Nortriptyline and gabapentin, alone and in combination for neuropathic pain: a double-blind, randomised controlled crossover trial

Metabotropic Glutamate Receptor 5: A Potential Target for Neuropathic Pain Treatment

Neuropathic pain, a multifaceted and incapacitating disorder, impacts a significant number of individuals globally. Despite thorough investigation, the development of efficacious remedies for neuropathic pain continues to be a formidable task. Recent research has revealed the potential of metabotropic glutamate receptor 5 (mGlu5) as a target for managing neuropathic pain. mGlu5 is a receptor present in the central nervous system that has a vital function in regulating synaptic transmission and the excitability of neurons. This article seeks to investigate the importance of mGlu5 in neuropathic pain pathways, analyze the pharmacological approach of targeting mGlu5 for neuropathic pain treatment, and review the negative allosteric mGlu5 modulators used to target mGlu5. By comprehending the role of mGlu5 in neuropathic pain, we can discover innovative treatment approaches to ease the distress endured by persons afflicted with this incapacitating ailment.

Mirogabalin as a Therapeutic Option for Neuropathic Pain Emerging Postendodontic Treatment: An Observational Study

INTRODUCTION

We have recently reported the clinical efficacy of mirogabalin for occlusal pain due to post-traumatic trigeminal neuropathic pain (PTTN-occlusal pain) after endodontic treatment according to the International Classification of Orofacial Pain criteria. This study aimed to determine the mirogabalin administration period and timing of dose reduction and suspension for treating this condition based on managing a certain number of cases.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with PTTN-occlusal pain after or during endodontic treatment were included in the study. An endodontist retreated if necessary. Patients who initially experienced occlusal pain but gradually adapted to bite well without medication were classified into the provisional restoration group (n = 13). Patients who experienced severe pain during mastication and could not chew with a provisional restoration were classified into the mirogabalin medication group (n = 15). Mirogabalin (10 mg/day) was prescribed once a day before bedtime. The patients receiving visual analog scale (VAS) were instructed to record daily changes in pain intensity in a VAS diary. The practitioners also recorded scores during consultations.

RESULTS

In the provisional restoration group, VAS scores significantly decreased from week 6 and plateaued from week 11 (P < .05). This adaptation period was applied to reduction or discontinuation of mirogabalin treatment in the mirogabalin medication group. After initiating mirogabalin, VAS scores significantly decreased gradually from week 1 (P < .05). Although the dose was tapered around week 7 and discontinued by week 11, no recurrence of pain was observed following dose reduction or discontinuation.

CONCLUSIONS

Mirogabalin was effective in treating PTTN-occlusal pain.

Pancreatitis in children: practical management from the BSPGHAN Pancreatitis Working Group

Pancreatitis, a condition characterised by inflammation of the pancreas, has multiple aetiologies. Improving clinical proficiency in prompt diagnosis and effective management leads to better outcomes for children with acute pancreatitis, acute recurrent pancreatitis and chronic pancreatitis. Establishing consensus guidance via the British Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology Hepatology and Nutrition Pancreatitis Working Group has ensured further focus on these patients who are often cared for in a multidisciplinary framework and may prompt future research in this area. Initial assessment includes serum amylase/lipase, triglyceride levels, full blood count, C reactive protein, renal and liver function profile, glucose, calcium and capillary blood gas. Fasted transabdominal ultrasound for all children and young people with suspected pancreatitis is recommended to identify pancreatic parenchyma and pancreatobiliary ductal changes, and complications. For fluid resuscitation, use crystalloids or Ringer’s lactate: initial bolus of 10 to 20 mL/kg, 1.5–2 times maintenance volume, with hourly monitoring of urine output over the initial 24–48 hours. Initiate oral intake within the first 24 hours after fluid resuscitation; fat restriction is not recommended. For suspected autoimmune pancreatitis, workup includes immunoglobulin levels (IgG, IgM, IgA, IgG subclasses), complement components and autoantibody profile to confirm diagnosis. Significant interventional management for pancreatitis and related complications is performed via endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography or endoscopic ultrasound; referral to a specialised paediatric hepatobiliary surgical team is highly recommended. Close collaboration with a specialist centre can improve diagnostic and management pathways and outcomes for children.

Diabetic Neuropathic Pain and Circadian Rhythm: A Future Direction Worthy of Study

More than half of people with diabetes experience neuropathic pain. Previous research has shown that diabetes patients' neuropathic pain exhibits a circadian cycle, which is characterized by increased pain sensitivity at night. Additional clinical research has revealed that the standard opioid drugs are ineffective at relieving pain and do not change the circadian rhythm. This article describes diabetic neuropathic pain and circadian rhythms separately, with a comprehensive focus on circadian rhythms. It is hoped that this characteristic of diabetic neuropathic pain can be utilized in the future to obtain more effective treatments for it.

Gabapentin-Induced Adrenal Insufficiency: The Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Adrenal Axis Stress Misresponse and Risk of Infection: A Case Report and Literature Review

This literature review, in light of the presented case report, explores the complex interplay between gabapentin (GBP), a gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) analog, and the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis in patients undergoing major surgical procedures. It specifically investigates the potential impact of GBP on cortisol levels, stress responses, and infection risk, illustrated by a detailed clinical case. This review combines a comprehensive literature search with a case report of a 17-year-old male with osteosarcoma who experienced transient adrenal insufficiency and infections while receiving GBP. The case is analyzed in the context of the existing literature on GBP and the HPA axis. The findings highlight the intricate relationship between GBP use, adrenal insufficiency, and infection susceptibility. It underscores the need for further research and clinical vigilance when prescribing GBP to patients with underlying medical conditions, particularly in the context of major surgical procedures. The review underscores the need for further research and clinical vigilance when prescribing GBP, particularly in perioperative settings. In conclusion, GBP's effects on the HPA axis and immune responses are complex and multifaceted. Clinicians should exercise caution when prescribing GBP, especially for patients with underlying conditions undergoing major surgery. Further research is needed to elucidate the mechanisms of GBP's influence on cortisol levels and stress responses.

Mirogabalin as a Therapeutic Option for Neuropathic Pain Emerging Post-endodontic Treatment: A Two-Case Report

INTRODUCTION

Occlusal and percussion pain may manifest occasionally following endodontic treatment, influencing retreatment decisions. Two cases of periapical neuropathic pain, classified as post-traumatic trigeminal neuropathic pain according to the International Classification of Orofacial Pain, are presented. Although mirogabalin is effective in managing neuropathic pain, there is a lack of clinical reports on its use for occasional post-traumatic trigeminal neuropathic pain after endodontic treatment. These cases highlight clinical symptoms and successful treatment with mirogabalin for post-traumatic trigeminal neuropathic pain after endodontic treatment, providing clinicians a "take-away" lesson for improving patient condition.

METHODS

The patients, referred by their primary dentist due to postendodontic abnormal pain, found no relief with antibiotics or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Although no findings including swelling or periapical radiolucency were observed around the tooth, they experienced occlusal and percussion pain. Local anesthetic testing showed that the pain originated from the peripheral area around the tooth rather than from central sensitization. Dental radiography and cone-beam computed tomography revealed no abnormal findings. Root canal retreatment was performed by a specialist in endodontic treatment. Although endodontic retreatment drastically decreased visual analog scale pain score, pain persisted. Based on the International Classification of Orofacial Pain criteria, diseases other than post-traumatic trigeminal neuropathic pain were excluded. Mirogabalin (10 mg/d) was prescribed once daily before bedtime.

