalin 300 to 600 mg produces a major reduction in pain intensity over 12 to 26 weeks with tolerable adverse events for a small proportion of people (about 10% more than placebo) with moderate or severe pain due to fibromyalgia. The degree of pain relief is known to be accompanied by improvements in other symptoms, quality of life, and function. These results are similar to other effective medicines in fibromyalgia (milnacipran, duloxetine).

Ketoprofen for episodic tension-type headache in adults

BACKGROUND

Tension-type headache (TTH) affects about 1 person in 5 worldwide. It is divided into infrequent episodic TTH (fewer than one headache day per month), frequent episodic TTH (2 to 14 headache days per month), and chronic TTH (15 headache days a month or more). Ketoprofen is one of a number of analgesics suggested for acute treatment of headaches in frequent episodic TTH.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of ketoprofen for treatment of episodic TTH in adults compared with placebo or any active comparator.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and the Oxford Pain Relief Database up to May 2016, and also reference lists of relevant published studies and reviews. We sought unpublished studies by asking personal contacts and searching online clinical trial registers and manufacturers' websites.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies (parallel-group or cross-over) using oral ketoprofen for symptomatic relief of an acute episode of TTH. Studies had to be prospective, with participants aged 18 years or over, and include at least 10 participants per treatment arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and extracted data. We used the numbers of participants achieving each outcome to calculate the risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat for one additional beneficial outcome (NNT) or one additional harmful outcome (NNH) for oral ketoprofen compared to placebo or an active intervention for a range of outcomes, predominantly those recommended by the International Headache Society (IHS).We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies, all of which enrolled adults with frequent episodic TTH. They all specified using the IHS diagnostic criteria and reported mean baseline pain of at least moderate intensity. While 1253 people with TTH participated in these studies, the numbers available for any analysis were lower than this because outcomes were inconsistently reported and because many participants received active comparators.None of the included studies were at low risk of bias across all domains considered, although for most studies and domains this was likely to be due to inadequate reporting rather than poor methods. We judged one study to be at high risk of bias due to small size.Useful information was available only for ketoprofen 25 mg. For the IHS preferred outcome of being pain-free at two hours the NNT for ketoprofen 25 mg compared with placebo was 9.0 (95% confidence interval (CI) 4.8 to 72) in two studies (272 participants; low quality evidence). The NNT was 3.7 (95% CI 2.6 to 6.3) for pain-free or mild pain at two hours in two studies (272 participants; moderate quality evidence). Fewer people needed rescue medication with ketoprofen 25 mg than with placebo, with a number needed to treat to prevent one event (NNTp) of 6.2 (95% CI 4.3 to 11) in three studies (605 participants; moderate quality evidence). The number of participants reporting any adverse event was higher with ketoprofen 25 mg than placebo (NNH 15, (95% CI 8.7 to 45)) in three studies (651 participants with 66 events; low quality evidence). Most events were of mild to moderate intensity.Ketoprofen 25 mg was not different from paracetamol 1000 mg in two studies with 276 participants for any efficacy outcomes (low to moderate quality evidence); the RR for pain-free at two hours was 1.3 (95% CI 0.9 to 2.0). The number of participants reporting any adverse event was higher with ketoprofen 25 mg than with paracetamol (NNH 17, 95% CI 8.9 to 130)) in two studies (582 participants, 68 events; low quality evidence).Studies reported no serious adverse events.We judged the quality of the evidence comparing ketoprofen 25 mg with placebo or paracetamol 1000 mg as moderate to very low. Where evidence was downgraded it was because of the small number of studies and events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Ketoprofen 25 mg provided a small benefit compared with placebo in terms of being pain-free at two hours or having mild or no pain at two hours for people with frequent episodic TTH who have an acute headache of moderate or severe intensity. Its use was associated with more people experiencing adverse events. Ketoprofen 25 mg was not superior to paracetamol 1000 mg for any efficacy outcome.

Oxycodone for pain in fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

This review replaces part of an earlier review that evaluated oxycodone for both neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia, which has now been split into separate reviews for the two conditions. This review will consider pain in fibromyalgia only.Opioid drugs are commonly used to treat fibromyalgia, but they may not be beneficial for people with this condition. Most reviews have examined all opioids together. This review sought evidence specifically for oxycodone, at any dose, and by any route of administration.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of oxycodone for treating pain in fibromyalgia in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE for randomised controlled trials from inception to 25 July 2016. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and searched online clinical trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include randomised, double-blind trials of eight weeks' duration or longer, comparing oxycodone (alone or in fixed-dose combination with naloxone) with placebo or another active treatment. We did not include observational studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The plan was for two independent review authors to extract data and assess trial quality and potential bias. Where pooled analysis was possible, we planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and numbers needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods.

MAIN RESULTS

No study satisfied the inclusion criteria. Effects of interventions were not assessed as there were no included studies. We have only very low quality evidence and are very uncertain about estimates of benefit and harm.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no randomised trial evidence to support or refute the suggestion that oxycodone, alone or in combination with naloxone, reduces pain in fibromyalgia.

Osteoarthritis patients with pain improvement are highly likely to also have improved quality of life and functioning. A post hoc analysis of a clinical trial

BACKGROUND

This analysis evaluated whether osteoarthritis patients achieving the greatest pain control and lowest pain states also have the greatest improvement in functioning and quality of life.

METHODS

Patients (n=419) who failed prior therapies and who were switched to etoricoxib 60mg were categorized as pain responders or non-responders at 4 weeks based on responder definitions established by the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain (IMMPACT) criteria, including changes from baseline of ≥15%, ≥30%, ≥50%, ≥70% and a final pain status of ≤3/10 (no worse than mild pain). Pain was assessed at baseline and 4 weeks using 4 questions from the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) (worst pain, least pain, average pain, and pain right now), and also using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) pain subscale. We examined the relationship between pain responses with changes from baseline in two functional measures (the BPI Pain Interference questions and the WOMAC Function Subscale) as well as changes from baseline in quality of life (assessed on the SF-36 Physical and Mental Component Summaries). We also sought to understand whether these relationships were influenced by the choice of the pain instrument used to assess response. We contrast the mean difference in improvements in the functional and quality of life instruments based on pain responder status (responder versus non-responder) and the associated 95% confidence limits around this difference.

RESULTS

Patients with better pain responses were much more likely to have improved functional responses and improved quality of life, with higher mean changes in these outcomes versus pain non-responders, regardless of the choice of IMMPACT pain response definition (e.g., using any of 15%, 30%, 50%, 70% change from baseline) or the final pain state of ≤3/10. There was an evident gradient, where higher levels of pain response were associated with greater mean improvements in function and quality of life. The finding that greater pain responses led to greater functional improvements and quality of life gains was not dependent on the manner in which pain was evaluated. Five different pain instruments (e.g., the 4 questions on pain from the BPI pain questionnaire and the WOMAC pain subscale) consistently demonstrated that pain responders had statistically significantly greater improvements in function and quality of life compared to pain non-responders. This suggests these results are likely to be generalizable to any validated pain measure for osteoarthritis.

CONCLUSIONS

Pain is an efficient outcome measure for predicting broader patient response in osteoarthritis. Patients who do not achieve timely, acceptable pain states over 4 weeks were less likely to experience functional or quality of life improvements.

IMPLICATIONS

Good pain improvements in osteoarthritis with a valid pain instrument are a proxy for good improvements in both function and quality of life. Therefore proper osteoarthritis pain assessment can lead to efficient evaluations in the clinic.

Oxycodone for neuropathic pain in adults

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.

Cannabinoids for fibromyalgia

BACKGROUND

This review is one of a series on drugs used to treat fibromyalgia. Fibromyalgia is a clinically well-defined chronic condition of unknown aetiology characterised by chronic widespread pain that often co-exists with sleep problems and fatigue affecting approximately 2% of the general population. People often report high disability levels and poor health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Drug therapy focuses on reducing key symptoms and disability, and improving HRQoL. Cannabis has been used for millennia to reduce pain and other somatic and psychological symptoms.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy, tolerability and safety of cannabinoids for fibromyalgia symptoms in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE to April 2016, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, three clinical trial registries, and contact with trial authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled trials of at least four weeks' duration of any formulation of cannabis products used for the treatment of adults with fibromyalgia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted the data of all included studies and assessed risk of bias. We resolved discrepancies by discussion. We performed analysis using three tiers of evidence. First tier evidence was derived from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction, intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for drop-outs; at least 200 participants in the comparison, eight to 12 weeks' duration, parallel design), second tier evidence from data that did not meet one or more of these criteria and were considered at some risk of bias but with adequate numbers (i.e. data from at least 200 participants) in the comparison, and third tier evidence from data involving small numbers of participants that were considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both. We assessed the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation).

