Topical lidocaine for the treatment of postherpetic neuralgia

Topical clonidine for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Clonidine is a presynaptic alpha-2-adrenergic receptor agonist that has been 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 has been gaining interest since the beginning of the century, as it may limit adverse events without loss of analgesic efficacy. Topical clonidine (TC) formulations have been investigated for almost 20 years in clinical trials. This is an update of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 8, 2015.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess the analgesic efficacy and safety of TC compared with placebo or other drugs in adults aged 18 years or above with chronic neuropathic pain.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE (Ovid), and Embase (Ovid) databases, and reference lists of retrieved papers and trial registries. We also contacted experts in the field. The most recent search was performed on 27 October 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened references for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion or by consulting a third review author if necessary. Where required, we contacted trial authors to request additional information. We presented pooled estimates for dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and continuous outcomes as mean differences (MDs) with P values. We used Review Manager Web software to perform the meta-analyses. We used a fixed-effect model if we considered heterogeneity as not important; otherwise, we used a random-effects model.  The review primary outcomes were: participant-reported pain relief of 50% or greater; participant-reported pain relief of 30% or greater; much or very much improved on Patient Global Impression of Change scale (PGIC); and very much improved on PGIC. Secondary outcomes included withdrawals due to adverse events; participants experiencing at least one adverse event; and withdrawals due to lack of efficacy. All outcomes were measured at the longest follow-up period. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE and created two summary of findings tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies in the review (two new in this update), with a total of 743 participants with painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN). TC (0.1% or 0.2%) was applied in gel form to the painful area two to three times daily. The double-blind treatment phase of three studies lasted 8 weeks to 85 days and compared TC versus placebo. In the fourth study, the double-blind treatment phase lasted 12 weeks and compared TC versus topical capsaicin. We assessed the studies as at unclear or high risk of bias for most domains; all studies were at unclear risk of bias for allocation concealment and blinding of outcome assessment; one study was at high risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel; two studies were at high risk of attrition bias; and three studies were at high risk of bias due to notable funding concerns. We judged the certainty of evidence (GRADE) to be moderate to very low, downgrading for study limitations, imprecision of results, and publication bias. TC compared to placebo There was no evidence of a difference in number of participants with participant-reported pain relief of 50% or greater during longest follow-up period (12 weeks) between groups (risk ratio (RR) 1.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.86; 179 participants; 1 study; low certainty evidence). However, the number of participants with participant-reported pain relief of 30% or greater during longest follow-up period (8 to 12 weeks) was higher in the TC group compared with placebo (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.77; 344 participants; 2 studies, very low certainty evidence). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) for this comparison was 8.33 (95% CI 4.3 to 50.0). Also, there was no evidence of a difference between groups for the outcomes much or very much improved on the PGIC during longest follow-up period (12 weeks) or very much improved on PGIC during the longest follow-up period (12 weeks) (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.49 and RR 1.82, 95% CI 0.89 to 3.72, respectively; 179 participants; 1 study; low certainty evidence). We observed no evidence of a difference between groups in withdrawals due to adverse events and withdrawals due to lack of efficacy during the longest follow-up period (12 weeks) (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.18 and RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.92, respectively; 179 participants; 1 study; low certainty evidence) and participants experiencing at least one adverse event during longest follow-up period (12 weeks) (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.14 to 3.05; 344 participants; 2 studies; low certainty evidence).  TC compared to active comparator There was no evidence of a difference in the number of participants with participant-reported pain relief of 50% or greater during longest follow-up period (12 weeks) between groups (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.0; 139 participants; 1 study; low certainty evidence). Other outcomes were not reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This is an update of a review published in 2015, for which our conclusions remain unchanged. Topical clonidine may provide some benefit to adults with painful diabetic neuropathy; however, the evidence is very uncertain. Additional trials are needed to assess TC in other neuropathic pain conditions and to determine whether it is possible to predict who or which groups of people will benefit from TC.

Topical Lidocaine for Chronic Pain Treatment

Topical lidocaine is widely used in current practice for a variety of pain conditions. This literature review shows that its limited absorption and relative lack of systemic adverse events are an attractive analgesic option for a number of vulnerable patients. Topical lidocaine has been approved by health authorities for the treatment of post-herpetic neuralgia in a number of countries, and studies present some degree of evidence of its efficacy and safety in postsurgical pain, diabetic peripheral neuropathy, carpal tunnel syndrome, chronic lower back pain and osteoarthritis. Topical lidocaine may be a great alternative alone or in addition to systemic drugs and non-pharmacological approaches for an optimized pain management and in multimodal analgesia.

[S2k guideline for the diagnosis and therapy of zoster and post-zoster neuralgia]

Diese Leitlinie richtet sich an Dermatologen, Ophthalmologen, HNO-Ärzte, Pädiater, Neurologen, Virologen sowie Infektiologen, Anästhesisten und Allgemeinmediziner in Klinik und Praxis und dient zur Information für andere medizinische Fachrichtungen, die an der Behandlung des Zoster beteiligt sind. Darüber hinaus soll die Leitlinie Kostenträgern und politischen Entscheidungsträgern zur Orientierung dienen. Die Leitlinie wurde im formellen Konsensusverfahren (S2k) von Dermatologen, Virologen/Infektiologen, Ophthalmologen, HNO-Ärzten, Neurologen, Pädiatern und Anästhesisten/Schmerzmedizinern erstellt.

Die Leitlinie stellt einen Überblick über die klinische und molekulare Diagnostik sowie den Antigennachweis, die Antikörperkultur und Viruskultur dar. Diagnostisch besondere Situationen und komplizierte Verläufe der Erkrankung finden ebenfalls Berücksichtigung. Die antivirale Therapie des Zoster und der Postzosterneuralgie wird im Allgemeinen und für besondere Situationen dargelegt. Detaillierte Angaben zur Schmerzbehandlung finden Erwähnung und sind in einer Übersicht dargestellt. Ebenso werden die lokaltherapeutischen Maßnahmen thematisiert.

Neuropathic Pain: Central vs. Peripheral Mechanisms

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Our goal is to examine the processes-both central and peripheral-that underlie the development of peripherally-induced neuropathic pain (pNP) and to highlight recent evidence for mechanisms contributing to its maintenance. While many pNP conditions are initiated by damage to the peripheral nervous system (PNS), their persistence appears to rely on maladaptive processes within the central nervous system (CNS). The potential existence of an autonomous pain-generating mechanism in the CNS creates significant implications for the development of new neuropathic pain treatments; thus, work towards its resolution is crucial. Here, we seek to identify evidence for PNS and CNS independently generating neuropathic pain signals.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent preclinical studies in pNP support and provide key details concerning the role of multiple mechanisms leading to fiber hyperexcitability and sustained electrical discharge to the CNS. In studies regarding central mechanisms, new preclinical evidence includes the mapping of novel inhibitory circuitry and identification of the molecular basis of microglia-neuron crosstalk. Recent clinical evidence demonstrates the essential role of peripheral mechanisms, mostly via studies that block the initially damaged peripheral circuitry. Clinical central mechanism studies use imaging to identify potentially self-sustaining infra-slow CNS oscillatory activity that may be unique to pNP patients. While new preclinical evidence supports and expands upon the key role of central mechanisms in neuropathic pain, clinical evidence for an autonomous central mechanism remains relatively limited. Recent findings from both preclinical and clinical studies recapitulate the critical contribution of peripheral input to maintenance of neuropathic pain. Further clinical investigations on the possibility of standalone central contributions to pNP may be assisted by a reconsideration of the agreed terms or criteria for diagnosing the presence of central sensitization in humans.