RESULTS

Visual analog scale scores gradually and drastically decreased 2 weeks after mirogabalin therapy. Several months later, no recurrence of postendodontic pain was observed after tapering off and discontinuing mirogabalin.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest the possibility of a new treatment method for post-traumatic trigeminal neuropathic pain after endodontic treatment.

NIR-Remote Selectively Triggered Buprenorphine Hydrochloride Release from Microneedle Patches for the Treatment of Neuropathic Pain

Neuropathic pain is a prevalent form of intermittent chronic pain, affecting approximately 7-10% of the global population. However, the current clinical administration methods, such as injection and oral administration, are mostly one-time administration, which cannot achieve accurate control of pain degree and drug dose. Herein, we developed near-infrared (NIR) light-responsive microneedle patches (MNPs) to spatiotemporally control the drug dose released to treat neuropathic pain according to the onset state. The mechanism of action utilizes upconversion nanoparticles to convert NIR light into visible and ultraviolet light. This conversion triggers the rapid rotation of the azobenzene molecular motor in the mesoporous material, enabling the on-demand controlled release of a drug dose. Additionally, MNs are used to overcome the barrier of the stratum corneum in a minimally invasive and painless manner, effectively promoting the transdermal penetration of drug molecules. The effectiveness of these patches has been demonstrated through significant results. Upon exposure to NIR light for five consecutive cycles, with each cycle lasting 30 s, the patches achieved a precise release of 318 μg of medication. In a mouse model, maximum pain relief was observed within 1 h of one cycle of NIR light exposure, with the effects lasting up to 6 h. The same level of precise treatment efficacy was maintained for subsequent pain episodes with similar light exposure. The NIR-controlled drugs precision-released MNPs provide a novel paradigm for the treatment of intermittent neuropathic pain.

PRECISE trial (Pain RElief Combination Intervention StratEgies): protocol for the clinical trial of a pregabalin-melatonin combination for fibromyalgia

INTRODUCTION

Fibromyalgia is associated with chronic widespread pain and disturbed sleep. Multidisciplinary, multimodal management often includes pharmacotherapy; however, current drugs used to treat fibromyalgia provide meaningful benefit to only 30-60% of treated individuals. Combining two or more different drugs is common in clinical practice with the expectation of better efficacy, tolerability or both; however, further research is needed to identify which combinations actually provide added benefit. Thus, we are planning a clinical trial to evaluate melatonin (MLT)-pregabalin (PGB) combination in participants with fibromyalgia.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This will be a single-centre, double-blind, randomised, double-dummy, three-period, crossover trial comparing a MLT-PGB combination to each monotherapy in 54 adult participants satisfying the 2016 American College of Rheumatology criteria for fibromyalgia. Participants will receive maximally tolerated doses of MLT, PGB and MLT-PGB combination for 6 weeks. The primary outcome will be daily pain intensity (0-10); secondary outcomes will include the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire, SF-36 survey, Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale, Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II), adverse events and other measures. Analysis of the primary and secondary outcomes will involve a linear mixed model with sequence, period, treatment, the first-order carryover and baseline pain score as fixed effects and participant as a random effect to test whether there are any treatment differences among three treatments and to estimate the least square mean of the mean daily pain intensity for each treatment, adjusting for carryover as well as period effects (ie, stability of pain levels).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This trial has been registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Registry, ISRCTN #18278231, has been granted ethical approval by the Queen's University Health Sciences Research Ethics Board (Queen's HSREB Protocol #6040998) and is currently under review for a Clinical Trial Application to Health Canada Natural and Non-prescription Health Products Directorate. All participants will provide written informed consent prior to trial participation. Following trial completion, results will be disseminated in one or more biomedical journal publications and presented at one or more scientific meetings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

This trial has been registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Registry, ISRCTN18278231.

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.

Randomized, double-blind, controlled trial of a combination of alpha-lipoic acid and pregabalin for neuropathic pain: the PAIN-CARE trial

ABSTRACT

We compared a combination of the nonsedating antioxidant, alpha-lipoic acid (ALA), with the sedating anticonvulsant, pregabalin, vs each monotherapy to treat neuropathic pain due to peripheral neuropathies. In this randomized, double-blind, 3-period crossover trial, participants received oral ALA, pregabalin, and their combination-each for 6 weeks. The primary outcome was mean daily pain intensity at maximal tolerated doses (MTD); secondary outcomes included quality of life (SF-36), sleep (Medical Outcomes Study-Sleep Scale), adverse effects, drug doses, and other measures. Of 55 participants randomized (20-diabetic neuropathy, 19-small fiber neuropathy, and 16-other neuropathies), 46 completed 2 periods, and 44 completed 3. At MTD, the primary outcome of mean pain intensity (0-10) was 5.32 (standard error, SE = 0.18), 3.96 (0.25), 3.25 (0.25), and 3.16 (0.25) at baseline, ALA, pregabalin, and combination, respectively ( P < 0.01 for ALA vs combination and pregabalin). Treatment differences were similar in subgroups with diabetic neuropathy and with other neuropathies. SF-36 total scores (higher number indicates better quality of life) were 66.6 (1.88), 70.1 (1.88), and 69.4 (1.87) with ALA, pregabalin, and combination ( P < 0.05 for ALA vs combination and pregabalin). At MTD, there were no statistically significant treatment differences in adverse effects or drug doses. This trial demonstrates superiority of pregabalin vs ALA but provides no evidence to suggest added benefit of combining ALA with pregabalin to treat neuropathic pain.

Neuropathic Pain in Aged People: An Unresolved Issue Open to Novel Drug Approaches, Focusing on Painful Diabetic Neuropathy

A majority of older patients suffer from neuropathic pain (NP) that significantly alters their daily activities and imposes a significant burden on health care. Multiple comorbidities and the risk of polypharmacy in the elderly make it challenging to determine the appropriate drug, dosage, and maintenance of therapy. Age-dependent processes play a contributing role in neuropathy given that diabetic neuropathy (DN) is the most common form of neuropathy. This narrative review is mainly focused on the drug treatment approach for neuropathy-associated pain in aged people including both drugs and dietary supplements, considering the latter as add-on mechanism-based treatments to increase the effectiveness of usual treatments by implementing their activity or activating other analgesic pathways. On one hand, the limited clinical studies assessing the effectiveness and the adverse effects of existing pain management options in this age segment of the population (> 65), on the other hand, the expanding global demographics of the elderly contribute to building up an unresolved pain management problem that needs the attention of healthcare providers, researchers, and health authorities as well as the expansion of the current therapeutic options.

