Lamotrigine monotherapy for control of neuralgia after nerve section

Postcraniotomy Headache: Etiologies and Treatments

Purpose of Review

Postcraniotomy headache (PCH) is a highly underappreciated and very common adverse event following craniotomy.

Recent Findings

Analgetic medication with opioids often interferes with neurologic evaluation in the acute phase of recovery and should be kept to a minimal, in general, in the treatment of chronic pain as well. We provide an update on the latest evidence for the management of acute and chronic PCH.

Summary

Especially in the neurosurgical setting, enhanced recovery after surgery protocols need to include a special focus on pain control. Patients at risk of developing chronic pain must be identified and treated as early as possible.

Update on neuropathic pain treatment: ion channel blockers and gabapentinoids

Neuropathic pain is a debilitating chronic pain condition, which remains difficult to treat. The current mainstays of treatment include physical therapy, interventional procedures and medications. Among medications, ion channel blockers and gabapentinoids are the 2 classes of drugs commonly used to treat neuropathic pain. It has been suggested that these medications may be useful to treat a variety of neuropathic pain conditions. This article provides several updates on the utility of both ion channel blockers and gabapentinoids for the treatment of neuropathic pain.

Lamotrigine for chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

This is an update of the original Cochrane review entitled Lamotrigine for acute and chronic pain published in Issue 2, 2007, and updated in Issue 2, 2011. Some antiepileptic medicines have a place in the treatment of neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage). This updated review adds no new additional studies looking at evidence for lamotrigine as an effective treatment for chronic neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia. The update uses higher standards of evidence than previously.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy of lamotrigine in the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia, and to evaluate adverse effects reported in the studies.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of lamotrigine for chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia (including cancer pain) from MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). We ran searches for the original review in 2006, in 2011 for the first update, and subsequent searches in August 2013 for this update. We sought additional studies from the reference lists of the retrieved papers. The original review and first update included acute pain, but no acute pain studies were identified.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs investigating the use of lamotrigine (any dose, by any route, and for any study duration) for the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia. Assessment of pain intensity or pain relief, or both, using validated scales. Participants were adults aged 18 and over. We included only full journal publication articles.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality. We performed analysis using three tiers of evidence. The first tier used data where studies reported the outcome of at least 50% pain reduction from baseline, lasted at least eight weeks, had a parallel group design, included 200 or more participants in the comparison, and reported an intention-to-treat analysis. First-tier studies did not use last observation carried forward (LOCF) or other imputational methods for dropouts. The second tier used data that failed to meet this standard and second-tier results were therefore subject to potential bias.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve included studies in 11 publications (1511 participants), all with chronic neuropathic pain: central post-stroke pain (1), chemotherapy-induced neuropathic pain (1), diabetic neuropathy (4), HIV-related neuropathy (2), mixed neuropathic pain (2), spinal cord injury-related pain (1), and trigeminal neuralgia (1). We did not identify any additional studies. Participants were aged between 26 and 77 years. Study duration was two weeks in one study and at least six weeks in the remainder; eight were of eight-week duration or longer.No study provided first-tier evidence for an efficacy outcome. There was no convincing evidence that lamotrigine is effective in treating neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia at doses of 200 mg to 400 mg daily. Almost 10% of participants taking lamotrigine reported a skin rash.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Large, high-quality, long-duration studies reporting clinically useful levels of pain relief for individual participants provided no convincing evidence that lamotrigine is effective in treating neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia at doses of about 200 to 400 mg daily. Given the availability of more effective treatments including antiepileptics and antidepressant medicines, lamotrigine does not have a significant place in therapy based on the available evidence. The adverse effect profile of lamotrigine is also of concern.

Lamotrigine for acute and chronic pain

BACKGROUND

This is an update of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 2, 2007. Some antiepileptic medicines have a place in the treatment of neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage). This updated review adds five new additional studies looking at evidence for Lamotrigine as an effective treatment for acute and chronic pain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of the antiepileptic drug lamotrigine in acute and chronic pain.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of lamotrigine in acute, and chronic pain (including cancer pain) were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL up to January 2011. Additional studies were sought from the reference list of the retrieved papers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs investigating the use of lamotrigine (any dose, by any route, and for any study duration) for the treatment of acute or chronic pain. Assessment of pain intensity or pain relief, or both, using validated scales. Participants were adults aged 18 and over. Only full journal publication articles were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Dichotomous data (ideally for the outcome of at least 50% pain relief) were used to calculate relative risk with 95% confidence intervals. Meta-analysis was undertaken using a fixed-effect model. Numbers needed to treat to benefit (NNTs) were calculated as the reciprocal of the absolute risk reduction. For unwanted effects, the NNT becomes the number needed to harm (NNH) and was calculated.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve included studies in 11 publications (1511 participants), all with chronic neuropathic pain: central post stroke pain (1), chemotherapy induced neuropathic pain (1), diabetic neuropathy (4), HIV related neuropathy (2), mixed neuropathic pain (2), spinal cord injury related pain (1), and trigeminal neuralgia (1); none investigated lamotrigine in acute pain. The update had five additional studies (1111 additional participants). Participants were aged between 26 and 77 years. Study duration was 2 weeks in one study and at least 6 weeks in the remainder; eight were of eight week duration or longer. There is no convincing evidence that lamotrigine is effective in treating acute or chronic pain at doses of about 200-400 mg daily. Almost 10% of participants taking lamotrigine reported a skin rash.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The additional studies tripled participant numbers providing data for analysis, and new, more stringent criteria for outcomes and analysis were used; conclusions about lamotrigine's lack of efficacy in chronic pain did not change. Given availability of more effective treatments including antiepileptics and antidepressant medicines, lamotrigine does not have a significant place in therapy based on available evidence.

