The costs and consequences of adequately managed chronic non-cancer pain and chronic neuropathic pain

Peripheral Nerve Field Stimulation (PNFS) as a Treatment Option for Intractable Radiation-Induced Facial Neuropathic Pain in a Survivor of Laryngeal Cancer: A Case Report

BACKGROUND

Treatment-related chronic neuropathic pain represents a major and increasing cause of discomfort in cancer survivors. Unfortunately, in approximately 10%-15% of cases, pain is scarcely relieved by opioids and common painkillers. Thus, alternative measures to manage pain have recently been adopted in these patients.

CASE DESCRIPTION

We report the case of a laryngeal cancer survivor who developed an intractable bilateral mandibular radiation-induced neuropathic pain syndrome. His pain was refractory to any pharmacological treatment, whereas the implant of bilateral subcutaneous facial electrodes led to the complete resolution of pain.

CONCLUSIONS

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report in literature describing peripheral nerve field stimulation as a treatment option for intractable cancer treatment-related chronic neuropathic pain. Peripheral nerve field stimulation appears to be a safe and effective procedure.

Lysophosphatidic acid receptors (LPARs): Potential targets for the treatment of neuropathic pain

Neuropathic pain can arise from lesions to peripheral or central nerve fibres leading to spontaneous action potential generation and a lowering of the nociceptive threshold. Clinically, neuropathic pain can manifest in many chronic disease states such as cancer, diabetes or multiple sclerosis (MS). The bioactive lipid, lysophosphatidic acid (LPA), via activation of its receptors (LPARs), is thought to play a central role in both triggering and maintaining neuropathic pain. In particular, following an acute nerve injury, the excitatory neurotransmitters glutamate and substance P are released from primary afferent neurons leading to upregulated synthesis of lysophosphatidylcholine (LPC), the precursor for LPA production. LPC is converted to LPA by autotaxin (ATX), which can then activate macrophages/microglia and modulate neuronal functioning. A ubiquitous feature of animal models of neuropathic pain is demyelination of damaged nerves. It is thought that LPA contributes to demyelination through several different mechanisms. Firstly, high levels of LPA are produced following macrophage/microglial activation that triggers a self-sustaining feed-forward loop of de novo LPA synthesis. Secondly, macrophage/microglial activation contributes to inflammation-mediated demyelination of axons, thus initiating neuropathic pain. Therefore, targeting LPA production and/or the family of LPA-activated G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) may prove to be fruitful clinical approaches to treating demyelination and the accompanying neuropathic pain. This review discusses our current understanding of the role of LPA/LPAR signalling in the initiation of neuropathic pain and suggests potential targeted strategies for its treatment. This article is part of the Special Issue entitled 'Lipid Sensing G Protein-Coupled Receptors in the CNS'.

Childhood Adversities and Adult Headache in Poland and Germany

OBJECTIVE

Various childhood adversities have been found to be associated with chronic pain in adulthood. However, associations were moderate in most studies, i.e. odds ratios (OR) were between one and two.

METHOD

An internet survey was performed in 508 Polish and 500 German subjects. A total of 19 childhood adversities were selected and their associations with headaches explored. Age, gender and country were included as potential confounders, as well as their two-way interaction with the risk factors.

RESULTS

Two strong risk factors were identified. (1) A combined score for physical and emotional neglect showed an odds ratio (OR) of 2.78 (p < .002) to the frequency of headache in adulthood as a main effect. (2) Father having had chronic pain showed an OR of 4.36 (p < .001) with headache in adulthood for women, but not for men (OR = 0.86, p < .556). The majority of the examined childhood adversities were not associated with adult headache, neither when tested individually nor as a sum score.

CONCLUSION

This study confirms results from previous ones that childhood adversities may play a role in the development of adult headache, but it is a rather minor one. Contrary to other studies, neglect turned out to be one of the strongest predictors.

