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

Should Non-Pharmacological and Non-Surgical Interventions be Used to Manage Neuropathic Pain in Adults With Spinal Cord Injury? - A Systematic Review

Spinal Cord Injury (SCI) results in a permanent or temporary alteration of the motor, sensory and/or autonomic functions, frequently leading to neuropathic pain. To deal with this comorbidity, several non-pharmacological and non-surgical (NP-NS) interventions have been developed. However, their efficacy is still uncertain. The aim of this study was to systematically synthetize the available evidence assessing the efficacy of NP-NS interventions for treating neuropathic pain in people with SCI. Thus, an electronic search was conducted in five databases (Pubmed, Scopus, Cochrane Central, Web of Science and EBSCO) and trials registry databases, in addition to a manual search strategy to retrieve additional records. The review included randomized controlled trials with adults with SCI, in any stage of the condition. Data on the efficacy of the interventions was narratively synthetized. Once the research was completed, of 4853 identified references, 24 were included with a total of 653 participants with SCI and neuropathic pain, mostly male and with paraplegia. These studies investigated the effect of 13 types of NP-NS interventions with different protocols and methodological limitations. Seven different assessment scales were analyzed, with neuropathic pain being the primary outcome in 21 studies. Such high heterogeneity impaired the conduction of meta-analysis for any of the interventions. Although promising results were found regarding analgesic effect of NP-NS on neuropathic pain in people with SCI, it is not yet possible to safely state that these interventions are in fact effective. Further studies with homogeneous protocols and methodological quality are still needed. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents a review of existing studies on the effectiveness of NP-NS interventions in neuropathic pain in SCI. This synthesis could potentially alert and motivate clinicians to develop studies on this topic, so that interventions can be objectively evaluated and recommendations for an evidence-based practice be created.

Fibroblast Growth Factors as Tools in the Management of Neuropathic Pain Disorders

Neuropathic pain is caused by a damage to or dysfunction of the somatosensory nervous system. The main mechanisms underlying neuropathic pain include ectopic activity in nociceptive nerves, peripheral and central sensitization, impaired inhibitory modulation, and microglial activation. Fibroblast growth factors (FGFs) make up a large family of growth factors that mediate neural development, metabolism, and function through three main key signaling pathways, including RAS/MAP kinase pathway, PI3 kinase/Akt pathway, and PLCγ. An association between the members of the FGF system and the improvement of neuropathic pain has become evident, recently. These signaling molecules may be expected to provide new drug targets for the treatment of neuropathic pain. To the best of our knowledge, it is the first study that reviews the relationship between some members of the FGF system and neuropathic pain.

A Review on Stem Cell Therapy for Neuropathic Pain

Neuropathic pain is a complex, chronic pain state that is heterogeneous in nature and caused by the consequence of a lesion or disease affecting the somatosensory system. Current medications give a long-lasting pain relief only in a limited percentage of patients also associated with numerous side effects. Stem cell transplantation is one of the attractive therapeutic platforms for the treatment of a variety of diseases, such as neuropathic pain. Here, the authors review the therapeutic effects of stem cell transplantation of different origin and species in different models of neuropathic pain disorders. Stem cell transplantation could alleviate the neuropathic pain; indeed, stem cells are the source of cells, which differentiate into a variety of cell types and lead trophic factors to migrate to the lesion site opposing the effects of damage. In conclusion, this review suggests that stem cell therapy can be a novel approach for the treatment of neuropathic pain.

Emerging role of nanomedicine in the treatment of neuropathic pain

Neuropathic pain (NeP) is a complex chronic pain condition associated with nerve injury. Approximately, 7-10% of the general population across the globe is suffering from this traumatic condition, but the existing treatment strategies are inadequate to deliver pain relief and are associated with severe adverse effects. To overcome these limitations, lot of research is focussed on developing new molecules with high potency and fewer side effects, novel cell and gene-based therapies and modification of the previously approved drugs by different formulation aspects. Nanomedicine has attracted a lot of attention in the treatment of many diverse pathological conditions because of their unique physiochemical and biological properties. In this manuscript, we highlighted the emerging role of nanomedicine in different therapies (drug, cell and gene), also we emphasised on the challenges associated with nanomedicine such as development of well-characterised nanoformulation, scaling of batches with reproducible results and toxicity along with this we discussed about the future of nanomedicine in the treatment of neuropathic pain.

