Pregabalin for acute and chronic pain in adults

PRECISE trial (Pain RElief Combination Intervention StratEgies): protocol for the clinical trial of a pregabalin-melatonin combination for fibromyalgia

INTRODUCTION

Fibromyalgia is associated with chronic widespread pain and disturbed sleep. Multidisciplinary, multimodal management often includes pharmacotherapy; however, current drugs used to treat fibromyalgia provide meaningful benefit to only 30-60% of treated individuals. Combining two or more different drugs is common in clinical practice with the expectation of better efficacy, tolerability or both; however, further research is needed to identify which combinations actually provide added benefit. Thus, we are planning a clinical trial to evaluate melatonin (MLT)-pregabalin (PGB) combination in participants with fibromyalgia.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This will be a single-centre, double-blind, randomised, double-dummy, three-period, crossover trial comparing a MLT-PGB combination to each monotherapy in 54 adult participants satisfying the 2016 American College of Rheumatology criteria for fibromyalgia. Participants will receive maximally tolerated doses of MLT, PGB and MLT-PGB combination for 6 weeks. The primary outcome will be daily pain intensity (0-10); secondary outcomes will include the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire, SF-36 survey, Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale, Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II), adverse events and other measures. Analysis of the primary and secondary outcomes will involve a linear mixed model with sequence, period, treatment, the first-order carryover and baseline pain score as fixed effects and participant as a random effect to test whether there are any treatment differences among three treatments and to estimate the least square mean of the mean daily pain intensity for each treatment, adjusting for carryover as well as period effects (ie, stability of pain levels).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This trial has been registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Registry, ISRCTN #18278231, has been granted ethical approval by the Queen's University Health Sciences Research Ethics Board (Queen's HSREB Protocol #6040998) and is currently under review for a Clinical Trial Application to Health Canada Natural and Non-prescription Health Products Directorate. All participants will provide written informed consent prior to trial participation. Following trial completion, results will be disseminated in one or more biomedical journal publications and presented at one or more scientific meetings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

This trial has been registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Registry, ISRCTN18278231.

The immunomodulatory effects of ethosuximide and sodium butyrate on experimentally induced fibromyalgia: The interaction between IL-4, synaptophysin, and TGF-β1/NF-κB signaling

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Fibromyalgia is a widespread chronic pain syndrome associated with several comorbid conditions that affect the quality of patients' life. Its pathogenesis is complex, and the treatment strategies are limited by partial efficacy and potential adverse effects. So, our aim was to investigate the possible ameliorative effects of ethosuximide and sodium butyrate on fibromyalgia and compare their effects to pregabalin.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a mouse model of reserpine induced fibromyalgia, the effect of ethosuximide, sodium butyrate, and pregabalin was investigated. Evaluation of mechanical allodynia, cold hypersensitivity, anxiety, cognitive impairment, and depression was performed. Also, the brain and spinal cord tissue serotonin, dopamine and glutamate in addition to the serum levels of interleukin (IL)-4 and transforming growth factor beta 1 (TGF-β1) were assayed. Moreover, the expression of nuclear factor kappa B (NF-κB) synaptophysin was immunoassayed in the hippocampal tissues.

KEY FINDINGS

Ethosuximide and sodium butyrate restored the behavioral tests to the normal values except for the antidepressant effect which was evident only with ethosuximide. Both drugs elevated the levels of the anti-inflammatory cytokines IL-4 and TGF-β1, reduced the hippocampal NF-κB, and increased synaptophysin expression with superiority of sodium butyrate. Ethosuximide reduced only spinal cord and brain glutamate while improved brain dopamine while sodium butyrate elevated spinal cord dopamine and serotonin with no effect on glutamate. Also, sodium butyrate elevated brain serotonin and reduced glutamate with no effect on brain dopamine.

SIGNIFICANCE

Each of sodium butyrate and ethosuximide would serve as a promising therapeutic modality for management of fibromyalgia and its comorbid conditions.

Fixed dose combination of low dose pregabalin and duloxetine, or pregabalin monotherapy for neuropathic pain: A double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study

Background: Treatment of neuropathic pain is challenging. Pregabalin and duloxetine are used as first-line therapy. Various international guidelines recommend a combination of first-line agents for the management of neuropathic pain. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a fixed-dose combination (FDC) of low-dose pregabalin and duloxetine compared to pregabalin monotherapy at week 7 in patients with moderate to severe neuropathic pain. Methods: This was a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy parallel-group non-inferiority study conducted at 17 sites across India. Three hundred and twenty-eight adult patients with moderate to severe neuropathic pain were randomized in a ratio of 1:1 to receive a FDC of pregabalin and duloxetine or pregabalin monotherapy for 7 weeks followed by a one-week follow-up. The pregabalin-duloxetine combination was initiated at 50 plus 20 mg per day and gradually titrated to a maximum of 75mg plus 30mg twice daily. Pregabalin was initiated at 75mg/day and gradually titrated to a maximum of 150mg twice daily. The main efficacy outcome was a mean change in pain intensity at the end of 7 weeks. Results: Two hundred and ninety-eight patients completed the study, 148 in the pregabalin-duloxetine group and 150 in the pregabalin group. The mean change in daily pain at 7 weeks was as follows: -4.49 with FDC and -4.66 with pregabalin (p<0.0001). The non-inferiority of a low-dose FDC compared to pregabalin monotherapy was demonstrated at the end of the study. The incidence of dizziness and somnolence was comparable between both treatments. A higher frequency of peripheral oedema was observed with pregabalin monotherapy than in the FDC group (p>0.05). Conclusions: A FDC of low doses of pregabalin and duloxetine and high dose of pregabalin monotherapy achieved similar analgesia with dizziness, and somnolence as the most frequent adverse event. Trial registration: CTRI/2020/09/027555.

Optimal pharmacotherapy pathway in adults with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain: the OPTION-DM RCT

BACKGROUND

The mainstay of treatment for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain is pharmacotherapy, but the current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline is not based on robust evidence, as the treatments and their combinations have not been directly compared.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the most clinically beneficial, cost-effective and tolerated treatment pathway for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain.

DESIGN

A randomised crossover trial with health economic analysis.

SETTING

Twenty-one secondary care centres in the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain with a 7-day average self-rated pain score of ≥ 4 points (Numeric Rating Scale 0-10).

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomised to three commonly used treatment pathways: (1) amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin, (2) duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin and (3) pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline. Participants and research teams were blinded to treatment allocation, using over-encapsulated capsules and matching placebos. Site pharmacists were unblinded.

OUTCOMES

The primary outcome was the difference in 7-day average 24-hour Numeric Rating Scale score between pathways, measured during the final week of each pathway. Secondary end points included 7-day average daily Numeric Rating Scale pain score at week 6 between monotherapies, quality of life (Short Form questionnaire-36 items), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale score, the proportion of patients achieving 30% and 50% pain reduction, Brief Pain Inventory - Modified Short Form items scores, Insomnia Severity Index score, Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory score, tolerability (scale 0-10), Patient Global Impression of Change score at week 16 and patients' preferred treatment pathway at week 50. Adverse events and serious adverse events were recorded. A within-trial cost-utility analysis was carried out to compare treatment pathways using incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-years from an NHS and social care perspective.

RESULTS

A total of 140 participants were randomised from 13 UK centres, 130 of whom were included in the analyses. Pain score at week 16 was similar between the arms, with a mean difference of -0.1 points (98.3% confidence interval -0.5 to 0.3 points) for duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin compared with amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin, a mean difference of -0.1 points (98.3% confidence interval -0.5 to 0.3 points) for pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline compared with amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin and a mean difference of 0.0 points (98.3% confidence interval -0.4 to 0.4 points) for pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline compared with duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin. Results for tolerability, discontinuation and quality of life were similar. The adverse events were predictable for each drug. Combination therapy (weeks 6-16) was associated with a further reduction in Numeric Rating Scale pain score (mean 1.0 points, 98.3% confidence interval 0.6 to 1.3 points) compared with those who remained on monotherapy (mean 0.2 points, 98.3% confidence interval -0.1 to 0.5 points). The pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline pathway had the fewest monotherapy discontinuations due to treatment-emergent adverse events and was most commonly preferred (most commonly preferred by participants: amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin, 24%; duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin, 33%; pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline, 43%; p = 0.26). No single pathway was superior in cost-effectiveness. The incremental gains in quality-adjusted life-years were small for each pathway comparison [amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin -0.002 (95% confidence interval -0.011 to 0.007) quality-adjusted life-years, amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline -0.006 (95% confidence interval -0.002 to 0.014) quality-adjusted life-years and duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline 0.007 (95% confidence interval 0.0002 to 0.015) quality-adjusted life-years] and incremental costs over 16 weeks were similar [amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin -£113 (95% confidence interval -£381 to £90), amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline £155 (95% confidence interval -£37 to £625) and duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline £141 (95% confidence interval -£13 to £398)].

LIMITATIONS

Although there was no placebo arm, there is strong evidence for the use of each study medication from randomised placebo-controlled trials. The addition of a placebo arm would have increased the duration of this already long and demanding trial and it was not felt to be ethically justifiable.

FUTURE WORK

Future research should explore (1) variations in diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain management at the practice level, (2) how OPTION-DM (Optimal Pathway for TreatIng neurOpathic paiN in Diabetes Mellitus) trial findings can be best implemented, (3) why some patients respond to a particular drug and others do not and (4) what options there are for further treatments for those patients on combination treatment with inadequate pain relief.

