Amitriptyline effectively relieves neuropathic pain following treatment of breast cancer

Antidepressants for pain management in adults with chronic pain: a network meta-analysis

Background

Chronic pain is common and costly. Antidepressants are prescribed to reduce pain. However, there has not been a network meta-analysis examining all antidepressants across all chronic pain conditions, so effectiveness and safety for most antidepressants for pain conditions remain unknown.

Objective

To assess the efficacy and safety of antidepressants for chronic pain (except headache) in adults. Our primary outcomes were as follows: substantial pain relief (50%), pain intensity, mood and adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were as follows: moderate pain relief (30%), physical function, sleep, quality of life, Patient Global Impression of Change, serious adverse events and withdrawal.

Design

This was a systematic review with a network meta-analysis. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS, AMED and PsycINFO databases for randomised controlled trials of antidepressants for chronic pain conditions up until 4 January 2022. The review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020171855), and the protocol was published in the Cochrane Library (https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD014682).

Setting

We analysed trials from all settings.

Participants

We included trials in which participants had chronic pain, defined as longer than 3 months, from any condition excluding headache.

Interventions

We included all antidepressants.

Main outcome measures

Our primary outcome was substantial pain relief, defined as a reduction ˃ 50%. We also measured pain intensity, mood and adverse events. Secondary measures included moderate pain relief (above 30% reduction), physical function, sleep, quality of life, Global Impression of Change, serious adverse events, and withdrawal from trial.

Results

We identified 176 studies with a total of 28,664 participants. Most studies were placebo-controlled (n = 83) and parallel armed (n = 141). The most common pain conditions examined were fibromyalgia (59 studies), neuropathic pain (49 studies) and musculoskeletal pain (40 studies). The average length of randomised controlled trials was 10 weeks. Most studies measured short-term outcomes only and excluded people with low mood and other mental health conditions. Across efficacy outcomes, duloxetine was consistently the highest-ranked antidepressant with moderate- to high-certainty evidence. Standard dose was equally efficacious as high dose for the majority of outcomes. Milnacipran was often ranked as the next most efficacious antidepressant, although the certainty of evidence was lower than that for duloxetine. There was insufficient evidence to draw robust conclusions for the efficacy and safety of any other antidepressant for chronic pain.

Limitations

The evidence for antidepressants other than duloxetine is poor. For duloxetine, it is not clear whether the effect applies to groups with both pain and low mood, since these groups were excluded from trials. There is also insufficient evidence on long-term outcomes and on adverse effects.

Conclusions

There is only reliable evidence for duloxetine in the treatment of chronic pain. Duloxetine was moderately efficacious across all outcomes at standard dose. There is also promising evidence for milnacipran, although further high-quality research is needed to be confident in these conclusions. Data for all other antidepressants were of low certainty. However, the findings should not be read as an encouragement to prescribe antidepressants where other non-pharmacological intervention could be equally effective, especially in the absence of good evidence on side effects and safety.

Future work

There is a need for large, methodologically sound trials testing the effectiveness of antidepressants for chronic pain. These trials should examine long-term outcomes (> 6 months) and include people with low mood. There should also be better reporting of adverse events, tolerance of drugs, and long-term compliance.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020171855.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR128782) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 62. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Chronic Pain Following Breast Reconstruction: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer survival rates have increased significantly, underscoring the importance of enhancing long-term health-related quality of life. Breast reconstruction following mastectomy has emerged as a common approach that contributes to improved health-related quality of life. Nonetheless, chronic pain following breast reconstruction is a prevalent issue that has a negative impact on overall well-being.

METHODS

To examine recent findings on chronic pain after breast reconstruction and progress in pain management, we performed a review of the literature through independent searches using the MEDLINE database within NIH National Library of Medicine PubMed.

RESULTS

The review suggested that autologous reconstruction causes chronic postsurgical pain, especially at specific donor sites, whereas implant-based reconstruction does not seem to increase the risk of chronic pain. Moreover, certain operational and patient factors are also associated with chronic pain. Appropriate pain management can reduce chronic pain and prevent the transition from acute to chronic pain.

CONCLUSION

This scoping review evaluated the characteristics of long-term chronic pain after breast reconstruction. The findings provide patients with important treatment information and will assist with their decision on their preferred treatment.

Post-mastectomy Pain Syndrome: A Review Article and Emerging Treatment Modalities

Post-mastectomy pain syndrome (PMPS) is a syndrome broadly applied to the development of chronic pain after surgical breast intervention (i.e., lumpectomy and mastectomy). The incidence of PMPS is likely underreported, and this has contributed to a paucity of high-level evidence related to the treatment of the aforementioned condition. A drive to reduce the burden of opioid use has led to pain management physicians trialing a variety of strategies to help patients manage PMPS. This review discusses the latest evidence behind treatment options for PMPS, exploring medications as well as interventional techniques (e.g., nerve blocks, radiofrequency ablation, neuromodulation, and intrathecal drug delivery systems). Recent advances in neuromodulation technology are of particular interest here due to the well-localized nature of PMPS-related pain and the specificity with which modern neuromodulation techniques can generate an effect. Finally, the review proposes a framework with which to approach the care of patients with PMPS, with a specific emphasis on the early consideration of neuromodulation techniques along with functional and physical therapy to reduce patient medication burden and improve overall quality of life.

A Review on the Management of Peripheral Neuropathic Pain Following Breast Cancer

Postmastectomy pain syndrome (PMPS) is a common and debilitating form of postsurgical pain with neuropathic characteristics, presenting as burning, stabbing, or pulling sensations after mastectomy, lumpectomy, or other breast procedures. With a prevalence of 31%, the risk factors for PMPS include younger age, psychosocial factors, radiotherapy, axillary lymph node dissection, and a history of chronic pain. This review evaluates the pharmacological and surgical options for managing PMPS. Pharmacological treatment options include antidepressants, gabapentinoids, levetiracetam, capsaicin, and topical lidocaine. Procedural and surgical options include fat grafting, nerve blocks, radiofrequency ablation, peripheral nerve surgery, serratus plane block, and botulinum toxin injections. Despite the variety of therapeutic options available for patients, further randomized trials are required to conclude whether these treatments reduce the intensity of neuropathic pain in patients with PMPS. In particular, comparative studies and the inclusion of patients across a range of pain intensities will be essential to developing a treatment algorithm for PMPS. In conclusion, current management for these patients should be tailored to their individual requirements.

Antidepressants for pain management in adults with chronic pain: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain is common in adults, and often has a detrimental impact upon physical ability, well-being, and quality of life. Previous reviews have shown that certain antidepressants may be effective in reducing pain with some benefit in improving patients' global impression of change for certain chronic pain conditions. However, there has not been a network meta-analysis (NMA) examining all antidepressants across all chronic pain conditions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of antidepressants for adults with chronic pain (except headache).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, AMED and PsycINFO databases, and clinical trials registries, for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of antidepressants for chronic pain conditions in January 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that examined antidepressants for chronic pain against any comparator. If the comparator was placebo, another medication, another antidepressant, or the same antidepressant at different doses, then we required the study to be double-blind. We included RCTs with active comparators that were unable to be double-blinded (e.g. psychotherapy) but rated them as high risk of bias. We excluded RCTs where the follow-up was less than two weeks and those with fewer than 10 participants in each arm.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors separately screened, data extracted, and judged risk of bias. We synthesised the data using Bayesian NMA and pairwise meta-analyses for each outcome and ranked the antidepressants in terms of their effectiveness using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). We primarily used Confidence in Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) and Risk of Bias due to Missing Evidence in Network meta-analysis (ROB-MEN) to assess the certainty of the evidence. Where it was not possible to use CINeMA and ROB-MEN due to the complexity of the networks, we used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. Our primary outcomes were substantial (50%) pain relief, pain intensity, mood, and adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were moderate pain relief (30%), physical function, sleep, quality of life, Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), serious adverse events, and withdrawal.