Combination Drug Therapy for the Management of Chronic Neuropathic Pain

Chronic neuropathic pain (NP) is an increasingly prevalent disease and leading cause of disability which is challenging to treat. Several distinct classes of drugs are currently used for the treatment of chronic NP, but each drug targets only narrow components of the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms, bears limited efficacy, and comes with dose-limiting side effects. Multimodal therapies have been increasingly proposed as potential therapeutic approaches to target the multiple mechanisms underlying nociceptive transmission and modulation. However, while preclinical studies with combination therapies showed promise to improve efficacy over monotherapy, clinical trial data on their efficacy in specific populations are lacking and increased risk for adverse effects should be carefully considered. Drug-drug co-crystallization has emerged as an innovative pharmacological approach which can combine two or more different active pharmaceutical ingredients in a single crystal, optimizing pharmacokinetic and physicochemical characteristics of the native molecules, thus potentially capitalizing on the synergistic efficacy between classes of drugs while simplifying adherence and minimizing the risk of side effects by reducing the doses. In this work, we review the current pharmacological options for the treatment of chronic NP, focusing on combination therapies and their ongoing developing programs and highlighting the potential of co-crystals as novel approaches to chronic NP management.

Conventional management and current guidelines for painful diabetic neuropathy

Painful Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy (PDN) is common, affecting around a quarter of patients with both type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and can lead to significant curtailment of functionality and quality of life. Patients may present with unremitting burning, aching or "electric-shock" type pains in their feet, legs and later, in the hands. Conventional management approaches must focus not only on pain relief, but also on concurrent sleep problems, mood disorders and functionality. The mainstay of treatment is pharmacotherapy. Most current international guidelines recommend a choice of four drugs: amitriptyline, duloxetine, pregabalin or gabapentin, as initial treatment for PDN. Recent evidence from the OPTION-DM trial demonstrated that these drugs and their combinations have equivalent efficacy. Moreover, combination treatment provided significant pain relief to patients with inadequate response to the maximum tolerated dose of monotherapy. PDN refractory to pharmacotherapy can be treated with capsaicin 8% or high frequency spinal cord stimulation.

Monotherapy Versus Combination Therapy in the Treatment of Painful Diabetic Neuropathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Painful peripheral neuropathy is a common and challenging complication of diabetes mellitus. Combination therapy is used widely by clinicians, although strong evidence for efficacy and safety is lacking. The goal of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of combination versus monotherapy of first-line medications for peripheral diabetic neuropathy.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central, and clinicaltrials.gov databases were searched on December 5, 2022, for randomized clinical trials comparing combined therapy with gabapentinoids and either tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) or serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) versus monotherapy with any of these drugs. Pooled mean differences (MD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) were computed for pain outcomes, measured on an 11-point numeric rating scale averaging pain scores in the last 7 days. Risk ratios (RRs) were computed for binary endpoints. Risk assessment was performed using the Risk of Bias 2 tool.

RESULTS

A total of five randomized studies and 916 patients were included. Follow-up ranged from 6 to 12 weeks. Mean pain reduction was greater for combination therapy than monotherapy (MD - 0.39; 95% CI - 0.67 to - 0.12; p = 0.005). Similarly, there was an improvement in ≥ 30% reduction in average pain (RR 1.16; 95% CI 1.07-1.26; p < 0.01) with combination therapy. In contrast, there was no significant difference between groups in ≥ 50% reduction in average pain (RR 1.21; 95% CI 0.99-1.49; p = 0.06). When comparing combination therapy versus gabapentinoid monotherapy, there was also a significant reduction in average pain (MD - 0.61; 95% CI - 0.85 to - 0.37; p < 0.01) with combination therapy.

CONCLUSION

In patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy, the combination of gabapentinoids with TCAs or SNRIs is associated with a greater reduction in pain as compared with monotherapy, although this difference may not translate into a clinically important difference.

Pharmacological and Nonpharmacological Treatments for Painful Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy

Diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) is one of the most prevalent chronic complications of diabetes. The lifetime prevalence of DPN is thought to be >50%, and 15%-25% of patients with diabetes experience neuropathic pain, referred to as "painful DPN." Appropriate treatment of painful DPN is important because this pain contributes to a poor quality of life by causing sleep disturbance, anxiety, and depression. The basic principle for the management of painful DPN is to control hyperglycemia and other modifiable risk factors, but these may be insufficient for preventing or improving DPN. Because there is no promising diseasemodifying medication for DPN, the pain itself needs to be managed when treating painful DPN. Drugs for neuropathic pain, such as gabapentinoids, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants, alpha-lipoic acid, sodium channel blockers, and topical capsaicin, are used for the management of painful DPN. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved pregabalin, duloxetine, tapentadol, and the 8% capsaicin patch as drugs for the treatment of painful DPN. Recently, spinal cord stimulation using electrical stimulation is approved by the FDA for the treatment for painful DPN. This review describes the currently available pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments for painful DPN.

Efficacy of transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation on radiotherapy-related neuropathic pain in patients with head and neck cancers (RELAX): protocol for a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, sham-controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Radiotherapy-related neuropathic pain (RRNP) is one of the most distressing complications after radiotherapy for head and neck cancers. Drug therapy is not sufficiently effective and has limitations in terms of dose titration period and side effects. Transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation (taVNS), which stimulates the auricular branches of the vagus nerve through electrical impulses, has been proven to have analgesic effects in certain diseases. However, it is unknown whether taVNS can relieve RRNP.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel, sham-controlled trial. We will include adult patients newly diagnosed with neuropathic pain after radiotherapy for head and neck cancers. One hundred and sixteen individuals will be recruited and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive taVNS or sham stimulation. The interventions will last for 7 days, twice daily for 30 min each. The primary efficacy outcome is pain reduction on day 7. The secondary outcomes are changes in functional interference, psychological distress, fatigue, quality of life and serum inflammatory factors. The study may provide a new early intervention strategy for RRNP among patients with head and neck cancers.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by the Medical Research Ethics Committee of Sun Yat-sen University (SYSKY-2022-109-01) and will be conducted in strict accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical approvals will be obtained separately for all centres involved in the study. Study results will be published in peer-reviewed academic journals. The database of the study will be available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05543239.

Pregabalin-Tolperisone Combination to Treat Neuropathic Pain: Improved Analgesia and Reduced Side Effects in Rats

The current treatment of neuropathic pain (NP) is unsatisfactory; therefore, effective novel agents or combination-based analgesic therapies are needed. Herein, oral tolperisone, pregabalin, and duloxetine were tested for their antinociceptive effect against rat partial sciatic nerve ligation (pSNL)-induced tactile allodynia described by a decrease in the paw withdrawal threshold (PWT) measured by a dynamic plantar aesthesiometer. On day 7 after the operation, PWTs were assessed at 60, 120, and 180 min post-treatment. Chronic treatment was continued for 2 weeks, and again, PWTs were measured on day 14 and 21. None of the test compounds produced an acute antiallodynic effect. In contrast, after chronic treatment, tolperisone and pregabalin alleviated allodynia. In other experiments, on day 14, the acute antiallodynic effect of the tolperisone/pregabalin or duloxetine combination was measured. As a novel finding, a single dose of the tolperisone/pregabalin combination could remarkably alleviate allodynia acutely. It also restored the neuropathy-induced elevated CSF glutamate content. Furthermore, the combination is devoid of adverse effects related to motor and gastrointestinal transit functions. Tolperisone and pregabalin target voltage-gated sodium and calcium channels, respectively. The dual blockade effect of the combination might explain its advantageous acute analgesic effect in the present work.