Evidence-based pain medicine for primary care physicians

The last several decades have seen a marked increase in both the recognition and treatment of chronic pain. Unfortunately, patients frequently misunderstand both the nature of pain and the best practices for its treatment. Because primary care physicians treat the majority of chronic pain, they are ideally situated to provide evidence-based pain care. The majority of the medical evidence supports a biopsychosocial model of pain that integrates physical, emotional, social, and cultural variables. The goal of this primer is to assist primary care physicians in their understanding of pain, evaluation of the chronic pain patient, and ability to direct evidence-based care. This article will discuss the role of physical rehabilitation, pain psychology, pharmacotherapy, and procedural interventions in the treatment of chronic pain. Given the current epidemic of drug-related deaths, particular emphasis is placed on the alternatives to opioid therapy. Unfortunately, death is not the only significant complication from opioid therapy, and this article discusses many of the most common side effects. This article provides general guidelines on the most appropriate utilization of opioids with emphasis on the recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines, risk stratification, and patient monitoring. Finally, the article concludes with the critical role that a pain medicine specialist can play in the management of patients with chronic pain.

Topical analgesics for acute and chronic pain in adults - an overview of Cochrane Reviews

BACKGROUND

Topical analgesic drugs are used for a variety of painful conditions. Some are acute, typically strains or sprains, tendinopathy, or muscle aches. Others are chronic, typically osteoarthritis of hand or knee, or neuropathic pain.

OBJECTIVES

To provide an overview of the analgesic efficacy and associated adverse events of topical analgesics (primarily nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), salicylate rubefacients, capsaicin, and lidocaine) applied to intact skin for the treatment of acute and chronic pain in adults.

METHODS

We identified systematic reviews in acute and chronic pain published to February 2017 in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (the Cochrane Library). The primary outcome was at least 50% pain relief (participant-reported) at an appropriate duration. We extracted the number needed to treat for one additional beneficial outcome (NNT) for efficacy outcomes for each topical analgesic or formulation, and the number needed to treat for one additional harmful outcome (NNH) for adverse events. We also extracted information on withdrawals due to lack of efficacy or adverse events, systemic and local adverse events, and serious adverse events. We required information from at least 200 participants, in at least two studies. We judged that there was potential for publication bias if the addition of four studies of typical size (400 participants) with zero effect increased NNT compared with placebo to 10 (minimal clinical utility). We extracted GRADE assessment in the original papers, and made our own GRADE assessment.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen Cochrane Reviews (206 studies with around 30,700 participants) assessed the efficacy and harms from a range of topical analgesics applied to intact skin in a number of acute and chronic painful conditions. Reviews were overseen by several Review Groups, and concentrated on evidence comparing topical analgesic with topical placebo; comparisons of topical and oral analgesics were rare.For at least 50% pain relief, we considered evidence was moderate or high quality for several therapies, based on the underlying quality of studies and susceptibility to publication bias.In acute musculoskeletal pain (strains and sprains) with assessment at about seven days, therapies were diclofenac Emulgel (78% Emulgel, 20% placebo; 2 studies, 314 participants, NNT 1.8 (95% confidence interval 1.5 to 2.1)), ketoprofen gel (72% ketoprofen, 33% placebo, 5 studies, 348 participants, NNT 2.5 (2.0 to 3.4)), piroxicam gel (70% piroxicam, 47% placebo, 3 studies, 522 participants, NNT 4.4 (3.2 to 6.9)), diclofenac Flector plaster (63% Flector, 41% placebo, 4 studies, 1030 participants, NNT 4.7 (3.7 to 6.5)), and diclofenac other plaster (88% diclofenac plaster, 57% placebo, 3 studies, 474 participants, NNT 3.2 (2.6 to 4.2)).In chronic musculoskeletal pain (mainly hand and knee osteoarthritis) therapies were topical diclofenac preparations for less than six weeks (43% diclofenac, 23% placebo, 5 studies, 732 participants, NNT 5.0 (3.7 to 7.4)), ketoprofen over 6 to 12 weeks (63% ketoprofen, 48% placebo, 4 studies, 2573 participants, NNT 6.9 (5.4 to 9.3)), and topical diclofenac preparations over 6 to 12 weeks (60% diclofenac, 50% placebo, 4 studies, 2343 participants, NNT 9.8 (7.1 to 16)). In postherpetic neuralgia, topical high-concentration capsaicin had moderate-quality evidence of limited efficacy (33% capsaicin, 24% placebo, 2 studies, 571 participants, NNT 11 (6.1 to 62)).We judged evidence of efficacy for other therapies as low or very low quality. Limited evidence of efficacy, potentially subject to publication bias, existed for topical preparations of ibuprofen gels and creams, unspecified diclofenac formulations and diclofenac gel other than Emulgel, indomethacin, and ketoprofen plaster in acute pain conditions, and for salicylate rubefacients for chronic pain conditions. Evidence for other interventions (other topical NSAIDs, topical salicylate in acute pain conditions, low concentration capsaicin, lidocaine, clonidine for neuropathic pain, and herbal remedies for any condition) was very low quality and typically limited to single studies or comparisons with sparse data.We assessed the evidence on withdrawals as moderate or very low quality, because of small numbers of events. In chronic pain conditions lack of efficacy withdrawals were lower with topical diclofenac (6%) than placebo (9%) (11 studies, 3455 participants, number needed to treat to prevent (NNTp) 26, moderate-quality evidence), and topical salicylate (2% vs 7% for placebo) (5 studies, 501 participants, NNTp 21, very low-quality evidence). Adverse event withdrawals were higher with topical capsaicin low-concentration (15%) than placebo (3%) (4 studies, 477 participants, NNH 8, very low-quality evidence), topical salicylate (5% vs 1% for placebo) (7 studies, 735 participants, NNH 26, very low-quality evidence), and topical diclofenac (5% vs 4% for placebo) (12 studies, 3552 participants, NNH 51, very low-quality evidence).In acute pain, systemic or local adverse event rates with topical NSAIDs (4.3%) were no greater than with topical placebo (4.6%) (42 studies, 6740 participants, high quality evidence). In chronic pain local adverse events with topical capsaicin low concentration (63%) were higher than topical placebo (5 studies, 557 participants, number needed to treat for harm (NNH) 2.6), high quality evidence. Moderate-quality evidence indicated more local adverse events than placebo in chronic pain conditions with topical diclofenac (NNH 16) and local pain with topical capsaicin high-concentration (NNH 16). There was moderate-quality evidence of no additional local adverse events with topical ketoprofen over topical placebo in chronic pain. Serious adverse events were rare (very low-quality evidence).GRADE assessments of moderate or low quality in some of the reviews were considered by us to be very low because of small numbers of participants and events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is good evidence that some formulations of topical diclofenac and ketoprofen are useful in acute pain conditions such as sprains or strains, with low (good) NNT values. There is a strong message that the exact formulation used is critically important in acute conditions, and that might also apply to other pain conditions. In chronic musculoskeletal conditions with assessments over 6 to 12 weeks, topical diclofenac and ketoprofen had limited efficacy in hand and knee osteoarthritis, as did topical high-concentration capsaicin in postherpetic neuralgia. Though NNTs were higher, this still indicates that a small proportion of people had good pain relief.Use of GRADE in Cochrane Reviews with small numbers of participants and events requires attention.