CONCLUSIONS

The three treatment pathways appear to give comparable patient outcomes at similar costs, suggesting that the optimal treatment may depend on patients' preference in terms of side effects.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial is registered as ISRCTN17545443 and EudraCT 2016-003146-89.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme, and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 39. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Pregabalin administration in patients with fibromyalgia: a Bayesian network meta-analysis

Several studies investigated the effectiveness and the safety of different doses of pregabalin in fibromyalgia. However, the optimal protocol remains controversial. A Bayesian network meta-analysis comparing 300, 450, and 600 mg/daily of pregabalin for fibromyalgia was conducted. The literature search was conducted in January 2022. All the double-blind randomised clinical trials comparing two or more dose protocols of pregabalin for fibromyalgia were accessed. Studies enrolling less than 50 patients were not eligible, nor were those with a length of follow-up shorter than eight weeks. The outcomes of interests were: Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ), sleep quality, and adverse events. The network meta-analyses were performed using the routine for Bayesian hierarchical random-effects model analysis, with log odd ratio (LOR) and standardized mean difference (SMD) effect measure. Data from 4693 patients (mean age 48.5 years) were retrieved. 93.1% (4370 of 4693 patients) were women. The median follow-up was 14.8 weeks. Pregabalin 450 mg/daily resulted in greater reduction in Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (SMD - 1.83). Pregabalin 600 demonstrated the greatest sleep quality (SMD 0.15). Pregabalin 300 mg/daily evidenced the lowest rate of adverse events (LOR 0.12). The dose of pregabalin must be customised according to patients' characteristics and main symptoms.

Neuroinflammation Involved in Diabetes-Related Pain and Itch

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a global epidemic with increasing incidence, which results in diverse complications, seriously affects the patient quality of life, and brings huge economic burdens to society. Diabetic neuropathy is the most common chronic complication of DM, resulting in neuropathic pain and chronic itch. The precise mechanisms of diabetic neuropathy have not been fully clarified, hindering the exploration of novel therapies for diabetic neuropathy and its terrible symptoms such as diabetic pain and itch. Accumulating evidence suggests that neuroinflammation plays a critical role in the pathophysiologic process of neuropathic pain and chronic itch. Indeed, researchers have currently made significant progress in knowing the role of glial cells and the pro-inflammatory mediators produced from glial cells in the modulation of chronic pain and itch signal processing. Here, we provide an overview of the current understanding of neuroinflammation in contributing to the sensitization of the peripheral nervous system (PNS) and central nervous system (CNS). In addition, we also summarize the inflammation mechanisms that contribute to the pathogenesis of diabetic itch, including activation of glial cells, oxidative stress, and pro-inflammatory factors. Targeting excessive neuroinflammation may provide potential and effective therapies for the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain and itch in DM.

A Systematic Review on Cannabinoids for Neuropathic Pain Administered by Routes Other than Oral or Inhalation

The use of cannabis and cannabinoid products for the treatment of neuropathic pain is a growing area of research. This type of pain has a high prevalence, limited response to available therapies and high social and economic costs. Systemic cannabinoid-based therapies have shown some unwanted side effects. Alternative routes of administration in the treatment of neuropathic pain may provide better acceptance for the treatment of multiple pathologies associated with neuropathic pain. To examine the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of cannabinoids (individualized formulations, phytocannabinoids, and synthetics) administered by routes other than oral or inhalation compared to placebo and/or conventional medications in the management of neuropathic pain. This systematic review of the literature reveals a lack of clinical research investigating cannabis by routes other than oral and inhalation as a potential treatment for neuropathic pain and highlights the need for further investigation with well-designed clinical trials. There is a significant lack of evidence indicating that cannabinoids administered by routes other than oral or inhaled may be an effective alternative, with better tolerance and safety in the treatment of neuropathic pain. Higher quality, long-term, randomized controlled trials are needed to examine whether cannabinoids administered by routes other than inhalation and oral routes may have a role in the treatment of neuropathic pain.

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.

Frequency Rhythmic Electrical Modulation System (FREMS) to alleviate painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy: A pilot, randomised controlled trial (The FREMSTOP study)

BACKGROUND

Frequency Rhythmic Electrical Modulated System (FREMS) is a non-invasive treatment for chronic pain conditions, but its place in the treatment algorithm for painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (PDPN) is unknown.

METHODS

A pilot, open-label, randomised controlled trial in individuals with PDPN inadequately controlled on at least dual neuropathic pain treatments recruited from primary and secondary care. Participants were randomised 1:1 to FREMS + usual care (n = 13) versus usual care (n = 12). Primary outcome was change from baseline in perceived pain (assessed by visual analogue scale) at 12 weeks between treatment groups.

RESULTS

Of 25 participants, 14 (56%) were men, and 21 (84%) were White Europeans. Median (IQR) age and duration of diabetes were 64 (56, 68) and 14 (10, 20) years, respectively. At 12 weeks, FREMS showed improvements in perceived pain compared with baseline, although the change was not statistically significant from control group (-4.0[-5.0,0.4] vs. 0[-0.3,0.7], p = 0.087). There were significant improvements in pain with FREMS, assessed by McGill Pain questionnaire (p = 0.042) and Douleur neuropathique-4 questionnaire (p = 0.042). More participants on FREMS had greater than 30 percent reductions in perceived pain compared with controls [7/13(54%) vs 0/12(0%), p = 0.042] and significant improvements in Patient Global Impression of Change (p = 0.005). FREMS intervention had moderate benefits in quality of life, sleep, depression and pain medication use, but these were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

FREMS might be used to treat individuals with PDPN inadequately controlled on two classes of neuropathic pain medications and is associated with improvements in pain severity and perceived impact of treatment. A larger, appropriately designed trial assessing its impact in this population is needed.

Comparing pregabalin and gabapentin for persistent neuropathic pain: A protocol for a pilot N-of-1 trial series

Background

Evidence-based management of neuropathic pain is commonly ineffective due to the large variability in response between cases. Patients often have to trial several drugs before finding one that provides adequate relief, leading to increased costs and worsened outcomes. There is thus a need for tools to guide and streamline prescribing decisions in neuropathic pain. N-of-1 trials provide a potentially precise and economical method of selecting between multiple interventions in an individual patient, and merit a feasibility assessment for use in clinical pain practice.

Aims

We aim to evaluate the feasibility of N-of-1 trials to compare pregabalin and gabapentin for individual presentations of neuropathic pain.

Methods

This is a double-blinded multiple crossover study, with recruitment from existing patients at an outpatient pain clinic in New South Wales, Australia. Participants will undergo three 4-week treatment pairs, comprising 2 weeks of pregabalin (150–600 mg/day) and 2 weeks of gabapentin (900–3600 mg/day), in an individually randomised order. Intervention doses will be derived from participants’ existing treatment dose. Medications will be taken orally three times daily. The primary outcome will be pain intensity; measures will be self-reported daily in patient diaries. After completing all three cycles, participants and their physicians will be presented with the results of the trial to form an informed decision about their treatment.

Discussion

As a stable yet debilitating condition, neuropathic pain is especially amenable to an N-of-1 study design. A successful trial would represent a significant quality of life improvement for the patient, possibly extending over the course of their lifetime.

Preclinical Evaluation of Polymeric Nanocomposite Containing Pregabalin for Sustained Release as Potential Therapy for Neuropathic Pain

This study offers a novel oral pregabalin (PG)-loaded drug delivery system based on chitosan and hypromellose phthalate-based polymeric nanocomposite in order to treat neuropathic pain (PG-PN). PG-PN has a particle size of 432 ± 20 nm, a polydispersity index of 0.238 ± 0.001, a zeta potential of +19.0 ± 0.9 mV, a pH of 5.7 ± 0.06, and a spherical shape. Thermal and infrared spectroscopy confirmed nanocomposite generation. PG-PN pharmacokinetics was studied after a single oral dose in male Wistar rats. PG-PN showed greater distribution and clearance than free PG. The antinociceptive effect of PG-PN in neuropathic pain rats was tested by using the chronic constriction injury model. The parameter investigated was the mechanical nociceptive threshold measured by the von Frey filaments test; PG-PN showed a longer antinociceptive effect than free PG. The rota-rod and barbiturate sleep induction procedures were used to determine adverse effects; the criteria included motor deficit and sedative effects. PG-PN and free PG had plenty of motors. PG-PN exhibited a less sedative effect than free PG. By prolonging the antinociceptive effect and decreasing the unfavorable effects, polymeric nanocomposites with pregabalin have shown promise in treating neuropathic pain.

Fibromyalgia in Older Individuals

Fibromyalgia (FM) is a condition of chronic widespread pain (CWP) that can occur throughout the life cycle and is likely underrecognized in older patients. FM is associated with considerable suffering and reduction in quality of life and may occur as a unique condition, but in older patients is most likely to be associated with another medical illness. Understood mechanistically to be a sensitization of the nervous system, recently identified as nociplastic pain, FM is accepted as a valid medical illness that requires a positive diagnosis and directed treatments. The cornerstone of treatments for FM are nonpharmacologic interventions, with the understanding that medications provide only modest benefit for most patients, and with particular concern about adverse effects in older patients. If FM is not recognized, treatments may be misdirected to the other medical condition, with failure to address FM symptoms, leading to overall poor outcome. In contrast, new complaints in older patients should not immediately be attributed to FM, and physicians should be vigilant to ensure that onset of a new illness is not ignored. As FM is most often a lifelong condition, patients should be encouraged to identify their own personal strategies that can attenuate symptoms, especially when symptoms flare. Continued life participation should be the outcome goal.

The Role of Organic Small Molecules in Pain Management

In this review, a timeline starting at the willow bark and ending in the latest discoveries of analgesic and anti-inflammatory drugs will be discussed. Furthermore, the chemical features of the different small organic molecules that have been used in pain management will be studied. Then, the mechanism of different types of pain will be assessed, including neuropathic pain, inflammatory pain, and the relationship found between oxidative stress and pain. This will include obtaining insights into the cyclooxygenase action mechanism of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) such as ibuprofen and etoricoxib and the structural difference between the two cyclooxygenase isoforms leading to a selective inhibition, the action mechanism of pregabalin and its use in chronic neuropathic pain, new theories and studies on the analgesic action mechanism of paracetamol and how changes in its structure can lead to better characteristics of this drug, and cannabinoid action mechanism in managing pain through a cannabinoid receptor mechanism. Finally, an overview of the different approaches science is taking to develop more efficient molecules for pain treatment will be presented.

