Effects of pregabalin on heart rate variability in patients with painful diabetic neuropathy

Is anti-seizure medication the culprit of SUDEP?

BACKGROUND

Heart rate variability (HRV) reduction is a potential biomarker for sudden cardiac death. This study aimed to study the effects of anti-seizure medications (ASMs), adjusted with reported factors associated with sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) on HRV parameters.

METHODS

We recruited patients who were admitted in our epilepsy monitoring unit between January 2013 and December 2021. Two 5-min electrocardiogram epochs during wakefulness and sleep were selected in each patient. HRV analysis with Python® software was performed. The imputed datasets were used for linear regression analysis to assess association between each ASM item and all HRV parameters. The effects of ASM on HRV parameters were subsequently adjusted with the significant clinical characteristics and the concomitant use of other ASMs, respectively.

RESULTS

Carbamazepine (CBZ), levetiracetam (LEV), lamotrigine (LTG), and clonazepam (CZP) were statistically significantly associated with changes of sleep HRV parameters. Only CBZ showed negative effects with reduction in HRV, evidenced as lower standard deviation of RR interval (SDNN), even when adjusted with concomitant use of other ASMs (p = 0.045) and had a trend of significance when adjusted with significant clinical characteristics of concurrent taking of beta-blocker drug (p = 0.052). LEV and CZP showed opposite effects with increased HRV even when adjusted with significant clinical characteristics and the concomitant use of other ASMs.

CONCLUSIONS

CBZ showed negative effects on HRV. We proposed that CBZ should be cautiously used in patients with known risks for SUDEP. In addition, HRV assessment should be performed prior to commencing CBZ and re-performed in follow-up in cases of prolonged use.

Different Drugs for the Treatment of Painful Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy: A Meta-Analysis

Objective: To systematically evaluate the effects of different drugs for the treatment of painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy.

Methods: All literature from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials published over the past 12 years (from January 1, 2008 to June 1, 2020) was searched, and two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility, continuous data extraction, independent assessment of bias risk, and graded strength of evidence. The pain score was used as the main result, and 30 and 50% pain reduction and adverse events were used as secondary results.

Results: A total of 37 studies were included. Pregabalin, duloxetine, tapentadol, lacosamide, mirogabalin, and capsaicin were all more effective than placebo in alleviating the pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy, while ABT-894 and gabapentin showed no significant effect. In addition, the efficacy of buprenorphine, tanezumab, fulranumab and others could not be concluded due to insufficient studies.

Conclusion: Pregabalin and duloxetine showed good therapeutic effects on painful DPN, but adverse events were also significant. The analgesic effects of ABT-894 and gabapentin need to be further studied with longer and larger RCTs. As an opioid drug, tapentadol has a good analgesic effect, but due to its addiction, it needs to be very cautious in clinical use. Although lacosamide, mirogabalin, and capsaicin are more effective than placebo, the therapeutic effect is weaker than pregabalin. For the results of our meta-analysis, long-term studies are still needed to verify their efficacy and safety in the future.

Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO, identifier: CRD42020197397.

Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy: Diagnosis and Treatment

BACKGROUND

Diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) is traditionally divided into large and small fibre neuropathy (SFN). Damage to the large fibres can be detected using nerve conduction studies (NCS) and often results in a significant reduction in sensitivity and loss of protective sensation, while damage to the small fibres is hard to reliably detect and can be either asymptomatic, associated with insensitivity to noxious stimuli, or often manifests itself as intractable neuropathic pain.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the recent advances in both detection, grading, and treatment of DPN as well as the accompanying neuropathic pain.

METHODS

A review of relevant, peer-reviewed, English literature from MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library between January 1st 1967 and January 1st 2020 was used.

RESULTS

We identified more than three hundred studies on methods for detecting and grading DPN, and more than eighty randomised-controlled trials for treating painful diabetic neuropathy.

