Phenytoin for neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia in adults

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.

Overcoming clinical challenges of refractory neuropathic pain

INTRODUCTION

: Refractory neuropathic pain (ReNP), and its definition, is widely disputed amongst clinicians due in part to unclear categorical diagnosing guidelines, overall time duration of neuropathic pain, and the exhaustiveness of treatment options. Usually ReNP is defined as chronic, intractable, and unresponsive neuropathic pain that have otherwise been untreatable.

AREAS COVERED

: In this narrative review, we discuss and summarize the effectiveness of prospective ReNP research conducted over the past 10 years. This research looks at pharmacological and interventional therapies in clinical trial settings. The pharmacological therapies discussed include the use of adjuvant treatments to improve the safety and efficacy of conventional approaches. Different modalities of administration, such as injection therapy and intrathecal drug delivery systems, provide targeted drug delivery. Interventional therapies such as neuromodulation, pulse radiofrequency, and nerve lesioning are more invasive, however, they are increasingly utilized in the field, as reflected in ongoing clinical trials.

EXPERT OPINION

: Based on the current data from RCTs and systematic reviews, it is clear that single drug therapy cannot be effective and has significant limitations. Transitioning to interventional modalities that showed more promising results sooner rather than later may be even more cost-efficient than attempting different conservative treatments with a high failure rate.

The Treatment of Painful Diabetic Neuropathy

Painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (painful-DPN) is a highly prevalent and disabling condition, affecting up to one-third of patients with diabetes. This condition can have a profound impact resulting in a poor quality of life, disruption of employment, impaired sleep, and poor mental health with an excess of depression and anxiety. The management of painful-DPN poses a great challenge. Unfortunately, currently there are no Food and Drug Administration (USA) approved disease-modifying treatments for diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) as trials of putative pathogenetic treatments have failed at phase 3 clinical trial stage. Therefore, the focus of managing painful- DPN other than improving glycaemic control and cardiovascular risk factor modification is treating symptoms. The recommended treatments based on expert international consensus for painful- DPN have remained essentially unchanged for the last decade. Both the serotonin re-uptake inhibitor (SNRI) duloxetine and α2δ ligand pregabalin have the most robust evidence for treating painful-DPN. The weak opioids (e.g. tapentadol and tramadol, both of which have an SNRI effect), tricyclic antidepressants such as amitriptyline and α2δ ligand gabapentin are also widely recommended and prescribed agents. Opioids (except tramadol and tapentadol), should be prescribed with caution in view of the lack of definitive data surrounding efficacy, concerns surrounding addiction and adverse events. Recently, emerging therapies have gained local licenses, including the α2δ ligand mirogabalin (Japan) and the high dose 8% capsaicin patch (FDA and Europe). The management of refractory painful-DPN is difficult; specialist pain services may offer off-label therapies (e.g. botulinum toxin, intravenous lidocaine and spinal cord stimulation), although there is limited clinical trial evidence supporting their use. Additionally, despite combination therapy being commonly used clinically, there is little evidence supporting this practise. There is a need for further clinical trials to assess novel therapeutic agents, optimal combination therapy and existing agents to determine which are the most effective for the treatment of painful-DPN. This article reviews the evidence for the treatment of painful-DPN, including emerging treatment strategies such as novel compounds and stratification of patients according to individual characteristics (e.g. pain phenotype, neuroimaging and genotype) to improve treatment responses.

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.

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.

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.

Medical cannabis - the Canadian perspective

Cannabis has been widely used as a medicinal agent in Eastern medicine with earliest evidence in ancient Chinese practice dating back to 2700 BC. Over time, the use of medical cannabis has been increasingly adopted by Western medicine and is thus a rapidly emerging field that all pain physicians need to be aware of. Several randomized controlled trials have shown a significant and dose-dependent relationship between neuropathic pain relief and tetrahydrocannabinol – the principal psychoactive component of cannabis. Despite this, barriers exist to use from both the patient perspective (cost, addiction, social stigma, lack of understanding regarding safe administration) and the physician perspective (credibility, criminality, clinical evidence, patient addiction, and policy from the governing medical colleges). This review addresses these barriers and draws attention to key concerns in the Canadian medical system, providing updated treatment approaches to help clinicians work with their patients in achieving adequate pain control, reduced narcotic medication use, and enhanced quality of life. This review also includes case studies demonstrating the use of medical marijuana by patients with neuropathic low-back pain, neuropathic pain in fibromyalgia, and neuropathic pain in multiple sclerosis. While significant preclinical data have demonstrated the potential therapeutic benefits of cannabis for treating pain in osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, fibromyalgia, and cancer, further studies are needed with randomized controlled trials and larger study populations to identify the specific strains and concentrations that will work best with selected cohorts.