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.

Zoster Vaccine and the Risk of Postherpetic Neuralgia in Patients Who Developed Herpes Zoster Despite Having Received the Zoster Vaccine

BACKGROUND

Although it is evident that zoster vaccination reduces postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) risk by reducing herpes zoster (HZ) occurrence, it is less clear whether the vaccine protects against PHN among patients who develop HZ despite previous vaccination.

METHODS

This cohort study included immunocompetent patients with HZ. The vaccinated cohort included 1155 individuals who were vaccinated against HZ at age ≥60 years and had an HZ episode after vaccination. Vaccinated patients were matched 1:1 by sex and age with unvaccinated patients. Trained medical residents reviewed the full medical record to determine the presence of HZ-related pain at 1, 2, 3, and 6 months after HZ diagnosis. The incidence of PHN was compared between vaccinated and unvaccinated -patients.

RESULTS

Thirty vaccinated women (4.2%) experienced PHN, compared with 75 unvaccinated women (10.4%), with an adjusted relative risk of 0.41 (95% confidence interval, .26-.64). PHN occurred in 26 vaccinated men (6.0%) versus 25 unvaccinated men (5.8%), with an adjusted relative risk of 1.06 (.58-1.94). These associations did not differ significantly by age.

CONCLUSIONS

Among persons experiencing HZ, prior HZ vaccination is associated with a lower risk of PHN in women but not in men. This sex-related difference may reflect differences in healthcare-seeking patterns and deserve further investigation.

[Neuropathic pain: pathophysiology, assessment, and therapy]

Neuropathic pain is caused by lesions in the somatosensory system. Characteristic but not exclusive features are spontaneous burning pain, electrifying and shooting pain, hyperalgesia, and allodynia. The basic concept of the pathophysiology of neuropathic pain is the combination of peripheral and central sensitization. Knowledge on the molecular mechanisms has grown exponentially in recent years. The problem lies in identifying the individual mechanisms and in determining a comprehensive concept. Progress has also been made in assessment, e.g., methods for detecting dysfunction of nociceptors have significantly improved. In addition, there are many more therapeutic options available than 15 years ago. The drugs available include antidepressants, anticonvulsants, opioids, and topical medications. Data from controlled trials and recommendations from guidelines are available.

Management of chronic neuropathic pain: a protocol for a multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Chronic neuropathic pain is associated with reduced health-related quality of life and substantial socioeconomic costs. Current research addressing management of chronic neuropathic pain is limited. No review has evaluated all interventional studies for chronic neuropathic pain, which limits attempts to make inferences regarding the relative effectiveness of treatments.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will conduct a systematic review of all randomised controlled trials evaluating therapies for chronic neuropathic pain. We will identify eligible trials, in any language, by a systematic search of CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, AMED, HealthSTAR, DARE, PsychINFO and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials. Eligible trials will be: (1) enrol patients presenting with chronic neuropathic pain, and (2) randomise patients to alternative interventions (pharmacological or non-pharmacological) or an intervention and a control arm. Pairs of reviewers will, independently and in duplicate, screen titles and abstracts of identified citations, review the full texts of potentially eligible trials and extract information from eligible trials. We will use a modified Cochrane instrument to evaluate risk of bias of eligible studies, recommendations from the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) to inform the outcomes we will collect, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to evaluate our confidence in treatment effects. When possible, we will conduct: (1) in direct comparisons, a random-effects meta-analysis to establish the effect of reported therapies on patient-important outcomes; and (2) a multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis within a Bayesian framework to assess the relative effects of treatments. We will define a priori hypotheses to explain heterogeneity between studies, and conduct meta-regression and subgroup analyses consistent with the current best practices.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

We do not require ethics approval for our proposed review. We will disseminate our findings through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO (CRD42014009212).

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.

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.

Oxycodone for neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Imipramine for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

The Effect of Intravenous Lidocaine on Trigeminal Neuralgia: A Randomized Double Blind Placebo Controlled Trial

Trigeminal neuralgia is the most common neuralgia. Its therapeutic approach is challenging as the first line treatment often does not help, or even causes intolerable side effects. The aim of our randomized double blind, placebo controlled, crossover study was to investigate in a prospective way the effect of lidocaine in patients with trigeminal neuralgia. Twenty patients met our inclusion criteria and completed the study. Each patient underwent four weekly sessions, two of which were with lidocaine (5 mgs/kg) and two with placebo infusions administered over 60 minutes. Intravenous lidocaine was superior regarding the reduction of the intensity of pain, the allodynia, and the hyperalgesia compared to placebo. Moreover, contrary to placebo, lidocaine managed to maintain its therapeutic results for the first 24 hours after intravenous infusion. Although, intravenous lidocaine is not a first line treatment, when first line medications fail to help, pain specialists may try it as an add-on treatment. This trial is registered with NCT01955967.

Antiviral treatment for preventing postherpetic neuralgia

BACKGROUND

Postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) is a painful and refractory complication of herpes zoster. Treatments are either partially or totally ineffective for many people with PHN. Antiviral agents, used at the time of the rash, have been proposed as an intervention to prevent the development of PHN. This is the first update since the first publication of the review in 2009.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of antiviral agents in preventing PHN.

SEARCH METHODS

On 26 April 2013, we updated the searches in the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and the Chinese Biomedical Retrieval System. We checked the references of published studies to identify additional trials, and contacted authors to obtain additional data. We searched other databases in The Cochrane Library for information for the Discussion and two clinical trials registries for ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of antiviral treatment given within 72 hours after the onset of herpes zoster for preventing PHN. There were no language restrictions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected trials, evaluated the risk of bias in included trials, and extracted and analysed data.