MAIN RESULTS

We included two studies with 72 participants. Overall, the two studies were at moderate risk of bias. The evidence was derived from group mean data and completer analysis (very low quality evidence overall). We rated the quality of all outcomes according to GRADE as very low due to indirectness, imprecision and potential reporting bias.The primary outcomes in our review were participant-reported pain relief of 50% or greater, Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) much or very much improved, withdrawal due to adverse events (tolerability) and serious adverse events (safety). Nabilone was compared to placebo and to amitriptyline in one study each. Study sizes were 32 and 40 participants. One study used a cross-over design and one used a parallel group design; study duration was four or six weeks. Both studies used nabilone, a synthetic cannabinoid, with a bedtime dosage of 1 mg/day. No study reported the proportion of participants experiencing at least 30% or 50% pain relief or who were very much improved. No study provided first or second tier (high to moderate quality) evidence for an outcome of efficacy, tolerability and safety. Third tier (very low quality) evidence indicated greater reduction of pain and limitations of HRQoL compared to placebo in one study. There were no significant differences to placebo noted for fatigue and depression (very low quality evidence). Third tier evidence indicated better effects of nabilone on sleep than amitriptyline (very low quality evidence). There were no significant differences between the two drugs noted for pain, mood and HRQoL (very low quality evidence). More participants dropped out due to adverse events in the nabilone groups (4/52 participants) than in the control groups (1/20 in placebo and 0/32 in amitriptyline group). The most frequent adverse events were dizziness, nausea, dry mouth and drowsiness (six participants with nabilone). Neither study reported serious adverse events during the period of both studies. We planned to create a GRADE 'Summary of findings' table, but due to the scarcity of data we were unable to do this. We found no relevant study with herbal cannabis, plant-based cannabinoids or synthetic cannabinoids other than nabilone in fibromyalgia.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no convincing, unbiased, high quality evidence suggesting that nabilone is of value in treating people with fibromyalgia. The tolerability of nabilone was low in people with fibromyalgia.

Antipsychotics for fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

This review is one of a series on drugs used to treat fibromyalgia. Fibromyalgia is a clinically well-defined chronic condition of unknown aetiology characterised by chronic widespread pain that often co-exists with sleep problems and fatigue. It affects approximately 2% of the general population. Up to 70% of patients with fibromyalgia meet the criteria for a depressive or anxiety disorder. People often report high disability levels and poor health-related quality of life. Drug therapy focuses on reducing key symptoms and disability, and improving health-related quality of life. Antipsychotics might reduce fibromyalgia and associated mental health symptoms.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy, tolerability and safety of antipsychotics in fibromyalgia in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (2016, Issue 4), MEDLINE and EMBASE to 20 May 2016, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews and two clinical trial registries. We also contacted trial authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected controlled trials of at least four weeks duration of any formulation of antipsychotics used for the treatment of fibromyalgia in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted the data from all included studies and two review authors independently assessed study risks of bias. We resolved discrepancies by discussion. We performed analysis using three tiers of evidence. We derived first tier evidence from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction, intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for drop-outs, at least 200 participants in the comparison, eight to 12 weeks duration, parallel design), second tier evidence from data that failed to meet one or more of these criteria and that we considered at some risk of bias but with adequate numbers in the comparison, and third tier evidence from data involving small numbers of participants that we considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both. We rated the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of four studies with 296 participants.Three studies with 206 participants compared quetiapine, an atypical (second-generation) antipsychotic, with placebo. One study used a cross-over design and two studies a parallel-group design. Study duration was eight or 12 weeks. Quetiapine was used in all studies with a bedtime dosage between 50 and 300 mg/day. All studies had one or more sources of potential major bias and we judged them to be at moderate risk of bias overall. The primary outcomes in this review were participant-reported pain relief of 50% or greater, Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) much or very much improved, withdrawal due to adverse events (tolerability) and serious adverse events (safety).Second tier evidence indicated that quetiapine was not statistically superior to placebo in the number of participants with a 50% or more pain reduction (very low quality evidence). No study reported data on PGIC. A greater proportion of participants on quetiapine reported a 30% or more pain reduction (risk difference (RD) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.23; number needed to treat for an additional benefit (NNTB) 8, 95% CI 5 to 100) (very low quality evidence). A greater proportion of participants on quetiapine reported a clinically relevant improvement of health-related quality of life compared to placebo ( RD 0.18, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.31; NNTB 5, 95% CI 3 to 20) (very low quality evidence). Quetiapine was statistically superior to placebo in reducing sleep problems (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.67, 95% CI -1.10 to -0.23), depression (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.74 to -0.04) and anxiety (SMD -0.40, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.11) (very low quality evidence). Quetiapine was statistically superior to placebo in reducing the risk of withdrawing from the study due to a lack of efficacy (RD -0.14, 95% CI -0.23 to -0.05) (very low quality evidence). There was no statistically significant difference between quetiapine and placebo in the proportion of participants withdrawing due to adverse events (tolerability) (very low quality evidence), in the frequency of serious adverse events (safety) (very low quality evidence) and in the proportion of participants reporting dizziness and somnolence as an adverse event (very low quality evidence). In more participants in the quetiapine group a substantial weight gain was noted (RD 0.08, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.15; number needed to treat for an additional harm (NNTH) 12, 95% CI 6 to 50) (very low quality evidence). We downgraded the quality of evidence by three levels to a very low quality rating because of limitations of study design, indirectness (patients with major medical diseases and mental disorders were excluded) and imprecision (fewer than 400 patients were analysed).One parallel design study with 90 participants compared quetiapine (50 to 300 mg/day flexible at bedtime) to amitriptyline (10 to 75 mg/day flexible at bedtime). The study had three major risks of bias and we judged it to be at moderate risk of bias overall. We downgraded the quality of evidence by two levels to a low quality rating because of indirectness (patients with major medical diseases and mental disorders were excluded) and imprecision (fewer than 400 patients were analysed). Third tier evidence indicated no statistically significant differences between the two drugs. Both drugs did not statistically significantly differ in the reduction of average scores for pain, fatigue, sleep problems, depression, anxiety and for limitations of health-related quality of life and in the proportion of participants reporting dizziness, somnolence and weight gain as a side effect (low quality evidence). Compared to amitriptyline, more participants left the study due to adverse events (low quality evidence). No serious adverse events were reported (low quality evidence).We found no relevant study with other antipsychotics than quetiapine in fibromyalgia.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Very low quality evidence suggests that quetiapine may be considered for a time-limited trial (4 to 12 weeks) to reduce pain, sleep problems, depression and anxiety in fibromyalgia patients with major depression. Potential side effects such as weight gain should be balanced against the potential benefits in shared decision making with the patient.

Hydromorphone for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Opioid drugs, including hydromorphone, 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 hydromorphone, at any dose, and by any route of administration. Other opioids are considered in separate reviews.This review is part of an update of a previous review, Hydromorphone for acute and chronic pain that was withdrawn in 2013 because it needed updating and splitting to be more specific for different pain conditions. This review focuses only on neuropathic pain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy of hydromorphone for chronic neuropathic pain in adults, and the adverse events associated with its use in clinical trials.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), via the CRSO; MEDLINE via Ovid; and EMBASE via Ovid from inception to 17 November 2015, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, and two online study registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing hydromorphone (at any dose, by any route of administration, or in any formulation) 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. We did not carry out any pooled analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation).

MAIN RESULTS

Searches identified seven publications relating to four studies. We excluded three studies. One post hoc (secondary) analysis of a study published in four reports assessed the efficacy of hydromorphone in neuropathic pain, satisfied our inclusion criteria, and was included in the review. The single included study had an enriched enrolment, randomised withdrawal design with 94 participants who were successfully switched from oral morphine to oral hydromorphone extended release (about 60% of those enrolled). These participants were then randomised to continuing hydromorphone for 12 weeks or tapering down the hydromorphone dose to placebo. The methodological quality of the study was generally good, but we judged the risk of bias for incomplete outcome data as unclear, and for study size as high.Since we identified only one study for inclusion, we were unable to carry out any analyses. The included study did not report any of our prespecified primary outcomes, which relate to the number of participants achieving moderate or substantial levels of pain relief. It did report a slightly larger increase in average pain intensity for placebo in the randomised withdrawal phase than for continuing with hydromorphone. It also reported the number of participants who withdrew due to lack of efficacy in the randomised withdrawal phase, which may be an indicator of efficacy. However, in addition to using an enriched enrolment, randomised withdrawal study design, there was an unusual choice of imputation methods for withdrawals (about 50% of participants); the evidence was of very low quality and inadequate to make a judgement on efficacy. Adverse events occurred in about half of participants with hydromorphone, the most common being constipation and nausea. A similar proportion of participants experienced adverse events with placebo, the most common being opioid withdrawal syndrome (very low quality evidence). Most adverse events were mild or moderate in intensity. One in eight participants withdrew while taking hydromorphone during the conversion and titration phase, despite participants being opioid-tolerant (very low quality evidence).We downgraded the quality of the evidence to very low because there was only one study with few participants, it did not report clinically useful efficacy outcomes, and it was a post hoc analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was insufficient evidence to support or refute the suggestion that hydromorphone has any efficacy in any neuropathic pain condition.