The economic impact of chronic pain: a nationwide population-based cost-of-illness study in Portugal

In addition to its high frequency and relevant individual and social impact, chronic pain (CP) has been shown to be a major contributor to increased healthcare utilisation, reduced labour productivity, and consequently large direct and indirect costs. In the context of a larger nationwide study, we aimed to assess the total annual direct and indirect costs associated with CP in Portugal. A population-based study was conducted in a representative sample of the Portuguese adult population. The 5,094 participants were selected using random digit dialling and contacted by computer-assisted telephone interviews. Questionnaires included the brief pain inventory and pain disability index. Estimates were adequately weighted for the population. From all CP subjects identified, a subsample (n = 562) accepted to participate in this economic study. Mean total annualised costs per CP subject of €1,883.30 were observed, amounting to €4,611.69 million nationally, with 42.7% direct and 57.3% indirect costs, and corresponding to 2.71% of the Portuguese annual GDP in 2010. Only socio-demographic variables were significantly and independently associated with CP costs, and not CP severity, raising the possibility of existing inequalities in the distribution of healthcare in Portugal. The high economic impact of CP in Portugal was comprehensively demonstrated. Given the high indirect costs observed, restricting healthcare services is not a rational response to these high societal costs; instead improving the quality of CP prevention and management is recommended.

Psychological therapies for the management of chronic neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Neuropathic pain is thought to arise from damage to the somatosensory nervous system. Its prevalence is increasing in line with many chronic disorders such as diabetes. All treatments have limited effectiveness. Given the evidence regarding psychological treatment for distress and disability in people with various chronic pain conditions, we were interested to investigate whether psychological treatments have any effects for those with chronic neuropathic pain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of psychological treatments on pain experience, disability, mood, and health-care use in adults with chronic neuropathic pain.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in any language in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO, from database inception to March 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Full publications of RCTs on psychological interventions for neuropathic pain. Trials had to have lasted at least three months, had at least 20 participants in each arm at the end of treatment, and compared a psychological intervention with any active or inactive intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

Two small studies (enrolling a total of 105 participants) met the inclusion criteria. One was a standard cognitive behavioural treatment (CBT) programme for 61 people with pain from spinal cord injury, followed up for three months, and compared with a waiting list. The other was weekly group psychotherapy for 44 people with burning mouth syndrome, compared with a daily placebo tablet. The overall risk of bias was high in both trials.The CBT study assessed participants for pain, disability, mood, and quality of life, with improvement in treatment and control groups. However, there was no more improvement in the treatment group than in the control for any outcome, either post-treatment or at follow-up. The group psychotherapy study only assessed pain, classifying participants by pain severity. There is a lack of evidence on the efficacy and safety of psychological interventions for people with neuropathic pain.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence of the efficacy and safety of psychological interventions for chronic neuropathic pain. The two available studies show no benefit of treatment over either waiting list or placebo control groups.

Incidence and prognostic factors of chronic pain after isolated musculoskeletal extremity injury

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain in patients is usually related to an episode of pain following acute injury, emphasizing the need to prevent progression from acute to chronic pain. Multiple factors in the acute phase might be responsible for perpetuating the pain. The presentation of patients at the emergency department (ED) presents a prime opportunity to identify patients at high risk for chronic pain and to start appropriate treatment.

METHODS

The PROTACT study is a prospective follow-up study aiming to estimate the incidence and prognostic factors responsible for the development of chronic pain after musculoskeletal injury. Data including sociodemographic, pain, clinical, injury- or treatment-related and psychological factors of 435 patients were collected from registries and questionnaires at ED visit, 6-week, 3- and 6-month follow-up.

RESULTS

At 6 months post-injury, 43.9% of the patients had some degree of pain (Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) ≥1) and 10.1% had chronic pain (NRS ≥4). Patients aged over 40 years, in poor physical health, with pre-injury chronic pain, pain catastrophizing, high urgency level and severe pain at discharge were found to be at high risk for chronic pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Two prognostic factors, severe pain at discharge and pain catastrophizing, are potentially modifiable. The implementation of a pain protocol in the ED and the use of cognitive-behavioural techniques involving reducing catastrophizing might be useful.

