A randomized, prospective study of efficacy and safety of oral tramadol in the management of post-herpetic neuralgia in patients from north India

Efficacy and safety of twice-daily tramadol hydrochloride bilayer sustained-release tablets with an immediate release component for postherpetic neuralgia: Results of a Phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, treatment-withdrawal study

BACKGROUND

We investigated the efficacy and safety of twice-daily bilayer sustained-release tramadol hydrochloride tablets (35% immediate-release; 65% sustained-release) in patients with postherpetic neuralgia.

METHODS

This was a Phase III treatment-withdrawal study with 1-4-week dose-escalation, 1-week fixed-dose, and 4-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled withdrawal periods performed at 43 medical institutions in Japan. Patients aged ≥20 years, ≥3 months after the onset of herpes zoster with localized, persistent pain despite fixed-dose analgesics for ≥2 weeks before enrollment were eligible. Patients started tramadol at 100 mg/day and its dose escalated to a maximum of 400 mg/day to achieve a reduction in their Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for pain of ≥2 points. Eligible patients were randomized to continue tramadol or switched to placebo for 4 weeks (double-blind period). Patients were withdrawn due to inadequate analgesia (NRS deteriorated on ≥2 consecutive days) or their request.

RESULTS

Overall, 252 patients started tramadol and 173 were randomized (tramadol: 85; placebo: 88). Tramadol was superior to placebo for the primary endpoint (time from randomization to an inadequate analgesic effect) with log-rank test p = 0.0005. The hazard ratio was 0.353 (95% confidence interval 0.190-0.657) in favor of tramadol and fewer patients in the tramadol group experienced inadequate analgesic effects (16.9% vs. 39.8%). Adverse events in ≥10% of patients in the open-label period were constipation (43.8%), nausea (34.9%), somnolence (18.5%), and dizziness (11.6%). The frequencies of adverse events in the double-blind period were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Sustained-release tramadol tablets with an immediate-release component are effective and well tolerated for managing postherpetic neuralgia.

Expert review and recommendations for the management of acute, chronic, and neuropathic pain in Qatar

BACKGROUND

Pain management is an evolving area of expertise in Qatar. Gaps in knowledge, inadequate training for physicians and nurses, and the absence of policies/guidelines are the main barriers to effective pain management in Qatar. In addition, the use of certain pain medication, especially opioids, is highly regulated, limiting their availability in outpatient pain management. These factors are responsible for the undertreatment of pain in Qatar. This study aimed to standardize evidence-based local recommendations for pharmacological treatment of pain in Qatar.

METHODS

An expert panel of physicians from different disciplines, with experience in diagnosis and treatment of the three pain types (i.e., acute, chronic, and neuropathic), was convened for two face-to-face meetings in Doha, Qatar, on November 29, 2019, and on February 22, 2020, with subsequent virtual meetings. A literature search was performed on Medline and Google Scholar databases from inception till December 2019, and all relevant articles were selected. Based on these articles and repeated feedback from the authors, the final pain treatment protocols were developed.

RESULTS

Recommendations for the treatment of acute pain, based on pain severity, followed three approaches: acetaminophen/paracetamol or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for mild pain and moderate pain and referral to a pain specialist for severe pain. Acetaminophen/paracetamol or NSAIDs is recommended for chronic pain, and the use of opioids was strongly discouraged because of its long-term side effects. For neuropathic pain, tricyclic antidepressants or gabapentin or pregabalin or serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors were recommended first-line agents. Non-responders must be referred to neurologists or a pain specialist.

CONCLUSION

The expert panel provides recommendations for the management of acute, chronic, and neuropathic pain based on international guidelines adapted to local practice and treatment availability in Qatar. More importantly, the panel has recommended taking extreme caution in the use of opioids for long-term management of chronic pain and to refer the patient to a pain specialist clinician as required.

Alternatives to Opioids in the Pharmacologic Management of Chronic Pain Syndromes: A Narrative Review of Randomized, Controlled, and Blinded Clinical Trials

Chronic pain exerts a tremendous burden on individuals and societies. If one views chronic pain as a single disease entity, then it is the most common and costly medical condition. At present, medical professionals who treat patients in chronic pain are recommended to provide comprehensive and multidisciplinary treatments, which may include pharmacotherapy. Many providers use nonopioid medications to treat chronic pain; however, for some patients, opioid analgesics are the exclusive treatment of chronic pain. However, there is currently an epidemic of opioid use in the United States, and recent guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have recommended that the use of opioids for nonmalignant chronic pain be used only in certain circumstances. The goal of this review was to report the current body of evidence-based medicine gained from prospective, randomized-controlled, blinded studies on the use of nonopioid analgesics for the most common noncancer chronic pain conditions. A total of 9566 studies were obtained during literature searches, and 271 of these met inclusion for this review. Overall, while many nonopioid analgesics have been found to be effective in reducing pain for many chronic pain conditions, it is evident that the number of high-quality studies is lacking, and the effect sizes noted in many studies are not considered to be clinically significant despite statistical significance. More research is needed to determine effective and mechanism-based treatments for the chronic pain syndromes discussed in this review. Utilization of rigorous and homogeneous research methodology would likely allow for better consistency and reproducibility, which is of utmost importance in guiding evidence-based care.

