Topiramate for neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia in adults

Fibromyalgia interventions, obstacles and prospects: narrative review

This review aims to increase awareness and improve understanding, diagnosis, and management of fibromyalgia - a complex, distressing health challenge that significantly impacts people's lives due to its variable nature and lack of clear diagnostic markers. Healthcare professionals must assist those with this condition and improve their general quality of life. Further, they can do a lot to improve the lives of people with Fibromyalgia by resolving diagnostic hurdles, promoting collaboration, supporting patient advocacy, advancing medical technology, and adopting novel approaches.

Interventions for treating pain and disability in adults with complex regional pain syndrome- an overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a chronic pain condition that usually occurs in a limb following trauma or surgery. It is characterised by persisting pain that is disproportionate in magnitude or duration to the typical course of pain after similar injury. There is currently no consensus regarding the optimal management of CRPS, although a broad range of interventions have been described and are commonly used. This is the first update of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 4, 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To summarise the evidence from Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews of the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of any intervention used to reduce pain, disability, or both, in adults with CRPS.

METHODS

We identified Cochrane reviews and non-Cochrane reviews through a systematic search of Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, PEDro, LILACS and Epistemonikos from inception to October 2022, with no language restrictions. We included systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials that included adults (≥18 years) diagnosed with CRPS, using any diagnostic criteria.  Two overview authors independently assessed eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the reviews and certainty of the evidence using the AMSTAR 2 and GRADE tools respectively. We extracted data for the primary outcomes pain, disability and adverse events, and the secondary outcomes quality of life, emotional well-being, and participants' ratings of satisfaction or improvement with treatment.  MAIN RESULTS: We included six Cochrane and 13 non-Cochrane systematic reviews in the previous version of this overview and five Cochrane and 12 non-Cochrane reviews in the current version. Using the AMSTAR 2 tool, we judged Cochrane reviews to have higher methodological quality than non-Cochrane reviews. The studies in the included reviews were typically small and mostly at high risk of bias or of low methodological quality. We found no high-certainty evidence for any comparison.  There was low-certainty evidence that bisphosphonates may reduce pain intensity post-intervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) -2.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.8 to -3.4, P = 0.001; I2 = 81%; 4 trials, n = 181) and moderate-certainty evidence that they are probably associated with increased adverse events of any nature (risk ratio (RR) 2.10, 95% CI 1.27 to 3.47; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 4.6, 95% CI 2.4 to 168.0; 4 trials, n = 181).  There was moderate-certainty evidence that lidocaine local anaesthetic sympathetic blockade probably does not reduce pain intensity compared with placebo, and low-certainty evidence that it may not reduce pain intensity compared with ultrasound of the stellate ganglion. No effect size was reported for either comparison. There was low-certainty evidence that topical dimethyl sulfoxide may not reduce pain intensity compared with oral N-acetylcysteine, but no effect size was reported. There was low-certainty evidence that continuous bupivacaine brachial plexus block may reduce pain intensity compared with continuous bupivacaine stellate ganglion block, but no effect size was reported. For a wide range of other commonly used interventions, the certainty in the evidence was very low and provides insufficient evidence to either support or refute their use. Comparisons with low- and very low-certainty evidence should be treated with substantial caution. We did not identify any RCT evidence for routinely used pharmacological interventions for CRPS such as tricyclic antidepressants or opioids.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite a considerable increase in included evidence compared with the previous version of this overview, we identified no high-certainty evidence for the effectiveness of any therapy for CRPS. Until larger, high-quality trials are undertaken, formulating an evidence-based approach to managing CRPS will remain difficult. Current non-Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions for CRPS are of low methodological quality and should not be relied upon to provide an accurate and comprehensive summary of the evidence.