MAIN RESULTS

This review and NMA included 176 studies with a total of 28,664 participants. The majority of studies were placebo-controlled (83), and parallel-armed (141). The most common pain conditions examined were fibromyalgia (59 studies); neuropathic pain (49 studies) and musculoskeletal pain (40 studies). The average length of RCTs was 10 weeks. Seven studies provided no useable data and were omitted from the NMA. The majority of studies measured short-term outcomes only and excluded people with low mood and other mental health conditions. Across efficacy outcomes, duloxetine was consistently the highest-ranked antidepressant with moderate- to high-certainty evidence. In duloxetine studies, standard dose was equally efficacious as high dose for the majority of outcomes. Milnacipran was often ranked as the next most efficacious antidepressant, although the certainty of evidence was lower than that of duloxetine. There was insufficient evidence to draw robust conclusions for the efficacy and safety of any other antidepressant for chronic pain.  Primary efficacy outcomes Duloxetine standard dose (60 mg) showed a small to moderate effect for substantial pain relief (odds ratio (OR) 1.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.69 to 2.17; 16 studies, 4490 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and continuous pain intensity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.31, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.24; 18 studies, 4959 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). For pain intensity, milnacipran standard dose (100 mg) also showed a small effect (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.06; 4 studies, 1866 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Mirtazapine (30 mg) had a moderate effect on mood (SMD -0.5, 95% CI -0.78 to -0.22; 1 study, 406 participants; low-certainty evidence), while duloxetine showed a small effect (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.22 to -0.1; 26 studies, 7952 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); however it is important to note that most studies excluded participants with mental health conditions, and so average anxiety and depression scores tended to be in the 'normal' or 'subclinical' ranges at baseline already. Secondary efficacy outcomes Across all secondary efficacy outcomes (moderate pain relief, physical function, sleep, quality of life, and PGIC), duloxetine and milnacipran were the highest-ranked antidepressants with moderate-certainty evidence, although effects were small. For both duloxetine and milnacipran, standard doses were as efficacious as high doses. Safety There was very low-certainty evidence for all safety outcomes (adverse events, serious adverse events, and withdrawal) across all antidepressants. We cannot draw any reliable conclusions from the NMAs for these outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review and NMAs show that despite studies investigating 25 different antidepressants, the only antidepressant we are certain about for the treatment of chronic pain is duloxetine. Duloxetine was moderately efficacious across all outcomes at standard dose. There is also promising evidence for milnacipran, although further high-quality research is needed to be confident in these conclusions. Evidence for all other antidepressants was low certainty. As RCTs excluded people with low mood, we were unable to establish the effects of antidepressants for people with chronic pain and depression. There is currently no reliable evidence for the long-term efficacy of any antidepressant, and no reliable evidence for the safety of antidepressants for chronic pain at any time point.

Antidepressants for the treatment of depression in people with cancer

BACKGROUND

Major depression and other depressive conditions are common in people with cancer. These conditions are not easily detectable in clinical practice, due to the overlap between medical and psychiatric symptoms, as described by diagnostic manuals such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Moreover, it is particularly challenging to distinguish between pathological and normal reactions to such a severe illness. Depressive symptoms, even in subthreshold manifestations, have a negative impact in terms of quality of life, compliance with anticancer treatment, suicide risk and possibly the mortality rate for the cancer itself. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of antidepressants in this population are few and often report conflicting results.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of antidepressants for treating depressive symptoms in adults (aged 18 years or older) with cancer (any site and stage).

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was November 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs comparing antidepressants versus placebo, or antidepressants versus other antidepressants, in adults (aged 18 years or above) with any primary diagnosis of cancer and depression (including major depressive disorder, adjustment disorder, dysthymic disorder or depressive symptoms in the absence of a formal diagnosis).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was 1. efficacy as a continuous outcome. Our secondary outcomes were 2. efficacy as a dichotomous outcome, 3. Social adjustment, 4. health-related quality of life and 5. dropouts. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 14 studies (1364 participants), 10 of which contributed to the meta-analysis for the primary outcome. Six of these compared antidepressants and placebo, three compared two antidepressants, and one three-armed study compared two antidepressants and placebo. In this update, we included four additional studies, three of which contributed data for the primary outcome. For acute-phase treatment response (six to 12 weeks), antidepressants may reduce depressive symptoms when compared with placebo, even though the evidence is very uncertain. This was true when depressive symptoms were measured as a continuous outcome (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.92 to -0.12; 7 studies, 511 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and when measured as a proportion of people who had depression at the end of the study (risk ratio (RR) 0.74, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.96; 5 studies, 662 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported data on follow-up response (more than 12 weeks). In head-to-head comparisons, we retrieved data for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) versus tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) and for mirtazapine versus TCAs. There was no difference between the various classes of antidepressants (continuous outcome: SSRI versus TCA: SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.18; 3 studies, 237 participants; very low-certainty evidence; mirtazapine versus TCA: SMD -4.80, 95% CI -9.70 to 0.10; 1 study, 25 participants). There was a potential beneficial effect of antidepressants versus placebo for the secondary efficacy outcomes (continuous outcome, response at one to four weeks; very low-certainty evidence). There were no differences for these outcomes when comparing two different classes of antidepressants, even though the evidence was very uncertain. In terms of dropouts due to any cause, we found no difference between antidepressants compared with placebo (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.38; 9 studies, 889 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and between SSRIs and TCAs (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.22; 3 studies, 237 participants). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence because of the heterogeneous quality of the studies, imprecision arising from small sample sizes and wide CIs, and inconsistency due to statistical or clinical heterogeneity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite the impact of depression on people with cancer, the available studies were few and of low quality. This review found a potential beneficial effect of antidepressants against placebo in depressed participants with cancer. However, the certainty of evidence is very low and, on the basis of these results, it is difficult to draw clear implications for practice. The use of antidepressants in people with cancer should be considered on an individual basis and, considering the lack of head-to-head data, the choice of which drug to prescribe may be based on the data on antidepressant efficacy in the general population of people with major depression, also taking into account that data on people with other serious medical conditions suggest a positive safety profile for the SSRIs. Furthermore, this update shows that the usage of the newly US Food and Drug Administration-approved antidepressant esketamine in its intravenous formulation might represent a potential treatment for this specific population of people, since it can be used both as an anaesthetic and an antidepressant. However, data are too inconclusive and further studies are needed. We conclude that to better inform clinical practice, there is an urgent need for large, simple, randomised, pragmatic trials comparing commonly used antidepressants versus placebo in people with cancer who have depressive symptoms, with or without a formal diagnosis of a depressive disorder.

Towards precision pain medicine for pain after cancer: the Cancer Pain Phenotyping Network multidisciplinary international guidelines for pain phenotyping using nociplastic pain criteria

Pain after cancer remains underestimated and undertreated. Precision medicine is a recent concept that refers to the ability to classify patients into subgroups that differ in their susceptibility to, biology, or prognosis of a particular disease, or in their response to a specific treatment, and thus to tailor treatment to the individual patient characteristics. Applying this to pain after cancer, the ability to classify post-cancer pain into the three major pain phenotypes (i.e. nociceptive, neuropathic, and nociplastic pain) and tailor pain treatment accordingly, is an emerging issue. This is especially relevant because available evidence suggests that nociplastic pain is present in an important subgroup of those patients experiencing post-cancer pain. The 2021 International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) clinical criteria and grading system for nociplastic pain account for the need to identify and correctly classify patients according to the pain phenotype early in their treatment. These criteria are an important step towards precision pain medicine with great potential for the field of clinical oncology. Within this framework, the Cancer Pain Phenotyping (CANPPHE) Network, an international and interdisciplinary group of oncology clinicians and researchers from seven countries, applied the 2021 IASP clinical criteria for nociplastic pain to the growing population of those experiencing post-cancer pain. A manual is provided to allow clinicians to differentiate between predominant nociceptive, neuropathic, or nociplastic pain after cancer. A seven-step diagnostic approach is presented and illustrated using cases to enhance understanding and encourage effective implementation of this approach in clinical practice.

AMAZONE: prevention of persistent pain after breast cancer treatment by online cognitive behavioral therapy-study protocol of a randomized controlled multicenter trial

Background

Surviving breast cancer does not necessarily mean complete recovery to a premorbid state of health. Among the multiple psychological and somatic symptoms that reduce the quality of life of breast cancer survivors, persistent pain after breast cancer treatment (PPBCT) with a prevalence of 15–65% is probably the most invalidating. Once chronic, PPBCT is difficult to treat and requires an individualized multidisciplinary approach. In the past decades, several somatic and psychological risk factors for PPBCT have been identified. Studies aiming to prevent PPBCT by reducing perioperative pain intensity have not yet shown a significant reduction of PPBCT prevalence. Only few studies have been performed to modify psychological distress around breast cancer surgery. The AMAZONE study aims to investigate the effect of online cognitive behavioral therapy (e-CBT) on the prevalence of PPBCT.

Methods

The AMAZONE study is a multicenter randomized controlled trial, with an additional control arm. Patients (n=138) scheduled for unilateral breast cancer surgery scoring high for surgical or cancer-related fears, general anxiety or pain catastrophizing are randomized to receive either five sessions of e-CBT or online education consisting of information about surgery and a healthy lifestyle (EDU). The first session is scheduled before surgery. In addition to the online sessions, patients have three online appointments with a psychotherapist. Patients with low anxiety or catastrophizing scores (n=322) receive treatment as usual (TAU, additional control arm).