MAIN RESULTS

Six RCTs with a total of 1211 participants were eligible; five trials evaluated oral aciclovir, and one, with 419 participants, evaluated oral famciclovir. We were able to conduct meta-analyses as there were sufficient similarities in the included studies, such as the reporting of the presence of PHN, duration of rash before treatment initiation and treatment regimen. For our primary outcome, based on three trials (609 participants) we found no significant difference between the aciclovir and control groups in the incidence of PHN four months after the onset of the acute herpetic rash (risk ratio (RR) 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51 to 1.11), nor was there a significant difference at six months (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.27, two trials, 476 participants). In four of the trials (692 participants), there was some evidence for a reduction in the incidence of pain four weeks after the onset of rash. In the trial of famciclovir versus placebo, neither 500 mg nor 750 mg doses of famciclovir reduced the incidence of herpetic neuralgia significantly. The most commonly reported adverse events were nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea and headache for aciclovir, and headache and nausea for famciclovir. For neither treatment was the incidence of adverse events significantly different from placebo. None of the studies were at high risk of bias, although the risk of bias was unclear in at least one domain for all but one study. We found no new RCTs when we updated the searches in April 2013.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high quality evidence that oral aciclovir does not reduce the incidence of PHN significantly. In addition, there is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of other antiviral treatments; therefore, further well-designed RCTs are needed to investigate famciclovir or other new antiviral agents in preventing PHN. Future trials should pay more attention to the severity of pain and quality of life of participants, and should be conducted among different subgroups of people, such as people who are immunocompromised.

Lamotrigine for chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

This is an update of the original Cochrane review entitled Lamotrigine for acute and chronic pain published in Issue 2, 2007, and updated in Issue 2, 2011. Some antiepileptic medicines have a place in the treatment of neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage). This updated review adds no new additional studies looking at evidence for lamotrigine as an effective treatment for chronic neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia. The update uses higher standards of evidence than previously.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of lamotrigine for chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia (including cancer pain) from MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). We ran searches for the original review in 2006, in 2011 for the first update, and subsequent searches in August 2013 for this update. We sought additional studies from the reference lists of the retrieved papers. The original review and first update included acute pain, but no acute pain studies were identified.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs investigating the use of lamotrigine (any dose, by any route, and for any study duration) for the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia. Assessment of pain intensity or pain relief, or both, using validated scales. 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. The first tier used data where studies reported the outcome of at least 50% pain reduction from baseline, lasted at least eight weeks, had a parallel group design, included 200 or more participants in the comparison, and reported an intention-to-treat analysis. First-tier studies did not use last observation carried forward (LOCF) or other imputational methods for dropouts. The second tier used data that failed to meet this standard and second-tier results were therefore subject to potential bias.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve included studies in 11 publications (1511 participants), all with chronic neuropathic pain: central post-stroke pain (1), chemotherapy-induced neuropathic pain (1), diabetic neuropathy (4), HIV-related neuropathy (2), mixed neuropathic pain (2), spinal cord injury-related pain (1), and trigeminal neuralgia (1). We did not identify any additional studies. Participants were aged between 26 and 77 years. Study duration was two weeks in one study and at least six weeks in the remainder; eight were of eight-week duration or longer.No study provided first-tier evidence for an efficacy outcome. There was no convincing evidence that lamotrigine is effective in treating neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia at doses of 200 mg to 400 mg daily. Almost 10% of participants taking lamotrigine reported a skin rash.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Large, high-quality, long-duration studies reporting clinically useful levels of pain relief for individual participants provided no convincing evidence that lamotrigine is effective in treating neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia at doses of about 200 to 400 mg daily. Given the availability of more effective treatments including antiepileptics and antidepressant medicines, lamotrigine does not have a significant place in therapy based on the available evidence. The adverse effect profile of lamotrigine is also of concern.

Antiepileptic drugs for neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia - an overview of Cochrane reviews

BACKGROUND

Antiepileptic drugs have been used for treating different types of neuropathic pain, and sometimes fibromyalgia. Our understanding of quality standards in chronic pain trials has improved to include new sources of potential bias. Individual Cochrane reviews using these new standards have assessed individual antiepileptic drugs. An early review from this group, originally published in 1998, was titled 'Anticonvulsants for acute and chronic pain'. This overview now covers the neuropathic pain aspect of that original review, which was withdrawn in 2009.

OBJECTIVES

To provide an overview of the relative analgesic efficacy of antiepileptic drugs that have been compared with placebo in neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia, and to report on adverse events associated with their use.

METHODS

We included reviews published in theCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews up to August 2013 (Issue 7). We extracted information from each review on measures of efficacy and harm, and methodological details concerning the number of participants, the duration of studies, and the imputation methods used, in order to judge potential biases in available data.We analysed efficacy data for each painful condition in three tiers, according to outcome and freedom from known sources of bias. The first tier met current best standards - at least 50% pain intensity reduction over baseline (or its equivalent), without the use of last observation carried forward (LOCF) for dropouts, an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, in parallel group studies with at least 200 participants lasting eight weeks or more. The second tier used data from at least 200 participants where one or more of the above conditions were not met. The third tier of evidence related to data from fewer than 200 participants, or with several important methodological problems that limited interpretation.

MAIN RESULTS

No studies reported top tier results.For gabapentin and pregabalin only we found reasonably good second tier evidence for efficacy in painful diabetic neuropathy and postherpetic neuralgia. In addition, for pregabalin, we found evidence of efficacy in central neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia. Point estimates of numbers needed to treat for an additional beneficial effect (NNTs) were in the range of 4 to 10 for the important outcome of pain intensity reduction over baseline of 50% or more.For other antiepileptic drugs there was no evidence (clonazepam, phenytoin), so little evidence that no sensible judgement could be made about efficacy (valproic acid), low quality evidence likely to be subject to a number of biases overestimating efficacy (carbamazepine), or reasonable quality evidence indicating little or no effect (lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine, topiramate). Lacosamide recorded such a trivial statistical superiority over placebo that it was unreliable to conclude that it had any efficacy where there was possible substantial bias.Any benefits of treatment came with a high risk of adverse events and withdrawal because of adverse events, but serious adverse events were not significantly raised, except with oxcarbazepine.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Clinical trial evidence supported the use of only gabapentin and pregabalin in some neuropathic pain conditions (painful diabetic neuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, and central neuropathic pain) and fibromyalgia. Only a minority of people achieved acceptably good pain relief with either drug, but it is known that quality of life and function improved markedly with the outcome of at least 50% pain intensity reduction. For other antiepileptic drugs there was no evidence, insufficient evidence, or evidence of a lack of effect; this included carbamazepine. Evidence from clinical practice and experience is that some patients can achieve good results with antiepileptics other than gabapentin or pregabalin.There is no firm evidence to answer the important pragmatic questions about which patients should have which drug, and in which order the drugs should be used. There is a clinical effectiveness research agenda to provide evidence about strategies rather than interventions, to produce the overall best results in a population, in the shortest time, and at the lowest cost to healthcare providers.

