Comparative Efficacy of Oral Pharmaceuticals for the Treatment of Chronic Peripheral Neuropathic Pain: Meta-Analysis and Indirect Treatment Comparisons

Interventions for treating pain and disability in adults with complex regional pain syndrome- an overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a chronic pain condition that usually occurs in a limb following trauma or surgery. It is characterised by persisting pain that is disproportionate in magnitude or duration to the typical course of pain after similar injury. There is currently no consensus regarding the optimal management of CRPS, although a broad range of interventions have been described and are commonly used. This is the first update of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 4, 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To summarise the evidence from Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews of the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of any intervention used to reduce pain, disability, or both, in adults with CRPS.

METHODS

We identified Cochrane reviews and non-Cochrane reviews through a systematic search of Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, PEDro, LILACS and Epistemonikos from inception to October 2022, with no language restrictions. We included systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials that included adults (≥18 years) diagnosed with CRPS, using any diagnostic criteria.  Two overview authors independently assessed eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the reviews and certainty of the evidence using the AMSTAR 2 and GRADE tools respectively. We extracted data for the primary outcomes pain, disability and adverse events, and the secondary outcomes quality of life, emotional well-being, and participants' ratings of satisfaction or improvement with treatment.  MAIN RESULTS: We included six Cochrane and 13 non-Cochrane systematic reviews in the previous version of this overview and five Cochrane and 12 non-Cochrane reviews in the current version. Using the AMSTAR 2 tool, we judged Cochrane reviews to have higher methodological quality than non-Cochrane reviews. The studies in the included reviews were typically small and mostly at high risk of bias or of low methodological quality. We found no high-certainty evidence for any comparison.  There was low-certainty evidence that bisphosphonates may reduce pain intensity post-intervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) -2.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.8 to -3.4, P = 0.001; I2 = 81%; 4 trials, n = 181) and moderate-certainty evidence that they are probably associated with increased adverse events of any nature (risk ratio (RR) 2.10, 95% CI 1.27 to 3.47; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 4.6, 95% CI 2.4 to 168.0; 4 trials, n = 181).  There was moderate-certainty evidence that lidocaine local anaesthetic sympathetic blockade probably does not reduce pain intensity compared with placebo, and low-certainty evidence that it may not reduce pain intensity compared with ultrasound of the stellate ganglion. No effect size was reported for either comparison. There was low-certainty evidence that topical dimethyl sulfoxide may not reduce pain intensity compared with oral N-acetylcysteine, but no effect size was reported. There was low-certainty evidence that continuous bupivacaine brachial plexus block may reduce pain intensity compared with continuous bupivacaine stellate ganglion block, but no effect size was reported. For a wide range of other commonly used interventions, the certainty in the evidence was very low and provides insufficient evidence to either support or refute their use. Comparisons with low- and very low-certainty evidence should be treated with substantial caution. We did not identify any RCT evidence for routinely used pharmacological interventions for CRPS such as tricyclic antidepressants or opioids.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite a considerable increase in included evidence compared with the previous version of this overview, we identified no high-certainty evidence for the effectiveness of any therapy for CRPS. Until larger, high-quality trials are undertaken, formulating an evidence-based approach to managing CRPS will remain difficult. Current non-Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions for CRPS are of low methodological quality and should not be relied upon to provide an accurate and comprehensive summary of the evidence.

Enriched enrollment randomized double-blind placebo-controlled cross-over trial with phenytoin cream in painful chronic idiopathic axonal polyneuropathy (EPHENE): a study protocol

Background

Patients with chronic idiopathic axonal polyneuropathy (CIAP) can have neuropathic pain that significantly impacts quality of life. Oral neuropathic pain medication often has insufficient pain relief and side effects. Topical phenytoin cream could circumvent these limitations.

The primary objectives of this trial are to evaluate (1) efficacy in pain reduction and (2) safety of phenytoin cream in patients with painful CIAP. The main secondary objective is to explore the usefulness of a double-blind placebo-controlled response test (DOBRET) to identify responders to sustained pain relief with phenytoin cream.

