Valproic acid and sodium valproate for neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia in adults

Assessing suicide risk in chronic pain management: a narrative review across drug classes

INTRODUCTION

Chronic pain presents a multifaceted challenge in clinical practice, necessitating a nuanced understanding of pharmacological interventions to optimize treatment outcomes. This review provides an outline of various pharmacological agents commonly used in chronic pain management and highlights their safety considerations, particularly regarding suicide risk.

AREAS COVERED

This review discusses the role of antidepressants, anticonvulsants, GABA receptor agonists, NMDA receptor antagonists, corticosteroids, cannabis and cannabinoids, bisphosphonates, calcitonin, and alpha-2 adrenergic receptor agonists in chronic pain management. It assesses their therapeutic benefits, potential for misuse, and psychiatric adverse effects, including the risk of suicide. Each pharmacological class is evaluated in terms of its efficacy, safety profile, and considerations for clinical practice. We searched peer-reviewed English literature on the topic using the MEDLINE database without time restrictions.

EXPERT OPINION

While pharmacological interventions offer promise in alleviating chronic pain, healthcare providers must carefully weigh their benefits against potential risks, including the risk of exacerbating psychiatric symptoms and increasing suicide risk. Individualized treatment approaches, close monitoring, and multidisciplinary collaboration are essential for optimizing pain management strategies while mitigating adverse effects. Ongoing research efforts are crucial for advancing our understanding of these pharmacological interventions and refining pain management practices.

New valproate regulations, informed choice and seizure risk

Valproate is the most effective medication for generalised epilepsies, and several specific epilepsy syndromes. For some people, it will be the only medication to establish seizure remission, and withdrawing it carries risks of seizure recurrence and Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy (SUDEP). It is also of proven efficacy for bipolar disorder and migraine prevention. Guidelines based on observational and epidemiological studies stress that maternal valproate related teratogenicity and neurodevelopmental effects are significantly higher than for other antiseizure medications (ASMs). It should, therefore, only be used if other medications are ineffective and after balancing the teratogenicity risk. Regulatory restrictions have changed prescribing practices and reduced valproate use. The number of other medications that must be trialled in the different conditions for which valproate has effectiveness and the consequences of the lack of efficacy of those drugs leading to significant harm including death remains unexplored. Risk minimisation measures (RMMs) for valproate, chiefly Pregnancy Prevention practices (PPP), consider foetal risk and not risk to people living with epilepsy. In the United Kingdom (UK), limitations relating to valproate use in all people < 55 years commenced in January 2024. While the evidence in child-bearing women is not disputed, the data in males are based on animal models, case reports, and one commissioned, unpublished, non-peer reviewed report unavailable to the UK public, stakeholder charities or professionals. Evidence suggests that 30-40% of people switching from valproate have breakthrough seizures. Thus, an estimated 21,000-28000 people in the UK will imminently be exposed to the potential hazards of breakthrough seizures, including death. There is little government investment in monitoring the effects of these changes to valproate prescribing on patient health and quality of life. This review summarises the history of valproate regulation, evidence underpinning it and argues how the latest regulations in the UK do not align with the country's medical regulatory bodies ethical principles nor with the Montgomery principles of informed patient choice and autonomy. It dissects how such regulations infringe Common Law principles, nor give due regard for patient outcomes beyond reproduction. The paper looks to provide recommendations to redress these concerns while appreciating the core need for such governance to emerge in the first place.

Therapeutic Approach for Trigeminal Neuralgia: A Systematic Review

This umbrella review aimed to determine the various drugs used to treat trigeminal neuralgia (TN) and to evaluate their efficacies as well as side effects by surveying previously published reviews. An online search was conducted using PubMed, CRD, EBSCO, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library with no limits on publication date or patients' gender, age, and ethnicity. Reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials pertaining to drug therapy for TN, and other relevant review articles added from their reference lists, were evaluated. Rapid reviews, reviews published in languages other than English, and reviews of laboratory studies, case reports, and series were excluded. A total of 588 articles were initially collected; 127 full-text articles were evaluated after removing the duplicates and screening the titles and abstracts, and 11 articles were finally included in this study. Except for carbamazepine, most of the drugs had been inadequately studied. Carbamazepine and oxcarbazepine continue to be the first choice for medication for classical TN. Lamotrigine and baclofen can be regarded as second-line drugs to treat patients not responding to first-line medication or for patients having intolerable side effects from carbamazepine. Drug combinations using carbamazepine, baclofen, gabapentin, ropivacaine, tizanidine, and pimozide can yield satisfactory results and improve the tolerance to the treatment. Intravenous lidocaine can be used to treat acute exaggerations and botulinum toxin-A can be used in refractory cases. Proparacaine, dextromethorphan, and tocainide were reported to be inappropriate for treating TN. Anticonvulsants are successful in managing trigeminal neuralgia; nevertheless, there have been few studies with high levels of proof, making it challenging to compare or even combine their results in a statistically useful way. New research on other drugs, combination therapies, and newer formulations, such as vixotrigine, is awaited. There is conclusive evidence for the efficacy of pharmacological drugs in the treatment of TN.

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.