Thalidomide Attenuates Epileptogenesis and Seizures by Decreasing Brain Inflammation in Lithium Pilocarpine Rat Model

Thalidomide (TAL) has shown potential therapeutic effects in neurological diseases like epilepsy. Both clinical and preclinical studies show that TAL may act as an antiepileptic drug and as a possible treatment against disease development. However, the evidence for these effects is limited. Therefore, the antiepileptogenic and anti-inflammatory effects of TAL were evaluated herein. Sprague Dawley male rats were randomly allocated to one of five groups (n = 18 per group): control (C); status epilepticus (SE); SE-TAL (25 mg/kg); SE-TAL (50 mg/kg); and SE-topiramate (TOP; 60mg/kg). The lithium-pilocarpine model was used, and one day after SE induction the rats received pharmacological treatment for one week. The brain was obtained, and the hippocampus was micro-dissected 8, 18, and 28 days after SE. TNF-α, IL-6, and IL-1β concentrations were quantified. TOP and TAL (50 mg/kg) increased the latency to the first of many spontaneous recurrent seizures (SRS) and decreased SRS frequency, as well as decreasing TNF-α and IL-1β concentrations in the hippocampus. In conclusion, the results showed that both TAL (50 mg/kg) and TOP have anti-ictogenic and antiepileptogenic effects, possibly by decreasing neuroinflammation.

Pharmacological Probes to Validate Biomarkers for Analgesic Drug Development

There is an urgent need for analgesics with improved efficacy, especially in neuropathic and other chronic pain conditions. Unfortunately, in recent decades, many candidate analgesics have failed in clinical phase II or III trials despite promising preclinical results. Translational assessment tools to verify engagement of pharmacological targets and actions on compartments of the nociceptive system are missing in both rodents and humans. Through the Innovative Medicines Initiative of the European Union and EFPIA, a consortium of researchers from academia and the pharmaceutical industry was established to identify and validate a set of functional biomarkers to assess drug-induced effects on nociceptive processing at peripheral, spinal and supraspinal levels using electrophysiological and functional neuroimaging techniques. Here, we report the results of a systematic literature search for pharmacological probes that allow for validation of these biomarkers. Of 26 candidate substances, only 7 met the inclusion criteria: evidence for nociceptive system modulation, tolerability, availability in oral form for human use and absence of active metabolites. Based on pharmacokinetic characteristics, three were selected for a set of crossover studies in rodents and healthy humans. All currently available probes act on more than one compartment of the nociceptive system. Once validated, biomarkers of nociceptive signal processing, combined with a pharmacometric modelling, will enable a more rational approach to selecting dose ranges and verifying target engagement. Combined with advances in classification of chronic pain conditions, these biomarkers are expected to accelerate analgesic drug development.

Beyond Amitriptyline: A Pediatric and Adolescent Oriented Narrative Review of the Analgesic Properties of Psychotropic Medications for the Treatment of Complex Pain and Headache Disorders

Children and adolescents with recurrent or chronic pain and headache are a complex and heterogenous population. Patients are best served by multi-specialty, multidisciplinary teams to assess and create tailored, individualized pain treatment and rehabilitation plans. Due to the complex nature of pain, generalizing pharmacologic treatment recommendations in children with recurrent or chronic pains is challenging. This is particularly true of complicated patients with co-existing painful and psychiatric conditions. There is an unfortunate dearth of evidence to support many pharmacologic therapies to treat children with chronic pain and headache. This narrative review hopes to supplement the available treatment options for this complex population by reviewing the pediatric and adult literature for analgesic properties of medications that also have psychiatric indication. The medications reviewed belong to medication classes typically described as antidepressants, alpha 2 delta ligands, mood stabilizers, anti-psychotics, anti-sympathetic agents, and stimulants.

Guideline "diagnosis and non interventional therapy of neuropathic pain" of the German Society of Neurology (deutsche Gesellschaft für Neurologie)

2019 the DGN (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Neurology) published a new guideline on the diagnosis and non-interventional therapy of neuropathic pain of any etiology excluding trigeminal neuralgia and CRPS (complex regional pain syndrome). Neuropathic pain occurs after lesion or damage of the somatosensory system. Besides clinical examination several diagnostic procedures are recommended to assess the function of nociceptive A-delta and C-Fibers (skin biopsy, quantitative sensory testing, Laser-evoked potentials, Pain-evoked potentials, corneal confocal microscopy, axon reflex testing). First line treatment in neuropathic pain is pregabalin, gabapentin, duloxetine and amitriptyline. Second choice drugs are topical capsaicin and lidocaine, which can also be considered as primary treatment in focal neuropathic pain. Opioids are considered as third choice treatment. Botulinum toxin can be considered as a third choice drug for focal limited pain in specialized centers only. Carbamazepine and oxcarbazepine cannot be generally  recommended, but might be helpful in single cases. In Germany, cannabinoids can be prescribed, but only after approval of reimbursement. However, the use is not recommended, and can only be considered as off-label therapy within a multimodal therapy concept.

