Update on Interventional Management of Neuropathic Pain: A Delphi Consensus of the Spanish Pain Society Neuropathic Pain Task Force

The relationship between neuropathic pain and the outcomes of minimally invasive pain management in rotator cuff ruptures

This study aimed to investigate how the presence of neuropathic pain related to partial rotator cuff tears affects the short-term results of subacromial injection and suprascapular nerve blockade therapy in patients with chronic shoulder pain. In this prospective observational study, shoulder pain via verbal numeric pain rating (VNPR, 0-10) and functional status through simple shoulder test (SST) were evaluated before and second week after procedure. After dividing as neuropathic pain and non-neuropathic pain groups, pre-procedural and follow-up scores concerning pain intensity, functional status, and whether there were those of patients with minimal clinically important change (MCIC) in areas of pain and function were evaluated. Between the groups including 140 patients, while there was no statistical difference in baseline pain intensity and functional status (P = .14,.11, respectively), outcomes of those without neuropathic pain were favored at the follow-up (P = .02,.01, respectively). Given baseline pain scores, the reduction (%) was significantly lower in neuropathic pain group (P = .03). There was no significant difference in patients with MCIC in pain intensity and functional status between the groups (P = .08,.59, respectively). An improvement was determined in pain intensity and functional status at the follow-up in both groups (P < .001). The improvement in pain intensity and functional status is poorer in patients with partial rotator cuff rupture-related neuropathic pain than in those without neuropathic pain. However neuropathic pain has no negative effect on the response to treatment.

A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Pregabalin and Gabapentin in the Treatment of Postherpetic Neuralgia

OBJECTIVE

To systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy of pregabalin and gabapentin in the treatment of postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), including the difference in pain control and occurrence of adverse reactions.

METHODS

PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of pregabalin and gabapentin in patients with PHN. Data from studies meeting the inclusion criteria were extracted and the Cochrane Risk of Bias risk assessment tool was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. Revman 5.3 and Stata17 were used to perform the meta-analysis and to detect publication bias.

RESULTS

A total of 14 RCTs with 3545 patients were included in this study, including 926 in the pregabalin treatment group, 1256 in the gabapentin treatment group, and 1363 in the placebo control group. Pregabalin was better than gabapentin in alleviating pain and improving the global perception of change in pain and sleep (P < 0.05). Gabapentin was associated with a lower incidence of adverse events than pregabalin (P < 0.05). Funnel plot and Begg's and Egger's tests showed no significant publication bias.

CONCLUSION

Pregabalin appears to have a better overall therapeutic effect than gabapentin for patients with PHN, but gabapentin has a lower incidence of adverse reactions and a better safety profile. Clinicians should comprehensively consider patient factors and fully evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of each treatment option to select the most suitable drugs for patient use. Considering the limited quantity and quality of the existing literature, high-quality RCTs are needed to confirm the advantages of pregabalin over gabapentin in the treatment of PHN and guide clinical decision-making.

Off-label pharmacological treatment for neuropathic pain: A Delphi study by the Spanish Pain Society Neuropathic Pain Task Force

OBJECTIVES

The use of off-label pharmacotherapies for neuropathic pain (NP) is growing relating to the many unmet needs of patients. However, clinical guidelines fail to address it, and the available evidence is sparse and fragmented. We arranged a formal expert consensus to address this controversial issue and provide some guidance on judicious use.

METHODS

A two-round standard Delphi survey that involved pain clinic specialists with experience in the research and management of NP was done over an ad hoc 40-item questionnaire prepared by the authors. Consensus on each statement was defined as at least either 80% endorsement or rejection after the second round.

RESULTS

Forty-three and thirty-seven panelists participated in the first and second round, respectively. Consensus was reached in 34 out of 40 statements. Endorsed alternatives for unresponsive patients include non-gabapentinoid antiepileptics (oxcarbazepine and eslicarbazepine), venlafaxine, intravenous lidocaine (when doses can be optimized), and some vaporized cannabinoids (under appropriate surveillance). In addition, lacosamide, low-dose naltrexone, propofol, or ketamine could prove beneficial if subjected to more research. Other options were rejected, and there was controversy about the usefulness of topical preparations.

DISCUSSION

For patients who do not respond to standard NP treatments, some other viable pharmacological options can be attempted before advancing to other therapeutic stages. This may help patients who are reluctant to or have some contraindication for interventional therapies.