Back Pain Consortium (BACPAC): Protocol and Pilot Study Results for a Randomized Comparative-Effectiveness Trial of Antidepressants, Fear Avoidance Rehabilitation, or the Combination for Chronic Low Back Pain and Comorbid High Negative Affect

OBJECTIVE

Patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) and comorbid depression or anxiety disorders are highly prevalent. Negative affect (NA) refers to a combination of negative thoughts, emotions, and behaviors. Patients with CLBP with high NA have greater pain, worse treatment outcomes, and greater prescription opioid misuse. We present the protocol for SYNNAPTIC (SYNergizing Negative Affect & Pain Treatment In Chronic pain).

DESIGN

A randomized comparative-effectiveness study of antidepressants, fear-avoidance rehabilitation, or their combination in 300 patients with CLBP with high NA. In the antidepressant- or rehabilitation-only arms, SYNNAPTIC includes an adaptive design of re-randomization after 4 months for nonresponders.

SETTING

A multisite trial conducted in routine pain clinical treatment settings: pain clinics and physical and occupational therapy treatment centers.

METHODS

Inclusion criteria include CLBP with elevated depression and anxiety symptoms. Antidepressant and rehabilitation treatments follow validated and effective protocols for musculoskeletal pain in patients with high NA. Power and sample size are based on superior outcomes of combination therapy with these same treatments in a 71-subject 4-arm pilot randomized controlled trial.

CONCLUSIONS

SYNNAPTIC addresses the lack of evidence-based protocols for the treatment of the vulnerable subgroup of patients with CLBP and high NA. We hypothesize that combination therapy of antidepressants plus fear-avoidance rehabilitation will be more effective than each treatment alone.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT04747314.

Pain Management in Dermatology

BACKGROUND

The dermatologist has to deal with many situations where the patient feels pain and must therefore know how to manage it.

SUMMARY

The aim of this review was to explore the treatments available to manage pain in dermatology in different circumstances, with an emphasis on pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions specifically studied in dermatology.

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.

Combination analgesic development for enhanced clinical efficacy (the CADENCE trial): a double-blind, controlled trial of an alpha-lipoic acid-pregabalin combination for fibromyalgia pain

ABSTRACT

Drug therapy for fibromyalgia is limited by incomplete efficacy and dose-limiting adverse effects (AEs). Combining agents with complementary analgesic mechanisms-and differing AE profiles-could provide added benefits. We assessed an alpha-lipoic acid (ALA)-pregabalin combination with a randomized, double-blind, 3-period crossover design. Participants received maximally tolerated doses of ALA, pregabalin, and ALA-pregabalin combination for 6 weeks. The primary outcome was daily pain (0-10); secondary outcomes included Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire, SF-36 survey, Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale, Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II), adverse events, and other measures. The primary outcome of daily pain (0-10) during ALA (4.9), pregabalin (4.6), and combination (4.5) was not significantly different (P = 0.54). There were no significant differences between combination and each monotherapy for any secondary outcomes, although combination and pregabalin were both superior to ALA for measures of mood and sleep. Alpha-lipoic acid and pregabalin maximal tolerated doses were similar during combination and monotherapy, and AEs were not frequent with combination therapy. These results do not support any additive benefit of combining ALA with pregabalin for fibromyalgia. The observation of similarly reached maximal tolerated drug doses of these 2 agents (which have differing side-effect profiles) during combination and monotherapy-without increased side effects-provides support for future development of potentially more beneficial combinations with complementary mechanisms and nonoverlapping side effects.

PK/PD analysis of trazodone and gabapentin in neuropathic pain rodent models: Translational PK-PD modeling from nonclinical to clinical development

A pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) model was developed to describe the time course of writhings after intraperitoneal injection of acetic acid in mice. The model was applied to investigate the antinociceptive effect of trazodone and gabapentin alone and in combination. Writhings time course was described by a transit compartment model with the delay due to the transit of the acetic acid being represented by a chain of intermediate compartments. In the drug-treated animals, the number of writhings decreases according to a k₂ factor linking drug concentration and antinociceptive effect. Compounds' potency parameters were 10.9 and 0.0459 L/μmoles/min for trazodone and gabapentin, respectively, indicating a much higher in vivo potency of trazodone in the PD writhing test. The PK/PD parameters were used to simulate the expected writhing counts in mice at combined doses without efficacy alone, assuming pharmacological additivity. Simulation results indicated that, at low dose combinations, experimental data were mostly below the simulated writhings median, suggesting possible synergic effect. Such hypothesis was tested by adding the γ parameter in the PK/PD model to represent the deviation from the assumption of no-interaction, leading to a reduction of the objective function compared to the additive model. On this basis, several simulations were performed to identify possible starting dose combinations of trazodone and gabapentin in humans, by selecting doses yielding systemic exposures close to those being synergic in the mouse. Simulations indicated that doses of 50-100 mg trazodone could enhance gabapentin antinociceptive effect in humans, supporting the development of a low dose combination for optimal analgesia treatment.

Combination pharmacotherapy for the treatment of neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis

ABSTRACT

Neuropathic pain causes substantial morbidity and healthcare utilization. Monotherapy with antidepressants or anticonvulsants often fails to provide relief. Combining different drugs sometimes provides improved analgesia and/or tolerability. More than half of patients receive 2 or more analgesics, and combination trials continue to emerge. This review comprehensively searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE for relevant trials. Included studies are double-blind randomized controlled trials evaluating combinations of 2 or more drugs vs placebo or at least one monotherapy in adults with neuropathic pain. Outcomes included measures of efficacy and adverse effects. Risk of bias was assessed. Meta-analyses compared combination to monotherapy wherever 2 or more similar studies were available. Forty studies (4741 participants) were included. Studies were heterogenous with respect to various characteristics, including dose titration methods and administration (ie, simultaneous vs sequential) of the combination. Few combinations involved a nonsedating drug, and several methodological problems were identified. For opioid-antidepressant, opioid-gabapentinoid, and gabapentinoid-antidepressant combinations, meta-analyses failed to demonstrate superiority over both monotherapies. In general, adverse event profiles were not substantially different for combination therapy compared with monotherapy. Despite widespread use and a growing number of trials, convincing evidence has not yet emerged to suggest superiority of any combination over its respective monotherapies. Therefore, implementing combination therapy-as second- or third-line treatment-in situations where monotherapy is insufficient, should involve closely monitored individual dosing trials to confirm safety and overall added benefit. Further research is needed, including trials of combinations involving nonsedating agents, and to identify clinical settings and specific combinations that safely provide added benefit.

Optimal pharmacotherapy pathway in adults with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain: the OPTION-DM RCT

BACKGROUND

The mainstay of treatment for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain is pharmacotherapy, but the current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline is not based on robust evidence, as the treatments and their combinations have not been directly compared.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the most clinically beneficial, cost-effective and tolerated treatment pathway for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain.

DESIGN

A randomised crossover trial with health economic analysis.

SETTING

Twenty-one secondary care centres in the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain with a 7-day average self-rated pain score of ≥ 4 points (Numeric Rating Scale 0-10).

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomised to three commonly used treatment pathways: (1) amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin, (2) duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin and (3) pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline. Participants and research teams were blinded to treatment allocation, using over-encapsulated capsules and matching placebos. Site pharmacists were unblinded.

