Morphine, nortriptyline and their combination vs. placebo in patients with chronic lumbar root pain

Antidepressants for low back pain and spine-related leg pain

BACKGROUND

Antidepressants are commonly used to treat low back pain and spine-related leg pain. However, their benefits and harms are uncertain. This is an update of a 2008 Cochrane review of antidepressants for non-specific low back pain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of antidepressants for non-specific low back pain and spine-related leg pain.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and EU Clinical Trials Register from inception to 14 November 2024.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that compared antidepressants with placebo, usual care, or no treatment/waiting list. Participants were 18 years of age or older with non-specific low back pain or spine-related leg pain of any duration. We excluded participants with low back pain due to spinal fracture, inflammatory disease, aortic dissection, malignancy, or infection. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability, measured at short-term follow-up (> 4 to 14 weeks post-randomisation), and total adverse events. Secondary outcomes were serious adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events, depressive symptoms, and health-related quality of life.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened records to determine study inclusion, extracted data, and evaluated risk of bias using RoB 1 tool. Where possible, we conducted meta-analyses. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 26 randomised controlled trials. Eighteen studies included 2535 participants with non-specific low back pain, seven studies included 329 participants with spine-related leg pain, and one study included 68 participants with either condition. Most participants had pain lasting more than three months, with a mean duration between 18 months and 20 years. Mean ages ranged from 27 to 59 years. Studies evaluated serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs; eight studies), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs; two studies), tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs; 14 studies), tetracyclic antidepressants (TeCAs; two studies), or 'other antidepressants' (two studies). All studies were placebo-controlled. Outcomes were measured at short-term follow-up in 73% of studies. All included studies had at least one domain judged at high risk of bias, with 69% at high risk of attrition bias. Non-specific low back pain (benefits) Moderate-certainty evidence demonstrated that SNRIs probably have a small effect on pain intensity (mean difference (MD) (0 to 100 scale) -5.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) -7.17 to -3.34; I2 = 0; 4 studies, 1415 participants) and a trivial effect on disability (MD (0 to 24 scale) -0.91, 95% CI -1.30 to -0.51; I2 = 0; 4 studies, 1348 participants) at short-term follow-up. Low-certainty evidence showed that SSRIs may have little to no effect on pain intensity (MD 1.20, 95% CI -4.90 to 7.30; I2 = 0; 3 studies, 199 participants) and disability (MD -2.20 (0 to 100 scale), 95% CI -8.11 to 3.71; 1 study, 92 participants) at short-term follow-up. Moderate-certainty evidence demonstrated that TCAs probably have little to no effect on pain intensity (MD -2.00, 95% CI -7.25 to 3.24; I² = 31%; 4 studies, 417 participants), but probably have a small effect on disability (MD (0 to 24 scale) -1.76, 95% CI -2.70 to -0.82; I2 = 0; 3 studies, 330 participants) at short-term follow-up. The effects of TeCAs (MD -4.50, 95% CI -17.59 to 8.59; 1 study, 52 participants) and other antidepressants (MD -5.40, 95% CI -23.08 to 12.28; 1 study, 39 participants) on pain intensity at short-term follow-up are unclear (very low-certainty evidence). No studies assessed the effects of TeCAs or other antidepressants on disability. Spine-related leg pain (benefits) The effects of SNRIs on pain intensity (MD -46.10, 95% CI -89.29 to -2.91; 1 study, 11 participants) and disability (MD (0 to 100 scale) -4.40, 95% CI -20.25 to 11.45; 1 study, 11 participants) at short-term follow-up are very uncertain (very low-certainty evidence). Low-certainty evidence showed TCAs may have a large effect on pain intensity at short-term follow-up (MD -23.00, 95% CI -32.12 to -13.88; 1 study, 60 participants), and a moderate effect on disability (MD (0 to 100 scale) -13.00, 95% CI -19.42 to -6.58; 1 study, 60 participants). There were no studies that assessed the effects of SSRIs, TeCAs, or other antidepressants in people with spine-related leg pain. Non-specific low back pain and spine-related leg pain (harms) Moderate-certainty evidence demonstrated that SNRIs probably increase the risk of adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 1.17, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.27; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1510 participants), but it is unclear whether they increase the risk of serious adverse events (Peto odds ratio (OR) 1.75, 95% CI 0.79 to 3.89; 5 studies, 1510 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It is unclear whether TCAs increase the risk of adverse events (RR 1.76, 95% CI 0.79 to 3.90; 7 studies, 474 participants; low-certainty evidence) or serious adverse events (Peto OR 6.64, 95% CI 0.41 to 106.72; I² = 0%; 1 study, 142 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It is unclear whether SSRIs (RR 1.83, 95% CI 0.14 to 24.19; I² = 95%; 2 studies, 107 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or TeCAs increase the risk of adverse events (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.09; 1 study, 52 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies assessed the risk of serious adverse events for these classes. No studies measured total adverse events for other antidepressants. It is unclear whether other antidepressants increase the risk of serious adverse events (Peto OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.16 to 4.96; 1 study, 42 participants; very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found that in people with non-specific low back pain, SNRIs probably have small effects on pain intensity, trivial effects on disability, and are probably associated with adverse effects. TCAs probably do not reduce low back pain intensity, but may have a small effect on disability. The effects of antidepressants on spine-related leg pain are uncertain, though SNRIs and TCAs might be prioritised over other classes for future investigations. Evidence for the safety of SSRIs, TCAs, TeCAs, and other antidepressants in non-specific low back pain and spine-related leg pain remains unclear.

A Meta-analysis Exploring the Efficacy of Neuropathic Pain Medication for Low Back Pain or Spine-Related Leg Pain: Is Efficacy Dependent on the Presence of Neuropathic Pain?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Highly variable pain mechanisms in people with low back pain or spine-related leg pain might contribute to inefficacy of neuropathic pain medication. This meta-analysis aimed to determine how neuropathic pain is identified in clinical trials for people taking neuropathic pain medication for low back pain or spine-related leg pain and whether subgrouping based on the presence of neuropathic pain influences efficacy.

METHODS

EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, CINAHL [EBSCO], APA PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry were searched from inception to 14 May, 2024. Randomized and crossover trials comparing first-line neuropathic pain medication for people with low back pain or spine-related leg pain to placebo or usual care were included. Two independent authors extracted data. Random-effects meta-analyses of all studies combined, and pre-planned subgroup meta-analyses based on the certainty of neuropathic pain (according to the neuropathic pain Special Interest Group [NeuPSIG] neuropathic pain grading criteria) were completed. Certainty of evidence was judged using the grading of recommendations assessment development and evaluation [GRADE] framework.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven included studies reported on 3619 participants. Overall, 33% of studies were judged unlikely to include people with neuropathic pain, 26% remained unclear. Only 41% identified people with possible, probable, or definite neuropathic pain. For pain, general analyses revealed only small effects at short term (mean difference [MD] - 9.30 [95% confidence interval [CI] - 13.71, - 4.88], I2 = 87%) and medium term (MD - 5.49 [95% CI - 7.24, - 3.74], I2 = 0%). Subgrouping at short term revealed studies including people with definite or probable neuropathic pain showed larger effects on pain (definite; MD - 16.65 [95% CI - 35.95, 2.65], I2 = 84%; probable; MD - 10.45 [95% CI - 14.79, - 6.12], I2 = 20%) than studies including people with possible (MD - 5.50 [95% CI - 20.52, 9.52], I2 = 78%), unlikely (MD - 6.67 [95% CI - 10.58, 2.76], I2 = 0%), or unclear neuropathic pain (MD - 8.93 [95% CI - 20.57, 2.71], I2 = 96%). Similarly, general analyses revealed negligible effects on disability at short term (MD - 3.35 [95% CI - 9.00, 2.29], I2 = 93%) and medium term (MD - 4.06 [95% CI - 5.63, - 2.48], I2 = 0%). Sub-grouping at short term revealed larger effects in studies including people with definite/probable neuropathic pain (MD - 9.25 [95% CI - 12.59, - 5.90], I2 = 2%) compared with those with possible/unclear/unlikely neuropathic pain (MD -1.57 [95% CI - 8.96, 5.82] I2 = 95%). Medium-term outcomes showed a similar trend, but were limited by low numbers of studies. Certainty of evidence was low to very low for all outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Most studies using neuropathic pain medication for low back pain or spine-related leg pain fail to adequately consider the presence of neuropathic pain. Meta-analyses suggest neuropathic pain medication may be most effective in people with low back pain or spine-related leg pain with a definite/probable neuropathic pain component. However, the low to very low certainty of evidence and poor identification of neuropathic pain in most studies prevent firm recommendations.

Quantitative analysis of nortriptyline's analgesic properties: a comparative systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to quantitatively analyse nortriptyline's analgesic potency, safety and tolerability.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

The systematic search was conducted in Scopus, Web of Science and PubMed in February 2023.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of nortriptyline in reducing pain scores (open-label studies and comparisons of nortriptyline with placebo or other analgesics) in different pain types were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

The data extraction procedure and the screening phases were carried out based on predetermined eligibility criteria. To pool the data, the standardised mean difference (SMD) and standardised mean change (SMC) methods, along with random-effect and fixed-effect meta-analysis, were used. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration method, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria were used to measure the certainty of the results.

