Intrathecal gabapentin to treat chronic intractable noncancer pain

Chronic pain for rheumatological disorders: Pathophysiology, therapeutics and evidence

Pain is the leading reason people seek orthopedic and rheumatological care. By definition, most pain can be classified as nociceptive, or pain resulting from non-neural tissue injury or potential injury, with between 15% and 50% of individuals suffering from concomitant neuropathic pain or the newest category of pain, nociplastic pain, defined as "pain arising from altered nociception despite no clear evidence of actual or threatened tissue damage, or of a disease or lesion affecting the somatosensory system." Pain classification is important because it affects treatment decisions at all levels of care. Although several instruments can assist with classifying treatment, physician designation is the reference standard. The appropriate treatment of pain should ideally involve multidisciplinary care including physical therapy, psychotherapy and integrative therapies when appropriate, and pharmacotherapy with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for acute, mechanical pain, membrane stabilizers for neuropathic and nociplastic pain, and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors and tricyclic antidepressants for all types of pain. For nonsurgical interventions, there is evidence to support a small effect for epidural steroid injections for an intermediate-term duration, and conflicting evidence for radiofrequency ablation to provide at least 6months of benefit for facet joint pain, knee osteoarthritis, and sacroiliac joint pain. Since pain and disability represent the top reason for elective surgery, it should be reserved for patients who fail conservative interventions. Risk factors for procedural failure are the same as risk factors for conservative treatment failure and include greater disease burden, psychopathology, opioid use, central sensitization and multiple comorbid pain conditions, poorly controlled preoperative and postoperative pain, and secondary gain.

Gabapentin-Friend or foe?

BACKGROUND

Gabapentin is a recommended first-line agent for treating neuropathic pain; however, its efficacy rate is reportedly low, and the risk of adverse events is high. A plausible explanation for this lies with its wide range of actions, the entirety of which have yet to be fully elucidated.

METHODS

A review of the literature was conducted on gabapentin's known and proposed analgesic mechanisms of action, as well as potentially opposing or detrimental actions.

RESULTS

Gabapentin's classical analgesic mechanisms involve direct attenuation of excitatory neurotransmission in the spinal cord via inhibition of neuronal ion channels, while indirect mechanisms include descending inhibition and block of injury-evoked synaptogenesis. Glial effects have also been reported; however, whether they are neuroprotective or detrimental is unknown. Furthermore, data from animal models do not reflect clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Gabapentin's clinical use should be reconsidered according to the net effects of its numerous assumed actions, including the tripartite synapse and oligodendrocyte effects. Whether it is doing more harm than good, especially in the scenarios of incomplete or loss of response, warrants consideration when prescribing gabapentin.

The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline of Interventional Treatments for Low Back Pain

Introduction

Painful lumbar spinal disorders represent a leading cause of disability in the US and worldwide. Interventional treatments for lumbar disorders are an effective treatment for the pain and disability from low back pain. Although many established and emerging interventional procedures are currently available, there exists a need for a defined guideline for their appropriateness, effectiveness, and safety.

Objective

The ASPN Back Guideline was developed to provide clinicians the most comprehensive review of interventional treatments for lower back disorders. Clinicians should utilize the ASPN Back Guideline to evaluate the quality of the literature, safety, and efficacy of interventional treatments for lower back disorders.

Methods

The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) identified an educational need for a comprehensive clinical guideline to provide evidence-based recommendations. Experts from the fields of Anesthesiology, Physiatry, Neurology, Neurosurgery, Radiology, and Pain Psychology developed the ASPN Back Guideline. The world literature in English was searched using Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, BioMed Central, Web of Science, Google Scholar, PubMed, Current Contents Connect, Scopus, and meeting abstracts to identify and compile the evidence (per section) for back-related pain. Search words were selected based upon the section represented. Identified peer-reviewed literature was critiqued using United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria and consensus points are presented.

Results

After a comprehensive review and analysis of the available evidence, the ASPN Back Guideline group was able to rate the literature and provide therapy grades to each of the most commonly available interventional treatments for low back pain.

Conclusion

The ASPN Back Guideline represents the first comprehensive analysis and grading of the existing and emerging interventional treatments available for low back pain. This will be a living document which will be periodically updated to the current standard of care based on the available evidence within peer-reviewed literature.

Development of a spontaneous pain indicator based on brain cellular calcium using deep learning

Chronic pain remains an intractable condition in millions of patients worldwide. Spontaneous ongoing pain is a major clinical problem of chronic pain and is extremely challenging to diagnose and treat compared to stimulus-evoked pain. Although extensive efforts have been made in preclinical studies, there still exists a mismatch in pain type between the animal model and humans (i.e., evoked vs. spontaneous), which obstructs the translation of knowledge from preclinical animal models into objective diagnosis and effective new treatments. Here, we developed a deep learning algorithm, designated AI-bRNN (Average training, Individual test-bidirectional Recurrent Neural Network), to detect spontaneous pain information from brain cellular Ca²⁺ activity recorded by two-photon microscopy imaging in awake, head-fixed mice. AI-bRNN robustly determines the intensity and time points of spontaneous pain even in chronic pain models and evaluates the efficacy of analgesics in real time. Furthermore, AI-bRNN can be applied to various cell types (neurons and glia), brain areas (cerebral cortex and cerebellum) and forms of somatosensory input (itch and pain), proving its versatile performance. These results suggest that our approach offers a clinically relevant, quantitative, real-time preclinical evaluation platform for pain medicine, thereby accelerating the development of new methods for diagnosing and treating human patients with chronic pain.