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

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.

Topical NSAIDs for chronic musculoskeletal pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Use of topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) to treat chronic musculoskeletal conditions has become widely accepted because they can provide pain relief without associated systemic adverse events. This review is an update of 'Topical NSAIDs for chronic musculoskeletal pain in adults', originally published in Issue 9, 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To review the evidence from randomised, double-blind, controlled trials on the efficacy and safety of topically applied NSAIDs for chronic musculoskeletal pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and our own in-house database; the date of the last search was February 2016. We also searched the references lists of included studies and reviews, and sought unpublished studies by asking personal contacts and searching online clinical trial registers and manufacturers' web sites.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, active or inert carrier (placebo) controlled trials in which treatments were administered to adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain of moderate or severe intensity. Studies had to meet stringent quality criteria and there had to be at least 10 participants in each treatment arm, with application of treatment at least once daily.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and extracted data. We used numbers of participants achieving each outcome to calculate risk ratio and numbers needed to treat (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared to carrier or other active treatment. We were particularly interested to compare different formulations (gel, cream, plaster) of individual NSAIDs. The primary outcome was 'clinical success', defined as at least a 50% reduction in pain, or an equivalent measure such as a 'very good' or 'excellent' global assessment of treatment, or 'none' or 'slight' pain on rest or movement, measured on a categorical scale.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified five new studies for this update, which now has information from 10,631 participants in 39 studies, a 38% increase in participants from the earlier review; 33 studies compared a topical NSAID with carrier. All studies examined topical NSAIDs for treatment of osteoarthritis, and for pooled analyses studies were generally of moderate or high methodological quality, although we considered some at risk of bias from short duration and small size.In studies lasting 6 to 12 weeks, topical diclofenac and topical ketoprofen were significantly more effective than carrier for reducing pain; about 60% of participants had much reduced pain. With topical diclofenac, the NNT for clinical success in six trials (2343 participants) was 9.8 (95% confidence interval (CI) 7.1 to 16) (moderate quality evidence). With topical ketoprofen, the NNT for clinical success in four trials (2573 participants) was 6.9 (5.4 to 9.3) (moderate quality evidence). There was too little information for analysis of other individual topical NSAIDs compared with carrier. Few trials compared a topical NSAID to an oral NSAID, but overall they showed similar efficacy (low quality evidence). These efficacy results were almost completely derived from people with knee osteoarthritis.There was an increase in local adverse events (mostly mild skin reactions) with topical diclofenac compared with carrier or oral NSAIDs, but no increase with topical ketoprofen (moderate quality evidence). Reporting of systemic adverse events (such as gastrointestinal upsets) was poor, but where reported there was no difference between topical NSAID and carrier (very low quality evidence). Serious adverse events were infrequent and not different between topical NSAID and carrier (very low quality evidence).Clinical success with carrier occurred commonly - in around half the participants in studies lasting 6 to 12 weeks. Both direct and indirect comparison of clinical success with oral placebo indicates that response rates with carrier (topical placebo) are about twice those seen with oral placebo.A substantial amount of data from completed, unpublished studies was unavailable (up to 6000 participants). To the best of our knowledge, much of this probably relates to formulations that have never been marketed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Topical diclofenac and topical ketoprofen can provide good levels of pain relief beyond carrier in osteoarthritis for a minority of people, but there is no evidence for other chronic painful conditions. There is emerging evidence that at least some of the substantial placebo effects seen in longer duration studies derive from effects imparted by the NSAID carrier itself, and that NSAIDs add to that.

Milnacipran for pain in fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 3, 2012. That review considered both fibromyalgia and neuropathic pain, but the efficacy of milnacipran for neuropathic pain is now dealt with in a separate review.Milnacipran is a serotonin-norepinephrine (noradrenaline) reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) that is licensed for the treatment of fibromyalgia in some countries, including Canada, Russia, and the United States.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy of milnacipran for pain in fibromyalgia in adults and the adverse events associated with its use in clinical trials.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE to 18 May 2015, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, and two clinical trial registries. For the earlier review, we also contacted the manufacturer.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind studies of eight weeks' duration or longer, comparing milnacipran with placebo or another active treatment in fibromyalgia in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and two review authors examined issues of study quality independently.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified one new study with 100 participants for the pooled analysis. We identified two additional reports of a study using an enriched enrolment randomised withdrawal (EERW) design that included participants from earlier randomised controlled trials and an open-label study. Because this study used the same participants already included in our main analysis, and a different design, we dealt with it separately.The main analysis included six studies (five from the earlier review; 4238 participants in total), all of which were placebo-controlled, and used titration to a target dose of milnacipran 100 or 200 mg, with assessment after 8 to 24 weeks of stable treatment. There were no studies with active comparators. Study quality was generally good, although the imputation method used in analyses of the primary outcomes could overestimate treatment effect.Both doses of milnacipran provided moderate levels of pain relief (at least 30% pain intensity reduction) to about 40% of participants treated, compared to 30% with placebo, giving a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) of 6 to 10 (high quality evidence). Using a stricter definition for responder and a more conservative method of analysis gave lower levels of response (while maintaining a 10% difference between milnacipran and placebo) and increased the NNT to 11 (high quality evidence). One EERW study was broadly supportive.Adverse events were common in both milnacipran (86%) and placebo (78%) groups (high quality evidence), but serious adverse events did not differ between groups (less than 2%) (low quality evidence). Nausea, constipation, and headache were the most common events showing the greatest difference between groups (number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNH) of 5.7 for nausea, 13 for constipation, and 29 for headache) (moderate quality evidence).Withdrawals for any reason were more common with milnacipran than placebo, and more common with 200 mg (NNH 9) than 100 mg (NNH 23), compared with placebo. This was largely driven by adverse event withdrawals, where the NNH compared with placebo was 14 for 100 mg and 7.0 for 200 mg (high quality evidence). Withdrawals due to lack of efficacy were less common with milnacipran than placebo but did not differ between doses (number needed to treat to prevent an additional unwanted outcome (NNTp) of 41) (moderate quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence available indicates that milnacipran 100 mg or 200 mg is effective for a minority in the treatment of pain due to fibromyalgia, providing moderate levels of pain relief (at least 30%) to about 40% of participants, compared with about 30% with placebo. There were insufficient data to assess substantial levels of pain relief (at least 50%), and the use of last observation carried forward imputation may overestimate drug efficacy. Using stricter criteria for 'responder' and a more conservative method of analysis gave lower response rates (about 26% with milnacipran versus 17% with placebo). Milnacipran was associated with increased adverse events and adverse event withdrawals, which were significantly greater for the higher dose.

Oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for neuropathic pain

BACKGROUND

Although often considered to be lacking adequate evidence, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used in the management of neuropathic pain. Previous surveys found 18% to 47% of affected people reported using NSAIDs specifically for their neuropathic pain, although possibly not in the United Kingdom (UK).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy of oral NSAIDs for chronic neuropathic pain in adults, when compared to placebo or another active intervention, and the adverse events associated with its use in clinical trials.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE from inception to 29 May 2015, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, and an online trials registry.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks duration or longer, comparing any oral NSAID 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. We did not carry out any pooled analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two studies involving 251 participants with chronic low back pain with a neuropathic component or postherpetic neuralgia; 209 of these participants were involved in a study of an experimental NSAID not used in clinical practice, and of the remaining 42, only 16 had neuropathic pain. This represented only third tier evidence, and was of very low quality. There was no indication of any significant pain reduction with NSAIDs. Adverse event rates were low, with insufficient events for any analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence to support or refute the use of oral NSAIDs to treat neuropathic pain conditions.

Buprenorphine for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Opioid drugs, including buprenorphine, 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 buprenorphine, at any dose, and by any route of administration. Other opioids are considered in separate reviews.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy of buprenorphine for chronic neuropathic pain in adults, and the adverse events associated with its use in clinical trials.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE from inception to 11 June 2015, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, and two online study registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing any oral dose or formulation of buprenorphine 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. We did not carry out any pooled analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

Searches identified 10 published studies, and one study with results in ClinicalTrials.gov. None of these 11 studies satisfied our inclusion criteria, and so we included no studies in the review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was insufficient evidence to support or refute the suggestion that buprenorphine has any efficacy in any neuropathic pain condition.