RESULTS

14 of the initial 648 studies were eventually imported. Nortriptyline was reported to significantly reduce pain severity in chronic low back pain, painful symptoms in major depressive disorder, neuropathy, chronic pelvic pain and neuropathic corneal pain. However, it was not superior to placebo in fibromyalgia and knee osteoarthritis. In comparison to placebo and various alternative analgesics, the pooled SMD for lowering pain scores was 0.43 (0.23-0.64) and -0.18 (-0.39 to 0.03), respectively. In the pretreatment and post-treatment analyses, the pooled SMC was -1.20 (-1.48 to -0.93). Although constipation and xerostomia were the most commonly reported side effects, all references indicated that the adverse events were well tolerated at the administered dosages.

CONCLUSION

While nortriptyline is effective in some chronic pains, such as neuropathies, it lacks efficacy in some other chronic pains, such as fibromyalgia and osteoarthritis. Nortriptyline is well tolerated when administered in doses intended for its analgesic effects. Moreover, several studies suggested that the analgesic effects of nortriptyline are comparable to those of amitriptyline and gabapentin.

Does opioid therapy enhance quality of life in patients suffering from chronic non-malignant pain? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and objective

Chronic pain is associated with a poor health-related quality of life (HRQL). Whereas the prescription rate of opioids increased during the last decades, their use in chronic non-malignant pain remains unclear. However, there is currently no clinical consensus or evidence-based guidelines that consider the long-term effects of opioid therapy on HRQL in patients with chronic non-cancer pain. This systematic review aims to address the question of whether opioid therapy improves HRQL in patients with chronic non-malignant pain and provide some guidance to practitioners.

Databases and data treatment

PubMed, EMBASE and CENTRAL were searched in June 2020 for double-blind, randomized trials (RCTs), comparing opioid therapy to placebo and assessed a HRQL questionnaire. The review comprises a qualitative vote counting approach and a meta-analysis of the Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), EQ-5D questionnaire and the pain interference scale of the Brief pain inventory (BPI).

Results

35 RCTs were included, of which the majority reported a positive effect of opioids for the EQ-5D, the BPI and the physical component score (PCS) of the SF-36 compared to placebo. The meta-analysis of the PCS showed a mean difference of 1.82 [confidence interval: 1.32, 2.32], the meta-analysis of the EQ-5D proved a significant advantage of 0.06 [0.00, 0.12]. In the qualitative analysis of the mental component score (MCS) of the SF-36, no positive or negative trend was seen. No significant differences were seen in the MCS (MD: 0.65 [-0.43, 1.73]). A slightly higher premature dropout rate was found in the opioid group (risk difference: 0.04 [0.00, 0.07], p = .07). The body of evidence is graded as low to medium.

Conclusion

Opioids have a statistically significant, but small and clinical not relevant effect on the physical dimensions of HRQL, whereas there is no effect on mental dimensions of HRQL in patients with chronic non-malignant pain during the initial months of treatment. In clinical practice, opioid prescriptions for chronic non-cancer pain should be individually assessed as their broad efficacy in improving quality of life is not confirmed. The duration of opioid treatment should be determined carefully, as this review primarily focuses on the initial months of therapy.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled head-to-head trials of recommended drugs for neuropathic pain

Neuropathic pain is a challenging chronic pain condition. Limited knowledge exists regarding the relative effectiveness of pharmacological treatments, and differences in trial design and impact of the placebo response preclude indirect comparisons of efficacy between drug classes. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis of head-to-head trials was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of drugs recommended for neuropathic pain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of direct-comparison double-blind randomized trials. Primary outcomes were mean change in pain intensity and number of responders with a 50% reduction in pain intensity. Secondary outcomes encompassed quality of life, sleep, emotional functioning, and number of dropouts because of adverse events. We included 30 trials (4087 patients), comprising 16 crossover and 14 parallel-group design studies. All studies were conducted in adults, and the majority were investigator-initiated trials. We found moderate-quality evidence for equivalence (no clinically relevant difference) between tricyclic antidepressants (TCA) and gabapentin/pregabalin with a combined mean difference in pain score of 0.10 (95% CI -0.13 to 0.32). We could not document differences between TCA and serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRI), between SNRI and gabapentin/pregabalin, or between opioids and TCA (low quality of evidence). We found more dropouts because of adverse events with SNRI and opioids compared with TCA (low quality of evidence). We did not identify any studies that included topical treatments. This systematic review of direct-comparison studies found evidence for equivalence between TCA and gabapentin/pregabalin and fewer dropouts with TCA than SNRI and opioids.

1. Lumbosacral radicular pain

INTRODUCTION

Patients suffering lumbosacral radicular pain report radiating pain in one or more lumbar or sacral dermatomes. In the general population, low back pain with leg pain extending below the knee has an annual prevalence that varies from 9.9% to 25%.

METHODS

The literature on the diagnosis and treatment of lumbosacral radicular pain was reviewed and summarized.

RESULTS

Although a patient's history, the pain distribution pattern, and clinical examination may yield a presumptive diagnosis of lumbosacral radicular pain, additional clinical tests may be required. Medical imaging studies can demonstrate or exclude specific underlying pathologies and identify nerve root irritation, while selective diagnostic nerve root blocks can be used to confirm the affected level(s). In subacute lumbosacral radicular pain, transforaminal corticosteroid administration provides short-term pain relief and improves mobility. In chronic lumbosacral radicular pain, pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) treatment adjacent to the spinal ganglion (DRG) can provide pain relief for a longer period in well-selected patients. In cases of refractory pain, epidural adhesiolysis and spinal cord stimulation can be considered in experienced centers.

CONCLUSIONS

The diagnosis of lumbosacral radicular pain is based on a combination of history, clinical examination, and additional investigations. Epidural steroids can be considered for subacute lumbosacral radicular pain. In chronic lumbosacral radicular pain, PRF adjacent to the DRG is recommended. SCS and epidural adhesiolysis can be considered for cases of refractory pain in specialized centers.

Nociceptive pain assessed by the PainDETECT questionnaire may predict response to opioid treatment for chronic low back pain

Introduction

The pharmacological management of chronic low back pain (LBP) is complex. The World Health Organisation recommends a laddered approach to pain medication usage. The PainDETECT questionnaire distinguishes between neuropathic pain (NeP), nociceptive pain (NoP), and ambiguous pain. By elucidating the difference in medication efficacy between these groups, clinicians can provide a tailored treatment plan to manage patient's pain. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between pharmacological treatments, pain categorizations, and medication efficacy as reported by patients.

Methods

A secondary retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database was conducted involving 318 consecutively recruited patients, aged 18 years and above, who completed PainDETECT, medication history and patient reported medication efficacy questionnaires. Medication history was categorized into four lines of treatment: first line (paracetamol ± non-prescribed anti-inflammatories), second line (prescribed anti-inflammatories), third line (anticonvulsants/neuromodulators) and fourth line (opioids). Medication efficacy was measured using a three-point Likert scale: effective (+2), somewhat effective (+1), no effect (0).

Findings

The study included 120, 50, 54 and 94 patients on first line, second line, third line and fourth line treatment, respectively. The NeP group had higher mean numerical rating scale (NRS) compared to NoP group in all four lines of treatment (8.10 ± 1.59 vs. 5.47± 2.27, p < 0.001, 8.64± 1.43 vs. 5.52± 1.86, p < 0.001, 8.00± 1.07 vs. 6.37± 2.39, p < 0.01, and 8.05± 1.73 vs. 7.2± 1.29, p < 0.05). When confounding for severity of LBP as measured by NRS, the distribution of medication efficacy significantly differed amongst the NeP, ambiguous and NoP groups in patients undergoing fourth line pharmacological treatment (r2 = 8.623, p < 0.05). The NoP group exhibited significantly higher medication efficacy compared to the NeP group (U = 14.038, p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in medication efficacy across the pain classifications for first, second- and third-line treatment.

Interpretation

Opioids was the only line of treatment more effective in targeting NoP, as determined by the PainDETECT questionnaire, compared to NeP. This pioneering study illustrates the complex nature of pharmacological management for chronic LBP. It underscores the importance of tailoring pharmacological treatment plans to fit individual pain profiles and expectations instead of adopting a blanket approach to pain management.

Cannabis for medical use versus opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to evaluate the comparative benefits and harms of opioids and cannabis for medical use for chronic non-cancer pain.

DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, AMED, PsycINFO, PubMed, Web of Science, Cannabis-Med, Epistemonikos and the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL) from inception to March 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomised trials comparing any type of cannabis for medical use or opioids, against each other or placebo, with patient follow-up ≥4 weeks.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Paired reviewers independently extracted data. We used Bayesian random-effects network meta-analyses to summarise the evidence and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach to evaluate the certainty of evidence and communicate our findings.

RESULTS

Ninety trials involving 22 028 patients were eligible for review, among which the length of follow-up ranged from 28 to 180 days. Moderate certainty evidence showed that opioids provide small improvements in pain, physical functioning and sleep quality versus placebo; low to moderate certainty evidence supported similar effects for cannabis versus placebo. Neither was more effective than placebo for role, social or emotional functioning (all high to moderate certainty evidence). Moderate certainty evidence showed there is probably little to no difference between cannabis for medical use and opioids for physical functioning (weighted mean difference (WMD) 0.47 on the 100-point 36-item Short Form Survey physical component summary score, 95% credible interval (CrI) -1.97 to 2.99), and cannabis resulted in fewer discontinuations due to adverse events versus opioids (OR 0.55, 95% CrI 0.36 to 0.83). Low certainty evidence suggested little to no difference between cannabis and opioids for pain relief (WMD 0.23 cm on a 10 cm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), 95% CrI -0.06 to 0.53) or sleep quality (WMD 0.49 mm on a 100 mm VAS, 95% CrI -4.72 to 5.59).