Gamma-Decanolactone Alters the Expression of GluN2B, A1 Receptors, and COX-2 and Reduces DNA Damage in the PTZ-Induced Seizure Model After Subchronic Treatment in Mice

Gamma-decanolactone (GD) has been shown to reduce epileptic behavior in different models, inflammatory decreasing, oxidative stress, and genotoxic parameters. This study assessed the GD effect on the pentylenetetrazole (PTZ) model after acute and subchronic treatment. We evaluated the expression of the inflammatory marker cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2), GluN2B, a subunit of the NMDA glutamate receptor, adenosine A1 receptor, and GD genotoxicity and mutagenicity. Male and female mice were treated with GD (300 mg/kg) for 12 days. On the tenth day, they were tested in the Hot Plate test. On the thirteenth day, all animals received PTZ (90 mg/kg), and epileptic behavior PTZ-induced was observed for 30 min. Pregabalin (PGB) (30 mg/kg) was used as a positive control. Samples of the hippocampus and blood were collected for Western Blotting analyses and Comet Assay and bone marrow to the Micronucleus test. Only the acute treatment of GD reduced the seizure occurrence and increased the latency to the first stage 3 seizures. Males treated with GD for 12 days demonstrated a significant increase in the expression of the GluN2B receptor and a decrease in the COX-2 expression. Acute and subchronic treatment with GD and PGB reduced the DNA damage produced by PTZ in males and females. There is no increase in the micronucleus frequency in bone marrow after subchronic treatment. This study suggests that GD, after 12 days, could not reduce PTZ-induced seizures, but it has been shown to protect against DNA damage, reduce COX-2 and increase GluN2B expression.

Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis is the most frequent cause of low back pain and/or sciatica in the elderly patient. Epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical manifestations and testing are reviewed in a wide current bibliographic investigation. The importance of the relationship between clinical presentation and imaging study, especially magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), is emphasized. Prior to treatment indication, it is necessary to identify the precise location of pain, as well as the differential diagnosis between neurological and vascular lameness. Conservative treatment combining medications with various physical therapy techniques solves the problem in most cases, while therapeutic testing with injections, whether epidural, foraminal or facetary, is performed when pain does not subside with conservative treatment and before surgery is indicated. Injections usually perform better results in relieving sciatica symptoms and less in neurological lameness. Equine tail and/or root decompression associated or not with fusion is the gold standard when surgical intervention is required. Fusion after decompression is necessary in cases with segmental instability, such as degenerative spondylolisthesis. When canal stenosis occurs at multiple levels and is accompanied by axis deviation, whether coronal and/or sagittal, correction of axis deviations should be performed in addition to decompression and fusion, especially of the sagittal axis, in which a lumbar lordosis correction is required with techniques that correct the rectified lordosis to values close to the pelvic incidence.

Comparison of the use of opioids only and pregabalin add-on for the treatment of neuropathic pain in cervical myelopathy patients: a pilot trial

Among patients with cervical myelopathy who were diagnosed with neuropathic pain (NP) by the LANSS test, the study participants were randomly assigned to one of the two study groups. The participants in one study group received opioids only, while those in the other group received opioids and pregabalin. Thirty-nine patients were analyzed in the study (20 patients in the opioid-only group and 19 in the pregabalin add-on group). The LANSS, neck pain, and arm pain scores in the pregabalin add-on group improved significantly compared with those in the opioid-only group after the first 4 weeks (p = 0.005, 0.001 and 0.035, respectively), but there was no significant difference between the two groups during the next 4 weeks (p = 0.615, 0.377 and 0.716, respectively). There was no significant difference in the neck disability index and EuroQol-5Dimension scores after four weeks and eight weeks of follow-up. Adverse events were reported by four patients (20.0%) in the opioid-only group and five patients (26.3%) in the pregabalin add-on group (p = 0.716). However, over time, the occurrence of side effects and dropouts increased in the pregabalin add-on group. This exploratory pilot study suggests that pregabalin add-on treatment is more efficient than the use of opioids alone at the beginning of NP treatment in cervical myelopathy patients. However, prescribing pregabalin add-on treatment for more than four weeks should be done cautiously.

Pregabalin-associated movement disorders: A literature review

Central nervous system adverse effects are commonly reported with pregabalin (PGB). On the other hand, movement disorders (MDs) associated with this drug were rarely described. However, their occurrence could significantly affect the quality of life of PGB users. This literature review aims to evaluate the clinical epidemiological profile, pathological mechanisms, and management of PGB-associated MDs. Relevant reports in six databases were identified and assessed by two reviewers without language restriction. A total of 46 reports containing 305 cases from 17 countries were assessed. The MDs encountered were as follows: 184 individuals with ataxia, 61 with tremors, 39 with myoclonus, 8 with parkinsonism, 1 with restless legs syndrome, 1 with dystonia, 1 with dyskinesia, and 1 with akathisia. The mean age was 62 years (range: 23-94). The male sex was slightly predominant with 54.34%. The mean PGB dose when the MD occurred was 238 mg, and neuropathic pain was the most common indication of PGB. The time from PGB start to MD was < 1 month at 75%. The time from PGB withdrawal to recovery was < 1 week at 77%. All the individuals where the follow-up was reported had a full recovery. The most common management was PGB withdrawal. In the literature, the majority of the cases did not report information about timeline events, neurological examination details, or electrodiagnostic studies. The best management for all MDs is probably PGB withdrawal. If the patient is on dialysis program, perhaps an increased number of sessions will decrease recovery time. Furthermore, the addition of a benzodiazepine could accelerate recovery.

Current Pharmacological Treatment of Painful Diabetic Neuropathy: A Narrative Review

Background and Objectives: Distal symmetrical polyneuropathy (DSPN) is one of the most common chronic complications of diabetes mellitus. Although it is usually characterized by progressive sensory loss, some patients may develop chronic pain. Assessment of DSPN is not difficult, but the biggest challenge is making the correct diagnosis and choosing the right treatment. The treatment of DSPN has three primary objectives: glycemic control, pathogenic mechanisms, and pain management. The aim of this brief narrative review is to summarize the current pharmacological treatment of painful DSPN. It also summarizes knowledge on pathogenesis-oriented therapy, which is generally overlooked in many publications and guidelines. Materials and Methods: The present review reports the relevant information available on DSPN treatment. The search was performed on PubMed, Cochrane, Semantic Scholar, Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases, including among others the terms "distal symmetrical polyneuropathy", "neuropathic pain treatment", "diabetic neuropathy", "diabetes complications", "glycaemic control", "antidepressants", "opioids", and "anticonvulsants". Results: First-line drugs include antidepressants (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and tricyclic antidepressants) and pregabalin. Second- and third-line drugs include opioids and topical analgesics. While potentially effective in the treatment of neuropathic pain, opioids are not considered to be the first choice because of adverse reactions and addiction concerns. Conclusions: DSPN is a common complication in patients with diabetes, and severely affects the quality of life of these patients. Although multiple therapies are available, the guidelines and recommendations regarding the treatment of diabetic neuropathy have failed to offer a unitary consensus, which often hinders the therapeutic options in clinical practice.

Is pain part of a systemic syndrome in head and neck cancer?

Head and neck cancers (HNC) represent 5% of all malignancies worldwide with about 180,000 cancer deaths per year. Patients with HNC are characterized by a systemic inflammatory state, generally associated with worse outcomes. Treatment-related toxicity is common among HNC patients and causes systemic consequences such as fatigue or cognitive dysfunction. The therapeutic treatments of HNC involve the release in circulation of inflammatory systemic mediators, whose effects trigger a vicious circle that may lead to functional and behavioral alterations. The areas of the head and neck are highly sensitive to pain. Literature data confirm that in HNC patients, pain is one of the most distressing symptoms across all the phases of treatment. Pain is associated with worse general conditions, depression, fatigue, impaired cognitive functions, and lower survival rate. The treatment of advanced HNC cases is multimodal and requires a multidisciplinary psycho-socio-pharmacological approach mediated by a team of experts. The pharmacological approach in management of HNC patients with pain is fundamental and involves the use of opioids, NSAIDs, steroids, or other drugs. Opioids in pain management therapy in patients with HNC could allow the pain level to be adequately monitored, thus improving quality of life. The integration of opioid and non-opioid therapy as well as non-pharmacological interventions is essential for the rehabilitation of physical, social, and psychological functions and to achieve pain control in patients with HNC. Opioid treatment is the mainstay for pain control, being used both for background and breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP) episodes. Fentanyl, easily absorbed and generally well tolerated, appears to be a possible choice due to its versatility. Non-pharmacological interventions, such as tailored yoga, physical exercise, and acupuncture, may have a role in pain management in patients with HNC.

Towards an Effective and Safe Treatment of Inflammatory Pain: A Delphi-Guided Expert Consensus

OBJECTIVE

The clinical management of inflammatory pain requires an optimal balance between effective analgesia and associated safety risks. To date, mechanisms associated with inflammatory pain are not completely understood because of their complex nature and the involvement of both peripheral and central mechanisms. This Expert Consensus document is intended to update clinicians about evolving areas of clinical practice and/or available treatment options for the management of patients with inflammatory pain.

METHOD

An international group of experts in pain management covering the pharmacology, neurology and rheumatology fields carried out an independent qualitative systematic literature search using MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.

RESULTS

Existing guidelines for pain management provide recommendations that do not satisfactorily address the complex nature of pain. To achieve optimal outcomes, drug choices should be individualized to guarantee the best match between the characteristics of the patient and the properties of the medication. NSAIDs represent an important prescribing choice in the management of inflammatory pain, and the recent results on paracetamol question its appropriate use in clinical practice, raising the need for re-evaluation of the recommendations in the clinical practice guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing clinicians' knowledge of the available pharmacologic options to treat different pain mechanisms offers the potential for safe, individualized treatment decisions. We hope that it will help implement the needed changes in the management of inflammatory pain by providing the best strategies and new insights to achieve the ultimate goal of managing the disease and obtaining optimal benefits for patients.