Methods

This 6-week, enriched enrollment randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled triple cross-over trial compares phenytoin 20%, 10% and placebo cream in 48 participants with painful CIAP. Enriched enrollment is based on a positive DOBRET in 48 participants who experience within 30 minutes ≥2 points pain reduction on the 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS) in the phenytoin 10% cream applied area and ≥1 point difference in pain reduction on the NRS between phenytoin 10% and placebo cream applied area, in favour of the former. To explore whether DOBRET has predictive value for sustained pain relief, 24 DOBRET-negative participants will be included.

An open-label extension phase is offered with phenytoin 20% cream for up to one year, to study long-term safety.

The main inclusion criteria are a diagnosis of CIAP and symmetrical neuropathic pain with a mean weekly pain score of ≥4 and <10 on the NRS.

The primary outcome is the mean difference between phenytoin 20% versus placebo cream in 7-day average pain intensity, as measured by the NRS, over week 2 in DOBRET positive participants.

Key secondary outcomes include the mean difference in pain intensity between phenytoin 10% and phenytoin 20% cream, and between phenytoin 10% and placebo cream. Furthermore, differences between the 3 interventions will be evaluated on the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory, EuroQol EQ5-5D-5L, and evaluation of adverse events.

Discussion

This study will provide evidence on the efficacy and safety of phenytoin cream in patients with painful CIAP and will give insight into the usefulness of DOBRET as a way of personalized medicine to identify responders to sustained pain relief with phenytoin cream.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04647877. Registered on 1 December 2020.

Pharmacological treatments of neuropathic pain: real-life comparisons using propensity score matching

ABSTRACT

Studies comparing different drug treatments for chronic neuropathic pain (NP) are very limited. We, therefore, examined 4 recommended treatments, namely, antidepressants (duloxetine, venlafaxine, and tricyclic antidepressants), antiepileptics (gabapentine and pregabalin), weak opioids, and strong opioids, among patients with NP evaluated before first visit in a tertiary pain treatment centre and 6 months later. Patients with both a clinical diagnosis of NP and a DN4 score ≥3/7 were selected from patients enrolled in the Quebec Pain Registry. Each participant was assigned an inverse weighting of the probability of receiving any NP treatment, taking into account their age, sex, baseline pain intensity, pain duration, pain catastrophizing tendency, education level, employment, and comedications at 6-month follow-up (M6). Patients were considered as improved if they presented at least a 30% reduction on average pain intensity at M6 compared with baseline. A total of 944 patients completed both baseline and M6 evaluations. Overall, 23.0% of patients were significantly improved for pain intensity at M6. There was no significant difference in proportions patients taking or not antidepressants, gabapentinoids, or weak opioids. Among patients taking strong opioids (N = 288), 13.9% (N = 40/288) were improved vs 27.0% (177/656) of those who were not on opioids (P < 0.004). Inverse probability of treatment weighting confirmed that the proportion of patients who improved was significantly lower among those taking strong opioids compared with those who did not (P < 0.001). In conclusion, long-term use of strong opioids is a treatment suited for a limited proportion of patients with chronic NP.

Evaluation of in vitro transdermal permeation, mass spectrometric imaging, and in vivo analgesic effects of pregabalin using a pluronic lecithin organogel formulation in mice

In clinical practice, pregabalin is orally administered for neuropathic pain, but causes severe central nervous system side effects, such as dizziness, which results in dose limitation or discontinuation. To reduce the central side effects of pregabalin, we developed four pregabalin preparations for transdermal application: 0.4% aqueous solution, pluronic lecithin organogel (PLO gel), hydrophilic cream, and lipophilic cream. Transdermal permeabilities of pregabalin among the four formulations were compared in vitro using hairless mouse skin. The longitudinal distribution of pregabalin within the skin was analyzed using mass spectrometric (MS) imaging. Furthermore, the in vivo analgesic effects of the formulations were evaluated using the von Frey filament test in a mouse model of diabetic neuropathy (DN). The PLO gel showed the highest permeability of pregabalin, followed by the aqueous solution, and no permeation was observed in the two cream formulations. The MS imaging analysis showed that pregabalin was distributed up to the dermis in the PLO gel 1 h after application, while the aqueous solution was distributed near the epidermis. A significant analgesic effect (p < .05) was observed 1.5 h after PLO gel application in the DN model mice, but the aqueous solution had no effect. This study indicated for the first time that pregabalin penetrated beyond the skin epidermis up to the dermis, from the PLO gel formulation, and that the application of this formulation exhibited an in vivo analgesic effect in the mouse model of DN.