CONCLUSIONS

Cannabis for medical use may be similarly effective and result in fewer discontinuations than opioids for chronic non-cancer pain.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020185184.

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.

Comparative benefits and harms of individual opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials

BACKGROUND

Most systematic reviews of opioids for chronic pain have pooled treatment effects across individual opioids under the assumption they provide similar benefits and harms. We examined the comparative effects of individual opioids for chronic non-cancer pain through a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to March 2021 for studies that enrolled patients with chronic non-cancer pain, randomised them to receive different opioids, or opioids vs placebo, and followed them for at least 4 weeks. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

We identified 82 eligible trials (22 619 participants) that evaluated 14 opioids. Compared with placebo, several opioids showed superiority to others for analgesia and improvement in physical function; however, when restricted to pooled-effect estimates supported by moderate certainty evidence, no differences between opioids were evident. Among opioids with moderate certainty evidence, all increased the risk of gastrointestinal adverse events compared with placebo, although no opioids were more harmful than others. Low to very low certainty evidence suggests that extended-release vs immediate-release opioids may provide similar benefits for pain relief and physical functioning, and gastrointestinal harms.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings support the pooling of effect estimates across different types and formulations of opioids to inform effectiveness for chronic non-cancer pain.

Pharmacotherapy for Spine-Related Pain in Older Adults

As the population ages, spine-related pain is increasingly common in older adults. While medications play an important role in pain management, their use has limitations in geriatric patients due to reduced liver and renal function, comorbid medical problems, and polypharmacy. This review will assess the evidence basis for medications used for spine-related pain in older adults, with a focus on drug metabolism and adverse drug reactions. A PubMed/OVID search crossing common spine, neck, and back pain terms with key words for older adults and geriatrics was combined with common drug classes and common drug names and limited to clinical trials and age over 65 years. The results were then reviewed with identification of commonly used drugs and drug categories: nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs), acetaminophen, corticosteroids, gabapentin and pregabalin, antispastic and antispasmodic muscle relaxants, tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), tramadol, and opioids. Collectively, 138 double-blind, placebo-controlled trials were the focus of the review. The review found a variable contribution of high-quality studies examining the efficacy of medications for spine pain primarily in the geriatric population. There was strong evidence for NSAID use with adjustments for gastrointestinal and renal risk factors. Gabapentin and pregabalin had mixed evidence for neuropathic pain. SNRIs had good evidence for neuropathic pain and a more favorable safety profile than TCAs. Tramadol had some evidence in older patients, but more so in persons aged < 65 years. Rational therapeutic choices based on geriatric spine pain diagnosis are helpful, such as NSAIDs and acetaminophen for arthritic and myofascial-based pain, gabapentinoids or duloxetine for neuropathic and radicular pain, antispastic agents for myofascial-based pain, and combination therapy for mixed etiologies. Tramadol can be well tolerated in older patients, but has risks of cognitive and classic opioid side effects. Otherwise, opioids are typically avoided in the treatment of spine-related pain in older adults due to their morbidity and mortality risk and are reserved for refractory severe pain. Whenever possible, beneficial geriatric spine pain pharmacotherapy should employ the lowest therapeutic doses with consideration of polypharmacy, potentially decreased renal and hepatic metabolism, and co-morbid medical disorders.

NSAIDs in sciatica (NIS): study protocol for an investigator-initiated multicentre, randomized placebo-controlled trial of naproxen in patients with sciatica

BACKGROUND

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used to treat sciatica, despite insufficient evidence from placebo-controlled trials. NSAIDs may cause serious side effects; hence, there is a strong need to clarify their potential beneficial effects in patients with sciatica.

METHODS

This is a multicentre, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group superiority trial. Participants will be recruited among sciatica patients referred to outpatient clinics at hospitals in Norway who have radiating pain below the knee with a severity score of ≥ 4 on a 0-10 numeric rating scale and clinical signs of nerve root or spinal nerve involvement. The intervention consists of oral naproxen 500 mg or placebo twice daily for 10 days. Participants will report the outcomes and adverse events daily using an electronic case report form. The primary endpoint is change in leg pain intensity from baseline to day 10 based on daily observations. The secondary outcomes are back pain intensity, disability, sciatica symptom severity, rescue medication (paracetamol) consumption, opioid use, ability to work or study, 30% and 50% improvement in leg pain, and global perceived change of sciatica/back problem. The outcomes will be analysed using mixed effects models for repeated measurements. The total duration of follow-up is 12 (± 2) days.

DISCUSSION

This trial aims to evaluate the benefits of naproxen, a non-selective NSAID, in patients with sciatica. No important differences in efficacy have been demonstrated between different NSAIDs in the management of musculoskeletal disorders; hence, the results of this trial will likely be applicable to other NSAIDs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03347929 . Registered on November 20, 2017.

Formulation of Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) clinical practice guideline for the management of low back pain- the revised 2019 edition

BACKGROUND

The latest clinical guidelines are mandatory for physicians to follow when practicing evidence-based medicine in the treatment of low back pain. Those guidelines should target not only Japanese board-certified orthopaedic surgeons, but also primary physicians, and they should be prepared based entirely on evidence-based medicine. The Japanese Orthopaedic Association Low Back Pain guideline committee decided to update the guideline and launched the formulation committee. The purpose of this study was to describe the formulation we implemented for the revision of the guideline with the latest data of evidence-based medicine.

METHODS

The Japanese Orthopaedic Association Low Back Pain guideline formulation committee revised the previous guideline based on a method for preparing clinical guidelines in Japan proposed by Medical Information Network Distribution Service Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. Two key phrases, "body of evidence" and "benefit and harm balance" were focused on in the revised version. Background and clinical questions were determined, followed by literature search related to each question. Appropriate articles were selected from all the searched literature. Structured abstracts were prepared, and then meta-analyses were performed. The strength of both the body of evidence and the recommendation was decided by the committee members.

RESULTS

Nine background and nine clinical qvuestions were determined. For each clinical question, outcomes from the literature were collected and meta-analysis was performed. Answers and explanations were described for each clinical question, and the strength of the recommendation was decided. For background questions, the recommendations were described based on previous literature.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2019 clinical practice guideline for the management of low back pain was completed according to the latest evidence-based medicine. We strongly hope that this guideline serves as a benchmark for all physicians, as well as patients, in the management of low back pain.

Neuropharmacological basis for multimodal analgesia in chronic pain

Managing chronic pain remains a major unmet clinical challenge. Patients can be treated with a range of interventions, but pharmacotherapy is the most common. These include opioids, antidepressants, calcium channel modulators, sodium channel blockers, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Many of these drugs target a particular mechanism; however, chronic pain in many diseases is multifactorial and induces plasticity throughout the sensory neuroaxis. Furthermore, comorbidities such as depression, anxiety, and sleep disturbances worsen quality of life. Given the complexity of mechanisms and symptoms in patients, it is unsurprising that many fail to achieve adequate pain relief from a single agent. The efforts to develop novel drug classes with better efficacy have not always proved successful; a multimodal or combination approach to analgesia is an important strategy in pain control. Many patients frequently take more than one medication, but high-quality evidence to support various combinations is often sparse. Ideally, combining drugs would produce synergistic action to maximize analgesia and reduce side effects, although sub-additive and additive analgesia is still advantageous if additive side-effects can be avoided. In this review, we discuss pain mechanisms, drug actions, and the rationale for mechanism-led treatment selection.Abbreviations: COX - cyclooxygenase, CGRP - calcitonin gene-related peptide, CPM - conditioned pain modulation, NGF - nerve growth factor, NNT - number needed to treat, NMDA - N-methyl-d-aspartate, NSAID - nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, TCA - tricyclic antidepressant, SNRI - serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor, QST - quantitative sensory testing.

Effect of low-dose amitriptyline on reducing pain in clinical knee osteoarthritis compared to benztropine: study protocol of a randomised, double blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Knee osteoarthritis is a major cause of pain and disability. Pain control is poor, with most patients remaining in moderate to severe pain. This may be because central causes of pain, a common contributor to knee pain, are not affected by current treatment strategies. Antidepressants, such as amitriptyline, have been used to treat chronic pain in other conditions. The aim of this randomised, double blind, controlled trial, is to determine whether low dose amitriptyline reduces pain in people with painful knee osteoarthritis over 3 months compared to benztropine, an active placebo.

METHODS/DESIGN

One hundred and sixty people with painful radiographic knee osteoarthritis will be recruited via clinicians, local and social media advertising. Participants will be randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to receive either low dose amitriptyline (25 mg) or active placebo (benztropine mesylate, 1 mg) for 3 months. The primary outcome is change from baseline in knee pain (WOMAC pain subscale) at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes include change in function (total WOMAC) and the proportion of individuals achieving a substantial response (≥ 50% reduction in pain intensity, measured by Visual Analog Scale, VAS, from no pain to worst pain imaginable, 0-100 mm) and moderate response (≥ 30% reduction in pain intensity, measured by VAS) at 12 weeks. Intention to treat analyses will be performed. Subgroup analyses will be done.

