Topical capsaicin (low concentration) for chronic neuropathic pain in adults

A novel approach to completely alleviate peripheral neuropathic pain in human patients: insights from preclinical data

Neuropathic pain is a pervasive health concern worldwide, posing significant challenges to both clinicians and neuroscientists. While acute pain serves as a warning signal for potential tissue damage, neuropathic pain represents a chronic pathological condition resulting from injury or disease affecting sensory pathways of the nervous system. Neuropathic pain is characterized by long-lasting ipsilateral hyperalgesia (increased sensitivity to pain), allodynia (pain sensation in response to stimuli that are not normally painful), and spontaneous unprovoked pain. Current treatments for neuropathic pain are generally inadequate, and prevention remains elusive. In this review, we provide an overview of current treatments, their limitations, and a discussion on the potential of capsaicin and its analog, resiniferatoxin (RTX), for complete alleviation of nerve injury-induced neuropathic pain. In an animal model of neuropathic pain where the fifth lumbar (L5) spinal nerve is unilaterally ligated and cut, resulting in ipsilateral hyperalgesia, allodynia, and spontaneous pain akin to human neuropathic pain. The application of capsaicin or RTX to the adjacent uninjured L3 and L4 nerves completely alleviated and prevented mechanical and thermal hyperalgesia following the L5 nerve injury. The effects of this treatment were specific to unmyelinated fibers (responsible for pain sensation), while thick myelinated nerve fibers (responsible for touch and mechanoreceptor sensations) remained intact. Here, we propose to translate these promising preclinical results into effective therapeutic interventions in humans by direct application of capsaicin or RTX to adjacent uninjured nerves in patients who suffer from neuropathic pain due to peripheral nerve injury, following surgical interventions, diabetic neuropathy, trauma, vertebral disc herniation, nerve entrapment, ischemia, postherpetic lesion, and spinal cord injury.

An overview of the non-procedural treatment options for peripheral neuropathic pain

Peripheral neuropathic pain is common in patients with peripheral nerve injury and can significantly impact both their function and quality of life. There is a wide variety of non-interventional treatment approaches, including pharmacologic therapy, physical/occupational therapy, modalities (therapeutic, mechanical, thermal, etc.), psychology, and lifestyle modification. First line pharmacologic therapy for peripheral neuropathic pain includes gabapentinoids, tricyclic antidepressants, and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors. Other classes of medications, such as topical treatments, opioids, and cannabinoids, have more limited usefulness in treatment but remain part of a treatment regimen. Physical and occupational therapy, psychological interventions, and lifestyle medicine are important adjuncts in the treatment and prevention of future peripheral neuropathic pain. The strength of the evidence supporting each intervention varies, with that for pharmacologic intervention being the strongest. A combination of these options tailored to the individual needs of the patient likely will result in the best treatment outcome for peripheral neuropathic pain.

Neuropathic pain: From actual pharmacological treatments to new therapeutic horizons

Neuropathic pain, caused by a lesion or disease affecting the somatosensory system, affects between 3 and 17% of the general population. The treatment of neuropathic pain is challenging due to its heterogeneous etiologies, lack of objective diagnostic tools and resistance to classical analgesic drugs. First-line treatments recommended by the Special Interest Group on Neuropathic Pain (NeuPSIG) and European Federation of Neurological Societies (EFNS) include gabapentinoids, tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) and selective serotonin noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs). Nevertheless these treatments have modest efficacy or dose limiting side effects. There is therefore a growing number of preclinical and clinical studies aim at developing new treatment strategies to treat neuropathic pain with better efficacy, selectivity, and less side effects. In this review, after a brief description of the mechanisms of action, efficacy, and limitations of current therapeutic drugs, we reviewed new preclinical and clinical targets currently under investigation, as well as promising non-pharmacological alternatives and their potential co-use with pharmacological treatments.

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.

[Complementary and alternative medicine-An option for chronic pain patients?]

The interest of patients with chronic pain in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is high. The aim of an accompanying complementary therapy is to strengthen the patient's self-efficacy, the ability to make decisions and the autonomy. The best evidence exists for physical activity and a balanced diet. Exercise combinations of strength and endurance as well as targeted strengthening of the muscles in the area of the pain are particularly suitable. When choosing the form of exercise, low-threshold training options are recommended. There is no reliable evidence for kinesio taping, homeopathy, neural therapy and draining procedures. The extensive data on acupuncture must be interpreted taking methodological limitations into account. Heat applications can support multimodal pain therapy. In the case of anti-inflammatory phytotherapeutic agents, there are good rationales from basic research and reliable empirical knowledge regarding the dosage. The evidence on cannabis is low.

Pharmacological interventions for pruritus in adult palliative care patients

BACKGROUND

This is the second update of the original Cochrane review published in 2013 (issue 6), which was updated in 2016 (issue 11). Pruritus occurs in patients with disparate underlying diseases and is caused by different pathologic mechanisms. In palliative care patients, pruritus is not the most prevalent but is a burdening symptom. It can cause considerable discomfort and negatively affect patients' quality of life.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different pharmacological treatments compared with active control or placebo for preventing or treating pruritus in adult palliative care patients.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (OVID) and Embase (OVID) up to 6 July 2022. In addition, we searched trial registries and checked the reference lists of all relevant studies, key textbooks, reviews and websites, and we contacted investigators and specialists in pruritus and palliative care regarding unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of different pharmacological treatments, compared with a placebo, no treatment, or an alternative treatment, for preventing or treating pruritus in palliative care patients.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the identified titles and abstracts, performed data extraction and assessed the risk of bias and methodological quality. We summarised the results descriptively and quantitatively (meta-analyses) according to the different pharmacological interventions and the diseases associated with pruritus. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created 13 summary of findings tables.

MAIN RESULTS

In total, we included 91 studies and 4652 participants in the review. We added 42 studies with 2839 participants for this update. Altogether, we included 51 different treatments for pruritus in four different patient groups. The overall risk of bias profile was heterogeneous and ranged from high to low risk. The main reason for giving a high risk of bias rating was a small sample size (fewer than 50 participants per treatment arm). Seventy-nine of 91 studies (87%) had fewer than 50 participants per treatment arm. Eight (9%) studies had low risk of bias in the specified key domains; the remaining studies had an unclear risk of bias (70 studies, 77%) or a high risk of bias (13 studies, 14%). Using GRADE criteria, we judged that the certainty of evidence for the primary outcome (i.e. pruritus) was high for kappa-opioid agonists compared to placebo and moderate for GABA-analogues compared to placebo. Certainty of evidence was low for naltrexone, fish-oil/omega-3 fatty acids, topical capsaicin, ondansetron and zinc sulphate compared to placebo and gabapentin compared to pregabalin, and very low for cromolyn sodium, paroxetine, montelukast, flumecinol, and rifampicin compared to placebo. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence mainly due to serious study limitations regarding risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency. For participants suffering from uraemic pruritus (UP; also known as chronic kidney disease (CKD)-associated pruritus (CKD-aP)), treatment with GABA-analogues compared to placebo likely resulted in a large reduction of pruritus (visual analogue scale (VAS) 0 to 10 cm): mean difference (MD) -5.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.56 to -4.55; five RCTs, N = 297, certainty of evidence: moderate. Treatment with kappa-opioid receptor agonists (difelikefalin, nalbuphine, nalfurafine) compared to placebo reduced pruritus slightly (VAS 0 to 10 cm, MD -0.96, 95% CI -1.22 to -0.71; six RCTs, N = 1292, certainty of evidence: high); thus, this treatment was less effective than GABA-analogues. Treatment with montelukast compared to placebo may result in a reduction of pruritus, but the evidence is very uncertain (two studies, 87 participants): SMD -1.40, 95% CI -1.87 to -0.92; certainty of evidence: very low. Treatment with fish-oil/omega-3 fatty acids compared to placebo may result in a large reduction of pruritus (four studies, 160 observations): SMD -1.60, 95% CI -1.97 to -1.22; certainty of evidence: low. Treatment with cromolyn sodium compared to placebo may result in a reduction of pruritus, but the evidence is very uncertain (VAS 0 to 10 cm, MD -3.27, 95% CI -5.91 to -0.63; two RCTs, N = 100, certainty of evidence: very low). Treatment with topical capsaicin compared with placebo may result in a large reduction of pruritus (two studies; 112 participants): SMD -1.06, 95% CI -1.55 to -0.57; certainty of evidence: low. Ondansetron, zinc sulphate and several other treatments may not reduce pruritus in participants suffering from UP. In participants with cholestatic pruritus (CP), treatment with rifampicin compared to placebo may reduce pruritus, but the evidence is very uncertain (VAS: 0 to 100, MD -42.00, 95% CI -87.31 to 3.31; two RCTs, N = 42, certainty of evidence: very low). Treatment with flumecinol compared to placebo may reduce pruritus, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR > 1 favours treatment group; RR 2.32, 95% CI 0.54 to 10.1; two RCTs, N = 69, certainty of evidence: very low). Treatment with the opioid antagonist naltrexone compared to placebo may reduce pruritus (VAS: 0 to 10 cm, MD -2.42, 95% CI -3.90 to -0.94; two RCTs, N = 52, certainty of evidence: low). However, effects in participants with UP were inconclusive (percentage of difference -12.30%, 95% CI -25.82% to 1.22%, one RCT, N = 32). In palliative care participants with pruritus of a different nature, the treatment with the drug paroxetine (one study), a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, compared to placebo may reduce pruritus slightly by 0.78 (numerical analogue scale from 0 to 10 points; 95% CI -1.19 to -0.37; one RCT, N = 48, certainty of evidence: low). Most adverse events were mild or moderate. Two interventions showed multiple major adverse events (naltrexone and nalfurafine).