Prevention and Management Strategies for Diabetic Neuropathy

Diabetic neuropathy (DN) is a common complication of diabetes that is becoming an increasing concern as the prevalence of diabetes rapidly rises. There are several types of DN, but the most prevalent and studied type is distal symmetrical polyneuropathy, which is the focus of this review and is simply referred to as DN. It can lead to a wide range of sensorimotor and psychosocial symptoms and is a major risk factor for diabetic foot ulceration and Charcot neuropathic osteoarthropathy, which are associated with high rates of lower limb amputation and mortality. The prevention and management of DN are thus critical, and clinical guidelines recommend several strategies for these based on the best available evidence. This article aims to provide a narrative review of DN prevention and management strategies by discussing these guidelines and the evidence that supports them. First, the epidemiology and diverse clinical manifestations of DN are summarized. Then, prevention strategies such as glycemic control, lifestyle modifications and footcare are discussed, as well as the importance of early diagnosis. Finally, neuropathic pain management strategies and promising novel therapies under investigation such as neuromodulation devices and nutraceuticals are reviewed.

Pain Modulation in WAG/Rij Epileptic Rats (A Genetic Model of Absence Epilepsy): Effects of Biological and Pharmacological Histone Deacetylase Inhibitors

Epigenetic mechanisms are involved in epilepsy and chronic pain development. About that, we studied the effects of the natural histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor sodium butyrate (BUT) in comparison with valproic acid (VPA) in a validated genetic model of generalized absence epilepsy and epileptogenesis. WAG/Rij rats were treated with BUT (30 mg/kg), VPA (300 mg/kg), and their combination (BUT + VPA) daily per os for 6 months. Rats were subjected at Randall–Selitto, von Frey, hot plate, and tail flick tests after 1, 3, and 6 months of treatment to evaluate hypersensitivity to noxious and non-noxiuous stimuli. Moreover, PPAR-γ (G3335 1 mg/kg), GABA-B (CGP35348 80 mg/kg), and opioid (naloxone 1 mg/kg) receptor antagonists were administrated to investigate the possible mechanisms involved in analgesic activity. The expression of NFkB, glutathione reductase, and protein oxidation (carbonylation) was also evaluated by Western blot analysis. WAG/Rij rats showed an altered pain threshold throughout the study (p < 0.001). BUT and BUT + VPA treatment reduced hypersensitivity (p < 0.01). VPA was significantly effective only after 1 month (p < 0.01). All the three receptors are involved in BUT + VPA effects (p < 0.001). BUT and BUT + VPA decreased the expression of NFkB and enhanced glutathione reductase (p < 0.01); protein oxidation (carbonylation) was reduced (p < 0.01). No effect was reported with VPA. In conclusion BUT, alone or in coadministration with VPA, is a valuable candidate for managing the epilepsy-related persistent pain.

Evaluation of sodium valproate low dose efficacy in radicular pain management and it's relation with pharmacokinetics parameters

BACKGROUND

Radiculopathy due to lumbar or cervical disc disease is the most common chronic neuropathic pain in adults. The aim of present study was evaluation of low dose of sodium valproate (VPA) on radicular pain and determining VPA pharmacokinetics.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this double blind randomized placebo control clinical study, 80 patients with established lumbar or cervical radicular pain, have been randomly allocated into two study groups: 40 have received sodium valproate 200 mg/day and Celecoxib 100 mg/day and acetaminophen 500 mg PRN as rescue medication, and second group has received placebo, Celecoxib and acetaminophen. Quantitative assessment of pain was done by visual analogue scale (VAS) prior to perform the intervention and after ten days (treatment duration). Blood sample has been taken for determining mean through concentration after five half-lives. Evaluation of plasma concentration of VPA and that of efficacy on pain score relationship by comparing VAS before and after the therapy was done.

RESULTS

Group A and B have demonstrated significant alleviation in mean VAS score; -21.97 ± 25.41, -14.39 ± 23.03 respectively (P < 0.001). The mean plasma concentration of VPA in group A was: 26.9 ± 13.5 mg/L. Moreover, no significant correlation was seen between pain score with age, gender, and weight (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Low dose of sodium valproate especially together with NSAIDs demonstrated good efficacy in lumbar and cervical radicular pain management.

Potential Pharmacokinetic Drug-Drug Interactions between Cannabinoids and Drugs Used for Chronic Pain

Choosing an appropriate treatment for chronic pain remains problematic, and despite the available medication for its treatment, still, many patients complain about pain and appeal to the use of cannabis derivatives for pain control. However, few data have been provided to clinicians about the pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions of cannabinoids with other concomitant administered medications. Therefore, the aim of this brief review is to assess the interactions between cannabinoids and pain medication through drug transporters (ATP-binding cassette superfamily members) and/or metabolizing enzymes (cytochromes P450 and glucuronyl transferases).

Diabetic Neuropathy Collection: Treatment of Diabetic Neuropathy

Video: Treatment of Diabetic Neuropathy podcast recording (MP4 61908 kb).