FUNDING

Dompé Farmaceutici SPA and Paolo Procacci Foundation.

[Generating knowledge from complex data sets in human experimental pain research]

Pain has a complex pathophysiology that is expressed in multifaceted and heterogeneous clinical phenotypes. This makes research on pain and its treatment a potentially data-rich field as large amounts of complex data are generated. Typical sources of such data are investigations with functional magnetic resonance imaging, complex quantitative sensory testing, next-generation DNA sequencing and functional genomic research approaches, such as those aimed at analgesic drug discovery or repositioning of drugs known from other indications as new analgesics. Extracting information from these big data requires complex data scientific-based methods belonging more to computer science than to statistics. A particular interest is currently focused on machine learning, the methods of which are used for the detection of interesting and biologically meaningful structures in high-dimensional data. Subsequently, classifiers can be created that predict clinical phenotypes from, e.g. clinical or genetic features acquired from subjects. In addition, knowledge discovery in big data accessible in electronic knowledge bases, can be used to generate hypotheses and to exploit the accumulated knowledge about pain for the discovery of new analgesic drugs. This enables so-called data-information-knowledge-wisdom (DIKW) approaches to be followed in pain research. This article highlights current examples from pain research to provide an overview about contemporary data scientific methods used in this field of research.

Diabetic neuropathy

The global epidemic of prediabetes and diabetes has led to a corresponding epidemic of complications of these disorders. The most prevalent complication is neuropathy, of which distal symmetric polyneuropathy (for the purpose of this Primer, referred to as diabetic neuropathy) is very common. Diabetic neuropathy is a loss of sensory function beginning distally in the lower extremities that is also characterized by pain and substantial morbidity. Over time, at least 50% of individuals with diabetes develop diabetic neuropathy. Glucose control effectively halts the progression of diabetic neuropathy in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus, but the effects are more modest in those with type 2 diabetes mellitus. These findings have led to new efforts to understand the aetiology of diabetic neuropathy, along with new 2017 recommendations on approaches to prevent and treat this disorder that are specific for each type of diabetes. In parallel, new guidelines for the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy using distinct classes of drugs, with an emphasis on avoiding opioid use, have been issued. Although our understanding of the complexities of diabetic neuropathy has substantially evolved over the past decade, the distinct mechanisms underlying neuropathy in type 1 and type 2 diabetes remains unknown. Future discoveries on disease pathogenesis will be crucial to successfully address all aspects of diabetic neuropathy, from prevention to treatment.

[Diabetic neuropathy and diabetic foot syndrome (Update 2019)]

These are the guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of diabetic neuropathy and diabetic foot. Diabetic neuropathy comprises a number of mono- and polyneuropathies, plexopathies, radiculopathies and autonomic neuropathy.The position statement summarizes characteristic clinical symptoms and techniques for diagnostic assessment of diabetic neuropathy, including the complex situation of the diabetic foot syndrome. Recommendations for the therapeutic management of diabetic neuropathy, especially for the control of pain in sensorimotor neuropathy, are provided. The needs to prevent and treat diabetic foot syndrome are summarized.

Herbal medicinal products or preparations for neuropathic pain

BACKGROUND

Neuropathic pain is a consequence of damage to the central nervous system (CNS), for example, cerebrovascular accident, multiple sclerosis or spinal cord injury, or peripheral nervous system (PNS), for example, painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN), postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), or surgery. Evidence suggests that people suffering from neuropathic pain are likely to seek alternative modes of pain relief such as herbal medicinal products due to adverse events brought about by current pharmacological agents used to treat neuropathic pain. This review includes studies in which participants were treated with herbal medicinal products (topically or ingested) who had experienced neuropathic pain for at least three months.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and effectiveness of herbal medicinal products or preparations for neuropathic pain, and the adverse events associated with their use.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and AMED to March 2018. We identified additional studies from the reference lists of the retrieved papers. We also searched trials registries for ongoing trials and we contacted experts in the field for relevant data in terms of published, unpublished or ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (including cross-over designs) of double-blind design, assessing efficacy of herbal treatments for neuropathic pain compared to placebo, no intervention or any other active comparator. Participants were 18 years and above and had been suffering from one or more neuropathic pain conditions, for three months or more.We applied no restrictions to language or gender. We excluded studies monitoring effects of isolated, single chemicals derived from the plant or synthetic chemicals based on constituents of the plant, if they were not administered at a concentration naturally present within the plant.We excluded studies monitoring the effects of traditional Asian medicine and Cannabinoids as well as studies looking at headache or migraine as these treatments and conditions are addressed in distinct reviews.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently considered trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB). The primary outcomes were participant-reported pain relief of 30%, or 50%, or greater, and participant-reported global impression of clinical change (PGIC). We also collected information on adverse events. We assessed evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two studies (128 participants). Both diabetic neuropathy and non-diabetic neuropathic pain conditions were investigated across these two studies.Two herbal medicinal products, namely nutmeg (applied topically as a 125 mL spray for four weeks, containing mace oil 2%, nutmeg oil 14%, methyl salicylate 6%, menthol 6%, coconut oil and alcohol) and St John's wort (taken in capsule form containing 900 μg total hypericin each, taken three times daily, giving a total concentration of 2700 mg for five weeks). Both studies allowed the use of concurrent analgesia.Both reported at least one pain-related outcome but we could not carry out meta-analysis of effectiveness due to heterogeneity between the primary outcomes and could not draw any conclusions of effect. Other outcomes included PGIC, adverse events and withdrawals. There were no data for participant-reported pain relief of 50% or greater or PGIC (moderate and substantial) outcomes.When looking at participant-reported pain relief of 30% or greater over baseline, we observed no evidence of a difference (P = 0.64) in response to nutmeg versus placebo (RR 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 1.85; 48.6% vs 43.2%). We downgraded the evidence for this outcome to very low quality.We observed no change between placebo and nutmeg treatment when looking at secondary pain outcomes. Visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for pain reduction (0 to 100, where 0 = no pain reduction), were 44 for both nutmeg and placebo with standard deviations of 21.5 and 26.5 respectively. There was no evidence of a difference (P = 0.09 to 0.33) in total pain score in response to St John's wort compared to placebo, as there was only a reduction of 1 point when looking at median differences in change from baseline on a 0 to 10-point numeric rating scale.There was a total of five withdrawals out of 91 participants (5%) in the treatment groups compared to six of 91 (6.5%) in the placebo groups, whilst adverse events were the same for both the treatment and placebo groups.We judged neither study as having a low risk of bias. We attributed risk of bias to small study size and incomplete outcome data leading to attrition bias. We downgraded the evidence to very low quality for all primary and secondary outcomes reported in this review. We downgraded the quality of the evidence twice due to very serious limitations in study quality (due to small study size and attrition bias) and downgraded a further level due to indirectness as the included studies only measured outcomes at short-term time points. The results from this review should be treated with scepticism as we have very little confidence in the effect estimate.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was insufficient evidence to determine whether nutmeg or St John's wort has any meaningful efficacy in neuropathic pain conditions.The quality of the current evidence raises serious uncertainties about the estimates of effect observed, therefore, we have very little confidence in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.

Prescribing practice of pregabalin/gabapentin in pain therapy: an evaluation of German claim data

OBJECTIVES

To analyse the prevalence and incidence of pregabalin and gabapentin (P/G) prescriptions, typical therapeutic uses of P/G with special attention to pain-related diagnoses and discontinuation rates.

DESIGN

Secondary data analysis.

SETTING

Primary and secondary care in Germany.

PARTICIPANTS

Four million patients in the years 2009-2015 (anonymous health insurance data).

INTERVENTION

None.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

P/G prescribing rates, P/G prescribing rates associated with pain therapy, analysis of pain-related diagnoses leading to new P/G prescriptions and the discontinuation rate of P/G.

RESULTS

In 2015, 1.6% of insured persons received P/G prescriptions. Among the patients with pain first treated with P/G, as few as 25.7% were diagnosed with a typical neuropathic pain disorder. The remaining 74.3% had either not received a diagnosis of neuropathic pain or showed a neuropathic component that was pathophysiologically conceivable but did not support the prescription of P/G. High discontinuation rates were observed (85%). Among the patients who had discontinued the drug, 61.1% did not receive follow-up prescriptions within 2 years.

CONCLUSION

The results show that P/G is widely prescribed in cases of chronic pain irrespective of neuropathic pain diagnoses. The high discontinuation rate indicates a lack of therapeutic benefits and/or the occurrence of adverse effects.

Gabapentin and Pregabalin and Risk of Atrial Fibrillation in the Elderly: A Population-Based Cohort Study in an Electronic Prescription Database

Introduction

Gabapentin and pregabalin are widely prescribed to elderly people, but data on their pharmacokinetics, safety, and efficacy in this population are scarce. Neurological adverse effects are common. Atrial fibrillation (AF) associated with their use has been described in several case reports and case series, but the incidence is unknown.

Objective

The aim of this study was to assess the association between exposure to gabapentin or pregabalin and AF in the elderly.

Methods

Patients ≥ 65 years of age starting treatment with either gabapentin or pregabalin between January 1 and March 31, 2015, free of cardiovascular disease, and who did not receive the alternate study medications were studied. They were compared with patients who initiated treatment with an analgesic opiate or with alprazolam or diazepam. The two primary outcome variables were a first claim of an oral anticoagulant plus an antiarrhythmic drug (OAC + AA), or of an oral anticoagulant or an antiplatelet agent plus an antiarrhythmic drug (OAC/APA + AA), in the 3 months after treatment initiation.