Addressing the barriers related with opioid therapy for management of chronic pain in India

India has a high prevalence of chronic disorders which may be associated with persistent pain. Despite the availability of multiple treatment options, chronic pain is largely untreated and contributes to disability and mortality. Medical consumption of opioids remains low due to various barriers that prevent access to opioids for patients and healthcare practitioners. Stringent regulatory provisions outlined in the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (1985) have been major deterrents to adequate opioid use. Although multiple amendments to the act have ensured ease of opioid access for medicinal purposes, concerns such as lack of awareness and prescribing practices and attitudes of physicians/patients still need to be addressed. This review aims to identify these barriers and suggest recommendations to overcome them.

Tramadol for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

This review is an update of a review of tramadol for neuropathic pain, published in 2006; updating was to bring the review in line with current standards. Neuropathic pain, which is caused by a lesion or disease affecting the somatosensory system, may be central or peripheral in origin. Peripheral neuropathic pain often includes symptoms such as burning or shooting sensations, abnormal sensitivity to normally painless stimuli, or an increased sensitivity to normally painful stimuli. Neuropathic pain is a common symptom in many diseases of the peripheral nervous system.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy of tramadol compared with placebo or other active interventions for chronic neuropathic pain in adults, and the adverse events associated with its use in clinical trials.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase for randomised controlled trials from inception to January 2017. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and online clinical trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

We identified six randomised, double-blind studies involving 438 participants with suitably characterised neuropathic pain. In each, tramadol was started at a dose of about 100 mg daily and increased over one to two weeks to a maximum of 400 mg daily or the maximum tolerated dose, and then maintained for the remainder of the study. Participants had experienced moderate or severe neuropathic pain for at least three months due to cancer, cancer treatment, postherpetic neuralgia, peripheral diabetic neuropathy, spinal cord injury, or polyneuropathy. The mean age was 50 to 67 years with approximately equal numbers of men and women. Exclusions were typically people with other significant comorbidity or pain from other causes. Study duration for treatments was four to six weeks, and two studies had a cross-over design.Not all studies reported all the outcomes of interest, and there were limited data for pain outcomes. At least 50% pain intensity reduction was reported in three studies (265 participants, 110 events). Using a random-effects analysis, 70/132 (53%) had at least 50% pain relief with tramadol, and 40/133 (30%) with placebo; the risk ratio (RR) was 2.2 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 4.6). The NNT calculated from these data was 4.4 (95% CI 2.9 to 8.8). We downgraded the evidence for this outcome by two levels to low quality because of the small size of studies and of the pooled data set, because there were only 110 actual events, the analysis included different types of neuropathic pain, the studies all had at least one high risk of potential bias, and because of the limited duration of the studies.Participants experienced more adverse events with tramadol than placebo. Report of any adverse event was higher with tramadol (58%) than placebo (34%) (4 studies, 266 participants, 123 events; RR 1.6 (95% CI 1.2 to 2.1); NNH 4.2 (95% CI 2.8 to 8.3)). Adverse event withdrawal was higher with tramadol (16%) than placebo (3%) (6 studies, 485 participants, 45 events; RR 4.1 (95% CI 2.0 to 8.4); NNH 8.2 (95% CI 5.8 to 14)). Only four serious adverse events were reported, without obvious attribution to treatment, and no deaths were reported. We downgraded the evidence for this outcome by two or three levels to low or very low quality because of small study size, because there were few actual events, and because of the limited duration of the studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is only modest information about the use of tramadol in neuropathic pain, coming from small, largely inadequate studies with potential risk of bias. That bias would normally increase the apparent benefits of tramadol. The evidence of benefit from tramadol was of low or very low quality, meaning that it does not provide a reliable indication of the likely effect, and the likelihood is very high that the effect will be substantially different from the estimate in this systematic review.

Postherpetic Neuralgia Presenting as Delusional Parasitosis: A Case Series

Delusional parasitosis (DP) or Ekbom's disease is a rare psychiatric condition where the sufferers have a firm-fixed belief of insects crawling over their skin. The condition may be primary monosymptomatic hypochrondrical delusion or secondary to an underlying psychiatric or organic condition. We present two cases of elderly men presenting with classical symptomatology of DP, which is found to be secondary to postherpetic neuralgia following an acute episode of shingles or herpes zoster infection. One patient responded to a combination of antipsychotic, olanzapine, and pregabalin, used for neuropathic pain, and the other patient responded completely with medications used for neuropathic pain only without any antipsychotic use.