Adverse Skin Reactions with Antiepileptic Drugs Using Korea Adverse Event Reporting System Database, 2008-2017

BACKGROUND

Severe and life-threatening drug eruptions include drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS), Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS), and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN). One class of medications that has been highly associated with such drug eruptions is antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). We attempt to investigate drug eruptions associated with AEDs as a class, as well as with individual AEDs, in Korea.

METHODS

We used the Korea Institute of Drug Safety and Risk Management - Korea Adverse Event Reporting System (KIDS-KAERS) database, a nationwide database of adverse events reports, between January 2008 and December 2017 to investigate the reporting count of all drug eruptions and calculated the ratio of DRESS/SJS/TEN reports for each AED.

RESULTS

Among a total of 2,942 reports, most were of rash/urticaria (2,702, 91.8%), followed by those of DRESS (109, 3.7%), SJS (106, 3.6%), and TEN (25, 0.85%). The common causative AEDs were lamotrigine (699, 23.8%), valproic acid (677, 23%), carbamazepine (512, 17.4%), oxcarbazepine (320, 10.9%), levetiracetam (181, 6.2%), and phenytoin (158, 5.4%). In limited to severe drug eruptions (DRESS, SJS, and TEN; total 241 reports), the causative AEDs were carbamazepine (117, 48.8%), lamotrigine (57, 23.8%), valproic acid (20, 8.3%), phenytoin (15, 6.3%), and oxcarbazepine (10, 4.2%). When comparing aromatic AED with non-aromatic AED, aromatic AEDs were more likely to be associated with severe drug eruption (aromatic AEDs: 204/1,793 versus non-aromatic AEDs: 37/1,149; OR, 3.86; 95% CI, 2.7-5.5). Death was reported in 7 cases; DRESS was the most commonly reported adverse event (n = 5), and lamotrigine was the most common causative AED (n = 5).

CONCLUSION

Although most cutaneous drug eruptions in this study were rash or urticaria, approximately 8% of reports were of severe or life-threatening adverse drug reactions, such as SJS, TEN, or DRESS. When hypersensitivity skin reactions occurred, aromatic AEDs were associated with 4 fold the risk of SJS/TEN/DRESS compared with non-aromatic AEDs. Our findings further emphasize that high risk AEDs should be prescribed under careful monitoring, and early detection and prompt interventions are needed to prevent severe complications.

Developing Modern Pain Therapies

Chronic pain afflicts as much as 50% of the population at any given time but our methods to address pain remain limited, ineffective and addictive. In order to develop new therapies an understanding of the mechanisms of painful sensitization is essential. We discuss here recent progress in the understanding of mechanisms underlying pain, and how these mechanisms are being targeted to produce modern, specific therapies for pain. Finally, we make recommendations for the next generation of targeted, effective, and safe pain therapies.

Inhibitory effect of valproate sodium on pain behavior in diabetic mice involves suppression of spinal histone deacetylase 1 and inflammatory mediators

Anti-epileptic medications are included in the international guidelines for managing neuropathic pain. Valproate sodium (VPS) was recently described as "the forgotten analgesic" and has been reported to relief pain in various models of neuropathic pain. Some studies reported anti-inflammatory and histone deacetylase 1 (HDA1) inhibitory properties for sodium valproate. The aim of the current study was to investigate the modulatory effect of VPS on pain behavior and inflammatory reactions in alloxan-induced diabetic neuropathy focusing on HDA1 inhibition and glia reactivity. 28 Male Swiss albino mice were allocated into four groups, (1) vehicle group, (2) alloxan-diabetic group, (3 & 4) alloxan+VPS (25 or 50 mg/kg) groups. VPS was given daily for 5 weeks by oral gavage. Pain behavior demonstrated increased allodynia (von-Frey filaments) and hyperalgesia (hot-plate test) in alloxan-diabetic mice that was reduced significantly by at least one of VPS doses. Sciatic nerves in diabetic mice showed increased histopathology score, increased silver staining for the nerves-indicating myelopathy- and a decrease in immunostaining for nerve growth factor. Spinal cord of diabetic mice showed greater histopathologic score, increased CD11b and glia fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) immunostaining than vehicle treated mice. Molecular investigations highlighted greater content of spinal histone deacetylases, tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) and interlukin-1β (IL1β) that were favorably modified by VPS. Overall, the current data confirmed that the pain killing and anti-inflammatory activity of VPS is at least partly mediated through inhibition of spinal HDA1 and glia reactivity. These findings support the view of inviting antiepileptics for treating neuropathies.

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.

Gene expression effects of lithium and valproic acid in a serotonergic cell line

Valproic acid (VPA) and lithium are widely used in the treatment of bipolar disorder. However, the underlying mechanism of action of these drugs is not clearly understood. We used RNA-Seq analysis to examine the global profile of gene expression in a rat serotonergic cell line (RN46A) after exposure to these two mood stabilizer drugs. Numerous genes were differentially regulated in response to VPA (log₂ fold change ≥ 1.0; i.e., odds ratio of ≥2, at false discovery rate <5%), but only two genes ( Dynlrb2 and Cdyl2) showed significant differential regulation after exposure of the cells to lithium, with the same analysis criteria. Both of these genes were also regulated by VPA. Many of the differentially expressed genes had functions of potential relevance to mood disorders or their treatment, such as several serpin family genes (including neuroserpin), Nts (neurotensin), Maob (monoamine oxidase B), and Ap2b1, which is important for synaptic vesicle function. Pathway analysis revealed significant enrichment of Gene Ontology terms such as extracellular matrix remodeling, cell adhesion, and chemotaxis. This study in a cell line derived from the raphe nucleus has identified a range of genes and pathways that provide novel insights into potential therapeutic actions of the commonly used mood stabilizer drugs.