[Efficacy, tolerability and safety of cannabinoids for chronic neuropathic pain: A systematic review of randomized controlled studies]

BACKGROUND

Recently published systematic reviews came to different conclusions with respect to the efficacy, tolerability and safety of cannabinoids for treatment of chronic neuropathic pain.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic search of the literature was carried out in MEDLINE, the Cochrane central register of controlled trials (CENTRAL) and clinicaltrials.gov up until November 2015. We included double-blind randomized placebo-controlled studies (RCT) of at least 2 weeks duration and with at least 9 patients per treatment arm comparing medicinal cannabis, plant-based or synthetic cannabinoids with placebo or any other active drug treatment in patients with chronic neuropathic pain. Clinical endpoints of the analyses were efficacy (more than 30 % or 50 % reduction of pain, average pain intensity, global improvement and health-related quality of life), tolerability (drop-out rate due to side effects, central nervous system and psychiatric side effects) and safety (severe side effects). Using a random effects model absolute risk differences (RD) were calculated for categorical data and standardized mean differences (SMD) for continuous variables. The methodological quality of RCTs was rated by the Cochrane risk of bias tool.

RESULTS

We included 15 RCTs with 1619 participants. Study duration ranged between 2 and 15 weeks. Of the studies 10 used a plant-derived oromucosal spray with tetrahydrocannabinol/cannabidiol, 3 studies used a synthetic cannabinoid (2  with nabilone and 1  with dronabinol) and 2 studies used medicinal cannabis. The 13 studies with parallel or cross-over design yielded the following results with 95 % confidence intervals (CI): cannabinoids were superior to placebo in the reduction of mean pain intensity with SMD - 0.10 (95 % CI - 0.20- - 0.00, p = 0.05, 13 studies with 1565 participants), in the frequency of at least a 30 % reduction in pain with an RD of 0.10 [95 % CI 0.03-0.16, p = 0.004, 9 studies with 1346 participants, number needed to treat for additional benefit (NNTB) 14, 95 % CI 8-45] and in the frequency of a large or very large global improvement with an RD of 0.09 (95 % CI 0.01-0.17, p = 0.009, 7 studies with 1092 participants). There were no statistically significant differences between cannabinoids and placebo in the frequency of at least a 50 % reduction in pain, in improvement of health-related quality of life and in the frequency of serious adverse events. Patients treated with cannabinoids dropped out more frequently due to adverse events with an RD of 0.04 [95 % CI 0.01-0.07, p = 0.009, 11 studies with 1572 participants, number needed to treat for additional harm (NNTH) 19, 95 % CI 13-37], reported central nervous system side effects more frequently with an RD of 0.38 (95 % CI 0.18-0.58, p = 0.0003, 9 studies with 1304 participants, NNTH 3, 95 % CI 2-4) and psychiatric side effects with an RD of 0.11 (95 % CI 0.06-0.16, p < 0.0001, 9 studies with 1304 participants, NNTH 8, 95 % CI 7-12).

CONCLUSION

Cannabinoids were marginally superior to placebo in terms of efficacy and inferior in terms of tolerability. Cannabinoids and placebo did not differ in terms of safety during the study period. Short-term and intermediate-term therapy with cannabinoids can be considered in selected patients with chronic neuropathic pain after failure of first-line and second-line therapies.

Predictors of in-hospital mortality among patients with pulmonary tuberculosis: a protocol of systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

INTRODUCTION

Tuberculosis (TB) continues to be a major public health issue worldwide, with 1.4 million deaths occurring annually. There is uncertainty regarding which factors are associated with in-hospital mortality among patients with pulmonary TB. This knowledge gap complicates efforts to identify and improve the management of those individuals with TB at greatest risk of death. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to establish predictors of in-hospital mortality among patients with pulmonary TB to enhance the evidence base for public policy.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Studies will be identified by a MEDLINE, EMBASE and Global Health search. Eligible studies will be cohort and case-control studies that report predictors or risk factors for in-hospital mortality among patients with pulmonary TB and an adjusted analysis to explore factors associated with in-hospital mortality. We will use the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to summarise the findings of some reported predictors. Teams of 2 reviewers will screen the titles and abstracts of all citations identified in our search, independently and in duplicate, extract data, and assess scientific quality using standardised forms quality assessment and tools tailored. We will pool all factors that were assessed for an association with mortality that were reported by >1 study, and presented the OR and the associated 95% CI. When studies provided the measure of association as a relative risk (RR), we will convert the RR to OR using the formula provided by Wang. For binary data, we will calculate a pooled OR, with an associated 95% CI.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study is based on published data, and therefore ethical approval is not a requirement. Findings will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations at relevant conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42015025755.