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.

Impact on health-related quality of life and costs of managing chronic neuropathic pain in academic pain centres: Results from a one-year prospective observational Canadian study

Chronic pain, including neuropathic pain, has a high prevalence and, therefore, its management is an important public health issue. Aggressive management guided by pain specialists can provide adequate pain relief; however, delays in access to these specialists can negatively impact patient’s well-being. The economic value of managing chronic neuropathic pain in academic centres is discussed, in addition to determining the long term outcomes of this type of pain management.

BACKGROUND:

The management of chronic pain, including neuropathic pain (NeP), is a major public health issue. However, there is a paucity of data evaluating pain management strategies in real-life settings.

OBJECTIVE:

To inform policy makers about the economic value of managing chronic NeP in academic centres by conducting a subeconomic assessment of a Canadian multicentre cohort study aimed at determining the long-term outcomes of the management of chronic NeP in academic pain centres. Specific questions regarding the economic value of this type of program were answered by a subset of patients to provide further information to policy makers.

METHODS:

Baseline demographic information and several pain-related measurements were collected at baseline, three, six and 12 months in the main study. A resource use questionnaire aimed at determining NeP-related costs and the EuroQoL-5 Dimension were collected in the subset study from consenting patients. Statistical analyses were conducted to compare outcomes over time and according to responder status.

RESULTS:

A total of 298 patients were evaluated in the present economic evaluation. The mean (± SD) age of the participants was 53.7±14.0 years, and 56% were female. At intake, the mean duration of NeP was >5 years. Statistically significant improvements in all pain and health-related quality of life outcomes were observed between the baseline and one-year visits. Use decreased over time for many health care resources (eg, visits to the emergency room decreased by one-half), which resulted in overall cost savings.

CONCLUSION:

The results suggest that increased access to academic pain centres should be facilitated in Canada.

Prognostic Value of Preoperative Coping Strategies for Pain in Patients with Residual Neuropathic Pain after Laminoplasty for Compressive Cervical Myelopathy

Study Design

Single-center retrospective cohort study.

Purpose

To clarify the prognostic value of preoperative coping strategies for pain due to compressive cervical myelopathy.

Overview of Literature

Preoperative physical function, imaging and electrophysiological findings are known predictors of surgical outcomes. However, coping strategies for pain have not been considered.

Methods

Postoperative questionnaires, concerning health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and daily living activities, were sent to 78 patients with compressive cervical myelopathy who had suffered from neuropathic pain before laminoplasty, and been preoperatively assessed with respect to their physical and mental status and coping strategies for pain. Hierarchical multiple regression analysis was performed to clarify the extent to which the patient's preoperative coping strategies could explain the variance in postoperative HRQOL and activity levels.

Results

Forty-two patients with residual neuropathic pain after laminoplasty were analyzed by questionnaires (28 men, 14 women; mean age, 62.7±10.2 years; symptom duration, 48.0±66.0 months). The valid response rate was 53.8%. Hierarchical multiple regression analysis showed that preoperative coping strategies, which involved coping self-statements, diverting attention, and catastrophizing, were independently associated with postoperative HRQOL and activity level, and could explain 7% to 11% of their variance. Combinations of the coping strategies for pain and upper/lower motor functions could explain 26% to 36% of the variance in postoperative HRQOL and activity level.

Conclusions

Preoperative coping strategies for pain are good predictors of postoperative HRQOL and activities of daily living in patients with postoperative residual neuropathic pain due to compressive cervical myelopathy.

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.

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.

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.