Primary endpoint is PPBCT prevalence 6 months after surgery.

Secondary endpoints are PPBCT intensity, the intensity of acute postoperative pain during the first week after surgery, cessation of postoperative opioid use, PPBCT prevalence at 12 months, pain interference, the sensitivity of the nociceptive and non-nociceptive somatosensory system as measured by quantitative sensory testing (QST), the efficiency of endogenous pain modulation assessed by conditioned pain modulation (CPM) and quality of life, anxiety, depression, catastrophizing, and fear of recurrence until 12 months post-surgery.

Discussion

With perioperative e-CBT targeting preoperative anxiety and pain catastrophizing, we expect to reduce the prevalence and intensity of PPBCT. By means of QST and CPM, we aim to unravel underlying pathophysiological mechanisms. The online application facilitates accessibility and feasibility in a for breast cancer patients emotionally and physically burdened time period.

Trial registration

NTR NL9132, registered December 16 2020.

Revision of Pharmacological Treatment Recommendations for Cancer Pain: Clinical Guidelines from the Japanese Society of Palliative Medicine

Background: Pain is one of the most common symptoms in cancer patients. The Japanese Society for Palliative Medicine (JSPM) first published its clinical guidelines for the management of cancer pain in 2010. Since then, more research on cancer pain management has been reported, and new drugs have become available in Japan. Thus, the JSPM has now revised the clinical guidelines using a validated methodology. Methods: This guideline was developed through a systematic review, discussion, and the Delphi method, following a formal guideline development process. Results: Thirty-five recommendations were created: 19 for the pharmacological management of cancer pain, 6 for the management of opioid-induced adverse effects, and 10 for pharmacological treatment procedures. Due to the lack of evidence that directly addressed our clinical questions, most of the recommendations had to be based on consensus among committee members and other guidelines. Discussion: It is critical to continue to build high-quality evidence in cancer pain management, and revise these guidelines accordingly.

Post-Mastectomy Pain Syndrome: An Up-to-Date Review of Treatment Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Post-mastectomy pain syndrome (PMPS) is a known debilitating surgical complication. While research on prevention, risk factors, and treatments have been conducted, there remains no cohesive treatment paradigm. The aim of our study is to synthesize the existing evidence on PMPS treatment, which may facilitate the implementation of standardized, effective management strategies.

METHODS

Using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, a comprehensive search was developed and translated for MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The databases were searched using a combination of free terms, phrase searching, and database-specific controlled vocabulary related to PMPS. All unique records were by two independent reviewers. Publications on chronic (>3 months duration) pain after breast cancer-related surgery were included. Limited case series, case reports, and editorials were not included.

RESULTS

A total of 3402 articles from the years 1946-2019 resulted from the literature search after deduplication. Twenty-seven articles met final inclusion criteria for analysis, which revealed 10 major treatment modalities: fat grafting, neuroma surgery, lymphedema surgery, nerve blocks and neurolysis, laser, antidepressants, neuromodulators, physical therapy, mindfulness-based cognitive therapy, and capsaicin.

CONCLUSIONS

In this review, we present a comprehensive assessment of the treatments available for PMPS that may help guide breast surgeons and reconstructive surgeons to employ the most effective treatment strategies for these patients. This review supports the importance of multimodal, multidisciplinary care in improving the management of PMPS.

Health-Related Suffering and Palliative Care in Breast Cancer

Purpose of Review

Breast cancer continues to be the most frequently diagnosed cancer in women and the leading cause of cancer death worldwide. By the suffering that it causes in various domains of life, breast cancer seriously impacts the quality of life of affected individuals and causes a major burden of suffering in the community. The objectives of the review were to understand the health-related suffering in patients with breast cancer and to identify the scope of palliative care in improving the quality of life of patients with breast cancer.

Recent Findings

Breast cancer causes suffering in physical, psychological, social, financial, and spiritual domains of the lives of the patient and family. Management of breast cancer with surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation could have adverse effects, such as pain, nausea and vomiting, fatigue, shortness of breath, depression, and constipation. Both cancer and its treatment can impact the psychosocial and spiritual well-being of the patient and family members. Integrating palliative care into existing breast cancer treatment programs seems to be the best approach to diminish these sufferings.

Summary

In addition to pain and other physical symptoms, breast cancer can cause major psychological, social, and spiritual suffering. In the context of developing countries, out-of-pocket expenditure can cause major financial destruction which can impact generations. Integration of palliative care to breast cancer treatment is essential.

Quality of Life Interventions in Breast Cancer Survivors: State of the Art in Targeted Rehabilitation Strategies

Breast cancer is the most common malignant tumor and the most prevalent cause of mortality in women. Advances in early diagnosis and more effective adjuvant therapies have improved the long-term survival of these patients. Pharmacotherapies and intrinsic tumor-related factors may lead to a wide spectrum of treatment-related disabling complications, such as breast cancer-related lymphedema, axillary web syndrome, persistent pain, bone loss, arthralgia, and fatigue. These conditions have a detrimental impact on the health-related quality of life of survivors. Here, we sought to provide a portrait of the role that rehabilitation plays in breast cancer survivors. Particular emphasis has been placed on recovering function, improving independence in activities of daily living, and reducing disability. This complex scenario requires a precision medicine approach to provide more effective decision-making and adequate treatment compliance.

Postmastectomy Pain Syndrome: A Primer for Plastic Surgeons

Postmastectomy pain syndrome (PMPS) is defined as chronic pain after breast cancer surgery lasting greater than 3 months and has been shown to affect up to 60% of breast cancer patients. Substantial research has been performed to identify risk factors and potential treatment options, although the exact cause of PMPS remains elusive. As breast reconstruction becomes increasingly popular, plastic surgeons are likely to encounter more patients presenting with PMPS. This article summarizes current evidence on risk factors and treatment options for PMPS and highlights further areas of study.

Post-mastectomy pain syndrome: A timely review of its predisposing factors and current approaches to treatment

Background:

Post-mastectomy pain syndrome (PMPS) has been reported to occur in 25–60% of patients following surgeries for breast cancer, the highest occurring cancer in women worldwide. There has been much research interest due to this high prevalence. However, there is still a lack of incorporation of PMPS prevention strategies in standard perioperative plans, and our understanding of this condition is still incomplete.

Objectives:

This narrative review discusses recent literature on modifiable risk factors, current approaches to prevention and treatment and potential directions for future treatment and research.

Methods:

A PubMed search with the relevant keywords was done for articles published in the last 10 years.

Results:

The incidence of PMPS can be reduced by early recognition and management of modifiable risk factors as well as the perioperative use of analgesics and regional nerve blocks. These also have a significant role in the management of established PMPS together with surgical interventions and physical therapy.

Conclusions:

PMPS is still poorly defined and hence underdiagnosed and undertreated at this point. Perioperative peripheral nerve blocks have a very promising role as preventive analgesia to reduce the risk of developing PMPS, but large-scale randomised controlled studies will need to be done to evaluate their comparative efficacy. There is a need to prioritise PMPS prevention as a standard inclusion into the perioperative plans of mastectomy patients.

Review of nonopioid multimodal analgesia for surgical and trauma patients

Purpose

Pain is a frequent finding in surgical and trauma patients, and effective pain control remains a common challenge in the hospital setting. Opioids have traditionally been the foundation of pain management; however, these agents are associated with various adverse effects and risks of dependence and diversion.

Summary

In response to the rising national opioid epidemic and the various risks associated with opioid use, multimodal pain management through use of nonopioid analgesics such as acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, α 2 agonists, N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists, skeletal muscle relaxants, sodium channel blockers, and local anesthetics has gained popularity recently. Multimodal analgesia has synergistic therapeutic effects and can decrease adverse effects by enabling use of lower doses of each agent in the multimodal regimen. This review discusses properties of the various nonopioid analgesics and encourages pharmacists to play an active role in the selection, initiation, and dose-titration of multimodal analgesia. The choice of nonopioid agents should be based on patient comorbidities, hemodynamic stability, and the agents’ respective adverse effect profiles. A multidisciplinary plan for management of pain should be formulated during transitions of care and is an area of opportunity for pharmacists to improve patient care.

Conclusion

Multimodal analgesia effectively treats pain while decreasing adverse effects. There is mounting evidence to support use of this strategy to decrease opioid use. As medication experts, pharmacists can play a key role in the selection, initiation, and dose-titration of analgesic agents based on patient-specific factors.