WITHDRAWN: Topical lidocaine for the treatment of postherpetic neuralgia

BACKGROUND

This is an update of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 2, 2007. The cause of postherpetic neuralgia is damage to peripheral neurons, dorsal root ganglia, and the dorsal horn of the spinal cord, secondary to herpes zoster infection (shingles). In postherpetic neuralgia, peripheral neurons discharge spontaneously and have lowered activation thresholds, and exhibit an exaggerated response to stimuli. Topical lidocaine dampens peripheral nociceptor sensitisation and central nervous system hyperexcitability, and may benefit patients with postherpetic neuralgia.

OBJECTIVES

To examine efficacy and safety of topical lidocaine in the treatment of postherpetic neuralgia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, SIGLE, Citation Index, the reference lists of all eligible trials, key textbooks, and previous systematic reviews. Last search conducted April 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi‐randomised trials comparing topical applications of lidocaine in patients of all ages with postherpetic neuralgia (pain persisting at the site of shingles at least one month after the onset of the acute rash).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted data, and a third checked them.

MAIN RESULTS

In the original review three studies involving 182 topical lidocaine treated participants and 132 control participants were included. Two studies gave data on pain relief, and the remaining study provided data on secondary outcome measures. The largest study published as an abstract compared topical lidocaine patch to a placebo patch and accounted for 150 of the 314 participants (48%). A meta‐analysis combining two studies identified a significant difference between topical lidocaine and control groups for the primary outcome measure: a mean improvement in pain relief according to a pain relief scale. Topical lidocaine relieved pain better than placebo (P = 0.003). There was a statistical difference between the groups for the secondary outcome measure of mean VAS score reduction (P = 0.03), but this was only for a single small study. There were a similar number of adverse skin reactions in both treatment and placebo groups. The highest recorded blood lidocaine concentration varied between 59 ng/ml and 431 ng/ml between studies. The latter figure is high and the authors of the study suggest that the sample had been contaminated during the assay procedure.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Since the last version of this review in Issue 2, 2007 no new studies have been found and the results therefore remain the same. There is still insufficient evidence to recommend topical lidocaine as a first‐line agent in the treatment of postherpetic neuralgia with allodynia. Further research should be undertaken on the efficacy of topical lidocaine for other chronic neuropathic pain disorders, and also to compare different classes of drugs (e.g. topical anaesthetic applications versus anti‐epileptic drugs).

Cervico-thoracic or lumbar sympathectomy for neuropathic pain and complex regional pain syndrome

BACKGROUND

This review is an update of a review first published in Issue 2, 2003, which was substantially updated in Issue 7, 2010. The concept that many neuropathic pain syndromes (traditionally this definition would include complex regional pain syndromes (CRPS)) are "sympathetically maintained pains" has historically led to treatments that interrupt the sympathetic nervous system. Chemical sympathectomies use alcohol or phenol injections to destroy ganglia of the sympathetic chain, while surgical ablation is performed by open removal or electrocoagulation of the sympathetic chain or by minimally invasive procedures using thermal or laser interruption.

OBJECTIVES

To review the evidence from randomised, double blind, controlled trials on the efficacy and safety of chemical and surgical sympathectomy for neuropathic pain, including complex regional pain syndrome. Sympathectomy may be compared with placebo (sham) or other active treatment, provided both participants and outcome assessors are blind to treatment group allocation.

SEARCH METHODS

On 2 July 2013, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Oxford Pain Relief Database. We reviewed the bibliographies of all randomised trials identified and of review articles and also searched two clinical trial databases, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, to identify additional published or unpublished data. We screened references in the retrieved articles and literature reviews and contacted experts in the field of neuropathic pain.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double blind, placebo or active controlled studies assessing the effects of sympathectomy for neuropathic pain and CRPS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and validity, and extracted data. No pooled analysis of data was possible.

MAIN RESULTS

Only one study satisfied our inclusion criteria, comparing percutaneous radiofrequency thermal lumbar sympathectomy with lumbar sympathetic neurolysis using phenol in 20 participants with CRPS. There was no comparison of sympathectomy versus sham or placebo. No dichotomous pain outcomes were reported. Average baseline scores of 8-9/10 on several pain scales fell to about 4/10 initially (1 day) and remained at 3-5/10 over four months. There were no significant differences between groups, except for "unpleasant sensation", which was higher with radiofrequency ablation. One participant in the phenol group experienced post sympathectomy neuralgia, while two in the radiofrequency group and one in the phenol group complained of paraesthesia during needle positioning. All participants had soreness at the injection site.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The practice of surgical and chemical sympathectomy for neuropathic pain and CRPS is based on very little high quality evidence. Sympathectomy should be used cautiously in clinical practice, in carefully selected patients, and probably only after failure of other treatment options. In these circumstances, establishing a clinical register of sympathectomy may help to inform treatment options on an individual patient basis.

Topiramate for neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

Topiramate is an antiepileptic drug with multiple possible mechanisms of action. Antiepileptic drugs are widely used to treat chronic neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage) and fibromyalgia, and many guidelines recommend them.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and associated adverse events of topiramate for chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia in adults (aged 18 years and above).

SEARCH METHODS

On 8 May 2013, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. We reviewed the bibliographies of all randomised trials identified and review articles, and also searched two clinical trial databases, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, to identify additional published or unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and two study authors examined issues of study quality independently. We performed analysis using two tiers of evidence. The first tier used data where studies reported the outcome of at least 50% pain reduction from baseline, lasted at least eight weeks, had a parallel group design, included 200 or more participants in the comparison, and reported an intention-to-treat analysis. First tier studies did not use last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) or other imputation methods for dropouts. The second tier used data that failed to meet this standard; second tier results were therefore subject to potential bias.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies with 1684 participants. Three parallel-group placebo comparisons were in painful diabetic neuropathy (1643 participants), and one cross-over study with diphenhydramine as an active placebo (41 participants) was in lumbar radiculopathy. Doses of topiramate were titrated up to 200 mg/day or 400 mg/day. All studies had one or more sources of potential major bias, as they either used LOCF imputation or were of small size.No study provided first tier evidence for an efficacy outcome. There was no convincing evidence for efficacy of topiramate at 200 to 400 mg/day over placebo.Eighty-two per cent of participants taking topiramate 200 to 400 mg/day experienced at least one adverse event, as did 71% with placebo, and the number needed to treat for an additional harmful effect (NNTH) was 8.6 (95% confidence interval (CI) 4.9 to 35). There was no difference in serious adverse events recorded (6.6% versus 7.5%). Adverse event withdrawals with 400 mg daily were much more common with topiramate (27%) than with placebo (8%), with an NNTH of 5.4 (95% CI 4.3 to 7.1). Lack of efficacy withdrawal was less frequent with topiramate (12%) than placebo (18%). Weight loss was a common event in most studies. No deaths attributable to treatment were reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Topiramate is without evidence of efficacy in diabetic neuropathic pain, the only neuropathic condition in which it has been adequately tested. The data we have includes the likelihood of major bias due to LOCF imputation, where adverse event withdrawals are much higher with active treatment than placebo control. Despite the strong potential for bias, no difference in efficacy between topiramate and placebo was apparent.