DISCUSSION

This study will provide high level evidence regarding the effectiveness of low dose amitriptyline compared to benztropine in reducing pain and improving function in knee OA. This trial has the potential to provide an effective new therapeutic approach for pain management in knee osteoarthritis, with the potential of ready translation into clinical practice, as it is repurposing an old drug, which is familiar to clinicians and with a well described safety record.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry prior to recruitment commencing ( ACTRN12615000301561 , March 31, 2015, amended 14 December 2018, February 2021). Additional amendment requested 18 July 2021.

A Review of the Clinical and Therapeutic Implications of Neuropathic Pain

Understanding neuropathic pain presents several challenges, given the various mechanisms underlying its pathophysiological classification and the lack of suitable tools to assess its diagnosis. Furthermore, the response of this pathology to available drugs is still often unpredictable, leaving the treatment of neuropathic pain still questionable. In addition, the rise of personalized treatments further extends the ramified classification of neuropathic pain. While a few authors have focused on neuropathic pain clustering, by analyzing, for example, the presence of specific TRP channels, others have evaluated the presence of alterations in microRNAs to find tailored therapies. Thus, this review aims to synthesize the available evidence on the topic from a clinical perspective and provide a list of current demonstrations on the treatment of this disease.

Comparative safety review of current treatment options for chronic low back pain and unmet needs: a narrative review

Introduction: The healthcare expenditures in the United States are substantial for the management of refractory, chronic low back pain (CLBP). The objective of this review is to summarize and evaluate the safety profiles of different pharmacological treatment options used in the management of CLBP.Areas covered: The authors conducted a search of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the safety profiles of different pharmacological agents used in the management of CLBP. This narrative review covered corticosteroids, opioids, antidepressants, gabapentinoids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, muscle relaxants, anti-nerve growth factor antibodies and topical agents, as monotherapy or in combination.Expert opinion: The risk-benefit ratio of a particular treatment is a subject driving the ongoing development of pharmaceuticals. The most commonly reported AEs across all drug classes are of gastrointestinal nature, followed by neurological and skin-related. These AEs include nausea, dizziness, constipation, arthralgia, headache, dry mouth, pruritus, etc. The majority of the AEs reported are not life-threatening, although they may lower patients' quality of life, thus, affecting their compliance. One of the biggest limitations of our review stems from the paucity of safety assessments in published RCTs. Advances in our understanding of the neurobiology of pain will promote development of new therapeutic strategies.

Efficacy and safety of antidepressants for the treatment of back pain and osteoarthritis: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy and safety of antidepressants for back and osteoarthritis pain compared with placebo.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception to 15 November and updated on 12 May 2020.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION

Randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy or safety, or both of any antidepressant drug with placebo (active or inert) in participants with low back or neck pain, sciatica, or hip or knee osteoarthritis.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two independent reviewers extracted data. Pain and disability were primary outcomes. Pain and disability scores were converted to a scale of 0 (no pain or disability) to 100 (worst pain or disability). A random effects model was used to calculate weighted mean differences and 95% confidence intervals. Safety (any adverse event, serious adverse events, and proportion of participants who withdrew from trials owing to adverse events) was a secondary outcome. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration's tool and certainty of evidence with the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) framework.

RESULTS

33 trials (5318 participants) were included. Moderate certainty evidence showed that serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) reduced back pain (mean difference -5.30, 95% confidence interval -7.31 to -3.30) at 3-13 weeks and low certainty evidence that SNRIs reduced osteoarthritis pain (-9.72, -12.75 to -6.69) at 3-13 weeks. Very low certainty evidence showed that SNRIs reduced sciatica at two weeks or less (-18.60, -31.87 to -5.33) but not at 3-13 weeks (-17.50, -42.90 to 7.89). Low to very low certainty evidence showed that tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) did not reduce sciatica at two weeks or less (-7.55, -18.25 to 3.15) but did at 3-13 weeks (-15.95, -31.52 to -0.39) and 3-12 months (-27.0, -36.11 to -17.89). Moderate certainty evidence showed that SNRIs reduced disability from back pain at 3-13 weeks (-3.55, -5.22 to -1.88) and disability due to osteoarthritis at two weeks or less (-5.10, -7.31 to -2.89), with low certainty evidence at 3-13 weeks (-6.07, -8.13 to -4.02). TCAs and other antidepressants did not reduce pain or disability from back pain.

CONCLUSION

Moderate certainty evidence shows that the effect of SNRIs on pain and disability scores is small and not clinically important for back pain, but a clinically important effect cannot be excluded for osteoarthritis. TCAs and SNRIs might be effective for sciatica, but the certainty of evidence ranged from low to very low.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020158521.

Real-World Evidence in Prescription Medication Use Among U.S. Adults with Neck Pain

Introduction

Neck pain is a common condition that leads to serious pain, disability, and increased healthcare costs worldwide. Pharmacotherapy is one of the most common strategies to reduce neck pain in patients. The aim of this study was to analyze the real-world pattern of drugs prescribed for patients with neck pain in the USA.

Methods

Data on individuals who reported current neck pain in the 2009−2010 US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) and with a history of persistent pain for at least 6 weeks or 3 months were extracted from the NHANES database. Those included in the study were divided into three groups based on the duration of pain: the without neck pain group (Group A); subacute group (Group B) with a history of 6 weeks of neck pain; and the chronic neck pain group (Group C) with a history of 3 months of neck pain. The use and duration of medication prescribed for Group A, B, and C patients were compared.

Results

The analysis revealed that opioid use was significantly more prevalent in the subacute and chronic neck pain group than in the without neck pain group (Group A) (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 4.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.07–8.52 and aOR 7.00, 95% CI 4.32–11.33, respectively). The factors strongly associated with higher opioid use included older age, low education level, and low family income. In the chronic neck group, opioids, followed in decreasing order of frequency by acetaminophen and nonsteroidal anti-infammatory drugs, were the most common analgesics used in combination with other analgesics.

Conclusion

Our analysis of the data shows that the long-term excessive use of opioids and the underutilization of other analgesics are two major issues in the treatment of neck pain in the USA. Possible improvements include improved education of patients by healthcare professionals on the use of opioids and more consideration given to non-pharmacotherapy options. Our results reveal the potential problem in pharmacotherapy choices for neck pain treatment and may help improve the current clinical practice in the USA and other countries.

Efficacy and tolerability of nortriptyline in the management of neuropathic corneal pain

PURPOSE

Neuropathic corneal pain (NCP) is a recently acknowledged disease entity. However, there is no consensus in potential treatment strategies, particularly in patients with a centralized component of pain. This study aims to assess the efficacy and tolerability of the tricyclic antidepressant, nortriptyline, among NCP patients.

METHODS

Patients with clinically diagnosed NCP and a centralized component of pain, treated with oral nortriptyline, who had recorded pain scores as assessed by the ocular pain assessment survey at the first and last visit were included. Patients were excluded if they had any other ocular pathology that might result in pain or had less than 4 weeks of nortriptyline use. Demographics, time between visits, concomitant medications, systemic and ocular co-morbidities, duration of NCP, side effects, ocular pain scores, and quality of life (QoL) assessment were recorded.

RESULTS

Thirty patients with a mean age of 53.1 ± 18.5 were included. Male to female ratio was 8:22. Mean ocular pain in the past 24 h improved from 5.7 ± 2.1 to 3.6 ± 2.1 after 10.5 ± 9.1 months (p < 0.0001). Twelve patients (40.0%) had equal to or more than 50% improvement, 6 patients (20.0%) had 30-49% improvement, 6 patients (20.0%) had 1-29% improvement, 4 patients (13.3%) did not improve, while 2 patients (6.7%) reported increase in pain levels. Mean QoL improved from 6.0 ± 2.5 to 4.3 ± 2.4 (p = 0.019). Eight patients (26.6%) discontinued treatment due to persistent side effects, despite improvement by 22.4%.

CONCLUSION

Nortriptyline was effective in relieving NCP symptoms in patients with centralized component and insufficient response to other systemic and topical therapies who tolerated the drug for at least 4 weeks. Nortriptyline may be used in the management of patients with NCP.

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.

Risk Factors for Prolonged Opioid Use and Effects of Opioid Tolerance on Clinical Outcomes After Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Surgery

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine risk factors for prolonged opioid use and to investigate whether opioid-tolerance affects patient-reported outcomes following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) surgery.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

There is a lack of consensus on risk factors that can affect continued opioid use after cervical spine surgery and the influence of opioid use on patient-reported outcomes.

METHODS

Ninety-two patients who underwent ACDF for degenerative cervical pathologies were retrospectively identified and their opioid usage before surgery was investigated using a state-sponsored prescription drug monitoring registry. Opioid-naïve and opioid tolerant groups were defined using criteria most consistent with the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) definition. Patient-reported outcomes were then collected, including the Short Form-12 (SF-12) Physical Component (PCS-12) and Mental Component (MCS-12), the Neck Disability Index (NDI), the Visual Analogue Scale Neck (VAS neck) and the Visual Analogue Scale Arm (VAS Arm) pain scores. Logistic regression was used to determine predictors for prolonged opioid use following ACDF. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to compare change in outcomes over time between the two groups.