Beyond pain: can antidepressants improve depressive symptoms and quality of life in patients with neuropathic pain? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Neuropathic pain can be a predictor of severe emotional distress, up to full-blown depressive states. In these patients, it is important to move beyond the sole treatment of pain, to recognize depressive symptoms, and to ultimately improve the quality of life. We systematically searched for published and unpublished clinical trials assessing the efficacy and tolerability of antidepressants vs placebo on depression, anxiety and quality of life in patients with neuropathic pain, and pooled data in a meta-analysis. A total of 37 studies fulfilled eligibility criteria and 32 provided data for meta-analysis. Antidepressants were more effective than placebo in improving depressive symptoms (standardized mean difference -0.11; 95% confidence interval -0.20 to -0.02), although the magnitude of effect was small, with a number needed to treat of 24. No significant difference emerged between antidepressants and placebo in reducing anxiety. Quality of life seemed improved in patients on antidepressants, as did pain. Acceptability and tolerability were higher in patients on placebo. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis specifically focusing on the effect of antidepressants on psychiatric symptoms and quality of life in patients with neuropathic pain. Our findings suggest that despite their potential benefit in patients with neuropathic pain, antidepressants should be prescribed with particular care because they might be less tolerable in such a fragile population. However, our findings warrant further research to explore how a correct use of antidepressants can help patients to cope with the consequences of neuropathic pain on their psychosocial health and quality of life.

Autologous fat grafting efficacy in treating PostMastectomy pain syndrome: A prospective multicenter trial of two Senonetwork Italia breast centers

Postmastectomy pain syndrome (PMPS) represents a common complication following breast surgery defined as a chronic neuropathic pain located in the front of the chest, in the axilla and in the upper arm that for more than 3 months after surgery. Several medications prove to be ineffective while autologous fat grafting revealed to be an innovative solution in the treatment of neuropathic pain syndromes based on retrospective studies. For this reason, we performed a prospective multicenter trial to reduce the memory bias and further increase the evidence of the results. From February 2018 to March 2019, 37 female patients aged between 18 and 80 years, underwent mastectomy or quadrantectomy with pathologic scarring and chronic persistent neuropathic pain, compatible with PMPS, are been included in the study and treated with autologous fat grafting. During the enrollment phase, patients were asked to estimate pain using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and POSAS questionnaire in order to evaluate scar outcomes. The VAS scale, starting from 6.9 (1.3), decreased in the first month by 3.10 (1.59), continuing to fall by 0.83 (1.60) to 3 months and by 0.39 (2.09) at 6 months. Statistical analysis showed a significant reduction after 1 month (P < .0001) and 3 months (P < .005). All POSAS grades documented a statistically significant reduction (P < .0001) of the scores by both observers and patients. We observed that no significant association was found between age, BMI, menopausal status of patients, days from oncologic surgery to autologous fat grafting and reduction of VAS values over time while both smoking and axillary dissection were observed as the main factor significantly associated with a reduced clinical efficacy (respectively, P = .0227 and P = .0066). Our prospective multicenter trial confirms the efficacy of fat grafting in the treatment of PMPS based on the principle of regenerative medicine with a satisfactory response in terms of pain reduction and improvement of the quality of the treated tissues. Clinical questionnaires show that the cicatricial areas improve in terms of color, thickness, skin pliability, and surface irregularities. Regenerative effect is based also on the adoption of needles. The combined effect of fat grafting and needles determines a clinical full response.

Post-mastectomy and post-breast conservation surgery pain syndrome: a review of etiologies, risk prediction, and trends in management

Postmastectomy pain syndrome (PMPS) or breast conservation surgery (BCS) pain syndrome could be long-term and lead to disability and impairment on body and social function. The pain syndromes are not uncommon in breast cancer patients. It can affect social, psychological, physical and behavioral aspects of a patient. Surgery, radiation, chemotherapy and psychological factors can all contribute to the development of pain syndromes. Axillary dissection is a strong predictor for pain development. Pain medications, ganglion blocks are typically given to the patient for management. Integrative medicine such as acupuncture and psychological management methods are promising modalities in the management arsenal. In this study, we summarized the up-to-date literature to elucidate the etiology, risk factors and management strategies for PMPS.

Treating Persistent Pain After Breast Cancer Surgery

Breast cancer is one of the most commonly diagnosed cancers among women, and since the prognosis of breast cancer has substantially improved in past decades, complications of management are becoming increasingly apparent. Persistent pain lasting greater than 3 months after breast cancer surgery is unfortunately a common complication affecting approximately 30% of patients after tumour resection. Persistent breast cancer pain has neuropathic features and is typically mild-to-moderate in intensity, with approximately 10% suffering from severe pain. There is an increasing need to prevent persistent pain through the use of transitional pain programmes and perioperative interventions, and to identify novel treatment modalities to reduce suffering in those who unfortunately develop persistent pain. This review serves to provide an overview on persistent pain after breast cancer surgery, its pathophysiology, and current management strategies.

Phantom limb pain: A literature review

Since the phantom limb sensation was first described by the French military surgeon Ambroise Pare in the 16th century, the number of studies surrounding phantom limb pain has increased every year. Especially in recent decades, scientists have achieved a better understanding of the mechanism and treatment of phantom limb pain. Although many hypotheses have been agreed and many treatments have been proven effective, scientists still do not have a very systematic understanding of the phantom limbs. The purpose of this review article is to summarize recent researches focusing on phantom limb in order to discuss its definition, mechanisms, and treatments.

Antidepressants for the treatment of depression in people with cancer

BACKGROUND

Major depression and other depressive conditions are common in people with cancer. These conditions are not easily detectable in clinical practice, due to the overlap between medical and psychiatric symptoms, as described by diagnostic manuals such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Moreover, it is particularly challenging to distinguish between pathological and normal reactions to such a severe illness. Depressive symptoms, even in subthreshold manifestations, have been shown to have a negative impact in terms of quality of life, compliance with anti-cancer treatment, suicide risk and likely even the mortality rate for the cancer itself. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of antidepressants in this population are few and often report conflicting results.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of antidepressants for treating depressive symptoms in adults (aged 18 years or older) with cancer (any site and stage).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic bibliographic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2017, Issue 6), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to June week 4 2017), Embase Ovid (1980 to 2017 week 27) and PsycINFO Ovid (1987 to July week 4 2017). We additionally handsearched the trial databases of the most relevant national, international and pharmaceutical company trial registers and drug-approving agencies for published, unpublished and ongoing controlled trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs comparing antidepressants versus placebo, or antidepressants versus other antidepressants, in adults (aged 18 years or above) with any primary diagnosis of cancer and depression (including major depressive disorder, adjustment disorder, dysthymic disorder or depressive symptoms in the absence of a formal diagnosis).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently checked eligibility and extracted data using a form specifically designed for the aims of this review. The two authors compared the data extracted and then entered data into Review Manager 5 using a double-entry procedure. Information extracted included study and participant characteristics, intervention details, outcome measures for each time point of interest, cost analysis and sponsorship by a drug company. We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We retrieved a total of 10 studies (885 participants), seven of which contributed to the meta-analysis for the primary outcome. Four of these compared antidepressants and placebo, two compared two antidepressants, and one three-armed study compared two antidepressants and placebo. In this update we included one additional unpublished study. These new data contributed to the secondary analysis, while the results of the primary analysis remained unchanged.For acute-phase treatment response (6 to 12 weeks), we found no difference between antidepressants as a class and placebo on symptoms of depression measured both as a continuous outcome (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.01 to 0.11, five RCTs, 266 participants; very low certainty evidence) and as a proportion of people who had depression at the end of the study (risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.08, five RCTs, 417 participants; very low certainty evidence). No trials reported data on follow-up response (more than 12 weeks). In head-to-head comparisons we only retrieved data for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) versus tricyclic antidepressants, showing no difference between these two classes (SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.18, three RCTs, 237 participants; very low certainty evidence). No clear evidence of a beneficial effect of antidepressants versus either placebo or other antidepressants emerged from our analyses of the secondary efficacy outcomes (dichotomous outcome, response at 6 to 12 weeks, very low certainty evidence). In terms of dropouts due to any cause, we found no difference between antidepressants as a class compared with placebo (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.38, seven RCTs, 479 participants; very low certainty evidence), and between SSRIs and tricyclic antidepressants (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.30, three RCTs, 237 participants). We downgraded the certainty (quality) of the evidence because the included studies were at an unclear or high risk of bias due to poor reporting, imprecision arising from small sample sizes and wide confidence intervals, and inconsistency due to statistical or clinical heterogeneity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite the impact of depression on people with cancer, the available studies were very few and of low quality. This review found very low certainty evidence for the effects of these drugs compared with placebo. On the basis of these results, clear implications for practice cannot be deduced. The use of antidepressants in people with cancer should be considered on an individual basis and, considering the lack of head-to-head data, the choice of which agent to prescribe may be based on the data on antidepressant efficacy in the general population of individuals with major depression, also taking into account that data on medically ill patients suggest a positive safety profile for the SSRIs. To better inform clinical practice, there is an urgent need for large, simple, randomised, pragmatic trials comparing commonly used antidepressants versus placebo in people with cancer who have depressive symptoms, with or without a formal diagnosis of a depressive disorder.