Cancer treatment-related neuropathic pain syndromes--epidemiology and treatment: an update

Cancer treatment-related chronic neuropathic pain (NP) is a pervasive and distressing problem that negatively influences function and quality of life for countless cancer survivors. It occurs because of cancer treatment-induced damage to peripheral and central nervous system structures. NP becomes chronic when pain signal transmission persists, eventually sensitizing neurons in the dorsal horn and other pain-processing regions in the central nervous system. Frequently overlooked, NP due to cancer treatment has been understudied. Consequently, only a few pharmacologic interventions have been shown to be effective based on the results of randomized controlled trials. Future research designed to explore pathophysiologic mechanisms and effective mechanism-targeted interventions is sorely needed.

Vitamin D for the treatment of chronic painful conditions in adults

BACKGROUND

This review is an update of a previously published review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Issue 1, 2010) on 'Vitamin D for the treatment of chronic painful conditions in adults'.Vitamin D is produced in the skin after exposure to sunlight and can be obtained through food. Vitamin D deficiency has been linked with a range of conditions, including chronic pain. Observational and circumstantial evidence suggests that there may be a role for vitamin D deficiency in the aetiology of chronic painful conditions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of vitamin D supplementation in chronic painful conditions when tested against placebo or against active comparators.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE to February 2015. This was supplemented by searching the reference lists of retrieved articles, reviews in the field, and online trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies if they were randomised double-blind trials of vitamin D supplementation compared with placebo or with active comparators for the treatment of chronic painful conditions in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected the studies for inclusion, assessed methodological quality, and extracted data. We did not undertake pooled analysis due to the heterogeneity of the data. Primary outcomes of interest were pain responder outcomes, and secondary outcomes were treatment group average pain outcomes and adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six new studies (517 participants) in this review update, bringing the total of included studies to 10 (811 participants). The studies were heterogeneous with regard to study quality, the chronic painful conditions that were investigated, the dose of vitamin D given, co-interventions, and the outcome measures reported. Only two studies reported responder pain outcomes; the other studies reported treatment group average outcomes only. Overall, there was no consistent pattern that vitamin D treatment was associated with greater efficacy than placebo in any chronic painful condition (low quality evidence). Adverse events and withdrawals were comparatively infrequent, with no consistent difference between vitamin D and placebo (good quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence addressing the use of vitamin D for chronic pain now contains more than twice as many studies and participants than were included in the original version of this review. Based on this evidence, a large beneficial effect of vitamin D across different chronic painful conditions is unlikely. Whether vitamin D can have beneficial effects in specific chronic painful conditions needs further investigation.

Speed, science and optimal pain relief

Pain is a major global health problem. Six of the 11 most prevalent conditions worldwide are pain-related, with tension-type headache and migraine being the second and third most prevalent conditions. Pain also ranks high among the conditions that have the longest-lasting impact: five of the top 11 contributors to years lived with disability are pain-related.

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.

Rethinking the role of opioids in the outpatient management of chronic nonmalignant pain

OBJECTIVE

Opioid analgesics are commonly and increasingly prescribed by physicians for the management of chronic pain. However, strong evidence supports the need for strategies that reduce opioid use. The objective of this review is to outline limitations associated with opioid use and discuss therapeutic techniques that can be adopted to optimize the use of opioids in the management of chronic nonmalignant pain.

SCOPE

Literature searches through MEDLINE and Cochrane databases were used to identify relevant journal articles. The search was limited to articles published from January 1980 to January 2014. Additional references were obtained from articles extracted during the database search. Relevant search terms included opioid, opioid abuse, chronic pain management, written care agreements, urine drug testing, and multimodal therapy.

FINDINGS

Opioids exhibit a well established abuse potential and evidence supporting the efficacy of opioids in chronic pain management is limited. In addition, opioid exposure is associated with adverse effects on multiple organ systems. Effective strategies designed to mitigate opioid abuse and diversion and optimize clinical outcomes should be employed.