Results

Compared with opiate analgesics, both gabapentin and pregabalin were associated with an increased risk of initiating OAC/APA + AA. The incidence was 6 of 668 (9.0 per 1000 patients) with gabapentin, versus 12 of 3889 (3.1 per 1000) with opiates, relative risk (RR) 2.91 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10–7.73), and for pregabalin it was 6 of 698 (8.6 per 1000) RR 2.79 (95% CI 1.05–7.40). The comparison with alprazolam/diazepam gave similar results. The risks did not vary by age, sex, or co-treatment with NSAIDs, and they increased with dose.

Conclusion

In elderly patients free of cardiovascular disease, an association between new exposure to gabapentin or pregabalin and initiating treatment for AF was found. These results should be confirmed in other studies.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40264-018-0695-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Pregabalin in the Management of Painful Diabetic Neuropathy: A Narrative Review

Pregabalin is a first-line treatment in all major international guidelines on the management of painful diabetic neuropathy (pDPN). Treatment with pregabalin leads to a clinically meaningful improvement in pain scores, offers consistent relief of pain and has an acceptable tolerance level. Despite its efficacy in relieving neuropathic pain, more robust methods and comprehensive studies are required to evaluate its effects in relation to co-morbid anxiety and sleep interference in pDPN. The sustained benefits of modulating pain have prompted further exploration of other potential target sites and the development of alternative GABAergic agents such as mirogabalin. This review evaluates the role of pregabalin in the management of pDPN as well as its potential adverse effects, such as somnolence and dizziness, which can lead to withdrawal in ~ 30% of long-term use. Recent concern about misuse and an increase in deaths linked to its use has led to demands for reclassification of pregabalin as a class C controlled substance in the UK. We believe these demands need to be tempered in relation to the difficulties it would create for repeat prescriptions for the many millions of patients with pDPN for whom pregabalin provides benefit.Plain Language Summary: Plain language summary available for this article.

Analgesic potential of PF-06372865, an α2/α3/α5 subtype-selective GABAA partial agonist, in humans

BACKGROUND

This study investigated the analgesic effects of two doses (15 and 65 mg) of PF-06372865, a novel α2/α3/α5 gamma-aminobutyric acid A (GABA_A) subunit selective partial positive allosteric modulator (PAM), compared with placebo and pregabalin (300 mg) as a positive control.

METHODS

We performed a randomised placebo-controlled crossover study (NCT02238717) in 20 healthy subjects, using a battery of pain tasks (electrical, pressure, heat, cold and inflammatory pain, including a paradigm of conditioned pain modulation). Pharmacodynamic measurements were performed at baseline and up to 10 h after dose.

RESULTS

A dose of 15 mg PF-06372865 increased pain tolerance thresholds (PTTs) for pressure pain at a ratio of 1.11 (90% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02, 1.22) compared with placebo. A dose of 65 mg PF-06372865 led to an increase in PTT for the cold pressor at a ratio of 1.17 (90% CI: 1.03, 1.32), and pressure pain task: 1.11 (90% CI: 1.01, 1.21). Pregabalin showed an increase in PTT for pressure pain at a ratio of 1.15 (95% CI: 1.06, 1.26) and cold pressor task: 1.31 (90% CI: 1.16, 1.48).

CONCLUSION

We conclude that PF-06372865 has analgesic potential at doses that do not induce significant sedation or other intolerable adverse events limiting its clinical use. In addition, the present study established the potential role for this battery of pain tasks as a tool in the development of analgesics with a novel mechanism of action, for the treatment of various pain states including neuropathic pain and to establish proof-of-concept.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

NCT0223871.

Pregabalin for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

This review updates part of an earlier Cochrane Review titled "Pregabalin for acute and chronic pain in adults", and considers only neuropathic pain (pain from damage to nervous tissue). Antiepileptic drugs have long been used in pain management. Pregabalin is an antiepileptic drug used in management of chronic pain conditions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of pregabalin for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase for randomised controlled trials from January 2009 to April 2018, online clinical trials registries, and reference lists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind trials of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing pregabalin (any route of administration) with placebo or another active treatment for neuropathic pain, with participant-reported pain assessment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality and biases. Primary outcomes were: at least 30% pain intensity reduction over baseline; much or very much improved on the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) Scale (moderate benefit); at least 50% pain intensity reduction; or very much improved on PGIC (substantial benefit). We calculated risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial (NNTB) or harmful outcome (NNTH). We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 45 studies lasting 2 to 16 weeks, with 11,906 participants - 68% from 31 new studies. Oral pregabalin doses of 150 mg, 300 mg, and 600 mg daily were compared with placebo. Postherpetic neuralgia, painful diabetic neuropathy, and mixed neuropathic pain predominated (85% of participants). High risk of bias was due mainly to small study size (nine studies), but many studies had unclear risk of bias, mainly due to incomplete outcome data, size, and allocation concealment.Postherpetic neuralgia: More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 300 mg than with placebo (50% vs 25%; RR 2.1 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.6 to 2.6); NNTB 3.9 (3.0 to 5.6); 3 studies, 589 participants, moderate-quality evidence), and more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (32% vs 13%; RR 2.5 (95% CI 1.9 to 3.4); NNTB 5.3 (3.9 to 8.1); 4 studies, 713 participants, moderate-quality evidence). More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 600 mg than with placebo (62% vs 24%; RR 2.5 (95% CI 2.0 to 3.2); NNTB 2.7 (2.2 to 3.7); 3 studies, 537 participants, moderate-quality evidence), and more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (41% vs 15%; RR 2.7 (95% CI 2.0 to 3.5); NNTB 3.9 (3.1 to 5.5); 4 studies, 732 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Somnolence and dizziness were more common with pregabalin than with placebo (moderate-quality evidence): somnolence 300 mg 16% versus 5.5%, 600 mg 25% versus 5.8%; dizziness 300 mg 29% versus 8.1%, 600 mg 35% versus 8.8%.Painful diabetic neuropathy: More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 300 mg than with placebo (47% vs 42%; RR 1.1 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.2); NNTB 22 (12 to 200); 8 studies, 2320 participants, moderate-quality evidence), more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (31% vs 24%; RR 1.3 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.5); NNTB 22 (12 to 200); 11 studies, 2931 participants, moderate-quality evidence), and more had PGIC much or very much improved (51% vs 30%; RR 1.8 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.0); NNTB 4.9 (3.8 to 6.9); 5 studies, 1050 participants, moderate-quality evidence). More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 600 mg than with placebo (63% vs 52%; RR 1.2 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.4); NNTB 9.6 (5.5 to 41); 2 studies, 611 participants, low-quality evidence), and more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (41% vs 28%; RR 1.4 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.7); NNTB 7.8 (5.4 to 14); 5 studies, 1015 participants, low-quality evidence). Somnolence and dizziness were more common with pregabalin than with placebo (moderate-quality evidence): somnolence 300 mg 11% versus 3.1%, 600 mg 15% versus 4.5%; dizziness 300 mg 13% versus 3.8%, 600 mg 22% versus 4.4%.Mixed or unclassified post-traumatic neuropathic pain: More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 600 mg than with placebo (48% vs 36%; RR 1.2 (1.1 to 1.4); NNTB 8.2 (5.7 to 15); 4 studies, 1367 participants, low-quality evidence), and more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (34% vs 20%; RR 1.5 (1.2 to 1.9); NNTB 7.2 (5.4 to 11); 4 studies, 1367 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Somnolence (12% vs 3.9%) and dizziness (23% vs 6.2%) were more common with pregabalin.Central neuropathic pain: More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 600 mg than with placebo (44% vs 28%; RR 1.6 (1.3 to 2.0); NNTB 5.9 (4.1 to 11); 3 studies, 562 participants, low-quality evidence) and at least 50% pain intensity reduction (26% vs 15%; RR 1.7 (1.2 to 2.3); NNTB 9.8 (6.0 to 28); 3 studies, 562 participants, low-quality evidence). Somnolence (32% vs 11%) and dizziness (23% vs 8.6%) were more common with pregabalin.Other neuropathic pain conditions: Studies show no evidence of benefit for 600 mg pregabalin in HIV neuropathy (2 studies, 674 participants, moderate-quality evidence) and limited evidence of benefit in neuropathic back pain or sciatica, neuropathic cancer pain, or polyneuropathy.Serious adverse events, all conditions: Serious adverse events were no more common with placebo than with pregabalin 300 mg (3.1% vs 2.6%; RR 1.2 (95% CI 0.8 to 1.7); 17 studies, 4112 participants, high-quality evidence) or pregabalin 600 mg (3.4% vs 3.4%; RR 1.1 (95% CI 0.8 to 1.5); 16 studies, 3995 participants, high-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence shows efficacy of pregabalin in postherpetic neuralgia, painful diabetic neuralgia, and mixed or unclassified post-traumatic neuropathic pain, and absence of efficacy in HIV neuropathy; evidence of efficacy in central neuropathic pain is inadequate. Some people will derive substantial benefit with pregabalin; more will have moderate benefit, but many will have no benefit or will discontinue treatment. There were no substantial changes since the 2009 review.

Essential pharmacologic options for acute pain management in the emergency setting

Pain is the root cause for the overwhelming majority of emergency department (ED) visits worldwide. However, pain is often undertreated due to inappropriate analgesic dosing and ineffective utilization of available analgesics. It is essential for emergency providers to understand the analgesic armamentarium at their disposal and how it can be used safely and effectively to treat pain of every proportion within the emergency setting. A 'balanced analgesia' regimen may be used to treat pain while reducing the overall pharmacologic side effect profile of the combined analgesics. Channels-Enzymes-Receptors Targeted Analgesia (CERTA) is a multimodal analgesic strategy incorporating balanced analgesia by shifting from a system-based to a mechanistic-based approach to pain management that targets the physiologic pathways involved in pain signaling transmission. Targeting individual pain pathways allows for a variety of reduced-dose pharmacologic options - both opioid and non-opioid - to be used in a stepwise progression of analgesic strength as pain advances up the severity scale. By developing a familiarity with the various analgesic options at their disposal, emergency providers may formulate safe, effective, balanced analgesic combinations unique to each emergency pain presentation.

