A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial of a Selective COX-2 Inhibitor, GW406381, in Patients With Postherpetic Neuralgia

A Comprehensive Review of Over the Counter Treatment for Chronic Low Back Pain

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a major contributor to societal disease burden and years lived with disability. Nonspecific low back pain (LBP) is attributed to physical and psychosocial factors, including lifestyle factors, obesity, and depression. Mechanical low back pain occurs related to repeated trauma to or overuse of the spine, intervertebral disks, and surrounding tissues. This causes disc herniation, vertebral compression fractures, lumbar spondylosis, spondylolisthesis, and lumbosacral muscle strain.

RECENT FINDINGS

A systematic review of relevant literature was conducted. CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and two clinical trials registry databases up to 24 June 2015 were included in this review. Search terms included: low back pain, over the counter, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory (NSAID), CLBP, ibuprofen, naproxen, acetaminophen, disk herniation, lumbar spondylosis, vertebral compression fractures, spondylolisthesis, and lumbosacral muscle strain. Over-the-counter analgesics are the most frequently used first-line medication for LBP, and current guidelines indicate that over-the-counter medications should be the first prescribed treatment for non-specific LBP. Current literature suggests that NSAIDs and acetaminophen as well as antidepressants, muscle relaxants, and opioids are effective treatments for CLBP. Recent randomized controlled trials also evaluate the benefit of buprenorphine, tramadol, and strong opioids such as oxycodone. This systematic review discusses current evidence pertaining to non-prescription treatment options for chronic low back pain.

Oral pharmacotherapeutics for the management of peripheral neuropathic pain conditions - a review of clinical trials

INTRODUCTION

Epidemiological studies have shown that 6.9-10% of people suffer from neuropathic pain, a complex painful condition which is often undertreated. Data regarding the effectiveness of treatment options for patients with neuropathic pain is inconsistent, and there is no single treatment option that shows cost-effectiveness across studies.

AREAS COVERED

In this narrative review, the authors present the results of different prospective, randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses assessing the effects of different oral medications in the management of various peripheral neuropathic pain conditions. The authors discuss the effectiveness of commonly used oral medications such as voltage-gated calcium channels antagonists, voltage-gated sodium channel antagonists, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, NMDA antagonists, and medications with other mechanisms of action.

EXPERT OPINION

Most of the presented medications were more effective than placebo; however, when compared to each other, none of them were significantly superior. The heterogeneity of the studies looking into different oral neuropathic conditions has been the major issue that prevents us from making stronger recommendations. There are multiple reasons including high placebo responsiveness, improperly treated underlying comorbidities (particularly anxiety and depression), and inter-patient variability. Different sensory phenotypes should also be taken into consideration when designing future clinical trials for neuropathic pain.

Alternatives to Opioids in the Pharmacologic Management of Chronic Pain Syndromes: A Narrative Review of Randomized, Controlled, and Blinded Clinical Trials

Chronic pain exerts a tremendous burden on individuals and societies. If one views chronic pain as a single disease entity, then it is the most common and costly medical condition. At present, medical professionals who treat patients in chronic pain are recommended to provide comprehensive and multidisciplinary treatments, which may include pharmacotherapy. Many providers use nonopioid medications to treat chronic pain; however, for some patients, opioid analgesics are the exclusive treatment of chronic pain. However, there is currently an epidemic of opioid use in the United States, and recent guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have recommended that the use of opioids for nonmalignant chronic pain be used only in certain circumstances. The goal of this review was to report the current body of evidence-based medicine gained from prospective, randomized-controlled, blinded studies on the use of nonopioid analgesics for the most common noncancer chronic pain conditions. A total of 9566 studies were obtained during literature searches, and 271 of these met inclusion for this review. Overall, while many nonopioid analgesics have been found to be effective in reducing pain for many chronic pain conditions, it is evident that the number of high-quality studies is lacking, and the effect sizes noted in many studies are not considered to be clinically significant despite statistical significance. More research is needed to determine effective and mechanism-based treatments for the chronic pain syndromes discussed in this review. Utilization of rigorous and homogeneous research methodology would likely allow for better consistency and reproducibility, which is of utmost importance in guiding evidence-based care.

Oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for neuropathic pain

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Reporting of sample size calculations in analgesic clinical trials: ACTTION systematic review

Sample size calculations determine the number of participants required to have sufficiently high power to detect a given treatment effect. In this review, we examined the reporting quality of sample size calculations in 172 publications of double-blind randomized controlled trials of noninvasive pharmacologic or interventional (ie, invasive) pain treatments published in European Journal of Pain, Journal of Pain, and Pain from January 2006 through June 2013. Sixty-five percent of publications reported a sample size calculation but only 38% provided all elements required to replicate the calculated sample size. In publications reporting at least 1 element, 54% provided a justification for the treatment effect used to calculate sample size, and 24% of studies with continuous outcome variables justified the variability estimate. Publications of clinical pain condition trials reported a sample size calculation more frequently than experimental pain model trials (77% vs 33%, P < .001) but did not differ in the frequency of reporting all required elements. No significant differences in reporting of any or all elements were detected between publications of trials with industry and nonindustry sponsorship. Twenty-eight percent included a discrepancy between the reported number of planned and randomized participants. This study suggests that sample size calculation reporting in analgesic trial publications is usually incomplete. Investigators should provide detailed accounts of sample size calculations in publications of clinical trials of pain treatments, which is necessary for reporting transparency and communication of pre-trial design decisions.