OUTCOMES

The primary outcome was the difference in 7-day average 24-hour Numeric Rating Scale score between pathways, measured during the final week of each pathway. Secondary end points included 7-day average daily Numeric Rating Scale pain score at week 6 between monotherapies, quality of life (Short Form questionnaire-36 items), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale score, the proportion of patients achieving 30% and 50% pain reduction, Brief Pain Inventory - Modified Short Form items scores, Insomnia Severity Index score, Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory score, tolerability (scale 0-10), Patient Global Impression of Change score at week 16 and patients' preferred treatment pathway at week 50. Adverse events and serious adverse events were recorded. A within-trial cost-utility analysis was carried out to compare treatment pathways using incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-years from an NHS and social care perspective.

RESULTS

A total of 140 participants were randomised from 13 UK centres, 130 of whom were included in the analyses. Pain score at week 16 was similar between the arms, with a mean difference of -0.1 points (98.3% confidence interval -0.5 to 0.3 points) for duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin compared with amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin, a mean difference of -0.1 points (98.3% confidence interval -0.5 to 0.3 points) for pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline compared with amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin and a mean difference of 0.0 points (98.3% confidence interval -0.4 to 0.4 points) for pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline compared with duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin. Results for tolerability, discontinuation and quality of life were similar. The adverse events were predictable for each drug. Combination therapy (weeks 6-16) was associated with a further reduction in Numeric Rating Scale pain score (mean 1.0 points, 98.3% confidence interval 0.6 to 1.3 points) compared with those who remained on monotherapy (mean 0.2 points, 98.3% confidence interval -0.1 to 0.5 points). The pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline pathway had the fewest monotherapy discontinuations due to treatment-emergent adverse events and was most commonly preferred (most commonly preferred by participants: amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin, 24%; duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin, 33%; pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline, 43%; p = 0.26). No single pathway was superior in cost-effectiveness. The incremental gains in quality-adjusted life-years were small for each pathway comparison [amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin -0.002 (95% confidence interval -0.011 to 0.007) quality-adjusted life-years, amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline -0.006 (95% confidence interval -0.002 to 0.014) quality-adjusted life-years and duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline 0.007 (95% confidence interval 0.0002 to 0.015) quality-adjusted life-years] and incremental costs over 16 weeks were similar [amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin -£113 (95% confidence interval -£381 to £90), amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline £155 (95% confidence interval -£37 to £625) and duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline £141 (95% confidence interval -£13 to £398)].

LIMITATIONS

Although there was no placebo arm, there is strong evidence for the use of each study medication from randomised placebo-controlled trials. The addition of a placebo arm would have increased the duration of this already long and demanding trial and it was not felt to be ethically justifiable.

FUTURE WORK

Future research should explore (1) variations in diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain management at the practice level, (2) how OPTION-DM (Optimal Pathway for TreatIng neurOpathic paiN in Diabetes Mellitus) trial findings can be best implemented, (3) why some patients respond to a particular drug and others do not and (4) what options there are for further treatments for those patients on combination treatment with inadequate pain relief.

CONCLUSIONS

The three treatment pathways appear to give comparable patient outcomes at similar costs, suggesting that the optimal treatment may depend on patients' preference in terms of side effects.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial is registered as ISRCTN17545443 and EudraCT 2016-003146-89.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme, and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 39. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Comparison of amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin, pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline, and duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin for the treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (OPTION-DM): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised crossover trial

BACKGROUND

Diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP) is common and often distressing. Most guidelines recommend amitriptyline, duloxetine, pregabalin, or gabapentin as initial analgesic treatment for DPNP, but there is little comparative evidence on which one is best or whether they should be combined. We aimed to assess the efficacy and tolerability of different combinations of first-line drugs for treatment of DPNP.

METHODS

OPTION-DM was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, crossover trial in patients with DPNP with mean daily pain numerical rating scale (NRS) of 4 or higher (scale is 0-10) from 13 UK centres. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1:1), with a predetermined randomisation schedule stratified by site using permuted blocks of size six or 12, to receive one of six ordered sequences of the three treatment pathways: amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin (A-P), pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline (P-A), and duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin (D-P), each pathway lasting 16 weeks. Monotherapy was given for 6 weeks and was supplemented with the combination medication if there was suboptimal pain relief (NRS >3), reflecting current clinical practice. Both treatments were titrated towards maximum tolerated dose (75 mg per day for amitriptyline, 120 mg per day for duloxetine, and 600 mg per day for pregabalin). The primary outcome was the difference in 7-day average daily pain during the final week of each pathway. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN17545443.

FINDINGS

Between Nov 14, 2017, and July 29, 2019, 252 patients were screened, 140 patients were randomly assigned, and 130 started a treatment pathway (with 84 completing at least two pathways) and were analysed for the primary outcome. The 7-day average NRS scores at week 16 decreased from a mean 6·6 (SD 1·5) at baseline to 3·3 (1·8) at week 16 in all three pathways. The mean difference was -0·1 (98·3% CI -0·5 to 0·3) for D-P versus A-P, -0·1 (-0·5 to 0·3) for P-A versus A-P, and 0·0 (-0·4 to 0·4) for P-A versus D-P, and thus not significant. Mean NRS reduction in patients on combination therapy was greater than in those who remained on monotherapy (1·0 [SD 1·3] vs 0·2 [1·5]). Adverse events were predictable for the monotherapies: we observed a significant increase in dizziness in the P-A pathway, nausea in the D-P pathway, and dry mouth in the A-P pathway.

INTERPRETATION

To our knowledge, this was the largest and longest ever, head-to-head, crossover neuropathic pain trial. We showed that all three treatment pathways and monotherapies had similar analgesic efficacy. Combination treatment was well tolerated and led to improved pain relief in patients with suboptimal pain control with a monotherapy.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme.

An overview of painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy: Diagnosis and treatment advancements

Diabetes mellitus remains a public health problem, affecting 422 million people worldwide. Currently, there is no consensus around treating painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy in a step-wise manner. Among the non-pharmacological interventions, neuromodulation has become a promising alternative. Over the past decade, significant clinical trials have paved the way for prompt inclusion of high-frequency spinal cord stimulation within the painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy treatment algorithm. This article aims to provide an updated evidence-based approach for the management of painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy.

Screening, diagnosis and management of diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy in clinical practice: International expert consensus recommendations

Diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy (DSPN) affects around one third of people with diabetes and accounts for considerable morbidity, increased risk of mortality, reduced quality of life, and increased health care costs resulting particularly from neuropathic pain and foot ulcers. Painful DSPN is encountered in 13-26% of diabetes patients, while up to 50% of patients with DSPN may be asymptomatic. Unfortunately, DSPN still remains inadequately diagnosed and treated. Herein we provide international expert consensus recommendations and algorithms for screening, diagnosis, and treatment of DSPN in clinical practice derived from a Delphi process. Typical neuropathic symptoms include pain, paresthesias, and numbness particularly in the feet and calves. Clinical diagnosis of DSPN is based on neuropathic symptoms and signs (deficits). Management of DSPN includes three cornerstones: (1) lifestyle modification, optimal diabetes treatment aimed at near-normoglycemia, and multifactorial cardiovascular risk intervention, (2) pathogenetically oriented pharmacotherapy (e.g. α-lipoic acid and benfotiamine), and (3) symptomatic treatment of neuropathic pain including analgesic pharmacotherapy (antidepressants, anticonvulsants, opioids, capsaicin 8% patch and combinations, if required) and non-pharmacological options. Considering the individual risk profile, pain management should not only aim at pain relief, but also allow for improvement in quality of sleep, functionality, and general quality of life.