Pregabalin Attenuates Carrageenan-Induced Acute Inflammation in Rats by Inhibiting Proinflammatory Cytokine Levels

Objective

Pregabalin (PGB) is a compound used in the treatment of epilepsy, anxiety, and neuropathic pain. Experimental data also indicate that PGB can reduce inflammatory pain. We aimed to investigate the anti-inflammatory effects of PGB on carrageenan (CAR)-induced paw edema and its effects on tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) and interleukine-1β (IL-1β) acting as acute phase cytokines in inflammation, and anti-inflammatory cytokine IL-10, in rats.

Materials and Methods

Single doses of PGB 30, 50, and 100 mg/kg and indomethacin (INDO) 5 mg/kg in the treatment groups and saline in the control group were injected once intraperitoneally prior to administration of 100 μl of 1% CAR into the right hind paw of the rats. The paw thickness was measured using gauge calipers (Vernier calipers) before (0 hour) and every hour afterwards for 6 hours following the inflammation induction. The cytokine levels in the blood serum obtained intracardiacally were determined after 6 hours using the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay method. p<0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

There was no significant difference between the 0 and 6^th hour considering the paw thickness in all groups, except in the CAR group. CAR significantly increased the paw thickness at 6 hours compared to the 0 hour. All doses of PGB and INDO significantly reduced the paw thickness after 6 hours compared to the CAR group. The TNF-α and IL-1β levels in the PGB and INDO groups were comparable to the control group, whereas in the CAR group, these levels were increased. The IL-10 level was enhanced in the PGB 50 mg/kg and INDO groups.

Conclusion

It was observed that all doses of PGB exerted anti-inflammatory-like effects comparable to INDO, supported by their effects on the levels of cytokines.

Multicentre, double-blind, crossover trial to identify the Optimal Pathway for TreatIng neurOpathic paiN in Diabetes Mellitus (OPTION-DM): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background

The number of people with diabetes is growing rapidly. Diabetes can cause nerve damage leading to severe pain in the feet, legs and hands, which is known as diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP). In the UK, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends amitriptyline, duloxetine, pregabalin or gabapentin as initial treatment for DPNP. If this is not effective, adding one of the other drugs in combination with the first is recommended. NICE points out that these recommendations are not based on robust evidence. The OPTION-DM randomised controlled trial has been designed to address this evidence deficit, with the aims of determining the most clinically beneficial, cost-effective and tolerated treatment pathway for patients with DPNP.

Methods/design

A multicentre, double-blind, centre-stratified, multi-period crossover study with equal allocation to sequences (1:1:1:1:1:1) of treatment pathways. Three hundred and ninety-two participants will be recruited from secondary care DPNP centres in the UK. There are three treatment pathways: amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin, pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline and duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin. All participants will receive all three pathways and randomisation will determine the order in which they are received. The primary outcome is the difference between 7-day average 24-h pain scores on an 11-point NRS scale measured during the final follow-up week of the treatment pathway. Secondary outcomes for efficacy, cost-effectiveness, safety, patient-perceived tolerability and subgroup analysis will be measured at week 6 and week 16 of each pathway.

Discussion

The study includes direct comparisons of the mainstay treatment for DPNP. This novel study is designed to examine treatment pathways and capture clinically relevant outcomes which will make the results generalisable to current clinical practice. The study will also provide information on health economic outcomes and will include a subgroup study to provide information on whether patient phenotypes predict response to treatment.

Trial registration

ISRCTN17545443. Registered on 12 September 2016.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2959-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Pharmacological therapies for fibromyalgia in adults ‐ an overview of Cochrane Reviews

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Overview). The objectives are as follows:

To provide an overview of the therapeutic efficacy of pharmacological therapies for fibromyalgia, and to report on adverse events associated with their use. The major comparison of interest will be with placebo.

Pregabalin-associated Discontinuation Symptoms: A Case Report

Pregabalin is used for the treatment of neuropathic pain, partial seizures, generalized anxiety disorder, social anxiety disorder, and insomnia. The discontinuation symptoms of pregabalin are mild to moderate which resolve in about one week after the discontinuation of pregabalin. This case report describes the withdrawal symptoms in a 62-year-old patient despite a slow titration over a period of several weeks. It highlights the importance of cautious monitoring of withdrawal symptoms during the period of taper.

Modalities in managing postherpetic neuralgia

Postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) is the most troublesome side effect of Herpes Zoster (HZ), which mainly affects the elderly and immunocompromised populations. Despite the current advancement of treatments, PHN persists in many individuals influencing their daily activities and reducing their quality of life. Anticonvulsants, antidepressants, topical therapies including lidocaine and capsaicin, and opioids, are the most widely used therapies for the treatment of PHN. These medications come with their adverse effects, so they should be used carefully with the elderly or with patients with significant comorbidities. Other measures like botulinum toxin, nerve blocks, spinal cord stimulation, and radiofrequency have also contributed significantly to the management of PHN. However, the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of these invasive methods need to be carefully monitored when administering them. Early diagnosis and early initiation of treatment can reduce the burden associated with PHN. The zoster vaccine has effectively reduced the incidence of HZ and PHN. In this article, we discuss the treatment options available for the management of PHN, mainly focusing on the efficacy and safety of different therapeutic modalities.

Postoperative Pain Management after Impacted Third Molar Surgery with Preoperative Oral Lamotrigine, a Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Extraction of the impacted third molar is often associated with severe postoperative pains, management of which are a big challenge. Lamotrigine is a new antiepileptic drug with pre-emptive analgesic properties, which is hypothesized to alleviate postoperative pain.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of pre-operative administration of single oral 200 mg lamotrigine in reducing the postoperative pain of impacted third molar surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

In this randomized controlled trial, 100 adult patients were divided into two groups (n= 50) to receive either 200 mg oral lamotrigine or placebo 1 hour before the removal of impacted third molar. The patients were monitored for 4 hours in the recovery room and pain intensity was measured through visual analogue scale (VAS) for the next 12 hours at 30-minute intervals. The time and number of rescue analgesics used in 12 hours was also recorded.

RESULTS

Two groups were not statistically significantly different regarding the severity of postoperative pain. (p= 0.512).

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, pre-emptive administration of lamotrigine was not effective in diminishing the postoperative acute pain of impacted third molar extraction.

Analysis of Real-World Dosing Patterns for the 3 FDA-Approved Medications in the Treatment of Fibromyalgia

BACKGROUND

Fibromyalgia is a chronic condition characterized by widespread pain, fatigue, and sleep disturbances that affects approximately 2% to 4% of the adult population in the United States, with minimal real-world data related to the use of medications and associated dosages for this condition.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the real-world dosing patterns of the 3 medications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for fibromyalgia-pregabalin, duloxetine, and milnacipran.

METHODS

Using QuintilesIMS' (now IQVIA) electronic medical record data linked to administrative claims, we identified adults with fibromyalgia who were newly prescribed pregabalin, duloxetine, or milnacipran between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2014. We summarized and compared the starting and maximum doses with United States prescribing information (USPI) dosing recommendations.

RESULTS

In all, 1043 patients who were receiving pregabalin, 1281 receiving duloxetine, and 326 patients receiving milnacipran with similar age and comorbidity profiles were included in the study. The mean starting dose was 176 mg daily, 56 mg daily, and 95 mg daily for pregabalin, duloxetine, and milnacipran, respectively. More patients receiving pregabalin (35%) had a starting dose lower than recommended compared with patients receiving duloxetine (7%) or milnacipran (17%; P <.0001). Of the patients who received pregabalin, 27% had USPI-recommended maintenance dosing versus 91% of patients who received duloxetine and 80% who received milnacipran (P <.0001). The mean duration of treatment was longer for duloxetine (205 days; P <.0001) than for pregabalin (167 days) and milnacipran (167 days). The duration of using the maximum dose of each medication as a percentage of the total time of medication use was 77% for pregabalin, 84% for duloxetine, and 90% for milnacipran (P <.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients using pregabalin were the most likely of the 3 cohorts to receive lower than label-recommended starting doses and the least likely to receive the recommended maintenance doses during follow-up compared with those receiving duloxetine or milnacipran. Real-world prescribing patterns indicate that factors other than label recommendations may be influencing prescribed dosing.

Mirogabalin and emerging therapies for diabetic neuropathy

There are currently no approved disease-modifying therapies for diabetic neuropathy, and there are only 3 US Food and Drug Administration-approved therapies (pregabalin, duloxetine, and tapentadol) for painful diabetic neuropathy. They each have moderate efficacy with adverse effects limiting optimal dose titration. There is a considerable need for new therapies for the management of painful diabetic neuropathy. We reviewed the potential role of mirogabalin, which like gabapentin and pregabalin modulates the alpha-2/delta-1 subunit of the voltage-gated calcium channel, allowing the influx of calcium and release of neurotransmitters at the synaptic cleft in the central nervous system and spinal cord. It has shown efficacy and good tolerability in a Phase II study in diabetic painful neuropathy and based on the results of two Phase III clinical trials in diabetic painful neuropathy and post-herpetic neuralgia, Daiichi Sankyo submitted a marketing application for neuropathic pain in Japan in February 2018. We have also reviewed potential new therapies, currently in Phase II clinical trials that may modify disease and/or relieve neuropathic pain through novel modes of action.