Oxcarbazepine for neuropathic pain

BACKGROUND

Several anticonvulsant drugs are used in the management of neuropathic pain. Oxcarbazepine is an anticonvulsant drug closely related to carbamazepine. Oxcarbazepine has been reported to be efficacious in the treatment of neuropathic pain, but evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is conflicting. Oxcarbazepine is reportedly better tolerated than carbamazepine. This is the first update of a review published in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of oxcarbazepine for different types of neuropathic pain.

SEARCH METHODS

On 21 November 2016, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase. We searched the Chinese Biomedical Retrieval System (January 1978 to November 2016). We searched the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) databases and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials in January 2017, and we wrote to the companies who make oxcarbazepine and to pain experts requesting additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All RCTs and randomised cross-over studies of oxcarbazepine for the treatment of people of any age or sex with any neuropathic pain were eligible. We planned to include trials of oxcarbazepine compared with placebo or any other intervention with a treatment duration of at least six weeks, regardless of administration route and dose.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

Five multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trials with a total of 862 participants were eligible for inclusion in this updated review. Three trials involved participants with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) (n = 634), one included people with neuropathic pain due to radiculopathy (n = 145), and one, which was newly identified at this update, involved participants with peripheral neuropathic pain of mixed origin (polyneuropathy, peripheral nerve injury or postherpetic neuralgia) (n = 83). Some studies did not report all outcomes of interest. For painful DPN, compared to the baseline, the proportion of participants who reported at least a 50% or 30% reduction of pain scores after 16 weeks of treatment in the oxcarbazepine group versus the placebo group were: at least 50% reduction: 34.8% with oxcarbazepine versus 18.2% with placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 3.39, number of people needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 6, 95% CI 3 to 41); and at least 30% reduction: 44.9% with oxcarbazepine versus 28.6% with placebo (RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.44; NNTB 6, 95% CI 3 to 114; n = 146). Both results were based on data from a single trial, since two trials that found little or no benefit did not provide data that could be included in a meta-analysis. Although these trials were well designed, incomplete outcome data and possible unblinding of participants due to obvious adverse effects placed the results at a high risk of bias. There was also serious imprecision and a high risk of publication bias. The radiculopathy trial reported no benefit for the outcome 'at least 50% pain relief' from oxcarbazepine. In mixed neuropathies, 19.3% of people receiving oxcarbazepine versus 4.8% receiving placebo had at least 50% pain relief. These small trials had low event rates and provided, at best, low-quality evidence for any outcome. The proportion of people with 'improved' or 'very much improved' pain was 45.9% with oxcarbazepine versus 30.1% with placebo in DPN (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.88; n = 493; 2 trials; very-low-quality evidence) and 23.9% with oxcarbazepine versus 14.9% with placebo in radiculopathy (RR 1.61, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.20; n = 145).We found no trials in other types of neuropathic pain such as trigeminal neuralgia.Trial reports stated that most adverse effects were mild to moderate in severity. Based on moderate-quality evidence from the three DPN trials, serious adverse effects occurred in 8.3% with oxcarbazepine and 2.5% with placebo (RR 3.65, 95% CI 1.45 to 9.20; n = 634; moderate-quality evidence). The number needed to treat for an additional harmful (serious adverse effect) outcome (NNTH) was 17 (95% CI 11 to 42). The RR for serious adverse effects in the radiculopathy trial was 3.13 (95% CI 0.65 to 14.98, n = 145). The fifth trial did not provide data.More people withdrew because of adverse effects with oxcarbazepine than with placebo (DPN: 25.6% with oxcarbazepine versus 6.8% with placebo; RR 3.83, 95% CI 2.29 to 6.40; radiculopathy: 42.3% with oxcarbazepine versus 14.9% with placebo; RR 2.84, 95% CI 1.55 to 5.23; mixed neuropathic pain: 13.5% with oxcarbazepine versus 1.2% with placebo; RR 11.51, 95% CI 1.54 to 86.15).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review found little evidence to support the effectiveness of oxcarbazepine in painful diabetic neuropathy, neuropathic pain from radiculopathy and a mixture of neuropathies. Some very-low-quality evidence suggests efficacy but small trials, low event rates, heterogeneity in some measures and a high risk of publication bias means that we have very low confidence in the measures of effect. Adverse effects, serious adverse effects and adverse effects leading to discontinuation are probably more common with oxcarbazepine than placebo; however, the numbers of participants and event rates are low. More well-designed, multicentre RCTs investigating oxcarbazepine for various types of neuropathic pain are needed, and selective publication of studies or data should be avoided.