AUTHORS CONCLUSIONS

Different interventions (GABA-analogues, kappa-opioid receptor agonists, cromolyn sodium, montelukast, fish-oil/omega-3 fatty acids and topical capsaicin compared to placebo) were effective for uraemic pruritus. GABA-analogues had the largest effect on pruritus. Rifampin, naltrexone and flumecinol tended to be effective for cholestatic pruritus. However, therapies for patients with malignancies are still lacking. Due to the small sample sizes in most meta-analyses and the heterogeneous methodological quality of the included trials, the results should be interpreted cautiously in terms of generalisability.

Topical clonidine for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Clonidine is a presynaptic alpha-2-adrenergic receptor agonist that has been used for many years to treat hypertension and other conditions, including chronic pain. Adverse events associated with systemic use of the drug have limited its application. Topical use of drugs has been gaining interest since the beginning of the century, as it may limit adverse events without loss of analgesic efficacy. Topical clonidine (TC) formulations have been investigated for almost 20 years in clinical trials. This is an update of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 8, 2015.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess the analgesic efficacy and safety of TC compared with placebo or other drugs in adults aged 18 years or above with chronic neuropathic pain.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE (Ovid), and Embase (Ovid) databases, and reference lists of retrieved papers and trial registries. We also contacted experts in the field. The most recent search was performed on 27 October 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened references for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion or by consulting a third review author if necessary. Where required, we contacted trial authors to request additional information. We presented pooled estimates for dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and continuous outcomes as mean differences (MDs) with P values. We used Review Manager Web software to perform the meta-analyses. We used a fixed-effect model if we considered heterogeneity as not important; otherwise, we used a random-effects model.  The review primary outcomes were: participant-reported pain relief of 50% or greater; participant-reported pain relief of 30% or greater; much or very much improved on Patient Global Impression of Change scale (PGIC); and very much improved on PGIC. Secondary outcomes included withdrawals due to adverse events; participants experiencing at least one adverse event; and withdrawals due to lack of efficacy. All outcomes were measured at the longest follow-up period. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE and created two summary of findings tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies in the review (two new in this update), with a total of 743 participants with painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN). TC (0.1% or 0.2%) was applied in gel form to the painful area two to three times daily. The double-blind treatment phase of three studies lasted 8 weeks to 85 days and compared TC versus placebo. In the fourth study, the double-blind treatment phase lasted 12 weeks and compared TC versus topical capsaicin. We assessed the studies as at unclear or high risk of bias for most domains; all studies were at unclear risk of bias for allocation concealment and blinding of outcome assessment; one study was at high risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel; two studies were at high risk of attrition bias; and three studies were at high risk of bias due to notable funding concerns. We judged the certainty of evidence (GRADE) to be moderate to very low, downgrading for study limitations, imprecision of results, and publication bias. TC compared to placebo There was no evidence of a difference in number of participants with participant-reported pain relief of 50% or greater during longest follow-up period (12 weeks) between groups (risk ratio (RR) 1.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.86; 179 participants; 1 study; low certainty evidence). However, the number of participants with participant-reported pain relief of 30% or greater during longest follow-up period (8 to 12 weeks) was higher in the TC group compared with placebo (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.77; 344 participants; 2 studies, very low certainty evidence). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) for this comparison was 8.33 (95% CI 4.3 to 50.0). Also, there was no evidence of a difference between groups for the outcomes much or very much improved on the PGIC during longest follow-up period (12 weeks) or very much improved on PGIC during the longest follow-up period (12 weeks) (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.49 and RR 1.82, 95% CI 0.89 to 3.72, respectively; 179 participants; 1 study; low certainty evidence). We observed no evidence of a difference between groups in withdrawals due to adverse events and withdrawals due to lack of efficacy during the longest follow-up period (12 weeks) (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.18 and RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.92, respectively; 179 participants; 1 study; low certainty evidence) and participants experiencing at least one adverse event during longest follow-up period (12 weeks) (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.14 to 3.05; 344 participants; 2 studies; low certainty evidence).  TC compared to active comparator There was no evidence of a difference in the number of participants with participant-reported pain relief of 50% or greater during longest follow-up period (12 weeks) between groups (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.0; 139 participants; 1 study; low certainty evidence). Other outcomes were not reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This is an update of a review published in 2015, for which our conclusions remain unchanged. Topical clonidine may provide some benefit to adults with painful diabetic neuropathy; however, the evidence is very uncertain. Additional trials are needed to assess TC in other neuropathic pain conditions and to determine whether it is possible to predict who or which groups of people will benefit from TC.

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.

Pharmacotherapy of Painful Diabetic Neuropathy: A Clinical Update

The rising prevalence of diabetes mellitus (DM) leads on to an increase in chronic diabetic complications. Diabetic peripheral neuropathies (DPNs) are common chronic complications of diabetes. Distal symmetric polyneuropathy is the most prevalent form. Most patients with DPN will remain pain-free; however, painful DPN (PDPN) occurs in 6-34% of all DM patients and is associated with reduced health-related-quality-of-life and substantial economic burden. Symptomatic treatment of PDPN and diabetic autonomic neuropathy is the key treatment goals. Using certain patient related characteristics, subjects with PDPN can be stratified and assigned targeted therapies to produce better pain outcomes. The aim of this review is to discuss the various pathogenetic mechanisms of DPN with special reference to the mechanisms leading to PDPN and the various pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies available for its management. Recommended pharmacological therapies include anticonvulsants, antidepressants, opioid analgesics, and topical medications.

Pain in the Cancer Survivor

Recent decades have demonstrated significant strides in cancer screening, diagnostics and therapeutics. As such there have been dramatic changes in survival following a diagnosis of cancer.

A preliminary prospective observational study of the effectiveness of high-concentration capsaicin cutaneous patch in the management of chronic post-surgical neuropathic pain

INTRODUCTION

Chronic post-surgical neuropathic pain is difficult to treat. Topically applied analgesics provide an alternative to systemic therapy in localised neuropathic pain syndromes. The aim of this study was to prospectively assess whether 8% capsaicin is effective in surgically induced neuropathic pain.

METHODOLOGY

Patients were screened for neuropathic pain using DN4 questionnaire. Validated questionnaires were completed at baseline and at 6 and 12 weeks (BPI, HADS, PGIC), and the affected area was mapped. The study received ethical approval from the local research ethics committee.

RESULTS

There were 12 participants. The most common operation was open thoracotomy (n = 8). There was a significant improvement in pain-interference from baseline to 12 weeks (p = .018). There were no significant changes in pain intensity or in the HADS. Repeat patches were performed for 4 participants on a second occasion (33%) and for 3 participants a third time (25%). There was a significant reduction in the surface area of the painful region on second (p = .04) and third applications (p = .023). At 12 weeks, 17% rated their symptoms very much better, 8% were much better, and 33% were minimally better, while 42% rated their symptoms no better.

CONCLUSIONS

This prospective study provides preliminary evidence for an improvement in patient outcomes with 8% capsaicin in surgically induced neuropathic pain. Improvements were noted in pain interference, and significant reductions in the painful surface area were noted for those who underwent subsequent treatments. Findings should be replicated in a randomised control trial to establish causation.

Management of Musculoskeletal Pain: An Update with Emphasis on Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain

Musculoskeletal pain is a challenging condition for both patients and physicians. Many adults have experienced one or more episodes of musculoskeletal pain at some time of their lives, regardless of age, gender, or economic status. It affects approximately 47% of the general population. Of those, about 39–45% have long-lasting problems that require medical consultation. Inadequately managed musculoskeletal pain can adversely affect quality of life and impose significant socioeconomic problems. This manuscript presents a comprehensive review of the management of chronic musculoskeletal pain. It briefly explores the background, classifications, patient assessments, and different tools for management according to the recently available evidence. Multimodal analgesia and multidisciplinary approaches are fundamental elements of effective management of musculoskeletal pain. Both pharmacological, non-pharmacological, as well as interventional pain therapy are important to enhance patient’s recovery, well-being, and improve quality of life. Accordingly, recent guidelines recommend the implementation of preventative strategies and physical tools first to minimize the use of medications. In patients who have had an inadequate response to pharmacotherapy, the proper use of interventional pain therapy and the other alternative techniques are vital for safe and effective management of chronic pain patients.