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.

Clinical Prediction Model and Tool for Assessing Risk of Persistent Pain After Breast Cancer Surgery

Purpose Persistent pain after breast cancer surgery is a well-recognized problem, with moderate to severe pain affecting 15% to 20% of women at 1 year from surgery. Several risk factors for persistent pain have been recognized, but tools to identify high-risk patients and preventive interventions are missing. The aim was to develop a clinically applicable risk prediction tool. Methods The prediction models were developed and tested using three prospective data sets from Finland (n = 860), Denmark (n = 453), and Scotland (n = 231). Prediction models for persistent pain of moderate to severe intensity at 1 year postoperatively were developed by logistic regression analyses in the Finnish patient cohort. The models were tested in two independent cohorts from Denmark and Scotland by assessing the areas under the receiver operating characteristics curves (ROC-AUCs). The outcome variable was moderate to severe persistent pain at 1 year from surgery in the Finnish and Danish cohorts and at 9 months in the Scottish cohort. Results Moderate to severe persistent pain occurred in 13.5%, 13.9%, and 20.3% of the patients in the three studies, respectively. Preoperative pain in the operative area ( P < .001), high body mass index ( P = .039), axillary lymph node dissection ( P = .008), and more severe acute postoperative pain intensity at the seventh postoperative day ( P = .003) predicted persistent pain in the final prediction model, which performed well in the Danish (ROC-AUC, 0.739) and Scottish (ROC-AUC, 0.740) cohorts. At the 20% risk level, the model had 32.8% and 47.4% sensitivity and 94.4% and 82.4% specificity in the Danish and Scottish cohorts, respectively. Conclusion Our validated prediction models and an online risk calculator provide clinicians and researchers with a simple tool to screen for patients at high risk of developing persistent pain after breast cancer surgery.

The Post-mastectomy Pain Syndrome-A Systematic Review of the Treatment Modalities

Post-mastectomy pain syndrome (PMPS) is a chronic neuropathic pain condition, affecting many women who have undergone breast cancer surgery. The development of PMPS is complex and the treatment options are limited. In this systematic review, we have analyzed the existing treatment modalities of PMPS. Six studies on five treatments were carefully selected, critically evaluated, and presented. The treatments were: antidepressants, anti-epileptics, topical capsaicin, and autologous fat grafting. Four of these treatments had a significant effect on PMPS. However, most of the studies had several flaws and therefore larger studies of high quality should be performed in the future.

Fat grafting for alleviating persistent pain after breast cancer treatment: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Persistent pain is a common side effect of breast cancer treatment, affecting 24-52% of women after mastectomy. Recent studies have described analgesic effects of fat grafting in various settings. We aimed to investigate whether fat grafting had an analgesic effect on persistent pain after mastectomy and whether fat grafting had a remodeling effect on the mastectomy scar.

METHODS

This study was conducted as a randomized controlled trial. Patients were randomized to either receive fat grafting to the pain-afflicted area around the missing breast or a control group without any intervention. A total of 18 unilaterally mastectomized women with persistent pain ≥3 on the numerical rating scale were enrolled. Patients were examined at the baseline and at 3 and 6 months by using the DoloTest(®), visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, neuropathic pain symptom inventory, and patient and observer scar assessment scale.

RESULTS

A total of 15 patients were analyzed (fat grafted n = 8, control n = 7). The average amount of grafted fat was 71 ± 24.6 mL. Fat grafting showed a significant improvement in the pain as measured on the VAS pain scale (p = 0.001) with an average reduction of 54.9% and as measured on the neuropathic pain symptom inventory (p = 0.002). Furthermore, a significant improvement was observed in health-related quality of life (p = 0.007) and the quality of the scar (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This is the first randomized controlled trial evaluating the analgesic effect of fat grafting. Fat grafting is a safe and effective technique for alleviating persistent pain after mastectomy.

Comorbid Depression in Adult Oncology

Depression is a common medical disorder that frequently occurs comorbidly with other medical disorders. Unfortunately, depression often goes unrecognized either due to somatic symptoms, which may be confused with the physical effects of cancer, chemotherapy, and radiation, or due to the belief that depression is a normal part of the cancer diagnosis. A combination of pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy is the most effective treatment for depression in cancer patients. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors are the most frequently used antidepressants. Selection of an antidepressant should be based on the patient's symptoms. Recognition and treatment of depressive symptoms in oncology patients is very important, and effective treatment may improve the oncology patients' quality of life and may also affect survival.

Pain in cancer survivors

Cancer and its treatment exert a heavy psychological and physical toll. Of the myriad symptoms which result, pain is common, encountered in between 30% and 60% of cancer survivors. Pain in cancer survivors is a major and growing problem, impeding the recovery and rehabilitation of patients who have beaten cancer and negatively impacting on cancer patients' quality of life, work prospects and mental health. Persistent pain in cancer survivors remains challenging to treat successfully. Pain can arise both due to the underlying disease and the various treatments the patient has been subjected to. Chemotherapy causes painful chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN), radiotherapy can produce late effect radiation toxicity and surgery may lead to the development of persistent post-surgical pain syndromes. This review explores a selection of the common causes of persistent pain in cancer survivors, detailing our current understanding of the pathophysiology and outlining both the clinical manifestations of individual pain states and the treatment options available.

Amitriptyline for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 12, 2012. That review considered both fibromyalgia and neuropathic pain, but the effects of amitriptyline for fibromyalgia are now dealt with in a separate review.Amitriptyline is a tricyclic antidepressant that is widely used to treat chronic neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage). It is recommended as a first line treatment in many guidelines. Neuropathic pain can be treated with antidepressant drugs in doses below those at which the drugs act as antidepressants.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE to March 2015, together with two clinical trial registries, and the reference lists of retrieved papers, previous systematic reviews, and other reviews; we also used our own hand searched database for older studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind studies of at least four weeks' duration comparing amitriptyline with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain conditions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We performed analysis using three tiers of evidence. First tier evidence derived from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction, intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for dropouts; at least 200 participants in the comparison, 8 to 12 weeks' duration, parallel design), second tier from data that failed to meet one or more of these criteria and were considered at some risk of bias but with adequate numbers in the comparison, and third tier from data involving small numbers of participants that were considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 studies from the earlier review and two new studies (17 studies, 1342 participants) in seven neuropathic pain conditions. Eight cross-over studies with 302 participants had a median of 36 participants, and nine parallel group studies with 1040 participants had a median of 84 participants. Study quality was modest, though most studies were at high risk of bias due to small size.There was no first-tier or second-tier evidence for amitriptyline in treating any neuropathic pain condition. Only third-tier evidence was available. For only two of seven studies reporting useful efficacy data was amitriptyline significantly better than placebo (very low quality evidence).More participants experienced at least one adverse event; 55% of participants taking amitriptyline and 36% taking placebo. The risk ratio (RR) was 1.5 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3 to 1.8) and the number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome was 5.2 (3.6 to 9.1) (low quality evidence). Serious adverse events were rare. Adverse event and all-cause withdrawals were not different, but were rarely reported (very low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Amitriptyline has been a first-line treatment for neuropathic pain for many years. The fact that there is no supportive unbiased evidence for a beneficial effect is disappointing, but has to be balanced against decades of successful treatment in many people with neuropathic pain. There is no good evidence of a lack of effect; rather our concern should be of overestimation of treatment effect. Amitriptyline should continue to be used as part of the treatment of neuropathic pain, but only a minority of people will achieve satisfactory pain relief. Limited information suggests that failure with one antidepressant does not mean failure with all.

Efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants on the continuum of depressive experiences in patients with cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients with cancer are particularly vulnerable to depressive experiences, ranging from severe emotional reactions to proper depressive syndromes, including major depression. These experiences may deeply affect the course and outcome of the disease. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy acceptability of antidepressants on the continuum of depressive experiences in patients suffering from cancer.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, as well as websites of regulatory agencies, clinical trial repositories and pharmaceutical companies, were systematically searched for published and unpublished randomised trials assessing the efficacy of antidepressants versus placebo in patients with cancer. Efficacy of antidepressants at the end of the study was the primary outcome. The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42014013440).