Developing a Risk Score to Guide Individualized Treatment Selection in Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

OBJECTIVE

To develop a risk score for treatment failure that could potentially be used to individualize treatment selection between lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) and osmotic-release oral system methylphenidate (OROS-MPH) in children and adolescents with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

METHODS

The study used data from patients with ADHD receiving LDX (N = 104) or OROS-MPH (N = 107) in a phase III randomized clinical trial. A prediction model was developed to estimate risk scores for failing OROS-MPH, where treatment failure was defined as less than 25% improvement in the ADHD Rating Scale IV total score from baseline. Patients were ranked by their predicted risks of OROS-MPH failure to define high-risk subpopulations. Outcomes of LDX and OROS-MPH were compared within subpopulations.

RESULTS

The prediction model for OROS-MPH failure selected seven predictors (age, disease duration, and five ADHD Rating Scale IV item scores) and had an in-sample C statistic of 0.860. Among all patients, LDX had a 17% (95% confidence interval 7.1%-27.8%) lower treatment failure rate than that of OROS-MPH; differences in failure rates ranged from 17% to 43% across subpopulations, increasingly enriched for high-risk patients. Similar heterogeneity across subgroups was observed for other efficacy measures.

CONCLUSIONS

In the overall trial population, LDX was associated with a lower rate of treatment failure compared with OROS-MPH in patients with ADHD. A more pronounced benefit of LDX over OROS-MPH was observed among subpopulations with a higher predicted risk of failing OROS-MPH. The present study showed the feasibility of individualizing treatment selection. Future research is needed to prospectively verify these results.

Topical clonidine for neuropathic pain

BACKGROUND

Clonidine is a presynaptic alpha-2-adrenergic receptor agonist used for many years to treat hypertension and other conditions, including chronic pain. Adverse events associated with systemic use of the drug have limited its application. Topical use of drugs is currently gaining interest, as it may limit adverse events without loss of analgesic efficacy. Topical clonidine (TC) formulations have been investigated recently in clinical trials.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this review were to assess the analgesic efficacy of TC for chronic neuropathic pain in adults and to assess the frequency of adverse events associated with clinical use of TC for chronic neuropathic pain.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS) Online (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL)), MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, reference lists of retrieved papers and trial registries, and we contacted experts in the field. We performed the most recent search on 17 September 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind studies of at least two weeks' duration comparing TC versus placebo or other active treatment in patients with chronic neuropathic pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted data from the studies and assessed bias. We planned three tiers of evidence analysis. The first tier was designed to analyse data meeting current best standards, by which studies reported the outcome of at least 50% pain intensity reduction over baseline (or its equivalent) without use of the last observation carried forward or other imputation method for dropouts, reported an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, lasted eight weeks or longer, had a parallel-group design and included at least 200 participants (preferably at least 400) in the comparison. The second tier was designed to use data from at least 200 participants but in cases in which one of the above conditions was not met. The third tier of evidence was assumed in other situations.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two studies in the review, with a total of 344 participants. Studies lasted 8 weeks and 12 weeks and compared TC versus placebo. 0.1%. TC was applied in gel form to the painful area two to three times daily.Studies included in this review were subject to potential bias and were classified as of moderate or low quality. One drug manufacturer supported both studies.We found no top-tier evidence for TC in neuropathic pain. Second-tier evidence indicated slight improvement after the drug was used in study participants with painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN). A greater number of participants in the TC group had at least 30% reduction in pain compared with placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 1.77; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 8.33, 95% CI 4.3 to 50). Third-tier evidence indicated that TC was no better than placebo for achieving at least 50% reduction in pain intensity and on the Patient Global Impression of Change Scale. The two included studies could be subject to significant bias. We found no studies that reported other neuropathic pain conditions.The rate of adverse events did not differ between groups, with the exception of a higher incidence of mild skin reactions in the placebo group, which should have no clinical significance.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Limited evidence from a small number of studies of moderate to low quality suggests that TC may provide some benefit in peripheral diabetic neuropathy. The drug may be useful in situations for which no better treatment options are available because of lack of efficacy, contraindications or adverse events. Additional trials are needed to assess TC in other neuropathic pain conditions and to determine how patients who have a chance to respond to the drug should be selected for treatment.

Venlafaxine for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Neuropathic pain, which is caused by nerve damage, is increasing in prevalence worldwide. This may reflect improved diagnosis, or it may be due to increased incidence of diabetes-associated neuropathy, linked to increasing levels of obesity. Other types of neuropathic pain include post-herpetic neuralgia, trigeminal neuralgia, and neuralgia caused by chemotherapy. Antidepressant drugs are sometimes used to treat neuropathic pain; however, their analgesic efficacy is unclear. A previous Cochrane review that included all antidepressants for neuropathic pain is being replaced by new reviews of individual drugs examining chronic neuropathic pain in the first instance. Venlafaxine is a reasonably well-tolerated antidepressant and is a serotonin reuptake inhibitor and weak noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor. Although not licensed for the treatment of chronic or neuropathic pain in most countries, it is sometimes used for this indication.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy of, and the adverse effects associated with the clinical use of, venlafaxine for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via The Cochrane Library, and MEDLINE and EMBASE via Ovid up to 14 August 2014. We reviewed the bibliographies of any randomised trials identified and review articles, contacted authors of one excluded study and searched www.clinicaltrials.gov to identify additional published or unpublished data. We also searched the meta-Register of controlled trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com/mrct) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (apps.who.int/trialsearch/) for ongoing trials but did not find any relevant trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind studies of at least two weeks' duration comparing venlafaxine with either placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain in adults. All participants were aged 18 years or over and all included studies had at least 10 participants per treatment arm. We only included studies with full journal publication.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently extracted data using a standard form and assessed study quality. We intend to analyse data in three tiers of evidence as described by Hearn 2014, but did not find any first-tier evidence (ie evidence meeting current best standards, with minimal risk of bias) or second-tier evidence, that was considered at some risk of bias but with adequate participant numbers (at least 200 in the comparison). Third-tier evidence is that arising from studies with small numbers of participants; studies of short duration, studies that are likely to be of limited clinical utility due to other limitations, including selection bias and attrition bias; or a combination of these.

MAIN RESULTS

We found six randomised, double-blind trials of at least two weeks' duration eligible for inclusion. These trials included 460 participants with neuropathic pain, with most participants having painful diabetic neuropathy. Four studies were of cross-over design and two were parallel trials. Only one trial was both parallel design and placebo-controlled. Mean age of participants ranged from 48 to 59 years. In three studies (Forssell 2004, Jia 2006 and Tasmuth 2002), only mean data were reported. Comparators included placebo, imipramine, and carbamazepine and duration of treatment ranged from two to eight weeks. The risk of bias was considerable overall in the review, especially due to the small size of most studies and due to attrition bias. Four of the six studies reported some positive benefit for venlafaxine. In the largest study by Rowbotham, 2004, 56% of participants receiving venlafaxine 150 to 225 mg achieved at least a 50% reduction in pain intensity versus 34% of participants in the placebo group and the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome was 4.5. However, this study was subject to significant selection bias. Known adverse effects of venlafaxine, including somnolence, dizziness, and mild gastrointestinal problems, were reported in all studies but were not particularly problematic and, overall, adverse effects were equally prominent in placebo or other active comparator groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found little compelling evidence to support the use of venlafaxine in neuropathic pain. While there was some third-tier evidence of benefit, this arose from studies that had methodological limitations and considerable risk of bias. Placebo effects were notably strong in several studies. Given that effective drug treatments for neuropathic pain are in current use, there is no evidence to revise prescribing guidelines to promote the use of venlafaxine in neuropathic pain. Although venlafaxine was generally reasonably well tolerated, there was some evidence that it can precipitate fatigue, somnolence, nausea, and dizziness in a minority of people.

Interpreting Effectiveness Evidence in Pain: Short Tour of Contemporary Issues

There is no shortage of treatment approaches offered to people with pain. The maze of options presents patients and clinicians with difficult choices. Key to making those choices is evidence of treatment effectiveness provided by clinical trials and systematic reviews. Recent growth in the number of clinical trials and systematic reviews, of both high and low quality, makes it vital that users of this evidence-clinicians, researchers, patients, and policy makers-have the skills and knowledge to critically interpret these studies. In this review, we discuss some contemporary issues regarding evidence of effectiveness derived from clinical trials and systematic reviews-issues that we think are critical to understanding the field. We focus on evidence of treatment effectiveness in pain, although many of these issues are relevant to and transferable across the spectrum of evidence-based practice.