Bixin attenuates mechanical allodynia, anxious and depressive-like behaviors associated with experimental diabetes counteracting oxidative stress and glycated hemoglobin

Neuropathic pain, depression, and anxiety are common comorbidities in diabetic patients, whose pathophysiology involves hyperglycemia-induced increased oxidative stress. Bixin (BIX), an apocarotenoid extracted from the seeds of Bixa orellana, has been used in traditional medicine to treat diabetes and has been recognized by its antioxidant profile. We aimed to investigate the effect of the BIX over the mechanical allodynia, depressive, and anxious-like behaviors associated with experimental diabetes, along with its involved mechanisms. Streptozotocin-induced diabetic rats were treated for 17 days (starting 14 days after diabetes induction) with the corresponding vehicle, BIX (10, 30 or 90 mg/kg; p.o), or INS (6 IU; s.c.). Mechanical allodynia, depressive, and anxious-like behavior were assessed by electronic Von Frey, forced swimming, and elevated plus-maze tests, respectively. Locomotor activity was assessed by the open field test. Blood glycated hemoglobin (HbA1) and the levels of lipid peroxidation (LPO) and reduced glutathione (GSH) were evaluated on the hippocampus, pre-frontal cortex, lumbar spinal cord, and sciatic nerve. Diabetic animals developed mechanical allodynia, depressive and anxious-like behavior, increased plasma HbA1, increased LPO, and decreased GSH levels in tissues analyzed. Repeated BIX-treatment (at all tested doses) significantly attenuated mechanical allodynia, the depressive (30 and 90 mg/kg) and, anxious-like behaviors (all doses) in diabetic rats, without changing the locomotor performance. BIX (at all tested doses) restored the oxidative parameters in tissues analyzed and reduced the plasma HbA1. Thereby, bixin may represent an alternative for the treatment of comorbidities associated with diabetes, counteracting oxidative stress and plasma HbA1.

Capsaicin 8% patch Qutenza and other current treatments for neuropathic pain in chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN)

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Current oral treatments for neuropathic pain associated with chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) have limited clinical efficacy, and undesirable side-effects. Topically delivered treatments have the advantage of avoiding CNS side-effects, while relieving pain. We have reviewed treatments of neuropathic pain associated with CIPN, focusing on the Capsaicin 8% patch, which can provide pain relief for up to 3 months or longer after a single 30-60-min application.

RECENT FINDINGS

Capsaicin 8% patch is a licensed treatment in the EU/UK for neuropathic pain and shown to be safe and effective in providing pain relief for patients with CIPN. Repeated daily oral or topical administrations are not required, as with other current treatments. The side-effects are transient and restricted to the time around patch application. New evidence suggests the Capsaicin 8% patch can promote the regeneration and restoration of skin nerve fibres in CIPN, in addition to the pain relief.