A microscopy technique coupled with an artificial intelligence (AI) platform could help researchers discover new types of pain-relief medicines. A team from South Korea led by Sun Kwang Kim of Kyung Hee University and Sang Jeong Kim of Seoul National University created a machine-learning algorithm that converts calcium signaling data in the brain, as estimated via imaging on genetically engineered mice, into a measurement of pain intensity. The researchers applied the technique to several mouse models of chronic pain and showed that it accurately captured the analgesic effects of known painkillers. They also extended the system to multiple brain regions, cell types and another brain-controlled sensory process, itch. The researchers propose using the AI-based tool to evaluate candidate anti-pain and anti-itch medicines ahead of human trials.

Overcoming clinical challenges of refractory neuropathic pain

INTRODUCTION

: Refractory neuropathic pain (ReNP), and its definition, is widely disputed amongst clinicians due in part to unclear categorical diagnosing guidelines, overall time duration of neuropathic pain, and the exhaustiveness of treatment options. Usually ReNP is defined as chronic, intractable, and unresponsive neuropathic pain that have otherwise been untreatable.

AREAS COVERED

: In this narrative review, we discuss and summarize the effectiveness of prospective ReNP research conducted over the past 10 years. This research looks at pharmacological and interventional therapies in clinical trial settings. The pharmacological therapies discussed include the use of adjuvant treatments to improve the safety and efficacy of conventional approaches. Different modalities of administration, such as injection therapy and intrathecal drug delivery systems, provide targeted drug delivery. Interventional therapies such as neuromodulation, pulse radiofrequency, and nerve lesioning are more invasive, however, they are increasingly utilized in the field, as reflected in ongoing clinical trials.

EXPERT OPINION

: Based on the current data from RCTs and systematic reviews, it is clear that single drug therapy cannot be effective and has significant limitations. Transitioning to interventional modalities that showed more promising results sooner rather than later may be even more cost-efficient than attempting different conservative treatments with a high failure rate.

Verbascoside administered intrathecally attenuates hyperalgesia via activating mu-opioid receptors in a rat chronic constriction injury model

BACKGROUND

Verbascoside, a representative phenylethanoid glycoside, is widely distributed in plants and has various activities beneficial for human health. Although systemically administered verbascoside has an antinociceptive effect, little is known about the site and mechanism of its activity. The aim of the present study was to determine whether verbascoside attenuates neuropathic pain in the spinal cord and which pain regulatory systems are involved.

METHODS

Chronic constriction injury of the sciatic nerve was introduced to male Sprague Dawley rats. The effects of intrathecal administration of verbascoside and its components (caffeic acid and hydroxytyrosol) on mechanical hyperalgesia and cold hyperalgesia were examined using the electronic von Frey test and cold-plate test, respectively. Several antagonists of spinal pain processing receptors were administered intrathecally to evaluate their effects on the antihyperalgesic action of verbascoside. A rotarod test was performed to assess the effects on motor coordination.

RESULTS

Verbascoside attenuated mechanical and cold hyperalgesia and affected motor performance in a dose-dependent manner. Caffeic acid suppressed hyperalgesia only at high doses, whereas hydroxytyrosol did not affect hyperalgesia. The inhibitory effects of verbascoside on hyperalgesia and motor coordination were reversed by naloxone, a µ-opioid receptor antagonist.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings imply that verbascoside exerts an antihyperalgesic effect by activating µ-opioid receptors in the spinal cord, and that neither caffeic acid nor hydroxytyrosol alone mediates its activity. Verbascoside shows promise for the treatment of neuropathic pain.

Time-Dependent Changes in Protein Composition of Medial Prefrontal Cortex in Rats with Neuropathic Pain

Chronic pain is associated with time-dependent structural and functional reorganization of the prefrontal cortex that may reflect adaptive pain compensatory and/or maladaptive pain-promoting mechanisms. However, the molecular underpinnings of these changes and whether there are time-dependent relationships to pain progression are not well characterized. In this study, we analyzed protein composition in the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) of rats at two timepoints after spinal nerve ligation (SNL) using two-dimensional gel electrophoresis (2D-ELFO) and liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC–MS/MS). SNL, but not sham-operated, rats developed persistent tactile allodynia and thermal hyperalgesia, confirming the presence of experimental neuropathic pain. Two weeks after SNL (early timepoint), we identified 11 proteins involved in signal transduction, protein transport, cell homeostasis, metabolism, and apoptosis, as well as heat-shock proteins and chaperones that were upregulated by more than 1.5-fold compared to the sham-operated rats. Interestingly, there were only four significantly altered proteins identified at 8 weeks after SNL (late timepoint). These findings demonstrate extensive time-dependent modifications of protein expression in the rat mPFC under a chronic neuropathic pain state that might underlie the evolution of chronic pain characterized by early pain-compensatory and later aberrant mechanisms.