RESULTS

Logistic regression analysis demonstrated that opioid tolerance was a significant predictor for prolonged opioid use after ACDF (odds ratio [OR]: 18.2 [1.46, 226.4], P = 0.02). Duration of usage was also found to be a significant predictor for continued opioid use after surgery (OR: 1.10 [1.0, 1.03], P = 0.03). No other risk factors were found to be significant predictors. Both groups overall experienced improvements in patient-reported outcomes after surgery. Multiple linear regression analysis, controlling for patient demographics, demonstrated that opioid-tolerant user status positively affected change in outcomes over time for NDI (β = -13.7 [-21.8,-5.55], P = 0.002) and PCS-12 (β = 6.99 [2.59, 11.4], P = 0.003) but no other outcomes measured.

CONCLUSION

Opioid tolerance was found to be a significant predictor for prolonged opioid use after ACDF. Additionally, opioid-naïve and opioid-tolerant users experienced overall improvements across PROMs following ACDF. Opioid-tolerance was associated with NDI and PCS-12 improvements over time compared to opioid-naïve users.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

Comparison of Efficacy of Nortriptyline Versus Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation on Painful Peripheral Neuropathy in Patients with Diabetes

Background and aims: Diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP) is one of the most common complications of diabetes and is difficult to treat. Existing treatments are often inadequate at controlling pain and limited by side-effects and drug tolerance. This study assessed the efficacy of nortriptyline versus Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) in patients with DPNP.

Material and method: This is a randomized clinical trial study conducted on 39 patients with DPNP referring to Golestan Hospital in Ahvaz in 2017. Patients were randomly treated with TENS (18 sessions, each session 30 minutes; n=20) or nortriptyline (25 to 75 mg, once daily; n=19) for 6 weeks. Patients were evaluated for side effects and pain relief using visual analog scale (VAS).

Results: There was a significant improvement in pain with both treatments compared with baseline (p˂0.001). The patients in nortriptyline group experienced more pain relief (7.21±1.51 to 0.84±1.34) than the TENS group (7.6±1.47 to 2.75 ±2.43) (P=0.001). The 50% pain relief was observed in 14 patients (73%) in nortriptyline group, 6 patients (30%) in TENS group. Moreover, the side effects were seen in 15% of TENS and 55% of patients in nortriptyline groups (P=0.019).

Conclusion: Both TENS and nortriptyline were effective and safe in the management of DPNP. But nortriptyline showed a better performance on pain relief.

Nonsurgical medical treatment in the management of pain due to lumbar disc prolapse: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Evaluate the comparative effectiveness of treatment strategies for patients with pain due to lumbar disc prolapse (LDP).

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database were searched through September 2017. Randomized controlled trials on LDP reporting on pain intensity and/or global pain effects which compared included treatments head-to-head, against placebo, and/or against conventional care were included. Study data were independently double-extracted and data on patient traits and outcomes were collected. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Separate Bayesian network meta-analyses were undertaken to synthesize direct and indirect, short-term and long-term outcomes, summarized as odds ratios (OR) or weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% credible intervals (CI) as well as surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values.

RESULTS

58 studies in global effects and 74 studies in pain intensity analysis were included. Thirty-eight (65.5%) of these studies reported a possible elevated risk of bias. Autonomic drugs and transforminal epidural steroid injections (TESIs) had the highest SUCRA scores at short-term follow up (86.7 and 83.5 respectively), while Cytokines/Immunomodulators and TESI had the highest SUCRA values at long-term-follow-up in the global effect's analysis (86.6 and 80.9 respectively). Caudal steroid injections and TESIs had the highest SUCRA scores at short-term follow up (79.4 and 75.9 respectively), while at long-term follow-up biological agents and manipulation had the highest SUCRA scores (86.4 and 68.5 respectively) for pain intensity. Some treatments had few studies and/or no associated placebo-controlled trials. Studies often did not report on co-interventions, systematically differed, and reported an overall elevated risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

No treatment stands out as superior when compared on multiple outcomes and time periods but TESIs show promise as an effective short-term treatment. High quality studies are needed to confirm many nodes of this network meta-analysis.

Nonsurgical treatments for patients with radicular pain from lumbosacral disc herniation

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Lumbosacral disc herniation (LDH) is one of the most frequent musculoskeletal diseases causative of sick leave in the workplace and morbidity in daily activities. Nonsurgical managements are considered as first line treatment before surgical treatment.

PURPOSE

This clinical practice guideline (CPG) is intended to provide physicians who treat patients diagnosed with LDH with a guideline supported by scientific evidence to assist in decision-making for appropriate and reasonable treatments.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

A systematic review.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Studies of human subjects written in Korean or English that met the following criteria were selected: patients aged ≥18 years, clinical presentation of low back and radicular leg pain, diagnosis of LDH on radiological evaluation including computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging.

OUTCOMES MEASURES

Pain and functional evaluation scales such as visual analogue scale, numeric rating scale, and Oswestry disability index METHODS: The MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Cochrane Review, and KoreaMed databases were searched for articles regarding non-surgical treatments for LDH published up to July 2017. Of the studies fulfilling these criteria, those investigating clinical results after non-surgical treatment including physical and behavioral therapy, medication, and interventional treatment in terms of pain control and functional improvements were chosen for this study.

RESULTS

Nonsurgical treatments were determined to be clinically effective with regards to pain reduction and functional improvement in patients with LDH. Nevertheless, the evidence level was generally not evaluated as high degree, which might be attributed to the paucity of well-designed randomized controlled trials. Exercise and traction were strongly recommended despite moderate level of evidence. Epidural injection was strongly recommended with high degree of evidence and transforaminal approach was more strongly recommended than caudal approach.

CONCLUSIONS

This CPG provides new and updated evidence-based recommendations for treatment of the patients with LDH, which suggested that, despite an absence of high degrees of evidence level, non-surgical treatments were clinically effective.

A Comprehensive Algorithm for Management of Neuropathic Pain

BACKGROUND

The objective of this review was to merge current treatment guidelines and best practice recommendations for management of neuropathic pain into a comprehensive algorithm for primary physicians. The algorithm covers assessment, multidisciplinary conservative care, nonopioid pharmacological management, interventional therapies, neurostimulation, low-dose opioid treatment, and targeted drug delivery therapy.

METHODS

Available literature was identified through a search of the US National Library of Medicine's Medline database, PubMed.gov. References from identified published articles also were reviewed for relevant citations.

RESULTS

The algorithm provides a comprehensive treatment pathway from assessment to the provision of first- through sixth-line therapies for primary care physicians. Clear indicators for progression of therapy from firstline to sixth-line are provided. Multidisciplinary conservative care and nonopioid medications (tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, gabapentanoids, topicals, and transdermal substances) are recommended as firstline therapy; combination therapy (firstline medications) and tramadol and tapentadol are recommended as secondline; serotonin-specific reuptake inhibitors/anticonvulsants/NMDA antagonists and interventional therapies as third-line; neurostimulation as a fourth-line treatment; low-dose opioids (no greater than 90 morphine equivalent units) are fifth-line; and finally, targeted drug delivery is the last-line therapy for patients with refractory pain.

CONCLUSIONS

The presented treatment algorithm provides clear-cut tools for the assessment and treatment of neuropathic pain based on international guidelines, published data, and best practice recommendations. It defines the benefits and limitations of the current treatments at our disposal. Additionally, it provides an easy-to-follow visual guide of the recommended steps in the algorithm for primary care and family practitioners to utilize.

Designing and conducting proof-of-concept chronic pain analgesic clinical trials

Introduction:

The evolution of pain treatment is dependent on successful development and testing of interventions. Proof-of-concept (POC) studies bridge the gap between identification of a novel target and evaluation of the candidate intervention's efficacy within a pain model or the intended clinical pain population.

Methods:

This narrative review describes and evaluates clinical trial phases, specific POC pain trials, and approaches to patient profiling.

Results:

We describe common POC trial designs and their value and challenges, a mechanism-based approach, and statistical issues for consideration.

Conclusion:

Proof-of-concept trials provide initial evidence for target use in a specific population, the most appropriate dosing strategy, and duration of treatment. A significant goal in designing an informative and efficient POC study is to ensure that the study is safe and sufficiently sensitive to detect a preliminary efficacy signal (ie, a potentially valuable therapy). Proof-of-concept studies help avoid resources wasted on targets/molecules that are not likely to succeed. As such, the design of a successful POC trial requires careful consideration of the research objective, patient population, the particular intervention, and outcome(s) of interest. These trials provide the basis for future, larger-scale studies confirming efficacy, tolerability, side effects, and other associated risks.

Opioids for Chronic Noncancer Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Harms and benefits of opioids for chronic noncancer pain remain unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of opioids for chronic noncancer pain.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION

The databases of CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, AMED, and PsycINFO were searched from inception to April 2018 for RCTs of opioids for chronic noncancer pain vs any nonopioid control.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Paired reviewers independently extracted data. The analyses used random-effects models and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation to rate the quality of the evidence.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcomes were pain intensity (score range, 0-10 cm on a visual analog scale for pain; lower is better and the minimally important difference [MID] is 1 cm), physical functioning (score range, 0-100 points on the 36-item Short Form physical component score [SF-36 PCS]; higher is better and the MID is 5 points), and incidence of vomiting.