Management of herpes zoster and post-herpetic neuralgia

Herpes zoster and its sequela post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN) are conditions with significant morbidity. PHN is a chronic, debilitating neuropathic pain that can persist long beyond resolution of visible cutaneous manifestations. This paper provides practical guidelines for management of herpes zoster and PHN. For herpes zoster, antivirals should be started, preferably within 72 h of onset, to reduce the severity and duration of the eruptive phase and to reduce the intensity of acute pain. PHN can be treated with either topical or systemic agents. Topical lidocaine and capsaicin are effective. For patients with more severe pain, the following systemic agents can be considered (in decreasing order of recommendation): the anticonvulsants gabapentin and pregabalin, the tricyclic antidepressants amitriptyline, nortriptyline, and desipramine, and, lastly, the opioid analgesics tramadol, morphine, oxycodone, and methadone. For patients at high risk of developing PHN, early initiation of gabapentin or amitriptyline after the onset of herpes zoster is suggested. The new zoster vaccine has been shown to be effective in reducing the incidence of herpes zoster and PHN.

Post-herpetic neuralgia

Background

In spite of the large body of evidence available in the literature, definition and treatment of Post-Herpetic Neuralgia (PHN) are still lacking a consistent and universally recognized standardization. Furthermore, many issues concerning diagnosis, prediction and prevention of PHN need to be clarified in view of recent contributions.

Objectives

To assess whether PHN may be better defined, predicted, treated and prevented in light of recent data, and whether available alternative or adjunctive therapies may improve pain relief in treatment recalcitrant PHN.

Methods

Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, cohort studies and protocols were searched; the search sources included PubMed, Cochrane Library, NICE, and DARE. More than 130 papers were selected and evaluated.

Results

Diagnosis of PHN is essentially clinical, but it can be improved by resorting to the many tools available, including some practical and accessible questionnaires. Prediction of PHN can be now much more accurate, taking into consideration a few well validated clinical and anamnestic variables. Treatment of PHN is presently based on a well characterized array of drugs and drug associations, including, among others, tricyclic antidepressants, gabapentinoids, opioids and many topical formulations. It is still unsatisfactory, however, in a substantial proportion of patients, especially those with many comorbidities and intense pain at herpes zoster (HZ) presentation, so that this frequent complication of HZ still strongly impacts on the quality of life of affected patients.

Conclusion

Further efforts are needed to improve the management of PHN. Potentially relevant interventions may include early antiviral therapy of acute HZ, prevention of HZ by adult vaccination, as well as new therapeutic approaches for patients experiencing PHN.

Postherpetic neuralgia: New hopes in prevention with adult vaccination and in treatment with a concentrated capsaicin patch

Background and purpose

Postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) is a complication of acute herpes zoster (HZ). The evidence base for management of PHN has increased by recent publications. Therefore, we reviewed incidence of HZ, prevalence, risk factors, and mechanism of PHN pain, prevention and treatment of PHN with special interest in studies on adult vaccination and topical application of lidocaine and concentrated capsaicin patch.

Methods

We searched databases with an English language restriction: MEDLINE 1944–2011, EMBASE 1988–2011, PubMed, and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register and Cochrane Library (2011). From retrieved publications, we selected studies focusing on our main goals, prevention and treatment of PHN in particular. The review was therefore systematic, but with a pragmatic approach to which studies to select for closer review.

Results

From the large number of abstracts retrieved we selected 65 papers for closer review and as evidence base for our conclusions and recommendations for prevention and treatment of HZ and PHN. The incidence of HZ and risks of having PHN after HZ increases markedly with age above 60–70. Severity of symptoms and their impact on quality of life is a major health problem of persons above 70 years of age. Adult vaccination with the reinforced varicella virus vaccine reduces the incidence of HZ and PHN by about 50%. This is an important health and quality of life gain for the elderly. Antiviral drugs given early in an episode of HZ reduce pain and duration of HZ and decrease the risk of PHN.

Pharmacological management of PHN are with nortriptyline (or amitriptyline in the younger patients), and or a gabapentinoid as first line drugs. Early treatment also is with topical lidocaine for immediate but short-lasting relief of burning hyperalgesia, and topical capsaicin relieving hypersensitivity for up to 12 weeks. A number of second and third line drugs have less evidence-base for effect, and often more adverse effects than the first line drugs: serotonin and noradrenaline uptake inhibitors (venlafaxin, duloxetin), antiepileptics (valproate), and opioid analgesics. Opioids are indicated for bridging in patients with severe PHN-symptoms while waiting for the more specific first line drugs to take effect. In these elderly patients, systemic pharmacological treatments are always a difficult balance between effects and adverse effects. It is important with close supervision of the patients, especially during start-up of systemically administered drugs, in order to prevent tragic complications from falls in sedated, dizzy, and confused elderly patients. Topical treatment with lidocaine and capsaicin patches does not have these problems.

Conclusions

Prevention of this significant health problem of the increasing elderly population is now possible through adult vaccination against varicella zoster virus (VZV) reactivation, as well as vigorous and early antiviral treatment during acute HZ. The evidence -base supports the oral use of tricyclic antidepressants, gabapentinoids, and opioids for bridging till the first line drugs take effect. Topical therapy with lidocaine and capsaicin patches is effective and well supported by evidence. A number of second and third line drugs and treatments are available, but have less evidence-base. All drug treatments, except topical lidocaine and capsaicin, have adverse effects that are often problematic and can be dangerous in the elderly patients. Close supervision of the patients is mandatory.

Implications

Recent advances in prevention and management of this serious health problem should be better known and implicated: Adult vaccination for prevention of varicella zoster virus reactivation, antiviral drugs and combinations of drugs can reduce the suffering from acute HZ and chronic PHN. Topical lidocaine and capsaicin are now evidence-based therapies that reduce suffering from hypersensitivity and hyperalgesia in patients with PHN. When properly applied, they have few complications.

Transdermal lidocaine and ketamine for neuropathic pain: a study of effectiveness and tolerability

Background:

Acute neuropathic pain is a common disorder. Transdermal cream could be an alternative to oral medications.

Objective:

To evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of transdermal Lidocaine and Ketamine for acute neuropathic pain.

