Duloxetine for treating painful neuropathy or chronic pain

Eribulin in breast cancer: Current insights and therapeutic perspectives

Eribulin is a non-taxane synthetic analogue approved in many countries as third-line treatment for the treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer. In addition to its mitotic property, eribulin has non-mitotic properties including but not limited to, its ability to induce phenotypic reversal of epithelial to mesenchymal transition, vascular remodelling, reduction in immunosuppressive tumour microenvironment. Since approval, there has been a surge in studies investigating the application of eribulin as an earlier-line treatment and also in combination with other agents such as immunotherapy and targeted therapy across all breast cancer sub-types, including hormone receptor positive, HER2 positive and triple negative breast cancer, many demonstrating promising activity. This review will focus on the application of eribulin in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer across all subtypes including its role as an earlier-line agent, its toxicity profile, and potential future directions.

Prazosin as an Adjuvant to Increase Effectiveness of Duloxetine in a Rat Model of Oxaliplatin-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy

OBJECTIVES

Duloxetine, the only American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) treatment recommended for chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) in cancer survivors, is not effective for 40% of survivors. This study examined the ability of a duloxetine-prazosin combination to prevent the development of allodynia and hyperalgesia in a rat model of oxaliplatin-induced peripheral neuropathy (OPIN).

METHODS

Female (n = 24) and male (n = 41) rats were started on duloxetine (15 mg), prazosin (2 mg), or a duloxetine-prazosin combination one week prior to administration of the chemotherapy drug, oxaliplatin, and continued the duloxetine-prazosin combination for 32 days. Behavioral testing for mechanical allodynia and mechanical hyperalgesia was done with selected von Frey filaments over the course of the study.

RESULTS

Overall percent paw withdrawal for rats that received the duloxetine-prazosin combination was significantly lower in female (p < .001 for both conditions) and male (p = .029 for allodynia; p < .001 for hyperalgesia) than those that received water. No significant posttreatment differences were found for allodynia or hyperalgesia between rats treated with duloxetine and rats that received the duloxetine-prazosin combination in either sex.

CONCLUSIONS

These finding provide preliminary evidence that a duloxetine-prazosin combination can prevent the posttreatment development of allodynia and hyperalgesia in both male and female rats; however, the results suggest that the duloxetine-prazosin combination is no more efficacious than duloxetine alone in preventing chronic OIPN.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

The profession of nursing is built on clinical practice supported by scientific research. The current study addressed the clinical practice problem of prevention and management of painful OIPN, which is a priority area in oncology nursing.

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.

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.

"I'll Be Back": The Resurrection of Dezocine

Beginning with opium itself, natural and synthetic opioids have been used as analgesics for over 8000 years and were likely abused as drugs of recreation for that long as well. However, the "opioid crisis" resulted in attempts to avoid or limit opioid analgesics in favor of other therapies and methods. Mu opioid agonists can be effective analgesics but suffer from addiction, tolerance, and dangerous, sometimes fatal, side effects. One exception to this generalization is dezocine (Dalgan), a mixed mu/kappa opioid partial agonist. Dezocine is at least as effective as morphine in reducing acute pain in animal models and clinical applications such as postoperative pain. And while dezocine was discontinued in western markets in 2011, it has become the favored opioid analgesic in China, capturing over 40% of the market. Additionally, dezocine possesses norepinephrine uptake inhibitory activity, which may synergize with mu agonism in the case of acute pain treatment and possibly endow the drug with antinociceptive activity in neuropathic pain conditions. This Innovations article summarizes the history and properties of dezocine and presents evidence and rationale for why dezocine has undergone a resurrection.

Chronic pain as a brain imbalance between pain input and pain suppression

Chronic pain is pain that persists beyond the expected period of healing. The subjective experience of chronic pain results from pathological brain network interactions, rather than from persisting physiological sensory input of nociceptors. We hypothesize that pain is an imbalance between pain evoking dorsal anterior cingulate cortex and somatosensory cortex and pain suppression (i.e. pregenual anterior cingulate cortex). This imbalance can be measured objectively by current density ratios between pain input and pain inhibition. A balance between areas involved in pain input and pain suppression requires communication, which can be objectively identified by connectivity measures, both functional and effective connectivity. In patients with chronic neuropathic pain, electroencephalography is performed with source localization demonstrating that pain is reflected by an abnormal ratio between the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, somatosensory cortex and pregenual anterior cingulate cortex. Functional connectivity demonstrates decreased communication between these areas, and effective connectivity puts the culprit at the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, suggesting that the problem is related to abnormal behavioral relevance attached to the pain. In conclusion, chronic pain can be considered as an imbalance between pain input and pain suppression.