RESULTS

Ninety-six RCTs including 26 169 participants (61% female; median age, 58 years [interquartile range, 51-61 years]) were included. Of the included studies, there were 25 trials of neuropathic pain, 32 trials of nociceptive pain, 33 trials of central sensitization (pain present in the absence of tissue damage), and 6 trials of mixed types of pain. Compared with placebo, opioid use was associated with reduced pain (weighted mean difference [WMD], -0.69 cm [95% CI, -0.82 to -0.56 cm] on a 10-cm visual analog scale for pain; modeled risk difference for achieving the MID, 11.9% [95% CI, 9.7% to 14.1%]), improved physical functioning (WMD, 2.04 points [95% CI, 1.41 to 2.68 points] on the 100-point SF-36 PCS; modeled risk difference for achieving the MID, 8.5% [95% CI, 5.9% to 11.2%]), and increased vomiting (5.9% with opioids vs 2.3% with placebo for trials that excluded patients with adverse events during a run-in period). Low- to moderate-quality evidence suggested similar associations of opioids with improvements in pain and physical functioning compared with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (pain: WMD, -0.60 cm [95% CI, -1.54 to 0.34 cm]; physical functioning: WMD, -0.90 points [95% CI, -2.69 to 0.89 points]), tricyclic antidepressants (pain: WMD, -0.13 cm [95% CI, -0.99 to 0.74 cm]; physical functioning: WMD, -5.31 points [95% CI, -13.77 to 3.14 points]), and anticonvulsants (pain: WMD, -0.90 cm [95% CI, -1.65 to -0.14 cm]; physical functioning: WMD, 0.45 points [95% CI, -5.77 to 6.66 points]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this meta-analysis of RCTs of patients with chronic noncancer pain, evidence from high-quality studies showed that opioid use was associated with statistically significant but small improvements in pain and physical functioning, and increased risk of vomiting compared with placebo. Comparisons of opioids with nonopioid alternatives suggested that the benefit for pain and functioning may be similar, although the evidence was from studies of only low to moderate quality.

A Prospective, Randomized, Open-Label Study Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Clonazepam versus Nortriptyline on Quality of Life in 40+ Years old Women Presenting with Restless Leg Syndrome

Introduction

Restless legs syndrome (RLS) is a neurological disorder characterized by an urge to move the legs usually accompanied by unpleasant leg sensations. RLS also impacts health related quality of life (QOL) in patients suffering from it. Further, it affects women more than men. Although a voluminous literature of studies is available evaluating the role of benzodiazepines (clonazepam and antidepressant (nortriptyline) in the treatment of RLS, but to the best of our knowledge, no comparative study is available comparing both of these drugs for efficacy and safety for the treatment of RLS QoL among 40 + years old women.

Materials and Methods

A prospective, randomized, open label comparative study was conducted in Postgraduate Department of Pharmacology in collaboration with the Department of General Medicine, Government Medical College, Jammu, a tertiary care teaching hospital for 1 year.

Conclusion

Clonazepam proved to be significantly better in improving RLSQoL score. Difference between respective baselines of both groups was statistically insignificant.

Prescription Medication Use Among Community-Based U.S. Adults With Chronic Low Back Pain: A Cross-Sectional Population Based Study

Many classes of medications have been evaluated in chronic low back pain (cLBP), however their utilization in the community remains unclear. We examined patterns of prescription medication use among Americans with cLBP in a nationally representative, community-based sample. The Back Pain Survey was administered to a representative sample of U.S. adults aged 20 to 69 years (N = 5,103) during the 2009 to 2010 cycle of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. cLBP was defined as self-reported pain in the area between the lower posterior margin of the ribcage and the horizontal gluteal fold on most days for at least 3 months (N = 700). Home-based interviews with pill bottle verification were used to capture commonly prescribed medications for chronic pain. Among the sample of U.S. adults with cLBP aged 20 to 69 years, 36.9% took at least 1 prescription pain medication in the past 30 days; of them, 18.8% used opioids, 9.7% nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, 8.5% muscle relaxants, and 6.9% gabapentin or pregabalin. Nonpain antidepressants and hypnotics were used by 17.8% and 4.7%, respectively. Opioids were used long-term in 76.9% of cases (median = 2 years) and were frequently coadministered with antidepressants, benzodiazepines, or hypnotics. Ninety-four percent of prescription opioids in the cLBP population were used by individuals with less than a college education. Opioids were the most widely used prescription analgesic class in community-based U.S. adults with cLBP and were often coadministered with other central nervous system-active medications. Opioid use was highly prevalent among less educated Americans with cLBP.

PERSPECTIVE

Because prescription opioid use is an issue of national concern, we examined pain-related prescription medication use in community-dwelling U.S. adults with cLBP. Opioids were the most common prescription pain medication, typically used long-term, in combination with other central nervous system-active agents, and disproportionately among individuals with less than a college education.

Why are there no drugs indicated for sciatica, the most common chronic neuropathic syndrome of all?

This review examines the stark contrast between the successes and failures of the clinical development of analgesics for different types of chronic low back pain (CLBP) syndrome over the past three decades. Multiple drugs with differing mechanisms of action have been developed for nonspecific axial-predominant low back syndromes and yet not a single therapy is indicated for any neuropathic low back pain syndrome (e.g., sciatica). Clinician findings have informed the entry criteria for neuropathic low back pain clinical trials, whereas entry criteria of axial CLBP trials have prioritized only patient reports of pain. This key difference could account for the lack of success in developing therapies for neuropathic low back pain in an era marked by successful development of analgesics for other types of CLBP as well as many chronic pain syndromes associated with nerve injury, such as post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN).

Safety and efficacy of neublastin in painful lumbosacral radiculopathy: a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial using Bayesian adaptive design (the SPRINT trial)

Neublastin (BG00010) is a first-in-class, glial cell-derived neurotrophic factor shown in preclinical studies and an early clinical trial to have potential for the treatment of neuropathic pain. SPRINT was a phase 2, multicenter, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study to evaluate efficacy/safety of 5 neublastin doses (50, 150, 400, 800, and 1200 μg/kg) administered as an intravenous injection 3 times/week for 1 week in patients with chronic painful lumbosacral radiculopathy, utilizing Bayesian response-adaptive study design. Primary endpoint was change from baseline in mean 24-hour average general pain intensity over a 5-day period (week 1) after the last dose, analyzed using a Bayesian normal dynamic linear model. One hundred seventy-six patients were randomized and received treatment (placebo n = 48, 50 μg/kg n = 38, 150 μg/kg n = 13, 400 μg/kg n = 16, 800 μg/kg n = 20, 1200 μg/kg n = 41). Among the tested neublastin doses, the lowest dose (50 μg/kg) showed the greatest difference from placebo for change from baseline in mean average general pain intensity at week 1 after last dose, followed by the highest dose (1200 μg/kg) (posterior mean difference -1.36 [95% credible interval -2.22 to -0.52] and -0.75 [-1.59 to 0.08], respectively). Similar trends were observed in secondary efficacy endpoints. The most common adverse event in all neublastin dose groups was pruritus (79% vs 10% with placebo). There was no dose-response relationship with respect to primary/secondary efficacy outcomes or incidence of pruritus, despite dose-proportional increases in serum neublastin concentrations. In conclusion, while this study showed some evidence of pain relief with neublastin, particularly at the lowest dose, there was no clear dose-response relationship for pain reduction or the most common adverse event of pruritus.

Opioids combined with antidepressants or antiepileptic drugs for cancer pain: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Combining antidepressant or antiepileptic drugs with opioids has resulted in increased pain relief when used for neuropathic pain in non-cancer conditions. However, evidence to support their effectiveness in cancer pain is lacking.

AIM

To determine if there is additional benefit when opioids are combined with antidepressant or antiepileptic drugs for cancer pain.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis. Randomised control trials comparing opioid analgesia in combination with antidepressant or antiepileptic drugs versus opioid monotherapy were sought. Data on pain and adverse events were extracted. Data were pooled using DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analyses, and heterogeneity was assessed.

RESULTS

Seven randomised controlled trials that randomised 605 patients were included in the review. Patients' pain was described as neuropathic cancer pain, cancer bone pain and non-specific cancer pain. Four randomised controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis in which opioid in combination with either gabapentin or pregabalin was compared with opioid monotherapy. The pooled standardised mean difference was 0.16 (95% confidence interval, -0.19, 0.51) showing no significant difference in pain relief between the groups. Adverse events were more frequent in the combination arms. Data on amitriptyline, fluvoxamine and phenytoin were inconclusive.

CONCLUSION

Combining opioid analgesia with gabapentinoids did not significantly improve pain relief in patients with tumour-related cancer pain compared with opioid monotherapy. Due to the heterogeneity of patient samples, benefit in patients with definite neuropathic cancer pain cannot be excluded. Clinicians should balance the small likelihood of benefit in patients with tumour-related cancer pain against the increased risk of adverse effects of combination therapy.

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.

Nortriptyline Enhances Morphine-Conditioned Place Preference in Neuropathic Rats: Role of the Central Noradrenergic System

BACKGROUND

Combination drug therapy is commonly used to treat chronic pain conditions such as neuropathic pain, and antidepressant is often used together with opioid analgesics. While rewarding is an intrinsic property of opioid analgesics, it is unknown whether the use of an antidepressant would influence opioid reward, which may contribute to opioid addiction. In this study, we examined whether nortriptyline (a tricyclic antidepressant and a first-line medication for neuropathic pain) would enhance the morphine rewarding property in both naive and chronic constriction sciatic nerve injury (CCI) rats.

METHODS

The rewarding effect of these drugs was assessed using conditioned place preference (CPP). The real-time polymerase chain reaction, western blot, and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay analysis were used to investigate the function of central noradrenergic system.