Impact of Polypharmacy on Candidate Biomarker miRNomes for the Diagnosis of Fibromyalgia and Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Striking Back on Treatments

Fibromyalgia (FM) and myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) are diseases of unknown etiology presenting complex and often overlapping symptomatology. Despite promising advances on the study of miRNomes of these diseases, no validated molecular diagnostic biomarker yet exists. Since FM and ME/CFS patient treatments commonly include polypharmacy, it is of concern that biomarker miRNAs are masked by drug interactions. Aiming at discriminating between drug-effects and true disease-associated differential miRNA expression, we evaluated the potential impact of commonly prescribed drugs on disease miRNomes, as reported by the literature. By using the web search tools SM2miR, Pharmaco-miR, and repoDB, we found a list of commonly prescribed drugs that impact FM and ME/CFS miRNomes and therefore could be interfering in the process of biomarker discovery. On another end, disease-associated miRNomes may incline a patient’s response to treatment and toxicity. Here, we explored treatments for diseases in general that could be affected by FM and ME/CFS miRNomes, finding a long list of them, including treatments for lymphoma, a type of cancer affecting ME/CFS patients at a higher rate than healthy population. We conclude that FM and ME/CFS miRNomes could help refine pharmacogenomic/pharmacoepigenomic analysis to elevate future personalized medicine and precision medicine programs in the clinic.

WITHDRAWN: Anticonvulsants for fibromyalgia

BACKGROUND

Fibromyalgia (FM) is a clinically well-defined chronic condition of unknown aetiology characterised by chronic widespread pain that often co-exists with sleep problems and fatigue. People often report high disability levels and poor health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Drug therapy focuses on reducing key symptoms and disability, and improving HRQoL. Anticonvulsants (antiepileptic drugs) are drugs frequently used for the treatment of chronic pain syndromes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of anticonvulsants for treating FM symptoms.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 8, 2013), MEDLINE (1966 to August 2013), PsycINFO (1966 to August 2013), SCOPUS (1980 to August 2013) and the reference lists of reviewed articles for published studies and www.clinicaltrials.gov (to August 2013) for unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled trials of any formulation of anticonvulsants used for the treatment of people with FM of any age.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted the data of all included studies and assessed the risks of bias of the studies. We resolved discrepancies by discussion.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight studies: five with pregabalin and one study each with gabapentin, lacosamide and levetiracetam. A total of 2480 people were included into anticonvulsants groups and 1099 people in placebo groups. The median therapy phase of the studies was 13 weeks. The amount and quality of evidence were insufficient to draw definite conclusions on the efficacy and safety of gabapentin, lacosamide and levetiracetam in FM. The amount and quality of evidence was sufficient to draw definite conclusions on the efficacy and safety of pregabalin in FM. Therefore, we focused on our interpretation of the evidence for pregabalin due to our greater certainty about its effects and its greater relevance to clinical practice. All pregabalin studies had a low risk of bias. Reporting a 50% or greater reduction in pain was more frequent with pregabalin use than with a placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.59; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.33 to 1.90; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 12; 95% CI 9 to 21). The number of people who reported being 'much' or 'very much' improved was higher with pregabalin than with placebo (RR 1.38; 95% CI 1.23 to 1.55; NNTB 9; 95% CI 7 to 15). Pregabalin did not substantially reduce fatigue (SMD -0.17; 95% CI -0.25 to -0.09; 2.7% absolute improvement on a 1 to 50 scale) compared with placebo. Pregabalin had a small benefit over placebo in reducing sleep problems by 6.2% fewer points on a scale of 0 to 100 (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.35; 95% CI -0.43 to -0.27). The dropout rate due to adverse events was higher with pregabalin use than with placebo use (RR 1.68; 95% CI 1.36 to 2.07; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 13; 95% CI 9 to 23). There was no significant difference in serious adverse events between pregabalin and placebo use (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.71 to 1.49). Dizziness was reported as an adverse event more frequently with pregabalin use than with placebo use (RR 3.77; 95% CI 3.06 to 4.63; NNTH 4; 95% CI 3 to 5).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The anticonvulsant, pregabalin, demonstrated a small benefit over placebo in reducing pain and sleep problems. Pregabalin use was shown not to substantially reduce fatigue compared with placebo. Study dropout rates due to adverse events were higher with pregabalin use compared with placebo. Dizziness was a particularly frequent adverse event seen with pregabalin use. At the time of writing this review, pregabalin is the only anticonvulsant drug approved for treating FM in the US and in 25 other non-European countries. However, pregabalin has not been approved for treating FM in Europe. The amount and quality of evidence were insufficient to draw definite conclusions on the efficacy and safety of gabapentin, lacosamide and levetiracetam in FM.