Efficacy of lamotrigine in the management of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: a phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, N01C3

BACKGROUND

Lamotrigine, an antiepileptic agent, has been reported as being effective in reducing symptoms of neuropathy associated with various etiologies. Based on such data, a multicenter double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial was conducted to evaluate the effect of lamotrigine on pain and other neuropathic symptoms due to chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN).

METHODS

Patients with symptomatic CIPN with symptom scores of either 1) >3 on a 0-10 Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) or 2) >1 on the 0-3 the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) neuropathy scale (ENS) were eligible (higher numbers corresponding to greater severity of symptoms in both scales). Patients were randomly assigned to receive lamotrigine (target dose of 300 mg/day) or placebo for 10 weeks. Endpoints were measured biweekly.

RESULTS

In all, 131 patients were enrolled. Both groups were well matched at baseline. Over the 10-week period of the trial, the average pain scores (NRS) for the lamotrigine and placebo arms declined in both arms, with no statistically significant difference noted between the changes in the 2 groups (0.3 and 0.5 unit reduction from baseline, respectively; P=.56). Similarly, decreases in the ENS with therapy were not statistically different (0.4 and 0.3, respectively; P=.3). Changes in other subjective symptom scales were also not found to be statistically different between the 2 groups. Toxicities were mild and similar in each group.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that lamotrigine is not effective for relieving neuropathic symptoms in patients because of CIPN.

Double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of lamotrigine in combination with other medications for neuropathic pain

This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was undertaken to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of lamotrigine added to gabapentin, a tricyclic antidepressant, or a nonopioid analgesic in patients whose neuropathic pain was inadequately controlled with these medications. Patients with neuropathic pain from diabetic peripheral neuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, traumatic/surgical nerve injury, incomplete spinal cord injury, trigeminal neuralgia, multiple sclerosis, or HIV-associated peripheral neuropathy, who had a mean weekly pain score > or =4 on an 11-point numerical rating scale, were randomized to receive a flexible dose of lamotrigine 200, 300, or 400mg daily (n=111) or placebo (n=109) for up to 14 weeks (including eight weeks of dose escalation) in addition to their prestudy regimen of gabapentin, a tricyclic antidepressant, or a nonopioid analgesic. No statistically significant difference in the mean change in pain-intensity score from baseline to Week 14 (primary endpoint) was detected between lamotrigine and placebo (P=0.67). Differences between lamotrigine and placebo were not statistically significant for secondary efficacy assessments, including mean changes from baseline in the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire, the Neuropathic Pain Scale, rescue medication use, and the percentages of patients rated as much improved or very much improved at the end of treatment on the Clinician Global Impression of Change scale and the Patient Global Impression of Change scale. Lamotrigine was generally well tolerated. Lamotrigine (up to 400 mg/day) added to gabapentin, a tricyclic antidepressant, or a nonopioid analgesic did not demonstrate efficacy as an adjunctive treatment of neuropathic pain but was generally safe and well tolerated.

Lamotrigine for acute and chronic pain

BACKGROUND

Anticonvulsant medicines have a place in the treatment of neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage). This review looks at the evidence for the pain relieving properties of lamotrigine.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of the anticonvulsant lamotrigine for acute and chronic pain.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) of lamotrigine (and key brand names Lamictal, Lamictin, Neurium) in acute, chronic or cancer pain were identified from MEDLINE (1966 to August 2006), EMBASE 1994 to August 2006 and the CENTRAL register on The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2006). Additional reports were sought from the reference list of the retrieved papers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs investigating the use of lamotrigine (any dose and by any route) for treatment of acute or chronic pain. Assessment of pain intensity or pain relief, or both, using validated scales. Participants were adults aged 18 and over. Only full journal publication articles were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Dichotomous data were used to calculate relative risk with 95% confidence intervals using a fixed effects model unless significant statistical heterogeneity was found. Continuous data was also reported where available. Meta-analysis was undertaken using a fixed effect model unless significant heterogeneity was present (I(2) >50%) in which case a random effects model was used. Numbers-needed-to-treat (NNTs) were calculated as the reciprocal of the absolute risk reduction. For unwanted effects, the NNT becomes the number-needed-to-harm (NNH) and was calculated.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixteen studies were identified. Nine studies were excluded. No studies for acute pain were identified. The seven included studies involved 502 participants, all for neuropathic pain. The studies covered the following conditions: central post stroke pain (1), diabetic neuropathy (1), HIV related neuropathy (2), intractable neuropathic pain (1), spinal cord injury related pain (1) and trigeminal neuralgia (1). The studies included participants in the age range of 26 to 77 years. Only one study for HIV related neuropathy had a statistically significant result for a sub group of patients on anti-retroviral therapy; this result is unlikely to be clinically significant NNT 4.3 (95% CI 2.3 to 37). Approximately 7% of participants taking lamotrigine reported a skin rash.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Given the availability of more effective treatments including anticonvulsants and antidepressant medicines, lamotrigine does not have a significant place in therapy at present. The limited evidence currently available suggests that lamotrigine is unlikely to be of benefit for the treatment of neuropathic pain.