SUMMARY

The Capsaicin 8% patch is now often a preferred a treatment option for localised neuropathic pain conditions, including the feet and hands in patients with CIPN. Capsaicin 8% patch can be repeated three-monthly, if needed, for a year. In addition to pain relief, it may have a disease-modifying effect.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Guideline "diagnosis and non interventional therapy of neuropathic pain" of the German Society of Neurology (deutsche Gesellschaft für Neurologie)

2019 the DGN (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Neurology) published a new guideline on the diagnosis and non-interventional therapy of neuropathic pain of any etiology excluding trigeminal neuralgia and CRPS (complex regional pain syndrome). Neuropathic pain occurs after lesion or damage of the somatosensory system. Besides clinical examination several diagnostic procedures are recommended to assess the function of nociceptive A-delta and C-Fibers (skin biopsy, quantitative sensory testing, Laser-evoked potentials, Pain-evoked potentials, corneal confocal microscopy, axon reflex testing). First line treatment in neuropathic pain is pregabalin, gabapentin, duloxetine and amitriptyline. Second choice drugs are topical capsaicin and lidocaine, which can also be considered as primary treatment in focal neuropathic pain. Opioids are considered as third choice treatment. Botulinum toxin can be considered as a third choice drug for focal limited pain in specialized centers only. Carbamazepine and oxcarbazepine cannot be generally  recommended, but might be helpful in single cases. In Germany, cannabinoids can be prescribed, but only after approval of reimbursement. However, the use is not recommended, and can only be considered as off-label therapy within a multimodal therapy concept.

Attitude of Japanese palliative care specialists towards adjuvant analgesics cancer-related neuropathic pain refractory to opioid therapy: a nationwide cross-sectional survey

Cancer-related neuropathic pain (CNP) requires therapy involving multiple pharmaceuticals, including anticonvulsants and antidepressants; however, strong evidence to support this practice is limited. This study is a cross-sectional questionnaire-based survey. As the standard dose of adjuvant analgesics for CNP refractory to opioid therapy is not clear, the purpose of this study is to clarify the opinions of specialists about the usage of duloxetine and pregabalin for patients with CNP refractory to opioid therapy. Two hundred and eight certified palliative care specialists were surveyed and a total of 87 (42%) responses were analyzed. Twenty-five percent of specialists had considered increasing duloxetine doses up to 60 mg/day and 58% had considered increasing pregabalin doses up to 300 mg/day for CNP refractory to opioid therapy. However, 23% of the specialists succeeded in increasing duloxetine doses up to 60 mg/day and 17% in increasing pregabalin doses up to 300 mg/day, respectively.

Single-Blind Placebo-Controlled Response Test with Phenytoin 10% Cream in Neuropathic Pain Patients

Background: Phenytoin cream applied topically has been explored in neuropathic pain conditions. In several case series, phenytoin 5% and 10% cream could reduce pain in a clinically relevant way with a fast onset of action within 30 min, and with positive effects on sleep. Objective: To evaluate a single-blind placebo-controlled response test (SIBRET) for use in clinical practice. Materials and Methods: Patients with localized neuropathic pain, having an equal pain intensity in at least 2 areas (e.g., both feet), and a pain intensity of at least 4 on the 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS), were selected to perform the SIBRET. In one area, placebo cream consisting of the base cream was applied, and on the other area, phenytoin 10% cream was applied with separate hands to avoid contamination. Responders were defined as patients who experienced within 30 min at least 2-points difference as scored on the NRS, between the phenytoin 10% and the placebo cream applied areas, in favor of the former. Responders were subsequently prescribed phenytoin 10% cream. Results: Of the 21 patients, 15 patients (71.45%) were classified as responders. The mean pain reduction after 30 min as measured with the NRS in the phenytoin 10% cream area was 3.3 (SD: 1.3) and in the placebo cream area 1.2 (SD: 1.1). The difference of the mean percentage pain reduction between phenytoin 10% cream and placebo cream was 33.2% (SD: 17.6, p < 0.001). Using a 50% reduction on the NRS as a full response criterion, we could identify 57.1% of responders on phenytoin 10% cream and only 9.5% responders on placebo cream. Conclusions: The SIBRET helps patients and clinicians to quickly identify the appropriate treatment and can thus be seen as an important contributor to the domain of personalized medicine in pain. These results can also be regarded as a proof of principle for the analgesic activity of 10% phenytoin cream.