Valproate induced hyperammonemic encephalopathy treated by haemodialysis

Valproate (VPA)-induced hyperammonemic encephalopathy is an unusual, but serious, adverse effect of divalproex sodium (DVPX) treatment and if untreated can lead to raised intracranial pressure, seizures, coma, and eventually death. It can, however, be reversed if an early diagnosis is made. It is therefore extremely important to recognize it and discontinue DVPX treatment. Our patient developed sudden deterioration of sensorium, drowsiness, lethargy, and later severe comatose state after few days of starting DVPX with high levels of serum ammonia despite therapeutic levels of VPA and normal liver function test. He responded to hemodialysis, cerebral decongestants, and other intensive supportive measures.

Glutamate Transport System as a Novel Therapeutic Target in Chronic Pain: Molecular Mechanisms and Pharmacology

The vast majority of peripheral neurons sensing noxious stimuli and conducting pain signals to the dorsal horn of the spinal cord utilize glutamate as a chemical transmitter of excitation. High-affinity glutamate transporter subtypes GLAST/EAAT1, GLT1/EAAT2, EAAC1/EAAT3, and EAAT4, differentially expressed on sensory neurons, postsynaptic spinal interneurons, and neighboring glia, ensure fine modulation of glutamate neurotransmission in the spinal cord. The glutamate transport system seems to play important roles in molecular mechanisms underlying chronic pain and analgesia. Downregulation of glutamate transporters (GluTs) often precedes or occurs simultaneously with development of hypersensitivity to thermal or tactile stimuli in various models of chronic pain. Moreover, antisense knockdown or pharmacological inhibition of these membrane proteins can induce or aggravate pain. In contrast, upregulation of GluTs by positive pharmacological modulators or by viral gene transfer to the spinal cord can reverse the development of such pathological hypersensitivity. Furthermore, some multi-target drugs displaying analgesic properties (e.g., tricyclic antidepressant amitriptyline, riluzole, anticonvulsant valproate, tetracycline antibiotic minocycline, β-lactam antibiotic ceftriaxone and its structural analog devoid of antibacterial activity, clavulanic acid) can significantly increase the spinal glutamate uptake. Thus, mounting evidence points at GluTs as prospective therapeutic target for chronic pain treatment. However, design and development of new analgesics based on the modulation of glutamate uptake will require more precise knowledge of molecular mechanisms underlying physiological or aberrant functioning of this transport system in the spinal cord.

Valproic Acid for Treatment of Hyperactive or Mixed Delirium: Rationale and Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Delirium is the most often encountered psychiatric diagnosis in the general hospital, with an incidence of up to 82% in the intensive care unit setting and with significant detrimental effects on patients' morbidity and mortality. Antipsychotics are often considered the first-line pharmacological treatment of delirium, but their use may be limited by lack of efficacy, existing contraindications (e.g., prolonged QTc intervals), or resulting side effects (e.g., akathisia). Valproic acid (VPA) is a potential alternative or adjunct treatment. It has multiple mechanisms of action, including effects on neurotransmitter modulation, neuroinflammation, oxidative stress, and transcription, all of which are implicated in the pathophysiology of delirium. Yet, data on the use of this agent in delirium are limited.

OBJECTIVE/METHODS

In this article, we discuss postulated mechanisms of VPA action that provide a theoretical basis for its use in the treatment of hyperactive and mixed type delirium, based on the known and theorized pathophysiology of delirium. We also discuss potential side effects and considerations with use of VPA.

CONCLUSIONS

VPA has multiple modulatory effects on neurotransmitter systems, inflammation, oxidative stress, and transcriptional changes implicated in pathophysiology of delirium. When carefully chosen, VPA can be an effective and well-tolerated treatment option for the management of hyperactive and mixed type delirium. Randomized controlled trials are needed to establish tolerability and efficacy of VPA for treatment of delirium.

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).

EMA401, an orally administered highly selective angiotensin II type 2 receptor antagonist, as a novel treatment for postherpetic neuralgia: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Existing treatments for postherpetic neuralgia, and for neuropathic pain in general, are limited by modest efficacy and unfavourable side-effects. The angiotensin II type 2 receptor (AT2R) is a new target for neuropathic pain. EMA401, a highly selective AT2R antagonist, is under development as a novel neuropathic pain therapeutic agent. We assessed the therapeutic potential of EMA401 in patients with postherpetic neuralgia.

METHODS

In this multicentre, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomised, phase 2 clinical trial, we enrolled patients (aged 22-89 years) with postherpetic neuralgia of at least 6 months' duration from 29 centres across six countries. We randomly allocated 183 participants to receive either oral EMA401 (100 mg twice daily) or placebo for 28 days. Randomisation was done according to a centralised randomisation schedule, blocked by study site, which was generated by an independent, unmasked statistician. Patients and staff at each site were masked to treatment assignment. We assessed the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of EMA401. The primary efficacy endpoint was change in mean pain intensity between baseline and the last week of dosing (days 22-28), measured on an 11-point numerical rating scale. The primary efficacy analysis was intention to treat. This trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12611000822987.