Targeting Pathological Tau by Small Molecule Inhibition of the Poly(A):MSUT2 RNA-Protein Interaction

Neurofibrillary tangles composed of aberrantly aggregating tau protein are a hallmark of Alzheimer's disease and related dementia disorders. Recent work has shown that mammalian suppressor of tauopathy 2 (MSUT2), also named ZC3H14 (Zinc Finger CCCH-Type Containing 14), controls accumulation of pathological tau in cultured human cells and mice. Knocking out MSUT2 protects neurons from neurodegenerative tauopathy and preserves learning and memory. MSUT2 protein functions to bind polyadenosine [poly(A)] tails of mRNA through its C-terminal CCCH type zinc finger domains, and loss of CCCH domain function suppresses tauopathy in Caenorhabditis elegans and mice. Thus, we hypothesized that inhibiting the poly(A):MSUT2 RNA-protein interaction would ameliorate pathological tau accumulation. Here we present a high-throughput screening method for the identification of small molecules inhibiting the poly(A):MSUT2 RNA-protein interaction. We employed a fluorescent polarization assay for initial small molecule discovery with the intention to repurpose hits identified from the NIH Clinical Collection (NIHCC). Our drug repurposing development workflow included validation of hits by dose-response analysis, specificity testing, orthogonal assays of activity, and cytotoxicity. Validated compounds passing through this screening funnel will be evaluated for translational effectiveness in future studies. This preclinical drug development pipeline identified diverse FDA approved drugs duloxetine, saquinavir, and clofazimine as potential repurposing candidates for reducing pathological tau accumulation.

Duloxetine-Induced Neural Cell Death and Promoted Neurite Outgrowth in N2a Cells

Duloxetine is a clinical drug that is primarily used for treatment of depression and pain, but it has side effects of addiction and tolerance. Cytochrome P450 (CYP) is its metabolic enzyme, and the drug's biofunction results from its neuro-protective effect in animal and cell models. We aimed to investigate the duloxetine-induced neural cytotoxicity effect and its performance in an N2a cell neurite outgrowth model. Cell death was assessed as cell viability using a Cell Count Kit-8 and further evaluated using bright-field images, propidium iodide (PI) and annexin V staining, colony-formation analysis, TUNEL staining of the cells, and biochemical testing. N2a cells were committed to differentiation by serum withdrawal and RA induction, and the neurite outgrowth was evaluated as the number of differentiated cells, longest neurite length, and average neurite length. Cell cycle analysis, PI and annexin V staining, mRNA expression, and biochemical testing were used to evaluate the drug effects on differentiation. The induction of neural cell death by duloxetine was not affected by classic cell death inhibitors but was promoted by the CYP inducer rifampicin. N2a cell neurite outgrowth was promoted by duloxetine via reduction of the CYP2D6 and MDA levels and induction of Bdnf protein levels. Duloxetine induces neural cell death through effects on CYP and promotes N2a cell neurite outgrowth by regulating CYP, Bdnf protein, and the intracellular lipid peroxidation level.

Combination pharmacotherapy for the treatment of fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

Fibromyalgia is a chronic widespread pain condition affecting millions of people worldwide. Current pharmacotherapies are often ineffective and poorly tolerated. Combining different agents could provide superior pain relief and possibly also fewer side effects.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of combination pharmacotherapy compared to monotherapy or placebo, or both, for the treatment of fibromyalgia pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase to September 2017. We also searched reference lists of other reviews and trials registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Double-blind, randomised controlled trials comparing combinations of two or more drugs to placebo or other comparators, or both, for the treatment of fibromyalgia pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

From all studies, we extracted data on: participant-reported pain relief of 30% or 50% or greater; patient global impression of clinical change (PGIC) much or very much improved or very much improved; any other pain-related outcome of improvement; withdrawals (lack of efficacy, adverse events), participants experiencing any adverse event, serious adverse events, and specific adverse events (e.g. somnolence and dizziness). The primary comparison was between combination and one or all single-agent comparators. We also assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 16 studies with 1474 participants. Three studies combined a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) with a benzodiazepine (306 participants); two combined amitriptyline with fluoxetine (89 participants); two combined amitriptyline with a different agent (92 participants); two combined melatonin with an antidepressant (164 participants); one combined carisoprodol, paracetamol (acetaminophen), and caffeine (58 participants); one combined tramadol and paracetamol (acetaminophen) (315 participants); one combined malic acid and magnesium (24 participants); one combined a monoamine oxidase inhibitor with 5-hydroxytryptophan (200 participants); and one combined pregabalin with duloxetine (41 participants). Six studies compared the combination of multiple agents with each component alone and with inactive placebo; three studies compared combination pharmacotherapy with each individual component but did not include an inactive placebo group; two studies compared the combination of two agents with only one of the agents alone; and three studies compared the combination of two or more agents only with inactive placebo.Heterogeneity among studies in terms of class of agents evaluated, specific combinations used, outcomes reported, and doses given prevented any meta-analysis. None of the combinations of drugs found provided sufficient data for analysis compared with placebo or other comparators for our preferred outcomes. We therefore provide a narrative description of results. There was no or inadequate evidence in any comparison for primary and secondary outcomes. Two studies only reported any primary outcomes of interest (patient-reported pain relief of 30%, or 50%, or greater). For each 'Risk of bias' item, only half or fewer of studies had unequivocal low risk of bias. Small size and selective reporting were common as high risk of bias.Our GRADE assessment was therefore very low for primary outcomes of pain relief of 30% or 50% or greater, PGIC much or very much improved or very much improved, any pain-related outcome, participants experiencing any adverse event, any serious adverse event, or withdrawing because of an adverse event.Three studies found some evidence that combination pharmacotherapy reduced pain compared to monotherapy; these trials tested three different combinations: melatonin and amitriptyline, fluoxetine and amitriptyline, and pregabalin and duloxetine. Adverse events experienced by participants were not serious, and where they were reported (in 12 out of 16 studies), all participants experienced them, regardless of treatment. Common adverse events were nausea, dizziness, somnolence, and headache.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are few, large, high-quality trials comparing combination pharmacotherapy with monotherapy for fibromyalgia, consequently limiting evidence to support or refute the use of combination pharmacotherapy for fibromyalgia.