Preclinical Neuropathic Pain Assessment; the Importance of Translatability and Bidirectional Research

For patients suffering with chronic neuropathic pain the need for suitable novel therapies is imperative. Over recent years a contributing factor for the lack of development of new analgesics for neuropathic pain has been the mismatch of primary neuropathic pain assessment endpoints in preclinical vs. clinical trials. Despite continuous forward translation failures across diverse mechanisms, reflexive quantitative sensory testing remains the primary assessment endpoint for neuropathic pain and analgesia in animals. Restricting preclinical evaluation of pain and analgesia to exclusively reflexive outcomes is over simplified and can be argued not clinically relevant due to the continued lack of forward translation and failures in the clinic. The key to developing new analgesic treatments for neuropathic pain therefore lies in the development of clinically relevant endpoints that can translate preclinical animal results to human clinical trials. In this review we discuss this mismatch of primary neuropathic pain assessment endpoints, together with clinical and preclinical evidence that supports how bidirectional research is helping to validate new clinically relevant neuropathic pain assessment endpoints. Ethological behavioral endpoints such as burrowing and facial grimacing and objective measures such as electroencephalography provide improved translatability potential together with currently used quantitative sensory testing endpoints. By tailoring objective and subjective measures of neuropathic pain the translatability of new medicines for patients suffering with neuropathic pain will hopefully be improved.

Topical capsaicin for the treatment of cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome, a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome (CHS) is a condition that is being recognized and treated more frequently in emergency departments (EDs) across the United States. Currently, ED providers rely on antiemetics, antipsychotics and benzodiazepines to alleviate the symptoms. Topical capsaicin, a transient receptor potential vanilloid 1 (TRPV1) agonist, has been proposed in recent years as a low-cost and effective alternative to the traditional antiemetic regimen when treating CHS. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to demonstrate the reliability and the gaps of what is known about this treatment modality.

METHODS

Articles were extracted from PubMed, SCOPUS, and Google Scholar databases. Publication dates ranged from the inception of the databases to October 2020. Initial searches found 328 studies. After careful review and screening by two investigators, 7 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included for our meta-analysis. Variables that were evaluated included the prevalence of hospital admissions for patients treated with capsaicin, time to relief of symptoms after capsaicin administration, and ED length of stay (LOS). I-square and Q-statistic values were used to assess heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Among the 7 studies, there was a total of 106 patients. Two studies reported time to resolution of symptoms following capsaicin administration and ED LOS. Means for these outcomes were 325 (95% CI 234-787) and 379 (95% CI 10-747) minutes respectively. I-square was 44%, and Q-statistic was 11 with 6 degrees of freedom, with a p-value of 0.1.

DISCUSSION

With acceptable time to resolution of symptoms after topical administration and ED LOS, capsaicin appears to be an effective treatment option for symptomatic relief of CHS. Further randomized controlled trials should be conducted to examine if it is the more efficacious and efficient treatment for CHS across various care settings.

Non-opioid Analgesics and Emerging Therapies

Pain is a common and debilitating symptom of cancer. Cancer-related pain can occur at any point along the continuum from diagnosis to treatment to survivorship¹. A systematic review published in 2016 estimated the prevalence of cancer pain to be 55% in those undergoing antineoplastic treatment, 66.4% in advanced cancer, and 39.3% in the post-treatment population. Thirty-eight percent of cancer patients in this pooled analysis experienced moderate to severe pain².

The Mysteries of Capsaicin-Sensitive Afferents

A fundamental subdivision of nociceptive sensory neurons is named after their unique sensitivity to capsaicin, the pungent ingredient in hot chili peppers: these are the capsaicin-sensitive afferents. The initial excitation by capsaicin of these neurons manifested as burning pain sensation is followed by a lasting refractory state, traditionally referred to as "capsaicin desensitization," during which the previously excited neurons are unresponsive not only to capsaicin but a variety of unrelated stimuli including noxious heat. The long sought-after capsaicin receptor, now known as TRPV1 (transient receptor potential cation channel, subfamily V member 1), was cloned more than two decades ago. The substantial reduction of the inflammatory phenotype of Trpv1 knockout mice has spurred extensive efforts in the pharmaceutical industry to develop small molecule TRPV1 antagonists. However, adverse effects, most importantly hyperthermia and burn injuries, have so far prevented any compounds from progressing beyond Phase 2. There is increasing evidence that these limitations can be at least partially overcome by approaches outside of the mainstream pharmaceutical development, providing novel therapeutic options through TRPV1. Although ablation of the whole TRPV1-expressing nerve population by high dose capsaicin, or more selectively by intersectional genetics, has allowed researchers to investigate the functions of capsaicin-sensitive afferents in health and disease, several "mysteries" remain unsolved to date, including the molecular underpinnings of "capsaicin desensitization," and the exact role these nerves play in thermoregulation and heat sensation. This review tries to shed some light on these capsaicin mechanisms.

Nanomaterial Lipid-Based Carrier for Non-Invasive Capsaicin Delivery; Manufacturing Scale-Up and Human Irritation Assessment

Capsaicin is an active compound in chili peppers (Capsicum chinense) that has been approved for chronic pain treatment. The topical application of high-strength capsaicin has been proven to reduce pain; however, skin irritation is a major drawback. The aim of this study was to investigate an appropriate and scalable technique for preparing nanostructured lipid carriers (NLCs) containing 0.25% capsaicin from capsicum oleoresin (NLC_C) and to evaluate the irritation of human skin by chili-extract-loaded NLCs incorporated in a gel formulation (Gel NLC_C). High-shear homogenization with high intensity (10,000 rpm) was selected to create uniform nanoparticles with a size range from 106 to 156 nm. Both the NLC_C and Gel NLC_C formulations expressed greater physical and chemical stabilities than the free chili formulation. Release and porcine biopsy studies revealed the sustained drug release and significant permeation of the NLCs through the outer skin layer, distributing in the dermis better than the free compounds. Finally, the alleviation of irritation and the decrease in uncomfortable feelings following the application of the Gel NLC_C formulation were compared to the effects from a chili gel and a commercial product in thirty healthy volunteers. The chili-extract-loaded NLCs were shown to be applicable for the transdermal delivery of capsaicin whilst minimizing skin irritation, the major noncompliance cause of patients.

Fight fire with fire: Neurobiology of capsaicin-induced analgesia for chronic pain

Capsaicin, the pungent ingredient in chili peppers, produces intense burning pain in humans. Capsaicin selectively activates the transient receptor potential vanilloid 1 (TRPV1), which is enriched in nociceptive primary afferents, and underpins the mechanism for capsaicin-induced burning pain. Paradoxically, capsaicin has long been used as an analgesic. The development of topical patches and injectable formulations containing capsaicin has led to application in clinical settings to treat chronic pain conditions, such as neuropathic pain and the potential to treat osteoarthritis. More detailed determination of the neurobiological mechanisms of capsaicin-induced analgesia should provide the logical rationale for capsaicin therapy and help to overcome the treatment's limitations, which include individual differences in treatment outcome and procedural discomfort. Low concentrations of capsaicin induce short-term defunctionalization of nociceptor terminals. This phenomenon is reversible within hours and, hence, likely does not account for the clinical benefit. By contrast, high concentrations of capsaicin lead to long-term defunctionalization mediated by the ablation of TRPV1-expressing afferent terminals, resulting in long-lasting analgesia persisting for several months. Recent studies have shown that capsaicin-induced Ca²⁺/calpain-mediated ablation of axonal terminals is necessary to produce long-lasting analgesia in a mouse model of neuropathic pain. In combination with calpain, axonal mitochondrial dysfunction and microtubule disorganization may also contribute to the longer-term effects of capsaicin. The analgesic effects subside over time in association with the regeneration of the ablated afferent terminals. Further determination of the neurobiological mechanisms of capsaicin-induced analgesia should lead to more efficacious non-opioidergic analgesic options with fewer adverse side effects.

Novel Agents in Neuropathic Pain, the Role of Capsaicin: Pharmacology, Efficacy, Side Effects, Different Preparations

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Capsaicin is a natural substance used to treat neuropathic pain because of its ability to be used in a more direct form on patients and efficiently treat their pain without the amount of side effects seen in the use of oral medications.

RECENT FINDINGS

Currently, the treatments for neuropathic pain are, control of the underlying disease process, then focused on symptomatic relief with pharmacotherapy, topical analgesics, or other interventions. When all pharmacological agents fail to relieve the pain, interventional strategies can be considered, such as neural blocks, spinal cord stimulation, and intrathecal administered medications. The response to current treatment of neuropathic pain is only modest relief of symptoms. Multiple treatment options may be attempted, while ultimately leaving patients with refractory neuropathic pain. For these reasons, a better treatment approach to neuropathic pain is greatly needed. Overall, capsaicin has great potential for becoming a first- or second-line treatment for neuropathic pain, and for becoming a therapeutic option for many other neuropathic pain-related disease states.