FINDINGS

92 patients were assigned to EMA401 and 91 were assigned to placebo. The patients given EMA401 reported significantly less pain compared with baseline values in the final week of treatment than did those given placebo (mean reductions in pain scores -2.29 [SD 1.75] vs -1.60 [1.66]; difference of adjusted least square means -0.69 [SE 0.25]; 95% CI -1.19 to -0.20; p=0.0066). No serious adverse events related to EMA401 occurred. Overall, 32 patients reported 56 treatment-emergent adverse events in the EMA401 group compared with 45 such events reported by 29 patients given placebo.

INTERPRETATION

EMA401 (100 mg twice daily) provides superior relief of postherpetic neuralgia compared with placebo at the end of 28 days of treatment. EMA401 was well tolerated by patients.

FUNDING

Spinifex Pharmaceuticals.

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.

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.

Whole-body pharmacokinetics of HDAC inhibitor drugs, butyric acid, valproic acid and 4-phenylbutyric acid measured with carbon-11 labeled analogs by PET

The fatty acids, n-butyric acid (BA), 4-phenylbutyric acid (PBA) and valproic acid (VPA, 2-propylpentanoic acid) have been used for many years in the treatment of a variety of CNS and peripheral organ diseases including cancer. New information that these drugs alter epigenetic processes through their inhibition of histone deacetylases (HDACs) has renewed interest in their biodistribution and pharmacokinetics and the relationship of these properties to their therapeutic and side effect profiles. In order to determine the pharmacokinetics and biodistribution of these drugs in primates, we synthesized their carbon-11 labeled analogues and performed dynamic positron emission tomography (PET) in six female baboons over 90 min. The carbon-11 labeled carboxylic acids were prepared by using (11)CO2 and the appropriate Grignard reagents. [(11)C]BA was metabolized rapidly (only 20% of the total carbon-11 in plasma was parent compound at 5 min post injection) whereas for VPA and PBA 98% and 85% of the radioactivity were the unmetabolized compound at 30 min after their administration respectively. The brain uptake of all three carboxylic acids was very low (<0.006%ID/cc, BA>VPA>PBA), which is consistent with the need for very high doses for therapeutic efficacy. Most of the radioactivity was excreted through the kidneys and accumulated in the bladder. However, the organ biodistribution between the drugs differed. [(11)C]BA showed relatively high uptake in spleen and pancreas whereas [(11)C]PBA showed high uptake in liver and heart. Notably, [(11)C]VPA showed exceptionally high heart uptake possibly due to its involvement in lipid metabolism. The unique biodistribution of each of these drugs may be of relevance in understanding their therapeutic and side effect profile including their teratogenic effects.

Neurovascular unit in chronic pain

Chronic pain is a debilitating condition with major socioeconomic impact, whose neurobiological basis is still not clear. An involvement of the neurovascular unit (NVU) has been recently proposed. In particular, the blood-brain barrier (BBB) and blood-spinal cord barrier (BSCB), two NVU key players, may be affected during the development of chronic pain; in particular, transient permeabilization of the barrier is suggested by several inflammatory- and nerve-injury-based pain models, and we argue that the clarification of molecular BBB/BSCB permeabilization events will shed new light in understanding chronic pain mechanisms. Possible biases in experiments supporting this theory and its translational potentials are discussed. Moving beyond an exclusive focus on the role of the endothelium, we propose that our understanding of the mechanisms subserving chronic pain will benefit from the extension of research efforts to the NVU as a whole. In this view, the available evidence on the interaction between analgesic drugs and the NVU is here reviewed. Chronic pain comorbidities, such as neuroinflammatory and neurodegenerative diseases, are also discussed in view of NVU changes, together with innovative pharmacological solutions targeting NVU components in chronic pain treatment.

Anti-epileptic drugs for pain #271

TCAs, SNRIs, and the AEDs gabapentin and pregabalin are the best adjuvant analgesics for neuropathic pain. For patients who are intolerant to or who experience pain unresponsive to the above medications, one can consider therapy with carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, valproic acid, topiramate, or lacosamide. However, as these agents are associated with more side effects and lower rates of efficacy, expert consultation is strongly recommended.

Interventions for treating pain and disability in adults with complex regional pain syndrome

BACKGROUND

There is currently no strong consensus regarding the optimal management of complex regional pain syndrome although a multitude of interventions have been described and are commonly used.

OBJECTIVES

To summarise the evidence from Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews of the effectiveness of any therapeutic intervention used to reduce pain, disability or both in adults with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS).