CONCLUSION

NCS remains the method of choice for detecting LFN in people with diabetes, while a gold standard for the detection of SFN is yet to be internationally accepted. In the recent years, several methods with huge potential for detecting and grading this condition have become available including skin biopsies and corneal confocal microscopy, which in the future could represent reliable endpoints for clinical studies. While several newer methods for detecting SFN have been developed, no new drugs have been accepted for treating neuropathic pain in people with diabetes. Tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors and anticonvulsants remain first line treatment, while newer agents targeting the proposed pathophysiology of DPN are being developed.

Systematic review and network meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of lidocaine 700 mg medicated plaster vs. pregabalin

Objective: Neuropathic pain prevalence is estimated between 7% and 10% of the population. International guidelines recommend a variety of drugs at different therapy lines for pain relief. However, side effect profiles, for example, prompted the UK government recently to classify pregabalin and gabapentin as class C drugs. Lidocaine 700 mg medicated plaster (LMP) might be a safer alternative. A systematic review assessed how LMP and pregabalin compared in terms of efficacy and safety. The review focused on pain reduction, quality of life and adverse events in peripheral neuropathic pain (PNP) i.e. post-herpetic neuralgia, diabetic peripheral neuropathy, post-surgical/trauma, or other PNP conditions.Methods: Electronic databases were searched as well as a number of other sources up to November 2018. Sensitive strategies were used, with no restriction by language or publication status. Two independent reviewers screened records and extracted data with consensus determining final decisions. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration 2011 checklist for RCTs. Full network meta-analysis was conducted to compare LMP to pregabalin 300/600 mg in terms of pain reduction, quality of life, as well as serious adverse events and selected adverse events. Trials with enriched enrolment design were excluded.Results: Searches retrieved 7,104 records. In total 111 references pertaining to 43 RCTs were included for data extraction. Bayesian network meta-analysis of several pain outcomes showed no clear difference in efficacy between treatments However, LMP was clearly advantageous in terms of dizziness and any adverse event vs. pregabalin 600 mg/day and discontinuations vs. pregabalin 300 mg/day or 600 mg/day, as well as being associated with improved quality of life (albeit in this case based on weak evidence).Conclusions: LMP was found to be similar to pregabalin in reducing pain in all populations but had a better adverse events profile.

The Role of Heart Rate Variability in Mindfulness-Based Pain Relief

Mindfulness meditation is a self-regulatory practice premised on sustaining nonreactive awareness of arising sensory events that reliably reduces pain. Yet, the specific analgesic mechanisms supporting mindfulness have not been comprehensively disentangled from the potential nonspecific factors supporting this technique. Increased parasympathetic nervous system (PNS) activity is associated with pain relief corresponding to a number of cognitive manipulations. However, the relationship between the PNS and mindfulness-based pain attenuation remains unknown. The primary objective of the present study was to determine the role of high-frequency heart rate variability (HF HRV), a marker of PNS activity, during mindfulness-based pain relief as compared to a validated, sham-mindfulness meditation technique that served as a breathing-based control. Sixty-two healthy volunteers (31 females; 31 males) were randomized to a 4-session (25 min/session) mindfulness or sham-mindfulness training regimen. Before and after each group's respective training, participants were administered noxious (49°C) and innocuous (35°C) heat to the right calf. HF HRV and respiration rate were recorded during thermal stimulation and pain intensity and unpleasantness ratings were collected after each stimulation series. The primary analysis revealed that during mindfulness meditation, higher HF HRV was more strongly associated with lower pain unpleasantness ratings when compared to sham-mindfulness meditation (B = -.82, P = .04). This finding is in line with the prediction that mindfulness-based meditation engages distinct mechanisms from sham-mindfulness meditation to reduce pain. However, the same prediction was not confirmed for pain intensity ratings (B = -.41). Secondary analyses determined that mindfulness and sham-mindfulness meditation similarly reduced pain ratings, decreased respiration rate, and increased HF HRV (between group ps < .05). More mechanistic work is needed to reliably determine the role of parasympathetic activation in mindfulness-based pain relief as compared to other meditative techniques. Perspective: Mindfulness has been shown to engage multiple mechanisms to reduce pain. The present study extends on this work to show that higher HRV is associated with mindfulness-induced reductions in pain unpleasantness, but not pain intensity ratings, when compared to sham-mindfulness meditation. These findings warrant further investigation into the mechanisms engaged by mindfulness as compared to placebo.