The Options for Neuraxial Drug Administration

Neuraxial drug administration, i.e., the injection of drugs into the epidural or intrathecal space to produce anesthesia or analgesia, is a technique developed more than 120 years ago. Today, it still is widely used in daily practice in anesthesiology and in acute and chronic pain therapy. A multitude of different drugs have been introduced for neuraxial injection, only a part of which have obtained official approval for that indication. A broad understanding of the pharmacology of those agents is essential to the clinician to utilize them in a safe and efficient manner. In the present narrative review, we summarize current knowledge on neuraxial anatomy relevant to clinical practice, including pediatric anatomy. Then, we delineate the general pharmacology of neuraxial drug administration, with particular attention to specific aspects of epidural and intrathecal pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Furthermore, we describe the most common clinical indications for neuraxial drug administration, including the perioperative setting, obstetrics, and chronic pain. Then, we discuss possible neurotoxic effects of neuraxial drugs, and moreover, we detail the specific properties of the most commonly used neuraxial drugs that are relevant to clinicians who employ epidural or intrathecal drug administration, in order to ensure adequate treatment and patient safety in these techniques. Finally, we give a brief overview on new developments in neuraxial drug therapy.

Analgesic potency of intrathecally administered punicalagin in rat neuropathic and inflammatory pain models

Punicalagin, a natural polyphenolic compound classified as an ellagitannin, is a major ingredient of pomegranate (Punica granatum L.). Punicalagin has potent antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effects. Although the antinociceptive effects of orally administered pomegranate extracts have been reported, little is known about the effect of punicalagin on nociceptive transmission in the central nervous system. We examined whether punicalagin ameliorates neuropathic pain and inflammatory pain in the spinal cord. Male Sprague-Dawley rats were subjected to chronic constriction injury (CCI) of the sciatic nerve, and an intrathecal catheter was implanted for drug administration. The electronic von Frey test and cold-plate test were performed in CCI rats to evaluate mechanical and cold hyperalgesia in neuropathic pain, and the formalin test was performed in normal rats to evaluate acute and persistent inflammatory pain. An open-field test was conducted to explore whether punicalagin affects locomotor activity in CCI rats. Punicalagin administered intrathecally attenuated mechanical and cold hyperalgesia to the same degree as gabapentin in CCI rats and reduced pain-related behaviors in both the early and late phases in formalin-injected rats. Punicalagin did not affect motor function. These results suggest that punicalagin exerts an antinociceptive effect in the spinal cord without motor deficit, thus showing therapeutic potential for neuropathic pain and inflammatory pain.

Intrathecal Analgesia in Cancer Pain

The number of new cancer cases has been increasing globally over the last several decades.

Management Strategies for Spinal Cord Injury Pain Updated for the Twenty-First Century

Traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) often results in several life-altering impairments, including paralysis, sensory loss, and neurogenic bowel/bladder dysfunction. Some of these SCI-related conditions can be accommodated with compensatory strategies. Perhaps no SCI-associated condition is more troublesome and recalcitrant to the treating physiatrist than chronic neuropathic pain. In addition to the expected challenges in treating any chronic pain condition, treatment of SCI-related pain has the added difficulty of disruption of normal neural pathways that subserve pain transmission and attenuation. This article reviews selected treatment strategies for SCI-associated neuropathic pain.

Prevalence of Spasticity and Below-Level Neuropathic Pain Related to Spinal Cord Injury Level and Damage to the Lower Spinal Segments

Objective

To evaluate spasticity and below-level spinal cord injury neuropathic pain after spinal cord injury in patients with, or without, damage to the lumbar spinal cord and roots.

Design/patients

Chart review of 269 patients with spinal cord injury from segments C1 to T11.

Methods

Patients were interviewed concerning leg spasticity and below-level spinal cord injury neuropathic pain in the lower trunk and legs. Damage to the lumbar spinal cord and roots was inferred where there was radiological evidence of a vertebral fracture, spinal stenosis or the narrowing of spinal foramina of a vertebra from thoracic 11 to lumbar 5, or; magnetic resonance imaging showing evidence of damage to the lumbar spinal cord and roots.

Results

Among 161 patients without damage to the lumbar spinal cord and roots, 87% of those with cervical spinal cord injury experienced spasticity, compared with 85% with thoracic spinal cord injury. The corresponding figures for patients in whom damage to the lumbar spinal cord and roots was present were 57% and 52%, respectively. Below-level spinal cord injury neuropathic pain was not associated with damage to the lumbar spinal cord and roots. In those patients with no damage to the lumbar spinal cord and roots, regression showed that neither outcome was significantly associated with the level of spinal cord injury.

Conclusion

The lack of segmental dependency for spinal cord injury and spasticity suggests mechanisms restricted mainly to the lumbar spinal cord. For below-level spinal cord injury neuropathic pain, additional mechanisms, other than lesions of the spino-thalamic tract, must be considered.

Peripheral nerve injury in rats induces alternations in choice behavior associated with food reinforcement

Operant methods that allow animals to avoid painful stimuli are interpreted to assess the aversive quality of pain; however, such measurements require investigator-initiated stimuli to animals. Here we developed a shuttle maze test to repeatedly assess activity associated nociception without forced stimulation. Rats ambulate back and forth between two treat feeders by taking either a short route with a prickly surfaced arch or a longer route with a smooth floor. L5-L6 spinal nerve ligation (SNL) reduced the preference for the short route with the arch, correlated with hypersensitivity in the hind paw. Oral gabapentin restored the short route preference and reduced hypersensitivity in SNL rats, and blockade of spinal α2-adrenoceptors reduced gabapentin's effects on hypersensitivity but not on preference index. These results suggest that SNL injury alters behavior in the shuttle maze test and that the shuttle maze test shows comparable results to reflexive hypersensitivity after SNL in magnitude and response to gabapentin.