Guidelines on multidisciplinary approaches for the prevention and management of diabetic foot disease (2020 edition)

In recent years, as living standards have continued to improve, the number of diabetes patients in China, along with the incidence of complications associated with the disease, has been increasing. Among these complications, diabetic foot disease is one of the main causes of disability and death in diabetic patients. Due to the differences in economy, culture, religion and level of medical care available across different regions, preventive and treatment methods and curative results for diabetic foot vary greatly. In multidisciplinary models built around diabetic foot, the timely assessment and diagnosis of wounds and appropriate methods of prevention and treatment with internal and external surgery are key to clinical practice for this pathology. In 2019, under the leadership of the Jiangsu Medical Association and Chinese Diabetes Society, the writing group for the Guidelines on multidisciplinary approaches for the prevention and management of diabetic foot disease (2020 edition) was established with the participation of scholars from the specialist areas of endocrinology, burn injury, vascular surgery, orthopedics, foot and ankle surgery and cardiology. Drawing lessons from diabetic foot guidelines from other countries, this guide analyses clinical practices for diabetic foot, queries the theoretical basis and grades and gives recommendations based on the characteristics of the pathology in China. This paper begins with assessments and diagnoses of diabetic foot, then describes treatments for diabetic foot in detail, and ends with protections for high-risk feet and the prevention of ulcers. This manuscript covers the disciplines of internal medicine, surgical, nursing and rehabilitation and describes a total of 50 recommendations that we hope will provide procedures and protocols for clinicians dealing with diabetic foot.

Registry number: IPGRP-2020cn124

The use of high dose topical capsaicin in the management of peripheral neuropathy: narrative review and local experience

Capsaicin, derived from the chilli pepper plant, is available in high concentration (8%) patches to provide topical therapy for neuropathic pain. Its analgesic effects relate to defunctionalisation and nerve terminal retraction of predominantly C fibres in the dermis and epidermis. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis support its use for the management of post-herpetic neuralgia and HIV neuropathy with some evidence for use in painful peripheral diabetic neuropathy. The article concludes with advice on the practicalities of running a topical 8% capsaicin clinic for peripheral neuropathic pain.

Enhanced Transdermal Delivery of Concentrated Capsaicin from Chili Extract-Loaded Lipid Nanoparticles with Reduced Skin Irritation

The aim of this study was to develop lipid-based nanoparticles that entrapped a high concentration of capsaicin (0.25%) from a capsicum oleoresin extract. The solid lipid nanoparticles (SLNs) and nanostructured lipid carriers (NLCs) were strategically fabricated to entrap capsaicin without a hazardous solvent. Optimized nanosize lipid particles with high capsaicin entrapment and loading capacity were achieved from pair-wise comparison of the solid lipid mixtures consisting of fatty esters and fatty alcohols, representing small and large crystal-structure molecules combined with a compatible liquid lipid and surfactants (crystallinity index = 3%). This report was focused on selectively captured capsaicin from oleoresin in amorphous chili extract-loaded NLCs with 85.27% ± 0.12% entrapment efficiency (EE) and 8.53% ± 0.01% loading capacity (LC). The particle size, polydispersity index, and zeta potential of chili extract-loaded NLCs were 148.50 ± 2.94 nm, 0.12 ± 0.03, and -29.58 ± 1.37 mV, respectively. The favorable zero-order kinetics that prolonged capsaicin release and the significantly faster transdermal penetration of the NLC attributed to the reduction in skin irritation of the concentrated capsaicin NLCs, as illustrated by the in vitro EpiDerm^TM three-dimensional human skin irritation test and hen's egg test chorioallantoic membrane assay (HET-CAM).

Topical Treatment of Localized Neuropathic Pain in the Elderly

The prevalence of neuropathic pain in the older population has been reported to be very high and is most commonly localized to a circumscribed area. Treatment failure is frequent in neuropathic pain and is accompanied by central side effects with recommended oral drugs acting on the central nervous system. A number of topical pharmaceuticals are available on prescription and also sold over the counter. This review in persons aged older than 60 years shows the efficacy of lidocaine 5% and capsaicin 8% for localized neuropathic pain while results with other pharmaceuticals are rather inconsistent. Local application of drugs has a very limited systemic effect and the pharmacological advantages of local over systemic treatment are particularly interesting in older persons who often have comorbidities and take multiple medications. However, more information is needed on the efficacy and safety of lidocaine 5% and capsaicin 8% in older old persons and on the long-term effects of these pharmaceuticals. These studies should also pave the way for research and development in the field of topical analgesics with a satisfactory level of evidence-based medicine.

Management of Peripheral Neuropathy Induced by Chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is considered a severe side effect of therapeutic agents with limited treatment options. The incidence of CIPN in cancer patients is approximately 3-7% in cytostatic monotherapy and as high as 38% in cases of polychemotherapy. The prevalence of CIPN was found to be 68% within the first month of chemotherapy treatment. In some cases, CIPN can resolve, partially or completely, after completion of the treatment; in other cases, it can remain for a long time and affect the patient's quality of life.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to present up-to-date data regarding available treatment options for the management of CIPN.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The up-to-date guidelines of ESMO (European Society for Medical Oncology), ASCO (American Society of Clinical Oncology), ONS (Oncology Nursing Society), NCI (National Cancer Institute), and NCCN (National Comprehensive Cancer Network) were reviewed and included in the manuscript.

RESULTS

The use of tricyclic antidepressant (TCA), selective serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SSNRI), pregabalin, and gabapentin are recommended as first-line treatment. Other treatment options were offered as second and third lines of treatment (lidocaine patches, capsaicin high-concentration patches, tramadol, and strong opioids, respectively); however, lower significance was demonstrated. Inconclusive results were found in the use of cannabinoids, drug combinations, antiepileptics, antidepressants, and topical drugs.

CONCLUSION

TCA, other antidepressants, and opioids could be recommended as treatment. Yet, we could not recommend an ideal therapeutic agent for the prevention or treatment of CIPN. Therefore, CIPN continues to be a challenge to clinicians and our patients.

Efficacy of Capsaicin for the Treatment of Cannabinoid Hyperemesis Syndrome: A Systematic Review

Objective: Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome (CHS) is characterized by cyclic vomiting, abdominal pain, and alleviation of symptoms via hot showers in chronic cannabinoid users. Capsaicin is recommended as a reasonable first-line treatment approach for CHS despite limited clinical evidence regarding its use. The objective of this study is to systematically review the efficacy data for capsaicin in CHS. Data Sources: A literature search using keywords related to cannabinoids, emesis, and capsaicin was performed in MEDLINE, CINAHL, and EMBASE from inception through March 31, 2019. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Studies and published abstracts in which capsaicin was used for CHS and clinical outcomes were reported were eligible for inclusion. Data Synthesis: A total of 241 articles were screened, of which 5 full-text articles and 6 conference abstracts were included. Full-text case reports (n = 3) and case series (n = 2) found capsaicin to be effective in a total of 18 patients. Published abstracts were in the form of case reports (n = 1), case series (n = 3), and retrospective cohort studies (n = 2). Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: Capsaicin use was described as beneficial in all case series and case reports; however, both retrospective cohort studies were unable to find a significant benefit for capsaicin on primary outcomes (emergency department length of stay). Conclusion: Current data for capsaicin efficacy in CHS is of low methodological quality. However, the limited data on alternative antiemetic therapies and capsaicin’s favorable risk-benefit profile make it a reasonable adjunctive treatment option.

Analgesic transient receptor potential vanilloid-1-active compounds inhibit native and recombinant T-type calcium channels

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

T-type calcium (Ca_v 3) and transient receptor potential vanilloid-1 (TRPV1) channels play central roles in the control of excitability in the peripheral nervous system and are regarded as potential therapeutic pain targets. Modulators that either activate or inhibit TRPV1-mediated currents display analgesic properties in various pain models despite opposing effects on their connate target, TRPV1. We explored the effects of TRPV1-active compounds on Ca_v 3-mediated currents.

EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

Whole-cell patch clamp recordings were used to examine the effects of TRPV1-active compounds on rat dorsal root ganglion low voltage-activated calcium currents and recombinant Ca_v 3 isoforms in expression systems.

KEY RESULTS

The classical TRPV1 agonist capsaicin as well as TRPV1 antagonists A-889425, BCTC, and capsazepine directly inhibited Ca_v 3 channels. These compounds altered the voltage-dependence of activation and inactivation of Ca_v 3 channels and delayed their recovery from inactivation, leading to a concomitant decrease in T-type current availability. The TRPV1 antagonist capsazepine potently inhibited Ca_v 3.1 and 3.2 channels (K_D  < 120 nM), as demonstrated by its slow off rate. In contrast, neither the TRPV1 agonists, Palvanil and resiniferatoxin, nor the TRPV1 antagonist AMG9810 modulated Ca_v 3-mediated currents.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Analgesic TRPV1-active compounds inhibit Ca_v 3 currents in native and heterologous systems. Hence, their analgesic effects may not be exclusively attributed to their actions on TRPV1, which has important implications in the current understanding of nociceptive pathways. Importantly, our results highlight the need for attention in the experimental design used to address the analgesic properties of Ca_v 3 channel inhibitors.