CONCLUSIONS

Appropriate patient selection through identification of risk factors, urine drug testing, and access to prescription monitoring programs has been shown to effectively improve care. Structured opioid therapy in a multimodal platform, including use of a low initial dose, prescription of alternative non-opioid analgesics including non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and acetaminophen, as well as development of written care agreements to individualize and guide therapy has also been shown to improve patient outcomes. Implementation of opioid allocation strategies has the potential to encourage appropriate opioid use and improve patient care.

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.

Aggression, impulsivity, and suicide risk in benign chronic pain patients - a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to investigate the role that psychopathological dimensions as overt aggression and impulsivity play in determining suicide risk in benign chronic pain patients (CPPs). Furthermore we investigated the possible protective/risk factors which promote these negative feelings, analyzing the relationship between CPPs and their caregivers.

METHODS

We enrolled a total of 208 patients, divided into CPPs and controls affected by internistic diseases. Assessment included collection of sociodemographic and health care data, pain characteristics, administration of visual analog scale (VAS), Modified Overt Aggression Scale (MOAS), Barratt Impulsiveness Scale Version 11 (BIS), Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS), and a caregiver self-administered questionnaire. All variables were statistically analyzed.

RESULTS

A significant difference of VAS, MOAS-total/verbal/auto-aggression, HDRS-total/suicide mean scores between the groups were found. BIS mean score was higher in CPPs misusing analgesics. In CPPs a correlation between MOAS-total/verbal/auto-aggression with BIS mean score, MOAS with HDRS-suicide mean score and BIS with HDRS-suicide mean scores were found. The MOAS and BIS mean scores were significantly higher when caregivers were not supportive.

CONCLUSION

In CPPs, aggression and impulsivity could increase the risk of suicide. Moreover, impulsivity, overt aggression and pain could be interrelated by a common biological core. Our study supports the importance of a multidisciplinary approach in the CPPs management and the necessity to supervise caregivers, which may become risk/protective factors for the development of feelings interfering with the treatment and rehabilitation of CPPs.

Topical lidocaine for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Lidocaine is a local anaesthetic that is sometimes used on the skin to treat neuropathic pain.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE from inception to 1 July 2014, together with the reference lists of retrieved papers and other reviews. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal to identify additional published or unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

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 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.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 studies (508 participants) in comparisons with placebo or an active control. Six studies enrolled participants with moderate or severe postherpetic neuralgia, and the remaining studies enrolled different, or mixed, neuropathic pain conditions, including trigeminal neuralgia and postsurgical or post-traumatic neuralgia. Four different formulations were used: 5% medicated patch, 5% cream, 5% gel, and 8% spray. Most studies used a cross-over design, and two used a parallel-group design. Two studies used enriched enrolment with randomised withdrawal. Seven studies used multiple doses, with one to four-week treatment periods, and five used single applications. We judged all of the studies at high risk of bias because of small size or incomplete outcome assessment, or both.There was no first or second tier evidence, and no pooling of data was possible for efficacy outcomes. Only one multiple-dose study reported our primary outcome of participants with ≥ 50% or ≥ 30% pain intensity reduction. Three single-dose studies reported participants who were pain-free at a particular time point, or had a 2-point (of 10) reduction in pain intensity. The two enriched enrolment, randomised withdrawal studies reported time to loss of efficacy. In all but one study, third tier (very low quality) evidence indicated that lidocaine was better than placebo for some measure of pain relief. Pooling multiple-dose studies across conditions demonstrated no clear evidence of an effect of lidocaine on the incidence of adverse events or withdrawals, but there were few events and the withdrawal phase of enriched enrolment designs is not suitable to assess the true impact of adverse events (very low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review found no evidence from good quality randomised controlled studies to support the use of topical lidocaine to treat neuropathic pain, although individual studies indicated that it was effective for relief of pain. Clinical experience also supports efficacy in some patients. Several large ongoing studies, of adequate duration, with clinically useful outcomes should provide more robust conclusions about both efficacy and harm.