Evidence-based pain medicine for primary care physicians

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

Gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Gabapentin is commonly used to treat neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage). This review updates a review published in 2014, and previous reviews published in 2011, 2005 and 2000.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

For this update we searched CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase for randomised controlled trials from January 2014 to January 2017. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and online clinical trials registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind trials of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing gabapentin (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 potential bias. Primary outcomes were participants with substantial pain relief (at least 50% pain relief over baseline or very much improved on Patient Global Impression of Change scale (PGIC)), or moderate pain relief (at least 30% pain relief over baseline or much or very much improved on PGIC). We performed a pooled analysis for any substantial or moderate benefit. Where pooled analysis was possible, we used dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) or harmful outcome (NNH). We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four new studies (530 participants), and excluded three previously included studies (126 participants). In all, 37 studies provided information on 5914 participants. Most studies used oral gabapentin or gabapentin encarbil at doses of 1200 mg or more daily in different neuropathic pain conditions, predominantly postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy. Study duration was typically four to 12 weeks. Not all studies reported important outcomes of interest. High risk of bias occurred mainly due to small size (especially in cross-over studies), and handling of data after study withdrawal.In postherpetic neuralgia, more participants (32%) had substantial benefit (at least 50% pain relief or PGIC very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (17%) (RR 1.8 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.1); NNT 6.7 (5.4 to 8.7); 8 studies, 2260 participants, moderate-quality evidence). More participants (46%) had moderate benefit (at least 30% pain relief or PGIC much or very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (25%) (RR 1.8 (95% CI 1.6 to 2.0); NNT 4.8 (4.1 to 6.0); 8 studies, 2260 participants, moderate-quality evidence).In painful diabetic neuropathy, more participants (38%) had substantial benefit (at least 50% pain relief or PGIC very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (21%) (RR 1.9 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.3); NNT 5.9 (4.6 to 8.3); 6 studies, 1277 participants, moderate-quality evidence). More participants (52%) had moderate benefit (at least 30% pain relief or PGIC much or very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (37%) (RR 1.4 (95% CI 1.3 to 1.6); NNT 6.6 (4.9 to 9.9); 7 studies, 1439 participants, moderate-quality evidence).For all conditions combined, adverse event withdrawals were more common with gabapentin (11%) than with placebo (8.2%) (RR 1.4 (95% CI 1.1 to 1.7); NNH 30 (20 to 65); 22 studies, 4346 participants, high-quality evidence). Serious adverse events were no more common with gabapentin (3.2%) than with placebo (2.8%) (RR 1.2 (95% CI 0.8 to 1.7); 19 studies, 3948 participants, moderate-quality evidence); there were eight deaths (very low-quality evidence). Participants experiencing at least one adverse event were more common with gabapentin (63%) than with placebo (49%) (RR 1.3 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.4); NNH 7.5 (6.1 to 9.6); 18 studies, 4279 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Individual adverse events occurred significantly more often with gabapentin. Participants taking gabapentin experienced dizziness (19%), somnolence (14%), peripheral oedema (7%), and gait disturbance (14%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Gabapentin at doses of 1800 mg to 3600 mg daily (1200 mg to 3600 mg gabapentin encarbil) can provide good levels of pain relief to some people with postherpetic neuralgia and peripheral diabetic neuropathy. Evidence for other types of neuropathic pain is very limited. The outcome of at least 50% pain intensity reduction is regarded as a useful outcome of treatment by patients, and the achievement of this degree of pain relief is associated with important beneficial effects on sleep interference, fatigue, and depression, as well as quality of life, function, and work. Around 3 or 4 out of 10 participants achieved this degree of pain relief with gabapentin, compared with 1 or 2 out of 10 for placebo. Over half of those treated with gabapentin will not have worthwhile pain relief but may experience adverse events. Conclusions have not changed since the previous update of this review.