Amitriptyline for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 12, 2012. That review considered both fibromyalgia and neuropathic pain, but the effects of amitriptyline for fibromyalgia are now dealt with in a separate review.Amitriptyline is a tricyclic antidepressant that is widely used to treat chronic neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage). It is recommended as a first line treatment in many guidelines. Neuropathic pain can be treated with antidepressant drugs in doses below those at which the drugs act as antidepressants.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy of amitriptyline for relief of chronic neuropathic pain, and the adverse events associated with its use in clinical trials.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE to March 2015, together with two clinical trial registries, and the reference lists of retrieved papers, previous systematic reviews, and other reviews; we also used our own hand searched database for older studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind studies of at least four weeks' duration comparing amitriptyline with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain conditions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We performed analysis using three tiers of evidence. First tier evidence derived from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction, intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for dropouts; at least 200 participants in the comparison, 8 to 12 weeks' duration, parallel design), second tier from data that failed to meet one or more of these criteria and were considered at some risk of bias but with adequate numbers in the comparison, and third tier from data involving small numbers of participants that were considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 studies from the earlier review and two new studies (17 studies, 1342 participants) in seven neuropathic pain conditions. Eight cross-over studies with 302 participants had a median of 36 participants, and nine parallel group studies with 1040 participants had a median of 84 participants. Study quality was modest, though most studies were at high risk of bias due to small size.There was no first-tier or second-tier evidence for amitriptyline in treating any neuropathic pain condition. Only third-tier evidence was available. For only two of seven studies reporting useful efficacy data was amitriptyline significantly better than placebo (very low quality evidence).More participants experienced at least one adverse event; 55% of participants taking amitriptyline and 36% taking placebo. The risk ratio (RR) was 1.5 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3 to 1.8) and the number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome was 5.2 (3.6 to 9.1) (low quality evidence). Serious adverse events were rare. Adverse event and all-cause withdrawals were not different, but were rarely reported (very low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Amitriptyline has been a first-line treatment for neuropathic pain for many years. The fact that there is no supportive unbiased evidence for a beneficial effect is disappointing, but has to be balanced against decades of successful treatment in many people with neuropathic pain. There is no good evidence of a lack of effect; rather our concern should be of overestimation of treatment effect. Amitriptyline should continue to be used as part of the treatment of neuropathic pain, but only a minority of people will achieve satisfactory pain relief. Limited information suggests that failure with one antidepressant does not mean failure with all.

Milnacipran for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Milnacipran is a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) that is sometimes used to treat chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia. This is an update of an earlier review of milnacipran for neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia in adults originally published in The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2012. We split that review so that this one looked only at neuropathic pain, and a separate review looks at fibromyalgia.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and associated adverse events of milnacipran for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE to 23 February 2015, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind studies of eight weeks' duration or longer, comparing milnacipran 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. We did not carry out any analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a single study of 40 participants with chronic low back pain with a neuropathic component. It found no difference in pain scores between milnacipran 100 mg to 200 mg daily or placebo after six weeks (very low quality evidence). Adverse event rates were similar between treatments, with too few data to draw conclusions (very low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was no evidence to support the use of milnacipran to treat neuropathic pain conditions.

Meta-analyses of pain studies: What we have learned

Meta-analysis is a statistical procedure that integrates the results of at least two independent studies. The biggest threats to meta-analysis are publication bias due to missing studies with negative results and low-quality evidence due to methodological limitations imposed by included studies. Tools to improve the quality of meta-analysis have been developed by the Cochrane Collaboration and by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Meta-analyses of trials have demonstrated that pain responses in patients with chronic pain, following treatment, are not normally distributed but have a bimodal distribution with the majority of patients having either very little or very good pain relief. The benefit can be detected within 2-4 weeks following drug administration. Further, the efficacy of drug and physical treatments is hampered by high placebo response rates, with modest average benefits with active treatments over placebo in both parallel and crossover design trials.

Relative benefit-risk comparing diclofenac to other traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors in patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis: a network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

There is argument over the benefits and risks of drugs for treating chronic musculoskeletal pain. This study compared the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of diclofenac, ibuprofen, naproxen, celecoxib, and etoricoxib for patients with pain caused by osteoarthritis (OA) or rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

A systematic literature review used Medline and EMBASE to identify randomised controlled trials. Efficacy outcomes assessed included: pain relief measured by visual analogue scale (VAS); Western Ontario McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) VAS or WOMAC Likert scale; physical functioning measured by WOMAC VAS or Likert scale; and patient global assessment (PGA) of disease severity measured on VAS or 5-point Likert scale. Safety outcomes included: Antiplatelet Trialists' Collaboration (APTC), major cardiovascular (CV) and major upper gastrointestinal (GI) events, and withdrawals. Data for each outcome were synthesized by a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA). For efficacy assessments, labelled doses for OA treatment were used for the base case while labelled doses for RA treatment were also included in the sensitivity analysis. Pooled data across dose ranges were used for safety.

RESULTS

Efficacy, safety, and tolerability data were found for 146,524 patients in 176 studies included in the NMA. Diclofenac (150 mg/day) was likely to be more effective in alleviating pain than celecoxib (200 mg/day), naproxen (1000 mg/day), and ibuprofen (2400 mg/day), and similar to etoricoxib (60 mg/day); a lower dose of diclofenac (100 mg/day) was comparable to all other treatments in alleviating pain. Improved physical function with diclofenac (100 and 150 mg/day) was mostly comparable to all other treatments. PGA with diclofenac (100 and 150 mg/day) was likely to be more effective or comparable to all other treatments. All active treatments were similar for APTC and major CV events. Major upper GI events with diclofenac were lower compared to naproxen and ibuprofen, comparable to celecoxib, and higher than etoricoxib. Risk of withdrawal with diclofenac was lower compared to ibuprofen, similar to celecoxib and naproxen, and higher than etoricoxib.

CONCLUSIONS

The benefit-risk profile of diclofenac was comparable to other treatments used for pain relief in OA and RA; benefits and risks vary in individuals and need consideration when making treatment decisions.

Zonisamide for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Antiepileptic drugs have been used in pain management since the 1960s; some have shown efficacy in treating different neuropathic pain conditions. The efficacy of zonisamide for the relief of neuropathic pain has not previously been reviewed.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and associated adverse events of zonisamide for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (via CRSO), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and two clinical trials databases (ClinicalTrials.gov. and the World Health Organisation Clinical Trials Registry Platform) to 1 August 2014, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind studies of at least two weeks' duration comparing zonisamide with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain. Participants were adults aged 18 and over. We included only full journal publication articles and clinical trial summaries.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality. We considered the evidence using three tiers. First tier evidence derived from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction, intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for dropouts; at least 200 participants in the comparison, 8 to 12 weeks duration, parallel design); second tier evidence derived from data that failed to meet one or more of these criteria and were considered at some risk of bias but with adequate numbers in the comparison; and third tier evidence derived from data involving small numbers of participants that were considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both.We planned to calculate risk ratio (RR) and numbers needed to treat (NNT) and harm (NNH) for one additional event using standard methods expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a single study treating 25 participants (13 zonisamide, 12 placebo) with painful diabetic neuropathy over 12 weeks. No first or second tier evidence was available for any outcome. The small size of the study and potential major bias due to a high proportion of early study withdrawals with zonisamide precluded any conclusions being drawn. There were two serious adverse events (one death) in zonisamide-treated participants, which were apparently not related to treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The review found a lack of evidence suggesting that zonisamide provides pain relief in any neuropathic pain condition. Effective medicines with much greater supportive evidence are available.

Nortriptyline for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Antidepressants are widely used to treat chronic neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage), usually in doses below those at which they exert antidepressant effects. An earlier review that included all antidepressants for neuropathic pain is being replaced by new reviews of individual drugs examining individual neuropathic pain conditions.Nortriptyline is a tricyclic antidepressant that is occasionally used for treating neuropathic pain, and is recommended in European, UK, and USA guidelines.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and associated adverse events of nortriptyline for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE from inception to 7 January 2015, and the reference lists of retrieved papers and other reviews. We also searched two clinical trials databases for ongoing or unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind studies of at least two weeks' duration comparing nortriptyline with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain. Participants were adults aged 18 years and over. We included only full journal publication articles and clinical trial summaries.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality. We considered the evidence using three tiers. First tier evidence derived from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction, intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for dropouts; at least 200 participants in the comparison, 8 to 12 weeks' duration, parallel design); second tier evidence from data that failed to meet one or more of these criteria and were considered at some risk of bias but with adequate numbers in the comparison; and third tier evidence from data involving small numbers of participants that was considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both.We planned to calculate risk ratio (RR) and numbers needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) and harmful outcome (NNH) using standard methods expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six studies treating 310 participants (mean or median age 49 to 64 years) with various neuropathic pain conditions. Five studies used a cross-over design, and one used a parallel-group design; 272 participants were randomised to treatment with nortriptyline, 145 to placebo, 94 to gabapentin, 56 to gabapentin plus nortriptyline, 55 to morphine, 55 to morphine plus nortriptyline, 39 to chlorimipramine, and 33 to amitriptyline. Treatment periods lasted from three to eight weeks. All studies had one or more sources of potential major bias.No study provided first or second tier evidence for any outcome. Only one study reported our primary outcome of people with at least 50% reduction in pain. There was no indication that either nortriptyline or gabapentin was more effective in postherpetic neuralgia (very low quality evidence). Two studies reported the number of people with at least moderate pain relief, and one reported the number who were satisfied with their pain relief and had tolerable adverse effects. We considered these outcomes to be equivalent to our other primary outcome of Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) much or very much improved.We could not pool data, but third tier evidence in individual studies indicated similar efficacy to other active interventions (gabapentin, morphine, chlorimipramine, and amitriptyline), and to placebo in the conditions studied (very low quality evidence). Adverse event reporting was inconsistent and fragmented. More participants reported adverse events with nortriptyline than with placebo, similar numbers with nortriptyline and other antidepressants (amitriptyline and chlorimipramine) and gabapentin, and slightly more with morphine (very low quality evidence). No study reported any serious adverse events or deaths.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found little evidence to support the use of nortriptyline to treat the neuropathic pain conditions included in this review. There were no studies in the treatment of trigeminal neuralgia. The studies were methodologically flawed, largely due to small size, and potentially subject to major bias. The results of this review do not support the use of nortriptyline as a first line treatment. Effective medicines with much greater supportive evidence are available, such as duloxetine and pregabalin.