Work-related outcomes in randomised placebo-controlled pain trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Chronic painful conditions have an important influence on the ability to work. Work-related outcomes, however, are not commonly reported in publications on trials investigating the treatment of chronic painful conditions. We aim to provide an overview of the reporting of work-related outcomes in such trials and investigate the relationship between work-related outcomes and pain outcomes.

Methods

We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed with the aim of identifying randomised placebo-controlled clinical trials investigating treatments for chronic painful conditions or rheumatic diseases that also reported on work-related outcomes. Methodological study quality was assessed with the Oxford Quality Scale (OQS). Meta-analyses were conducted for the outcomes of interference with work and number of patients with at least 30% reduction in pain intensity (30% pain responders). The correlation between work-related and pain outcomes was investigated with regression analyses.

Results

We included 31 publications reporting on 27 datasets from randomised placebo-controlled trials (with a total of 11,434 study participants) conducted in chronic painful or rheumatic diseases and reporting on work-related outcomes. These 31 publications make up only about 0.2% of all publications on randomised placebo-controlled trials in such conditions. The methodological quality of the included studies was high; only nine studies scored less than four (out of a maximum five) points on the OQS. Sixteen different work-related outcomes were reported on in the studies. Of 25 studies testing for the statistical significance of changes in work-related outcomes over the course of the trials, 14 (56%) reported a significant improvement; the others reported non-significant changes. Eight studies reported data on both interference with work and 30% pain responders: meta-analyses demonstrated similar, statistically significant improvements in both these outcomes with active therapy compared to placebo and regression analysis showed that these outcomes were correlated.

Conclusions

Despite the importance of pain as a reason for decreased ability to work, work-related outcomes are reported in substantially less than 1% of publications on placebo-controlled trials in chronic painful and rheumatic diseases. Work-related outcomes and pain responder outcomes are closely related.

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.

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.

Differential prescribing of opioid analgesics according to physician specialty for Medicaid patients with chronic noncancer pain diagnoses

BACKGROUND

Despite >20 years of studies investigating the characteristics of patients seeking or receiving opioid analgesics, research characterizing factors associated with physicians' opioid prescribing practices has been inconclusive, and the role of practitioner specialty in opioid prescribing practices remains largely unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the relationships between physicians' and other providers' primary specialties and their opioid prescribing practices among patients with chronic noncancer pain (CNCP).

METHODS

Prescriptions for opioids filled by 81,459 Medicaid patients with CNCP in North Carolina (USA), 18 to 64 years of age, enrolled at any point during a one-year study period were examined. χ<span style="vertical-align: super">2<⁄span> statistics were used to examine bivariate differences in prescribing practices according to specialty. For multivariable analyses, maximum-likelihood logistic regression models were used to examine the effect of specialty on prescribing practices, controlling for patients' pain diagnoses and demographic characteristics.

RESULTS

Of prescriptions filled by patients with CNCP, who constituted 6.4% of the total sample of 1.28 million individuals, 12.0% were for opioids. General practitioner⁄family medicine specialists and internists were least likely to prescribe opioids, and orthopedists were most likely. Across specialties, men were more likely to receive opioids than women, as were white individuals relative to other races⁄ethnicities. In multivariate analyses, all specialties except internal medicine had higher odds of prescribing an opioid than general practitioners: orthopedists, OR 7.1 (95% CI 6.7 to 7.5); dentists, OR&nbsp;3.5&nbsp;(95% CI 3.3 to 3.6); and emergency medicine physicians, OR&nbsp;2.7&nbsp;(95% CI 2.6 to 2.8).

CONCLUSIONS

Significant differences in opioid prescribing practices across prescriber specialties may be reflective of differing norms concerning the appropriateness of opioids for the control of chronic pain. If so, sharing these norms across specialties may improve the care of patients with CNCP.

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.

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.