Strategies to Treat Chronic Pain and Strengthen Impaired Descending Noradrenergic Inhibitory System

Gabapentinoids (gabapentin and pregabalin) and antidepressants (tricyclic antidepressants and serotonin noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors) are often used to treat chronic pain. The descending noradrenergic inhibitory system from the locus coeruleus (LC) to the dorsal horn of the spinal cord plays an important role in the analgesic mechanisms of these drugs. Gabapentinoids activate the LC by inhibiting the release of γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) and inducing the release of glutamate, thereby increasing noradrenaline levels in the spinal cord. Antidepressants increase noradrenaline levels in the spinal cord by inhibiting reuptake, and accumulating noradrenaline inhibits chronic pain through α₂-adrenergic receptors in the spinal cord. Recent animal studies, however, revealed that the function of the descending noradrenergic inhibitory system is impaired in chronic pain states. Other recent studies found that histone deacetylase inhibitors and antidepressants restore the impaired noradrenergic descending inhibitory system acting on noradrenergic neurons in the LC.

Intrathecal Therapies

Intrathecal baclofen therapy is a well-established technique for spasticity management. This article briefly reviews the pharmacology of intrathecal baclofen as well as customary approach for utilization of this targeted drug delivery concept. Following these descriptions, four unusual presentations will be described, including the need for initial trialing, patient-directed boluses during chronic intrathecal baclofen therapy, use of medications other than baclofen for intrathecal therapy in spastic patients, and intraventricular baclofen delivery. These hypothetical cases are provided in an effort to expand the use of targeted drug delivery to larger population of spastic patients.

Unique aspects of clinical trials of invasive therapies for chronic pain

Nearly all who review the literature conclude that the role of invasive procedures to treat chronic pain is poorly characterized because of the lack of “definitive” studies. The overt nature of invasive treatments, along with the risks, technical skills, and costs involved create challenges to study them. However, these challenges do not completely preclude evaluating invasive procedure effectiveness and safety using well-designed methods. This article reviews the challenges of studying outcomes of invasive therapies to treat pain and discuss possible solutions. Although the following discussion can apply to most invasive therapies to treat chronic pain, it is beyond the scope of the article to individually cover every invasive therapy used. Therefore, most of the examples focus on injection therapies to treat spine pain, spinal cord stimulation, and intrathecal drug therapies.

Multiple sites and actions of gabapentin-induced relief of ongoing experimental neuropathic pain

Gabapentin (GBP) is a first-line therapy for neuropathic pain, but its mechanisms and sites of action remain uncertain. We investigated GBP-induced modulation of neuropathic pain following spinal nerve ligation (SNL) in rats. Intravenous or intrathecal GBP reversed evoked mechanical hypersensitivity and produced conditioned place preference (CPP) and dopamine (DA) release in the nucleus accumbens (NAc) selectively in SNL rats. Spinal GBP also significantly inhibited dorsal horn wide-dynamic-range neuronal responses to a range of evoked stimuli in SNL rats. By contrast, GBP microinjected bilaterally into the rostral anterior cingulate cortex (rACC), produced CPP, and elicited NAc DA release selectively in SNL rats but did not reverse tactile allodynia and had marginal effects on wide-dynamic-range neuronal activity. Moreover, blockade of endogenous opioid signaling in the rACC prevented intravenous GBP-induced CPP and NAc DA release but failed to block its inhibition of tactile allodynia. Gabapentin, therefore, can potentially act to produce its pain relieving effects by (a) inhibition of injury-induced spinal neuronal excitability, evoked hypersensitivity, and ongoing pain and (b) selective supraspinal modulation of affective qualities of pain, without alteration of reflexive behaviors. Consistent with previous findings of pain relief from nonopioid analgesics, GBP requires engagement of rACC endogenous opioid circuits and downstream activation of mesolimbic reward circuits reflected in learned pain-motivated behaviors. These findings support the partial separation of sensory and affective dimensions of pain in this experimental model and suggest that modulation of affective-motivational qualities of pain may be the preferential mechanism of GBP's analgesic effects in patients.

Pain relief by supraspinal gabapentin requires descending noradrenergic inhibitory controls

Introduction

Gabapentin regulates pain processing by direct action on primary afferent nociceptors and dorsal horn nociresponsive neurons. Through an action at supraspinal levels, gabapentin also engages descending noradrenergic inhibitory controls that indirectly regulate spinal cord pain processing. Although direct injection of gabapentin into the anterior cingulate cortex provides pain relief independent of descending inhibitory controls, it remains unclear whether that effect is representative of what occurs when gabapentin interacts at multiple brain loci, eg, after intracerebroventricular (i.c.v.) injection.

Methods

We administered gabapentin i.c.v. in a mouse model of chemotherapy (paclitaxel)-induced neuropathic pain. To distinguish spinal from supraspinally processed features of the pain experience, we examined mechanical hypersensitivity and assessed relief of pain aversiveness using an analgesia-induced conditioned place preference paradigm.

Results

Paclitaxel-treated mice showed a preference for a 100-μg i.c.v. gabapentin-paired chamber that was accompanied by reduced mechanical allodynia, indicative of concurrent engagement of descending controls. As expected, the same dose in uninjured mice did not induce place preference, demonstrating that gabapentin, unlike morphine, is not inherently rewarding. Furthermore, a lower dose of supraspinal gabapentin (30 μg), which did not reverse mechanical allodynia, did not induce conditioned place preference. Finally, concurrent injections of i.c.v. gabapentin (100 μg) and intrathecal yohimbine, an α2-receptor antagonist, blocked preference for the gabapentin-paired chamber.