Searching ClinicalTrials.gov did not change the conclusions of a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

We assessed the effect of searching ClinicalTrials.gov on the conclusions of a systematic review.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted this case study concurrently with a systematic review. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov on March 9, 2016, to identify trial records eligible for inclusion in the review. Two independent reviewers screened ClinicalTrials.gov records. We compared conclusions and strength of evidence grade with and without ClinicalTrials.gov records for 31 comparisons and 2 outcomes.

RESULTS

We identified 106 trials (53 in the peer-reviewed literature only, 23 in ClinicalTrials.gov only, and 30 in both sources). For one comparison, the addition of results identified through ClinicalTrials.gov reduced the pooled effect size. We found evidence of selective outcome reporting for two comparisons and suspected publication bias for another two comparisons. For all other comparisons, searching ClinicalTrials.gov did not change conclusions or the strength of evidence grading for the two outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Our search of ClinicalTrials.gov bolstered suspicions of reporting biases but did not change either the conclusions or the strength of evidence grading. Further research is needed to determine the effect of searching ClinicalTrials.gov on the conclusions of systematic reviews in different topic areas and as the new rules for registration of trial results take effect.

Capsaicin 8% Patch Versus Oral Neuropathic Pain Medications for the Treatment of Painful Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy: A Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

A network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed, aiming to assess the relative efficacy and tolerability of the capsaicin 179-mg (8% weight for weight) cutaneous patch (capsaicin 8% patch) compared with oral, centrally acting agents (ie, pregabalin, gabapentin, duloxetine, amitriptyline) in patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (PDPN).

METHODS

A systematic search of EMBASE/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and the National Health Service Centre for Reviews and Dissemination Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects was conducted to identify all randomized controlled trials. Data from eligible studies according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria were extracted, and analyses were based on aggregate-level data. Efficacy outcomes were the proportions of patients with ≥30% and ≥50% reductions in pain, and tolerability outcomes were somnolence, dizziness, nausea, diarrhea, constipation, headache, fatigue, insomnia, and rate of discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs). Data were analyzed by using a Bayesian NMA. Fixed and random effects models were estimated. Relative treatment effect was presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs. Sources of heterogeneity were assessed.

FINDINGS

The NMA included 25 randomized controlled trials. For ≥30% pain reduction, the capsaicin 8% patch was significantly more effective than placebo (OR, 2.28 [95% CI, 1.19-4.03]), exhibited a numerical advantage compared with pregabalin (OR, 1.83 [95% CI, 0.91-3.34]) and gabapentin (OR, 1.66 [95% CI, 0.74-3.23]), and had similar efficacy compared with duloxetine (OR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.5-1.79]). The evidence available was not sufficient to assess the relative efficacy of amitriptyline. In the NMA for tolerability, the capsaicin 8% patch was only included for headache because the incidence was 0% for the other outcomes. Oral, centrally acting agents had a significantly elevated risk compared with placebo for somnolence (pregabalin, gabapentin, duloxetine, and amitriptyline), dizziness (pregabalin, gabapentin, duloxetine, and amitriptyline), nausea (duloxetine), diarrhea (duloxetine), fatigue (duloxetine), and discontinuation because of AEs (pregabalin, gabapentin, and duloxetine). Compared with pregabalin and gabapentin, duloxetine had a significantly lower risk of dizziness but a significantly higher risk of nausea.

IMPLICATIONS

This NMA suggests that the efficacy observed with the capsaicin 8% patch is similar to that observed with oral agents (ie, pregabalin, duloxetine, gabapentin) in patients with PDPN. The oral agents were associated with a significantly elevated risk of somnolence, dizziness, fatigue, and discontinuation because of AEs compared with placebo. The capsaicin 8% patch was as effective as oral centrally acting agents in these patients with PDPN but offers systemic tolerability benefits.