Capsaicin 8% Patch Versus Oral Neuropathic Pain Medications for the Treatment of Painful Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy: A Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

A network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed, aiming to assess the relative efficacy and tolerability of the capsaicin 179-mg (8% weight for weight) cutaneous patch (capsaicin 8% patch) compared with oral, centrally acting agents (ie, pregabalin, gabapentin, duloxetine, amitriptyline) in patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (PDPN).

METHODS

A systematic search of EMBASE/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and the National Health Service Centre for Reviews and Dissemination Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects was conducted to identify all randomized controlled trials. Data from eligible studies according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria were extracted, and analyses were based on aggregate-level data. Efficacy outcomes were the proportions of patients with ≥30% and ≥50% reductions in pain, and tolerability outcomes were somnolence, dizziness, nausea, diarrhea, constipation, headache, fatigue, insomnia, and rate of discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs). Data were analyzed by using a Bayesian NMA. Fixed and random effects models were estimated. Relative treatment effect was presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs. Sources of heterogeneity were assessed.

FINDINGS

The NMA included 25 randomized controlled trials. For ≥30% pain reduction, the capsaicin 8% patch was significantly more effective than placebo (OR, 2.28 [95% CI, 1.19-4.03]), exhibited a numerical advantage compared with pregabalin (OR, 1.83 [95% CI, 0.91-3.34]) and gabapentin (OR, 1.66 [95% CI, 0.74-3.23]), and had similar efficacy compared with duloxetine (OR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.5-1.79]). The evidence available was not sufficient to assess the relative efficacy of amitriptyline. In the NMA for tolerability, the capsaicin 8% patch was only included for headache because the incidence was 0% for the other outcomes. Oral, centrally acting agents had a significantly elevated risk compared with placebo for somnolence (pregabalin, gabapentin, duloxetine, and amitriptyline), dizziness (pregabalin, gabapentin, duloxetine, and amitriptyline), nausea (duloxetine), diarrhea (duloxetine), fatigue (duloxetine), and discontinuation because of AEs (pregabalin, gabapentin, and duloxetine). Compared with pregabalin and gabapentin, duloxetine had a significantly lower risk of dizziness but a significantly higher risk of nausea.

IMPLICATIONS

This NMA suggests that the efficacy observed with the capsaicin 8% patch is similar to that observed with oral agents (ie, pregabalin, duloxetine, gabapentin) in patients with PDPN. The oral agents were associated with a significantly elevated risk of somnolence, dizziness, fatigue, and discontinuation because of AEs compared with placebo. The capsaicin 8% patch was as effective as oral centrally acting agents in these patients with PDPN but offers systemic tolerability benefits.

Innovations in the Management of Musculoskeletal Pain With Alpha-Lipoic Acid (IMPALA Trial): Study protocol for a Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Crossover Trial of Alpha-Lipoic Acid for the Treatment of Fibromyalgia Pain

BACKGROUND

Fibromyalgia is a common disorder characterized by chronic widespread pain, sleep disturbance, fatigue, depression, and cognitive dysfunction, resulting in substantial disability. As current analgesics provide incomplete relief and disabling side effects that aggravate fatigue and cognitive dysfunction, there is a need for new pain treatments with better efficacy and tolerability. Alpha-lipoic acid (ALA) is an antioxidant proven effective in painful diabetic neuropathy with minimal side effects.

OBJECTIVE

We hypothesize that this agent will provide benefits in fibromyalgia because of several similarities with neuropathic pain and also because it does not cause sedation, fatigue, or mental-slowing. To test this, we have designed a clinical trial that will assess pain, side effects, and other outcomes in participants with fibromyalgia.

METHODS

Using a crossover design, 24 adults with fibromyalgia will be randomly allocated to 1 of the 2 sequences of ALA and placebo. Participants will take capsules containing ALA or placebo for 4 weeks followed by a 1-week washout followed by a second 4-week treatment and 1-week washout period. ALA (or matching placebo) capsules will be titrated to 1800 mg/day over each 4-week period. The primary outcome will be mean daily pain intensity (0-10) during week 4 of each period. Secondary outcomes, assessed during week 4 of each period, will include global improvement, adverse events, mood, and quality of life.

RESULTS

This trial was registered in the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial registry March 15, 2016 (Number ISRCTN58259979), and it attained ethics approval on December 3, 2016 (Queen's University Health Sciences & Affiliated Teaching Hospitals Research Ethics Board protocol number ANAE-287-15). The recruitment started in February 2017.

CONCLUSIONS

This trial will provide evidence for the efficacy of ALA in fibromyalgia.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN): 58259979; www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN58259979 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6og9JdiyZ).