Conclusion

We conclude that pain relief, namely a reduction of pain aversiveness, induced by supraspinal gabapentin administered by an i.c.v. route is secondary to its activation of descending noradrenergic inhibitory controls that block transmission of the "pain" message from the spinal cord to the brain.

Gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Gabapentin is commonly used to treat neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage). This review updates a review published in 2014, and previous reviews published in 2011, 2005 and 2000.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of gabapentin in chronic neuropathic pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update we searched CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase for randomised controlled trials from January 2014 to January 2017. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and online clinical trials registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

We included four new studies (530 participants), and excluded three previously included studies (126 participants). In all, 37 studies provided information on 5914 participants. Most studies used oral gabapentin or gabapentin encarbil at doses of 1200 mg or more daily in different neuropathic pain conditions, predominantly postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy. Study duration was typically four to 12 weeks. Not all studies reported important outcomes of interest. High risk of bias occurred mainly due to small size (especially in cross-over studies), and handling of data after study withdrawal.In postherpetic neuralgia, more participants (32%) had substantial benefit (at least 50% pain relief or PGIC very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (17%) (RR 1.8 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.1); NNT 6.7 (5.4 to 8.7); 8 studies, 2260 participants, moderate-quality evidence). More participants (46%) had moderate benefit (at least 30% pain relief or PGIC much or very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (25%) (RR 1.8 (95% CI 1.6 to 2.0); NNT 4.8 (4.1 to 6.0); 8 studies, 2260 participants, moderate-quality evidence).In painful diabetic neuropathy, more participants (38%) had substantial benefit (at least 50% pain relief or PGIC very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (21%) (RR 1.9 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.3); NNT 5.9 (4.6 to 8.3); 6 studies, 1277 participants, moderate-quality evidence). More participants (52%) had moderate benefit (at least 30% pain relief or PGIC much or very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (37%) (RR 1.4 (95% CI 1.3 to 1.6); NNT 6.6 (4.9 to 9.9); 7 studies, 1439 participants, moderate-quality evidence).For all conditions combined, adverse event withdrawals were more common with gabapentin (11%) than with placebo (8.2%) (RR 1.4 (95% CI 1.1 to 1.7); NNH 30 (20 to 65); 22 studies, 4346 participants, high-quality evidence). Serious adverse events were no more common with gabapentin (3.2%) than with placebo (2.8%) (RR 1.2 (95% CI 0.8 to 1.7); 19 studies, 3948 participants, moderate-quality evidence); there were eight deaths (very low-quality evidence). Participants experiencing at least one adverse event were more common with gabapentin (63%) than with placebo (49%) (RR 1.3 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.4); NNH 7.5 (6.1 to 9.6); 18 studies, 4279 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Individual adverse events occurred significantly more often with gabapentin. Participants taking gabapentin experienced dizziness (19%), somnolence (14%), peripheral oedema (7%), and gait disturbance (14%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Gabapentin at doses of 1800 mg to 3600 mg daily (1200 mg to 3600 mg gabapentin encarbil) can provide good levels of pain relief to some people with postherpetic neuralgia and peripheral diabetic neuropathy. Evidence for other types of neuropathic pain is very limited. The outcome of at least 50% pain intensity reduction is regarded as a useful outcome of treatment by patients, and the achievement of this degree of pain relief is associated with important beneficial effects on sleep interference, fatigue, and depression, as well as quality of life, function, and work. Around 3 or 4 out of 10 participants achieved this degree of pain relief with gabapentin, compared with 1 or 2 out of 10 for placebo. Over half of those treated with gabapentin will not have worthwhile pain relief but may experience adverse events. Conclusions have not changed since the previous update of this review.

The Dorsal Root Ganglion as a Therapeutic Target for Chronic Pain

Chronic neuropathic pain is a widespread problem with negative personal and societal consequences. Despite considerable clinical neuroscience research, the goal of developing effective, reliable, and durable treatments has remained elusive. The critical role played by the dorsal root ganglion (DRG) in the induction and maintenance of chronic pain has been largely overlooked in these efforts, however. It may be that, by targeting this site, robust new options for pain management will be revealed. This review summarizes recent advances in the knowledge base for DRG-targeted treatments for neuropathic pain:• Pharmacological options including the chemical targeting of voltage-dependent calcium channels, transient receptor potential channels, neurotrophin production, potentiation of opioid transduction pathways, and excitatory glutamate receptors.• Ablation or modulation of the DRG via continuous thermal radiofrequency and pulsed radiofrequency treatments.• Implanted electrical neurostimulator technologies.• Interventions involving the modification of DRG cellular function at the genetic level by using viral vectors and gene silencing methods.

