A review of the clinical utility of duloxetine in the treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain

Prevention, assessment, diagnosis and management of diabetic foot based on clinical practice guidelines: A systematic review

AIM

Diabetic foot complications are the main reason for hospitalization and amputation in people with diabetes and have a prevalence of up to 25%. Clinical practice guidelines are recommendations based on evidence with the aim of improving health care. The main aim of this study was to carry out a systematic review of the levels of the evaluation and treatment strategies that appear in the clinical practice guidelines focus on diabetic foot or diabetes with diabetic foot section. Another objective of this study was to perform an analysis of the levels of evidence in support of the recommendations made by the selected clinical practice guidelines.

METHODS

A systematic review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) and a quality assessment by the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) were performed. The databases checked were "NICE", "Cinahl", "Health Guide", "RNAO", "Sign", "PubMed", "Scopus" and "NCG". The search terms included were "diabetic foot", "guideline(s)", "practice guideline(s)" and "diabetes."

RESULTS

Twelve articles were selected after checked inclusion criteria and quality assessment. A summary and classification of the recommendations was completed.

CONCLUSIONS

The heterogeneity of levels of evidence and grades of recommendation of the CPGs included regarding the management, approach and treatment of DF makes it difficult to interpret and assume them in clinical practice in order to select the most correct procedures. Despite this and according to the detailed study of the guidelines included in this work, it can be concluded that the highly recommendable interventions for DF management are debridement (very high level of evidence and strongly recommended), foot evaluation (moderate level of evidence and fairly recommended) and therapeutic footwear (moderate level of evidence and fairly recommended).

Monoamines as Drug Targets in Chronic Pain: Focusing on Neuropathic Pain

Monoamines are involved in regulating the endogenous pain system and indeed, peripheral and central monoaminergic dysfunction has been demonstrated in certain types of pain, particularly in neuropathic pain. Accordingly, drugs that modulate the monaminergic system and that were originally designed to treat depression are now considered to be first line treatments for certain types of neuropathic pain (e.g., serotonin and noradrenaline (and also dopamine) reuptake inhibitors). The analgesia induced by these drugs seems to be mediated by inhibiting the reuptake of these monoamines, thereby reinforcing the descending inhibitory pain pathways. Hence, it is of particular interest to study the monoaminergic mechanisms involved in the development and maintenance of chronic pain. Other analgesic drugs may also be used in combination with monoamines to facilitate descending pain inhibition (e.g., gabapentinoids and opioids) and such combinations are often also used to alleviate certain types of chronic pain. By contrast, while NSAIDs are thought to influence the monoaminergic system, they just produce consistent analgesia in inflammatory pain. Thus, in this review we will provide preclinical and clinical evidence of the role of monoamines in the modulation of chronic pain, reviewing how this system is implicated in the analgesic mechanism of action of antidepressants, gabapentinoids, atypical opioids, NSAIDs and histaminergic drugs.

Pharmacotherapy for Neuropathic Pain: A Review

Neuropathic pain, comprising a range of heterogeneous conditions, is often severe and difficult to manage, and this may result in a chronic condition that negatively affects the overall functioning and quality of life in patients. The pharmacotherapy of neuropathic pain is challenging and for many patients effective treatment is lacking; therefore, evidence-based recommendations are essential. Currently, there is general agreement on which drugs are appropriate for the first-line treatment of neuropathic pain, whereas debate continues regarding second- and third-line treatments. First-line drugs for neuropathic pain include antidepressants (tricyclic antidepressants and serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors) and anticonvulsants acting at calcium channels (pregabalin and gabapentin). Second- and third-line drugs for neuropathic pain include topical lidocaine and opioids. Although efficacious in the treatment of neuropathic pain, opioids are not considered to be a first choice because of adverse drug reactions and, more recently, because of concerns about abuse, diversion, and addiction. A clear understanding of the mechanism of action of currently available drugs is an essential step towards an effective clinical approach that aims to tailor therapies both to the specific neuropathic disease and to the needs of an individual patient. This review provides an overview of current drugs available for the treatment of neuropathic pain with an emphasis on their mechanism of action.

FUNDING

Pfizer, Italy.

An observational study of duloxetine versus SSRI monotherapy in Japanese patients with major depressive disorder: subgroup analyses of treatment effectiveness for pain, depressive symptoms, and quality of life

OBJECTIVE

To examine how clinical and demographic patient baseline characteristics influence effectiveness of duloxetine versus selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) treatment, in real-world Japanese clinical settings of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and associated painful physical symptoms (PPS).

METHODS

This was a multicenter, 12-week, prospective, observational study in patients with MDD (Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology ≥16) and at least moderate PPS (Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form [BPI-SF] average pain ≥3). Patients received duloxetine or SSRIs (escitalopram, sertraline, paroxetine, or fluvoxamine). Assessments were made by using BPI-SF average pain, 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D17), EuroQol 5-dimension questionnaire, Social Adaptation Self-Evaluation Scale, Global Assessment of Functioning, and ability to work. Predefined subgroups included the number of previous episodes of depression (0 vs ≥1), baseline BPI-SF average pain score (≤6 vs >6), baseline HAM-D17 total score (≤18 vs >18), baseline HAM-D17 retardation (≤7 vs >7) and anxiety somatic subscale scores (≤6 vs >6), and age (<65 vs ≥65 years).

RESULTS

Treatment effectiveness was evaluated in 523 patients (duloxetine N=273, SSRIs N=250). Treatment with duloxetine was superior to SSRIs on most outcome measures in patients experiencing their first depressive episode, those with higher baseline PPS levels, and in patients with more severe baseline depression. This was also the case for older patients. In patients with less severe depression, SSRI treatment tended to show more improvements in depression and quality of life measures versus duloxetine treatment.

CONCLUSION

These preplanned subgroup analyses of data from a prospective observational study suggest that, for Japanese MDD patients with PPS, duloxetine is more effective than SSRIs in patients with a first episode of MDD, with more severe depression, or more severe PPS.