Current Status of the New Antiepileptic Drugs in Chronic Pain

Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are extensively used worldwide to treat a wide range of disorders other than epilepsy, such as neuropathic pain, migraine, and bipolar disorder. Due to this situation more than 20 new third-generation AEDs have been introduced in the market recently. The future design of new AEDs must also have potential to help in the non-epileptic disorders. The wide acceptance of second generation AEDs for the management of various non-epileptic disorders has caused the emergence of generics in the market. The wide use of approved AEDs outside epilepsy is based on both economic and scientific reasons. Bipolar disorders, migraine prophylaxis, fibromyalgia, and neuropathic pain represent the most attractive indication expansion opportunities for anticonvulsant developers, providing blockbuster revenues. Strong growth in non-epilepsy conditions will see Pfizer's Lyrica become the market leading brand by 2018. In this review, we mainly focus on the current status of new AEDs in the treatment of chronic pain and migraine prophylaxis. AEDs have a strong analgesic potential and this is demonstrated by the wide use of carbamazepine in trigeminal neuralgia and sodium valproate in migraine prophylaxis. At present, data on the new AEDs for non-epileptic conditions are inconclusive. Not all AEDs are effective in the management of neuropathic pain and migraine. Only those AEDs whose mechanisms of action are match with pathophysiology of the disease, have potential to show efficacy in non-epileptic disorder. For this better understanding of the pathophysiology of the disease and mechanisms of action of new AEDs are essential requirement before initiating pre-clinical and clinical trials. Many new AEDs show good results in the animal model and open-label studies but fail to provide strong evidence at randomized, placebo-controlled trials. The final decision regarding the clinical efficacy of the particular AEDs in a specific non-epileptic disorder should be withdrawal from randomized placebo trials rather than open-label studies; otherwise this may lead to off-label uses of drug. The purpose of the present review is to relate the various mechanisms of action of new AEDs to pathophysiological mechanisms and clinical efficacy in neuropathic pain and migraine.

Sunct syndrome. Report of a case and treatment update

Short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks with conjuntival injection and tearing (SUNCT) is considered a rare trigeminal autonomic cephalgias, a group of primary headache disorders characterized by brief episodes of severe unilateral headache in the distribution territory of the trigeminal nerve, accompanied by prominent ipsilateral and cranial parasympathetic autonomic features. The present report describes a SUNCT syndrome in a 64-year-old male who had been diagnosed with trigeminal neuralgia several years ago. The patient reported stabbing pain in the orbital zone and in the left upper maxillary region, of great intensity, brief duration, and a frequency of 20-100 attacks a day. Pain episodes were accompanied by conjunctival injection and tearing. Based on the anamnesis, clinical examination and a magnetic resonance imaging scan, episodic SUNCT syndrome was diagnosed and pharmacological treatment with topiramate was started. This reduced the intensity and number of attacks to 3-6 a day.

Key words:Trigeminal autonomic cephalgias, SUNCT, Cluster headache, topiramate.

Pharmacological treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathy

Pain modulation is a key treatment goal for diabetic peripheral neuropathy patients. Guidelines have recommended antidepressant, anticonvulsant, analgesic, and topical medications-both approved and off-label-to reduce pain in this population.

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).

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.

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.