RESULTS

A total of 19 studies contributed to the analysis. Antidepressants (particularly the selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors and mianserin) were more effective than placebo in relieving depressive experiences in both patients with major depression or depressive symptoms (standardised mean difference -0.596, 95% confidence interval -1.041 to -0.150), as well as in patients with other cancer-related distressing symptoms (standardised mean difference -0.229, 95% confidence interval -0.419 to -0.039). We found evidence that efficacy was positively associated with length of treatment. No differences between antidepressants and placebo were found in terms of overall acceptability.

CONCLUSIONS

Antidepressants should be considered as one treatment option for relieving the burden of depressive experiences in patients with cancer.

Antidepressants for the treatment of depression in people with cancer

BACKGROUND

Major depression and other depressive conditions are common in people with cancer. These conditions are not easily detectable in clinical practice, due to the overlap between medical and psychiatric symptoms, as described by diagnostic manuals such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Moreover, it is particularly challenging to distinguish between pathological and normal reactions to such a severe illness. Depressive symptoms, even in subthreshold manifestations, have been shown to have a negative impact in terms of quality of life, compliance with anti-cancer treatment, suicide risk and likely even the mortality rate for the cancer itself. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy and tolerability of antidepressants in this population group are few and often report conflicting results.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects and acceptability of antidepressants for treating depressive symptoms in adults (18 years or older) with cancer (any site and stage).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic bibliographic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2014, Issue 3), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to April week 3, 2014), EMBASE Ovid (1980 to 2014 week 17) and PsycINFO Ovid (1987 to April week 4, 2014). We additionally handsearched the trial databases of the most relevant national, international and pharmaceutical company trial registers and drug-approving agencies for published, unpublished and ongoing controlled trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs allocating adults (18 years or above) with any primary diagnosis of cancer and depression (including major depressive disorder, adjustment disorder, dysthymic disorder or depressive symptoms in the absence of a formal diagnosis) comparing antidepressants versus placebo, or antidepressants versus other antidepressants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently checked eligibility and extracted data using a form specifically designed for the aims of this review. The two authors compared the data extracted and then entered data into RevMan 5 with a double-entry procedure. Information extracted included study and participant characteristics, intervention details, outcome measures for each time point of interest, cost analysis and sponsorship by a drug company. We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We retrieved a total of nine studies (861 participants), with seven studies contributing to the meta-analysis for the primary outcome. Four of these compared antidepressants and placebo, two compared two antidepressants and one-three armed study compared two antidepressants and a placebo arm. For the acute phase treatment response (6 to 12 weeks), we found very low quality evidence for the effect of antidepressants as a class on symptoms of depression compared with placebo when measured as a continuous outcome (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.01 to 0.11, five RCTs, 266 participants) or as a proportion of people who had depression (risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.08, five RCTs, 417 participants). No trials reported data on the follow-up response (more than 12 weeks). In head-to-head comparisons we only retrieved data for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) versus tricyclic antidepressants, providing very low quality evidence for the difference between these two classes (SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.18, three RCTs, 237 participants). No clear evidence of an effect of antidepressants versus either placebo or other antidepressants emerged from the analyses of the secondary efficacy outcomes (dichotomous outcome, response at 6 to 12 weeks, very low quality evidence). We found very low quality evidence for the effect of antidepressants as a class in terms of dropouts due to any cause compared with placebo (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.53, six RCTs, 455 participants), as well as between SSRIs and tricyclic antidepressants (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.30, three RCTs, 237 participants). We downgraded the quality of the evidence because the included studies were at an unclear or high risk of bias due to poor reporting, imprecision arising from small sample sizes and wide confidence intervals, and inconsistency due to statistical or clinical heterogeneity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite the impact of depression on people with cancer, available studies were very few and of low quality. This review found very low quality evidence for the effects of these drugs compared with placebo. On the basis of these results clear implications for practice cannot be made. The use of antidepressants in people with cancer should be considered on an individual basis and, considering the lack of head-to-head data, the choice of which agent should be prescribed may be based on the data on antidepressant efficacy in the general population of individuals with major depression, also taking into account that data on medically ill patients suggest a positive safety profile for the SSRIs. Large, simple, randomised, pragmatic trials comparing commonly used antidepressants versus placebo in people with cancer with depressive symptoms, with or without a formal diagnosis of a depressive disorder, are urgently needed to better inform clinical practice.

Antidepressants for the treatment of depression in people with cancer

BACKGROUND

Major depression and other depressive conditions are common in people with cancer. These conditions are not easily detectable in clinical practice, due to the overlap between medical and psychiatric symptoms, as described by diagnostic manuals such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Moreover, it is particularly challenging to distinguish between pathological and normal reactions to such a severe illness. Depressive symptoms, even in subthreshold manifestations, have been shown to have a negative impact in terms of quality of life, compliance with anti-cancer treatment, suicide risk and likely even the mortality rate for the cancer itself. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy and tolerability of antidepressants in this population group are few and often report conflicting results.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects and acceptability of antidepressants for treating depressive symptoms in adults (18 years or older) with cancer (any site and stage).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic bibliographic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2014, Issue 3), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to April week 3, 2014), EMBASE Ovid (1980 to 2014 week 17) and PsycINFO Ovid (1987 to April week 4, 2014). We additionally handsearched the trial databases of the most relevant national, international and pharmaceutical company trial registers and drug-approving agencies for published, unpublished and ongoing controlled trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs allocating adults (18 years or above) with any primary diagnosis of cancer and depression (including major depressive disorder, adjustment disorder, dysthymic disorder or depressive symptoms in the absence of a formal diagnosis) comparing antidepressants versus placebo, or antidepressants versus other antidepressants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently checked eligibility and extracted data using a form specifically designed for the aims of this review. The two authors compared the data extracted and then entered data into RevMan 5 with a double-entry procedure. Information extracted included study and participant characteristics, intervention details, outcome measures for each time point of interest, cost analysis and sponsorship by a drug company. We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We retrieved a total of nine studies (861 participants), with seven studies contributing to the meta-analysis for the primary outcome. Four of these compared antidepressants and placebo, two compared two antidepressants and one-three armed study compared two antidepressants and a placebo arm. For the acute phase treatment response (6 to 12 weeks), we found very low quality evidence for the effect of antidepressants as a class on symptoms of depression compared with placebo when measured as a continuous outcome (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.01 to 0.11, five RCTs, 266 participants) or as a proportion of people who had depression (risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.08, five RCTs, 417 participants). No trials reported data on the follow-up response (more than 12 weeks). In head-to-head comparisons we only retrieved data for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) versus tricyclic antidepressants, providing very low quality evidence for the difference between these two classes (SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.18, three RCTs, 237 participants). No clear evidence of an effect of antidepressants versus either placebo or other antidepressants emerged from the analyses of the secondary efficacy outcomes (dichotomous outcome, response at 6 to 12 weeks, very low quality evidence). We found very low quality evidence for the effect of antidepressants as a class in terms of dropouts due to any cause compared with placebo (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.53, six RCTs, 455 participants), as well as between SSRIs and tricyclic antidepressants (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.30, three RCTs, 237 participants). We downgraded the quality of the evidence because the included studies were at an unclear or high risk of bias due to poor reporting, imprecision arising from small sample sizes and wide confidence intervals, and inconsistency due to statistical or clinical heterogeneity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite the impact of depression on people with cancer, available studies were very few and of low quality. This review found very low quality evidence for the effects of these drugs compared with placebo. On the basis of these results clear implications for practice cannot be made. The use of antidepressants in people with cancer should be considered on an individual basis and, considering the lack of head-to-head data, the choice of which agent should be prescribed may be based on the data on antidepressant efficacy in the general population of individuals with major depression, also taking into account that data on medically ill patients suggest a positive safety profile for the SSRIs. Large, simple, randomised, pragmatic trials comparing commonly used antidepressants versus placebo in people with cancer with depressive symptoms, with or without a formal diagnosis of a depressive disorder, are urgently needed to better inform clinical practice.

Cancer treatment-related neuropathic pain syndromes--epidemiology and treatment: an update

Cancer treatment-related chronic neuropathic pain (NP) is a pervasive and distressing problem that negatively influences function and quality of life for countless cancer survivors. It occurs because of cancer treatment-induced damage to peripheral and central nervous system structures. NP becomes chronic when pain signal transmission persists, eventually sensitizing neurons in the dorsal horn and other pain-processing regions in the central nervous system. Frequently overlooked, NP due to cancer treatment has been understudied. Consequently, only a few pharmacologic interventions have been shown to be effective based on the results of randomized controlled trials. Future research designed to explore pathophysiologic mechanisms and effective mechanism-targeted interventions is sorely needed.