Mirtazapine for fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

Fibromyalgia is a clinically defined chronic condition of unknown etiology characterised by chronic widespread pain, sleep disturbance, cognitive dysfunction, and fatigue. Many patients report high disability levels and poor quality of life. Drug therapy aims to reduce key symptoms, especially pain, and improve quality of life. The tetracyclic antidepressant, mirtazapine, may help by increasing serotonin and noradrenaline in the central nervous system (CNS).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy, tolerability and safety of the tetracyclic antidepressant, mirtazapine, compared with placebo or other active drug(s) in the treatment of fibromyalgia in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, SCOPUS, the US National Institutes of Health, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for published and ongoing trials, and examined reference lists of reviewed articles, to 9 July 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any formulation of mirtazapine against placebo, or any other active treatment of fibromyalgia, in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted study characteristics, outcomes of efficacy, tolerability and safety, examined issues of study quality, and assessed risk of bias, resolving discrepancies by discussion. Primary outcomes were participant-reported pain relief (at least 50% or 30% pain reduction), Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC; much or very much improved), safety (serious adverse events), and tolerability (adverse event withdrawal). Other outcomes were health-related quality of life (HRQoL) improved by 20% or more, fatigue, sleep problems, mean pain intensity, negative mood and particular adverse events. We used a random-effects model to calculate risk difference (RD), standardised mean difference (SMD), and numbers needed to treat. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

Three studies with 606 participants compared mirtazapine with placebo (but not other drugs) over seven to 13 weeks. Two studies were at unclear or high risk of bias in six or seven of eight domains. We judged the evidence for all outcomes to be low- or very low-quality because of poor study quality, indirectness, imprecision, risk of publication bias, and sometimes low numbers of events.There was no difference between mirtazapine and placebo for any primary outcome: participant-reported pain relief of 50% or greater (22% versus 16%; RD 0.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.01 to 0.12; three studies with 591 participants; low-quality evidence); no data available for PGIC; only a single serious adverse event for evaluation of safety (RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.02; three studies with 606 participants; very low-quality evidence); and tolerability as frequency of dropouts due to adverse events (3% versus 2%; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.03; three studies with 606 participants; low-quality evidence).Mirtazapine showed a clinically-relevant benefit compared to placebo for some secondary outcomes: participant-reported pain relief of 30% or greater (47% versus 34%; RD 0.13, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.21; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 8, 95% CI 5 to 20; three studies with 591 participants; low-quality evidence); participant-reported mean pain intensity (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.13; three studies with 591 participants; low-quality evidence); and participant-reported sleep problems (SMD -0.23, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.06; three studies with 573 participants; low-quality evidence). There was no benefit for improvement of participant-reported improvement of HRQoL of 20% or greater (58% versus 50%; RD 0.08, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.16; three studies with 586 participants; low-quality evidence); participant-reported fatigue (SMD -0.02, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.16; two studies with 533 participants; low-quality evidence); participant-reported negative mood (SMD -0.67, 95% CI -1.44 to 0.10; three studies with 588 participants; low-quality evidence); or withdrawals due to lack of efficacy (1.5% versus 0.1%; RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.02; three studies with 605 participants; very low-quality evidence).There was no difference between mirtazapine and placebo for participants reporting any adverse event (76% versus 59%; RD 0.12, 95 CI -0.01 to 0.26; three studies with 606 participants; low-quality evidence). There was a clinically-relevant harm with mirtazapine compared to placebo: in the number of participants with somnolence (42% versus 14%; RD 0.24, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.30; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 5, 95% CI 3 to 6; three studies with 606 participants; low-quality evidence); weight gain (19% versus 1%; RD 0.17, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.23; NNTH 6, 95% CI 5 to 10; three studies with 606 participants; low-quality evidence); and elevated alanine aminotransferase (13% versus 2%; RD 0.13, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.22; NNTH 8, 95% CI 5 to 25; two studies with 566 participants; low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Studies demonstrated no benefit of mirtazapine over placebo for pain relief of 50% or greater, PGIC, improvement of HRQoL of 20% or greater, or reduction of fatigue or negative mood. Clinically-relevant benefits were shown for pain relief of 30% or greater, reduction of mean pain intensity, and sleep problems. Somnolence, weight gain, and elevated alanine aminotransferase were more frequent with mirtazapine than placebo. The quality of evidence was low or very low, with two of three studies of questionable quality and issues over indirectness and risk of publication bias. On balance, any potential benefits of mirtazapine in fibromyalgia were outweighed by its potential harms, though, a small minority of people with fibromyalgia might experience substantial symptom relief without clinically-relevant adverse events.

A machine-learned analysis of human gene polymorphisms modulating persisting pain points to major roles of neuroimmune processes

Background

Human genetic research has implicated functional variants of more than one hundred genes in the modulation of persisting pain. Artificial intelligence and machine‐learning techniques may combine this knowledge with results of genetic research gathered in any context, which permits the identification of the key biological processes involved in chronic sensitization to pain.

Methods

Based on published evidence, a set of 110 genes carrying variants reported to be associated with modulation of the clinical phenotype of persisting pain in eight different clinical settings was submitted to unsupervised machine‐learning aimed at functional clustering. Subsequently, a mathematically supported subset of genes, comprising those most consistently involved in persisting pain, was analysed by means of computational functional genomics in the Gene Ontology knowledgebase.

Results

Clustering of genes with evidence for a modulation of persisting pain elucidated a functionally heterogeneous set. The situation cleared when the focus was narrowed to a genetic modulation consistently observed throughout several clinical settings. On this basis, two groups of biological processes, the immune system and nitric oxide signalling, emerged as major players in sensitization to persisting pain, which is biologically highly plausible and in agreement with other lines of pain research.

Conclusions

The present computational functional genomics‐based approach provided a computational systems‐biology perspective on chronic sensitization to pain. Human genetic control of persisting pain points to the immune system as a source of potential future targets for drugs directed against persisting pain. Contemporary machine‐learned methods provide innovative approaches to knowledge discovery from previous evidence.

Significance

We show that knowledge discovery in genetic databases and contemporary machine‐learned techniques can identify relevant biological processes involved in Persitent pain.

Effect of preoperative pregabalin on postoperative pain after gastrectomy

Background

Pregabalin has been studied as a single or multimodal analgesic drug for postoperative pain management in different types of surgeries. We evaluated the analgesic effect of 150 mg of pregabalin in resolving post-gastrectomy pain.

Methods

Forty-four patients were randomized into two groups: a pregabalin group that received oral pregabalin (150 mg) 2 h before anesthetic induction, and a control group that received placebo tablets at the same time. Data on postoperative pain intensity (visual analog scale [VAS], at 30 min, 2 h, 4 h, and 24 h), consumption of fentanyl in patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), and the proportion of patients requiring rescue analgesics at different time intervals (0-2 h, 2-4 h, and 4-24 h) were collected during the 24 h postoperative period.

Results

The VAS scores did not show significant differences at any time point and consumption of fentanyl in PCA and the proportion of patients requiring rescue analgesics did not differ between the two groups. The groups did not differ in the occurrence of dizziness, sedation, and dry mouth.

Conclusion

A preoperative 150 mg dose of pregabalin exerts no effect on acute pain after gastrectomy.

Short-term incubation of gabapentin or pregabalin does not affect chemically induced injury in neuronal cell models in vitro

Purpose

Gabapentinoids are currently the mainstay of pharmacological treatments for patients with neuropathic pain. Little is known about the effects of this therapy on the integrity of neuronal networks, especially in patients with an already-damaged nervous system. Since gabapentinoids can worsen cognitive functions and recent studies have shown alterations in the brains of patients with neuropathic pain, it may be possible that these drugs have neurotoxic effects.

Methods

Rat clonal PC12 pheochromocytoma (autonomic) and primary sensory dorsal-root ganglion (DRG) neurons from newborn Wistar rats were employed for this study. To mimic neuronal damage, cells were exposed to cytotoxins using either hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂) or vincristine.

Results

No direct cytotoxic effects were observed after incubating PC12 cells for 24 hours with increasing concentrations of gabapentin or pregabalin using MTT cytotoxicity assays. Even a 7-day incubation did not cause cellular damage. Furthermore, in preinjured PC12 and DRG neurons, neither gabapentin nor pregabalin prevented or enhanced the cytotoxic effects of H₂O₂ or vincristine after incubation for 24 hours and 7 days, respectively. Cell morphology and integrity of the cytoskeleton assessed by employing immunostaining of cytoskeletal proteins (α-tubulin, neurofilament L) remained intact and were not altered by gabapentinoids.

Conclusion

Based on these results, gabapentinoids are unlikely to be neurotoxic in cultured autonomic (PC12) and sensory DRG cells, even when cells are preinjured. These results are of high clinical relevance, as it seems unlikely that the morphological changes recently observed in the brains of neuropathic pain patients are caused or worsened by gabapentinoids.

Effect of Tetrodotoxin Pellets in a Rat Model of Postherpetic Neuralgia

Postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) is nerve pain caused by a reactivation of the varicella zoster virus. Medications are used to reduce PHN but their use is limited by serious side effects. Tetrodotoxin (TTX) is a latent neurotoxin that can block neuropathic pain, but its therapeutic index is only 3⁻5 times with intravenous or intramuscular injection. Therefore, we prepared oral TTX pellets and examined their effect in a rat model of PHN induced by resiniferatoxin (RTX). Oral TTX pellets were significantly effective at preventing RTX-induced mechanical and thermal allodynia, and similar to pregabalin. Moreover, oral administration of TTX pellets dose-dependently inhibited RTX-induced PHN compared with intramuscular administration of TTX injection. We also studied the pharmacokinetic profile of TTX pellets. Our results showed that the blood concentration of TTX reached a maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) at around 2 h, with an elimination half-life time (t1/2) of 3.23 ± 1.74 h after intragastric administration. The median lethal dose (LD50) of TTX pellets was 517.43 μg/kg via oral administration to rats, while the median effective dose (ED50) was approximately 5.85 μg/kg, and the therapeutic index was 88.45. Altogether, this has indicated that oral TTX pellets greatly enhance safety when compared with TTX injection.