Pain management strategies for neuropathic pain in Fabry disease--a systematic review

Background

Neuropathic pain is one of the key features of (classical) Fabry disease (FD). No randomized clinical trials comparing effectiveness of different pain management strategies have been performed. This review aims to give an overview of existing pain management strategies.

Methods

PubMed and Embase were searched up to September 2014 for relevant articles on treatment of neuropathic pain in FD.

Results

Seven-hundred-thirty-one articles were identified of which 26 were included in the analysis. Studies reported on 55 individuals in total, with group-sizes ranging from 1 to 8. Carbamazepine appeared most beneficial: complete pain relief in 5/25, partial relief in 17/25, and no benefit in 3/25 patients. Phenytoin resulted in complete relief in 1/27, partial relief in 12/27 and no benefit in 6/27 patients. In 8 patients a significant reduction in the frequency of pain attacks was described. Gabapentin caused partial relief in 6/7 and no relief in 1/7 patients. Little evidence was reported for SSNRI’s or treatment combinations. Adverse-effects were reported in all treatment strategies.

Conclusions

Only for carbamazepine, phenytoin and gabapentin there is evidence of effectiveness in neuropathic pain due to FD, but comparison of effectiveness between these drugs is lacking. In routine clinical practice adverse-effects may discourage use of carbamazepine and phenytoin in favor of second-generation antiepileptic drugs, but this is currently not supported by clinical evidence. This review suffers greatly from incomplete outcome reports and a predominance of case reports, which emphasizes the need for robust clinical trials and observational cohort studies.

Inhaled Cannabis for Chronic Neuropathic Pain: A Meta-analysis of Individual Patient Data

Chronic neuropathic pain, the most frequent condition affecting the peripheral nervous system, remains underdiagnosed and difficult to treat. Inhaled cannabis may alleviate chronic neuropathic pain. Our objective was to synthesize the evidence on the use of inhaled cannabis for chronic neuropathic pain. We performed a systematic review and a meta-analysis of individual patient data. We registered our protocol with PROSPERO CRD42011001182. We searched in Cochrane Central, PubMed, EMBASE, and AMED. We considered all randomized controlled trials investigating chronic painful neuropathy and comparing inhaled cannabis with placebo. We pooled treatment effects following a hierarchical random-effects Bayesian responder model for the population-averaged subject-specific effect. Our evidence synthesis of individual patient data from 178 participants with 405 observed responses in 5 randomized controlled trials following patients for days to weeks provides evidence that inhaled cannabis results in short-term reductions in chronic neuropathic pain for 1 in every 5 to 6 patients treated (number needed to treat = 5.6 with a Bayesian 95% credible interval ranging between 3.4 and 14). Our inferences were insensitive to model assumptions, priors, and parameter choices. We caution that the small number of studies and participants, the short follow-up, shortcomings in allocation concealment, and considerable attrition limit the conclusions that can be drawn from the review. The Bayes factor is 332, corresponding to a posterior probability of effect of 99.7%.

PERSPECTIVE

This novel Bayesian meta-analysis of individual patient data from 5 randomized trials suggests that inhaled cannabis may provide short-term relief for 1 in 5 to 6 patients with neuropathic pain. Pragmatic trials are needed to evaluate the long-term benefits and risks of this treatment.

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.

Resistance exercise training for fibromyalgia

BACKGROUND

Fibromyalgia is characterized by chronic widespread pain that leads to reduced physical function. Exercise training is commonly recommended as a treatment for management of symptoms. We examined the literature on resistance training for individuals with fibromyalgia. Resistance training is exercise performed against a progressive resistance with the intention of improving muscle strength, muscle endurance, muscle power, or a combination of these.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of resistance exercise training in adults with fibromyalgia. We compared resistance training versus control and versus other types of exercise training.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched nine electronic databases (The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, Dissertation Abstracts, Current Controlled Trials, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, AMED) and other sources for published full-text articles. The date of the last search was 5 March 2013. Two review authors independently screened 1856 citations, 766 abstracts and 156 full-text articles. We included five studies that met our inclusion criteria.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Selection criteria included: a) randomized clinical trial, b) diagnosis of fibromyalgia based on published criteria, c) adult sample, d) full-text publication, and e) inclusion of between-group data comparing resistance training versus a control or other physical activity intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Pairs of review authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted intervention and outcome data. We resolved disagreements between the two review authors and questions regarding interpretation of study methods by discussion within the pairs or when necessary the issue was taken to the full team of 11 members. We extracted 21 outcomes of which seven were designated as major outcomes: multidimensional function, self reported physical function, pain, tenderness, muscle strength, attrition rates, and adverse effects. We evaluated benefits and harms of the interventions using standardized mean differences (SMD) or mean differences (MD) or risk ratios or Peto odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where two or more studies provided data for an outcome, we carried out a meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