Herbal medicinal products or preparations for neuropathic pain

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Vulvodynia: A Review of the Literature

Objective: To evaluate the literature and educate the pharmacy community about the different treatment options for vulvodynia. Data Sources: Searches were performed through MEDLINE (1946-May 2018) using OVID and EBSCOhost, and Excerpta Medica (1974-May 2018) using EMBASE. Search terms included vulvar vestibulitis syndrome, vestibulodynia, vulvodynia, vulvar pain, provoked vulvar vestibulitis, and vulvodynia treatment. References of all relevant articles were then used to find additional applicable articles. Study Selection and Data Extraction: This review includes articles in the English language and human trial literature. Twenty-five trials explored the use of oral and topical medications in the treatment of vulvodynia. Data Synthesis: Vulvodynia is a poorly understood disease with an unknown etiology. Oral tricyclic antidepressants and gabapentin continue to be the most commonly used treatments for vulvodynia pain. This is due to their ease of use and patient preference. Topical treatments that have efficacy data are amitriptyline, gabapentin, lidocaine, baclofen, and hormones. This route of administration avoids systemic adverse effects and interpatient variability that accompanies oral administration. Alternative therapies more commonly used include physiotherapy, psychotherapy, and surgery. Treatment length may vary due to dose titrations and potential changes in medication therapy. Conclusions: Several medication and alternative therapies may be effective in treating vulvodynia. Current studies used wide dosing ranges, making it difficult to standardize therapy. No consistent method of assessing pain was used between studies, as well as a limited number being randomized and placebo controlled. Additional research is needed to increase knowledge and further develop vulvodynia treatments.

Pregabalin for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Altering cough reflex sensitivity with aerosolized capsaicin paired with behavioral cough suppression: a proof-of-concept study

Background

The purpose of this prospective, quasi-experimental, single cohort proof-of-concept study was to determine feasibility and proof-of-concept of programmatically decreasing cough sensitivity through use of cough suppression strategies following inhalation of aerosolized capsaicin, in gradually increasing doses, across repeated treatment sessions.

Methods

Five healthy adults, ages 20-32 years of age, enrolled and completed the study. The study commenced in three phases. Phase I consisted of baseline cough sensitivity testing using pharmaceutical-grade aerosolized capsaicin, delivered via a Koko DigiDoser with nebulizer. The single-inhale, dose-response method was used. Doses that elicited two coughs (C2) and five coughs (C5) were recorded. Testing ceased when participants met the C5 threshold or when they had been given the maximum dose of 1,000 µmol/L. Phase II consisted of 5-6 treatment sessions, during which participants were exposed to increasing doses of aerosolized capsaicin while implementing behavioral cough suppression strategies. In phase III, cough sensitivity was re-tested at 1 and 3 weeks post-treatment. Participants were given explicit instructions to not try to suppress their cough. Participants who did not reach the C2 or C5 threshold at 1,000 µmol/L were assigned a score of 1,250 µmol/L.

Results

Each participant demonstrated a gradual increase in maximum capsaicin dose suppressed during each treatment session, with each successfully suppressing at 1,000 µmol/L by the final treatment session. C2 was greater than baseline in 4 of the 5 participants at 1 week post-treatment, and in 3 of the 5, at 3 weeks post-treatment. C5 was greater in all 5 participants at both post-treatment time points. In fact, 4 of the 5 participants did not reach the C5 threshold during either post-treatment testing sessions. Wilcoxon's Signed Rank Test, using the logC2 and logC5 values, revealed a significant difference relative to baseline in logC5 at 1 week (z=-2.02, P=0.04) and 3 weeks (z=-2.03, P=0.04) post-treatment. The difference in logC2 neared significance at 1 week post-treatment (z=-1.77, P=0.077), but was insignificant at 3 weeks post-treatment (z=-1.46, P=0.144).

Conclusions

This study demonstrates the potential of treating patients with refractory chronic cough (RCC), due to cough hypersensitivity, with a progressive desensitization approach paired with behavioral cough suppression. Additional research is needed using a randomized, placebo-controlled trial with patients with RCC.

Chronic postsurgical pain: current evidence for prevention and management

Chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) is an unwanted adverse event in any operation. It leads to functional limitations and psychological trauma for patients, and leaves the operative team with feelings of failure and humiliation. Therefore, it is crucial that preventive strategies for CPSP are considered in high-risk operations. Various techniques have been implemented to reduce the risk with variable success. Identifying the risk factors for each patient and applying a timely preventive strategy may help patients avoid the distress of chronic pain. The preventive strategies include modification of the surgical technique, good pain control throughout the perioperative period, and preoperative psychological intervention focusing on the psychosocial and cognitive risk factors. Appropriate management of CPSP patients is also necessary to reduce their suffering. CPSP usually has a neuropathic pain component; therefore, the current recommendations are based on data on chronic neuropathic pain. Hence, voltage-dependent calcium channel antagonists, antidepressants, topical lidocaine and topical capsaicin are the main pharmacological treatments. Paracetamol, NSAIDs and weak opioids can be used according to symptom severity, but strong opioids should be used with great caution and are not recommended. Other drugs that may be helpful are ketamine, clonidine, and intravenous lidocaine infusion. For patients with failed pharmacological treatment, consideration should be given to pain interventions; examples include transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, botulinum toxin injections, pulsed radiofrequency, nerve blocks, nerve ablation, neuromodulation and surgical management. Physical therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy and lifestyle modifications are also useful for relieving the pain and distress experienced by CPSP patients.

Targeting nociceptive transient receptor potential channels to treat chronic pain: current state of the field

Control of chronic pain is frequently inadequate and/or associated with intolerable adverse effects, prompting a frantic search for new therapeutics and new therapeutic targets. Nearly two decades of preclinical and clinical research supports the involvement of transient receptor potential (TRP) channels in temperature perception, nociception and sensitization. Although there has been considerable excitement around the therapeutic potential of this channel family since the cloning and identification of TRPV1 cation channels as the capsaicin receptor more than 20 years ago, only modulators of a few channels have been tested clinically. TRPV1 channel antagonists have suffered from side effects related to the channel's role in temperature sensation; however, high dose formulations of capsaicin have reached the market and shown therapeutic utility. A number of potent, small molecule antagonists of TRPA1 channels have recently advanced into clinical trials for the treatment of inflammatory and neuropathic pain, and TRPM8 antagonists are following closely behind for cold allodynia. TRPV3, TRPV4, TRPM2 and TRPM3 channels have also been of significant interest. This review discusses the preclinical promise and status of novel analgesic agents that target TRP channels and the challenges that these compounds may face in development and clinical practice.

LINKED ARTICLES

This article is part of a themed section on Recent Advances in Targeting Ion Channels to Treat Chronic Pain. To view the other articles in this section visit http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bph.v175.12/issuetoc.

Cannabis-based medicines for chronic neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Acute effect of different concentrations of cayenne pepper cataplasm on sensory-motor functions and serum levels of inflammation-related biomarkers in healthy subjects

Physical medicine therapies are often used in treating widespread musculoskeletal disorders, such as neck and low back pain. Herbal cataplasms containing rubefacient substances, such as Cayenne pepper, or galenic preparations like Munari cataplasm are commonly used as natural medications to treat painful areas. In this paper we show the effects of a 20-min application of Cayenne pepper and kaolin powder cataplasm (CPC) on healthy subjects. Treatment effects were evaluated by cold/hot feeling on visual analogue scale, blood pressure, body temperature, skin light touch sensations, two-point discrimination, and pain threshold to a mechanical stimulus, before and immediately after, 15 min after and 30 min after different concentration of Cayenne pepper in CPC preparation on healthy subjects. Maximal voluntary trunk extension force and trunk extension submaximal force matching error were also measured. In addition, the resulting optimal CPC mixture was tested for its safety by measuring changes in circulating levels of inflammatory-related biomarkers after 20-min application. The results indicate that the 5% concentration of Cayenne pepper in the preparation of CPC is the best choice, since no additional effects can be obtained with the 10% concentration, and the effects are higher than those observed at the 2.5% concentration. Importantly, 5% CPC application did not induce a significant increase of inflammatory-related biomarkers, suggesting that 20-min application has no negative side effects at systemic levels. Further studies are needed to investigate the immediate and long-term effects of repeated CPC applications as well as to understand the intersecting underlying mechanisms activated by Capsaicin and other identified factors, in order to be more extensively used in the field of physical medicine therapies.