Pharmacotherapy for diabetic peripheral neuropathy pain and quality of life: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To systematically assess the effect of pharmacologic treatments of diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) on pain and quality of life.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for systematic reviews from 2011 to October 12, 2015, and PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for primary studies from January 1, 2013, to May 24, 2016. We searched Clinicaltrials.gov on March 9, 2016. Two reviewers independently evaluated studies for eligibility, serially abstracted data, and independently evaluated risk of bias and graded strength of evidence (SOE).

RESULTS

We updated a recently completed systematic review of 57 eligible studies with 24 additional published studies and 25 unpublished studies. For reducing neuropathy-related pain, the serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors duloxetine and venlafaxine (moderate SOE), the anticonvulsants pregabalin and oxcarbazepine (low SOE), the drug classes tricyclic antidepressants (low SOE) and atypical opioids (low SOE), and botulinum toxin (low SOE) were more effective than placebo. We could not draw conclusions about quality of life due to incomplete reporting. All studies were short-term (less than 6 months), and all effective drugs had more than 9% dropouts from adverse effects.

CONCLUSIONS

For reducing pain, duloxetine and venlafaxine, pregabalin and oxcarbazepine, tricyclic antidepressants, atypical opioids, and botulinum toxin were more effective than placebo. However, quality of life was poorly reported, studies were short-term, drugs had substantial dropout rates, and opioids have significant risks. Future studies should evaluate longer-term outcomes, use methods and measures recommended by pain organizations, and assess patients' quality of life.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of pharmacological therapies for painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy

BACKGROUND

Painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (pDPN) is prevalent among persons with diabetes and increases over time. Published guidelines recommend a number of medications to treat this condition providing clinicians with a variety of treatment options. This study provides a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of published pharmacologic therapies for pDPN.

METHODS

The published literature was systematically searched to identify randomized, controlled trials of all available pharmacologic treatments for pDPN (recommended or nonrecommended) reporting predefined efficacy and safety outcomes. Bayesian fixed-effect mixed treatment comparison methods were used to assess relative therapeutic efficacy and harms.

RESULTS

Data from 58 studies including 29 interventions and 11,883 patients were analyzed. Pain reduction over that of placebo on the 11-point numeric rating scale ranged from -3.29 for sodium valproate (95% credible interval [CrI] = [-4.21, -2.36]) to 1.67 for Sativex (-0.47, 0.60). Estimates for most treatments were clustered between 0 and -1.5 and were associated with more study data and smaller CrIs. Pregabalin (≥ 300 mg/day) was the most effective on the 100-point visual analog scale (-21.88; [-27.06, -16.68]); topiramate was the least (-3.09; [-3.99, -2.18]). Relative risks (RRs) of 30% pain reduction ranged from 0.78 (Sativex) to 1.84 (lidocaine 5% plaster). Analysis of the RR ratio of these 2 treatments reveals marginal significance for Sativex (3.27; [1.07, 9.81]), indicating the best treatment is only slightly better than the worst. Relative risks of 50% pain reduction ranged from 0.98 (0.56, 1.52) (amitriptyline) to 2.25 (1.51, 3.00) (alpha-lipoic acid). RR ratio for these treatments was not statistically different (3.39; [0.88, 3.34]). Fluoxetine had the lowest risk of adverse events (0.94; [0.62, 1.23]); oxycodone had the highest (1.55; [1.45, 1.64]). Discontinuation RRs were clustered around 0.8 to 1.5, with those on the extreme having greater uncertainty.

CONCLUSIONS

Selecting an appropriate pDPN therapy is key given the large number of available treatments. Comparative results revealed relative equivalence among many of the studied interventions having the largest overall sample sizes and highlight the importance of standardization of methods to effectively assess pain.