Examination of the Novel Sigma-1 Receptor Antagonist, SI 1/28, for Antinociceptive and Anti-allodynic Efficacy against Multiple Types of Nociception with Fewer Liabilities of Use

Neuropathic pain is a significant problem with few effective treatments lacking adverse effects. The sigma-1 receptor (S1R) is a potential therapeutic target for neuropathic pain, as antagonists for this receptor effectively ameliorate pain in both preclinical and clinical studies. The current research examines the antinociceptive and anti-allodynic efficacy of SI 1/28, a recently reported benzylpiperazine derivative and analog of the S1R antagonist SI 1/13, that was 423-fold more selective for S1R over the sigma-2 receptor (S2R). In addition, possible liabilities of respiration, sedation, and drug reinforcement caused by SI 1/28 have been evaluated. Inflammatory and chemical nociception, chronic nerve constriction injury (CCI) induced mechanical allodynia, and adverse effects of sedation in a rotarod assay, conditioned place preference (CPP), and changes in breath rate and locomotor activity were assessed after i.p. administration of SI 1/28. Pretreatment with SI 1/28 produced dose-dependent antinociception in the formalin test, with an ED50 (and 95% C.I.) value of 13.2 (7.42-28.3) mg/kg, i.p. Likewise, SI 1/28 produced dose-dependent antinociception against visceral nociception and anti-allodynia against CCI-induced neuropathic pain. SI 1/28 demonstrated no impairment of locomotor activity, conditioned place preference, or respiratory depression. In summary, SI 1/28 proved efficacious in the treatment of acute inflammatory pain and chronic neuropathy without liabilities at therapeutic doses, supporting the development of S1R antagonists as therapeutics for chronic pain.

The Treatment of Painful Diabetic Neuropathy

Painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (painful-DPN) is a highly prevalent and disabling condition, affecting up to one-third of patients with diabetes. This condition can have a profound impact resulting in a poor quality of life, disruption of employment, impaired sleep, and poor mental health with an excess of depression and anxiety. The management of painful-DPN poses a great challenge. Unfortunately, currently there are no Food and Drug Administration (USA) approved disease-modifying treatments for diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) as trials of putative pathogenetic treatments have failed at phase 3 clinical trial stage. Therefore, the focus of managing painful- DPN other than improving glycaemic control and cardiovascular risk factor modification is treating symptoms. The recommended treatments based on expert international consensus for painful- DPN have remained essentially unchanged for the last decade. Both the serotonin re-uptake inhibitor (SNRI) duloxetine and α2δ ligand pregabalin have the most robust evidence for treating painful-DPN. The weak opioids (e.g. tapentadol and tramadol, both of which have an SNRI effect), tricyclic antidepressants such as amitriptyline and α2δ ligand gabapentin are also widely recommended and prescribed agents. Opioids (except tramadol and tapentadol), should be prescribed with caution in view of the lack of definitive data surrounding efficacy, concerns surrounding addiction and adverse events. Recently, emerging therapies have gained local licenses, including the α2δ ligand mirogabalin (Japan) and the high dose 8% capsaicin patch (FDA and Europe). The management of refractory painful-DPN is difficult; specialist pain services may offer off-label therapies (e.g. botulinum toxin, intravenous lidocaine and spinal cord stimulation), although there is limited clinical trial evidence supporting their use. Additionally, despite combination therapy being commonly used clinically, there is little evidence supporting this practise. There is a need for further clinical trials to assess novel therapeutic agents, optimal combination therapy and existing agents to determine which are the most effective for the treatment of painful-DPN. This article reviews the evidence for the treatment of painful-DPN, including emerging treatment strategies such as novel compounds and stratification of patients according to individual characteristics (e.g. pain phenotype, neuroimaging and genotype) to improve treatment responses.

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.

Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy: Mechanisms and Therapeutic Avenues

Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a serious and often persistent adverse consequence of certain chemotherapeutic agents. It is a major dose-limiting factor of many first-line chemotherapies, affecting 20-50% of patients at standard doses and nearly all patients at high doses. As cancer survivorship continues to increase with improvements in early diagnosis and treatment, more patients will experience CIPN despite completing cancer treatment, which interferes with recovery, leading to chronic pain and worsening quality of life. The National Cancer Institute has identified CIPN as a priority in translational research. To date, there are no FDA-approved drugs for preventing or treating CIPN, with emerging debate on mechanisms and promising new targets. This review highlights current literature and suggests novel approaches to CIPN based on proposed mechanisms of action that aim either to confer neuroprotection against chemotherapy-induced neurotoxicity or reverse the downstream effects of painful neuropathy.

Dual BET/HDAC inhibition to relieve neuropathic pain: Recent advances, perspectives, and future opportunities

Despite the intense research on developing new therapies for neuropathic pain states, available treatments have limited efficacy and unfavorable safety profiles. Epigenetic alterations have a great influence on the development of cancer and neurological diseases, as well as neuropathic pain. Histone acetylation has prevailed as one of the well investigated epigenetic modifications in these diseases. Altered spinal activity of histone deacetylase (HDAC) and Bromo and Extra terminal domain (BET) have been described in neuropathic pain models and restoration of these aberrant epigenetic modifications showed pain-relieving activity. Over the last decades HDACs and BETs have been the focus of drug discovery studies, leading to the development of numerous small-molecule inhibitors. Clinical trials to evaluate their anticancer activity showed good efficacy but raised toxicity concerns that limited translation to the clinic. To maximize activity and minimize toxicity, these compounds can be applied in combination of sub-maximal doses to produce additive or synergistic interactions (combination therapy). Recently, of particular interest, dual BET/HDAC inhibitors (multi-target drugs) have been developed to assure simultaneous modulation of BET and HDAC activity by a single molecule. This review will summarize the most recent advances with these strategies, describing advantages and limitations of single drug treatment vs combination regimens. This review will also provide a focus on dual BET/HDAC drug discovery investigations as future therapeutic opportunity for human therapy of neuropathic pain.

Urinary side effects of psychotropic drugs: A systematic review and metanalysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of psychotropic drugs on bladder function.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review was carried out by searching PubMed and Embase databases for randomized controlled trials enrolling patients treated with psychotropic drugs with available information on treatment-related urinary disorders.

RESULTS

A total of 52 studies was selected. In antidepressant therapy, bladder voiding symptoms, rather than storage symptoms, were more frequently observed. Pooled analysis demonstrated a higher odds ratio (OR) of voiding  disorders in comparison with placebo (OR: 3.30; confidence interval [CI]: 1.90-5.72; 7856 participants; p < 0.001). Odds for voiding dysfunction was higher for tricyclic antidepressants and for Serotonin and Norepinephrine Reuptake Inhibitors (SNRIs) when compared to Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs). Treatment with antipsychotics was associated with heterogeneous urinary disorders  including emptying and storage disorders. OR for incontinence in patients with dementia taking  antipsychotics was higher than placebo (OR: 4.09; CI: 1.71-9.79, p = 0.002) with no difference between different atypical antipsychotics. Rate of voiding disorders was not different between conventional and atypical antipsychotics (OR: 1.64; CI: 0.79-3.39, p = 0.19), although quetiapine showed higher odds to cause voiding dysfunction than other atypical antipsychotics (OR: 2.14; CI: 1.41-3.26; p > 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients taking tricyclic antidepressants or SNRIs, bladder voiding disorders, could be the side effects of therapy rather than symptoms of a urological disease. Patients treated with these drugs should be actively monitored for the appearance of urinary symptoms. Antipsychotic treatment is associated with various urinary side effects requiring a tailored approach.