Study Design:

Retrospective chart review

Setting:

University-affiliated outpatient Physiatry clinic

Methods:

articipants: neuropathic pain with a prescription of a transdermal cream containing Lidocaine and Ketamine. Ef-fectiveness was evaluated by the number of patients with improvement divided by the total number of patients who re-ceived a prescription of the cream.

Results:

A total of 854 patient charts were reviewed. Twenty-one patients with symptoms, signs, and/or a documented di-agnosis of neuropathic pain and had been given a prescription of a transdermal preparation containing Lidocaine and Ketamine. Four groups were identified: those with a clearly stated diagnosis of neuropathic pain and prescribed a transdermal compound containing Lidocaine and Ketamine with follow-up (Group A) or without follow-up (Group B), and those with a suggested diagnosis of neuropathic pain with (Group C) or without follow-up (Group D). Effectiveness of the cream was seven out of eight (87%) for Group A and one out of three (33%) for Group C. In total, eight out of 11 patients (73%) benefited from a cream containing Lidocaine and Ketamine. Two patients experienced skin reactions that led to discontin-uation of treatment.

Limitations:

This is a retrospective chart review without control group.

Conclusion:

Transdermal cream containing Ketamine and Lidocaine was effective in 73% of patients with acute neuro-pathic pain and may be a good alternative to oral medications.

Assessment of the quality of postherpetic neuralgia treatment information on the Internet

The objective of this study was to assess the quality of websites presenting treatment information for postherpetic neuralgia. The term "postherpetic neuralgia treatment" was searched using the Google and Yahoo search engines. Fifty websites from each were evaluated using the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmarks, the Health on the Net (HON) seal, and the DISCERN instrument. The treatments suggested on each website were compared with 3 recognized first-line treatment options (antidepressants, anticonvulsants, and topical lidocaine). Less than half of the included websites fulfilled all JAMA benchmark requirements. Less than one-third of the websites displayed the HON seal. The DISCERN instrument evaluation revealed that most websites were of moderate quality. Commercial websites tended to be inferior in comparison to noncommercial websites. Most websites recommended at least 2 of the 3 recommended treatments as well as several second- and third-line treatments. One-third to one-half of websites recommended a nonbeneficial treatment. In conclusion, many different postherpetic neuralgia treatments are found on the Internet and patients may be left separating recommended treatments from nonrecommended treatments without help from their healthcare providers.

PERSPECTIVE

This study examined the quality of websites related to postherpetic neuralgia treatment. The results demonstrated that most websites offering advice on postherpetic neuralgia treatment are of only moderate quality and often offer treatment suggestions that are nonbeneficial. Patients and providers must use caution when taking advice from these sites.

Management and prevention of herpes zoster: A Canadian perspective

Varicella-zoster virus reactivation leads to herpes zoster - the main complication of which is postherpetic neuralgia (PHN). Rapid antiviral therapy initiated within 72 h of rash onset has been shown to accelerate rash healing, reduce the duration of acute pain and, to some extent, attenuate the development and duration of PHN. Other adjunctive therapies such as analgesics, antidepressants and some anticonvulsants are frequently required in the management of severe PHN. A live, attenuated zoster vaccine has been recently shown to significantly decrease herpes zoster incidence, PHN and the overall burden of illness when administered to adults older than 60 years of age. This new prophylactic modality has been reported to be cost-effective in the Canadian context, especially in the 60- to 75-year-old age group.

5% lidocaine-medicated plaster vs other relevant interventions and placebo for post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN): a systematic review

Several pharmacological treatments are used to manage post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN). The use of topical analgesics, such as 5% lidocaine-medicated plaster (5% LMP), may be preferable to systemic treatments in that they are formulated to produce a local pain relieving effect with minimal systemic absorption. However, direct head-to-head comparisons are relatively few, and a rigorous assessment of the relative efficacy and safety of the various treatment options is lacking. The objective of this study was to compare 5% LMP for the relief of PHN with other relevant interventions and placebo. Six databases were searched up to May 2010. Quantitative methods for data synthesis were used, and a network meta-analysis was conducted. Twenty unique studies (32 publications) were included. Placebo-controlled studies showed 5% LMP to be effective in providing pain relief and reducing allodynia while adverse event rates were generally low. A comparison between 5% LMP and pregabalin indicated the non-inferiority of 5% LMP for pain reduction and showed greater improvement of quality of life for 5% LMP. Adverse events (AE) were significantly fewer with 5% LMP. In the network meta-analysis, only 5% LMP and gabapentin were associated with a greater change in pain from baseline than placebo [-15.50 (95% CI -18.85 to -12.16) and -7.56 (95% CI -12.52 to -2.59) respectively]. 5% LMP was shown to be more effective than capsaicin [-16.45 (95% CI -20.04 to -12.86)], gabapentin [-7.95 (95% CI -13.29 to -2.61)] and pregabalin [-13.45 (95% CI -19.19 to -7.71)]. For pain relief, two comparators were more effective than placebo [mean pain relief, gabapentin: 32.77 (95% CI 15.57-49.97); 5% LMP: 26.77 (95% CI 9.11-44.43)]. 5% LMP was shown to be comparable to gabapentin [-6.00 (95% CI -25.32-13.32)]. The results suggest that 5% LMP and gabapentin have similar effects on pain relief and that 5% LMP is more effective than capsaicin and pregabalin (change in pain from baseline). Topical agents, such as 5% LMP, are associated with fewer and less clinically significant AE than is the case for systemic agents. However, small numbers, and limited size and quality of included studies should be taken into account. Further studies are needed.

Vaccination for preventing postherpetic neuralgia

BACKGROUND

Herpes zoster virus vaccine was recommended for the prevention of herpes zoster and its sequelae by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) in 2006. To date the efficacy and safety of vaccination for preventing the most common complication of zoster, postherpetic neuralgia, has not been systematically reviewed.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of vaccination in preventing postherpetic neuralgia.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched MEDLINE (January 1966 to December 2010), EMBASE (January 1980 to January 2011), LILACS (January 1982 to December 2010), the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease (NMD) Group Specialized Register (10 January 2010), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (10 January 2010 in the Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2010) and the Chinese Biomedical Retrieval System (January 1978 to December 2010). We also checked the references of published studies to identify additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials comparing varicella zoster virus vaccination with placebo, no vaccination or another intervention, irrespective of publication status or language.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality, then extracted and analysed data from the trials which met the inclusion criteria. We collected adverse effects information from the trials.