Pregabalin Prescription for Neuropathic Pain and Fibromyalgia: A Descriptive Study Using Administrative Database in Japan

Objective

To assess dose, characteristics, and coprescribed analgesics in patients newly prescribed pregabalin for neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia in Japan.

Methods

Based on the medical and prescription information present in the Medical Data Vision database, we analyzed the initial and maximum daily doses, prescription period, coprescribed analgesics, and neuropathic pain-related disorders of patients newly prescribed pregabalin between 01 July 2010 and 31 December 2013.

Results

A total of 45,331 patients (mean age 66.8 years, 48.7% men) were newly prescribed pregabalin during this period. The mean initial and maximum daily doses were 97.3 mg and 127.8 mg, respectively, and decreased yearly. The duration of the prescription period was 111.9 (mean) and 53 (median) days, and the frequently coprescribed analgesics included NSAIDs, opioids, and Neurotropin®. About one half of the patients had spinal disorders.

Conclusion

In Japan during the period examined, the number of newly prescribed pregabalin users increased, but the initial and maximum daily doses decreased yearly after pregabalin went on the market. The maximum daily dose in Japan was lower than those reported in the USA and Europe. These differences might be associated with patient age and physical status and with anxiety about possible adverse events.

Trends in Medicalization of Children with Amplified Musculoskeletal Pain Syndrome

Objective

The objective of this survey was to describe trends over time in medicalization of children with Amplified Musculoskeletal Pain Syndrome (AMPS).

Design

A retrospective evaluation was conducted using self-reported data from patients presenting to the pain clinic between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2014, who were diagnosed with AMPS.

Setting and Subjects

This was a medical record review of 899 subjects ages 3-20 presenting with Amplified Musculoskeletal Pain Syndrome. Subjects were included if they presented to a single tertiary specialized clinic and obtained a diagnosis of AMPS between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2014.

Methods

Information collected from subjects' medical records included: past medications, current outpatient medications, procedures, aids, therapies, studies, professionals seen, hospitalizations, and surgeries. Trends in medicalization were analyzed by year of initial visit.

Results

Medication use, procedures, studies, therapies, professionals seen, hospitalizations, and surgeries in children with AMPS all increased significantly by year ( P  < 0.001). The degree of physical dysfunction, pain, and the use of aids did not significantly increase.

Conclusions

Children with amplified musculoskeletal pain syndrome are becoming increasingly medicalized. Increased medicalization introduces risk of iatrogenic injury and burdens families with unnecessary medical costs. The significant increase in medicalization of children with AMPS is not related to an increase in patient reported pain, which is evidenced by the lack of significant increase in patients' pain score, pain duration, or functional disability at the time of their initial evaluation.

Cannabis-based medicines for chronic neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

This review is one of a series on drugs used to treat chronic neuropathic pain. Estimates of the population prevalence of chronic pain with neuropathic components range between 6% and 10%. Current pharmacological treatment options for neuropathic pain afford substantial benefit for only a few people, often with adverse effects that outweigh the benefits. There is a need to explore other treatment options, with different mechanisms of action for treatment of conditions with chronic neuropathic pain. Cannabis has been used for millennia to reduce pain. Herbal cannabis is currently strongly promoted by some patients and their advocates to treat any type of chronic pain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of cannabis-based medicines (herbal, plant-derived, synthetic) compared to placebo or conventional drugs for conditions with chronic neuropathic pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

In November 2017 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registries for published and ongoing trials, and examined the reference lists of reviewed articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised, double-blind controlled trials of medical cannabis, plant-derived and synthetic cannabis-based medicines against placebo or any other active treatment of conditions with chronic neuropathic pain in adults, with a treatment duration of at least two weeks and at least 10 participants per treatment arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently extracted data of study characteristics and outcomes of efficacy, tolerability and safety, examined issues of study quality, and assessed risk of bias. We resolved discrepancies by discussion. For efficacy, we calculated the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) for pain relief of 30% and 50% or greater, patient's global impression to be much or very much improved, dropout rates due to lack of efficacy, and the standardised mean differences for pain intensity, sleep problems, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and psychological distress. For tolerability, we calculated number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) for withdrawal due to adverse events and specific adverse events, nervous system disorders and psychiatric disorders. For safety, we calculated NNTH for serious adverse events. Meta-analysis was undertaken using a random-effects model. We assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 studies with 1750 participants. The studies were 2 to 26 weeks long and compared an oromucosal spray with a plant-derived combination of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) (10 studies), a synthetic cannabinoid mimicking THC (nabilone) (two studies), inhaled herbal cannabis (two studies) and plant-derived THC (dronabinol) (two studies) against placebo (15 studies) and an analgesic (dihydrocodeine) (one study). We used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool to assess study quality. We defined studies with zero to two unclear or high risks of bias judgements to be high-quality studies, with three to five unclear or high risks of bias to be moderate-quality studies, and with six to eight unclear or high risks of bias to be low-quality studies. Study quality was low in two studies, moderate in 12 studies and high in two studies. Nine studies were at high risk of bias for study size. We rated the quality of the evidence according to GRADE as very low to moderate.Primary outcomesCannabis-based medicines may increase the number of people achieving 50% or greater pain relief compared with placebo (21% versus 17%; risk difference (RD) 0.05 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.09); NNTB 20 (95% CI 11 to 100); 1001 participants, eight studies, low-quality evidence). We rated the evidence for improvement in Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) with cannabis to be of very low quality (26% versus 21%;RD 0.09 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.17); NNTB 11 (95% CI 6 to 100); 1092 participants, six studies). More participants withdrew from the studies due to adverse events with cannabis-based medicines (10% of participants) than with placebo (5% of participants) (RD 0.04 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.07); NNTH 25 (95% CI 16 to 50); 1848 participants, 13 studies, moderate-quality evidence). We did not have enough evidence to determine if cannabis-based medicines increase the frequency of serious adverse events compared with placebo (RD 0.01 (95% CI -0.01 to 0.03); 1876 participants, 13 studies, low-quality evidence).Secondary outcomesCannabis-based medicines probably increase the number of people achieving pain relief of 30% or greater compared with placebo (39% versus 33%; RD 0.09 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.15); NNTB 11 (95% CI 7 to 33); 1586 participants, 10 studies, moderate quality evidence). Cannabis-based medicines may increase nervous system adverse events compared with placebo (61% versus 29%; RD 0.38 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.58); NNTH 3 (95% CI 2 to 6); 1304 participants, nine studies, low-quality evidence). Psychiatric disorders occurred in 17% of participants using cannabis-based medicines and in 5% using placebo (RD 0.10 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.15); NNTH 10 (95% CI 7 to 16); 1314 participants, nine studies, low-quality evidence).We found no information about long-term risks in the studies analysed.Subgroup analysesWe are uncertain whether herbal cannabis reduces mean pain intensity (very low-quality evidence). Herbal cannabis and placebo did not differ in tolerability (very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The potential benefits of cannabis-based medicine (herbal cannabis, plant-derived or synthetic THC, THC/CBD oromucosal spray) in chronic neuropathic pain might be outweighed by their potential harms. The quality of evidence for pain relief outcomes reflects the exclusion of participants with a history of substance abuse and other significant comorbidities from the studies, together with their small sample sizes.

Double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial on analgesic efficacy of local anesthetics articaine and bupivacaine after impacted third molar extraction

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this randomized controlled clinical trial (RCT) was to compare the effect of bupivacaine and articaine at habitual doses on pain intensity and the need for analgesics after lower third molar extraction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The final study sample comprised 50 Caucasian volunteers (26 males and 24 females; age range, 18-30 years) undergoing scheduled surgical extraction of impacted lower third molar. A computer-generated random sequence was used to allocate participants to the articaine (4%) or bupivacaine (0.5%) group. Surgeons and patients were blinded by labeling the articaine and bupivacaine carpules with numbers (1 and 2, respectively). Postoperative pain intensity (primary outcome) was evaluated with a visual analogue scale (VAS), while the requirement for and timing of rescue medication and the quality of intraoperative anesthesia were also measured (secondary outcomes).

RESULTS

VAS-measured pain intensity was significantly higher (p < 0.05) in the articaine group than in the bupivacaine group at all time points except for 8 h post-surgery (p = 0.052). Rescue medication was required by 13 (52%) patients in the articaine group and 8 (32%) patients in the bupivacaine group, although the difference did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.252). The groups did not significantly differ (p = 0.391) in the quality of the intraoperative anesthesia.

CONCLUSIONS

Bupivacaine is a valid alternative to articaine in third molar surgery and may offer residual anesthesia as a means of reducing postoperative pain. However, further well-designed RCTs are required in larger study populations to verify the effectiveness of bupivacaine to achieve residual analgesia after oral surgery.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that bupivacaine may be useful as a coadjuvant to control acute postoperative pain.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ACTRN12617001138370.

Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antiepileptic drugs for classical trigeminal neuralgia: a Bayesian network meta-analysis protocol

INTRODUCTION

Trigeminal neuralgia (TN) affects 4 to 28.9/100 000 people worldwide, and antiepileptic drugs such as carbamazepine and oxcarbazepine are the firstline treatment options. However, the efficacy and safety of other antiepileptic drugs remain unclear due to insufficient direct comparisons.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and acceptability of all currently available antiepileptic agents for the treatment of patients with classical TN.

METHODS

We will search the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases for unpublished or undergoing research listed in registry platforms. We will include all randomised controlled trials comparing two different antiepileptic drugs or one antiepileptic drug with placebo in patients with classical TN. The primary outcomes will be the proportion of responders and the number of subjects who dropout during the treatment. The secondary outcomes will include the two primary outcomes but in the follow-up period, changes in the self-reporting assessment scale for neuralgia and quality of life assessment. In terms of network meta-analysis, we will fit our model to a Bayesian framework using the JAGS and pcnetmeta packages of the R project.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This protocol will not disseminate any private patient data. The results of this review will be disseminated through peer reviewed publication.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42016048640.