Treatment of neuropathic pain

Background: Neuropathic pain presents a therapeutic challenge because patients cannot be relieved from it, even when all known medical options have been tried. Several treatment guidelines have been provided, and several pharmacotherapies have been proposed with non-pharmacological treatments. This study aimed to present the current pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments used to treat patients with neuropathic pain. Furthermore, several treatment guidelines for neuropathic pain are compared.Current Concepts: Tricyclic antidepressants, gabapentinoids, and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors are the first-line agents recommended by clinical guidelines in several countries. Tramadol and topical agents are recommended as second-line agents. Opioids and cannabinoids are recommended as third-line agents; cannabinoids are recommended by Canadian treatment guidelines. Combination therapy may be more effective because it results in synergistic pain-relieving effects, and the individual drug dose may be lower. Non-pharmacologic treatment is recommended as third-line or supplementary management because of the lack of evidence.Discussion and Conclusion: Several guidelines have recommended similar drugs; however, it is impossible to completely cure neuropathic pain. Therefore, therapeutic goals must be realistically discussed to improve patient compliance. In addition, additional studies based on pathophysiological mechanisms should be conducted to improve the management of neuropathic pain.

Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled crossover trial of alpha-lipoic acid for the treatment of fibromyalgia pain: the IMPALA trial

ABSTRACT

Fibromyalgia is a common and challenging chronic pain disorder with few, if any, highly effective and well-tolerated treatments. Alpha-lipoic acid (ALA) is a nonsedating antioxidant with evidence of efficacy in the treatment of symptomatic diabetic neuropathy that has not been evaluated in the setting of fibromyalgia treatment. Thus, we conducted a single-centre, proof-of-concept, randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover trial of ALA for the treatment of fibromyalgia. Twenty-seven participants were recruited, and 24 participants completed both treatment periods of the trial. The median maximal tolerated dose of ALA in this trial was 1663 mg/day. Treatment-emergent adverse events with ALA were infrequent and not statistically different from placebo. For the primary outcome of pain intensity, and for several other validated secondary outcomes, there were no statistically significant differences between placebo and ALA. A post hoc exploratory subgroup analysis showed a significant interaction between gender and treatment with a significant favourable placebo-ALA difference in pain for men, but not for women. Overall, the results of this trial do not provide any evidence to suggest promise for ALA as an effective treatment for fibromyalgia, which is predominantly prevalent in women. This negative clinical trial represents an important step in a collective strategy to identify new, better tolerated and more effective treatments for fibromyalgia.

Protopanaxadiol alleviates neuropathic pain by spinal microglial dynorphin A expression following glucocorticoid receptor activation

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

New remedies are required for the treatment of neuropathic pain due to insufficient efficacy of available therapies. This study provides a novel approach to develop painkillers for chronic pain treatment.

EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

The rat formalin pain test and spinal nerve ligation model of neuropathic pain were used to evaluate antinociception of protopanaxadiol. Primary cell cultures, immunofluorescence staining, and gene and protein expression were also performed for mechanism studies.

KEY RESULTS

Gavage protopanaxadiol remarkably produces pain antihypersensitive effects in neuropathic pain, bone cancer pain and inflammatory pain, with efficacy comparable with gabapentin. Long-term PPD administration does not induce antihypersensitive tolerance, but prevents and reverses the development and expression of morphine analgesic tolerance. Oral protopanaxadiol specifically stimulates spinal expression of dynorphin A in microglia but not in astrocytes or neurons. Protopanaxadiol gavage-related pain antihypersensitivity is abolished by the intrathecal pretreatment with the microglial metabolic inhibitor minocycline, dynorphin antiserum or specific κ-opioid receptor antagonist GNTI. Intrathecal pretreatment with glucocorticoid receptor)antagonists RU486 and dexamethasone-21-mesylate, but not GPR-30 antagonist G15 or mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist eplerenone, completely attenuates protopanaxadiol-induced spinal dynorphin A expression and pain antihypersensitivity in neuropathic pain. Treatment with protopanaxadiol, the glucocorticoid receptor agonist dexamethasone and membrane-impermeable glucocorticoid receptor agonist dexamethasone-BSA in cultured microglia induces remarkable dynorphin A expression, which is totally blocked by pretreatment with dexamthasone-21-mesylate.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

All the results, for the first time, indicate that protopanaxadiol produces pain antihypersensitivity in neuropathic pain probably through spinal microglial dynorphin A expression after glucocorticoid receptor activation and hypothesize that microglial membrane glucocorticoid receptor/dynorphin A pathway is a potential target to discover and develop novel painkillers in chronic pain.

Considerations for single- versus multiple-drug pharmacotherapy in the management of painful diabetic neuropathy

INTRODUCTION

The efficacy of monotherapy to reduce pain from diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) is frequently not satisfactory and guidelines do not provide unanimous treatment options. In this context, multiple drug pharmacotherapy may provide benefit.

AREAS COVERED

The aim of the present review is to describe the clinical trials addressing the pharmacotherapy of painful DPN. Studies discussing efficacy and tolerability of pharmacological agents that were assessed in monotherapy and in combination treatment are reported and discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

Several clinical trials have reported benefit of multiple-drug pharmacotherapy. Nevertheless, untoward effects of combination treatment are of concern. Importantly, some trials were restricted to comparison with placebo and other compared only with active comparator(s). Only limited clinical trials assessed selected cohorts of individuals experiencing different stages of painful DPN. Despite current limitations, some evidence of studies implicating a comparison to all active comparators points to safety and effectiveness of the combination of oxycodone with pregabalin and that of pregabalin with the 5% lidocaine plaster but future, clear-cut studies are required to drive evidence-based decisions in the clinical setting.

Sigma-1 receptor antagonist (BD-1063) potentiates the antinociceptive effect of quercetin in neuropathic pain induced by chronic constriction injury

Neuropathic pain is characterized by the presence of hyperalgesia and allodynia. Pharmacological treatments include the use of antiepileptics such as pregabalin or gabapentin, as well as antidepressants; however, given the role of the sigma-1 receptor in the generation and maintenance of pain, it has been suggested that sigma-1 receptor antagonists may be effective. There are also other alternatives that have been explored, such as the use of flavonoids such as quercetin. Due to the relevance of drug combinations in therapeutics, the objective of this work was to evaluate the effect of the combination of BD-1063 with quercetin in a chronic sciatic nerve constriction model using the "Surface of Synergistic Interaction" analysis method. The combination had preferable additive or synergistic effects, with BD-1063 (17.8 mg/kg) + QUER (5.6 mg/kg) showing the best antinociceptive effects. The required doses were also lower than those used individually to obtain the same level of effect. Our results provide the first evidence that the combination of a sigma-1 receptor antagonist and the flavonoid quercetin may be useful in the treatment of nociceptive behaviors associated with neuropathic pain, suggesting a new therapeutic alternative for this type of pain.