Gabapentin loses efficacy over time after nerve injury in rats: role of glutamate transporter-1 in the locus coeruleus

Despite being one of the first-choice analgesics for chronic neuropathic pain, gabapentin sometimes fails to provide analgesia, but the mechanisms for this lack of efficacy is unclear. Rats with nerve injury including L5-L6 spinal nerve ligation (SNL) respond uniformly and well to gabapentin, but many of these studies are performed within just a few weeks of injury, questioning their relevance to chronic neuropathic pain. In this study, intraperitoneal gabapentin showed a time-dependently reduction in antihypersensitivity after SNL, associated with downregulation of astroglial glutamate transporter-1 (GLT-1) in the locus coeruleus (LC). Consistently, SNL also time-dependently increased basal but masked gabapentin-induced noradrenergic neuronal activity in the LC. In rats 2 weeks after SNL, knock-down of GLT-1 in the LC reduced the antihypersensitivity effect of gabapentin. In rats 8 weeks after SNL, increasing GLT-1 expression by histone deacetylase inhibitor valproate restored the antihypersensitivity effect of gabapentin, associated with restored gabapentin-induced noradrenergic neuronal activity in the LC and subsequent spinal noradrenaline release. Knock-down of GLT-1 in the LC reversed the effect of valproate to restore gabapentin-induced antihypersensitivity. In addition, the antihypersensitivity effect of the intrathecal α2-adrenoceptor agonist clonidine also decreased with time after SNL injury. These results suggest that downregulation of GLT-1 in the LC and reduced spinal noradrenergic inhibition contribute to impaired analgesic efficacy from gabapentin in chronic neuropathic pain and that valproate can rescue this impaired efficacy.

Neuropathic pain

Neuropathic pain is caused by a lesion or disease of the somatosensory system, including peripheral fibres (Aβ, Aδ and C fibres) and central neurons, and affects 7-10% of the general population. Multiple causes of neuropathic pain have been described and its incidence is likely to increase owing to the ageing global population, increased incidence of diabetes mellitus and improved survival from cancer after chemotherapy. Indeed, imbalances between excitatory and inhibitory somatosensory signalling, alterations in ion channels and variability in the way that pain messages are modulated in the central nervous system all have been implicated in neuropathic pain. The burden of chronic neuropathic pain seems to be related to the complexity of neuropathic symptoms, poor outcomes and difficult treatment decisions. Importantly, quality of life is impaired in patients with neuropathic pain owing to increased drug prescriptions and visits to health care providers, as well as the morbidity from the pain itself and the inciting disease. Despite challenges, progress in the understanding of the pathophysiology of neuropathic pain is spurring the development of new diagnostic procedures and personalized interventions, which emphasize the need for a multidisciplinary approach to the management of neuropathic pain.

Current and Future Issues in the Development of Spinal Agents for the Management of Pain

Targeting analgesic drugs for spinal delivery reflects the fact that while the conscious experience of pain is mediated supraspinally, input initiated by high intensity stimuli, tissue injury and/or nerve injury is encoded at the level of the spinal dorsal horn and this output informs the brain as to the peripheral environment. This encoding process is subject to strong upregulation resulting in hyperesthetic states and downregulation reducing the ongoing processing of nociceptive stimuli reversing the hyperesthesia and pain processing. The present review addresses the biology of spinal nociceptive processing as relevant to the effects of intrathecally-delivered drugs in altering pain processing following acute stimulation, tissue inflammation/injury and nerve injury. The review covers i) the major classes of spinal agents currently employed as intrathecal analgesics (opioid agonists, alpha 2 agonists; sodium channel blockers; calcium channel blockers; NMDA blockers; GABA A/B agonists; COX inhibitors; ii) ongoing developments in the pharmacology of spinal therapeutics focusing on less studied agents/targets (cholinesterase inhibition; Adenosine agonists; iii) novel intrathecal targeting methodologies including gene-based approaches (viral vectors, plasmids, interfering RNAs); antisense, and toxins (botulinum toxins; resniferatoxin, substance P Saporin); and iv) issues relevant to intrathecal drug delivery (neuraxial drug distribution), infusate delivery profile, drug dosing, formulation and principals involved in the preclinical evaluation of intrathecal drug safety.

Practical considerations and patient selection for intrathecal drug delivery in the management of chronic pain

Chronic pain continues to pose substantial and growing challenges for patients, caregivers, health care professionals, and health care systems. By the time a patient with severe refractory pain sees a pain specialist for evaluation and management, that patient has likely tried and failed several nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic approaches to pain treatment. Although relegated to one of the interventions of "last resort", intrathecal drug delivery can be useful for improving pain control, optimizing patient functionality, and minimizing the use of systemic pain medications in appropriately selected patients. Due to its clinical and logistical requirements, however, intrathecal drug delivery may fit poorly into the classic pain clinic/interventional model and may be perceived as a "critical mass" intervention that is feasible only for large practices that have specialized staff and appropriate office resources. Potentially, intrathecal drug delivery may be more readily adopted into larger practices that can commit the necessary staff and resources to support patients' needs through the trialing, initiation, monitoring, maintenance, and troubleshooting phases of this therapy. Currently, two agents - morphine and ziconotide - are approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for long-term intrathecal delivery. The efficacy and safety profiles of morphine have been assessed in long-term, open-label, and retrospective studies of >400 patients with chronic cancer and noncancer pain types. The efficacy and safety profiles of ziconotide have been assessed in three double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of 457 patients, and safety has been assessed in 1,254 patients overall, with severe chronic cancer, noncancer, and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome pain types. Both agents are highlighted as first-line intrathecal therapy for the management of neuropathic or nociceptive pain. The purpose of this review is to discuss practical considerations for intrathecal drug delivery, delineate criteria for the identification and selection of candidates for intrathecal drug delivery, and consider which agent may be more appropriate for individual patients.

Gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

This review is an update of a review published in 2011, itself a major update of previous reviews published in 2005 and 2000, investigating the effects of gabapentin in chronic neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage). Antiepileptic drugs are used to manage chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of gabapentin in chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified randomised trials of gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia by searching the databases MEDLINE (1966 to March 2014), EMBASE (1980 to 2014 week 10), and CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library (Issue 3 of 12, 2014). We obtained clinical trial reports and synopses of published and unpublished studies from Internet sources, and searched Clinicaltrials.gov. Searches were run originally in 2011 and the date of the most recent search was 17 March 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind studies reporting the analgesic and adverse effects of gabapentin in neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia with assessment of pain intensity, pain relief, or both, using validated scales. Participants were adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently extracted efficacy and adverse event data, examined issues of study quality, and assessed risk of bias. We performed analysis using three tiers of evidence. First tier evidence derived from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction, intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for dropouts; at least 200 participants in the comparison, 8 to 12 weeks duration, parallel design), second tier from data that failed to meet one or more of these criteria and were considered at some risk of bias but with adequate numbers in the comparison, and third tier from data involving small numbers of participants that were considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both.For efficacy, we calculated the number needed to treat to benefit (NNT), concentrating on at least 50% pain intensity reduction, and Initiative on Methods, Measurement and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) definitions of at least moderate and substantial benefit. For harm we calculated number needed to treat for harm (NNH) for adverse effects and withdrawal. Meta-analysis was undertaken using a fixed-effect model. We emphasised differences between conditions now defined as neuropathic pain, and other conditions like masticatory pain, complex regional painsyndrome type 1 (CRPS-1), and fibromyalgia.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven new studies with 1919 participants were added. Another report (147 participants) provided results for a study already included, but which previously had no usable data. A further report (170 participants) used an experimental formulation of intrathecal gabapentin. Thirty-seven studies (5633 participants) studied oral gabapentin at daily doses of 1200 mg or more in 12 chronic pain conditions; 84% of participants were in studies of postherpetic neuralgia, painful diabetic neuropathy or mixed neuropathic pain. There was no first tier evidence.Second tier evidence for the outcome of at least 50% pain intensity reduction, considered valuable by patients with chronic pain, showed that gabapentin was significantly better than placebo in postherpetic neuralgia (34% gabapentin versus 21% placebo; NNT 8.0, 95% CI 6.0 to 12) and painful diabetic neuropathy (38% versus 21%, NNT 5.9, 95% CI 4.6 to 8.3). There was insufficient information in other pain conditions to reach any reliable conclusion. There was no obvious difference between standard gabapentin formulations and recently-introduced extended-release or gastro-retentive formulations, or between different doses of gabapentin.Adverse events occurred significantly more often with gabapentin. Persons taking gabapentin could expect to have at least one adverse event (62%), withdraw because of an adverse event (11%), suffer dizziness (19%), somnolence (14%), peripheral oedema (7%), and gait disturbance (9%). Serious adverse events (3%) were no more common than with placebo.There were insufficient data for direct comparisons with other active treatments, and only third tier evidence for other painful conditions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was no top tier evidence that was unequivocally unbiased. Second tier evidence, with potentially important residual biases, showed that gabapentin at doses of 1200 mg or more was effective for some people with some painful neuropathic pain conditions. The outcome of at least 50% pain intensity reduction is regarded as a useful outcome of treatment by patients, and the achievement of this degree of pain relief is associated with important beneficial effects on sleep interference, fatigue, and depression, as well as quality of life, function, and work. About 35% achieved this degree of pain relief with gabapentin, compared with 21% for placebo. Over half of those treated with gabapentin will not have worthwhile pain relief. Results might vary between different neuropathic pain conditions, and the amount of evidence for gabapentin in neuropathic pain conditions except postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy, and in fibromyalgia, is very limited.The levels of efficacy found for gabapentin are consistent with those found for other drug therapies in postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy.

Gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

This review is an update of a review published in 2011, itself a major update of previous reviews published in 2005 and 2000, investigating the effects of gabapentin in chronic neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage). Antiepileptic drugs are used to manage chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of gabapentin in chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified randomised trials of gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia by searching the databases MEDLINE (1966 to March 2014), EMBASE (1980 to 2014 week 10), and CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library (Issue 3 of 12, 2014). We obtained clinical trial reports and synopses of published and unpublished studies from Internet sources, and searched Clinicaltrials.gov. Searches were run originally in 2011 and the date of the most recent search was 17 March 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind studies reporting the analgesic and adverse effects of gabapentin in neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia with assessment of pain intensity, pain relief, or both, using validated scales. Participants were adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently extracted efficacy and adverse event data, examined issues of study quality, and assessed risk of bias. We performed analysis using three tiers of evidence. First tier evidence derived from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction, intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for dropouts; at least 200 participants in the comparison, 8 to 12 weeks duration, parallel design), second tier from data that failed to meet one or more of these criteria and were considered at some risk of bias but with adequate numbers in the comparison, and third tier from data involving small numbers of participants that were considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both.For efficacy, we calculated the number needed to treat to benefit (NNT), concentrating on at least 50% pain intensity reduction, and Initiative on Methods, Measurement and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) definitions of at least moderate and substantial benefit. For harm we calculated number needed to treat for harm (NNH) for adverse effects and withdrawal. Meta-analysis was undertaken using a fixed-effect model. We emphasised differences between conditions now defined as neuropathic pain, and other conditions like masticatory pain, complex regional painsyndrome type 1 (CRPS-1), and fibromyalgia.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven new studies with 1919 participants were added. Another report (147 participants) provided results for a study already included, but which previously had no usable data. A further report (170 participants) used an experimental formulation of intrathecal gabapentin. Thirty-seven studies (5633 participants) studied oral gabapentin at daily doses of 1200 mg or more in 12 chronic pain conditions; 84% of participants were in studies of postherpetic neuralgia, painful diabetic neuropathy or mixed neuropathic pain. There was no first tier evidence.Second tier evidence for the outcome of at least 50% pain intensity reduction, considered valuable by patients with chronic pain, showed that gabapentin was significantly better than placebo in postherpetic neuralgia (34% gabapentin versus 21% placebo; NNT 8.0, 95% CI 6.0 to 12) and painful diabetic neuropathy (38% versus 21%, NNT 5.9, 95% CI 4.6 to 8.3). There was insufficient information in other pain conditions to reach any reliable conclusion. There was no obvious difference between standard gabapentin formulations and recently-introduced extended-release or gastro-retentive formulations, or between different doses of gabapentin.Adverse events occurred significantly more often with gabapentin. Persons taking gabapentin could expect to have at least one adverse event (62%), withdraw because of an adverse event (11%), suffer dizziness (19%), somnolence (14%), peripheral oedema (7%), and gait disturbance (9%). Serious adverse events (3%) were no more common than with placebo.There were insufficient data for direct comparisons with other active treatments, and only third tier evidence for other painful conditions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was no top tier evidence that was unequivocally unbiased. Second tier evidence, with potentially important residual biases, showed that gabapentin at doses of 1200 mg or more was effective for some people with some painful neuropathic pain conditions. The outcome of at least 50% pain intensity reduction is regarded as a useful outcome of treatment by patients, and the achievement of this degree of pain relief is associated with important beneficial effects on sleep interference, fatigue, and depression, as well as quality of life, function, and work. About 35% achieved this degree of pain relief with gabapentin, compared with 21% for placebo. Over half of those treated with gabapentin will not have worthwhile pain relief. Results might vary between different neuropathic pain conditions, and the amount of evidence for gabapentin in neuropathic pain conditions except postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy, and in fibromyalgia, is very limited.The levels of efficacy found for gabapentin are consistent with those found for other drug therapies in postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy.

Gabapentin increases extracellular glutamatergic level in the locus coeruleus via astroglial glutamate transporter-dependent mechanisms

Gabapentin has shown to be effective in animals and humans with acute postoperative and chronic pain. Yet the mechanisms by which gabapentin reduces pain have not been fully addressed. The current study performed in vivo microdialysis in the locus coeruleus (LC) in normal and spinal nerve ligated (SNL) rats to examine the effect of gabapentin on extracellular glutamate concentration and its mechanisms of action with focus on presynaptic GABA-B receptors, astroglial glutamate transporter-1 (GLT-1), and interactions with α2δ subunits of voltage-gated Ca(2+) channels and endogenous noradrenaline. Basal extracellular concentration and tissue content of glutamate in the LC were greater in SNL rats than normal ones. Intravenously administered and LC-perfused gabapentin increased extracellular glutamate concentration in the LC. The net amount of glutamate increased by gabapentin is larger in SNL rats compared with normal ones, although the percentage increases from the baseline did not differ. The gabapentin-related α2δ ligand pregabalin increased extracellular glutamate concentration in the LC, whereas another α2δ ligand, 3-exo-aminobicyclo [2.2.1] heptane-2-exo-carboxylic acid (ABHCA), did not. Selective blockade by the dihydrokainic acid or knock-down of GLT-1 by the small interfering RNA abolished the gabapentin-induced glutamate increase in the LC, whereas blockade of GABA-B receptors by the CGP-35348 and depletion of noradrenalin by the dopamine-β-hydroxylase antibody conjugated to saporin did not. These results suggest that gabapentin induces glutamate release from astrocytes in the LC via GLT-1-dependent mechanisms to stimulate descending inhibition. The present study also demonstrates that this target of gabapentin in astrocytes does not require interaction with α2δ subunits in neurons.

Analgesic treatment with pregabalin does not prevent persistent pain after peripheral nerve injury in the rat

Reducing the risk of chronic postoperative pain through preventive analgesia is an attractive therapeutic concept. Because peripheral nerve lesions are a major cause of chronic pain after surgery, we tested in rats whether analgesic treatment with pregabalin (PGB) has the capacity to mitigate the development of persistent neuropathic pain-like behavior. Starting on the day of spared nerve injury or 1week later, we treated rats with a continuous intrathecal infusion of PGB (300 or 900μg/24hours) or vehicle for up to 28days. Rats receiving early PGB treatment had almost normal withdrawal thresholds for punctate mechanical stimuli and were clearly less sensitive to pinprick or cold stimulation. The responses to punctate mechanical and cold stimulation were still reduced for a brief period after the infusion was terminated, but the difference from vehicle-treated rats was minor. Essentially, the analgesic effect of PGB was limited to the duration of the infusion, whether analgesia started at the time of surgery or with a delay of 1week, independently of the length of the treatment. PGB did not suppress the activation of spinal microglia, indicating that analgesia alone does not eliminate certain pain mechanisms even if they depend, at least partially, on nociceptive input. Unexpectedly, intrathecal infusion of PGB did not inhibit the nerve injury-induced accumulation of its binding target, the voltage-gated calcium channel subunit α2δ1, at primary afferent terminals in the spinal cord. Interference with the synaptic trafficking of α2δ1 is not required to achieve analgesia with PGB.