The literature search yielded 1865 citations with five studies meeting the selection criteria. One of the studies that had three arms contributed data for two comparisons. In the included studies, there were 219 women participants with fibromyalgia, 95 of whom were assigned to resistance training programs. Three randomized trials compared 16 to 21 weeks of moderate- to high-intensity resistance training versus a control group. Two studies compared eight weeks of progressive resistance training (intensity as tolerated) using free weights or body weight resistance exercise versus aerobic training (ie, progressive treadmill walking, indoor and outdoor walking), and one study compared 12 weeks of low-intensity resistance training using hand weights (1 to 3 lbs (0.45 to 1.36 kg)) and elastic tubing versus flexibility exercise (static stretches to major muscle groups).Statistically significant differences (MD; 95% CI) favoring the resistance training interventions over control group(s) were found in multidimensional function (Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) total decreased 16.75 units on a 100-point scale; 95% CI -23.31 to -10.19), self reported physical function (-6.29 units on a 100-point scale; 95% CI -10.45 to -2.13), pain (-3.3 cm on a 10-cm scale; 95% CI -6.35 to -0.26), tenderness (-1.84 out of 18 tender points; 95% CI -2.6 to -1.08), and muscle strength (27.32 kg force on bilateral concentric leg extension; 95% CI 18.28 to 36.36).Differences between the resistance training group(s) and the aerobic training groups were not statistically significant for multidimensional function (5.48 on a 100-point scale; 95% CI -0.92 to 11.88), self reported physical function (-1.48 units on a 100-point scale; 95% CI -6.69 to 3.74) or tenderness (SMD -0.13; 95% CI -0.55 to 0.30). There was a statistically significant reduction in pain (0.99 cm on a 10-cm scale; 95% CI 0.31 to 1.67) favoring the aerobic groups.Statistically significant differences were found between a resistance training group and a flexibility group favoring the resistance training group for multidimensional function (-6.49 FIQ units on a 100-point scale; 95% CI -12.57 to -0.41) and pain (-0.88 cm on a 10-cm scale; 95% CI -1.57 to -0.19), but not for tenderness (-0.46 out of 18 tender points; 95% CI -1.56 to 0.64) or strength (4.77 foot pounds torque on concentric knee extension; 95% CI -2.40 to 11.94). This evidence was classified low quality due to the low number of studies and risk of bias assessment. There were no statistically significant differences in attrition rates between the interventions. In general, adverse effects were poorly recorded, but no serious adverse effects were reported. Assessment of risk of bias was hampered by poor written descriptions (eg, allocation concealment, blinding of outcome assessors). The lack of a priori protocols and lack of care provider blinding were also identified as methodologic concerns.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence (rated as low quality) suggested that moderate- and moderate- to high-intensity resistance training improves multidimensional function, pain, tenderness, and muscle strength in women with fibromyalgia. The evidence (rated as low quality) also suggested that eight weeks of aerobic exercise was superior to moderate-intensity resistance training for improving pain in women with fibromyalgia. There was low-quality evidence that 12 weeks of low-intensity resistance training was superior to flexibility exercise training in women with fibromyalgia for improvements in pain and multidimensional function. There was low-quality evidence that women with fibromyalgia can safely perform moderate- to high-resistance training.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Clonazepam for neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

Antiepileptic drugs have been used in pain management since the 1960s; some have shown efficacy in treating different neuropathic pain conditions. Clonazepam, a benzodiazepine, is an established antiepileptic drug, but its place in the treatment of neuropathic pain is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of the antiepileptic drug clonazepam in neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 2). MEDLINE, and EMBASE to 28 February 2012, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors would independently extract data for efficacy and adverse events, and examine issues of study quality.

MAIN RESULTS

We did not identify any studies that satisfied the inclusion criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review uncovered no evidence of sufficient quality to support the use of clonazepam in chronic neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia.

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.