Characteristics, resource utilization and safety profile of patients prescribed with neuropathic pain treatments: a real-world evidence study on general practices in Europe - the role of the lidocaine 5% medicated plaster

OBJECTIVES

To identify characteristics, resource utilization, and safety profile of patients prescribed with lidocaine 5% medicated plaster, pregabalin, gabapentin, amitriptyline and duloxetine when experiencing pain in the real-world setting of general practitioners (GPs) in Europe.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis on real world data from IMS Health Longitudinal Patient Database. Patients with at least one prescription of the drugs of interest during 2014 were selected and those with a non-neuropathic pain-related diagnosis were excluded. Patients' demographic and clinical characteristics, resource utilization data and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) as described in the leaflet were extracted. The association between treatments and ADR occurrence was evaluated applying multivariate logistic models.

RESULTS

A total of 70,515 patients were selected from Italy, Germany, the UK, Spain and Belgium. Lidocaine 5% medicated plaster patients were the oldest in Italy, the UK and Spain and the most health impaired in Italy, Spain and Belgium. No relevant differences in the number of co-prescriptions, specialist visits, examinations and hospitalizations were found. Significantly less lidocaine 5% plasters patients experienced ADRs, with odds ratios in favor of lidocaine 5% medicated plasters ranging from 3.41 (p = .036) to 52.33 (p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence from daily clinical practice in GP settings agrees with the findings from more controlled clinical-trial settings, with lidocaine 5% medicated plaster patients showing a better safety profile, but also a comparable level of resource utilization. A possible re-evaluation of the scientific value coming from this retrospective study in building up a diagnostic as well as a therapeutic algorithm is suggested.

Treatment Options for Failed Back Surgery Syndrome Patients With Refractory Chronic Pain: An Evidence Based Approach

STUDY DESIGN

A significant number of lumbar postsurgical patients continue to suffer persistent pain and limited function and are termed to have "Failed back surgery syndrome" (FBSS). This review evaluates clinical trial data for the treatment of FBSS patients.

OBJECTIVE

Using an evidence-based approach to evaluate FBSS treatments will assist clinicians in choosing the most effective options for FBSS patients. Furthermore, reducing the utilization of less effective therapies may result in substantial financial savings for this patient population.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Treatments for FBSS may be generally categorized as physical therapy and exercise, medications, interventional procedures, neuromodulation, and reoperation. Careful review and classification of the level of evidence available for each category of treatment for FBSS patients will help guide clinical decision-making.

METHODS

A literature review was performed for FBSS treatments. The publications were arranged hierarchically according to the North American Spine Society's guidelines as randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective studies, retrospective chart, and systematic reviews. Book chapters, nonsystematic reviews, and expert opinions were excluded. The review focused on studies with at least 20 FBSS patients and 6-month follow-up.

RESULTS

Evidence is weak for medications and reoperation, but strong for active exercise and interventional procedures such as adhesiolysis. The strongest evidence for long-term treatment is for spinal cord stimulation (SCS), showing favorable Level I RCT results compared with conventional medical management and reoperation. In addition, high-frequency SCS at 10 kHz has demonstrated superiority over traditional, low-frequency SCS for treating low back and leg pain in a recent Level I RCT.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians may increasingly utilize levels of evidence during their evaluation of each FBSS patient to render the best therapeutic plan, likely resulting in improved long-term pain control and reducing costs by avoiding less effective modalities. New directions in SCS show promising results for the treatment of FBSS.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

1.

Can Chronic Pain Patients Be Adequately Treated Using Generic Pain Medications to the Exclusion of Brand-Name Ones?