Salicylate-containing rubefacients for acute and chronic musculoskeletal pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Rubefacients containing salicylates cause irritation of the skin and are believed to relieve various musculoskeletal pains. They are available on prescription, and are common components in over-the-counter remedies. This is an update of a review of rubefacients for acute and chronic pain, originally published in 2009, which found limited evidence for efficacy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of topically applied salicylates in acute and chronic musculoskeletal pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, from inception to 22 August 2014, together with the Oxford Pain Relief Database, two clinical trial registries, and the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind, placebo- or active-controlled clinical trials of topical rubefacients containing salicylates to treat musculoskeletal pain in adults, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm, and reporting outcomes at close to 7 (minimum 3, maximum 10) days for acute conditions and 14 (minimum 7) days or longer for chronic conditions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, and extracted data. We calculated risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat to benefit or harm (NNT or NNH) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a fixed-effect model. We analysed acute and chronic conditions separately.

MAIN RESULTS

New searches for this update identified one new study that satisfied our inclusion criteria, although it contributed information only for withdrawals. Six placebo- and one active-controlled studies (560 and 137 participants, respectively) in acute pain, and seven placebo- and three active-controlled studies (489 and 182 participants, respectively) in chronic pain were included in the review. All studies were potentially at risk of bias, and there were substantial differences between studies in terms of the participants (for example the level of baseline pain), the treatments (different salicylates combined with various other potentially active ingredients), and the methods (for example the outcomes reported). Not all of the studies contributed usable information for all of the outcomes sought.For the primary outcome of clinical success at seven days in acute conditions (mostly sprains, strains, and acute low back pain), the RR was 1.9 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.5) and the NNT was 3.2 (2.4 to 4.9) for salicylates compared with placebo, but this result was not robust (very low quality evidence). Using a random-effects model for analysis the RR was 2.7 (1.05 to 7.0). For the same outcome in chronic conditions (mostly osteoarthritis, bursitis, and chronic back pain), the RR was 1.6 (1.2 to 2.0) and the NNT was 6.2 (4.0 to 13) (very low quality evidence). This result was not substantially changed using a random-effects model for analysis. In both categories there were a number of factors might have influenced the results but sensitivity analysis was limited because of the small number of studies and participants.For both acute and chronic painful conditions any evidence of efficacy came from the older, smaller studies, while the larger, more recent studies showed no effect.Adverse events were more common with salicylate than with placebo but most of the events occurred in only two studies. There was no difference when these studies were removed from the analysis (very low quality evidence). Local adverse events (at the application site) were again more common with salicylate but were nearly all in one study (in which salicylate was combined with another irritant). There was no difference when this study was removed (very low quality evidence).There were insufficient data to draw conclusions against active controls.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence does not support the use of topical rubefacients containing salicylates for acute injuries or chronic conditions. They seem to be relatively well tolerated in the short-term, based on limited data. The amount and quality of the available data mean that uncertainty remains about the effects of salicylate-containing rubefacients.

Promising treatments for neuropathic pain

In the last few years the understanding of mechanisms and, consequently, the diagnosis of neuropathic pain (NP) has becoming progressively clearer in clinical practice. However, the treatment of such condition remains challenging so far. One of the reasons for such difficulty is the diversity of mechanisms involved in NP generation and its persistency. In the present review we discuss several treatment modalities for NP that are scantily applied in daily clinical practice. For that, we collected positive clinical evidence of unusual and SECS (Safe, Easy, Cheap, and Sensible) approaches for NP. The aim of this review is not to establish the “state of the art” or rigid guidelines for NP treatment. In a different way, we only want bring new possibilities of treatment to the readers and also to motivate investigators to confirm those positive preliminary but promising results for NP reliev.

Desipramine for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Antidepressants are widely used to treat chronic neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage), usually in doses below those at which they exert antidepressant effects. An earlier review that included all antidepressants for neuropathic pain is being replaced by new reviews of individual drugs examining individual neuropathic pain conditions.Desipramine is a tricyclic antidepressant that is occasionally used for treating neuropathic pain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy of desipramine for chronic neuropathic pain in adults, and to assess the associated adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE from inception to 29 April 2014, and the reference lists of retrieved papers and other reviews. We also used our own hand searched database to identify older studies, and two clinical trials databases for ongoing or unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind studies of at least two weeks duration comparing desipramine with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain. Participants were adults aged 18 years and over. We included only full journal publication articles.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted the efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality. We performed analysis using three tiers of evidence. First tier evidence was derived from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction, intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for dropouts, at least 200 participants in the comparison, 8 to 12 weeks duration, parallel design); second tier from data that failed to meet one or more of these criteria and were considered at some risk of bias but with adequate numbers in the comparison; and third tier from data involving small numbers of participants and considered very likely to be biased or that used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both.

MAIN RESULTS

Five studies treated 177 participants with painful diabetic neuropathy (104) or postherpetic neuralgia (73). The mean or median ages in the studies were 55 to 72 years. Four studies used a cross-over, and one a parallel group design; 145 participants were randomised to receive desipramine 12.5 mg to 250 mg daily, with most taking 100 mg to 150 mg daily following titration. Comparators were placebo in three studies (an 'active placebo' in two studies), fluoxetine, clomipramine (one study each), and amitriptyline (two studies), and treatment was for two to six weeks. All studies had one or more sources of potential major bias.No study provided first or second tier evidence for any outcome. No data were available on the proportion of people with at least 50% or 30% reduction in pain, but data were available from three studies for our other primary outcome of Patient Global Impression of Change, reported as patient evaluation of pain relief that was 'complete' or 'a lot'. No pooling of data was possible, but third tier evidence in individual studies indicated some improvement in pain relief with desipramine compared with placebo, although this was very low quality evidence, derived mainly from group mean data and completer analyses in small, short duration studies where major bias was possible. There were too few participants in comparisons of desipramine with another active treatment to draw any conclusions.All studies reported some information about adverse events, but reporting was inconsistent and fragmented. Participants taking desipramine experienced more adverse events, and a higher rate of withdrawal due to adverse events, than did participants taking placebo (very low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review found little evidence to support the use of desipramine to treat neuropathic pain. There was very low quality evidence of benefit and harm, but this came from studies that were methodologically flawed and potentially subject to major bias. Effective medicines with much greater supportive evidence are available. There may be a role for desipramine in patients who have not obtained pain relief from other treatments.

Research designs for proof-of-concept chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations

Proof-of-concept (POC) clinical trials play an important role in developing novel treatments and determining whether existing treatments may be efficacious in broader populations of patients. The goal of most POC trials is to determine whether a treatment is likely to be efficacious for a given indication and thus whether it is worth investing the financial resources and participant exposure necessary for a confirmatory trial of that intervention. A challenge in designing POC trials is obtaining sufficient information to make this important go/no-go decision in a cost-effective manner. An IMMPACT consensus meeting was convened to discuss design considerations for POC trials in analgesia, with a focus on maximizing power with limited resources and participants. We present general design aspects to consider including patient population, active comparators and placebos, study power, pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relationships, and minimization of missing data. Efficiency of single-dose studies for treatments with rapid onset is discussed. The trade-off between parallel-group and crossover designs with respect to overall sample sizes, trial duration, and applicability is summarized. The advantages and disadvantages of more recent trial designs, including N-of-1 designs, enriched designs, adaptive designs, and sequential parallel comparison designs, are summarized, and recommendations for consideration are provided. More attention to identifying efficient yet powerful designs for POC clinical trials of chronic pain treatments may increase the percentage of truly efficacious pain treatments that are advanced to confirmatory trials while decreasing the percentage of ineffective treatments that continue to be evaluated rather than abandoned.