Gifts and influence: Conflict of interest policies and prescribing of psychotropic medications in the United States

The pharmaceutical industry spends roughly 15 billion dollars annually on detailing - providing gifts, information, samples, trips, honoraria and other inducements - to physicians in order to encourage them to prescribe their drugs. In response, several states in the United States adopted policies that restrict detailing. Some states banned gifts from pharmaceutical companies to doctors, other states simply required physicians to disclose the gifts they receive, while most states allowed unrestricted detailing. We exploit this geographic variation to examine the relationship between gift regulation and the diffusion of four newly marketed medications. Using a dataset that captures 189 million psychotropic prescriptions written between 2005 and 2009, we find that uptake of new costly medications was significantly lower in states with marketing regulation than in areas that allowed unrestricted pharmaceutical marketing. In states with gift bans, we observed reductions in market shares ranging from 39% to 83%. Policies banning or restricting gifts were associated with the largest reductions in uptake. Disclosure policies were associated with a significantly smaller reduction in prescribing than gift bans and gift restrictions. In states that ban gift-giving, peer influence substituted for pharmaceutical detailing when a relatively beneficial drug came to market and provided a less biased channel for physicians to learn about new medications. Our work suggests that policies banning or limiting gifts from pharmaceutical representatives to doctors are likely to be more effective than disclosure policies alone.

Painful neuropathy: Mechanisms

Painful neuropathy, like the other complications of diabetes, is a growing healthcare concern. Unfortunately, current treatments are of variable efficacy and do not target underlying pathogenic mechanisms, in part because these mechanisms are not well defined. Rat and mouse models of type 1 diabetes are frequently used to study diabetic neuropathy, with rats in particular being consistently reported to show allodynia and hyperalgesia. Models of type 2 diabetes are being used with increasing frequency, but the current literature on the progression of indices of neuropathic pain is variable and relatively few therapeutics have yet been developed in these models. While evidence for spontaneous pain in rodent models is sparse, measures of evoked mechanical, thermal and chemical pain can provide insight into the pathogenesis of the condition. The stocking and glove distribution of pain tantalizingly suggests that the generator site of neuropathic pain is found within the peripheral nervous system. However, emerging evidence demonstrates that amplification in the spinal cord, via spinal disinhibition and neuroinflammation, and also in the brain, via enhanced thalamic activity or decreased cortical inhibition, likely contribute to the pathogenesis of painful diabetic neuropathy. Several potential therapeutic strategies have emerged from preclinical studies, including prophylactic treatments that intervene against underlying mechanisms of disease, treatments that prevent gains of nociceptive function, treatments that suppress enhancements of nociceptive function, and treatments that impede normal nociceptive mechanisms. Ongoing challenges include unraveling the complexity of underlying pathogenic mechanisms, addressing the potential disconnect between the perceived location of pain and the actual pain generator and amplifier sites, and finding ways to identify which mechanisms operate in specific patients to allow rational and individualized choice of targeted therapies.

Laboratory-induced stress and craving among individuals with prescription opioid dependence

BACKGROUND

Stress and conditioned drug cues have been implicated in the initiation, maintenance and relapse to substances of abuse. Although stress and drug cues are often encountered together, little research exists on whether stress potentiates the response to drug cues.

METHOD

Participants (N=75) were 39 community recruited individuals with current prescription opioid (PO) dependence and 36 healthy controls. Participants stayed overnight in the hospital for one night and then completed laboratory testing the following morning. During laboratory testing, participants were randomly assigned to a stress task (Trier Social Stress Task; TSST) or a no-stress condition. Following the stress manipulation, all participants completed a PO cue paradigm. Immediately before and after the stress and cue tasks, the following were assessed: subjective (stress, craving, anger, sadness, happiness), physiological (heart rate, blood pressure, galvanic skin response), and neuroendocrine responses (cortisol and dehydroepiandrosterone).

RESULTS

Internal validity of the stress task was demonstrated, as evidenced by significantly higher subjective stress, as well as cortisol, heart rate and blood pressure in the TSST compared to the no-stress group. Individuals with PO dependence evidenced significantly greater reactivity to the stress task than controls. Craving increased significantly in response to the drug cue task among PO participants. No stress×cue interaction was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, heightened stress reactivity was observed among individuals with PO dependence. Exposure to acute stress, however, did not potentiate craving in response to conditioned drug cues.

Topical clonidine for neuropathic pain

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy

Painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) is a debilitating consequence of diabetes that may be present in as many as one in five patients with diabetes. The objective assessment of PDN is difficult, making it challenging to diagnose and assess in both clinical practice and clinical trials. No single treatment exists to prevent or reverse neuropathic changes or to provide total pain relief. Treatment of PDN is based on three major approaches: intensive glycaemic control and risk factor management, treatments based on pathogenetic mechanisms, and symptomatic pain management. Clinical guidelines recommend pain relief in PDN through the use of antidepressants such as amitriptyline and duloxetine, the γ-aminobutyric acid analogues gabapentin and pregabalin, opioids and topical agents such as capsaicin. Of these medications, duloxetine and pregabalin were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2004 and tapentadol extended release was approved in 2012 for the treatment of PDN. Proposed pathogenetic treatments include α-lipoic acid (stems reactive oxygen species formation), benfotiamine (prevents vascular damage in diabetes) and aldose-reductase inhibitors (reduces flux through the polyol pathway). There is a growing need for studies to evaluate the most potent drugs or combinations for the management of PDN to maximize pain relief and improve quality of life. A number of agents are potential candidates for future use in PDN therapy, including Nav 1.7 antagonists, N-type calcium channel blockers, NGF antibodies and angiotensin II type 2 receptor antagonists.