According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reports, approximately 8 in 10 prescriptions filled in the United States are for generic medications, with an expectation that this number will increase over the next few years. The impetus for this emphasis on generics is the cost disparity between them and brand-name products. The use of FDA-approved generic drugs saved 158 billion dollars in 2010 alone. In the current health care climate, there is continually increasing pressure for prescribers to write for generic alternative medications, occasionally at the expense of best clinical practices. This creates a conflict wherein both physicians and patients may find brand-name medications clinically superior but nevertheless choose generic ones. The issue of generic versus brand medications is a key component of the discussion of health payers, physicians and their patients. This review evaluates some of the important medications in the armamentarium of pain physicians that are frequently used in the management of chronic pain, and that are currently at the forefront of this issue, including Opana (oxymorphone; Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Malvern, PA), Gralise (gabapentin; Depomed, Newark, CA), and Horizant (gabapentin enacarbil; XenoPort, Santa Clara, CA) that are each available in generic forms as well. We also discuss the use of Lyrica (pregabalin; Pfizer, New York, NY), which is currently unavailable as generic medication, and Cymbalta (duloxetine; Eli Lilly, Indianapolis, IN), which has been recently FDA approved to be available in a generic form. It is clear that the use of generic medications results in large financial savings for the cost of prescriptions on a national scale. However, cost-analysis is only part of the equation when treating chronic pain patients and undervalues the relationships of enhanced compliance due to single-daily dosing and stable and reliable pharmacokinetics associated with extended-duration preparations using either retentive technologies or delayed absorption strategies. Medications given to chronic pain patients should be individualized to best serve analgesic needs and assure patient safety primarily, based on high levels of scientific and economic evidence. Decisions regarding utilization should not be made based solely on limited or faulty assessments of cost-benefit analyses.

Alpha2delta ligands, gabapentin, pregabalin and mirogabalin: a review of their clinical pharmacology and therapeutic use

INTRODUCTION

The first two alpha₂delta ligands - gabapentin (GBP) and pregabalin (PGB) - were initially synthesized as antiepileptics; however, they were later also found to be useful for the treatment of additional conditions. Areas covered: Relevant publications describing potential underlying mechanisms, clinical pharmacokinetics/pharmacokinetics, and clinical efficacy and safety of these drugs in various disease conditions were searched in PubMed and Scopus and included in this review. Expert commentary: GBP and PGB are effective for the treatment neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia and epilepsy; in addition, they may be useful for the reduction of postoperative pain. PGB is also effective for the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder and GBP for the treatment of restless legs syndrome. GBP may be considered a treatment option for pain associated with Guillain-Barré Syndrome and phantom limb and for the management of uremic pruritus. Mirogabalin (MGB), recently developed, is being investigated for the treatment of peripheral neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia, showing promising results in patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Their most frequent adverse reactions are of neuropsychiatric nature and include fatigue, dizziness, sedation, somnolence, and ataxia; peripheral edema and weight gain are also frequently described. Pharmacokinetic interactions are scarce; however, pharmacodynamic interactions have been described in association with drugs with CNS-depressant effects.

Capsaicin 8% patch versus oral pregabalin in patients with peripheral neuropathic pain

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials have not yet compared the efficacy of capsaicin 8% patch with current standard therapy in peripheral neuropathic pain (PNP).

OBJECTIVES

Head-to-head efficacy and safety trial comparing the capsaicin patch with pregabalin in PNP.

METHODS

Open-label, randomized, multicentre, non-inferiority trial. Patients with PNP, aged 18-80 years, were randomly assigned to either the capsaicin 8% patch (n = 282) or an optimised dose of oral pregabalin (n = 277), and assessed for a ≥30% mean decrease in Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) score from baseline to Week 8. Secondary endpoints included optimal therapeutic effect (OTE), time-to-onset of pain relief and treatment satisfaction.

RESULTS

The capsaicin 8% patch was non-inferior to pregabalin in achievement of a ≥30% mean decrease in NPRS score from baseline to Week 8 (55.7% vs. 54.5%, respectively; Odds ratio: 1.03 [95% CI: 0.72, 1.50]). The proportion of patients achieving OTE at Week 8 was 52.1% for the capsaicin 8% patch versus 44.8% for pregabalin (difference: 7.3%; 95% CI: -0.9%, 15.6%). The median time-to-onset of pain relief was significantly shorter for capsaicin 8% patch versus pregabalin (7.5 vs. 36.0 days; Hazard ratio: 1.68 [95% CI: 1.35, 2.08]; p < 0.0001). Treatment satisfaction was also significantly greater with the capsaicin 8% patch versus pregabalin. TEAEs were mild-to-moderate in severity, and resulted in treatment discontinuation only with pregabalin (n = 24). Systemic adverse drug reactions ranged from 0 to 1.1% with capsaicin 8% patch and 2.5 to 18.4% with pregabalin.