METHODS

We identified Cochrane reviews and non-Cochrane reviews through a systematic search of the following databases: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS and PEDro. We included non-Cochrane systematic reviews where they contained evidence not covered by identified Cochrane reviews. The methodological quality of reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR tool.We extracted data for the primary outcomes pain, disability and adverse events, and the secondary outcomes of quality of life, emotional well being and participants' ratings of satisfaction or improvement. Only evidence arising from randomised controlled trials was considered. We used the GRADE system to assess the quality of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six Cochrane reviews and 13 non-Cochrane systematic reviews. Cochrane reviews demonstrated better methodological quality than non-Cochrane reviews. Trials were typically small and the quality variable.There is moderate quality evidence that intravenous regional blockade with guanethidine is not effective in CRPS and that the procedure appears to be associated with the risk of significant adverse events.There is low quality evidence that bisphosphonates, calcitonin or a daily course of intravenous ketamine may be effective for pain when compared with placebo; graded motor imagery may be effective for pain and function when compared with usual care; and that mirror therapy may be effective for pain in post-stroke CRPS compared with a 'covered mirror' control. This evidence should be interpreted with caution. There is low quality evidence that local anaesthetic sympathetic blockade is not effective. Low quality evidence suggests that physiotherapy or occupational therapy are associated with small positive effects that are unlikely to be clinically important at one year follow up when compared with a social work passive attention control.For a wide range of other interventions, there is either no evidence or very low quality evidence available from which no conclusions should be drawn.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is a critical lack of high quality evidence for the effectiveness of most therapies for CRPS. Until further larger trials are undertaken, formulating an evidence-based approach to managing CRPS will remain difficult.

Interventions for treating pain and disability in adults with complex regional pain syndrome

BACKGROUND

There is currently no strong consensus regarding the optimal management of complex regional pain syndrome although a multitude of interventions have been described and are commonly used.

OBJECTIVES

To summarise the evidence from Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews of the effectiveness of any therapeutic intervention used to reduce pain, disability or both in adults with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS).

METHODS

We identified Cochrane reviews and non-Cochrane reviews through a systematic search of the following databases: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS and PEDro. We included non-Cochrane systematic reviews where they contained evidence not covered by identified Cochrane reviews. The methodological quality of reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR tool.We extracted data for the primary outcomes pain, disability and adverse events, and the secondary outcomes of quality of life, emotional well being and participants' ratings of satisfaction or improvement. Only evidence arising from randomised controlled trials was considered. We used the GRADE system to assess the quality of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six Cochrane reviews and 13 non-Cochrane systematic reviews. Cochrane reviews demonstrated better methodological quality than non-Cochrane reviews. Trials were typically small and the quality variable.There is moderate quality evidence that intravenous regional blockade with guanethidine is not effective in CRPS and that the procedure appears to be associated with the risk of significant adverse events.There is low quality evidence that bisphosphonates, calcitonin or a daily course of intravenous ketamine may be effective for pain when compared with placebo; graded motor imagery may be effective for pain and function when compared with usual care; and that mirror therapy may be effective for pain in post-stroke CRPS compared with a 'covered mirror' control. This evidence should be interpreted with caution. There is low quality evidence that local anaesthetic sympathetic blockade is not effective. Low quality evidence suggests that physiotherapy or occupational therapy are associated with small positive effects that are unlikely to be clinically important at one year follow up when compared with a social work passive attention control.For a wide range of other interventions, there is either no evidence or very low quality evidence available from which no conclusions should be drawn.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is a critical lack of high quality evidence for the effectiveness of most therapies for CRPS. Until further larger trials are undertaken, formulating an evidence-based approach to managing CRPS will remain difficult.

Oxcarbazepine for neuropathic pain

BACKGROUND

Neuropathic pain is difficult to treat. Oxcarbazepine is an anticonvulsant drug closely related to carbamazepine and is reportedly better tolerated. Oxcarbazepine has been reported to be efficacious in the treatment of neuropathic pain.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefits and harms of oxcarbazepine for different forms of neuropathic pain.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register (30 October 2012), CENTRAL (2012, Issue 10), MEDLINE (January 1966 to October 2012), EMBASE (January 1980 to October 2012) and the Chinese Biomedical Retrieval System (January 1978 to October 2012) for trials. We also searched the National Institutes of Health (NIH) databases and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials, and wrote to the companies who make oxcarbazepine and to pain experts asking for additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials and cross-over studies of oxcarbazepine for the treatment of people of any age or sex with any neuropathic pain were eligible. We planned to include trials of oxcarbazepine compared with placebo or any other intervention, regardless of administration route, dosage or length of treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected the studies for inclusion, assessed their risk of bias, extracted data and typed the data onto forms. The authors resolved any disagreements through discussion.

MAIN RESULTS

Four multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trials with a total of 779 participants were eligible for inclusion. These were from a series of studies funded by the manufacturer. Three of them investigated oxcarbazepine in people with painful diabetic neuropathy (634 participants) and one was a trial of oxcarbazepine for neuropathic pain due to radiculopathy (145 participants). Although these trials were well designed, the imbalanced and large amount of incomplete outcome data led to a risk of bias in the results. Results for painful diabetic neuropathy showed that compared to the baseline the proportion of participants who reported a 50% or 30% reduction of pain scores after 16 weeks of treatment was significantly higher in the oxcarbazepine group than the placebo group (50% reduction: risk ratio (RR) 1.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 3.39, number of people needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 6.0, 95% CI 3.3 to 41.0; 30% reduction: RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.44, NNTB 6.1, 95% CI 3.1 to 113.6). However, both results were based on data from the single positive trial (146 participants) since the two negative trials did not provide data that could be included in a meta-analysis. For participants with neuropathic pain due to radiculopathy, the trial demonstrated no significant efficacy for oxcarbazepine. Although trial reports stated that most side effects were mild to moderate in severity, the proportion of events leading to withdrawals was statistically higher in the oxcarbazepine group than in the placebo group both for painful diabetic neuropathy (RR 3.86, 95% CI 2.29 to 6.40) and radiculopathy (RR 2.84, 95% CI 1.55 to 5.23).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of moderate quality evidence from one trial in diabetic peripheral neuropathy, oxcarbazepine is effective in reducing pain for this condition. However, this conclusion does not take into account negative results from other trials in diabetic peripheral neuropathy that could not be included in our meta-analysis. We did not find any evidence from randomised controlled trials to determine the efficacy or safety of oxcarbazepine for other kinds of neuropathic pain. Most adverse effects related to oxcarbazepine are rated as mild to moderate in severity, but adverse events leading to discontinuation of drug administration or serious adverse events are not uncommon. More well designed randomised controlled trials investigating oxcarbazepine for various types of neuropathic pain are needed.