MAIN RESULTS

One trial, which involved 38,546 subjects and compared vaccination with placebo, met our inclusion criteria. This included study was of high quality. However, its participants were all aged 60 years or more and most of them were white, which may mean that its findings are not applicable to all populations. The vaccine was effective in decreasing the incidence of herpes zoster, but there was no evidence that it had efficacy in reducing the incidence of postherpetic neuralgia beyond its effect on the incidence of herpes zoster. Adverse events at the injection site were more common among vaccine recipients than placebo recipients, but they were mild and resolved in a few days. Serious adverse events were rare.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient direct evidence from specialised trials to prove the efficacy of vaccine for preventing postherpetic neuralgia beyond its effect on reducing herpes zoster, although vaccination may be efficacious and safe for preventing herpes zoster and thus reduce the incidence of postherpetic neuralgia in adults aged 60 years or older.

Topical preparations for pain relief: efficacy and patient adherence

There has been an increasing focus on development of new routes of drug administration to provide tailored treatments for patients, without decreasing efficacy of analgesia, in proportion to the progression of the knowledge of pain mechanisms. While acute pain acts as an alarm, chronic pain is a syndrome requiring meticulous selection of analgesic drugs of high bioavailability for long-term use. Such criteria are challenges that topical medications aim to overcome, allowing progressive delivery of active component, maintaining stable plasma levels, with a good safety profile. This review presents recent findings regarding topical formulations of the most widely used drugs for pain treatment, such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents, anesthetics, and capsaicin, and the role of physical agents as delivery enhancers (phonophoresis and iontophoresis). Although the number of topical agents is limited for use in peripheral conditions, increasing evidence supports the efficacy of these preparations in blocking nociceptive and neuropathic pain. Patient adherence to medical treatment is also a challenge, especially in chronic painful conditions. It is known that reduction of treatment complexity and pill burden are good strategies to increase patient compliance, as discussed here. However, the role of topical presentations, when compared to traditional routes, has not yet been fully explored and thus remains unclear.

Pregabalin, the lidocaine plaster and duloxetine in patients with refractory neuropathic pain: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Patients frequently fail to receive adequate pain relief from, or are intolerant of, first-line therapies prescribed for neuropathic pain (NeP). This refractory chronic pain causes psychological distress and impacts patient quality of life. Published literature for treatment in refractory patients is sparse and often published as conference abstracts only. The aim of this study was to identify published data for three pharmacological treatments: pregabalin, lidocaine plaster, and duloxetine, which are typically used at 2(nd) line or later in UK patients with neuropathic pain.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature databases MEDLINE, EMBASE and CCTR was carried out and supplemented with extensive conference and grey literature searching. Studies of any design (except single patient case studies) that enrolled adult patients with refractory NeP were included in the review and qualitatively assessed.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies were included in the review: nine of pregabalin, seven of the lidocaine plaster, and one of duloxetine. No head-to-head studies of these treatments were identified. Only six studies included treatments within UK licensed indications and dose ranges. Reported efficacy outcomes were not consistent between studies. Pain scores were most commonly assessed in studies including pregabalin; trials of pregabalin and the lidocaine plaster reported the proportion of responders. Significant improvements in the total, sensory and affective scores of the Short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire, and in function interference, sleep interference and pain associated distress, were associated with pregabalin treatment; limited or no quality of life data were available for the other two interventions. Limitations to the review are the small number of included studies, which are generally small, of poor quality and heterogeneous in patient population and study design.

CONCLUSIONS

Little evidence is available relevant to the treatment of refractory neuropathic pain despite the clinical need. There is a notable lack of high-quality comparative studies. It is evident that there is a need for future, high quality trials, particularly "gold-standard" RCTs in this refractory patient population.

A treatment algorithm for neuropathic pain: an update

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this review is to provide an update of the neuropathic pain treatment algorithm previously published by Namaka et al. in 2004. This algorithm focuses on the strategic incorporation of the latest pain therapies while providing an update of any recent developments involving medications previously listed in the algorithm.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Toxnet databases were used to conduct all literature searches on neuropathic pain and targeted treatment strategies. Comprehensive search efforts in the identified databases included studies published between 1980 and 2009. The search term "neuropathic pain" was used along with each of the agents outlined in this review: pregabalin, paroxetine CR, duloxetine, tramadol XL, Tramacet, Sativex, and nabilone.

STUDY SELECTION

A total of 90 studies were reviewed and selected based on level 1, 2, and 3 search strategies.

DATA EXTRACTION

Level 1 search strategies were initially aimed at evidence-based trials of large sample size (N > 100), with a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled design conducted by investigators well versed in the specialty area of interest. A level 2 search was conducted for additional trials that had many, but not all, of the desirable traits of evidence-based trials. In addition, a level 3 search strategy was conducted to compare key findings stated in anecdotal reports of very small (N < 15), poorly designed trials with the results of well-designed, evidence-based trials identified in level 1 and/or level 2 searches.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Based on a thorough evaluation of the literature, pregabalin, paroxetine CR, and duloxetine have been placed in the updated algorithm as first-line agents, while tramadol XL, Tramacet, Sativex, and nabilone function primarily as adjunctive agents.

CONCLUSION

The updated algorithm provides a baseline framework from which clinicians can justify the medication they prescribe.

Topical analgesics for acute and chronic pain in adults

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: To provide an overview of the analgesic efficacy and associated adverse events of topical analgesics (primarily NSAIDs, rubefacients, capsaicin, lidocaine, and opioids) for the treatment of acute and chronic pain in adults.

Use of lidocaine patches for neuropathic pain in a comprehensive cancer centre

BACKGROUND

There are few reports of the use of the lidocaine 5% patch (L5%P) for neuropathic pain (NP) in the cancer patient. Within a comprehensive cancer centre, L5%P has been prescribed by the Pain and Palliative Care Service (Peter McCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia) for selected patients with NP since 2001.

OBJECTIVE

To retrospectively audit the use of L5%P within a comprehensive cancer centre.

METHODS

All L5%P prescriptions up to January 2009 were listed and patient medical records were searched to determine neuropathic pain syndromes treated, the presence of allodynia, previous analgesic medications, treatment duration and outcome.

RESULTS

L5%P was prescribed for 97 patients, most frequently for persistent postsurgical NP (n=26), postherpetic neuralgia (n=24) and cancer-related NP (n=18). Six patients had no history of cancer and two patients never applied L5%P. Reviewers classed L5%P analgesic efficacy as 'potent' in 38% of patients with postherpetic neuralgia, 35% of patients with postsurgical pain, 27% of patients with NP after other treatments for cancer and 12% of patients with NP attributed to cancer alone. Allodynia featured in at least 60% of patients. Where allodynia was present, the efficacy of L5%P was assessed as 'potent' in 38% and 'partial' in 24%, but 'ineffective' in 26%, and 'causing worse pain' in 3.4% of patients. Treatment duration extended longer than one month in 52 patients, longer than two months in 29 patients and longer than one year in 13 patients. Therapy was ceased due to skin irritation in seven patients. The outcomes in relation to other reports are discussed.

CONCLUSION

The present data support trials of L5%P for cancer patients with NP syndromes associated with allodynia.