RESULTS

In naive rats, coadministration of nortriptyline with morphine did not change the acquisition of morphine-induced CPP. However, nortriptyline enhanced the acquisition, delayed the extinction, and augmented the reinstatement of morphine-induced CPP in CCI rats. In CCI rats treated with both nortriptyline and morphine, the expression of α2A-adrenergic receptors, norepinephrine transporter, and tyrosine hydroxylase was markedly decreased in the locus coeruleus, whereas the norepinephrine concentration in the nucleus accumbens was remarkably increased.

CONCLUSIONS

These results demonstrate that nortriptyline enhanced morphine reward when both drugs were used to treat neuropathic pain in rats and that this behavioral phenotype is likely to be mediated by upregulation of the central noradrenergic system. These findings may have implications in opioid therapy commonly used for chronic pain management.

The Challenges of Treating Sciatica Pain in Older Adults

Sciatica is a debilitating condition affecting approximately 25 % of the population. Typically, the patient will complain of lower limb pain that is more severe than pain in the lower back, usually accompanied by numbness and motor weakness. Most international guidelines recommend pharmacological management for the pain relief of sciatica, including paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioid analgesics, anticonvulsants, and corticosteroids, among others. However, the evidence for most of these pharmacological options is scarce, and the majority of clinical trials exclude older patients. There is overall very limited information on the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of these medicines in older patients with sciatica. This review presents a critical appraisal of the existing evidence for the pharmacological treatment of sciatica, with a special focus on the older adult. The age-related changes in the health of older patients, as well as their impact on the response to pharmacological treatment, including polypharmacy, drug interactions, and drug-disease interactions, is also discussed.

Disruption of 5-HT2A-PDZ protein interaction differently affects the analgesic efficacy of SSRI, SNRI and TCA in the treatment of traumatic neuropathic pain in rats

Antidepressants remain one of the first line treatments prescribed to neuropathic pain patients despite their limited efficacy and/or their numerous side effects. More and more, pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain has evolved towards the use of therapeutic combinations. The goal of the present study was to assess the efficacy of the combination of antidepressants - selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors-with a peptide (TAT-2ASCV) able to disrupt the interaction between serotonin type 2A (5-HT_2A) receptors and associated PDZ proteins. Mechanical hypersensitivity was assessed in sciatic nerve ligation-induced neuropathic pain in rats using paw pressure test after acute treatment with TAT-2ASCV alone or in combination with repeated treatment with fluoxetine or duloxetine or clomipramine. First, we validated the anti-hyperalgesic effect of TAT-2ASCV on mechanical hypersensitivity at the dose of 100 ng/rat (single i.t. injection). Second, using selective receptor antagonists, we found that the effect of TAT-2ASCV on mechanical hypersensitivity involves 5-HT_2A as well as GABA_A receptors. Finally, we showed that the association of TAT-2ASCV (100 ng, single i.t. injection) with fluoxetine (10 mg/kg, five i.p. injections) reveals its anti-hyperalgesic effect, while the association with duloxetine (1 mg/kg, five i.p. injections) or clomipramine (2.5 mg/kg, five i.p. injections) is only additive. Those results further accentuate the interest to develop small molecules acting like TAT-2ASCV in order to treat neuropathic pain as a monotherapy or in combination with antidepressants.

Neuropathic Pain Related with Spinal Disorders: A Systematic Review

Systematic literature review. To review the evidence from high-quality studies regarding the treatment of neuropathic pain originating specifically from spinal disorders. In general, treatment guidelines for neuropathic pain cover all its various causes, including medical disease, peripheral neuropathy, and cancer. However, the natural history of neuropathic pain originating from spinal disorders may differ from that of the pain originating from other causes or lesions. An expert research librarian used terms related to neuropathic pain and spinal disorders, disc herniation, stenosis, and spinal cord injury to search in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL for primary research from January 2000 to October 2015. Among 2,313 potential studies of interest, 25 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 21 systematic reviews (SRs) were included in the analysis. The selection was decided based on the agreement of two orthopedic surgeons. There was a lack of evidence about medication for radiculopathy arising from disc herniation and stenosis, but intervention procedures, including epidural block, showed positive efficacy in radiculopathy and also limited efficacy in spinal stenosis. There was some evidence based on the short-term follow-up regarding surgery being superior to conservative treatments for radiculopathy and stenosis. There was limited evidence regarding the efficacy of pharmacological and electric or magnetic stimulation therapies for neuropathic pain after spinal cord injury. This review of RCTs and SRs with high-quality evidence found some evidence regarding the efficacy of various treatment modalities for neuropathic pain related specifically to spinal disorders. However, there is a need for much more supportive evidence.

Treatment of painful radiculopathies with capsaicin 8% cutaneous patch

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The treatment of neuropathic pain due to low-back (lumbosacral) radiculopathies, a common source of neuropathic pain, is challenging and often requires a multimodal therapeutic approach. The capsaicin 8% patch is the first topical analgesic licensed for peripheral neuropathic pain. To evaluate this treatment, a subset of patients with painful radiculopathy (lumbar and cervical, including ventral and dorsal rami) enrolled into the multicenter, non-interventional QUEPP study (Qutenza ² - safety and effectiveness in peripheral neuropathic pain) was analyzed.

METHODS

Of the 1044 study participants, 50 were diagnosed with painful radiculopathy as only peripheral neuropathic pain syndrome and were eligible for evaluation. Patients received a single treatment (visit 1) with follow-up visits 2-5 at weeks 1-2, 4, 8 and 12. Parameters assessed at all visits included pain intensity, neuropathy symptoms and side effects. Quality of life (SF-12) and painDETECT ¹ questionnaires were completed at baseline and final visit. Data was analyzed by patch application site and duration of pain.

RESULTS

Topical treatment led to a significant decrease of pain intensity between weeks 1/2 and week 12 versus baseline at the application sites representing dermatomes of ventral (N = 26) and dorsal rami (N = 13) of spinal nerves. A significant decline (p ≤ .001) of numeric pain rating scale scores was observed between weeks 1/2 following patch application and the end of observation (week 12) in the overall radiculopathy group (N = 50), and the groups with either 3 months to 2 years (N = 14) or >2 years (N = 23) duration of pain. Pain relief of at least 30% was observed in 50.0%, 71.4% and 39.1% of patients in the respective groups. Four patients experienced in total seven adverse drug reactions (application site pain or pruritus).

CONCLUSION

Effective neuropathic pain relief was observed after patch application within the innervation territories of both dorsal and ventral branches of the spinal nerve. Further controlled randomized trials are indicated.

Adverse Effects of Antidepressants for Chronic Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background

Antidepressants are widely used in the treatment of chronic pain. Applied doses are lower than those needed to unfold an antidepressive effect. While efficacy of antidepressants for chronic pain has been reported in large randomized-controlled trials (RCT), there is inconsistent data on adverse effects and tolerability. We aimed at synthesizing data from RCT to explore adverse effect profiles and tolerability of antidepressants for treatment of chronic pain.

Methods

Systematic literature research and meta-analyses were performed regarding side effects and safety of different antidepressants in the treatment of chronic pain according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The National Center for Biotechnology Information library and MEDLINE were searched. Randomized placebo-controlled trials were included in quantitative data synthesis.

Results

Out of 1,975 screened articles, 33 papers published between 1995 and 2015 were included in our review and 23 studies were included in the meta-analyses. A higher risk for adverse effects compared to placebo was observed in all antidepressants included in our analyses, except nortriptyline. The most prevalent adverse effects were dry mouth, dizziness, nausea, headache, and constipation. Amitriptyline, mirtazapine, desipramine, venlafaxine, fluoxetine, and nortriptyline showed the highest placebo effect-adjusted risk of adverse effects. Risk for withdrawal due to adverse effects was highest in desipramine (risk ratio: 4.09, 95%-confidence interval [1.31; 12.82]) followed by milnacipran, venlafaxine, and duloxetine. The most common adverse effects under treatment with antidepressants were dry mouth, dizziness, nausea, headache, and constipation followed by palpitations, sweating, and drowsiness. However, overall tolerability was high. Each antidepressant showed distinct risk profiles of adverse effects.

Conclusion

Our synthesized data analysis confirmed overall tolerability of low-dose antidepressants for the treatment of chronic pain and revealed drug specific risk profiles. This encompassing characterization of adverse effect profiles might be useful in defining multimodal treatment regimens for chronic pain which also consider patients’ comorbidities and co-medication.

Combination treatment of neuropathic pain: Danish expert recommendations based on a Delphi process

BACKGROUND

Current Danish treatment algorithms for pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain (NeP) are tricyclic antidepressants (TCA), gabapentin and pregabalin as first-line treatment for the most common NeP conditions. Many patients have insufficient pain relief on monotherapy, but combination therapy had not been included in guidelines until recently. Based on clinical empiricism and scientific evidence, a Delphi consensus process provided a consolidated guidance on pharmacological combination treatment of NeP.

METHODS

A two-round virtual internet-based Delphi process with 6 Danish pain specialists was undertaken. In the first round, questions were answered individually and anonymously, whereas in the second round, the panel openly discussed first round's summary of outcomes. Combinations of pharmacological pain treatments, that is, pregabalin/gabapentin, TCAs, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, opioids, other antiepileptics and cutaneous patches, were assessed based on both scientific and clinical practice experiences. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) grading system was used for evidence rating.