Go-sha-jinki-Gan (GJG) ameliorates allodynia in chronic constriction injury-model mice via suppression of TNF-α expression in the spinal cord

Background

Alternative medicine is noted for its clinical effect and minimal invasiveness in the treatment of neuropathic pain. Go-sha-jinki-Gan, a traditional Japanese herbal medicine, has been used for meralgia and numbness in elderly patients. However, the exact mechanism of GJG is unclear. This study aimed to investigate the molecular mechanism of the analgesic effect of GJG in a chronic constriction injury model.

Results

GJG significantly reduced allodynia and hyperalgesia from the early phase (von Frey test, p < 0.0001; cold-plate test, p < 0.0001; hot-plate test p = 0.011; two-way repeated measures ANOVA). Immunohistochemistry and Western blot analysis revealed that GJG decreased the expression of Iba1 and tumor necrosis factor-α in the spinal cord. Double staining immunohistochemistry showed that most of the tumor necrosis factor-α was co-expressed in Iba1-positive cells at day 3 post-operation. GJG decreased the phosphorylation of p38 in the ipsilateral dorsal horn. Moreover, intrathecal injection of tumor necrosis factor-α opposed the anti-allodynic effect of GJG in the cold-plate test.

Conclusions

Our data suggest that GJG ameliorates allodynia in chronic constriction injury model mice via suppression of tumor necrosis factor-α expression derived from activated microglia. GJG is a promising drug for the treatment of neuropathic pain induced by neuro-inflammation.

Iatrogenic lesions of peripheral nerves

Iatrogenic nerve lesions (INLs) are an integral part of peripheral neurology and require dedicated neurologists to manage them. INLs of peripheral nerves are most frequently caused by surgery, immobilization, injections, radiation, or drugs. Early recognition and diagnosis is important not to delay appropriate therapeutic measures and to improve the outcome. Treatment can be causative or symptomatic, conservative, or surgical. Rehabilitative measures play a key role in the conservative treatment, but the point at which an INL requires surgical intervention should not be missed or delayed. This is why INLs require close multiprofessional monitoring and continuous re-evaluation of the therapeutic effect. With increasing number of surgical interventions and increasing number of drugs applied, it is quite likely that the prevalence of INLs will further increase. To provide an optimal management, more studies about the frequency of the various INLs and studies evaluating therapies need to be conducted. Management of INLs can be particularly improved if those confronted with INLs get state-of-the-art education and advanced training about INLs. Management and outcome of INLs can be further improved if the multiprofessional interplay is optimized and adapted to the needs of the patient, the healthcare system, and those responsible for sustaining medical infrastructure.

Management of Central Poststroke Pain

Background and Purpose—

Central poststroke pain is a chronic neuropathic disorder that follows a stroke. Current research on its management is limited, and no review has evaluated all therapies for central poststroke pain.

Methods—

We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials to evaluate therapies for central poststroke pain. We identified eligible trials, in any language, by systematic searches of AMED, CENTRAL, CINAHL, DARE, EMBASE, HealthSTAR, MEDLINE, and PsychINFO. Eligible trials (1) enrolled ≥10 patients with central poststroke pain; (2) randomly assigned them to an active therapy or a control arm; and (3) collected outcome data ≥14 days after treatment. Pairs of reviewers, independently and in duplicate, screened titles and abstracts of identified citations, reviewed full texts of potentially eligible trials, and extracted information from eligible studies. We used a modified Cochrane tool to evaluate risk of bias of eligible studies, and collected patient-important outcomes according to recommendations by the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials. We conducted, when possible, random effects meta-analyses, and evaluated our certainty in treatment effects using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation System.

Results—

Eight eligible English language randomized controlled trials (459 patients) tested anticonvulsants, an antidepressant, an opioid antagonist, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, and acupuncture. Results suggested that all therapies had little to no effect on pain and other patient-important outcomes. Our certainty in the treatment estimates ranged from very low to low.

Conclusions—

Our findings are inconsistent with major clinical practice guidelines; the available evidence suggests no beneficial effects of any therapies that researchers have evaluated in randomized controlled trials.

Peripheral neuropathies: new recommendations for neuropathic pain pharmacotherapy

A recent review and meta-analysis on pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain provides a precise update on treatment efficacy and adverse effects. The authors offer revised evidence-based recommendations for first-line therapies and subsequent options, but we still a need to improve individual treatment decisions, including nonpharmacological therapies, in affected patients.