Exciting perspectives for Translational Myology in the Abstracts of the 2018Spring PaduaMuscleDays: Giovanni Salviati Memorial - Chapter IV - Abstracts of March 17, 2018

Myologists working in Padua (Italy) were able to continue a half-century tradition of studies of skeletal muscles, that started with a research on fever, specifically if and how skeletal muscle contribute to it by burning bacterial toxin. Beside main publications in high-impact-factor journals by Padua myologists, I hope to convince readers (and myself) of the relevance of the editing Basic and Applied Myology (BAM), retitled from 2010 European Journal of Translational Myology (EJTM), of the institution of the Interdepartmental Research Center of Myology of the University of Padova (CIR-Myo), and of a long series of International Conferences organized in Euganei Hills and Padova, that is, the PaduaMuscleDays. The 2018Spring PaduaMuscleDays (2018SpPMD), were held in Euganei Hills and Padua (Italy), in March 14-17, and were dedicated to Giovanni Salviati. The main event of the “Giovanni Salviati Memorial”, was held in the Aula Guariento, Accademia Galileiana di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti of Padua to honor a beloved friend and excellent scientist 20 years after his premature passing. Using the words of Prof. Nicola Rizzuto, we all share his believe that Giovanni “will be remembered not only for his talent and originality as a biochemist, but also for his unassuming and humanistic personality, a rare quality in highly successful people like Giovanni. The best way to remember such a person is to gather pupils and colleagues, who shared with him the same scientific interests and ask them to discuss recent advances in their own fields, just as Giovanni have liked to do”. Since Giovanni’s friends sent many abstracts still influenced by their previous collaboration with him, all the Sessions of the 2018SpPMD reflect both to the research aims of Giovanni Salviati and the traditional topics of the PaduaMuscleDays, that is, basics and applications of physical, molecular and cellular strategies to maintain or recover functions of skeletal muscles. The translational researches summarized in the 2018SpPMD Abstracts are at the appropriate high level to attract endorsement of Ethical Committees, the interest of International Granting Agencies and approval for publication in top quality international journals. The abstracts of the presentations of the March 16, 2018 Padua Muscle Day and those of the remaining Posters are listed in this chapter IV. The Author Index of the 2018Spring PaduaMuscleDays follows at page 78.

Mobility disorders and pain, interrelations that need new research concepts and advanced clinical commitments

This Perspective will discuss topics recently suggested by Prof. Helmut Kern, Vienna, Austria, to advance the research activities of his team, that is: Topic A, 10 years post RISE; Topic B, New research for new solutions on old research questions; Topic C, Working groups on nerve regeneration, training-parameters of seniors in different ages, muscle adaptation; and studies of connective tissue and cartilage. This Perspective summarizes some of the basic concepts and of the evidence-based tools for developing further translational research activities. Clinically relevant results will ask for continuous interests of Basic and Applied Myologists and for the support during the next five to ten years of public and private granting agencies. All together, they will end in protocols, devices and multidisciplinary managements for persons suffering with muscle denervation, neuromuscular-related or non-related pain and for the increasing population of old, older and oldest senior citizens in Europe and beyond.

Acupuncture for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Neuropathic pain may be caused by nerve damage, and is often followed by changes to the central nervous system. Uncertainty remains regarding the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture treatments for neuropathic pain, despite a number of clinical trials being undertaken.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of acupuncture treatments for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four Chinese databases, ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on 14 February 2017. We also cross checked the reference lists of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with treatment duration of eight weeks or longer comparing acupuncture (either given alone or in combination with other therapies) with sham acupuncture, other active therapies, or treatment as usual, for neuropathic pain in adults. We searched for studies of acupuncture based on needle insertion and stimulation of somatic tissues for therapeutic purposes, and we excluded other methods of stimulating acupuncture points without needle insertion. We searched for studies of manual acupuncture, electroacupuncture or other acupuncture techniques used in clinical practice (such as warm needling, fire needling, etc).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcomes were pain intensity and pain relief. The secondary outcomes were any pain-related outcome indicating some improvement, withdrawals, participants experiencing any adverse event, serious adverse events and quality of life. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and for continuous outcomes we calculated the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI. We also calculated number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) where possible. We combined all data using a random-effects model and assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE to generate 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six studies involving 462 participants with chronic peripheral neuropathic pain (442 completers (251 male), mean ages 52 to 63 years). The included studies recruited 403 participants from China and 59 from the UK. Most studies included a small sample size (fewer than 50 participants per treatment arm) and all studies were at high risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel. Most studies had unclear risk of bias for sequence generation (four out of six studies), allocation concealment (five out of six) and selective reporting (all included studies). All studies investigated manual acupuncture, and we did not identify any study comparing acupuncture with treatment as usual, nor any study investigating other acupuncture techniques (such as electroacupuncture, warm needling, fire needling).One study compared acupuncture with sham acupuncture. We are uncertain if there is any difference between the two interventions on reducing pain intensity (n = 45; MD -0.4, 95% CI -1.83 to 1.03, very low-quality evidence), and neither group achieved 'no worse than mild pain' (visual analogue scale (VAS, 0-10) average score was 5.8 and 6.2 respectively in the acupuncture and sham acupuncture groups, where 0 = no pain). There was limited data on quality of life, which showed no clear difference between groups. Evidence was not available on pain relief, adverse events or other pre-defined secondary outcomes for this comparison.Three studies compared acupuncture alone versus other therapies (mecobalamin combined with nimodipine, and inositol). Acupuncture may reduce the risk of 'no clinical response' to pain than other therapies (n = 209; RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.51), however, evidence was not available for pain intensity, pain relief, adverse events or any of the other secondary outcomes.Two studies compared acupuncture combined with other active therapies (mecobalamin, and Xiaoke bitong capsule) versus other active therapies used alone. We found that the acupuncture combination group had a lower VAS score for pain intensity (n = 104; MD -1.02, 95% CI -1.09 to -0.95) and improved quality of life (n = 104; MD -2.19, 95% CI -2.39 to -1.99), than those receiving other therapy alone. However, the average VAS score of the acupuncture and control groups was 3.23 and 4.25 respectively, indicating neither group achieved 'no worse than mild pain'. Furthermore, this evidence was from a single study with high risk of bias and a very small sample size. There was no evidence on pain relief and we identified no clear differences between groups on other parameters, including 'no clinical response' to pain and withdrawals. There was no evidence on adverse events.The overall quality of evidence is very low due to study limitations (high risk of performance, detection, and attrition bias, and high risk of bias confounded by small study size) or imprecision. We have limited confidence in the effect estimate and the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimated effect.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Due to the limited data available, there is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of acupuncture for neuropathic pain in general, or for any specific neuropathic pain condition when compared with sham acupuncture or other active therapies. Five studies are still ongoing and seven studies are awaiting classification due to the unclear treatment duration, and the results of these studies may influence the current findings.

Assessing and treating primary headaches and cranio-facial pain in patients undergoing rehabilitation for neurological diseases

BACKGROUND

Pain is a very common condition in patient undergoing rehabilitation for neurological disease; however the presence of primary headaches and other cranio-facial pains, particularly when they are actually or apparently independent from the disability for which patient is undergoing rehabilitation, is often neglected. Diagnostic and therapeutic international and national guidelines, as well as tools for the subjective measure of head pain are available and should also be applied in the neurorehabilitation setting. This calls for searching the presence of head pain, independently from the rehabilitation needs, since pain, either episodic or chronic, interferes with patient performance by affecting physical and emotional status. Pain may also interfere with sleep and therefore hamper recovery.

METHODS

In our role of task force of the Italian Consensus Conference on Pain in Neurorehabilitation (ICCPN), we have elaborated specific recommendations for diagnosing and treating head pains in patients undergoing rehabilitation for neurological diseases.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

In this narrative review, we describe the available literature that has been evaluated in order to define the recommendations and outline the needs of epidemiological studies concerning headache and other cranio-facial pain in neurorehabilitation.

Localized neuropathic pain: an expert consensus on local treatments

BACKGROUND

Pain localization is one of the hallmarks for the choice of first-line treatment in neuropathic pain. This literature review has been conducted to provide an overview of the current knowledge regarding the etiology and pathophysiology of localized neuropathic pain (LNP), its assessment and the existing topical pharmacological treatments.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Literature review was performed using Medline from 2010 to December 2016, and all studies involving LNP and treatments were examined. A multidisciplinary expert panel of five pain specialists in this article reports a consensus on topical approaches that may be recommended to alleviate LNP and on their advantages in clinical practice.

RESULTS

Successive international recommendations have included topical 5% lidocaine and 8% capsaicin for LNP treatment. The expert panel considers that these compounds can be a first-line treatment for LNP, especially in elderly patients and patients with comorbidities and polypharmacy. Regulatory LNP indications should cover the whole range of LNP and not be restricted to specific etiologies or sites. Precautions for the use of plasters must be followed cautiously.

CONCLUSION

Although there is a real need for more randomized controlled trials for both drugs, publications clearly demonstrate excellent risk/benefit ratios, safety, tolerance and continued efficacy throughout long-term treatment. A major advantage of both plasters is that they have proven efficacy and may reduce the risk of adverse events such as cognitive impairment, confusion, somnolence, dizziness and constipation that are often associated with systemic neuropathic pain treatment and reduce the quality of life. Topical modalities also may be used in combination with other drugs and analgesics with limited drug-drug interactions.

Systematic review of management of chronic pain after surgery

BACKGROUND

Pain present for at least 3 months after a surgical procedure is considered chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) and affects 10-50 per cent of patients. Interventions for CPSP may focus on the underlying condition that indicated surgery, the aetiology of new-onset pain or be multifactorial in recognition of the diverse causes of this pain. The aim of this systematic review was to identify RCTs of interventions for the management of CPSP, and synthesize data across treatment type to estimate their effectiveness and safety.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to March 2016. Trials of pain interventions received by patients at 3 months or more after surgery were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool.