RESULTS

Combination of pregabalin/gabapentin with TCA is useful in patients who do not gain sufficient pain relief or tolerate either drug in high doses, or to improve sleep disturbance. Also, combination of pregabalin/gabapentin and SNRIs is reasonably well documented and experienced by some experts to result in sufficient pain relief and fewer side effects than monotherapy. Good evidence on efficacy was found for the combination of pregabalin/gabapentin or TCAs and opioids, which was also frequently used in clinical practice. The evidence for combining TCAs and SNRIs is insufficient, although sometimes used in clinical practice despite the risk of serotonin syndrome. For localized NeP, combination therapy with cutaneous patches should be considered. There was insufficient scientific evidence for any pharmacologic combination therapies with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors - as well as for other potential combinations.

CONCLUSIONS

The study revealed that combination therapy is widely used in clinical practice and supported by some scientific evidence. However, further studies are needed.

Pain Improvement With Novel Combination Analgesic Regimens (PAIN-CARE): Randomized Controlled Trial Protocol

BACKGROUND

Neuropathic pain (NP) (including painful diabetic neuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, etc) affects approximately 7% to 8% of the population and is associated with a devastating symptom burden as well as a profound economic impact for patients, their families, and the health care system. Current therapies have limited efficacy and dose-limiting adverse effects (AEs). Rational combination therapy with carefully selected NP drugs has shown potential for measurable improvements in pain relief, quality of life, and health care use. Today, over half of NP patients concurrently receive 2 or more analgesics but combination use is based on little evidence. Research is urgently needed to identify safer, more effective combinations.

OBJECTIVE

We hypothesize that analgesic combinations containing at least 1 nonsedating agent would be as safe but more effective than either monotherapy without increasing overall AEs because of additive pain relief. Pregabalin (PGB), a sedating anticonvulsant, is proven effective for NP; the antioxidant alpha-lipoic acid (ALA) is one of the only nonsedating systemic agents proven effective for NP. Thus, we will conduct a clinical trial to compare a PGB+ALA combination to each monotherapy for NP.

METHODS

Using a double-blind, double-dummy, crossover design, 54 adults with NP will be randomly allocated to 1 of 6 sequences of treatment with PGB, ALA and PGB+ALA combination. During each of 3 different treatment periods, participants will take 2 sets of capsules containing (1) ALA or placebo and (2) PGB or placebo for 31 days, followed by an 11-day taper/washout period. The primary outcome will be mean daily pain intensity (0-10) at maximally tolerated dose (MTD) during each period. Secondary outcomes, assessed at MTD, will include global improvement, adverse events, mood, and quality of life.

RESULTS

Participant recruitment is expected to begin September 1, 2017. The proposed trial was awarded external peer-reviewed funding by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (Canada) on July 15, 2016.

CONCLUSIONS

This trial will provide rigorous evidence comparing the efficacy of a PGB+ALA combination to PGB alone and ALA alone in the treatment of NP.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number ISRCTN14577546; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN14577546?q=&filters=conditionCategory:Signs%20and%20Symptoms,trialStatus: Ongoing,recruitmentCountry:Canada&sort=&offset=1&totalResults=2&page=1&pageSize=10&searchType=basic-search (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6qvHFDc6m).

Morphine for chronic neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Health-related quality of life in patients receiving long-term opioid therapy: a systematic review with meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Over 25 million Americans reported having daily pain and between 5 and 8 million Americans used opioids to treat chronic pain in 2012. This is the first systematic review with meta-analysis to determine the effects of long-term opioid use on the Physical Component Summary (PCS) score and Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores of a Health-Related Quality of Life instrument in adults without opioid use disorder.

METHODS

The a priori eligibility criteria for the PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, and PsyINFO searches were (1) randomized controlled trial, (2) at least one opioid intervention group, (3) minimum of 4-week duration of opioid use, (4) comparative control group, and (5) adults ≥18 years that do not have dominant disease. The unit of analysis was the standardized mean difference effect size (Hedges's g). All results were pooled using random-effects models.

RESULTS

Of the 340 non-duplicate citations screened, 19 articles comprising 26 treatment comparisons and 6168 individuals (treatment n = 3160; comparators n = 3008 with duplicates removed) met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review. Thirteen treatment comparisons were available for the meta-analysis. Across all PCS analyses, small, statistically significant improvements were observed (opioid versus opioid only: g = 0.27, 95% CI 0.05-0.50, opioid versus placebo only: g = 0.18, 95% CI 0.08-0.28, and all studies combined: g = 0.22, 95% CI 0.11-0.32). There were small but not statistically significant changes on the MCS scores. Overall, high heterogeneity was present.

CONCLUSIONS

PCS scores improve with no change in MCS scores. However, long-term opioid trials are rare and only two trials included lasted longer than 1 year.

[Opioids in chronic neuropathic pain. A systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy, tolerability and safety in randomized placebo-controlled studies of at least 4 weeks duration]

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of opioid therapy in chronic neuropathic pain (CNP) is under debate. We updated a recent Cochrane systematic review on the efficacy, tolerability and safety of opioids in CNP.

METHODS

We screened MEDLINE, Scopus and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) up until October 2013, as well as the reference sections of original studies and systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of opioids in CNP. We included double-blind randomized placebo-controlled studies of at least 4 weeks duration. Using a random effects model, absolute risk differences (RD) were calculated for categorical data and standardized mean differences (SMD) for continuous variables.

RESULTS

We included 12 RCTs with 1192 participants. The included diagnostic entities were painful diabetic neuropathy (four studies), postherpetic neuralgia (three studies), mixed polyneuropathic pain (two studies), and lumbar root, spinal cord injury and postamputation pain (one study each). Mean study duration was 6 (4-12) weeks. Four studies tested morphine, three studies tramadol, two studies oxycodone and one study tapentadol. These are the pooled results of studies with a parallel or cross-over design: opioids were superior to placebo in reducing pain intensity (SMD - 0.64 [95 % confidence interval, CI - 0.81, - 0.46], p < 0.0001; 11 studies with 1040 participants). Opioids were not superior to placebo in 50 % pain reduction (RD 0.16 [95 % CI - 0.04, 0.35], p = 0.11; one study with 93 participants). Opioids were not superior to placebo in reports of much or very much improved pain (RD 0.17 [95 % CI - 0.01, 0.36], p = 0.07; one study with 53 participants). Opioids were superior to placebo in improving physical functioning (SMD - 0.28 [95 % CI - 0.43, - 0.13], p < 0.0001; seven studies with 680 participants). Patients dropped out less frequently due to lack of efficacy with opioids than with placebo (RD - 0.07 [95 % CI - 0.13, - 0.02], p = 0.008; six studies with 656 participants). Patients dropped out due to adverse events more frequently with opioids than with placebo (RD 0.08 [95 % CI 0.05, 0.12], p < 0.0001; ten studies with 1018 participants; number needed to harm 11 [95 % CI 8-17]). There was no significant difference between opioids and placebo in terms of the frequency of serious adverse events (SAE) or deaths.

CONCLUSION

In short-term studies (4-12 weeks) in CNP, opioids were superior to placebo in terms of efficacy and inferior in terms of tolerability. Opioids and placebo did not differ in terms of safety. The conclusion relating to the safety of opioids compared to placebo in CNP is limited by the low number of SAE and deaths. Short-term opioid therapy may be considered in selected CNP patients. The English full-text version of this article is freely available at SpringerLink (under "Supplementary Material").

[Opioids in chronic noncancer pain-are opioids superior to nonopioid analgesics? A systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy, tolerability and safety in randomized head-to-head comparisons of opioids versus nonopioid analgesics of at least four week's duration]

BACKGROUND

Some leading German pain medicine experts postulate that there is a type of chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) with an opioid requirement. We tested whether opioids are superior to nonopioid analgesics in the management of CNCP in studies of at least 4 week's duration.

METHODS

We screened MEDLINE, Scopus and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) up until October 2013, as well as the reference sections of original studies and systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of opioids in CNCP. We included double-blind RTCs comparing opioids to nonopioid analgesics of at least 4 week's duration. Relative risks differences (RD) of categorical data and standardized mean differences (SMD) of continuous variables were calculated using a random effects model.

RESULTS

We included 10 RCTs with 3046 participants. Median study duration was 6 weeks (range 4-12 weeks). Five studies compared tramadol with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in osteoarthritis pain and one trial compared tramadol to flupirtine in low back pain. Morphine was compared to antidepressants (two studies), an anticonvulsant (one study) and an antiarrhythmic (one study) in different neuropathic pain syndromes. There was no significant difference between opioids and nonopioid analgesics in pain reduction (SMD 0.03 [95 % confidence interval, CI - 0.18, 0.24]; p = 0.76). Nonopioid analgesics were superior to opioids in improving physical function (SMD 0.17 [95 % CI 0.02, 0.32]; p = 0.03). Patients dropped out due to adverse events more frequently with opioids than with nonopioid analgesics (RD 0.09 [95 % CI 0.06, 0.13]; p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference between opioids and nonopioid analgesics in terms of serious adverse events or dropout rates due to lack of efficacy.

CONCLUSION

Nonopioid analgesics are superior to opioids in terms of improvement of physical function and tolerability in short-term (4-12 weeks) therapy of neuropathic, low back and osteoarthritis pain. Our results do not support the concept of an"opioid-requiring" CNCP. The English full-text version of this article is freely available at SpringerLink (under "Supplemental").