CONCLUSIONS

The capsaicin 8% patch provided non-inferior pain relief to an optimized dose of pregabalin in PNP, with a faster onset of action, fewer systemic side effects and greater treatment satisfaction.

Are there different predictors of analgesic response between antidepressants and anticonvulsants in painful diabetic neuropathy?

BACKGROUND

To investigate baseline demographics and disease characteristics as predictors of the analgesic effect of duloxetine and pregabalin on diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).

METHODS

Based on data from the COMBO-DN study, a multinational clinical trial in DPNP, the potential impact of baseline characteristics on pain relief after 8-week monotherapy with 60 mg/day duloxetine or 300 mg/day pregabalin was assessed using analyses of covariance. Subgroups of interest were characterized regarding their baseline characteristics and efficacy outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 804 patients were evaluated at baseline. A significant interaction with treatment was observed in the mood symptom subgroups with a larger pain reduction in duloxetine-treated patients having no mood symptoms [Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) depression or anxiety subscale score <11; -2.33 (duloxetine); -1.52 (pregabalin); p = 0.024]. There were no significant interactions between treatment for subgroups by age (<65 or ≥65 years), gender, baseline pain severity [Brief Pain Inventory Modified Short Form (BPI-MSF) average pain <6 or ≥6], diabetic neuropathy duration (≤2 or >2 years), baseline haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) (<8% or ≥8%), presence of comorbidities and concomitant medication use.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analyses suggest that the efficacy of duloxetine and pregabalin for initial 8-week treatment in DPNP was consistent across examined subgroups based on demographics and disease characteristics at baseline except for the presence of mood symptoms. Duloxetine treatment appeared to be particularly beneficial in DPNP patients having no mood symptoms.

A cross-sectional survey to investigate the prevalence of pain in Japanese patients with major depressive disorder and schizophrenia

We conducted a cross-sectional survey to assess the prevalence of physical pain in Japanese major depressive disorder (MDD) and schizophrenia (SZ) patients as well as in healthy controls (HCs). We also examined the association between their psychopathology and characteristics of pain according to a face-to-face survey by an experienced psychiatrist and psychologist. We analyzed 233 HCs, 94 MDD patients, and 75 SZ patients using the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) and SF-8 (all participants), the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale 21 items (MDD patients), and the Positive and Negative Symptom Scale (SZ patients). Although MDD patients experienced more pain than HCs, there was no difference in the prevalence of pain between SZ patients and HCs. Moreover, HCs with pain did not have higher SF-8 total scores than those without pain, whereas both MDD and SZ patients with pain had higher SF-8 total scores than those without pain. The severity of psychopathology in MDD and SZ patients was also positively associated with both the prevalence of pain and MPQ scores. MPQ scores were also associated with positive symptoms in SZ patients. Considering these results, physicians need to query MDD patients about physical pain during examination if they are to ensure a favorable and quick response to treatment. The severity of positive symptoms (i.e., clinical status) in SZ patients might also be associated with pain sensitivity, and warrants further investigation.