PERSPECTIVE

In this systematic review of analgesic clinical trials, sample size calculations and the required elements (eg, treatment effect to be detected; power level) were incompletely reported. A lack of transparency regarding sample size calculations may raise questions about the appropriateness of the calculated sample size.

Predictive validity of behavioural animal models for chronic pain

Rodent models of chronic pain may elucidate pathophysiological mechanisms and identify potential drug targets, but whether they predict clinical efficacy of novel compounds is controversial. Several potential analgesics have failed in clinical trials, in spite of strong animal modelling support for efficacy, but there are also examples of successful modelling. Significant differences in how methods are implemented and results are reported means that a literature-based comparison between preclinical data and clinical trials will not reveal whether a particular model is generally predictive. Limited reports on negative outcomes prevents reliable estimate of specificity of any model. Animal models tend to be validated with standard analgesics and may be biased towards tractable pain mechanisms. But preclinical publications rarely contain drug exposure data, and drugs are usually given in high doses and as a single administration, which may lead to drug distribution and exposure deviating significantly from clinical conditions. The greatest challenge for predictive modelling is, however, the heterogeneity of the target patient populations, in terms of both symptoms and pharmacology, probably reflecting differences in pathophysiology. In well-controlled clinical trials, a majority of patients shows less than 50% reduction in pain. A model that responds well to current analgesics should therefore predict efficacy only in a subset of patients within a diagnostic group. It follows that successful translation requires several models for each indication, reflecting critical pathophysiological processes, combined with data linking exposure levels with effect on target.

Role of spinal cyclooxygenase in human postoperative and chronic pain

BACKGROUND

Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs are commonly used to treat postoperative and chronic pain. Animal studies suggest that these drugs act, in part, by blocking prostaglandin production in the spinal cord. The authors tested intrathecal ketorolac in patients with chronic or postoperative pain.

METHODS

After approval of the institutional review board and the Food and Drug Administration, three clinical studies were performed. First, 15 patients receiving chronic intrathecal morphine received 0.5-2.0 mg of intrathecal ketorolac. Second, 12 patients receiving chronic intrathecal morphine received, in a double-blinded, randomized, cross-over design, intrathecal saline or 2.0 mg of ketorolac, with pain intensity as the primary outcome measure. Third, 30 patients undergoing total vaginal hysterectomy received, in a double-blinded, randomized, controlled design, intrathecal saline or 2.0 mg of ketorolac, with bupivacaine with time to first morphine dose after surgery as the primary outcome measure.

RESULTS

Patients with chronic pain had many symptoms before intrathecal injection, without worsening of these symptoms from ketorolac. Pain intensity was reduced by intrathecal ketorolac, but this did not differ from placebo. In the first study, pain was reduced by intrathecal ketorolac in patients with high cerebrospinal fluid prostaglandin E2 concentrations but not in those with normal concentrations. Intrathecal ketorolac did not alter time to first morphine after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Intrathecal ketorolac did not relieve chronic pain or extend anesthesia or analgesia from intrathecal bupivacaine administered at the beginning of surgery. Under the conditions of these studies, it seems that spinal cylcooxygenase activity does not contribute to chronic or postoperative pain.

EFNS guidelines on the pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain: 2010 revision

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

This second European Federation of Neurological Societies Task Force aimed at updating the existing evidence about the pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain since 2005.

METHODS

Studies were identified using the Cochrane Database and Medline. Trials were classified according to the aetiological condition. All class I and II randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were assessed; lower class studies were considered only in conditions that had no top-level studies. Treatments administered using repeated or single administrations were considered, provided they are feasible in an outpatient setting.

RESULTS

Most large RCTs included patients with diabetic polyneuropathies and post-herpetic neuralgia, while an increasing number of smaller studies explored other conditions. Drugs generally have similar efficacy in various conditions, except in trigeminal neuralgia, chronic radiculopathy and HIV neuropathy, with level A evidence in support of tricyclic antidepressants (TCA), pregabalin, gabapentin, tramadol and opioids (in various conditions), duloxetine, venlafaxine, topical lidocaine and capsaicin patches (in restricted conditions). Combination therapy appears useful for TCA-gabapentin and gabapentin-opioids (level A).

CONCLUSIONS

There are still too few large-scale comparative studies. For future trials, we recommend to assess comorbidities, quality of life, symptoms and signs with standardized tools and attempt to better define responder profiles to specific drug treatments.

Pharmacology and treatment of neuropathic pains

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review briefly discusses the definition and clinical presentation of neuropathic pain and highlights recent advances in the treatment of neuropathic pain.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent publications have confirmed the efficacy of tricyclic antidepressants, gabapentin, pregabalin, opioids, and tramadol for various neuropathic pain conditions. Selective serotonin noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors have been found to reduce pain in painful neuropathy. The new anticonvulsant lacosamide may have some effect in painful polyneuropathy, whereas levetiracetam has failed to relieve postmastectomy and spinal cord injury pain. The role of the old anticonvulsant phenytoin is still unsettled. A recent trial has found an effect of cannabinoids also in peripheral neuropathic pain. Various topical treatments such as topical lidocaine, topically applied capsaicin in high concentrations (8%), and botulinum toxin have recently been shown to have a pain-relieving effect in various peripheral neuropathic pain conditions. Spinal cord and transcranial magnetic stimulation are stimulation therapies with some evidence for efficacy.

SUMMARY

Treating neuropathic pain remains a great challenge, and the treatment has to be individualized to the single patient, taking into account side effects, pain type, comorbidities, and drug interactions.