Levetiracetam for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Antiepileptic drugs have been used in pain management since the 1960s; some have shown efficacy in treating different neuropathic pain conditions. The efficacy of levetiracetam for relief of neuropathic pain has not previously been reviewed.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of levetiracetam in chronic neuropathic pain conditions in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2014, Issue 6) (via the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and two clinical trials databases (ClinicalTrials.gov. and the World Health Organisation Clinical Trials Registry Platform) to 3 July 2014, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks duration or longer, comparing levetiracetam with placebo or another active treatment in adults with chronic neuropathic pain conditions. Studies had to have a minimum of 10 participants per treatments arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality. We performed analysis using three tiers of evidence. First tier evidence derived from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction; intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for dropouts; at least 200 participants in the comparison; 8 to 12 weeks duration; parallel design); second tier evidence from data that failed to meet one or more of these criteria and that we considered at some risk of bias but with at least 200 participants in the comparison; and third tier evidence from data involving fewer than 200 participants that was considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six studies: five small, cross-over studies with 174 participants, and one parallel group study with 170 participants. Participants were treated with levetiracetam (2000 mg to 3000 mg daily) or placebo for between four and 14 weeks. Each study included participants with a different type of neuropathic pain; central pain due to multiple sclerosis, pain following spinal cord injury, painful polyneuropathy, central post-stroke pain, postherpetic neuralgia, and post-mastectomy pain.None of the included studies provided first or second tier evidence. The evidence was very low quality, downgraded because of the small size of the treatment arms, and because studies reported results using last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation for withdrawals or using only participants who completed the study according to the protocol, where there were greater than 10% withdrawals. There were insufficient data for a pooled efficacy analysis in particular neuropathic pain conditions, but individual studies did not show any analgesic effect of levetiracetam compared with placebo. We did pool results for any outcome considered substantial pain relief (≥ 50% pain intensity reduction or 'complete' or 'good' responses on the verbal rating scale) for four studies with dichotomous data; response rates across different types of neuropathic pain was similar with levetiracetam (10%) and placebo (12%), with no statistical difference (risk ratio 0.9; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.4 to1.7).We pooled data across different conditions for adverse events and withdrawals. Based on very limited data, significantly more participants experienced an adverse event with levetiracetam than with placebo (number needed to treat for an additional harmful event (NNH) 8.0 (95% CI 4.6 to 32)). There were significantly more adverse event withdrawals with levetiracetam (NNH 9.7 (6.7 to 18)).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The amount of evidence for levetiracetam in neuropathic pain conditions was very small and potentially biased because of the methods of analysis used in the studies. There was no indication that levetiracetam was effective in reducing neuropathic pain, but it was associated with an increase in participants who experienced adverse events and who withdrew due to adverse events.

Treating chronic non-cancer pain in older people--more questions than answers?

There is little evidence specifically relating to drug treatments for pain in older people, but much can be extrapolated from what we already know. The evidence about drug treatments for chronic non-cancer pain is changing, driven by major improvements in understanding of clinical trial analysis and by the adoption of patient-centered outcomes of proven economic benefit. There is clear evidence of lack of useful effect, or insufficient evidence of effect for a number of commonly used drugs, including paracetamol, topical rubefacients, low concentration topical capsaicin, and for strong opioids in chronic non-cancer pain. In musculoskeletal pain there is evidence of efficacy for NSAIDs, tramadol, and tapentadol, and in neuropathic pain for duloxetine, pregabalin, and gabapentin, with weak evidence for amitriptyline. The new perspective is of drugs that work well in a minority of patients, but hardly at all in the remainder. The goal of treatment is large reductions in pain, by 50% or more. This outcome, and only this outcome, is associated with large benefits in terms of improved sleep, reduced depression, and large gains in function and quality of life. It is not possible to predict which patient will benefit from which drug, but early success or failure appears to be predictive of long-term success or failure. The emphasis is on stopping treatments that do not work and switching to other drugs in the same or different class, so that any potential future risk of treatment is balanced by very large and immediate benefit.

Reporting of missing data and methods used to accommodate them in recent analgesic clinical trials: ACTTION systematic review and recommendations

Missing data in clinical trials can bias estimates of treatment effects. Statisticians and government agencies recommend making every effort to minimize missing data. Although statistical methods are available to accommodate missing data, their validity depends on often untestable assumptions about why the data are missing. The objective of this study was to assess the frequency with which randomized clinical trials published in 3 major pain journals (ie, European Journal of Pain, Journal of Pain, and Pain) reported strategies to prevent missing data, the number of participants who completed the study (ie, completers), and statistical methods to accommodate missing data. A total of 161 randomized clinical trials investigating treatments for pain, published between 2006 and 2012, were included. Approximately two-thirds of the trials reported at least 1 method that could potentially minimize missing data, the most common being allowance of concomitant medications. Only 61% of the articles explicitly reported the number of patients who were randomized and completed the trial. Although only 14 articles reported that all randomized participants completed the study, fewer than 50% of the articles reported a statistical method to accommodate missing data. Last observation carried forward imputation was used most commonly (42%). Thirteen articles reported more than 1 method to accommodate missing data; however, the majority of methods, including last observation carried forward, were not methods currently recommended by statisticians. Authors, reviewers, and editors should prioritize proper reporting of missing data and appropriate use of methods to accommodate them so as to improve the deficiencies identified in this systematic review.

Oxycodone for neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

This review is one of a series on drugs used to treat neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia. These conditions are estimated to affect 3 to 10% of adults, and are difficult to treat. Although they probably have different aetiologies, neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia can respond to the same therapies. There have been substantial changes in the standards of evidence considered necessary for assessment of interventions to treat chronic pain, to provide data that are more robust and clinically relevant. Oxycodone is a strong opioid agonist widely used to manage severe pain; this review assesses evidence for oxycodone using current standards of evidence designed to reduce bias.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of oxycodone for chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia.

SEARCH METHODS

On 6 November 2013, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. We reviewed the bibliographies of all included studies and of reviews, and also searched two clinical trial databases, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organisation (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, to identify additional published or unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with double-blind assessment of participant outcomes following two weeks of treatment or longer (although the emphasis of the review was on studies of eight weeks or longer) that used a placebo or active comparator.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted efficacy and adverse event data, examined issues of study quality, and assessed risk of bias. We performed analysis using three tiers of evidence. First tier evidence was derived from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction, intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for dropouts; at least 200 participants in the comparison, eight to 12 weeks duration, parallel design), second tier from data that failed to meet one or more of these criteria and were considered at some risk of bias but with adequate numbers in the comparison, and third tier from data involving small numbers of participants that was considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three studies with 254 participants; 204 had painful diabetic neuropathy and 50 postherpetic neuralgia. Study size ranged from 45 to 159 participants. Two studies used a cross-over design and one a parallel group design; study duration was four or six weeks. Controlled release oxycodone (oxycodone CR) was used in all three studies, with doses titrated up to a maximum of between 60 and 120 mg daily; mean doses achieved ranged between 37 and 45 mg daily. All studies used a placebo comparator, although in one study, an active placebo (benztropine) was used. All studies had one or more sources of potential major bias.No study reported the proportion of participants experiencing at least 50% pain relief or who were very much improved, while one reported the proportion with at least 30% pain relief, two reported at least moderate pain relief, and one reported the number of participants who considered treatment to be moderately effective. No study provided first or second tier evidence for an efficacy outcome. Third tier evidence indicated greater pain intensity reduction and better patient satisfaction with oxycodone than with placebo in all three studies, but such evidence was derived mainly from group mean data, with last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation or completer analysis, in small studies lasting less than eight weeks (very low quality evidence).Adverse events were more common with oxycodone CR than with placebo. At least one adverse event was experienced by 86% of participants taking oxycodone CR and 63% taking placebo, and the number needed to treat for an additional harmful effect (NNH) was 4.3. The effect of oxycodone on serious adverse events reported was uncertain in comparison with placebo (oxycodone 3.4% versus placebo: 7.0%; RR 0.48 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 1.23; very low quality evidence); one death was reported with oxycodone CR, but was not attributed to treatment. Adverse event withdrawals did not differ significantly between groups, occurring in 11% of participants with oxycodone CR and 6.4% with placebo (RR 1.69 (0.83 to 3.43); very low quality evidence). Withdrawals due to lack of efficacy were less frequent with oxycodone CR (1.1%) than placebo (11%), with an NNT to prevent one withdrawal of 10 (RR 0.12 (0.03 to 0.45); very low quality evidence).We found no relevant studies in chronic neuropathic pain conditions other than painful diabetic neuropathy or postherpetic neuralgia, or in fibromyalgia.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No convincing, unbiased evidence suggests that oxycodone (as oxycodone CR) is of value in treating people with painful diabetic neuropathy or postherpetic neuralgia. There is no evidence at all for other neuropathic pain conditions, or for fibromyalgia. Adverse events typical of opioids appear to be common.