Pharmacological treatment of chronic non-cancer pain in pediatric patients

Chronic pain in children and young adults occurs frequently and contributes to early disability as well as personal and familial distress. A biopsychosocial approach to evaluation and treatment is recommended. Within this approach, there is a role for pharmacologic intervention. A variety of medications are used for chronic pain conditions in pediatric patients. Medication classes include anticonvulsants, muscle relaxants, antidepressants, opioids, local anesthetics, and anti-inflammatory drugs. Data is sparse, and most medications are used without condition-specific approval by national regulatory agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration in the US and the European Medicines Agency. In the absence of evidence on which to base practice, optimal drug therapy decisions rest on understanding proposed mechanisms of pain conditions, extrapolation from adult data-when such exists, and empirical and experiential knowledge. Drug delivery systems have evolved, and practitioners have to decide amongst not only medication classes, but also routes of delivery. Opioids are not recommended for use by non-pain specialists for the treatment of pediatric chronic pain, and even then the issues are more complex than can be addressed here. This article reviews the major medications used for pediatric chronic pain conditions.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

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

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO (CRD42014009212).

Remarkable prevalence of coeliac disease in patients with irritable bowel syndrome plus fibromyalgia in comparison with those with isolated irritable bowel syndrome: a case-finding study

Introduction

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) are two common central sensitization disorders frequently associated in the same patient, and some of these patients with IBS plus FMS (IBS/FMS) could actually be undiagnosed of coeliac disease (CD). The present study was an active case finding for CD in two IBS cohorts, one constituted by IBS/FMS subjects and the other by people with isolated IBS.

Methods

A total of 104 patients (89.4% females) fulfilling the 1990 ACR criteria for FMS and the Rome III criteria for IBS classification and 125 unrelated age- and sex-matched IBS patients without FMS underwent the following studies: haematological, coagulation and biochemistry tests, serological and genetic markers for CD (i.e., tissue transglutaminase 2 (tTG-2) and major histocompatibility complex HLA-DQ2/HLA-DQ8), multiple gastric and duodenal biopsies, FMS tender points (TPs), Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ), Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) and Visual Analogue Scales (VASs) for tiredness and gastrointestinal complaints.

Results

As a whole, IBS/FMS patients scored much worse in quality of life and VAS scores than those with isolated IBS (P < 0.001). Seven subjects (6.7%) from the IBS/FMS group displayed HLA-DQ2/HLA-DQ8 positivity, high tTG-2 serum levels and duodenal villous atrophy, concordant with CD. Interestingly enough, these seven patients were started on a gluten-free diet (GFD), showing a remarkable improvement in their digestive and systemic symptoms on follow-up.

Conclusions

The findings of this screening indicate that a non-negligible percentage of IBS/FMS patients are CD patients, whose symptoms can improve and in whom long-term CD-related complications might possibly be prevented with a strict lifelong GFD.

Topical lidocaine for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Carbamazepine for chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two study authors independently extracted data on efficacy, adverse events, and withdrawals, and examined issues of study quality. Numbers needed to treat for an additional beneficial effect (NNT) or harmful effect (NNH) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated from dichotomous data.We performed analysis using three tiers of evidence. First tier evidence derived from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction, intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for dropouts, at least 200 participants in the comparison, at least 8 weeks' duration, parallel design), second tier from data that failed to meet one or more of these criteria and were considered at some risk of bias but with adequate numbers in the comparison, and third tier from data involving small numbers of participants that was considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both.

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Duloxetine for treating painful neuropathy, chronic pain or fibromyalgia

BACKGROUND

Duloxetine is a balanced serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor licensed for the treatment of major depressive disorders, urinary stress incontinence and the management of neuropathic pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy. A number of trials have been conducted to investigate the use of duloxetine in neuropathic and nociceptive painful conditions. This is the first update of a review first published in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of duloxetine for treating painful neuropathy and different types of chronic pain.