Management of chronic neuropathic pain: a protocol for a multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Chronic neuropathic pain is associated with reduced health-related quality of life and substantial socioeconomic costs. Current research addressing management of chronic neuropathic pain is limited. No review has evaluated all interventional studies for chronic neuropathic pain, which limits attempts to make inferences regarding the relative effectiveness of treatments.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will conduct a systematic review of all randomised controlled trials evaluating therapies for chronic neuropathic pain. We will identify eligible trials, in any language, by a systematic search of CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, AMED, HealthSTAR, DARE, PsychINFO and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials. Eligible trials will be: (1) enrol patients presenting with chronic neuropathic pain, and (2) randomise patients to alternative interventions (pharmacological or non-pharmacological) or an intervention and a control arm. Pairs of reviewers will, independently and in duplicate, screen titles and abstracts of identified citations, review the full texts of potentially eligible trials and extract information from eligible trials. We will use a modified Cochrane instrument to evaluate risk of bias of eligible studies, recommendations from the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) to inform the outcomes we will collect, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to evaluate our confidence in treatment effects. When possible, we will conduct: (1) in direct comparisons, a random-effects meta-analysis to establish the effect of reported therapies on patient-important outcomes; and (2) a multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis within a Bayesian framework to assess the relative effects of treatments. We will define a priori hypotheses to explain heterogeneity between studies, and conduct meta-regression and subgroup analyses consistent with the current best practices.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

We do not require ethics approval for our proposed review. We will disseminate our findings through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO (CRD42014009212).

Neuropathic pain phenotyping as a predictor of treatment response in painful diabetic neuropathy: data from the randomized, double-blind, COMBO-DN study

Sensory profiles are heterogeneous in neuropathic pain disorders, and subgroups of patients respond differently to treatment. To further explore this, patients in the COMBO-DN study were prospectively assessed by the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI) at baseline, after initial 8-week therapy with either duloxetine or pregabalin, and after subsequent 8-week combination/high-dose therapy. Exploratory post hoc cluster analyses were performed to identify and characterize potential subgroups through their scores in the NPSI items. In patients not responding to initial 60 mg/d duloxetine, adding 300 mg/d pregabalin for combination treatment was particularly effective regarding the dimensions pressing pain and evoked pain, whereas maximizing the duloxetine dose to 120 mg/d appeared more beneficial regarding paresthesia/dysesthesia. In contrast, adding 60 mg/d duloxetine to 300 mg/d pregabalin in case of nonresponse to initial pregabalin led to numerically higher decreases in all NPSI dimensions/items compared to maximizing the pregabalin dose to 600 mg/d. Cluster analysis revealed 3 patient clusters (defined by baseline scores for the 10 NPSI sensory items) with different pain profiles, not only in terms of overall pain severity, but also across NPSI items. Mean Brief Pain Inventory average pain improved in all clusters during combination/high-dose therapy. However, in patients with severe pain, the treatment effect showed a trend in favor of high-dose monotherapy, whereas combination therapy appeared to be more beneficial in patients with moderate and mild pain (not significant). These complementary exploratory analyses further endorse the idea that sensory phenotyping might lead to a more stratified treatment and potentially to personalized pain therapy.

Dopaminergic modulation of neuropathic pain: analgesia in rats by a D2-type receptor agonist

Experimental studies have shown that dopaminergic mechanisms can modulate both nociception and chronic pain perception, but such property is not exploited pharmacologically at the clinical level. We have previously shown that levodopa produces D2-receptor-mediated antiallodynic effects in rats with peripheral mononeuropathy. Here, we test the effects of a D2-type receptor (D2R) agonist, quinpirole, on neuropathic pain in rats. Allodynic responses to cooling and light touch were measured in the hind limbs of rats with chronic constriction injury of one sciatic nerve. Single intraperitoneal injection of quinpirole (1 mg/kg) totally inhibited cold and tactile allodynic responses for over 3 and 48 h, respectively. At that dose, quinpirole had no effect on nocifensive responses to heat. Lumbar intrathecal injection of quinpirole produced short-term inhibition of the responses to cold and tactile stimuli, suggesting that spinal mechanisms may contribute to the antiallodynic activity of quinpirole. Chronic subcutaneous infusion of quinpirole by implanted Alzet pumps (0.025 mg/kg·day) provided a slowly progressing inhibition of cold and tactile allodynic responses, which re-emerged after the pumps were removed. These experiments show the involvement of dopaminergic systems in the modulation of chronic allodynias and provide experimental support for proposing the use of D2R agonists for neuropathic pain relief.