Carbamazepine for chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

This is an update of a Cochrane review entitled 'Carbamazepine for acute and chronic pain in adults' published in Issue 1, 2011. Some antiepileptic medicines have a place in the treatment of neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage). This updated review considers the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia only, and adds no new studies. The update uses higher standards of evidence than the earlier review, which results in the exclusion of five studies that were previously included.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy of carbamazepine in the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia, and to evaluate adverse events reported in the studies.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for relevant studies in MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL up to February 2014. Additional studies were sought from clinical trials databases, and the reference list of retrieved articles and reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double blind, active or placebo controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the use of carbamazepine (any dose, by any route, and for at least two weeks' duration) for the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia, with at least 10 participants per treatment group. Participants were adults aged 18 and over.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two study authors independently extracted data on efficacy, adverse events, and withdrawals, and examined issues of study quality. Numbers needed to treat for an additional beneficial effect (NNT) or harmful effect (NNH) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated from dichotomous data.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, at least 8 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

Ten included studies (11 publications) enrolled 480 participants with trigeminal neuralgia, diabetic neuropathy, and post stroke pain. Nine studies used a cross-over design, and one a parallel group design. Most of the studies were of short duration, lasting four weeks or less.No study provided first or second tier evidence for an efficacy outcome. Using third tier evidence, carbamazepine generally provided better pain relief than placebo in the three conditions studied, with some indication of pain improvement over mainly the short term, but with poorly defined outcomes, incomplete reporting, and in small numbers of participants. There were too few data in studies comparing carbamazepine with active comparators to draw any conclusions.In four studies 65% (113/173) of participants experienced at least one adverse event with carbamazepine, and 27% (47/173) with placebo; for every five participants treated, two experienced an adverse event who would not have done so with placebo. In eight studies 3% (8/268) of participants withdrew due to adverse events with carbamazepine, and none (0/255) with placebo. Serious adverse events were not reported consistently; rashes were associated with carbamazepine. Four deaths occurred in patients on carbamazepine, with no obvious drug association.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Carbamazepine is probably effective in some people with chronic neuropathic pain, but with caveats. No trial was longer than four weeks, had good reporting quality, nor used outcomes equivalent to substantial clinical benefit. In these circumstances, caution is needed in interpretation, and meaningful comparison with other interventions is not possible.

Persistent postsurgical pain: evidence from breast cancer surgery, groin hernia repair, and lung cancer surgery

The prevalences of severe persistent postsurgical pain (PPP) following breast cancer surgery (BCS), groin hernia repair (GHR), and lung cancer surgery (LCS) are 13, 2, and 4-12 %, respectively. Estimates indicate that 80,000 patients each year in the U.S.A. are affected by severe pain and debilitating impairment in the aftermath of BCS, GHR, and LCS. Data across the three surgical procedures indicate a 35-65 % decrease in prevalence of PPP at 4-6 years follow-up. However, this is outweighed by late-onset PPP, which appears following a pain-free interval. The consequences of PPP include severe impairments of physical, psychological, and socioeconomic aspects of life. The pathophysiology underlying PPP consists of a continuing inflammatory response, a neuropathic component, and/or a late reinstatement of postsurgical inflammatory pain. While the sensory profiles of PPP-patients and pain-free controls are comparable with hypofunction on the surgical side, this seems to be accentuated in PPP-patients. In BCS-patients and GHR-patients, the sensory profiles indicate inflammatory and neuropathic components with contribution of central sensitization. A number of surgical factors including increased duration of surgery, repeat surgery, more invasive surgical techniques, and intraoperative nerve lesion have been associated with PPP. One of the most consistent predictive factors for PPP is high intensity acute postsurgical pain, but also psychological factors including anxiety, catastrophizing trait, depression, and psychological vulnerability have been identified as significant predictors of PPP. The quest to identify improved surgical and anesthesiological techniques to prevent severe pain and functional impairment in patients after surgery continues.