RESULTS

Some 66 trials with data from 3149 participants were included. Most trials included patients with chronic pain after spinal surgery (25 trials) or phantom limb pain (21 trials). Interventions were predominantly pharmacological, including antiepileptics, capsaicin, epidural steroid injections, local anaesthetic, neurotoxins, N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor antagonists and opioids. Other interventions included acupuncture, exercise, postamputation limb liner, spinal cord stimulation, further surgery, laser therapy, magnetic stimulation, mindfulness-based stress reduction, mirror therapy and sensory discrimination training. Opportunities for meta-analysis were limited by heterogeneity. For all interventions, there was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions on effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

There is a need for more evidence about interventions for CPSP. High-quality trials of multimodal interventions matched to pain characteristics are needed to provide robust evidence to guide management of CPSP.

Tramadol for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

This review is an update of a review of tramadol for neuropathic pain, published in 2006; updating was to bring the review in line with current standards. Neuropathic pain, which is caused by a lesion or disease affecting the somatosensory system, may be central or peripheral in origin. Peripheral neuropathic pain often includes symptoms such as burning or shooting sensations, abnormal sensitivity to normally painless stimuli, or an increased sensitivity to normally painful stimuli. Neuropathic pain is a common symptom in many diseases of the peripheral nervous system.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy of tramadol compared with placebo or other active interventions for chronic neuropathic pain in adults, and the adverse events associated with its use in clinical trials.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase for randomised controlled trials from inception to January 2017. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and online clinical trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality and potential bias. Primary outcomes were participants with substantial pain relief (at least 50% pain relief over baseline or very much improved on Patient Global Impression of Change scale (PGIC)), or moderate pain relief (at least 30% pain relief over baseline or much or very much improved on PGIC). Where pooled analysis was possible, we used dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) or harmful outcome (NNH), using standard methods. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified six randomised, double-blind studies involving 438 participants with suitably characterised neuropathic pain. In each, tramadol was started at a dose of about 100 mg daily and increased over one to two weeks to a maximum of 400 mg daily or the maximum tolerated dose, and then maintained for the remainder of the study. Participants had experienced moderate or severe neuropathic pain for at least three months due to cancer, cancer treatment, postherpetic neuralgia, peripheral diabetic neuropathy, spinal cord injury, or polyneuropathy. The mean age was 50 to 67 years with approximately equal numbers of men and women. Exclusions were typically people with other significant comorbidity or pain from other causes. Study duration for treatments was four to six weeks, and two studies had a cross-over design.Not all studies reported all the outcomes of interest, and there were limited data for pain outcomes. At least 50% pain intensity reduction was reported in three studies (265 participants, 110 events). Using a random-effects analysis, 70/132 (53%) had at least 50% pain relief with tramadol, and 40/133 (30%) with placebo; the risk ratio (RR) was 2.2 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 4.6). The NNT calculated from these data was 4.4 (95% CI 2.9 to 8.8). We downgraded the evidence for this outcome by two levels to low quality because of the small size of studies and of the pooled data set, because there were only 110 actual events, the analysis included different types of neuropathic pain, the studies all had at least one high risk of potential bias, and because of the limited duration of the studies.Participants experienced more adverse events with tramadol than placebo. Report of any adverse event was higher with tramadol (58%) than placebo (34%) (4 studies, 266 participants, 123 events; RR 1.6 (95% CI 1.2 to 2.1); NNH 4.2 (95% CI 2.8 to 8.3)). Adverse event withdrawal was higher with tramadol (16%) than placebo (3%) (6 studies, 485 participants, 45 events; RR 4.1 (95% CI 2.0 to 8.4); NNH 8.2 (95% CI 5.8 to 14)). Only four serious adverse events were reported, without obvious attribution to treatment, and no deaths were reported. We downgraded the evidence for this outcome by two or three levels to low or very low quality because of small study size, because there were few actual events, and because of the limited duration of the studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is only modest information about the use of tramadol in neuropathic pain, coming from small, largely inadequate studies with potential risk of bias. That bias would normally increase the apparent benefits of tramadol. The evidence of benefit from tramadol was of low or very low quality, meaning that it does not provide a reliable indication of the likely effect, and the likelihood is very high that the effect will be substantially different from the estimate in this systematic review.

Gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Morphine for chronic neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Neuropathic pain, which is caused by a lesion or disease affecting the somatosensory system, may be central or peripheral in origin. Neuropathic pain often includes symptoms such as burning or shooting sensations, abnormal sensitivity to normally painless stimuli, or an increased sensitivity to normally painful stimuli. Neuropathic pain is a common symptom in many diseases of the nervous system. Opioid drugs, including morphine, are commonly used to treat neuropathic pain. Most reviews have examined all opioids together. This review sought evidence specifically for morphine; other opioids are considered in separate reviews.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of morphine for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase for randomised controlled trials from inception to February 2017. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and online clinical trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality and potential bias. Primary outcomes were participants with substantial pain relief (at least 50% pain relief over baseline or very much improved on Patient Global Impression of Change scale (PGIC)), or moderate pain relief (at least 30% pain relief over baseline or much or very much improved on PGIC). Where pooled analysis was possible, we used dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) or harmful outcome (NNH). We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified five randomised, double-blind, cross-over studies with treatment periods of four to seven weeks, involving 236 participants in suitably characterised neuropathic pain; 152 (64%) participants completed all treatment periods. Oral morphine was titrated to maximum daily doses of 90 mg to 180 mg or the maximum tolerated dose, and then maintained for the remainder of the study. Participants had experienced moderate or severe neuropathic pain for at least three months. Included studies involved people with painful diabetic neuropathy, chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia criteria, phantom limb or postamputation pain, and lumbar radiculopathy. Exclusions were typically people with other significant comorbidity or pain from other causes.Overall, we judged the studies to be at low risk of bias, but there were concerns over small study size and the imputation method used for participants who withdrew from the studies, both of which could lead to overestimation of treatment benefits and underestimation of harm.There was insufficient or no evidence for the primary outcomes of interest for efficacy or harm. Four studies reported an approximation of moderate pain improvement (any pain-related outcome indicating some improvement) comparing morphine with placebo in different types of neuropathic pain. We pooled these data in an exploratory analysis. Moderate improvement was experienced by 63% (87/138) of participants with morphine and 36% (45/125) with placebo; the risk difference (RD) was 0.27 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.16 to 0.38, fixed-effects analysis) and the NNT 3.7 (2.6 to 6.5). We assessed the quality of the evidence as very low because of the small number of events; available information did not provide a reliable indication of the likely effect, and the likelihood that the effect will be substantially different was very high. A similar exploratory analysis for substantial pain relief on three studies (177 participants) showed no difference between morphine and placebo.All-cause withdrawals in four studies occurred in 16% (24/152) of participants with morphine and 12% (16/137) with placebo. The RD was 0.04 (-0.04 to 0.12, random-effects analysis). Adverse events were inconsistently reported, more common with morphine than with placebo, and typical of opioids. There were two serious adverse events, one with morphine, and one with a combination of morphine and nortriptyline. No deaths were reported. These outcomes were assessed as very low quality because of the limited number of participants and events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was insufficient evidence to support or refute the suggestion that morphine has any efficacy in any neuropathic pain condition.

Methadone for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

This review replaces an earlier review, "Methadone for chronic non-cancer pain in adults". This review serves to update the original and includes only studies of neuropathic pain. Methadone belongs to a class of analgesics known as opioids, that are considered the cornerstone of therapy for moderate-to-severe postsurgical pain and pain due to life-threatening illnesses; however, their use in neuropathic pain is controversial. Methadone has many characteristics that differentiate it from other opioids, which suggests that it may have a different efficacy and safety profile.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of methadone for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases: CENTRAL (CRSO), MEDLINE (Ovid), and Embase (Ovid), and two clinical trial registries. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved articles. The date of the most recent search was 30 November 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing methadone (in any dose, administered by any route, and in any formulation) with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently considered trials for inclusion in the review, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. There were insufficient data to perform pooled analyses. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each outcome using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three studies, involving 105 participants. All were cross-over studies, one involving 19 participants with diverse neuropathic pain syndromes, the other two involving 86 participants with postherpetic neuralgia. Study phases ranged from 20 days to approximately eight weeks. All administered methadone orally, in doses ranging from 10 mg to 80 mg daily. Comparators were primarily placebo, but one study also included morphine and tricyclic antidepressants.The included studies had several limitations related to risk of bias, particularly incomplete reporting, selective outcome reporting, and small sample sizes.There were very limited data for our primary outcomes of participants with at least 30% or at least 50% pain relief. Two studies reported that 11/29 participants receiving methadone achieved 30% pain relief versus 7/29 participants receiving placebo. Only one study presented data in a manner that allowed us to calculate the number of participants with at least 50% pain relief. None of the 19 participants achieved a 50% reduction in pain intensity, either when receiving methadone or when receiving placebo. No study provided data for our other primary outcomes of Patient Global Impression of Change scale (PGIC) much or very much improved (equivalent to at least 30% pain relief) and PGIC very much improved (equivalent to at least 50% pain relief).For secondary efficacy outcomes, one study reported maximum and mean pain intensity and pain relief, and reported statistically significant improvements versus placebo for all outcomes with 20 mg daily doses of methadone, but not with 10 mg daily doses. The second study reported differences in pain reduction between methadone (n = 26) and morphine (n = 38) and found morphine to be statistically superior. The third study reported the number of responders (variously defined) for several pain and functional outcomes and found methadone to be statistically superior to placebo for the outcomes of categorical pain intensity and evoked pain. In the two studies that reported data, 0/29 participants withdrew due to lack of efficacy, whereas 4/29 participants withdrew due to adverse events while taking methadone versus 3/29 while taking placebo.One study reported incidences for several individual adverse events, but found a statistically significant increased incidence for methadone over placebo for only one event, dizziness. The other studies did not report data in a manner that enabled us to analyze adverse events. There were no serious adverse events or deaths reported.We assessed the quality of the evidence as very low for all efficacy and safety outcomes using GRADE, primarily because of the heterogeneity of study designs and populations, short durations, cross-over methodology, and few participants and events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The three studies provide very limited, very low quality evidence of the efficacy and safety of methadone for chronic neuropathic pain, and there were too few data for pooled analysis of efficacy or harm, or to have confidence in the results of the individual studies. No conclusions can be made regarding differences in efficacy or safety between methadone and placebo, other opioids, or other treatments.

Topical analgesics for acute and chronic pain in adults - an overview of Cochrane Reviews

BACKGROUND

Topical analgesic drugs are used for a variety of painful conditions. Some are acute, typically strains or sprains, tendinopathy, or muscle aches. Others are chronic, typically osteoarthritis of hand or knee, or neuropathic pain.

OBJECTIVES

To provide an overview of the analgesic efficacy and associated adverse events of topical analgesics (primarily nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), salicylate rubefacients, capsaicin, and lidocaine) applied to intact skin for the treatment of acute and chronic pain in adults.

METHODS

We identified systematic reviews in acute and chronic pain published to February 2017 in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (the Cochrane Library). The primary outcome was at least 50% pain relief (participant-reported) at an appropriate duration. We extracted the number needed to treat for one additional beneficial outcome (NNT) for efficacy outcomes for each topical analgesic or formulation, and the number needed to treat for one additional harmful outcome (NNH) for adverse events. We also extracted information on withdrawals due to lack of efficacy or adverse events, systemic and local adverse events, and serious adverse events. We required information from at least 200 participants, in at least two studies. We judged that there was potential for publication bias if the addition of four studies of typical size (400 participants) with zero effect increased NNT compared with placebo to 10 (minimal clinical utility). We extracted GRADE assessment in the original papers, and made our own GRADE assessment.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen Cochrane Reviews (206 studies with around 30,700 participants) assessed the efficacy and harms from a range of topical analgesics applied to intact skin in a number of acute and chronic painful conditions. Reviews were overseen by several Review Groups, and concentrated on evidence comparing topical analgesic with topical placebo; comparisons of topical and oral analgesics were rare.For at least 50% pain relief, we considered evidence was moderate or high quality for several therapies, based on the underlying quality of studies and susceptibility to publication bias.In acute musculoskeletal pain (strains and sprains) with assessment at about seven days, therapies were diclofenac Emulgel (78% Emulgel, 20% placebo; 2 studies, 314 participants, NNT 1.8 (95% confidence interval 1.5 to 2.1)), ketoprofen gel (72% ketoprofen, 33% placebo, 5 studies, 348 participants, NNT 2.5 (2.0 to 3.4)), piroxicam gel (70% piroxicam, 47% placebo, 3 studies, 522 participants, NNT 4.4 (3.2 to 6.9)), diclofenac Flector plaster (63% Flector, 41% placebo, 4 studies, 1030 participants, NNT 4.7 (3.7 to 6.5)), and diclofenac other plaster (88% diclofenac plaster, 57% placebo, 3 studies, 474 participants, NNT 3.2 (2.6 to 4.2)).In chronic musculoskeletal pain (mainly hand and knee osteoarthritis) therapies were topical diclofenac preparations for less than six weeks (43% diclofenac, 23% placebo, 5 studies, 732 participants, NNT 5.0 (3.7 to 7.4)), ketoprofen over 6 to 12 weeks (63% ketoprofen, 48% placebo, 4 studies, 2573 participants, NNT 6.9 (5.4 to 9.3)), and topical diclofenac preparations over 6 to 12 weeks (60% diclofenac, 50% placebo, 4 studies, 2343 participants, NNT 9.8 (7.1 to 16)). In postherpetic neuralgia, topical high-concentration capsaicin had moderate-quality evidence of limited efficacy (33% capsaicin, 24% placebo, 2 studies, 571 participants, NNT 11 (6.1 to 62)).We judged evidence of efficacy for other therapies as low or very low quality. Limited evidence of efficacy, potentially subject to publication bias, existed for topical preparations of ibuprofen gels and creams, unspecified diclofenac formulations and diclofenac gel other than Emulgel, indomethacin, and ketoprofen plaster in acute pain conditions, and for salicylate rubefacients for chronic pain conditions. Evidence for other interventions (other topical NSAIDs, topical salicylate in acute pain conditions, low concentration capsaicin, lidocaine, clonidine for neuropathic pain, and herbal remedies for any condition) was very low quality and typically limited to single studies or comparisons with sparse data.We assessed the evidence on withdrawals as moderate or very low quality, because of small numbers of events. In chronic pain conditions lack of efficacy withdrawals were lower with topical diclofenac (6%) than placebo (9%) (11 studies, 3455 participants, number needed to treat to prevent (NNTp) 26, moderate-quality evidence), and topical salicylate (2% vs 7% for placebo) (5 studies, 501 participants, NNTp 21, very low-quality evidence). Adverse event withdrawals were higher with topical capsaicin low-concentration (15%) than placebo (3%) (4 studies, 477 participants, NNH 8, very low-quality evidence), topical salicylate (5% vs 1% for placebo) (7 studies, 735 participants, NNH 26, very low-quality evidence), and topical diclofenac (5% vs 4% for placebo) (12 studies, 3552 participants, NNH 51, very low-quality evidence).In acute pain, systemic or local adverse event rates with topical NSAIDs (4.3%) were no greater than with topical placebo (4.6%) (42 studies, 6740 participants, high quality evidence). In chronic pain local adverse events with topical capsaicin low concentration (63%) were higher than topical placebo (5 studies, 557 participants, number needed to treat for harm (NNH) 2.6), high quality evidence. Moderate-quality evidence indicated more local adverse events than placebo in chronic pain conditions with topical diclofenac (NNH 16) and local pain with topical capsaicin high-concentration (NNH 16). There was moderate-quality evidence of no additional local adverse events with topical ketoprofen over topical placebo in chronic pain. Serious adverse events were rare (very low-quality evidence).GRADE assessments of moderate or low quality in some of the reviews were considered by us to be very low because of small numbers of participants and events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is good evidence that some formulations of topical diclofenac and ketoprofen are useful in acute pain conditions such as sprains or strains, with low (good) NNT values. There is a strong message that the exact formulation used is critically important in acute conditions, and that might also apply to other pain conditions. In chronic musculoskeletal conditions with assessments over 6 to 12 weeks, topical diclofenac and ketoprofen had limited efficacy in hand and knee osteoarthritis, as did topical high-concentration capsaicin in postherpetic neuralgia. Though NNTs were higher, this still indicates that a small proportion of people had good pain relief.Use of GRADE in Cochrane Reviews with small numbers of participants and events requires attention.

What role for capsaicin in diabetic peripheral neuropathy?

Peripheral neuropathy is a common long-term complication of diabetes mellitus. In many patients, neuropathy is accompanied by pain, which is often difficult to manage effectively. Drug treatment options include certain antidepressants and antiepileptic drugs. Another option is the use of topical capsaicin. In this article, we consider the evidence for capsaicin in the management of diabetic peripheral neuropathy and how it fits with current management strategies.

Topical Treatments for Localized Neuropathic Pain

Purpose of Review

Topical therapeutic approaches in localized neuropathic pain (LNP) syndromes are increasingly used by both specialists and general practitioners, with a potentially promising effect on pain reduction. In this narrative review, we describe the available compounds for topical use in LNP syndromes and address their potential efficacy according to the literature.

Recent Findings

Local anaesthetics (e.g., lidocaine, bupivacaine and mepivacaine), as well as general anaesthetic agents (e.g., ketamine), muscle relaxants (e.g., baclofen), capsaicin, anti-inflammatory drugs (e.g., diclofenac), salicylates, antidepressants (e.g., amitriptyline and doxepin), α2 adrenergic agents (e.g., clonidine), or even a combination of them have been tested in various applications for the treatment of LNP. Few of them have reached a sufficient level of evidence to support systematic use as treatment options.

Summary

Relatively few systemic side effects or drug–drug interactions and satisfactory efficacy seem to be the benefits of topical treatments. More well-organized and tailored studies are necessary for the further conceptualization of topical treatments for LNP.