SEARCH METHODS

On 19th November 2013, we searched The Cochrane Neuromuscular Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, DARE, HTA, NHSEED, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing trials in April 2013. We also searched the reference lists of identified publications for trials of duloxetine for the treatment of painful peripheral neuropathy or chronic pain.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected all randomised or quasi-randomised trials of any formulation of duloxetine, used for the treatment of painful peripheral neuropathy or chronic pain in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 18 trials, which included 6407 participants. We found 12 of these studies in the literature search for this update. Eight studies included a total of 2728 participants with painful diabetic neuropathy and six studies involved 2249 participants with fibromyalgia. Three studies included participants with depression and painful physical symptoms and one included participants with central neuropathic pain. Studies were mostly at low risk of bias, although significant drop outs, imputation methods and almost every study being performed or sponsored by the drug manufacturer add to the risk of bias in some domains. Duloxetine at 60 mg daily is effective in treating painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy in the short term, with a risk ratio (RR) for ≥ 50% pain reduction at 12 weeks of 1.73 (95% CI 1.44 to 2.08). The related NNTB is 5 (95% CI 4 to 7). Duloxetine at 60 mg daily is also effective for fibromyalgia over 12 weeks (RR for ≥ 50% reduction in pain 1.57, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.06; NNTB 8, 95% CI 4 to 21) and over 28 weeks (RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.27) as well as for painful physical symptoms in depression (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.59; NNTB 8, 95% CI 5 to 14). There was no effect on central neuropathic pain in a single, small, high quality trial. In all conditions, adverse events were common in both treatment and placebo arms but more common in the treatment arm, with a dose-dependent effect. Most adverse effects were minor, but 16% of participants stopped the drug due to adverse effects. Serious adverse events were rare.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is adequate amounts of moderate quality evidence from eight studies performed by the manufacturers of duloxetine that doses of 60 mg and 120 mg daily are efficacious for treating pain in diabetic peripheral neuropathy but lower daily doses are not. Further trials are not required. In fibromyalgia, there is lower quality evidence that duloxetine is effective at similar doses to those used in diabetic peripheral neuropathy and with a similar magnitude of effect. The effect in fibromyalgia may be achieved through a greater improvement in mental symptoms than in somatic physical pain. There is low to moderate quality evidence that pain relief is also achieved in pain associated with depressive symptoms, but the NNTB of 8 in fibromyalgia and depression is not an indication of substantial efficacy. More trials (preferably independent investigator led studies) in these indications are required to reach an optimal information size to make convincing determinations of efficacy.Minor side effects are common and more common with duloxetine 60 mg and particularly with 120 mg daily, than 20 mg daily, but serious side effects are rare.Improved direct comparisons of duloxetine with other antidepressants and with other drugs, such as pregabalin, that have already been shown to be efficacious in neuropathic pain would be appropriate. Unbiased economic comparisons would further help decision making, but no high quality study includes economic data.

Lamotrigine for chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs investigating the use of lamotrigine (any dose, by any route, and for any study duration) for the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia. Assessment of pain intensity or pain relief, or both, using validated scales. Participants were adults aged 18 and over. We included only full journal publication articles.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Towards a mechanism-based approach to pain management in osteoarthritis

Pain is the defining symptom of osteoarthritis (OA), yet available treatment options, of which NSAIDs are the most common, provide inadequate pain relief and are associated with serious health risks when used long term. Chronic pain pathways are subject to complex levels of control and modulation, both in the periphery and in the central nervous system. Ongoing clinical and basic research is uncovering how these pathways operate in OA. Indeed, clinical investigation into the types of pain associated with progressive OA, the presence of central sensitization, the correlation with structural changes in the joint, and the efficacy of novel analgesics affords new insights into the pathophysiology of OA pain. Moreover, studies in disease-specific animal models enable the unravelling of the cellular and molecular pathways involved. We expect that increased understanding of the mechanisms by which chronic OA-associated pain is generated and maintained will offer opportunities for targeting and improving the safety of analgesia. In addition, using clinical and genetic approaches, it might become possible to identify subsets of patients with pain of different pathophysiology, thus enabling a tailored approach to pain management.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Transforming pain medicine: adapting to science and society

The field of chronic pain medicine is currently facing enormous challenges. The incidence of chronic pain is increasing worldwide, particularly in the developed world. As a result, chronic pain is imposing a growing burden on Western societies in terms of cost of medical care and lost productivity. This burden is exacerbated by the fact that despite research efforts and a huge expenditure on treatment for chronic pain, clinicians have no highly effective treatments or definitive diagnostic measures for patients. The lack of an objective measure for pain impedes basic research into the biological and psychological mechanisms of chronic pain and clinical research into treatment efficacy. The development of objective measurements of pain and ability to predict treatment responses in the individual patient is critical to improving pain management. Finally, pain medicine must embrace the development of a new evidence-based therapeutic model that recognizes the highly individual nature of responsiveness to pain treatments, integrates bio-psycho-behavioural approaches, and requires proof of clinical effectiveness for the various treatments we offer our patients. In the long-term these approaches will contribute to providing better diagnoses and more effective treatments to lessen the current challenges in pain medicine.

Topiramate for neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Duloxetine prophylaxis for episodic migraine in persons without depression: a prospective study

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this pilot study is to evaluate the effects of daily duloxetine, 60-120 mg, on the frequency, duration, and severity of migraine attacks and the level of disability in episodic migraineurs.