Imipramine for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Antidepressants are widely used to treat chronic neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage), usually in doses below those at which they exert antidepressant effects. An earlier review that included all antidepressants for neuropathic pain is being replaced by new reviews of individual drugs examining individual neuropathic pain conditions.Imipramine is a tricyclic antidepressant that is occasionally used to treat neuropathic pain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy of imipramine for chronic neuropathic pain in adults, and to assess the associated adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE on 18 November 2013, as well as the reference lists of retrieved papers and other reviews. We also used our own handsearched database for older studies, and two clinical trials databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind studies of at least two weeks' duration comparing imipramine with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain. Participants were adults aged 18 and over. We included only articles with full journal publication and extended trial abstracts and summaries.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality. We performed analysis using three tiers of evidence. First tier evidence was derived from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction, intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for dropouts; at least 200 participants in the comparison, 8 to 12 weeks duration, parallel design); second tier from data that failed to meet one or more of these criteria and were considered at some risk of bias but with adequate numbers in the comparison; and third tier from data involving small numbers of participants which was considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both.

MAIN RESULTS

Five studies treated 168 participants with painful diabetic neuropathy or polyneuropathy. The mean age in individual studies was between 47 and 56 years. Four studies used a cross-over, and one a parallel group design; 126 participants were randomised to receive imipramine 25 mg to 350 mg daily (most took 100 mg to 150 mg daily). Comparators were placebo (an active placebo in one study), paroxetine, mianserin, venlafaxine, and amitriptyline, and treatment was given for 2 to 12 weeks. All studies had one or more sources of potential major bias.No study provided first or second tier evidence for any outcome. No data were available on the proportion of people with at least 50% or 30% reduction in pain or equivalent, and data were available from only one study for our other primary outcome of Patient Global Impression of Change, reported as patient evaluation of pain relief of complete or good. No pooling of data was possible, but third tier evidence in individual studies indicated some improvement in pain relief with imipramine compared with placebo, although this is was very low quality evidence, derived mainly from group mean data and completer analyses, in small, short duration studies where major bias is possible.Four studies reported some information about adverse events, but reporting was inconsistent and fragmented, and the quality of evidence was very low. Participants taking imipramine generally experienced more adverse events, notably dry mouth, and a higher rate of withdrawal due to adverse events, than did participants taking placebo.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review found little evidence to support the use of imipramine to treat neuropathic pain. There was very low quality evidence of benefit but this came from studies that were methodologically flawed and potentially subject to major bias. Effective medicines with much greater supportive evidence are available.

EMA401, an orally administered highly selective angiotensin II type 2 receptor antagonist, as a novel treatment for postherpetic neuralgia: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Existing treatments for postherpetic neuralgia, and for neuropathic pain in general, are limited by modest efficacy and unfavourable side-effects. The angiotensin II type 2 receptor (AT2R) is a new target for neuropathic pain. EMA401, a highly selective AT2R antagonist, is under development as a novel neuropathic pain therapeutic agent. We assessed the therapeutic potential of EMA401 in patients with postherpetic neuralgia.

METHODS

In this multicentre, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomised, phase 2 clinical trial, we enrolled patients (aged 22-89 years) with postherpetic neuralgia of at least 6 months' duration from 29 centres across six countries. We randomly allocated 183 participants to receive either oral EMA401 (100 mg twice daily) or placebo for 28 days. Randomisation was done according to a centralised randomisation schedule, blocked by study site, which was generated by an independent, unmasked statistician. Patients and staff at each site were masked to treatment assignment. We assessed the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of EMA401. The primary efficacy endpoint was change in mean pain intensity between baseline and the last week of dosing (days 22-28), measured on an 11-point numerical rating scale. The primary efficacy analysis was intention to treat. This trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12611000822987.

FINDINGS

92 patients were assigned to EMA401 and 91 were assigned to placebo. The patients given EMA401 reported significantly less pain compared with baseline values in the final week of treatment than did those given placebo (mean reductions in pain scores -2.29 [SD 1.75] vs -1.60 [1.66]; difference of adjusted least square means -0.69 [SE 0.25]; 95% CI -1.19 to -0.20; p=0.0066). No serious adverse events related to EMA401 occurred. Overall, 32 patients reported 56 treatment-emergent adverse events in the EMA401 group compared with 45 such events reported by 29 patients given placebo.

INTERPRETATION

EMA401 (100 mg twice daily) provides superior relief of postherpetic neuralgia compared with placebo at the end of 28 days of treatment. EMA401 was well tolerated by patients.

FUNDING

Spinifex Pharmaceuticals.

Gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

This review is an update of a review published in 2011, itself a major update of previous reviews published in 2005 and 2000, investigating the effects of gabapentin in chronic neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage). Antiepileptic drugs are used to manage chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of gabapentin in chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified randomised trials of gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia by searching the databases MEDLINE (1966 to March 2014), EMBASE (1980 to 2014 week 10), and CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library (Issue 3 of 12, 2014). We obtained clinical trial reports and synopses of published and unpublished studies from Internet sources, and searched Clinicaltrials.gov. Searches were run originally in 2011 and the date of the most recent search was 17 March 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind studies reporting the analgesic and adverse effects of gabapentin in neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia with assessment of pain intensity, pain relief, or both, using validated scales. Participants were adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently extracted efficacy and adverse event data, examined issues of study quality, and assessed risk of bias. We performed analysis using three tiers of evidence. First tier evidence derived from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction, intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for dropouts; at least 200 participants in the comparison, 8 to 12 weeks duration, parallel design), second tier from data that failed to meet one or more of these criteria and were considered at some risk of bias but with adequate numbers in the comparison, and third tier from data involving small numbers of participants that were considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both.For efficacy, we calculated the number needed to treat to benefit (NNT), concentrating on at least 50% pain intensity reduction, and Initiative on Methods, Measurement and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) definitions of at least moderate and substantial benefit. For harm we calculated number needed to treat for harm (NNH) for adverse effects and withdrawal. Meta-analysis was undertaken using a fixed-effect model. We emphasised differences between conditions now defined as neuropathic pain, and other conditions like masticatory pain, complex regional painsyndrome type 1 (CRPS-1), and fibromyalgia.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven new studies with 1919 participants were added. Another report (147 participants) provided results for a study already included, but which previously had no usable data. A further report (170 participants) used an experimental formulation of intrathecal gabapentin. Thirty-seven studies (5633 participants) studied oral gabapentin at daily doses of 1200 mg or more in 12 chronic pain conditions; 84% of participants were in studies of postherpetic neuralgia, painful diabetic neuropathy or mixed neuropathic pain. There was no first tier evidence.Second tier evidence for the outcome of at least 50% pain intensity reduction, considered valuable by patients with chronic pain, showed that gabapentin was significantly better than placebo in postherpetic neuralgia (34% gabapentin versus 21% placebo; NNT 8.0, 95% CI 6.0 to 12) and painful diabetic neuropathy (38% versus 21%, NNT 5.9, 95% CI 4.6 to 8.3). There was insufficient information in other pain conditions to reach any reliable conclusion. There was no obvious difference between standard gabapentin formulations and recently-introduced extended-release or gastro-retentive formulations, or between different doses of gabapentin.Adverse events occurred significantly more often with gabapentin. Persons taking gabapentin could expect to have at least one adverse event (62%), withdraw because of an adverse event (11%), suffer dizziness (19%), somnolence (14%), peripheral oedema (7%), and gait disturbance (9%). Serious adverse events (3%) were no more common than with placebo.There were insufficient data for direct comparisons with other active treatments, and only third tier evidence for other painful conditions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was no top tier evidence that was unequivocally unbiased. Second tier evidence, with potentially important residual biases, showed that gabapentin at doses of 1200 mg or more was effective for some people with some painful neuropathic pain conditions. The outcome of at least 50% pain intensity reduction is regarded as a useful outcome of treatment by patients, and the achievement of this degree of pain relief is associated with important beneficial effects on sleep interference, fatigue, and depression, as well as quality of life, function, and work. About 35% achieved this degree of pain relief with gabapentin, compared with 21% for placebo. Over half of those treated with gabapentin will not have worthwhile pain relief. Results might vary between different neuropathic pain conditions, and the amount of evidence for gabapentin in neuropathic pain conditions except postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy, and in fibromyalgia, is very limited.The levels of efficacy found for gabapentin are consistent with those found for other drug therapies in postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy.