Individualized pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain

Neuropharmacology of Neuropathic Pain: A Systematic Review

Neuropathic pain, a debilitating condition, remains challenging to manage effectively. An insight into neuropharmacological mechanisms is critical for optimizing treatment strategies. This systematic review aims to evaluate the role of neuropharmacological agents based on their efficacy, involved neurotransmitters, and receptors. A manual literature search was undertaken in PubMed including Medline, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Plos One, Science Direct, and clinicaltrials.gov from 2013 until 2023. Out of the 13 included studies, seven evaluated the role of gabapentinoids. Two main drugs from this group, gabapentin and pregabalin, function by binding voltage-gated calcium channels, lowering neuronal hyperexcitability and pain signal transmission, thereby relieving neuropathic pain. Four of the pooled studies reported the use of tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) including amitriptyline and nortriptyline which work by blocking the reuptake of norepinephrine and serotonin, their increased concentration is thought to be central to their analgesic effect. Three articles assessed the use of serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) and reported them as effective as the TCAs in managing neuropathic pain. They work by augmenting serotonin and norepinephrine. Three studies focused on the use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), modulating their effect by increasing serotonin levels; however, they were reported as not a highly effective treatment option for neuropathic pain. One of the studies outlined the use of cannabinoids for neuropathic pain by binding to cannabinoid receptors with only mild adverse effects. It is concluded that gabapentinoids, TCAs, and SNRIs were reported as the most effective therapy for neuropathic pain; however, for trigeminal neuralgia, anticonvulsants like carbamazepine were considered the most effective. Opioids were considered second-line drugs for neuropathic pain as they come with adverse effects and a risk of dependence. Ongoing research is exploring novel drugs like ion channels and agents modulating pain pathways for neuropathic pain management. Our review hopes to inspire further research into patient stratification by their physiology, aiding quicker and more accurate management of neuropathic pain while minimizing inadvertent side effects.

A psychophysical study comparing massage to conditioned pain modulation: A single blind randomized controlled trial in healthy participants

INTRODUCTION

Pain-inducing massage results in greater pain inhibition than pain free massage, suggesting a mechanism dependent on conditioned pain modulation (CPM). The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that pain inducing massage produces similar magnitude of reduction in pain sensitivity as a cold pressor task and that baseline conditioned pain modulation efficiency predicts pain inducing massage related hypoalgesia.

METHODS

Sixty healthy participants were randomly assigned to receive either pain inducing massage to the neck, cold pressor task to the hand, or pain free massage to the neck. Participants also underwent pre and immediate post-intervention quantitative sensory testing. A repeated measures ANCOVA determined between group differences in pain sensitivity changes.

RESULTS

Pain inducing massage used as a conditioning stimulus resulted in comparable experimental pain sensitivity changes as a cold pressor task (p > 0.05). Pain intensity during the intervention demonstrated a weak correlation (r = 0.20, p = 0.12) with changes in pain sensitivity at a remote site. Individuals with an efficient CPM at baseline who received the pain inducing massage displayed greater increases in pressure pain threshold compared to individuals with a less efficient CPM indicating the potential benefit of treatment stratification by mechanism.

CONCLUSION

Although pain inducing massage resulted in less self-reported pain than a cold pressor task, both resulted in similar magnitude of the CPM response, suggesting shared underlying mechanisms. Understanding mechanisms of interventions can move us closer to mechanistic based treatments for pain which is consistent with a personalized medicine approach to care.

HPLC-DAD-UV analysis, anti-inflammatory and anti-neuropathic effects of methanolic extract of Sideritis bilgeriana (lamiaceae) by NF-κB, TNF-α, IL-1β and IL-6 involvement

Medicinal plants remain an invaluable source for therapeutics of diseases that affect humanity. Sideritis bilgeriana (Lamiaceae) is medicinal plant used in Turkey folk medicine to reduce inflammation and pain, but few studies scientific corroborates its medicinal use so creating a gap between popular use and scientific evidence. Thus, we aimed to evaluate the pharmacological effects of the methanolic extract of S. bilgeriana (MESB) in rodents nociception models and also performed its phytochemical analysis. Firstly, a screening was carried out that enabled the identification of the presence of phenolic compounds and flavonoids. In view of this, a chromatographic method by HPLC-DAD-UV was developed that made it possible to identify chlorogenic acid and its quantification in MESB. MESB-treated mice (MESB 50, 100 and 200 mg/kg, p.o.) reduced mechanical hyperalgesia and myeloperoxidase activity (p < 0.01), and also showed a reduced pain behavior in capsaicin test. In the carrageenan-induced pleurisy test, MESB (100 mg/kg p.o.) significantly reduced the leukocyte (polymorphonuclear) count in the pleural cavity and equally decreased the TNF-α and IL-1β levels (p < 0.001). In the PSNL model, mechanical hyperalgesia was reduced on the first evaluation day and during the 7 days of evaluation compared to the vehicle group (p < 0.001). Thermal hyperalgesia was also reduced 1 h after treatment compared to the vehicle group (p < 0.001) and reversed the loss of force initially displayed by the animals, thus inferring an analgesic effect in the muscle strength test. Analysis of the marrow of these animals showed a decrease in the level of pro-inflammatory cytokine IL-6 (p < 0.001) and factor NF-κB, in relation to the control group (p < 0.05). Moreover, the MESB treatment produced no noticeable side effects, no disturb in motor performance and no signs of gastric or hepatic injury. Together, the results suggests that MESB could be useful to management of inflammation and neuropathic pain mainly by the management of pro-inflammatory mediators (NF-κB, TNF-α, IL-1β and IL-6), so reinforcing its use in popular medicine and corroborating the need for further chemical and pharmacological studies for the species.

Emerging Roles of Long Non-coding RNAs in Chronic Neuropathic Pain

Chronic neuropathic pain, a type of chronic and potentially disabling pain caused by a disease or injury of the somatosensory nervous system, spinal cord injury, or various chronic conditions, such as viral infections (e.g., post-herpetic neuralgia), autoimmune diseases, cancers, and metabolic disorders (e.g., diabetes mellitus), is one of the most intense types of chronic pain, which incurs a major socio-economic burden and is a serious public health issue, with an estimated prevalence of 7–10% in adults throughout the world. Presently, the available drug treatments (e.g., anticonvulsants acting at calcium channels, serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants, opioids, topical lidocaine, etc.) for chronic neuropathic pain patients are still rare and have disappointing efficacy, which makes it difficult to relieve the patients’ painful symptoms, and, at best, they only try to reduce the patients’ ability to tolerate pain. Long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs), a type of transcript of more than 200 nucleotides with no protein-coding or limited capacity, were identified to be abnormally expressed in the spinal cord, dorsal root ganglion, hippocampus, and prefrontal cortex under chronic neuropathic pain conditions. Moreover, a rapidly growing body of data has clearly pointed out that nearly 40% of lncRNAs exist specifically in the nervous system. Hence, it was speculated that these dysregulated lncRNAs might participate in the occurrence, development, and progression of chronic neuropathic pain. In other words, if we deeply delve into the potential roles of lncRNAs in the pathogenesis of chronic neuropathic pain, this may open up new strategies and directions for the development of novel targeted drugs to cure this refractory disorder. In this article, we primarily review the status of chronic neuropathic pain and provide a general overview of lncRNAs, the detailed roles of lncRNAs in the nervous system and its related diseases, and the abnormal expression of lncRNAs and their potential clinical applications in chronic neuropathic pain. We hope that through the above description, readers can gain a better understanding of the emerging roles of lncRNAs in chronic neuropathic pain.

Patient characteristics and analgesic efficacy of antiviral therapy in postherpetic neuralgia

Postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) is the most common complication of shingles caused by reactivation of varicella zoster virus (VZV). Management of PHN is often suboptimal while using current conventional treatments. Antiviral therapy was used to reduce PHN-associated pain in two small trials which showed conflicting results. We hypothesize the analgesic efficacy of antiviral therapy on PHN is affected by patient characteristics including pathophysiology of the participants and serum vitamin D levels. Pathophysiology of PHN includes neuronal excitability and chronic VZV ganglionitis (persistent active VZV infection in ganglions). VZV-DNA positivity or a positive IgG coupled with a positive IgM indicates recent or current VZV infection. Positive VZV-DNA or IgG/IgM tests are used to confirm whether the patients experience chronic VZV ganglionitis. Antiviral therapy decreases pain in PHN patients with chronic VZV ganglionitis; whereas, antiviral therapy shows no effects in PHN patients with negative VZV-DNA or IgM. Vitamin D is a natural antiviral mediator. Studies show a high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in hepatitis B/C virus-infected patients. Serum vitamin D levels and vitamin D supplementation are factors which affect the antiviral efficacy on hepatitis B/C virus infection. Serum 25-OHD levels of hospitalized patients with shingles were significantly lower compared to healthy controls. Accordingly, PHN patient may have a high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency which negatively affects the antiviral efficacy. Vitamin D supplementation may improve the antiviral efficacy on PHN. Future trials regarding antiviral therapy on PHN should consider patient characteristics and should be conducted among different subgroups of PHN patients.

From Mechanism to Cure: Renewing the Goal to Eliminate the Disease of Pain

Objective

Persistent pain causes untold misery worldwide and is a leading cause of disability. Despite its astonishing prevalence, pain is undertreated, at least in part because existing therapeutics are ineffective or cause intolerable side effects. In this review, we cover new findings about the neurobiology of pain and argue that all but the most transient forms of pain needed to avoid tissue damage should be approached as a disease where a cure can be the goal of all treatment plans, even if attaining this goal is not yet always possible.

Design

We reviewed the literature to highlight recent advances in the area of the neurobiology of pain.

Results

We discuss barriers that are currently hindering the achievement of this goal, as well as the development of new therapeutic strategies. We also discuss innovations in the field that are creating new opportunities to treat and even reverse persistent pain, some of which are in late-phase clinical trials.

Conclusion

We conclude that the confluence of new basic science discoveries and development of new technologies are creating a path toward pain therapeutics that should offer significant hope of a cure for patients and practitioners alike. Classification of Evidence. Our review points to new areas of inquiry for the pain field to advance the goal of developing new therapeutics to treat chronic pain.

Screening for neuropathic pain in patients with sickle cell disease: is a single assessment scale sufficient?

Background

The objectives of this study were to delineate the clinical-epidemiological profile of patients with neuropathic pain (NP) in the groups of SCD patients, from each of the three questionnaires used DN-4, painDETECT - PDQ, LANSS and to compare these three questionnaires in NP evaluation in SCD carriers. This cross-sectional study evaluated 83 patients with symptomatic SCD, aged 14 years or older. Clinical and laboratory data were extracted from the patients’ charts and from information obtained from the patients during the interview before the application of the questionnaire. The calculations were performed using the statistical software Epi InfoTM 7. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to compare the neuropathic pain evaluation scales with the software BioEstat 5.3.

Results

The use of two or more questionnaires may increase the suspicion of NP in patients with SCD and, with a confirmed diagnosis, adequate treatments will benefit patients.

Modulation by Sigma-1 Receptor of Morphine Analgesia and Tolerance: Nociceptive Pain, Tactile Allodynia and Grip Strength Deficits During Joint Inflammation

Sigma-1 receptor antagonism increases the effects of morphine on nociceptive pain, even in morphine-tolerant animals. However, it is unknown whether these receptors are able to modulate morphine antinociception and tolerance during inflammatory pain. Here we used a mouse model to test the modulation of morphine effects by the selective sigma-1 antagonist S1RA (MR309), by determining its effect on inflammatory tactile allodynia (von Frey filaments) and on grip strength deficits induced by joint inflammation (a measure of pain-induced functional disability), and compared the results with those for nociceptive heat pain recorded with the unilateral hot plate (55°C) test. The subcutaneous (s.c.) administration of morphine induced antinociceptive effects to heat stimuli, and restored mechanical threshold and grip strength in mice with periarticular inflammation induced by Complete Freund’s Adjuvant. S1RA (80 mg/kg, s.c.) administered alone did not induce any effect on nociceptive heat pain or inflammatory allodynia, but was able to partially reverse grip strength deficits. The association of S1RA with morphine, at doses inducing little or no analgesic-like effects when administered alone, resulted in a marked antinociceptive effect to heat stimuli and complete reversion of inflammatory tactile allodynia. However, S1RA administration did not increase the effect of morphine on grip strength deficits induced by joint inflammation. When S1RA (80 mg/kg, s.c.) was administered to morphine-tolerant animals, it rescued the analgesic-like effects of this opioid in all three pain measures. However, when S1RA was repeatedly given during the induction of morphine tolerance (and not on the day of behavioral evaluation) it failed to affect tolerance to the effects of morphine on nociceptive heat pain or inflammatory allodynia, but completely preserved the effects of this opioid on grip strength deficits. These effects of S1RA on morphine tolerance cannot be explained by pharmacokinetic interactions, given that the administration of S1RA did not modify concentrations of morphine or morphine-3-glucuronide (a major morphine metabolite) in morphine-tolerant animals in plasma or brain tissue. We conclude that sigma-1 receptors play a pivotal role in the control of morphine analgesia and tolerance in nociceptive and inflammatory pain, although in a manner dependent on the type of painful stimulus explored.

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.

Prediction of therapeutic response to pregabalin in subjects with neuropathic pain

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate four models based on potential predictors for achieving a response to pregabalin treatment for neuropathic pain (NeP).

METHODS

In total, 46 pain studies were screened, of which 27 NeP studies met the criteria for inclusion in this analysis. Data were pooled from these 27 placebo-controlled randomized trials to assess if baseline characteristics (including mean pain and pain-related sleep interference [PRSI] scores), early clinical response during weeks 1-3 of treatment (change from baseline in pain and PRSI scores), and presence of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were predictive of therapeutic response. Therapeutic response was defined as a ≥30% reduction from baseline in either pain and/or PRSI scores at week 5 with supplemental analyses to predict pain outcomes at weeks 8 and 12. Predictors of Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) were also evaluated. Four models were assessed: Random Forest, Logistic Regression, Naïve Bayes, and Partial Least Squares.

RESULTS

The number of pregabalin-treated subjects in the training/test datasets, respectively, were 2818/1407 (30% pain analysis), 2812/1405 (30% sleep analysis), and 2693/1345 (PGIC analysis). All four models demonstrated consistent results, and the most important predictors of treatment outcomes at week 5 and pain outcomes at weeks 8 and 12 were the reduction in pain score and sleep score in the first 1-3 weeks. The presence or absence of the most common AEs in the first 1-3 weeks was not correlated with any treatment outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Subjects with an early response to pregabalin are more likely to experience an end-of-treatment response.

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.

Local Application of Ultrasound Attenuates Neuropathic Allodynia and Proinflammatory Cytokines in Rats After Thoracotomy

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

We aimed to investigate the effect of therapeutic ultrasound (TU) on pain sensitivity and the concentration inflammatory cytokines in a thoracotomy rat model.

METHODS

Rats were distributed randomly into 4 groups: (1) sham operated, (2) thoracotomy and rib retraction (TRR), (3) TRR rats that received TU (TRR + TU-1), and (4) TRR rats that received TU with the ultrasound turned off (TRR + TU-0). Ultrasound was set at 1-MHz frequency (1.0-W/cm intensity and 100% duty cycle for 5 minutes), began on postoperative day (POD) 10, and then continued once per day, 5 days a week for 3 weeks.

RESULTS

The TRR and TRR + TU-0 rats encountered tactile hypersensitivity from PODs 10 to 28. Mechanical withdrawal thresholds were increased (all P < 0.05) following 5 days of TU, but thresholds remained significantly lower than baseline values. Therapeutic ultrasound increased the subcutaneous, but not body temperature. All groups receiving TRR demonstrated an increase in concentration of interleukin 1β and tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) on POD 14; however, the rise in TNF-α concentration was less in the TU-treated group than in the others. The decrease in concentration was greatest in the TRR + TU-1 group and similar between the TRR and TRR + TU-0 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Mechanical allodynia was partially resolved with TU. Tissue temperature increased with ultrasound, while TU restricted the up-regulation of interleukin 1β and TNF-α around the injured intercostal nerve.

Integrating data from randomized controlled trials and observational studies to predict the response to pregabalin in patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy

BACKGROUND

More patient-specific medical care is expected as more is learned about variations in patient responses to medical treatments. Analytical tools enable insights by linking treatment responses from different types of studies, such as randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. Given the importance of evidence from both types of studies, our goal was to integrate these types of data into a single predictive platform to help predict response to pregabalin in individual patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (pDPN).

METHODS

We utilized three pivotal RCTs of pregabalin (398 North American patients) and the largest observational study of pregabalin (3159 German patients). We implemented a hierarchical cluster analysis to identify patient clusters in the Observational Study to which RCT patients could be matched using the coarsened exact matching (CEM) technique, thereby creating a matched dataset. We then developed autoregressive moving average models (ARMAXs) to estimate weekly pain scores for pregabalin-treated patients in each cluster in the matched dataset using the maximum likelihood method. Finally, we validated ARMAX models using Observational Study patients who had not matched with RCT patients, using t tests between observed and predicted pain scores.

RESULTS

Cluster analysis yielded six clusters (287-777 patients each) with the following clustering variables: gender, age, pDPN duration, body mass index, depression history, pregabalin monotherapy, prior gabapentin use, baseline pain score, and baseline sleep interference. CEM yielded 1528 unique patients in the matched dataset. The reduction in global imbalance scores for the clusters after adding the RCT patients (ranging from 6 to 63% depending on the cluster) demonstrated that the process reduced the bias of covariates in five of the six clusters. ARMAX models of pain score performed well (R ² : 0.85-0.91; root mean square errors: 0.53-0.57). t tests did not show differences between observed and predicted pain scores in the 1955 patients who had not matched with RCT patients.

CONCLUSION

The combination of cluster analyses, CEM, and ARMAX modeling enabled strong predictive capabilities with respect to pain scores. Integrating RCT and Observational Study data using CEM enabled effective use of Observational Study data to predict patient responses.

Neuropathic pain and spasticity: intricate consequences of spinal cord injury

STUDY DESIGN

The 2016 International Spinal Cord Society Sir Ludwig Guttmann Lecture.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review is to identify different symptoms and signs of neuropathic pain and spasticity after spinal cord injury (SCI) and to present different methods of assessing them. The objective is to discuss how a careful characterization of different symptoms and signs, and a better translation of preclinical findings may improve our understanding of the complex and entangled mechanisms of neuropathic pain and spasticity.

METHODS

A MEDLINE search was performed using the following terms: 'pain', 'neuropathic', 'spasticity', 'spasms' and 'spinal cord injury'.

RESULTS

This review identified different domains of neuropathic pain and spasticity after SCI and methods to assess them in preclinical and clinical research. Different factors important for pain description include location, onset, pain descriptors and somatosensory function, while muscle tone, spasms, reflexes and clonus are important aspects of spasticity. Similarities and differences between neuropathic pain and spasticity are discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding that neuropathic pain and spasticity are multidimensional consequences of SCI, and a careful examination and characterization of the symptoms and signs, are a prerequisite for understanding the relationship between neuropathic pain and spasticity and the intricate underlying mechanisms.

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.

[Efficacy, tolerability and safety of cannabinoids for chronic neuropathic pain: A systematic review of randomized controlled studies]

BACKGROUND

Recently published systematic reviews came to different conclusions with respect to the efficacy, tolerability and safety of cannabinoids for treatment of chronic neuropathic pain.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic search of the literature was carried out in MEDLINE, the Cochrane central register of controlled trials (CENTRAL) and clinicaltrials.gov up until November 2015. We included double-blind randomized placebo-controlled studies (RCT) of at least 2 weeks duration and with at least 9 patients per treatment arm comparing medicinal cannabis, plant-based or synthetic cannabinoids with placebo or any other active drug treatment in patients with chronic neuropathic pain. Clinical endpoints of the analyses were efficacy (more than 30 % or 50 % reduction of pain, average pain intensity, global improvement and health-related quality of life), tolerability (drop-out rate due to side effects, central nervous system and psychiatric side effects) and safety (severe side effects). Using a random effects model absolute risk differences (RD) were calculated for categorical data and standardized mean differences (SMD) for continuous variables. The methodological quality of RCTs was rated by the Cochrane risk of bias tool.

RESULTS

We included 15 RCTs with 1619 participants. Study duration ranged between 2 and 15 weeks. Of the studies 10 used a plant-derived oromucosal spray with tetrahydrocannabinol/cannabidiol, 3 studies used a synthetic cannabinoid (2  with nabilone and 1  with dronabinol) and 2 studies used medicinal cannabis. The 13 studies with parallel or cross-over design yielded the following results with 95 % confidence intervals (CI): cannabinoids were superior to placebo in the reduction of mean pain intensity with SMD - 0.10 (95 % CI - 0.20- - 0.00, p = 0.05, 13 studies with 1565 participants), in the frequency of at least a 30 % reduction in pain with an RD of 0.10 [95 % CI 0.03-0.16, p = 0.004, 9 studies with 1346 participants, number needed to treat for additional benefit (NNTB) 14, 95 % CI 8-45] and in the frequency of a large or very large global improvement with an RD of 0.09 (95 % CI 0.01-0.17, p = 0.009, 7 studies with 1092 participants). There were no statistically significant differences between cannabinoids and placebo in the frequency of at least a 50 % reduction in pain, in improvement of health-related quality of life and in the frequency of serious adverse events. Patients treated with cannabinoids dropped out more frequently due to adverse events with an RD of 0.04 [95 % CI 0.01-0.07, p = 0.009, 11 studies with 1572 participants, number needed to treat for additional harm (NNTH) 19, 95 % CI 13-37], reported central nervous system side effects more frequently with an RD of 0.38 (95 % CI 0.18-0.58, p = 0.0003, 9 studies with 1304 participants, NNTH 3, 95 % CI 2-4) and psychiatric side effects with an RD of 0.11 (95 % CI 0.06-0.16, p < 0.0001, 9 studies with 1304 participants, NNTH 8, 95 % CI 7-12).

CONCLUSION

Cannabinoids were marginally superior to placebo in terms of efficacy and inferior in terms of tolerability. Cannabinoids and placebo did not differ in terms of safety during the study period. Short-term and intermediate-term therapy with cannabinoids can be considered in selected patients with chronic neuropathic pain after failure of first-line and second-line therapies.

Intravenous Lidocaine: Old-School Drug, New Purpose-Reduction of Intractable Pain in Patients with Chemotherapy Induced Peripheral Neuropathy

Background. Treatment of intractable pain due to chemotherapy induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a challenge. Intravenous (iv) lidocaine has shown to be a treatment option for neuropathic pain of different etiologies. Methods. Lidocaine (1.5 mg/kg in 10 minutes followed by 1.5 mg/kg/h over 5 hours) was administered in nine patients with CIPN, and analgesic effect was evaluated during infusion and after discharge. The immediate effect of lidocaine on pressure pain thresholds (PPT) and the extent of the stocking and glove distribution of sensory abnormalities (cold and pinprick) were assessed. Results. Lidocaine had a significant direct analgesic effect in 8 out of 9 patients (P = 0.01) with a pain intensity difference of >30%. Pain reduction persisted in 5 patients for an average of 23 days. Lidocaine did not influence mean PPT, but there was a tendency that the extent of sensory abnormalities decreased after lidocaine. Conclusion. Iv lidocaine has direct analgesic effect in CIPN with a moderate long-term effect and seems to influence the area of cold and pinprick perception. Additional research is needed, using a control group and larger sample sizes to confirm these results.

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

BACKGROUND

This review is an update of 'Topical capsaicin (high concentration) for chronic neuropathic pain in adults' last updated in Issue 2, 2013. Topical creams with capsaicin are used to treat peripheral neuropathic pain. Following application to the skin, capsaicin causes enhanced sensitivity, followed by a period with reduced sensitivity and, after repeated applications, persistent desensitisation. High-concentration (8%) capsaicin patches were developed to increase the amount of capsaicin delivered; rapid delivery was thought to improve tolerability because cutaneous nociceptors are 'defunctionalised' quickly. The single application avoids noncompliance. Only the 8% patch formulation of capsaicin is available, with a capsaicin concentration about 100 times greater than conventional creams. High-concentration topical capsaicin is given as a single patch application to the affected part. It must be applied under highly controlled conditions, often following local anaesthetic, due to the initial intense burning sensation it causes. The benefits are expected to last for about 12 weeks, when another application might be made.

OBJECTIVES

To review the evidence from controlled trials on the efficacy and tolerability of topically applied, high-concentration (8%) capsaicin in chronic neuropathic pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two clinical trials registries, and a pharmaceutical company's website to 10 June 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of at least 6 weeks' duration, using high-concentration (5% or more) topical capsaicin to treat neuropathic pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality and potential bias. Where pooled analysis was possible, we used dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and numbers needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods.Efficacy outcomes reflecting long-duration pain relief after a single drug application were from the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at specific points, usually 8 and 12 weeks. We also assessed average pain scores over weeks 2 to 8 and 2 to 12 and the number of participants with pain intensity reduction of at least 30% or at least 50% over baseline, and information on adverse events and withdrawals.We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight studies, involving 2488 participants, two more studies and 415 more participants than the previous version of this review. Studies were of generally good methodological quality; we judged only one study at high risk of bias, due to small size. Two studies used a placebo control and six used 0.04% topical capsaicin as an 'active' placebo to help maintain blinding. Efficacy outcomes were inconsistently reported, resulting in analyses for most outcomes being based on less than complete data.For postherpetic neuralgia, we found four studies (1272 participants). At both 8 and 12 weeks about 10% more participants reported themselves much or very much improved with high-concentration capsaicin than with 'active' placebo, with point estimates of numbers needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTs) of 8.8 (95% confidence interval (CI) 5.3 to 26) with high-concentration capsaicin and 7.0 (95% CI 4.6 to 15) with 'active' placebo (2 studies, 571 participants; moderate quality evidence). More participants (about 10%) had average 2 to 8-week and 2 to 12-week pain intensity reductions over baseline of at least 30% and at least 50% with capsaicin than control, with NNT values between 10 and 12 (2 to 4 studies, 571 to 1272 participants; very low quality evidence).For painful HIV-neuropathy, we found two studies (801 participants). One study reported the proportion of participants who were much or very much improved at 12 weeks (27% with high-concentration capsaicin and 10% with 'active' placebo). For both studies, more participants (about 10%) had average 2 to 12-week pain intensity reductions over baseline of at least 30% with capsaicin than control, with an NNT of 11 (very low quality evidence).For peripheral diabetic neuropathy, we found one study (369 participants). It reported about 10% more participants who were much or very much improved at 8 and 12 weeks. One small study of 46 participants with persistent pain following inguinal herniorrhaphy did not show a difference between capsaicin and placebo for pain reduction (very low quality evidence).We downgraded the quality of the evidence for efficacy outcomes by one to three levels due to sparse data, imprecision, possible effects of imputation methods, and susceptibility to publication bias.Local adverse events were common, but not consistently reported. Serious adverse events were no more common with active treatment (3.5%) than control (3.2%). Adverse event withdrawals did not differ between groups, but lack of efficacy withdrawals were somewhat more common with control than active treatment, based on small numbers of events (six to eight studies, 21 to 67 events; moderate quality evidence, downgraded due to few events). No deaths were judged to be related to study medication.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

High-concentration topical capsaicin used to treat postherpetic neuralgia, HIV-neuropathy, and painful diabetic neuropathy generated more participants with moderate or substantial levels of pain relief than control treatment using a much lower concentration of capsaicin. These results should be interpreted with caution as the quality of the evidence was moderate or very low. The additional proportion who benefited over control was not large, but for those who did obtain high levels of pain relief, there were usually additional improvements in sleep, fatigue, depression, and quality of life. High-concentration topical capsaicin is similar in its effects to other therapies for chronic pain.

Paracetamol (acetaminophen) with or without codeine or dihydrocodeine for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Paracetamol, either alone or in combination with codeine or dihydrocodeine, is commonly used to treat chronic neuropathic pain. This review sought evidence for efficacy and harm from randomised double-blind studies.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of paracetamol with or without codeine or dihydrocodeine for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase from inception to July 2016, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, and two online study registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing paracetamol, alone or in combination with codeine or dihydrocodeine, with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality and potential bias. We did not carry out any pooled analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

No study satisfied the inclusion criteria. Effects of interventions were not assessed as there were no included studies. We have only very low quality evidence and have no reliable indication of the likely effect.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the suggestion that paracetamol alone, or in combination with codeine or dihydrocodeine, works in any neuropathic pain condition.

Role of miR-145 in chronic constriction injury in rats

The present study aims to investigate the effects and underlying mechanisms of miRNA-145 (miR-145) in rat models of chronic constriction injury (CCI). Rats were randomly divided into control, sham, CCI, agomiRNA (agomiR)-normal control (NC) and agomiR-145 groups (n=25 in each group); in addition, 30 rats with CCI were divided into small hairpin (sh)RNA-NC and shRNA-ras responsive element binding protein 1 (RREB1) groups. Paw withdrawal thermal latency (PWTL) and paw withdrawal mechanical threshold (PWMT) were detected. Reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction was used to detect miR-145 expression levels, and western blotting was performed to measure RREB1 and phosphorylated-protein kinase B (p-AKT) expression levels. In addition, a dual luciferase reporter assay was conducted to identify the target gene of miR-145. PWMT and PWTL were decreased in CCI rats and this decrease was alleviated by miR-145 injection. At 1, 3, 5 and 7 days after CCI, miR-145 expression level in the spinal cord tissue of rats in the CCI group was significantly decreased compared with 1 day before CCI (P<0.05). Compared with the CCI group, miR-145 expression level in the agomiR-145 group was significantly higher (P<0.05). In addition, expression levels of RREB1 and p-AKT were significantly increased in the CCI group and significantly decreased in the agomiR-145 group (P<0.05). Furthermore, knockdown of RREB1 expression by shRNA-RREB1 significantly increased values of PWMT and PWTL, decreased expression levels of RREB1 and p-AKT, and increased miR-145 expression levels (P<0.05). Further investigation demonstrated that miR-145 can bind with RREB1 mRNA. In conclusion, miR-145 may be involved in the development of CCI through regulating the expression of RREB1.

Oxycodone for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

This is an update of an earlier review that considered both neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia (Issue 6, 2014), which has now been split into separate reviews for the two conditions. This review considers neuropathic pain only.Opioid drugs, including oxycodone, are commonly used to treat neuropathic pain, and are considered effective by some professionals. Most reviews have examined all opioids together. This review sought evidence specifically for oxycodone, at any dose, and by any route of administration. Separate reviews consider other opioids.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE from inception to 6 November 2013 for the original review and from January 2013 to 21 December 2015 for this update. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and two online clinical trial registries. This update differs from the earlier review in that we have included studies using oxycodone in combination with naloxone, and oxycodone used as add-on treatment to stable, but inadequate, treatment with another class of drug.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing any dose or formulation of oxycodone with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality and potential bias. Where pooled analysis was possible, we used dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and numbers needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods.We assessed the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

The updated searches identified one additional published study, and one clinical trial registry report. We included five studies reporting on 687 participants; 637 had painful diabetic neuropathy and 50 had postherpetic neuralgia. Two studies used a cross-over design and three used a parallel group design; all studies used a placebo comparator, although one study used an active placebo (benztropine). Modified-release oxycodone (oxycodone MR) was titrated to effect and tolerability. One study used a fixed dose combination of oxycodone MR and naloxone. Two studies added oxycodone therapy to ongoing, stable treatment with either pregabalin or gabapentin. All studies had one or more sources of potential major bias.No study reported the proportion of participants experiencing 'substantial benefit' (at least 50% pain relief or who were very much improved). Three studies (537 participants) in painful diabetic neuropathy reported outcomes equivalent to 'moderate benefit' (at least 30% pain relief or who were much or very much improved), which was experienced by 44% of participants with oxycodone and 27% with placebo (number needed to treat for one additional beneficial outcome (NNT) 5.7).All studies reported group mean pain scores at the end of treatment. Three studies reported a greater pain intensity reduction and better patient satisfaction with oxycodone MR alone than with placebo. There was a similar result in the study adding oxycodone MR to stable, ongoing gabapentin, but adding oxycodone MR plus naloxone to stable, ongoing pregabalin did not show any additional effect.More participants experienced adverse events with oxycodone MR alone (86%) than with placebo (63%); the number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNH) was 4.3. Serious adverse events (oxycodone 3.4%, placebo 7.0%) and adverse event withdrawals (oxycodone 11%, placebo 6.4%) were not significantly different between groups. Withdrawals due to lack of efficacy were less frequent with oxycodone MR (1.1%) than placebo (11%), with a number needed to treat to prevent one withdrawal of 10. The add-on studies reported similar results.We downgraded the quality of the evidence to very low for all outcomes, due to limitations in the study methods, heterogeneity in the pain condition and study methods, and sparse data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was only very low quality evidence that oxycodone (as oxycodone MR) is of value in the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy or postherpetic neuralgia. There was no evidence for other neuropathic pain conditions. Adverse events typical of opioids appeared to be common.

Characterizing neuropathic pain profiles: enriching interpretation of painDETECT

Purpose

To psychometrically evaluate painDETECT, a patient-reported screening questionnaire for neuropathic pain (NeP), for discriminating among sensory pain symptoms (burning, tingling/prickling, light touching, sudden pain attacks/electric shock-type pain, cold/heat, numbness, and slight pressure).

Methods

The seven-item version of painDETECT provides an overall score that targets only sensory symptoms, while the nine-item version adds responses on two items to the overall score, covering pain course pattern and pain radiation. Both versions have relevance in terms of characterizing broad NeP. The nine- and seven-item versions of painDETECT were administered to subjects with confirmed NeP across six conditions identified during office visits to US community-based physicians. Responses on the sensory symptom items were dichotomized into “at least moderate” (ie, moderate, strongly, very strongly) relative to the combined other responses (never, hardly noticed, slightly). Logistic regression of dichotomized variables on the total painDETECT score provided probabilities of experiencing each symptom across the range of painDETECT scores.

Results

Both painDETECT versions discriminated among the symptoms with similar probabilities across the score ranges. Using these data, the probability of moderately experiencing each pain sensory item was estimated for a particular score, providing a pain profile. Additionally, the likelihood of experiencing each sensation was determined for a discrete increase in score, ie, the odds of at least a moderate sensation of burning (versus less than a moderate sensation) was 1.29 for a 1-point increase, 3.52 for a 5-point increase, and 12.42 for every 10-point increase in the nine-item painDETECT score.

Conclusion

painDETECT differentiates pain profiles across the range of scores such that, for a particular score, the probability of experiencing at least a moderate sensation of each symptom was determined and compared. These results can help characterize NeP symptomatology, enrich interpretation of painDETECT scores, and provide a basis for individualizing NeP management.

Hydromorphone for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Opioid drugs, including hydromorphone, are commonly used to treat neuropathic pain, and are considered effective by some professionals. Most reviews have examined all opioids together. This review sought evidence specifically for hydromorphone, at any dose, and by any route of administration. Other opioids are considered in separate reviews.This review is part of an update of a previous review, Hydromorphone for acute and chronic pain that was withdrawn in 2013 because it needed updating and splitting to be more specific for different pain conditions. This review focuses only on neuropathic pain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy of hydromorphone for chronic neuropathic pain in adults, and the adverse events associated with its use in clinical trials.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), via the CRSO; MEDLINE via Ovid; and EMBASE via Ovid from inception to 17 November 2015, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, and two online study registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality. We did not carry out any pooled analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation).

MAIN RESULTS

Searches identified seven publications relating to four studies. We excluded three studies. One post hoc (secondary) analysis of a study published in four reports assessed the efficacy of hydromorphone in neuropathic pain, satisfied our inclusion criteria, and was included in the review. The single included study had an enriched enrolment, randomised withdrawal design with 94 participants who were successfully switched from oral morphine to oral hydromorphone extended release (about 60% of those enrolled). These participants were then randomised to continuing hydromorphone for 12 weeks or tapering down the hydromorphone dose to placebo. The methodological quality of the study was generally good, but we judged the risk of bias for incomplete outcome data as unclear, and for study size as high.Since we identified only one study for inclusion, we were unable to carry out any analyses. The included study did not report any of our prespecified primary outcomes, which relate to the number of participants achieving moderate or substantial levels of pain relief. It did report a slightly larger increase in average pain intensity for placebo in the randomised withdrawal phase than for continuing with hydromorphone. It also reported the number of participants who withdrew due to lack of efficacy in the randomised withdrawal phase, which may be an indicator of efficacy. However, in addition to using an enriched enrolment, randomised withdrawal study design, there was an unusual choice of imputation methods for withdrawals (about 50% of participants); the evidence was of very low quality and inadequate to make a judgement on efficacy. Adverse events occurred in about half of participants with hydromorphone, the most common being constipation and nausea. A similar proportion of participants experienced adverse events with placebo, the most common being opioid withdrawal syndrome (very low quality evidence). Most adverse events were mild or moderate in intensity. One in eight participants withdrew while taking hydromorphone during the conversion and titration phase, despite participants being opioid-tolerant (very low quality evidence).We downgraded the quality of the evidence to very low because there was only one study with few participants, it did not report clinically useful efficacy outcomes, and it was a post hoc analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for neuropathic pain

BACKGROUND

Although often considered to be lacking adequate evidence, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used in the management of neuropathic pain. Previous surveys found 18% to 47% of affected people reported using NSAIDs specifically for their neuropathic pain, although possibly not in the United Kingdom (UK).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy of oral NSAIDs for chronic neuropathic pain in adults, when compared to placebo or another active intervention, and the adverse events associated with its use in clinical trials.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE from inception to 29 May 2015, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, and an online trials registry.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks duration or longer, comparing any oral NSAID with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality. We did not carry out any pooled analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two studies involving 251 participants with chronic low back pain with a neuropathic component or postherpetic neuralgia; 209 of these participants were involved in a study of an experimental NSAID not used in clinical practice, and of the remaining 42, only 16 had neuropathic pain. This represented only third tier evidence, and was of very low quality. There was no indication of any significant pain reduction with NSAIDs. Adverse event rates were low, with insufficient events for any analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence to support or refute the use of oral NSAIDs to treat neuropathic pain conditions.

Buprenorphine for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Opioid drugs, including buprenorphine, are commonly used to treat neuropathic pain, and are considered effective by some professionals. Most reviews have examined all opioids together. This review sought evidence specifically for buprenorphine, at any dose, and by any route of administration. Other opioids are considered in separate reviews.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy of buprenorphine for chronic neuropathic pain in adults, and the adverse events associated with its use in clinical trials.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE from inception to 11 June 2015, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, and two online study registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing any oral dose or formulation of buprenorphine with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality. We did not carry out any pooled analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

Searches identified 10 published studies, and one study with results in ClinicalTrials.gov. None of these 11 studies satisfied our inclusion criteria, and so we included no studies in the review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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