Neuropathic Pain in the Elderly

Neuropathic pain due to a lesion or a disease of the somatosensory system often affects older people presenting several comorbidities. Moreover, elderly patients are often poly-medicated, hospitalized and treated in a nursing home with a growing risk of drug interaction and recurrent hospitalization. Neuropathic pain in the elderly has to be managed by a multidimensional approach that involves several medical, social and psychological professionals in order to improve the quality of life of the patients and, where present, their relatives.

Small Fiber Neuropathy in the Elderly

Small fiber neuropathy is common and prevalent in the elderly. The disease can be associated with many medical conditions. It often has a negative impact on quality of life due to painful paresthesia, dizziness, and sedative side effects of pain medications. Skin biopsy is the gold standard diagnostic test. Screening for associated conditions is important, because etiology-specific treatment can slow down disease progression and ameliorate symptoms. Adequate pain control can be challenging due to safety and tolerability of pain medications in the elderly. Treatment should be individualized with the goals of controlling underlying causes, alleviating pain, and optimizing daily function.

Oral Gabapentinoids and Nerve Blocks for the Treatment of Chronic Ocular Pain

PURPOSE

There is a recognition that nerve dysfunction can contribute to chronic ocular pain in some individuals. However, limited data are available on how to treat individuals with a presumed neuropathic component to their ocular pain. As such, the purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy of our treatment approaches to this entity.

METHODS

A retrospective review of treatments and outcomes in individuals with chronic ocular pain that failed traditional therapies.

RESULTS

We started eight patients on an oral gabapentinoid (gabapentin and/or pregabalin) as part of their pain regimen (mean age 46 years, 50% women). Two individuals reported complete ocular pain relief with a gabapentinoid, in conjunction with their topical and oral medication regimen. Three individuals noted significant improvements, one slight improvement, and two others no improvement in ocular pain with gabapentin or pregabalin. We performed periocular nerve blocks (4 mL of 0.5% bupivacaine mixed with 1 mL of 80 mg/mL methylprednisolone acetate) targeting the periocular nerves (supraorbital, supratrochlear, infratrochlear, and infraorbital) in 11 individuals (mean age 54 years, 36% women), 10 of whom had previously used a gabapentinoid without ocular pain improvement. Seven individuals experienced pain relief after nerve blocks that lasted from hours to months and four failed to benefit. Five of the individuals who experienced pain relief underwent repeat nerve blocks, weeks to months later.

CONCLUSIONS

Approaches used to treat chronic pain outside the eye can be applied to ocular pain that is not responsive to traditional therapies.

The effect of a topical combination of clonidine and pentoxifylline on post-traumatic neuropathic pain patients: study protocol for a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

First-line pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain entails the use of systemic antidepressants and anticonvulsants. These drugs are not optimally effective and poorly tolerated, especially for older patients with comorbid conditions. Given the high number of such patients, there is a need for a greater repertoire of safer and more effective analgesics. Clonidine and pentoxifylline are vasodilator agents that work synergistically to enhance tissue perfusion and oxygenation. The topical administration of these drugs, individually and in combination, has shown anti-nociceptive properties in rodent models of neuropathic pain. A topically-administered combination of clonidine and pentoxifylline also effectively reduced the intensity of both spontaneous and evoked pain in healthy volunteers with experimentally-induced neuropathic pain. The next step in advancing this formulation to clinical use is the undertaking of a phase II clinical study to assess its efficacy and safety in neuropathic pain patients.

METHODS/DESIGN

This is a study protocol for a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase II clinical trial with a cross-over design. It is a single-centered, 5-week study that will enroll a total of 32 patients with post-traumatic peripheral neuropathic pain. Patients will be treated topically with either a combination of clonidine and pentoxifylline or placebo for a period of 2 weeks each, in randomly assigned order across patients, with an intervening washout period of 1 week. The primary outcome measures of the study are the intensity of spontaneous pain recorded daily in a pain diary with a visual analog scale, and the degree of mechanical allodynia evoked by a brush stimulus. The secondary outcome measures of the study include scores of pain relief and change in the area of punctate hyperalgesia. This trial has been prospectively registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on November 1, 2017. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03342950 .

DISCUSSION

The analgesic use of topical treatment with clonidine and pentoxifylline in combination has not been investigated in post-traumatic neuropathic pain. This study could generate the first evidence for the efficacy and safety of the formulation in alleviating pain in patients with neuropathic pain. Furthermore, this trial will provide objective grounds for the investigation of other agents that enhance tissue oxygenation in the topical treatment of peripheral neuropathic pain.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial has been registered with ClinicalTrials.gov owned by NIH's US National Library of Medicine. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03342950 . Registered on November 1, 2017 (trial was prospectively registered).

PROTOCOL VERSION AND IDENTIFIERS

This is protocol version 5, dated June 2018. McGill University Health Center (MUHC) Reaseach Ethics Board (REB) identification number: TTNP 2018-3906.

Evaluating the impact of gabapentinoids on sleep health in patients with chronic neuropathic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Chronic neuropathic pain (NP) is debilitating and impacts sleep health and quality of life. Treatment with gabapentinoids (GBs) has been shown to reduce pain, but its effects on sleep health have not been systematically evaluated. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the relationship between GB therapy dose and duration on sleep quality, daytime somnolence, and intensity of pain in patients with NP. Subgroup comparisons were planned for high- vs low-dose GBs, where 300 mg per day or more of pregabalin was used to classify high-dose therapy. Trial data were segregated by duration less than 6 weeks and 6 weeks or greater. Twenty randomized controlled trials were included. Primary outcome measures included pain-related sleep interference and incidence of daytime somnolence. Secondary outcomes included daily pain scores (numerical rating scale 0-10) and patient global impression of change. Significant improvement in sleep quality was observed after 6 weeks of GB treatment when compared with placebo (standardized mean difference 0.39, 95% confidence interval 0.32-0.46 P < 0.001). Increased daytime somnolence was observed among all GB-treated groups when compared with placebo. Treated patients were also more likely to report improvement of patient global impression of change scores. Pain scores decreased significantly in patients both after 6 weeks of treatment (P < 0.001) and in trials less than 6 weeks (P = 0.017) when compared with placebo. Our data demonstrate that GBs have a positive impact on sleep health, quality of life, and pain in patients with NP syndromes. However, these benefits come at the expense of daytime somnolence.

Pharmacotherapy to Manage Central Post-Stroke Pain

Central post-stroke pain is a chronic neuropathic pain syndrome following a cerebrovascular accident. The development of central post-stroke pain is estimated to occur in 8 to 55% of stroke patients and is described as constant or intermittent neuropathic pain accompanied by dysesthesia of temperature and/or pressure sensations. These pain and sensory deficits are within the area of the body corresponding to the stroke lesion. The onset of pain is usually gradual, though it can develop either immediately after stroke or years after. Given the diversity in its clinical presentation, central post-stroke pain is a challenging diagnosis of exclusion. Furthermore, central post-stroke pain is often resistant to pharmacological treatment options and a clear therapeutic algorithm has not been established. Based on current evidence, amitriptyline, lamotrigine, and gabapentinoids should be used as first-line pharmacotherapy options when central post-stroke pain is suspected. Other drugs, such as fluvoxamine, steroids, and Intravenous infusions of lidocaine, ketamine, or even propofol, can be considered in intractable cases. In addition, interventional therapies such as motor cortex stimulation or transcranial magnetic stimulation have been shown to provide relief in difficult-to-treat patients.