Lamotrigine for treatment of pain associated with diabetic neuropathy: results of two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies

To assess the efficacy and tolerability of lamotrigine in pain associated with diabetic neuropathy, two replicate randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies were conducted. Patients (n=360 per study) with painful diabetic neuropathy were randomized to receive lamotrigine 200, 300, or 400 mg daily or placebo during the 19-week treatment phase, including a 7-week dose-escalation phase and a 12-week, fixed-dose maintenance phase. The mean reduction in pain-intensity score from baseline to week 19 (primary endpoint) was greater (p < or = 0.05) in patients receiving lamotrigine 400 mg than placebo in Study 2 (observed scores, -2.7 versus -1.6 on a 0- to 10-point scale). This finding was not replicated in Study 1. Lamotrigine 200 and 300 mg did not significantly differ from placebo at week 19 in either study. Lamotrigine 300 and 400 mg were only occasionally more effective than placebo for secondary efficacy endpoints. The 200-mg dose did not separate from placebo. In a post hoc analysis of pooled data including only patients who reached their target dose, lamotrigine 400 mg conferred greater (p0.05) mean reduction in pain-intensity score from baseline to week 19 than placebo (-2.5 for 300 mg and -2.7 for 400mg versus -2.0 for placebo). Adverse events were reported in 71-82% of lamotrigine-treated patients compared with 63-70% of placebo-treated patients. The most common adverse events with lamotrigine were headache and rash. Compared with placebo, lamotrigine (300 and 400 mg daily) was inconsistently effective for pain associated with diabetic neuropathy but was generally safe and well tolerated.

Acute and chronic pain following craniotomy: a review

Postoperative pain is an important clinical problem that has received increasing attention in recent years. However, pain following craniotomy has been a comparatively neglected topic; this review seeks to redress this imbalance. A brief overview of the anatomy of the skull and its linings is given, with particular reference to innervation. The various approaches for craniotomies are classified, with their association with acute and long-term effects on analgesic requirements. A comprehensive search of the literature was undertaken to ascertain the incidence of acute pain post craniotomy and current thoughts on pharmacological management, touching briefly on pre-emptive treatment. Also discussed is the much neglected but nevertheless real incidence of chronic pain following craniotomy and its underlying pathogenesis, prevention and treatment.

Phenoxyphenyl Pyridines as Novel State-Dependent, High-Potency Sodium Channel Inhibitors

In the search for more efficacious drugs to treat neuropathic pain states, a series of phenoxyphenyl pyridines was designed based on 4-(4-flurophenoxy)benzaldehyde semicarbazone. Through variation of the substituents on the pyridine ring, several potent state-dependent sodium channel inhibitors were identified. From these compounds, 23 dose dependently reversed tactile allodynia in the Chung model of neuropathic pain. Administered orally at 10 mg/kg the level of reversal was ca. 50%, comparable to the effect of carbamazepine administered orally at 100 mg/kg.

Pharmacological management of neuropathic pain

In health, the nervous system exists in a balance between inhibitory and excitatory influences. This balance may be upset if neural tissue is damaged or irritated and may give rise to neuropathic pain. Such neuropathic pain does not respond consistently to opioid analgesics or NSAIDs and it may therefore be necessary to utilise other therapeutic agents with known activity on either the excitatory or inhibitory components of the pain pathway. These other agents are traditionally considered with reference to their original uses; we still refer to tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) and anticonvulsant drugs when a consideration of their modes of action may allow more rational use. For example, carbamazepine is related to the TCAs by virtue of its chemical structure and proposed mode of action and yet is still classified as an anticonvulsant drug. With respect to the opioids, increasing evidence points to an analgesic effect in neuropathic pain, although concerns regarding tolerance and dependence still prevent more widespread use. The anticonvulsants comprise a group of compounds possessing anticonvulsant and analgesic properties, but each possesses differing modes of action and so several members of the class should be tried before a conclusion is reached that they, as a whole, are ineffective. TCAs may also have a role in the treatment of neuropathic pain. As with all drugs, if their use is not associated with pain relief in a defined period of time, their use should be terminated. Topical TCAs may also have a role where the area of neuropathic pain is small. Other options, such as SSRIs, membrane stabilisers, capsaicin, baclofen and clonidine may have potential in treating neuropathic pain. The available evidence regarding the efficacy of currently available agents for the treatment of neuropathic pain is sparse. With the knowledge of achieving analgesia, according to the modes of actions of various agents it is hoped that the treatment of this difficult condition may be more logical and successful.