BACKGROUND

There is a need for more proven effective migraine preventive medications. Two antidepressants, both of which block serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake, have been shown to be effective in the preventive treatment of migraine. Neither has earned a level A recommendation in the 2012 guidelines of the American Academy of Neurology. Duloxetine also blocks serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake.

METHODS

This was a prospective, 5-visit study on duloxetine treatment of episodic migraine headache with 4-10 migraine days, and less than 15 headache days per month. Patients were titrated to a goal dose of 120 mg. They were excluded if they had depression.

RESULTS

There were 22 completers plus 5 subjects who took at least 1 dose of drug. The mean duloxetine dose was 110 mg. In a modified intent-to-treat analysis, subjects went from 9.2 ± 2.7 headache days per month at baseline to 4.5 ± 3.4 headache days per month (P < .001). There were no significant differences in the average headache duration, average headache severity, maximum headache attack severity, and level of functioning. Fifty-two percent of subjects had a 50% or greater improvement in headache days.

CONCLUSIONS

Migraine prophylactic treatment with high-dose duloxetine may be effective in a nondepressed individual. The reported treatment response is in line with other commonly used migraine preventives.

Painful and painless diabetic neuropathy: one disease or two?

Painful diabetic polyneuropathy (PDPN) is generally considered a variant of diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN) but the identification of distinctive aspects that characterize painful compared with painless DPN has however been addressed in many studies, mainly with the purpose of better understanding the mechanisms of neuropathic pain in the scenario of peripheral nerve damage of DPN, of determining risk markers for pain development, and also of recognizing who might respond to treatments. This review is aimed at examining available literature dealing with the issue of similarities and differences between painful and painless DPN in an attempt to respond to the question of whether painful and painless DPN are the same disease or not and to address the conundrum of why some people develop the insensate variety of DPN whilst others experience distressing pain. Thus, from the perspective of comparing painful with painless forms of DPN, this review considers the clinical correlates of PDPN, its distinctive framework of symptoms, signs, and nerve functional and structural abnormalities, the question of large and small fiber involvement, the peripheral pain mechanisms, the central processing of pain and some new insights into the pathogenesis of pain in peripheral polyneuropathies and PDPN.

Clinical pharmacology of analgesics assessed with human experimental pain models: bridging basic and clinical research

The medical impact of pain is such that much effort is being applied to develop novel analgesic drugs directed towards new targets and to investigate the analgesic efficacy of known drugs. Ongoing research requires cost-saving tools to translate basic science knowledge into clinically effective analgesic compounds. In this review we have re-examined the prediction of clinical analgesia by human experimental pain models as a basis for model selection in phase I studies. The overall prediction of analgesic efficacy or failure of a drug correlated well between experimental and clinical settings. However, correct model selection requires more detailed information about which model predicts a particular clinical pain condition. We hypothesized that if an analgesic drug was effective in an experimental pain model and also a specific clinical pain condition, then that model might be predictive for that particular condition and should be selected for development as an analgesic for that condition. The validity of the prediction increases with an increase in the numbers of analgesic drug classes for which this agreement was shown. From available evidence, only five clinical pain conditions were correctly predicted by seven different pain models for at least three different drugs. Most of these models combine a sensitization method. The analysis also identified several models with low impact with respect to their clinical translation. Thus, the presently identified agreements and non-agreements between analgesic effects on experimental and on clinical pain may serve as a solid basis to identify complex sets of human pain models that bridge basic science with clinical pain research.

Duloxetine use in chronic painful conditions--individual patient data responder analysis

Background

Duloxetine has been studied in four distinct chronic pain conditions – osteoarthritis (OA), fibromyalgia, chronic low back pain (CLBP) and diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP). These trials have involved large numbers of patients with at least moderate pain, and have used similar methods for recording pain intensity, over about 12 weeks.

Methods

Data from the trials were pooled according to painful condition, and reanalysed at the level of the individual patient and using increasing levels of pain intensity reduction (<15%, 15–29%, 30–49%, ≥50%), with different imputation methods on withdrawal.

Results

The proportion of patients recording at least 50% pain intensity reduction plateaued after 2–6 weeks in fibromyalgia, and 8–12 weeks in other conditions. The duloxetine-specific benefit [number needed to treat (NNT) for at least 50% pain intensity reduction] was fairly constant after about 2 weeks for DPNP and fibromyalgia and after about 4 or 5 weeks for OA and CLBP. In all conditions, responses were bimodal, with patients generally experiencing either very good or very poor pain relief. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation produced numerically and occasionally statistically better (lower) NNTs than use of baseline-observation-carried-forward (true response).

Conclusions

Baseline-observation-carried-forward (true response), which combines the success of high levels of pain relief with the failure to experience pain relief on withdrawal of the drug is conservative and probably reflective of clinical practice experience. The distribution of effect was not normal; few patients had the average response and averages are not an appropriate descriptor for these data.

What's already known about this topic?

What does this study add?