Use of non-opioid analgesics as adjuvants to opioid analgesia for cancer pain management in an inpatient palliative unit: does this improve pain control and reduce opioid requirements?

BACKGROUND

Cancer pain is complex, and despite the introduction of the WHO cancer pain ladder, few studies have looked at the prevalence of adjuvant medication use in an inpatient palliative medicine unit. In this study, we evaluate the use of adjuvant pain medications in patients admitted to an inpatient palliative care unit and whether their use affects pain scores or opiate dosing.

METHODS

In this retrospective observational study, patients admitted to the inpatient palliative care unit over a 3-month period with a diagnosis of cancer on opioid therapy were selected. Data pertaining to demographics, diagnosis, oral morphine dose equivalent of the opioid at the time of discharge, adjuvant analgesics, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and pain scores as reported by nurses and physicians were collected.

RESULTS

Seventy-seven patients were eligible over a 3-month period, out of which 65 (84 %) were taking an adjuvant medication. The most commonly prescribed adjuvant was gabapentin (70 %). Fifty-seven percent were taking more than one adjuvant. There were more women in the group receiving adjuvants (57 vs. 17%, p = 0.010). Those without adjuvants compared with those on adjuvants did not have worse pain scores on discharge as reported by physicians (0.8 ± 0.8 vs. 1.0 ± 0.7, p = 0.58) or nurses (2.0 ± 2.7 vs. 2.1 ± 2.6, p = 0.86). There was no difference in morphine equivalent doses of the opioid in both groups (median (min, max); 112 (58, 504) vs. 200 (30, 5,040)) at the time of discharge; 75-80 % of patients had improvement in pain scores as measured by a two-point reduction in numerical rating scale (NRS).

DISCUSSION

This study shows that adjuvant medications are commonly used for treating pain in patients with cancer. More than half of study population were on two adjuvants or an adjuvant plus NSAID along with an opioid. We did not demonstrate any benefit in terms of improved pain scores or opioid doses with adjuvants, but this could reflect confounding variables and physician choice. Larger prospective studies are needed to define the opioid-sparing effects of adjuvants.

CONCLUSION

Adjuvant agents are used in over 80 % of those treated for cancer pain.

Occupancy of serotonin transporter by tramadol: a positron emission tomography study with [11C]DASB

Tramadol is used for the treatment of pain, and it is generally believed to activate the μ-opioid receptor and inhibit serotonin (5-HT) and norepinephrine (NE) transporters. Recent findings from animal experiments suggest that 5-HT reuptake inhibition in brain is related to pain reduction. However, there has been no report of 5-HT transporter (5-HTT) occupancy by tramadol at clinical doses in humans. In the present study, we investigated 5-HTT occupancy by tramadol in five subjects receiving various doses of tramadol by using positron emission tomography (PET) scanning with the radioligand [11C]DASB. Our data showed that mean 5-HTT occupancies in the thalamus by single doses of tramadol were 34.7% at 50 mg and 50.2% at 100 mg. The estimated median effective dose (ED50) of tramadol was 98.1 mg, and the plasma concentration was 0.33 μg/ml 2 h after its administration; 5-HTT occupancy by tramadol was dose-dependent. We estimated 5-HTT occupancy at 78.7% upon taking an upper limit dose (400 mg) of tramadol. The results of the present study support the finding that 5-HTT inhibition is involved in the mechanism underlying the analgesic effect of tramadol in humans, and a clinical dose of tramadol sufficiently inhibits 5-HTT reuptake; this inhibition is similar to that shown by selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs).

A comparative study of efficacy and safety of gabapentin versus amitriptyline as coanalgesics in patients receiving opioid analgesics for neuropathic pain in malignancy

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and safety of gabapentin and amitriptyline along with opioids in patients suffering from neuropathic pain in malignancy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eighty-eight adult patients between 18 and 70 years of age with neuropathic pain in stage III malignant disease, matched for baseline charactistics, were randomly assigned to two groups. Group A received oral tramadol and gabapentin and group B received oral tramadol and amitriptyline. The treatment duration of each patient was 6 months. Visual analog scale (VAS) was the primary efficacy parameter. Verbal rating scale (VRS) score, percentage of pain relief (PPR), and global pain score (GPS) were the secondary efficacy parameters. Oral morphine tablets or fentanyl transdermal patch were used as rescue medication. Data analysis was carried out in Graph Pad instat.

RESULTS

There was decline in VAS pain score from baseline in both the groups in the early phase of the study though there was no statistically detectable difference between them at any study point. Similar changes were seen in the secondary efficacy parameters too. Thus both the drugs were effective in providing relief to cancer patients with neuropathic pain though there was no statistically detectable difference in efficacy between them. Six patients in group A and eight patients in group B required rescue medication. A total of 12 subjects in the gabapentin group and 15 subjects in the amitriptyline group experienced adverse events which were of mild to moderate grades.

CONCLUSIONS

Amitriptyline may be a suitable alternative for management of neuropathic pain in cancer patients although gabapentin is widely used for this purpose. The lower cost of amitriptyline may favor patient compliance with lesser number of drop-outs.

Hemi body irradiation: An economical way of palliation of pain in bone metastasis in advanced cancer

BACKGROUND

The primary aim of this prospective non-randomized study was to evaluate the effect of hemi-body irradiation (HBI) on pain and quality of life in cancer patients with extensive bone metastases. The secondary aim was to evaluate side-effects and cost-effectiveness of the treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between March 2008 and December 2010, a total of 23 (male = 14, female = 9, median age = 60 years) diagnosed cases of metastatic cancer patients (prostate = 11, breast = 6, and lung = 6) received HBI, which was delivered as lower (n = 7) (dose = 8 Gy), upper (n = 8) (dose = 6 Gy), or sequential HBI (n = 8) with a Telecobalt unit (Theratron 780C). Among them, one lung cancer patient died at 2 months and one prostate cancer patient defaulted after the second follow-up. Thus, 21 patients (male = 13, female = 8, median age = 65 years) (prostatic cancer = 10, breast cancer = 6, and lung cancer = 5) were followed up for a minimum of 6 months. Evaluations were performed before and at 2, 4, 8, 16, and 24 weeks after treatment. Pain evaluation was done by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Verbal Rating Scale (VRS), Percentage of Pain Relief (PRR), and Global Pain Score (GPS). Toxicity was assessed by CTC v-3 toxicity scores in the medical record. Assessment of oral morphine consumption was done before and after radiation using paired t-test, and correlation analysis was also done with decrease of morphine consumption and reduction of pain score using statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Response (control of pain) was partial (PR) in 67% and complete (CR) in 22% of patients. For most patients, the pain control lasted throughout the follow-up period (6 months). From 66.66% patients requiring 13 or more Morphine (10 mg) tablets per day prior to HBI, none of the patients required to consume 13 or more Morphine (10 mg) tablets per day following HBI, which was correlated with significant reduction in various pain scores (P < 0.05). One way ANOVA with Dunnett's Multiple Comparison Test (P < 0.05) was significant in VAS score changes, VRS score changes, PPR score changes, and GPS score changes. Along with the decrease in morphine tablets, the Linear Correlation of various scales for pain reduction like VAS, VRS, PPR, and GPS were significant. As such, the quality of life was better due to decreased pain and also, a decrease in the dose of analgesics. Grade 1 and 2 hematological toxicity and grade 1 diarrhea were observed as common side-effects. The average total cost of treatment including hospital stay, medicines, and radiation charges was around INR 400.00.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that hemibody irradiation is not only an effective modality for palliation of severe bone pain in advanced cancer cases but also economical, involves short hospital stay, with acceptable side-effects, utilizes the simple Telecobalt machine, and is less cumbersome in comparison to other currently available pain palliation methods like oral morphine and radiopharmaceuticals.

Persistent postsurgical pain

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Persistent postsurgical pain (PPP) is an important cause of pain morbidity following surgery for almost any cause, but there is a greater evidence base for pain after cancer surgery. Historically, both patients and practitioners have struggled to recognize and accept this growing problem. This review will seek to highlight the awareness of this increasing epidemic and will discuss evidence base for diagnosis, risk factors and current strategies for prevention and treatment, especially after cancer surgery.

RECENT FINDINGS

Given the potential size of the problems of PPP, there is a relative paucity of recent data, especially as regards effective treatments. The review will synthesize current and existing evidence to give a balanced up-to-date view. There is a clear need for more high-quality randomized trials.

SUMMARY

An estimated 40,000 patients in the UK will develop PPP, of whom at least 5-10% will have severe pain. Lack of clear definition and lack of awareness have been barriers to diagnosis and access to treatment. Several risk factors associated with PPP have been identified and reduction of these factors may prevent its development. At present, there are large gaps in the evidence base and more large controlled trials are warranted.