Diabetic neuropathies: diagnosis and management

INTRODUCTION

Changes in human behaviour and lifestyle over the last century have resulted in a dramatic increase in the incidence of diabetes worldwide. Neuropathy is a common and costly complication of both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. The prevalence of neuropathy is estimated to be about 8% in newly diagnosed patients and greater than 50% in patients with long-standing disease. There are two main types of diabetic neuropathies, named as sensorimotor and autonomic neuropathies. Sensorimotor neuropathy is marked by pain, paraesthesia and sensory loss, and autonomic neuropathy may contribute to myocardial infarction, malignant arrhythmia and sudden death.

METHODS

In this article we reviewed the pathogenesis, clinical manifestations diagnosis and treatment of diabetic neuropathies.

CONCLUSION

Sensorimotor and autonomic neuropathies (cardiovascular, gastrointestinal and genitourinary autonomic neuropathies) are common in diabetic patients. Apart from strict glycaemic control, no further therapeutic approach exists in the prevention of this phenomenon. Intensive diabetes therapy, intensive multifactorial cardiovascular risk reduction and lifestyle intervention are recommended in patients with cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy. Gastroparesis is the most debilitating complication of gastrointestinal autonomic neuropathy and genitourinary autonomic neuropathy can cause sexual dysfunction and neurogenic bladder; these conditions are hard to manage. The symptomatic treatment of sensory symptoms includes tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, gabapentin, pregabalin and opioids. Other treatment strategies are not so effective.

Lacosamide for neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

Antiepileptic drugs have been used in pain management since the 1960s; some seem to be especially useful for neuropathic pain. Lacosamide is an antiepileptic drug that has recently been investigated for neuropathic pain relief, although it failed to get approval for painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy from either the Food and Drug Administration or the European Medicines Agency.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of lacosamide in the management of chronic neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register (2011, Issue 4), CENTRAL (2011, Issue 3), MEDLINE (January 2000 to August 2011) and EMBASE (2000 to August 2011) without language restriction, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind studies of eight weeks duration or longer, comparing lacosamide with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data for efficacy and adverse events and examined issues of study quality, including risk of bias assessments. Where possible, we calculated numbers needed to treat to benefit from dichotomous data for effectiveness, adverse events and study withdrawals.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six studies; five (1863 participants) in painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) and one (159 participants) in fibromyalgia. All were placebo-controlled and titrated to a target dose of 200 mg, 400 mg or 600 mg lacosamide daily, given as a divided dose. Study reporting quality was generally good, although the imputation method of last observation carried forward used in analyses of the primary outcomes is known to known to impart major bias where, as here, adverse event withdrawal rates were high. This, together with small numbers of patients and events for most outcomes at most doses meant that most results were of low quality, with moderate quality evidence available for some efficacy outcomes for 400 mg lacosamide.There were too few data for analysis of the 200 mg dose for painful diabetic neuropathy or any dose for fibromyalgia.In painful diabetic neuropathy, lacosamide 400 mg provided statistically increased rates of achievement of "moderate" and "substantial" benefit (at least 30% and at least 50% reduction from baseline in patient-reported pain respectively) and the patient global impression of change outcome of "much or very much improved". In each case the extra proportion benefiting above placebo was about 10%, yielding numbers needed to treat to benefit compared with placebo of 10 to 12. For lacosamide 600 mg there was no consistent benefit over placebo.There was no significant difference between any dose of lacosamide and placebo for participants experiencing any adverse event or a serious adverse event, but adverse event withdrawals showed a significant dose response. The number needed to treat to harm for adverse event withdrawal was 11 for lacosamide 400 mg and 4 for the 600 mg dose.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Lacosamide has limited efficacy in the treatment of peripheral diabetic neuropathy. Higher doses did not give consistently better efficacy, but were associated with significantly more adverse event withdrawals. Where adverse event withdrawals are high with active treatment compared with placebo and when last observation carried forward imputation is used, as in some of these studies, significant overestimation of treatment efficacy can result. It is likely, therefore, that lacosamide is without any useful benefit in treating neuropathic pain; any positive interpretation of the evidence should be made with caution if at all.