Deep brain stimulation as a treatment for neuropathic pain: a longitudinal study addressing neuropsychological outcomes

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the periventricular/periaqueductal gray area and sensory thalamus can reduce pain intensity in patients with neuropathic pain. However, little is known about its impact on quality of life, emotional well-being, and cognition. This study followed up 18 patients who had received DBS for neuropathic pain. Each participant had previously undergone psychometric evaluation of each of the above areas as part of a routine presurgical neuropsychological assessment. Commensurate measures were employed at a follow-up assessment at least 6 months postsurgery. DBS significantly improved mood, anxiety, and aspects of quality of life. Improvements correlated with reduced pain severity. However, the sample continued to show impairments in most areas when compared against normative data published on nonclinical samples. There was little change in general cognitive functioning, aside from deterioration in spatial working memory. However, improvements in pain severity were associated with less improvement (and even deterioration) on measures of executive cognitive functioning. Improvements in emotional well-being also were correlated with changes in cognition. These results suggest that DBS of the periventricular/periaqueductal gray and/or sensory thalamus improves quality of life and emotional well-being in sufferers, although there is some indication of executive dysfunction, particularly among those reporting greatest pain alleviation.

PERSPECTIVE

This article examines the neuropsychological outcomes of DBS surgery as a treatment for neuropathic pain. This intervention was found to improve pain severity, emotional well-being, and quality of life, although such benefits may be accompanied by reduced ability on tasks measuring executive functioning.

The evidence for pharmacologic treatment of neuropathic cancer pain: beneficial and adverse effects

CONTEXT

The prevalence of neuropathic pain in patients with cancer pain has been estimated to be around 40%. Neuropathic pain may be caused by tumor invasion and is considered as mixed nociceptive-neuropathic pain, or caused by an anticancer treatment and considered as purely neuropathic pain. The use of adjuvant analgesics in patients with cancer is usually extrapolated from their efficacy in nononcological neuropathic pain syndromes.

OBJECTIVES

In this systematic review, we sought to evaluate the evidence for the beneficial and adverse effects of pharmacologic treatment of neuropathic cancer pain.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature in PubMed and Embase was performed. Primary outcome measures were absolute risk benefit (ARB), defined as the number of patients with a defined degree of pain relief divided by the total number of patients in the treatment group, and absolute risk harm (ARH), defined as the fraction of patients who dropped out as a result of adverse effects.

RESULTS

We identified 30 articles that fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Overall, ARB of antidepressants, anticonvulsants, other adjuvant analgesics, or opioids greatly outweighed ARH. There were no significant differences in ARB or ARH between the four groups of medication or between patients with mixed vs. purely neuropathic pain. Because of the low methodological quality of the studies, we could not draw conclusions about the true treatment effect size of the four groups of medications.

CONCLUSION

Once a diagnosis of neuropathic pain has been established in patients with cancer, antidepressants, anticonvulsants, or other adjuvant analgesics should be considered in addition to or instead of opioids.

Amitriptyline for neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

Amitriptyline is a tricyclic antidepressant that is widely used to treat chronic neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage) and fibromyalgia, and is recommended in many guidelines. These types of pain can be treated with antidepressant drugs in doses below those at which the drugs act as antidepressants.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy of amitriptyline for chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia.To assess the adverse events associated with the clinical use of amitriptyline for chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE to September 2012, together with reference lists of retrieved papers, previous systematic reviews, and other reviews; we also used our own handsearched database for older studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind studies of at least four weeks' duration comparing amitriptyline with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and two study authors examined issues of study quality independently. We performed analysis using two tiers of evidence. The first tier used data meeting current best standards, where studies reported the outcome of at least 50% pain intensity reduction over baseline (or its equivalent), without the use of last observation carried forward (LOCF) or other imputation method for dropouts, reported an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, lasted 8 to 12 weeks or longer, had a parallel-group design, and where there were at least 200 participants in the comparison. The second tier used data that failed to meet this standard and were therefore subject to potential bias.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-one studies (1437 participants) were included; they individually involved between 15 and 235 participants, only four involved over 100 participants, and the median study size was 44 participants. The median duration was six weeks. Ten studies had a cross-over design. Doses of amitriptyline were generally between 25 mg and 125 mg, and dose escalation was common.There was no top-tier evidence for amitriptyline in treating neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia.Second-tier evidence indicated no evidence of effect in cancer-related neuropathic pain or HIV-related neuropathic pain, but some evidence of effect in painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN), mixed neuropathic pain, and fibromyalgia. Combining the classic neuropathic pain conditions of PDN, postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) and post-stroke pain with fibromyalgia for second-tier evidence, in eight studies and 687 participants, there was a statistically significant benefit (risk ratio (RR) 2.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.8 to 3.1) with a number needed to treat (NNT) of 4.6 (3.6 to 6.6). The analysis showed that even using this potentially biased data, only about 38% of participants benefited with amitriptyline and 16% with placebo; most participants did not get adequate pain relief. Potential benefits of amitriptyline were supported by a lower rate of lack of efficacy withdrawals; 8/153 (5%) withdrew because of lack of efficacy with amitriptyline and 14/119 (12%) with placebo.More participants experienced at least one adverse event; 64% of participants taking amitriptyline and 40% taking placebo. The RR was 1.5 (95% CI 1.4 to 1.7) and the number needed to treat to harm was 4.1 (95% CI 3.2 to 5.7). Adverse event and all-cause withdrawals were not different.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Amitriptyline has been a first-line treatment for neuropathic pain for many years. The fact that there is no supportive unbiased evidence for a beneficial effect is disappointing, but has to be balanced against decades of successful treatment in many patients with neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia. There is no good evidence of a lack of effect; rather our concern should be of overestimation of treatment effect. Amitriptyline should continue to be used as part of the treatment of neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia, but only a minority of patients will achieve satisfactory pain relief. Limited information suggests that failure with one antidepressant does not mean failure with all.It is unlikely that any large randomised trials of amitriptyline will be conducted in specific neuropathic pain conditions or in fibromyalgia to prove efficacy.

Pulsed radiofrequency in peripheral posttraumatic neuropathic pain: A double blind sham controlled randomized clinical trial

Background and purpose Pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) is widely used for the treatment of chronic pain, although its mechanism of action is not known. The evidence of efficacy of PRF for neuropathic pain (NP) conditions is limited. A double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled parallel study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PRF in the treatment of peripheral posttraumatic NP. Methods Forty-five patients with peripheral posttraumatic NP in their upper or lower limb were randomly assigned to receive PRF or sham treatment to the injured peripheral nerve (s) causing peripheral posttraumatic NP. Only patients whose pain intensity was at least 5 on numerical rating scale (NRS) 0-10 and who had suffered from their NP for at least 6 months were included. All patients had dynamic mechanical allodynia or pinprick hyperalgesia in their painful area. They had achieved temporary pain relief of at least 50% with a local nerve block performed at a previous visit. The primary efficacy variable was the difference in 3-day mean pain intensity score from the baseline to 3 months. Other variables included response defined as ≥30% reduction in mean pain intensity at 3 months compared to baseline, Neuropathic Pain Scale (NPS) results, health related quality of life (SF-36) and adverse effects. The skin was anesthetized with 1% lidocaine. A radiofrequency needle was introduced through the skin, and then guided to a SMK cannula (52, 100 or 144mm depending on the target nerve) with 4 or 5mm active tip (SMK-C5-4, SMK-C10-5, SMK-C15-5, Radionics®, Burlington, MA, USA). The nerve was located accurately by stimulating at 50 Hz (threshold <0.5 V). Sham treatment or PRF was applied for 120s 1-4 times at each treatment point (Radionics®, Burlington, MA, USA). The total treatment time was up to 8 min. Both patients and clinicians were blinded during the whole treatment and follow-up period. Results Forty-three patients were included in the analyses. There was no statistically significant difference between PRF and sham treatment for the primary outcome efficacy variable. Seven patients (3 in PRF group and 4 in sham treatment group) achieved ≥30% pain relief (difference between groups was not significant). There was no statistically significant difference in the NPS or any dimension of SF-36 between the treatments. Eighteen patients reported adverse effects. They were mild and did not necessitate any treatment. Transient pain was reported by 17 patients, local irritation by 5 patients and local inflammation by 1 patient. There was no significant difference between the groups in the presence of adverse effects. Conclusions PRF was well tolerated, but this study failed to show efficacy of PRF over sham treatment for peripheral posttraumatic NP. Implications Based on our results, we do not recommend PRF for peripheral posttraumatic NP. More research of the possible use of PRF for various pain conditions is needed to determine its role in the management of prolonged pains.